Friday, August 15, 2014

Alpha Male (Bull) Shit

A guy once announced to me that he was "an alpha male." Ironically, I had really been attracted to him up to that point because I thought he was funny, honest, clever, kind, and bore more than a passing resemblance to Iggy Pop, and I inwardly cringed to hear this. Not only have I never been attracted to "dominant" men, he had diminished himself in my eyes by revealing his massive insecurity. Men who describe themselves as "alpha" or "dominant" are unfailingly anything but.

If I saw a man with such a claim emblazoned across his chest, I would automatically assume he was not only a moron, but completely deluded. And now I would also wonder if he were capable of beating a woman within an inch of her life.

War Machine Has Been Caught and Arrested Near Los Angeles


  1. I'm with you all the way, Cinzia.

    "Men who describe themselves as "alpha" or "dominant" are unfailingly anything but."

    Yup, yup, and yup.

    Same goes for all those idiots who keep blabbering about their "game" and extolling their manliness for the glorious make benefit of their Red Pill buddies (alpha-wannabes-humble-brags) -- while we (i.e., the non-deluded humans of both genders) know very well that the women in their lives, if they exist at all, either roll their eyes when putting up with their silly posturing, or are already planning their exit (and not a moment too soon -- yeah, looking at you, Mrs. D-Rock).

    This is such pathetic idiocy. It is peddled by the unscrupulous shysters and bought by hapless doofuses, neither of whom would know alpha if it bit them on their pasty asses.

  2. So what happened to your "alpha," Cinzia? I'm guessing you broke it off?

    If I were ever single and a prospective romantic partner made any serious alpha-beta-other-Red-Pill-stupidity reference to himself or his ideas about life, I'd run as fast and far away as I could. (I'd run even faster if I were to find out that he's involved, in any shape or form, in the manuresphere.)

    As you correctly observe, those red flags signal one of two possibilities: a deluded moron or abuser; possibly both.

  3. Zosimus the HeathenAugust 16, 2014 at 5:29 AM

    Heh, there used to be a sort of "proto-Manuresphere" blog out there called Alpha Dominance whose name used to make me roll my eyes and think, "Now there's someone with a complex about the size of his private parts!" I was sometimes tempted to leave sarcastic comments on it saying how alpha dominance sounded all too much for me; would it be all right if I settled for some alpha submissiveness or beta dominance instead? (Talking of which, another sure sign one is dealing with an idiot from the Manuresphere is when they use the term "beta male" as an insult.)

    Funnily enough, prior to my discovery of the cesspool that is the Manuresphere, the word "alpha" always used to make me think of something like a big silverback gorilla (which, let's face it, is a far more pleasant thing to associate with the word than the things it conjures up in my mind now!). Equally amusingly, there's an Alpha St not far from where I live, as well as a block of units called Alpha Court that's situated on said street (this looks a bit shabby, however - more like a retirement village than a collection of swinging bachelor pads). There's also a DVD rental library called Alpha Video, which is also looking a bit run-down these days.

    1. Yes, the gorillas -- and alpha-alpha sprouts. (Both far superior to the manurespheric alphas.)

    2. I've only used the terms "alpha" and "omega" in reference to dog packs. I've got to go back and do more research on this though, as I understand the social order among dogs and wolves is now considered a lot more more complex than previously understood.

  4. I have noticed something peculiar about select manurespherians: they are, by their own admission, happily married. I know, right? Yes, stunning beyond belief. And yet.

    There is the notorious Dalrock, of course, but also several others, whose monikers shall remain unmentioned for now.

    These (by their own admission) happily married men spend ungodly amount of time each day unloading their fear and contempt of women online. They bang on and on about how women are immoral, unintelligent, untrustworthy, lazy, greedy, irrational, cruel and all around inhumanly awful; they toss about hypergamy! feminine imperative! frivorce! those scary and mysterious tingles! carousel! and other instruments of male self-torture.

    But when the online push comes to shove, they will more or less readily admit that their own wives are "luckily" none of these things because they happen to be -- surprise of surprises -- decent and normal people, woman people (gasp).

    They will share that they are being treated well by those woman people who are their faithful wives and caring mothers of their children, and that they do not lack in anything in their own relationships. A couple of them even mention that their marriages are partnerships of equals (which probably gives their fingers an involuntary cramp as they type it).*

    This most peculiar phenomenon makes the inquiring minds want to know, WTF?

    More specifically, if these men are indeed happily married (and by their own accounts they are), what is the source of their ongoing generalized fear and hatred of women?

    Are they even remotely aware of the discrepancy between their expressed generalized negative feelings toward and opinions of women and those toward their wives (which are presumably different)?

    Do they understand that the world and specifically women as they perceive them through the prism of their fears and hatred significantly differ from their own lived reality? IOW, do they not realize that their fearful imaginary world is just imaginary, while their daily existence with women, or at least that one woman, is not only bearable, but even content, if not happy?

    Do they ever stop to reflect on what motivates their generalized fear and hatred of women and how it can (and likely does) affect their marriages (and parenting)?

    Do they not see that women like their own wives -- normal and decent woman people: intelligent, trustworthy, giving, etc. -- are the norm, and not exceptions?

    Last but not least, how, if they are happily married, do they manage to find so much time to bitch, moan, and whine about women online each day? And -- oh, again and again -- why? Shouldn't they be basking in the marital warmth and/or having hot sex with the wives (whichever comes first -- ha)?

    In general, what kind of a psychological warpage is required to live such a split and profoundly unaware existence?

    I'm trying to think of some happily married (to a man) uber-radical man-hating feminist who could possibly serve as an equivalent of these curious manurespherian specimens, and I cannot think of one. This seems to be the kind of pathology that's unique to a (certain) male psyche.

    P.S. All the questions about the manurespherians' self-awareness are rhetorical.

    *While describing his partnership of equals marriage, one particularly virulently misogynist manurespherian, who goes by the handle Morpheus, admitted, without any hint of self-awareness, that his wife does most of the work at home, while working as many or more hours as he does at her regular job. That's how manuspherians do "partnership." Which does not surprise anyone, of course.

    1. Anon @ 1:05am

      Your comment is so incredibly awesome and astute that I can't hope to do it justice in reply! I will only add that I believe these guys' insane misogyny is rooted in a past version of themselves that was "unsuccessful" (ie profoundly dysfunctional) with women. They hate this past version with the fire of a thousand suns and, rather than seek understanding, they project it on the nearest woman available. In this case, "Women" in general.

      It could be the dysfunction is rooted in childhood. And I would bet with a lot of these guys it is preverbal in origin; dysfunction and misogyny was part of the very air they breathed while growing up.

      It could be they were the outcast: Overweight or lonely or spazzy or profound awkwardness. These can be the most poisoned and vitriolic of them all, by the way. No one can hate others like the intensely self-loathing.

      It could be they were entitled: Their mom waited on them hand-and-foot (ie the guy who goes off to college and STILL brings laundry home to Mom) and they react with bewildered rage when the rest of women in the world fail to recognize his superior Special Snowflake dispensation.

      In any case, these are guys fighting the demon of who they used to be. Instead of using those experiences for developing empathy and understanding about themselves and others, they retreat into a ball of entitlement and self-pity. The manosphere is primarily composed of these "feverish selfish clod[s] of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not make you happy," to borrow from Shaw.

    2. Oops, one more thing: I think for abusers (which is pretty much the entire manosphere, since it's constructed around controlling others), admitting "weakness" (ie problems) = loss of status and control.

      So, there are a LOT of facades going on.

      Notice how all these guys claim marriage to "dimes" or "10s" and the mostest sexiest wimmen evah!. Somehow all these supermodels are marrying basement-dwelling IT workers who choose to stay online 24/7 to fight feminism (instead of enjoying marital bliss).

      In reality, they speak of women as so interchangeable and so utilitarian (basically: sexbots that make sammiches and babies) that they hardly even know the women they're married to. I notice it's always a "complete shock" or "utter surprise" to these guys when their marriages break down (the ones who admit it, I mean). They've never been interested in anyone besides themselves. It's pretty disgusting.

      My dream would be to have these Manosphereans required to show their faces to the world in order to post. The only reason they appear to loom larger than life online is only because their lives are utterly tiny and pretty damn banal in reality.

    3. Last comment from me on this, I promise! :-)

      These guys are telling their story as if it is Gospel Truth or, at the very least, sent down from Moses. But abusers tend to be INCREDIBLY unreliable narrators.

      There is a fantastic book "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft, who counselled abusive men for decades. The subtitle is, "Inside the Minds of Controlling and Angry Men." And in the preface he gives two narratives of an abusive marriage: The husband tells his side and the wife hers.

      The husband will tell a story of fairytale bliss until the wife inexplicably went "crazy." The wife will described specific incidents and consistent devaluation and degradation, the tendency to condescend and minimize and deprecate her. In short, verbal and emotional abuse on the reg.

      The thing is, "crazy" doesn't happen in a vacuum. The abusers (and, I'm guessing, these "happily" married manospherians) saw their mistreatment like stepping on a bug. They didn't feel a thing, but the bug certainly did.

    4. Dear Anon of The Last Three Comments,
      I'm the 1:05 am addressee of your responses. And I find them illuminating -- thank you.

      This is a nutshell gold:

      "In any case, these are guys fighting the demon of who they used to be. Instead of using those experiences for developing empathy and understanding about themselves and others, they retreat into a ball of entitlement and self-pity. The manosphere is primarily composed of these "feverish selfish clod[s] of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not make you happy," to borrow from Shaw."

      Yep (and lolz at the right on target quote from the indomitable Shaw -- you'd think he was personally familiar with the manuresphere back then... I guess it goes to shaw that the more things change, the more they stay the same. :))

      You are correct about all those possible personal reasons for the happily married (and not) manurespherians' dysfunction. They sound very plausible in light of what we observe there. The roots of their misery seem indeed to go back into their past. Whatever happened there, they have never been able to move past it and grow, as men and as human beings.

      Then there is an added aspect of the culture / social shock involved here, especially for the older ones, which compounds their personal sickness. It ties in with what you bring up in your two last responses especially: they see that the world is changing (cuz the evil feminism with themz equal rights for wimminz -- whoever thought of such nonsense? must fight it with all our might!).

      The traditional -- constrictive, but safe and overwhelmingly favorable to men -- gender roles and social mores, which are firmly entrenched in their worldview, no longer apply, necessitating a change in their thinking and behavior. But change is scary and for many impossible.

      Furthermore, many of these guys see their dwindling unearned privilege (evil feminism! and stuff) and react with narcissistic rage to it, seeking scapegoats on whom to blame it (evil wimminz, of course, who shamelessly take advantage of all themz evil equal rights, further eroding the poormenz' privilege -- though "What privilege?!" as they are fond of screaming).

      For instance, I was somewhat stunned -- though not really -- to read one of those happily married manurespherians complain of such evil "feminist" provisions as VAWA and CPS. No kidding. This man openly admitted that he has a happy and secure marriage, but somehow having the laws protecting women and children from male violence within family (and not only) infringes on his happiness and human rights. This tells us how much these guys rely on dominance and control -- and quite possibly abuse -- in their marriages and families. It is not surprising, given that so many of them are emotionally stunted and incapable of experiencing higher, other-directed feelings.

      What's fascinating is how some have turned their personal pathology into bankable Red Pill "wisdom," which posits that women, all women everywhere, just looove being dominated and / dehumanized by men. This is such a sweet example of projection writ large: "I desire to dominate women and I dehumanize them as a matter of fact, therefore it means that women desire to be dominated and dehumanized." Red Pill profit!

      The sociopaths who peddle it, do it -- dominate and dehumanize women -- as a matter of fact (they cannot do otherwise), but the not-quite-sociopathic misfits and autists who so religiously follow them struggle somewhat with absorbing this "wisdom" (a.k.a game) as it does not come so naturally to them. So they create all kinds of compulsive manipulations and sometimes downright abusive rituals to implement "game" in their relationship and give their woman / women what they supposedly so crave: dehumanizing dominance. Of course they do not realize one bit how toxic and detrimental to their relationship this behavior is, and so typically they are the ones who end up "blindsided" by the soon-to-come divorce.

    5. 'It could be they were the outcast: Overweight or lonely or spazzy or profound awkwardness. These can be the most poisoned and vitriolic of them all, by the way. No one can hate others like the intensely self-loathing.'

      Sounds like Matt Porney

    6. Hypergamy! is code for,

      "I was a lousy and neglectful husband who thought that by just getting married I've secured my happily ever after access to unlimited sex and sammiches without any further input from me (other than going to work -- if that -- and coming home every day). Or so I thought, cuz I married her, after all -- what else did she want?

      Turns out wives neglected by their husbands and exhausted by their fruitless efforts to garner some appreciation and love* from them tend to leave their cripplingly broken marriages and find men who know how to love and appreciate them for change. Hypergamy!"

      *A quickie on husband's demand does not equal love, in case this is unclear.

    7. @Anonymous 8:55 AM

      "The husband will tell a story of fairytale bliss until the wife inexplicably went "crazy." The wife will described specific incidents and consistent devaluation and degradation, the tendency to condescend and minimize and deprecate her. In short, verbal and emotional abuse on the reg."

      This is classic. The fairy tale bliss destroyed by the selfish woman is the most common narrative of a manurespherian's broken marriage, as told from his perspective. Zero self-reflection, even less self-criticism -- yep, she went "crazy" to "eat, pray, love" (because BPD and/or hypergamy, or both) for no reason whatsoever, destroying their perfect union (and the perfect husband, for sure) on a feminine whim (i.e.,frivorce for cash and prizes)

      They all sing the same tune, with no exception. I have yet to see a manurespherian take even an ounce of responsibility for his divorce, ever.

      Although... I take it back. There was a dude on JustFourGuys who once ever-so-shyly admitted that he was not an ideal husband to his first wife and he's trying to do better in his second marriage, but he was quickly instructed by his fellow travelers that he was too harsh on himself, because we all know it was his evil wife's fault, as it always is.

      No wonder these fellas cannot develop successful LTRs. (No, cowing a weaker and dependent person into submission by threats of violence, deprivation, and/or abandonment is NOT a successful relationship.)

    8. How does that explain WTF price then, who is really bitter from his first divorce and currently on his second marriage with a, presumably, MOB?

    9. WTF Price fits right in, doesn't he? He's supposedly happily married -- by his own admission -- yet he continues to spew contempt and hatred for women on a daily basis.

      His new (feminist!) wife must be so proud of her hero, lol. I give 'em a few years, tops.

      Seriously, what normal woman would put up with a misogynist for any amount of time? Those deluded few who get snared into their lairs for whatever misguided reasons tend to open their eyes sooner or later.

    10. I mean, Emma the Emo has been going strong for about two years sooooooo

    11. Ha, define "going strong." ;)

      There are no pictures of the two of them online (which is rather unusual for young people / couples), and neither of them ever writes anything about their coupled bliss. For all we know, they may not even live / be together (just like Kate and Mark Minter, who allegedly do not live together, and whose individual writings ooze isolation and loneliness).

      In any case, two years, while a long time in a life of a twenty-something, is not that long in the couples' time, as I see it -- and, being terribly old-fashioned, I see LTR / marriage as the kind of til death do us part commitment (with death not being a result of a homicide, suicide, or both).

      I'd say let's revisit Emma and her favorite misogynist in a decade. If I were a betting person, I'd wage a substantial sum on them not being together then.

      Sociopaths do not bond well. They use others (or each other) to meet their needs for a time, but discard them when predictable life problems -- like illness and aging -- arise. And sometimes the healthier (non- or less sociopathic) partner, unable to put up with the sociopath's cold and/or controlling behavior any more, bolts before she (or he) gets discarded, on occasion even successfully.

      Time will tell.

    12. It's on Norwegian, but here:

      Her real name is Наталия, not sure why she goes my emma in her blog :p

    13. "I'd say let's revisit Emma and her favorite misogynist in a decade. If I were a betting person, I'd wage a substantial sum on them not being together then."

      I'm with you. And ditto Bill Price and his current wife. Just in terms of physical attractiveness, there is a marked disparity between the men and the women. Both of these young women have better options in the "SMP." But I would worry about either of them when she decided to break free.

    14. What drives these women to these guys in the first place though. Especially bill price's 'feminist' wife. I would think price would be the last guy a feminist would go for.

    15. I would too, but it is hard to say what "feminist" means in her case. Does she believe women should have the right to vote, go to school, and seek gainful employment? Or is she into vaginal knitting as performance art (it is a thing) expressive of female empowerment? Or maybe something else altogether. I've read very little about them / her, so I cannot tell.

      But what I can tell, having lived on this planet a good chunk of time and having seen things (horrible, horrible things ;)), is that desperation and fear of loneliness often propel people into making questionable decisions. In this case, hooking up with a misogynist can be explained by a mistaken belief that being with someone, anyone, is better than being alone.

      In addition to lonely desperation, women who go for misogynists have a peculiar set of psychological issues, which include, but are not limited to, masochism and a need for self-debasement through being disrespected, controlled, and abused (there is often history of abuse and neglect in childhood that begs to be reenacted later in life through a defense mechanism called repetition compulsion); an unstable or unclear identity and related poor self-esteem; and a martyr / savior complex ("I will sacrifice myself to change this poor man's life for the better, and by doing so will change him into a better person too").

      Emma seems to have a variation of the latter, which manifests in her belief -- expressed somewhere on her blog, I think -- that "the best" thing to do in terms of having a relationship is to find someone who is completely rejected by society and be his "rescuer" of sorts. There is some perverse nobility in such belief (or maybe just perversity, depending), and a mixture of both hubris and a wish for self-obliteration that translate into an ambition to become a Mother Teresa of (sociopathic) incels.

      Emma of course prides herself on her ability to make the "right" choice -- i.e., she believes, (erroneously) that her own utterly rejected by society incel is not sociopathic and that he is, in fact, a good guy, damn the glaring evidence to the contrary just because he treats her "right" (whatever that means -- perhaps he's not hitting her and sleeps with her and buys her stuff, who knows; Kate, unfortunately, suffers from a similar delusion).

      Such extremely low expectations for a relationship likely reflect any of the above issues and then some. But underneath all of them is a desire to be loved and needed by someone, and a willingness to self-sacrifice for that purpose, something that's common enough in women. It may seem almost rational (although not really) to think that if one chooses a man who is completely rejected by society, and especially by women, one would secure his undying gratitude and even love. While it tends to work this way with abandoned puppies, it does not work with sociopaths who have been rejected -- understandably -- because they are sociopaths.

      And there is a possibility that some of these women are sociopathic themselves, blind and deaf to higher values and feelings, and perfectly content in a partnership with a cold, controlling, and abusive man, doing a deranged dance of mutual self-destruction or, at best, indifference, as long as their basic needs are met.

      As the old wisdom goes, it takes all kinds.

    16. I'm guessing he isn't overtly abusive.

      A lot of Emma's stuff suggests all of the above, really. Including the desperate loneliness and need for love(though isn't that what most of us need?)

      Par exemple:

      The loneliness as well as martyr savior complex:

      PS if you want another manurespherian, and Cinzia has written about him before, check out Anatoli Karlin (intentionally spelled his first name slightly wrong) He's mostly been on a Russian politics roll, but his twitter and reddit activity suggest he's still actively into the red pill, manuresphere, race realism, etc :p

    17. Yup, a pseudo-intellectual dickwad. Pretty much. :)

      Another intellectually bright but emotionally underdeveloped man-child, with ideas to prove it, including his obsession with IQ.

      Beware of IQ fetishists (a.k.a pseudo-intellectual dickwads).

      Oh, so many manurespherians, so little time. Thankfully (and not), they are all very much alike, so once you know one, you know them all, minor variations notwithstanding.

    18. "though isn't that what most of us need?"

      Most of us need and want love, but not many know how to love. Manurespherians most certainly don't -- thus game (e.g.).

      I hear them say things like, "Men love idealistically and women opportunistically."

      Given their glaring inability to love idealistically -- or at all -- the irony of this pronouncement coming from the Red Pillers' mouths / fingertips cannot be overstated.

      Red Pill is a giant house of cards, where each card is made of male projections, colored with egotistical frustration and resentment. It reflects who they are, rather than reality as is.

    19. @ Anon 8:46 AM

      I think a clarification of what "love" means is in order. 'Spherians see "love" as a mindless compliance, obedience and a kind of slavering worship. Basically, the way a devoted animal -- usually a dog-- "loves" a human being, only with sex and cooking thrown in.

      They aren't really interested in partnership or even knowing the person who they want to "love" them: They are interested in ego-gorging and being able to show off a shiny trinket on their arm (that is of course, more beautiful than the shiny trinkets on their friends arms).

      In regards to women, they are terrified of intelligence (she can be "smart" I suppose, but never quite as smart as him), self-respect (they need constance obeisance to feel they matter) and self-awareness (anyone who points out these guys' failings must be dismissed and condemned as ebul, feminazi, fat, etc etc).

      You can only love another person as much as you love yourself and these guys are pretty intensely self-loathing.

    20. Yes. When I say that they are unable to love, I mean just what you said.

      Their "love" = fear-based possessiveness.

      Their "love" objects are meant to fulfill their very basic needs: for sex, status, power, and dominance / control, with reproduction / domestic duties thrown in for some. But they are just objects, and foreign ones at that, beyond their ability to understand (since there is no empathy there), and therefore forever evoking their fear, distrust, and contempt.

      These men do not know, nor respect the object of their love as a full human person. In fact, her humanity frightens and repels them, easily turning that "love" into open contempt and hate (if there was ever a difference to begin with).

      Misogyny is its own punishment, making men loathe what they most desire. It is a terrible way to live (not that they don't deserve it).

    21. I think someone (mooshie13) has already mentioned her somewhere here, but if you want another female manosphere groupie, check out hbd chick. She's mostly a race realist, but she can frequently be seen cutest cutesy info with manurespherians and their idols like heartiste and john Derbyshire

      Warning about her: super air headed persona

    22. Anatoli is one of my favorite manisphereans. For one thing, of he stopped the dickheadedness and reactionary views, he has potentially good qualities. As misguided as he is, he's very intelligent, as well as diligent/good work ethic. He's young, and a recent Berkeley grad. He's rather cute as well. He knows many languages, etc...

      Though as a chinese American, it annoyed me that he currently knows more chinese characters than I do. Because frankly he's rather racist, towards Asians and others. Fuck him

    23. Not sure Emma's bf is really a sociopath or just emotionally stunted really. Though he's still awfully angry even after finding Emma!

      Steve Sailer is practically worshipped among manurespherians. He's got an unhealthy obsession with race and iq as well. I think he coined the newest racist euphemism (human biodiversity) cause race-realism isn't quite catchy enough.

    24. I'd say that in practical terms this -- a real sociopath or just emotionally stunted -- is a distinction without much difference (although it matters more in clinical assessment).

      All sociopaths are emotionally stunted. And although clinically speaking not all emotionally stunted people are sociopaths (as they could have a whole host of other issues: autism, etc.), they will behave in sociopathic ways, especially in times of conflict and distress (see, for example, all those so-called normal people -- typically men, but of course not only -- who turn on their neighbors when a civil war erupts, as in Bosnia, Rwanda, Syria, Iraq, etc., and commit unimaginable atrocities, revealing their completely sociopathic lack of conscience).

      But we don't even have to go that far, to armed conflicts and war -- our life (and Daily ;)) gives multiple examples of so-called normal people who behave in sociopathic ways every day.

      The chief characteristic of a sociopath (psychopath) is a lack of conscience. That translates into lack of empathy, lack of capacity for experiencing guilt and shame, and obliviousness to (and sometimes disdain for) higher values and feelings that motivate human behavior.

      Those "lacks" make it possible -- nay, necessary -- for sociopaths to treat other people as objects to use (a source of all evil). And sociopaths don't change -- one cannot grow a conscience any more than one could grow a missing limb (besides, there is nothing wrong with them ever -- being incapable of empathy, guilt, and shame makes it easy for them to believe it).

      A grown man who writes that "rape is equality" and openly plans to murder other people shows an unmistakable lack of conscience. This is not even a so-called normal individual who acts sociopathic in a time of stress; this is a full-blown, black-on-white, explicit manifestation of sociopathy. It does not get any clearer than that (other than putting those plans into action, which is the "logical," for a sociopath, next step).

      I'd say a good portion of manurespherians fit the sociopathy profile to a T -- almost all of the prominent ones do. Sociopathy, along with its close sibling narcissism and somewhat more distant cousin of autism, are predominantly male disorders. The reason behind it is hypothesized to have to do with influences of testosterone on the male brain during pre-natal development, but also beyond. Research finds that both male and female sociopaths have unusually high testosterone levels (those are all those Red Pill glorious alphas and wannabes).

      So, by and large, the 'spherians are, to put it bluntly, neurologically damaged men (and some women). This is why they are unable to form normal relationships, are perpetually rejected, and end up in the manuresphere that is populated by others like them.

    25. I think asperger's is more likely, if only because sociopathy seems extreme to me :/ that, and many manisphereans have trouble acting sociopathic even though they idealize it. You can see this in r/theredpill.

      For all fairness, I know that jesse Powell of 'secular patriarchy' and hbd chick are admitted aspies.

      It's funny how emma defends him, as I linked above. He was not planning on any of that, he was just ranting that way because he was frustrated, a bit like a spoiled child not getting what he wants actually.

      Our pseudo intellectual dickwad Анатолий makes Berkeley so proud:

    26. "Many manisphereans have trouble acting sociopathic even though they idealize it."

      That's an astute observation. I've noticed that too. That's why I'm inclined to believe Roosh is a sociopath and Matt Forney is not.

    27. Porney hates himself more than he hates women.

      While I'm not sure about sociopathy, I'm convinced that asperger's/asd is likely over represented in the manuresphere, and the general 'dark enlightenment'

    28. I think one has to be peculiarly predisposed to fall for the DE crap, by being emotionally warped, to use a wide enough designation. There is a strong whiff of sociopathy and narcissism among that crowd too, and there is an overlap with Red Pillers there, if I understand it correctly.

      All these guys believe they know "the truth," while in fact they just indulge their fearful fantasies and projections. They are irrational, grandiose, and seriously out of touch with shared human reality.

      There are always kooks of this sort in every era and every society, although some seem to breed more of them than others. And -- surprise, surprise -- they tend to be male, usually suffering from testosterone poisoning.

    29. Ahhhh... But they'll use that logic to explain that teh menz are also more genius as well. Shorter bell curve and all that. Basically they think that just as dysfunction is more common in males, so is genius ness whic offsets it :/

    30. That post from AK just proves what an idiot he is -- not unlike all the other manurespheric idiots, who seem to be dropped on Earth from outer space, completely unaware of human history and mores.

      The way they all glamorize the past, petty much inventing it according to their wishful thinking, is both laughable and sad. Again, completely out of touch with human reality as most of us know it, but convenient to justify their prejudices and general warpiness.

      It's just lots of the same creepy nonsense from a classic sex-obsessed, pompous and self-deluded manurespherian dickhead. Sociopathic dickhead, to be precise. You know it when you read pronouncements like "Morality is beta anyway" and bloviations about "lifestyle artistry"(!) combined with nonsensical musings about female obesity, IQ and other of his favorite topics randomly strung together in his deluded mind.

      The dregs of society, the whole bunch o' them, spinning tales full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    31. It's too bad because he potentionally has much more going for him than other manobots. He's as young as Porney (25) but unlike MF is decent looking. He's fairly bright. He seems to have a decent work ethic (the copious way he'll find what he wants.) he went to a prestigious school. Etc

      My absolute favorite delusional person is Dota at 'occidenт invicta.' He's a whole new level of 'what planet is this guy on?' He's an Asian Indian immigrant, 'paleoconservstive' and quasi white nationalist.

    32. That happens to be true, the different from women bell curve distribution of intelligence (and other traits) among men with their greater predominance at both ends of the spectrum. The XY gender is less stable and more vulnerable to many different problems. Seems the extra X chromosome offers women unique protections against various genetic and environmental assaults. Nature's wise this way.

      But genius does not necessarily offset dysfunction, although it offsets low IQ. High IQ and/or genius (and they are not synonymous necessarily) without emotional intelligence and wisdom have a great potential to create evil, and as such can be seriously dysfunctional.


    34. I've seen that before... Though I wonder if this will always be the case. I did read somewhere that the bell curves shifted depending on the type of 'competence' being measured, and are somewhat different across cultures as well.

      Being Einstein probably isn't necessary to live a meaningful life or make a meaningful impact on the world, I would think. While I'm sure genius helps in many cases, it's only a part of what it takes to achieve success

    35. LOL, you seem to know a whole contingent of these kooky misfits. Is ok, we all have our, er, kinks. ;)

      I think I'll save Dota for tomorrow as I've had more than my usual dose of manurespheric idiots today. And I'm learning more about them than I ever wanted or needed. It is interesting from the psychopathology POV, but one has to pace oneself so as not to overdose on it.

    36. Ahhh, when you get back, I do highly recemmend Dota. He's one of my tops :)

      On the bell curve differences, I do wonder, by how much? U generally don't see this type of stuff as deterministic mind you, and not necessarily even completely biological, even of it is likely partially biological.

    37. Yes, high IQ is only a part of what it takes. Mensa is populated with high IQ misfits and interminable bores who do not amount to much in life (but love to show off their often one-sided intellectual abilities; it becomes their identity and source of personal pride, if not hubris).

      Einstein was a prick, BTW. The way he treated his wives... well, let's just say that he'd fit well in today's manuresphere.

      Yes, there are shifts in the bell curve depending on competencies and cultures, but the difference in gender distribution in overall IQ (which is a composite of several competencies, often widely discrepant) remains stable across cultures, suggesting biology at work.

      I gotta get some sleep now, my dear Anon. Look forward to chatting more next time (maybe tomorrow), Cinzia's patience permitting.

    38. I heard that one of their idols once suggested that these differences reversed in black people. I didn't bother looking into it though so not sure. Of course, we are now getting into really sensitive territory here... Race iq and all

      I'm of the opinion that someone's iq can somewhat reliably suggest things, but iq definately isn't all there is to human intelligence, and may not suggest much when applied to many circumstances.

      For example, the 'low black iq' trope... IMO, black people have as normal intelligence as any group I've seem. Certainly not the 'dullness' or 'slowness' that their 'average iq' scores suggest.

    39. I've been reading your thread w/ interest. When people are discussing IQ and race we have to bear in mind that IQ tests are culturally normed. It's nearly impossible to design an IQ test that is free of cultural bias. I'm sure if I had to take a test designed, say, for Australian aboriginals, I'd be considered below normal intelligence. That is why I am very skeptical, to say the least, about anyone who makes generalizations about the relationship between race and IQ based on standardized IQ tests.

    40. I remember taking a ravens matrices test online (supposed culture free test) and thinking... Nope, definately not. I answered what I believed the test makers would want, but I can totally see why someone would pick another answer. Bastards made me pay to see the results though. No way José :p

    41. I peeked at Dota's place. Lord, have mercy...

      If I never see another blog written by A Pompous Gasbag with Important Opinions, it won't be a moment too soon. Digesting the mental vomit of bigoted loons with inflated egos just ain't what it's cracked up to be.

      Which makes me wonder if these guys had something better to occupy their time, like, say, sex, would they stop spouting nonsense for public consumption?

      I think the hypothesis is worth testing... Ah, who am I kidding -- of course it would work; so in the PSA below, I propose a reverse Lysistrata strategy:

      To Women and GFs of Men Who Like To Hear Themselves Talk:

      If you exist, please (please!) have sex with them as often as you can. If you can keep them busy and/or exhausted in bed all day long (one can wish), we, the humanity, will be forever grateful to you. We know it is a sacrifice, as these men are not exactly sexy-times material, but all you have to do is close your eyes and think of our collective consciousness not being polluted by the toxic refuse that happens to be their self-important musings.

      Thank you in advance,
      Your Fellow Human Beings.

    42. Psssssh Dota and his co blogger are as lonely as it gets. :p

    43. Figures.

      They shall remain so for the foreseeable future.

      Sad, but understandable.

    44. Hey anon, speaking of Emma...

      Dear god...

    45. What a sick puppy.

      She and her sociopath are a perfect match, made in hell.

      But then we knew it, didn't we.

    46. According to Emma's "reasoning," none of these women were raped. Someone should tell the cops, so they would release the poor guy:

      BTW, dude calls himself "The Punisher:"

      I'm certain that if we had access to his Internet activities, we'd find a history of posting on Red Pill / MRA sites, and perhaps a braggy blog, stupid Alpha Male manifesto, or something similar.

      Notice that he calls himself an IT Nerd. Again there is that one-sided technical aspie-like intelligence, with profoundly stunted (sociopathically so) emotional development. Classic. (And in this, he reminds me of Porney, who presents very much a sociopath [Roosh of course too]. There is no empathy in his writings, no guilt, no shame. Not a hint anywhere. I've read much of his blog [ugh], looking for any indications of a conscience. Found zero.)

    47. I wonder if AK i mentioned above is an aspie.

      Still, I feel bad because I think all this manosphere exposure is making me prejudiced against aspies. And I know that is unfair and wrong.

    48. Btw, to be fair I don't really see emma as a bad person as much as someone really struggling with emotional issues

      In fact, I'm a bit scared for the relationship. This was discussed in another thread... But despite the lack of abuse, her bf did once say that without her he'd go bonkers. she's essentially his savior. That makes it seem like he's not all there mentally, as seems a bit black-mailey to me

      As gun lord said, she may has just delayed his outbursts, not stop them. And he may very well snap in the future and make her his first victim

    49. I've noticed this, but reactionary movements tend to attract a disproportionate amount of aspies. Not just the manosphere, but reactionary movements in general. Including the general dork enlightenment. Very disproportionate amount of aspies. Especially the dork enlightenment which is essentionally a movement of angry entitled nerds. Reactionary movements I've noticed are also mostly men. They attract men much more than women.

      My question to all of the above is... Why? 为什么?Почему? Pourquoi?

    50. Because they (aspies) are in general emotionally dumb. They have good or great intellectual skills, but their grasp of emotions and social interactions is extremely faulty. So they tend to misunderstand a lot in that aspect of life; but being (typically) somewhat arrogant pricks (because of their high intelligence) and not seeing the forest for the trees, they are totally convinced that their skewed way of seeing life is Teh Right One, no matter what.

      Also, they are men. Status, hierarchies, and rules and regulations are important to them -- more so in cases of limited emotional intelligence (e.g., aspies). Unable to relate to the world in a healthy emotional way, they rely (too much) on their intellect to make sense of it. Thus predilections for theorizing, no matter how inane (and in those with limited emotional IQ it is always inane); creating systems, ideologies (some completely off the mark), religions, cults, etc. to organize their reality in a manner that would satisfactorily explain (= rationalize) their (unhappy) place in it.

      Lacking emotional and moral depth, these men create ideological systems reflecting that lack. People who are not similarly impaired can immediately spot all or at least major things that are wrong with their thinking, but other dorks / nerds won't. To other dorks / nerds, such crippled ideas make sense -- they don't know any better. It is a disability, after all.

    51. This is turning into a fascinating and very enlightening thread. I had a long conversation last night with a friend about her son, who is a very very bright boy diagnosed with Aspbergers. He's in therapy to learn to "socialize" (for want of the clinical term) and I've seen improvement in him just in the past few months: he's less shy, more confident, and exercising more social "niceties.". A great kid, full of promise -- I would hate to see him seduced by a "cult!"

    52. If you want to see a (self-admitted) female aspie, check out hbd chick. Hollllyyyyyyyy shit.

      Yeah, Cinzia. Positive social interactions and role models are VERY important, since we know that aspies for some reason tend to be extra vulnerable to them :(

      Still, many aspies learn to healthily function in society, and even have good relationships. So... what specific circumstances drive some aspies to reactionary ideologies and not others? Gender not-withstanding. Aspies come in variable personalities, I mean. Hell, there's many aspies with exactly opposite beliefs of reactionaries. So what conditions attracts aspies (disproportionately) to reactionaries? Is it arrogance? Social rejection?

      I'm currently working on a dystopia comic, inspired by the manosphere and dork enlightenment, where people like aspies are kept prisoner and mined for their 'useful' abilities like hyper-focus, and such but their bodies experiented on and just treated inhumanely in humanities quest to develop some of the aspie's abilities while doing away with their percieved faults. It's a satire of some of the dorker-sympathizers who use the "But don't worry all people have something to offer" when expousing anti-egalitarian ideologies.

      "Unable to relate to the world in a healthy emotional way, they rely (too much) on their intellect to make sense of it. Thus predilections for theorizing, no matter how inane (and in those with limited emotional IQ it is always inane); c"

      You just described Anatoli Karlin to a T. I mention him since he comes to mind when I think of crackpot theories of stoopid, like here:

      As for Dota, not sure. He and his co-blogger mostly are self-professed cynics. And awfully angry! Dota may be a master conspiratard able to cook a conspiracy out of anything, but that dosen't mean he isn't neurotypical. He mostly fascinates me cause of the cognitive dissonance required here:

      "We fight for you" Heroes!!! Swoonsssss

    53. Cinzia, good to hear that the social skills training is working for your friend's son. It is usually a good thing for aspies, young and old(er).

      Anon, your comic sounds interesting -- and Orwellian. You've certainly done your research on the subject.

      Arrogance and social rejection go hand in hand, especially for aspies and other non-neuro-typicals (neuro-non-typicals?), so yeah, that would be one reason for their attraction to "revolutionary" dark ideologies, which promise to undo and thus punish the existing social order seen as unfair to them.

      Cognitive dissonance is right -- all this coming from an Indian dude suggests, well, issues. ;)

      And I saw that "We fight for you!" heroic (ha) message the first time, yes. Quite something, isn't it, how the nastiest bigots present themselves to be -- and believe they are -- fighting on behalf of the downtrodden. (self) Righteousness is a convenient cover for all kinds of evil.

    54. Backtracking to our exchange on IQ (and its fetishists).

      There are indeed documented differences in average IQ between races and ethnic groups, but they are not very large. The average human IQ across the board is between 90 and 110 (on a scale such as Wechsler, with standard deviation of 15 points), and these various racial and ethnic groups score within a few points from each other (with Jews, if I recall, having the highest average IQ, maybe 107? -- but I don't remember now the exact numbers and am too lazy to look them up).

      But here come the caveats:

      As Ciniza said, IQ tests we use are not culture-free -- not even Raven's, although based entirely on largely abstract visual stimuli, it is probably the "purest" measure of non-verbal intelligence -- so people from dramatically different cultures will not fare well on them.

      A cautionary tale here is that of the "brilliant" practice employed by American psychologists early in the 20th century of IQ testing the arriving immigrants, fresh off the boat, to determine their employment opportunities, etc. The psychologists were dismayed to discover that the poor European peasants -- who spent the previous three weeks or so locked in the steerage compartment of their ships, were hungry, sick, and petrified, and of course had no clue about American language and customs -- were failing such simple tasks as identifying nice people on the picture shown to them as playing tennis. How could they not know what tennis was? A sign of their inferior intelligence, no doubt -- and as such, it was recorded in their IQ results and files. The results of this inane practice of testing immigrants' IQ gave rise to many ethnic stereotypes so popular in the US (stupid Italian, dumb Polak, lazy Irish, etc.)

      The fact that these people showed enough smarts and courage (as often as desperation) to leave their homeland and start their lives anew in an entirely foreign land, and that they typically managed to do it against seemingly insurmountable odds, could be seen as a sign of intelligence in itself, as well as their tenacity and other positive character traits. But no, it was their ignorance of tennis that mattered (lol).

      This goes to show the importance of including an assessment of a person's environment, and his or her adjustment to it, as well as their developmental history, in understanding their intelligence. IQ itself is not enough, but it is seductive to those misguided souls who believe that numbers describe people and tell us all we need to know.

      "I'm of the opinion that someone's iq can somewhat reliably suggest things, but iq definately isn't all there is to human intelligence, and may not suggest much when applied to many circumstances."


    55. Yes..

      Reminds me of the 'Africans have 70 iqs' there is no fucking way the average African is borderline retarded!

      Honestly in my experience people regardless of background for the most part have on average normal human intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Cinzia, I highly recemmend Dota for your lulz. He mostly posts paleo conservative, quasi-white nationalist stuff, but it's filled with sexist shit as well. And conspiracy theories.

      One thing that made me lol is that Dota is either a troll or really socially retarded. He bitched about being unable to attract readers on reddit, so I went and took a look on his comment history...

      On one, he posted a post on feminism being a Jewish Nwo conspiracy onto r/feminism. The people there unsurprisingly rolled their eyes. He then called them brainwashed dumbasses and left. On another, he posted a blog post about Zionist Jewish hypocrites and the evils of Jewish liberals onto r/Israel and was similarly eye-rolled at and reprimanded by mods. He cluelessly said 'why' and left...

      Whatever your views are, you gotta admit that dota's attempts are on the 'socially retarded' level of social ineptness :p

      Have you looked at the female aspie yet?

    56. The stupid, it burns!

    57. Cool article:

    58. That is interesting. We don't know what those extra synapses in autistic brains mean yet, but it's fair to say it is not a good thing.

      hbd chick is, well, weird. Perhaps her synapses did not prune as they should have? In any case, she and that whole neo-reactionary, neo-Nazi hbd movement are a variation of the human hate-and fear-filled kookiness that's always been out there; it is just that the Internet makes them more visible today.

    59. Well she is an aspie, so maybe her synapses ARE weird.

      I think she's a very clueless, oblivious, naïve person tbh.

    60. But as shadow nirvana mentioned once the online, air headed persona could be an act to attract the readers. I think jaymans weird too, and though I think the rationalwiki is a bit childish I think it has a point:

    61. I don't know Anon, there are times where I've gotten so pissed that I've really wanted to dox some of them. I remember getting so fucking pissed at Dota that I really wanted to get him doxxed. I didn't of course. Ain't nobody got time for that.

  5. Oh, and BTW. many of them, especially of the religious bent, firmly believe that, yes indeed, their story is sent down from Moses. ;)

    They have no qualms insisting that everything that's wrong with the world is Eve's fault -- literally. Their holy book sez so and, as we all know, the ancient myths of primitive peoples are always correct, forever and ever, amen.

    Well, I personally believe that it's all Athena's fault -- if she were content inside her daddy's head and not shamelessly indulge her evil feminist wishes for freedom and learning, we'd not be in this cursed mess now. Eww, wimminz.

  6. Anonymous at 8:41 AM

    "Notice how all these guys claim marriage to "dimes" or "10s" and the mostest sexiest wimmen evah!. Somehow all these supermodels are marrying basement-dwelling IT workers who choose to stay online 24/7 to fight feminism (instead of enjoying marital bliss)."

    It is a match made in the manurespherian heaven (i.e., a juvenile and/or disordered male fantasy).

    This lack of realism affects the unmarried ones as well. They all seek a virginal HB9-10 with sexual appetites and proclivities seen in porn stars, domestic skills of Martha Stewart, and undying, uncritical devotion of a puppy. Personality not required. In fact, personality is an obstacle, a massive and ongoing shit-test that makes wimminz such monsters.

    Sexbots are perfect. (And I tend to agree. These guys should definitely stick with sexbots.)

  7. Here is a perfect story, one of so many we still see everyday, of how male dominance of the patriarchal kind -- the kind the manurespherians love and dream of bringing back without the pesky interference of the law with its silly CPS and such -- manifests in reality:

    "[Pearson] told investigators he could 'write a book' on the discipline."

    Yes, he totally could.

    BTW, I think Pearson posts over at Dalrock and/or Just Four Guys. And if it is not him, then it's at least 15 others like him over there every day. Real Menz, those.

    If the example seems extreme, let's remember that it is just the matter of degree of dominance and control involved. The psychological processes and interpersonal dynamics are always the same.

    1. That story is horrific. Another reason to hope the FBI are monitoring these sites.

    2. A wholehearted YES.

      There is no doubt that many of the manurespherians whose daily input we see on those sites are abusers of women and children. Some openly boast of it, and what's striking -- although not really -- is that others, who seem more moderate in their views, almost never object to such boasts. If anything, they high-five the abusers. compliment them on their "game," and want to emulate them.

      Sick bastards.

      Being somewhat naive, I thought that bringing such instances of describing and/or advocating violence against women and children in the comments to the attention of blog owners would somehow clamp it down (yep, terribly naive), but a typical reaction one gets is denial and derision.

      So instead of wasting time and energy on trying to ask abusers and their enablers to not promote abuse, I find that a better option is documenting the abusive content (collecting the posts and comments, along with their screenshots) and alerting the FBI about them:

      At least there are chances these sick pricks will end up on the LE's radar. Who knows how many similarly abused kids (or women) are hidden in their homes. We can do something to help.

    3. Of course the fact that the law tries to protect such children and women from their abusers is a proof that we live in the fascist feminist state, where man's rights -- to handle and discipline his property (women and children) as he sees fit -- are infringed upon.

      The end of the civilization is near, as all those unfairly infringed upon abusers wail online every day.


      You know, it was someone just like you who averted a near-tragedy at the University of Washington a couple of months ago (an Elliot Rodger copycat who had boasted of his plans on youtube). Acting on an anonymous internet tip, the FBI arrested him before he had a chance to put his words into action.

    5. I can only hope that alerting the FBI to such comments would have some positive effect. Short of that, there isn't much else we can do, is there.

  8. @Anonymouse 6:14PM

    "What drives these women to these guys in the first place though. Especially bill price's 'feminist' wife. I would think price would be the last guy a feminist would go for."
    Anon, its no coincidence that WTF married a MOB. She may call herself a "feminist" but she is a 30-something woman from an INCREDIBLY economically-depressed country. Latvia, or Estonia, I think?

    You can't even imagine what kind of atmosphere of desperation a messed up economy been marinated in alcohol can create. Think of all the insane YouTubes that Russian kids post-- search for any of their climbing videos, where they scale buildings under construction at night up 30 or 40 stories without any kind of care as to whether they live or die. :(

    As pathetic and bloviating as WTF is, he still looks like her best bet. Plus, Eastern European women tend to be tough as nails, so she should be able to manage him pretty well.

  9. Speaking of the manurespherians idealizing sociopathy:

    "theasdgamer says:
    August 19, 2014 at 7:23 am
    OT comment that I had to put somewhere

    Dark Triad traits are very important to pickup artists and understanding feminine psychology. Jesus had the Dark Triad traits. Certainly He would have high scores in some traits.

    1. narcissistic–He believed He was God; ya can’t get more narcissistic than that (Jesus had superiority, entitlement, self-reliance).

    2. sociopath–He absolutely never cared what people thought of Him; He was exceedingly charming and seemed to have delusions of grandeur (believing that He was God); He was a great orator and spoke poetically; on occasion He lashed out with anger; Jesus called disciples to leave their homes and families and follow Him–most people would see that as crazy

    3. Machiavellian–He maneuvered the authorities and Jewish people to crucify Him.

    I don’t believe that Jesus was a sociopath in the sense of “unable to empathize with others”. He empathized, but might be seen to lack empathy since Jesus wasn’t hesitant to ask people to do something difficult that people generally would see as a negative."

    You can't make this stuff up, even if you tried.

    It is raining idiots over at Just Four Guys, as it is everywhere else in the 'sphere.

  10. Cinzia, check out today's David Futrelle's post (if you haven't yet):

  11. Guys (or gals, rather), if you want an irony-rich manurespheric snack (because why not), I invite you to see Mark Minter's latest post where he plays a psychiatrist and diagnoses female bloggers as suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder:

    In a typical for Mark fashion, he drones on and on and on, completely oblivious to the apparent to all but himself (and probably Kate) irony that all the accusations... er, diagnostic observations he levels at female bloggers apply to him just perfectly. That includes the impressionistic writing and thinking style (although his is a combination of impressionistic -- full of unwarranted generalizations, half-truths, unsupported conclusions, and gross rationalizations -- and obsessive, characterized by dull pseudo-intellectual droning, tangential detours, and prolonged focus on irrelevant minutia and invented "facts." And of course they fit many other male manurespheric bloggers as well -- but why engage in critical self-reflection when one can unload his frustration and unhappiness on women again and again. Cuz remember:

    "Get it through your head, Men are from mars; women are FUCKING IDIOTS.

    Never marry. Duh. Plate Theory. Duh. Game. Duh. Pump them, dump them, next them. Duh. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN. Duh!!!!!


    Women will only stay with you if they have to and they don’t have to any fucking more. Get it through your head. They get just as sick of your dick as you will with their tired ass boring pussy.

    Pump them, dump them, next them."

    Talk about histronic...

    Mark posits provocative questions, like these:

    "Let us just ask "Why would someone pursue a public agenda?", ""Why would someone write with the intention of being widely read?". You could say that anyone that pursues that course is seeking recognition and possibly attention. But it is safe to say that if you are on the other end of the attention seeking spectrum such that you do not seek recognition or attention, then you are probably not writing a blog. You are not posting videos on YouTube. So if a woman steps from the "darkness" of anonymity (And I say woman because of the incidence among women of HPD) and into the "light" of having a public persona then it is valid question to ask if that person is merely not seeking recognition for efforts but has HPD."

    Sure. And if a man steps from the "darkness" of anonymity and into the "light" of having a public persona then is it still a valid question to ask if that man is merely not seeking recognition for efforts but has HPD or perhaps NPD, which is more common in men? IOW, is he an attention-whoring egomaniac or just his regular pompous ass self?

    Oh, the manurespherians... Always entertaining, even when they don't try (especially when they don't try).

  12. "The fairy tale bliss destroyed by the selfish woman is the most common narrative of a manurespherian's broken marriage, as told from his perspective. Zero self-reflection, even less self-criticism"

    Actually guys blame themselves for becoming (or allowing themselves to become) too beta.

    1. So the idea of "frivorce" for "cash and prizes" doesn't exist within the Manuresphere?! Don't tell Dalrock!

    2. Frivorce exists in the real world

    3. So these poor, poor "beta males," who only blame themselves must be the ones committing "frivorce"? Because they would never EVER blame a woman for their relationship breakdowns, right?

    4. Most frivorce is done by women, get on with the program.

    5. Spoken truly like the child of a narcissist mother. Am I wrong?

  13. "I am an alpha male"= "I am a quality woman".

  14. While describing his partnership of equals marriage, one particularly virulently misogynist manurespherian, who goes by the handle Morpheus, admitted, without any hint of self-awareness,


    This is Morpheus. Can you provide a direct quote from me with the link demonstrating my "virulent misogyny"? I'd like to see an example of what you consider "virulent".

    A lot of interesting stuff here...particularly the armchair psychobabble analysis of what must drive various "sphere" writers especially us happily married ones.

    1. Ha! Objecting to virulent, but no longer to misogyny.

      Who wouda thunk, a first glimmer of self-reflection in a manurespherian. A couple more years (or decades), and the virulent part will become as obvious and unobjectionable to you as your misogyny already is. Will keep our fingers crossed. Or not.

      Note of acknowledgment to you "happily" married ones: we totally get it, cuz nothing screams marital bliss like posting daily misogynist screeds in the manuresphere. Your bashing women as a matter of fact is such a true and tried expression of relational happiness, yep.

      How charmingly transparent.

    2. "Morpheus," I don't read your blog. (Sorry, too much Obsidian drives people away.) But you are the guy who writes about preferring porn to your wife, right? Was she the one who needs plastic surgery and makeup for you to be attracted to her? Why would a marriage so blissful need "Dread" to make it work?

      Frankly, I'm far more interested in your wife's answers to the following:

      *Do you, Mrs. Morpheus, read your husband's writings about you online? If not, why not?
      *Are you comfortable with the amount of secrets he keeps from you?
      *If you posted online about not being attracted to Morpheus, ambivalent about marriage and were studying the female equivalent of "Dread Game," what would his reaction be? Do you see Morpheus doing to you what his first wife did to him?
      *When he writes about you needing plastic surgery and makeup to be attractive to him, how does that make you feel? How does this make your marriage "happy"?
      *Will you dissolve your marriage if an accident leaves you cosmetically injured or handicapped?

      Lastly, even Morpheus would agree with "watch what people do, not what they say."

      What do his actions tell you about his choice of first wife, his decision to spend company time neglecting his job to post online constantly and his inability to resolve conflict or accept criticism? If you had a daughter, would you want her to be with someone who would use of "Dread" (ie abuse) to control and manipulate her?

      Speaking of Dread Game, ask "Rollo" if he's being honest with you about the state/status of his marriage. You may be surprised.

    3. Tell us, Morph, does your wife know the content of your manurespherian contributions?

      My guess is that she, like most wives / GFs of the online misogynists, has no idea what you are typing on the Internet in your "free" time.

      Ever wonder what her reaction would be if (or when rather, since it's probably just a matter of time) she discovered your true thoughts and feelings about women and relationships? Are you prepared for the consequences of your own actions?

      That's a question not just for you, obviously, but for all you "happily married ones" who spew your fear and loathing of women day in and out, while mooching off -- yes -- a stable, decent woman and her devotion to you (a devotion that will be severely tested once she discovers your so far secret, to her, online existence -- and don't think that she won't).

      I'ma make some popcorn while we get ready for that spectacle.

    4. Morpheus can clarify this, but didn't he lose his job? (Not surprising: He apparently spent the majority of his work hours posting on the internet.) So he may be mooching off his wife financially, in addition to egotistically and emotionally.

    5. @ AnonymousSeptember 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM

      "Speaking of Dread Game, ask "Rollo" if he's being honest with you about the state/status of his marriage. You may be surprised."

      Oooh, do tell us!

      Or let me guess: Mrs. and Mr. Rollo can't stand each other (or more accurately she can't stand him -- c'mon, a middle age dude who posts half-naked pics on himself online, brags about his >40 N-count, and blathers daily sociopathic nonsense about women to prop his sagging ego is not exactly any healthy woman's cuppa tea), sleep in separate bedrooms, and keep the charade of their "marriage" going for the sake of appearances and their daughter (but mostly appearances).

      I don't think anyone with an ounce of reason would be surprised by such a "revelation."

      I do feel sorry for his daughter, though. Imagine having a father like Rollo... It's like being raised by a pimp. Ugh.

    6. A vilely misogynist daddy like Rollo leaves a dreadful imprint on a child's -- female and male -- psyche. That poor girl...

  15. = "We are narcissistic pricks."

    Decent people of both genders do not use such pompous ass adjectives to describe themselves.

  16. Replies
    1. Aww... (lol) No sociopathic / narcissistic bragging about sex = boring, we know.

      Off you go, don't waste your time here. Those misogynist Red Pill screeds won't write themselves.

    2. Funny. I don't recall you saying anything interesting. Ever.

      Everywhere you go on the internet there are people parroting their idols, working out their anger issues, and peddling rehashed ideas from other people. Don't have anything original to contribute? Then sit down and shut up. Cynthia is capable of unique thought. Are you?

    3. check my blog for interesting stuff

    4. The only vaguely interesting stuff on your blog, Y, was your "discovery" of your narcissism. It was interesting because, first, your narcissism was obvious to everyone but you (and other manurespherian narcissists), and, second, it opened a rare and unlikely possibility of maybe a positive change in your character and life.

      But, sure enough, the glimpse of self-awareness was fleeting and ultimately self-deceptive as it only led to reinforcing your narcissism. It cannot be otherwise with narcissists, but it was interesting to watch for a second or two.

      Other than that, there is nothing interesting there.

      Well, I'll amend it somewhat: manurespherian blogs are interesting as a study in male psychopathology, but that's an acquired taste (interest).

    5. Looks like Rollo's not the only pimp in town!

    6. I did. I saw a photo and a profile but no writing. How do I get to it?

    7. In relation to your ego post, here's a brief write up on a book you might like if you haven't already read it:

    8. Thanks kate, will check it out

  17. Anon 7:51,

    No quotes, no links, nada, zippo, zilch. I am not surprised. It is easier and lazier to hurl baseless accusations, with some snark and sarcasm, along with a juvenile and lame word game gotcha.

    1. You've got me. I can't stand wading through the blathering crap to pull quotes. I'm sure this disproves everything I've said and that WTF's 3rd (4th?!) wife

      You may note that a similar manurespherian marriage, Minty and Geisha Kate, have taken down their blog. Minterville is no more! Does this mean the end of manurespherian marital bliss? Say it ain't so!

  18. Anon 6:12, why not post under the username you use at the other blog. As to your statements, you obviously have me mixed up with someone else

    1. Morph, I don't blog. You have been promoting misogyny online for a long, LONG time. You also post a lot, somehow finding time in your marital bliss to be online hours upon hours seemingly ever day.

      Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your wife knows everything you post and is totally cool with it. I would be glad to be wrong because I think abuse sucks, manipulation sucks and misogyny sucks. "Dread" is all those things and it hurts to see these things done to people they "love."

      If your marriage is so happy, and there are no secrets, and Dread works so well, why isn't your wife the one telling me I'm wrong?

    2. Morph's wife is too busy working full time, and taking care of their household and his needs to talk much to anyone. She certainly has no time to bitch about men online (though after she dumps his sorry mooching ass, she may find it).

      That's the reason we also never hear from Mrs. Tomassi and Dalrock (and Ciaran, and ADBG, and TedS, and theasdgamer, and others), only from their husbands who manage to mention how happy their wives are because of their "frame / game," while they spend days online moaning and groaning about the evilness of women.

      They delude themselves that the wives stay because of their "game," while it's easy to know with enough certainty that it is other considerations that keep them bonded together (not the least of which is the wives' compassion for their deluded husbands). But if they hubbies continue the course, it is just a matter of time until the Missuses get tired of being disrespected and bolt. Or seek other, more respectful arrangements. And then bolt. As they should.

  19. Anon 9:31,

    Say hi to Parker for me

  20. Looks as though Kate and Mark (or at least Kate) took our advice and closed down the sad disaster of their blog. Not a moment too soon.

    1. Wait, really? Hahaha. I do hope their marriage isn't on the rocks, though. Minty's already one bad day away from going Sodini, judging from his posts.

    2. Gasp @ "one bad day away from going Sodini"

      What an evocative turn of a phrase. And how apt.

      In his recent comment / interminable screed somewhere (maybe J4G? don't remember now) Minter blathers on (and on, and on... there may be a brain injury / damage there, on top of personality disorder) about the evilness of women (because of course) and something something, which eludes a rational reader after the first two paragraphs, but he also makes a revealing "observation" / confession toward the end. He says something along the lines of "women are fungible, one is as good or better than the other."

      This from a supposedly newly happily married man takes one's breath away.

      We know that the dude is incapable of meaningful emotional commitment, much less love, but such a brazen (clueless? cruel? probably both) expression of disrespect and indifference to his new wife still stuns.

      Something similar -- and even more revealing, in a heartbreaking way -- happened on one of the recent "(ir)Rational Male" threads, where both Minter and Kate posted independently. While Kate talked glowingly about transformative powers of love or something along those lines in the context of their own relationship, Minter issued his stock interminable screed containing such "declarations of love" like "a man benefits from a relationship with a woman, any woman" (I paraphrase; going back to find the exact quote is rather unappealing).

      I cannot help but feel sorry and concerned for Kate.

      Kate, if you are reading it, please remember that it is not too late to get out of this mistake / disaster of a relationship. This man cares about you as much as he does about one of his pots and pans (if he has any) -- and not even his favorite ones. You are just one of many, interchangeable, and easily replaceable ones. He uses you now because it's convenient for him, but make no mistake: this is no love nor meaningful commitment. The man is incapable of either.

      You deserve better.

      No man who loves, cares for, and respects his wife / woman would ever say things Minter does, not in private, and certainly not in public. That he does so in places which you also visit suggests a level of cruelty -- depravity, even -- unthinkable in a normal person. It is, plainly put, sadistic.

      I hope you'll manage to extricate yourself from this relationship without a major damage to yourself and your kid(s) before it's too late.

      I know my words are unwelcome and must sound intrusive to you, but I speak the truth. Of course you may know and understand very well what's going on there with Mark, and be OK with it; in that case, my telling the truth is redundant and pointless, obviously. (Although your thoughts about the power of love vs his cruel expressions of relational utilitarianism, combined with his blatant indifference to your feelings, suggest to me that you may not see what's going on and look at your situation through overly optimistic glasses. You would not be the first case of a decent woman falling for a sociopath / narcissist, but it is always terrible to watch. This site may be useful to you:

    3. Kate, you need to seriously think about the above comment.

      One of the first things I noticed on your now-defunct blog was your differing descriptions of your honeymoon trip. Mark continually "I," and only rarely "we." It was all about him. It's always about him, isn't it?

      One of the ONLY things I agree with Manospherians on is, "Watch what people do, not what they say." (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

      Have you heard from ANY of his (3? 4?) ex-wives?
      Have you heard from his children? What they tell you about how he treats a child, a vulnerable being, is IMMENSELY indicative of his character.
      Sorry to say, Kate, but all the signs point to the need to get out NOW, while it's early.

    4. Oy. Hope Kate's listening.

      You know it's kinda terrible and terribly obvious when posters (well, OK, one male poster, if I recall) on "(ir)Rational Male" -- a site not known for its humanity or intelligence, or, for that matter, attracting astute and caring participants -- notice and comment on the sad discrepancy between Kate and Minter's descriptions of their relationship.

      She gushes about love, while he talks about practical (but curiously unspecific) benefits a man can get from having a woman -- any woman, cuz one's as good as another -- around. That even the self-absorbed and emotionally blind (and deluded) commenters on that sad sack's site notice the chasm between those two says... something.

      Kate, girl, you've made a mistake. Everyone, including your parents, told you so, but you wouldn't listen. It happens. We live and learn. Please, learn already, so that you can live.

  21. Maybe there are people who actually need your help you could be advising? Like women who can't seem to leave cheaters? Or women who live with alcoholics? Or women who feel bored with their marriages and mistakenly think they'll find some glorious new life after divorce? There are all kinds of women out there who need help. Don't waste your time counselling the chimera that is the public construction of two fairly ordinary people.

    1. A woman who lives with a man very likely to snap and kill her sounds like she could use a bit of help. Callous as it may sound, I don't care that much personally; if you want to take your chances with that fruit-loop, it's your funeral. But I'll hardly fault the above anons for trying to show you some compassion.

  22. You're deluding yourself. You might want to question why that is. How do you personally benefit from fearmongering? What dearth is it filling in you? Its not very "empowering," which is what I thought feminism was supposed to promote.

    I watch what people do. And I see a lot of jumping to conclusions to explain things they don't understand. What does Mark "do"? I watch that too. Within the last week, he has made us a fantastic beef stew as the weather turned cold, he drove late at night unsolicited to the store to get my daughter cough medicine because she was having trouble sleeping, and he suggested a t.v. show we now love to watch together in the evenings.

    If he's going to kill me, it'll have to wait till after the dishes are done. Because our biggest problem at the moment is that our house is getting a little messy. Time for me to pitch in.

    1. He's only a fake asshole?
      That might even be worse than a real one. What does that say about him?
      "I'm not a real asshole, I just play one online…"
      Perhaps he should try writing fiction instead of fictionalizing reality.

    2. No, you misunderstand again. Do you know anything about mythology? Myths are not autobiographies. It is not us that has created a false image. We have been honest to a fault about the things we are able to share. I am saying *you* have created the myth for your own personal reasons. And that is what I think would be valuable for you to examine. Because I think you are using us to hold onto beliefs you don't want to question. Just like it was necessary for the Manosphere to cast me in a role that wouldn't force them to acknowledge the flaws in their thinking.

    3. Kate, you may console yourself with the idea that you and Minter are victims of others' "mythologizing," but the fact is that you both have left clear and undeniable trails of highly damaging personal statements and existence online. Yes, you've been honest "to a fault," revealing to the world who you are as plainly as it is possible.

      Thanks to that honesty, we can see you as you are. And what we see is disturbing. We also understand why you cannot see that -- self-protective denial, fish in water not knowing that it's wet 'n all that.

      Beef stew, cough medicine, TV show, all this and more is a minimum of a partner's contribution to a relationship. It is understandable that Minter manages a minimum of decent behavior to keep you around. You are his last chance. Faced with his impending mortality, and perhaps somewhat coming to grips with the waste he made of his life -- in that he has alienated everyone, including his own children -- his resulting fear and desperation tell him to cling to you or else.

      But here comes the ugly clincher: even though he clings to you -- out of fear, desperation, and convenience -- he still does not respect you, much less love you. He says so himself, repeatedly, online every chance he gets!

      In every comment he still makes, he continues to show disdain for women in general, and underscore his lack of love and respect for you by making these statements about women being fungible and so on. How can you not see that?

      The only possible explanation is that you too are blinded by fear and desperation, or some compulsive need that overrides your ability to rationally assess your situation and see this man for who he is. As you said, he's been honest to a fault, and everyone but you (and manurespherians, but for different reasons and in different ways) cannot see him for who he is even though he is telling you and the whole world so.

      Believe it or not, I sympathize with that desperate need that keeps people bonded to the most inappropriate and often downright abusive partners (yes, we are glad to hear that Minter does not abuse you physically, or overtly mentally -- yet) . Some manage to live their whole lives this way and even consider it a success (if they survive). Others see the light eventually. Either way, it is always a personal decision that no one else can make.

      You are determined to bond with a misogynist, psychologically damaged man who is unable to love, but who stays with you out of need and desperation (which appears to be mutual, even though in somewhat different ways). That's your choice, you're an adult and you are responsible for it.

      We are not going to open your eyes on what's going on, or even on how your relationship and his behavior in particular are perceived by the world; if anything, our attempts to do so only deepen your resolve to stay the course. Fine: you're an adult, blah blah.


    4. contd.

      But I wish you understood just this one thing: you have the right -- yes, the right -- to expect greater respect, if not love (of which he is incapable), from your own partner / husband. Such respect would require him to, well, shut up, or at least modify what he says -- in public, in the least -- to somehow acknowledge that YOU matter to him as something beyond a fungible (and accidental) object of his need fulfillment.

      I cannot imagine you would not want it for yourself -- it is a bare minimum of what one can expect in a relationship. Surely you, who are sensitive and attuned to interpersonal feelings in ways that elude Minter, can understand that. But even if you don't, or won't admit that you do, your writings on your (now closed) blog show a puzzling (though not really) depth of loneliness and lovelessness, telling the world that a part of you knows this relationship is not working for you, not as is. The content of your blog, created by both of you, does not, never did, have the vibe of a happily married couple, even if posting separately, but distinctly of two lonely (and empty) people existing side to side and in parallel realities which did not have anything in common.

      Yes, you've been honest to a fault, whether you realized it or not. And so are we when we tell you that you deserve better and you can expect better from your husband. Even though Minter is unable to love, he is bright enough (one hopes) to grasp that he should withhold his blatant expressions of disrespect for you from the public at least. Sadly, chances are that he does not even understand that: how what he says is disrespectful and why he should stop saying it. Yeah, he is honest to a fault in that. There is no there there and there is nothing that could create it, not even your devotion or whatever it is that motivates you.

      Now that we all have been honest to a fault, perhaps it is time to take a break from such honesty. And perhaps -- here comes a much belated realization of the obvious -- you have exactly what you want and deserve (it struck me as I added the word "empty" to describe the impressions one gets / got from reading your blog): maybe this is as much as you need and can manage in life. In any case, good luck. Sincerely, even though it may not seem so.

    5. A concerted effort to avoid rolling my eyes. It is absolutely false to say I can do "better." This is what the women here don't want to accept. They see men as only as valuable as the money they bring to the table. I say men have more value than that. I say God did not create money.

      I cannot do "better" because I have known men all over the world (from South Africa to Jakarta to London and L.A) and I have never met anyone smarter than me. That is the value Mark brings to my life. These women assume I had no other options. They insist I be cast as "desparate," "lonely," and "victimized" because they cannot believe this was a choice.

      Yet, I did have options. Men with money. Men who wanted to buy me houses. Men who I could have controlled like a marionette. I didn't want to be with a man I could control, who I would eventually disdain. I chose Mark for very specific reasons: his ability to challenge me mentally, his ability to comfort me emotionally, and his sense of humor (something most of the world is shockingly lacking).

      When women object to these reasons, they reveal themselves as less than admirable in character. And that is why they must criticize me en masse. They have to protect themselves and their actions. Women like me threaten their payouts. I'm a traiter to women, don't you see? They don't care about me. They care about feeling superior. They care about not disrupting the established order of men paying women for sex.

      What they don't realize is that they are creating a world where men aren't going to be able to provide for them even if they wanted to. Save you popcorn for when feminists begin paying legal fees, alimony, and child support to their ex-husbands. Then we'll see what they're really made of.

    6. Kate, I did not mean to imply that you can do better in terms of "money."

      I have no idea what your financial situation is, nor do I care. You may be filthy rich or penniless (and happy with it), whatever.

      What I said is that you deserve basic respect, if not love, from your husband, as does every person from her or his mate. It has ZERO to do with money. Nada, zilch, zip.

      It is quite revealing that you've interpreted what's being said here as money-related or some feminist plot. You are not a "traitor" to anyone, there is no "sisterhood" imposing its standards on you in any way: just a few people who have the guts (or stupidity) to tell you what everyone sees but won't bother to say.

      BTW, do you think your parents objected to your marrying Minter because they are feminazis and/or concerned about their "payouts" (a preposterous conjecture in itself)? Or was it because they see Minter for who he is, and they also know your vulnerable judgment, and wanted to protect you from making another grand mistake in life? You'd have to admit it is surely not the former.

      Again, and I hope you can grasp it -- most married and not people do -- we are talking basic respect that's due to one spouse by another, and which manifests, among other things, in NOT saying or implying derogatory things about the spouse to others. When Minter says nonchalantly to the whole world that, among other things, women are fungible and one is as good or better than another, he tells us plenty about how he sees you and your marriage. And it is not good, no matter how you slice it.

      So in this aspect, and not any financial considerations, you -- and anyone -- deserve(s) better (particularly in the beginning of their marriage, in their newly-wed period): you -- and anyone -- deserve(s) someone who will love you and show that love for YOU, proudly and happily, or at least respectfully, to the whole world; and not someone who puts you down, directly and not, because it'd score him some brownie points with his sociopathic online buddies or whatever.

      This is obviously none of our business, so I'll try to make this my last comment on the matter. I cannot imagine how a sociopath who disrespects you in public "comforts" you emotionally (your writings on your blog had no signs of you benefiting from any form of comfort during your married months), but obviously whatever he does is comforting to you somehow. (Charlie Manson's new bride is also seemingly happy, or at least content, for now, so there are all kinds of comforts one can derive from all kinds of relationships, obviously.)

      As to his sense of humor and intelligence, he must be hiding both very thoroughly from the world, as we yet have to see a sign of either. The man is, to put it bluntly, a humorless interminable bore, and not a very smart one at that. You should not confuse verbosity with intelligence.

      Be all that as it may, it's becoming obvious that you have exactly what you want in Minter, so, as I said, good luck -- and feel free to disregard all this unpleasantness here, if you can. I know it may be difficult for you to believe, but there is no malice, just concern in my comments, despite their bluntness, the kind of concern your parents share as well.

    7. Maybe if you keep trying, one these days, you girls just might be able to bust us up. Yeah, some of the stuff said here takes a toll and it affects us for a bit.

      But not today.

      Not today.

    8. They think we're supposed to bow to them, Mark. lol How silly.

    9. You're wrong about that, Mark. Unlike your manurespherian brethren, we (I) do not wish to bust you up. Please be happy, and live long and prosper -- by all means.

      We (I) just wish you showed greater respect for your new wife. I'm assuming you can. It is jarring to read your words with the knowledge that they come from a supposedly happily newly married man. No husband (or wife) who loves and respects his wife (or her husband) could write what you do, and post it for public consumption at that. It is disturbing, at best.

      Although neither of you project happiness in this new relationship, Kate at least is respectful and tries to signal love when she talks about it (and you) online. You, not so much. I hope you can do better, for everyone's, but most of all your own sake. Is all.

    10. Holy crap, Kate, the people here have given you good advice as they're probably the only ones (besides your parents) that have told you the TRUTH.

      You're obviously invested a guy that only values you in the most utilitarian, generic terms as it benefits HIM. He continues to hide behind a woman's skirts and mooch off her paycheck. So be it.

      It's a shame that instead of Mark showing how he's going to prove us wrong (sticking up for you, getting a job, paying his back taxes and past-due child support), he digs in his heels and continues to play the victim.

      I know it will never happen, as you're too defensive, but I hope you will honestly answer your own questions from earlier:

      How do you benefit from marriage to a man whom hasn't given a fraction of the support you've given him? (Emotional, financial, psychological). Heck, he won't even stand up for YOU here! Has he ever said anything that he loves about you that is NOT about the benefit to him?

      What dearth is it filling in you to take on this role of protector, provider, nursemaid and guardian to him?

      Anon's comment above that you deserve better is TRUE. You deserve respect, love, and someone who has your back 110%. Not some ancient windbag who types hate on the internet, on your WiFi dime.

    11. I think you've missed the point that Mark's writing is about women other than myself. To be quite honest, its about women like you. We don't like people like you. We are not happy around people like you. So, you won't see our funny, intelligent side. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people bring out the worst in others, and some people bring out the best. You think love only exists when it comes in the form you want it to in the words you think you should hear. That's ridiculous. It may be that you are incapable of appreciating that happiness can be found in the smallest of things. And that appreciation of those small things is what causes contentment. Avaunt with your childish expectations that he write online odes to me. If you've got a man who does that and you're happy with it: "please be happy and live long and prosper-- by all means." I prefer a man who is honest and whose compliments I can trust: whose "love" is not lip service covering for a lack of demonstration of it.

    12. Kate, Anon @ 11:12am has nailed it so completely there is little left to say. Only this:

      If Mark is so smart, so superior, why can't he support himself?

      And, as to your reasons:

      If Mark challenges you mentally (he is "challenging" to be around, no doubt!), why can't he use that intelligence to stand up FOR you, instead of just to you? Why doesn't he use this superior intellect to defend you, protect you, keep you from having to fight his battles?

      As to "emotional comforting" you, he doesn't seem to be too interested in it when it counts. Has he EVER stood up for his wife in public?!

      As for his sense of humor; is there the slightest evidence for anything beyond the scathing sarcasm he spews? Have you noticed that he mistakes that sarcasm for 'wit"? That he is incapable of irony?

      Humor and comedy are dependent entirely on context and affect. Narcissists like Mark lack the empathy to consider any viewpoint besides their own, and thus are terrible at anything besides said sarcasm.

      Narcissists make life Hell for other people. I know you aren't listening, but if you ever come back to this thread someday: Get yourself free.

    13. Of *course* Minty doesn't like us! We're the ones pointing out the neglected child support, the abandoned kids, the back taxes, the mooching! (Wait, shouldn't this honesty be valued by such an appreciator of honesty such as Minty?)

      You're the one buying him a BMW and paying the bills. You're cool with it, so be it.

      Though as a fellow appreciator of honesty, what have you found from talking to Mark's previous wives? If not them, have you seen the court paperwork?

      Surely someone like Mark, who is so honest, surely wants you to be apprised of the full truth? That, despite the unparalleled intellect and other intellectual riches and "comforts" of Minty, there were three other women who also promised "til death do us part" with him and yet, made the decision to leave this unheralded genius of the Manosphere. It appears to me these women can be just as honest as Mark. Why don't they count?

    14. And I called you guys boring. I take it back.

    15. @Kate 9:56AM

      You have travelled the world, unable to find a man smarter than yourself, yet proceed to misspell words in the same paragraph?! Dunning-Krueger strikes again! Take heart, though, that this may mean you will see the light about Mark.

      You seriously seem like a nice, giving and sensitive person. I realize you don't want to believe this, but the people on this board do want to see you with someone equally giving and kind. Mark is not that person, judging by his past actions towards his wives and children.

      You do realize the an alternative between "marionette I can control on strings" and "moocher who shows me no respect in public" right? It's called "mutual love and respect" and it's about choosing to be there out of that love and respect, instead of clinging desperately while waiting for the next shoe to drop.

    16. "the people on this board do want to see you with someone equally giving and kind"

      Maybe she already is. Maybe those two are an ideal match for each other after all.

    17. @Anon 8:52pm

      Does this mean Minty's going to start paying his half of the bills and start sticking up for Kate online?

    18. LOL! Miracles may happen, although that's not what I meant.

      What I was saying is that maybe they are ideally matched in their narcissistic needs. They complement each other in ways that seem puzzling or disturbing for others, but it works for them.

      There are all kinds of strange couples in the world, you must admit. If they are happy with each other and don't hurt anyone, live and let live. Couples not meant to stay together will fall apart. Time will tell.

    19. Ah, so like Kate gets to be The Only Good Woman Left In This Cruel, Cruel World in this relationship, while the Mintster gets to be An Unsung Genius Hero Of The Manosphere? And we naysayers are Those Who Just Don't Understand Their Love?

      I think I'm picking up what you're putting down.

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Removed by the author?

      That's a good start, Yohami. Now pull the rest of your narcissistic bullshit off the net.

    2. LMAO! You responded in 7 minutes! And so intelligently!

      How closely are you watching this thread?

    3. Y has nothing better to do, so he is just waiting for an opportunity to fetch us some coffee. Or something. Poor chap... Maybe we should send him to Starbucks with an order already? Just to give him something to do -- and a chance to get some fresh air, which he apparently needs.

      Hey, Y -- on that other blog, I heard you complain that all we do here is push (your) buttons. So does the fact that you are here mean you like your buttons pushed?

      Cuz you know, I'm sure, that nobody can push your buttons without your permission. Also, there is no button-pushing if there are no buttons to push. Yours must be really easily pushable, I guess, and, what's more, you must like it, a lot; otherwise you wouldn't be here, right?

      Yes, we get it: negative attention is better than no attention.

    4. Aw, poor Yohami.

    5. "How closely are you watching this thread?" veeeerrry close, I actually subscribed to Cinzia's blog, hey her stuff is good, too bad for the comment section

    6. "I heard you complain that all we do here is push (your) buttons."

      Not mine, but yeah. I wonder what fuels you to drivel with so much negativity. What is it? Why are you in so much pain?

    7. Cinzia's stuff is good. I'm sure that she will complimented to know you think that, just as the commenters will mourn your negative opinion of the comments section. :-)

    8. Im sure they will be devastated.

    9. Holding up a mirror for you, sonny (you do seem younger than my own sons):

      "I wonder what fuels you to drivel with so much negativity. What is it? Why are you in so much pain?"

      You can unburden yourself to us. You know that, unlike your manurespherian buddies, we don't subscribe to the alpha nonsense and can see men as human beings who yearn and suffer as we all do, so we won't hold your suffering against you as a loss of status or other Red Pill silliness. Here, we don't think less of men who embrace their humanity, but we do poke fun and unmask the poseurs with relish, as you can see.

      We understand what makes manurespherians manurespherians -- it is not that difficult to see. Many of you are beyond help, but the fact that you are reaching out, by commenting here, for example, suggests there may be hope for you still.

      You are also young, it seems, and despite your Red Pill posturing, somewhat idealistic at your core, which may be your saving grace.

      Yes, it is apparent you like your buttons pushed = you want to be challenged in your bitterness and cynicism (perhaps because you want to shed them? perhaps not). Avail yourself of our assistance in it then. We are here to help, as you've noticed. :)

    10. Hey, Cinzia, maybe you can open a detox for Red Pillers here -- we'd volunteer our time to help manurespherians sever ties with their toxic cult and recover from their RP addiction (to the extent it's possible; we must be realistic -- narcissism and misogyny, and narcissism driven misogyny are serious [= incurable] mental problems; but there may be a tiny glimmer of hope for the select few not totally warped yet).

      So, Y, spread the word to willing manurespherians to come a'WARP'N with us (Women Against Red Pill Nonsense) at Cinzia's Red Pill Detox Center. We'll do our best to help you.*

      *Individual results may vary.

    11. "you want to be challenged in your bitterness" Im not bitter, Im salty.

      "we do poke fun and unmask the poseurs with relish"


    12. Ah, the flip response. Roissy would be so proud. Perhaps one day, you will be 50 and alone just like Roissy.

    13. "Why"
      "Why not?"
      "don't know?"

      "I'm not your buddy, friend."
      "I'm not your friend, pal"
      "I'm not your pal, guy"….

    14. "I'm not your friend, pal"

      Of course. To me you're just an anonymous who spends time writing negative drivel against people who are very unlikely to ever to read you or notice that you exist. So, why?

      Basically, do you do it to alleviate your pain and discharge because you're miserable and need support from other people for all your inner hate; or do you do it because it causes you pleasure to inflict imaginary pain and it gives you status among a herd? both? are you being happy or miserable?

      Always wanted to ask this stuff. Dont be shy.

    15. "you are addressing a group of people who post under the "Anonymous" moniker." Im talking to the one I quoted, but you can jump in too.

      What's your base emotion while you're repeating the game and turning my question into an attack? Are you being mainly defensive, or aggressive? sad, or happy? are you giggling, or are you repressing tears of anger? what's up with you?

    16. "To me you're just an anonymous who spends time writing negative drivel against people who are very unlikely to ever to read you or notice that you exist. So, why?"

      Is this 'you' a collective? There are many anonymous folk. I'm sure they all have their reasons, just as you do. Not much "herd cred" to be made from being anonymous.

    17. Just to add (assuming that last is approved), completely anonymous posting is probably the ultimate honesty. Even pseudonyms have their baggage.

    18. "Is this 'you' a collective? There are many anonymous folk" my question is for the one or two writing the negative drivel.

      In male groups we use to do these put downs to gain upper hand and leadership (peaking order), it's harmelss among friends but it can become bullying. I've seen in female groups that this is done in a similar way, just not frontal (chit chat, etc).

      I'd like to get some insight on this other form of anonymous "character assasination - Im holier than you" sort of dynamics from the people who are doing it. Maybe it's too much to ask since Im gonna put them in defensive mode, but why are they doing it, what do they get out of it, what's the emotional context? is it a defensive strategy or an attack strategy? are they filled with bad emotions or are they having fun while at it? happy trolls or unhappy basement dwellers? rabid dogs? chihuahuas? something else?

    19. "completely anonymous posting is probably the ultimate honesty." True.

    20. I'll bite, Y, and assume good will on your part when you ask your questions.

      Blogs like Cinzia's and We Hunted The Mammoth (e.g.) have resulted as a response to the manuresphere and its relentless misogyny (though Cinzia's is more specific, as its title indicates).

      Pointing the manuresphere's misogyny, dissecting and/or mocking it is not motivated by hate (that's where your projection intrudes) any more than pointing out, dissecting and / or mocking racism of the KKK is.

      It is a normal and in fact desirable push-back reaction to any movement / group based on hate and discrimination.

      I, personally, am rather new to the manuresphere and discovered it by an unlucky string of incidents a few months back. Those incidents involved unsuspecting discussions with MRA on a popular news site. When I first encountered their comments, I wasn't sure they weren't a prank: they seemed to be coming from people who had no grasp of reality as most of us know it and lived in its upside down version. That was more amusing than disturbing, at first, but it became somewhat more personal when somebody I considered a close friend started to say things that were more and more in line with the manurespherian thinking.

      This took me on a tour of exploration of the 'sphere, and what I found there... well, let's just say that in my whole life I've never encountered that kind of concentrated fear and loathing of women, ever, combined with breathtaking stupidity and woeful gullibility (especially in those men who fall wholesale for the Red Pill / game nonsense). There are some decent men who get involved with the 'sphere, but those are few and far in between, and they tend not to last there, from what I've noticed.

      My (still) primary emotions when encountering the manuresphere's "revelations" are revulsion and astonishment, in that order. The revulsion -- to the misogyny (fear and loathing of women that permeates the sphere) and to its backwards and horrendous views on so many human issues (e.g., nonchalantly promoting child abuse -- sexual and physical, incest, subjugation of women, to name just a few) -- is visceral, followed by astonishment and attempts to understand how it is possible for human beings in the 21st c. to think this way and what drives people (men, but not only, as some women participate there too) to see the world and think this way. (I did not grow up in the US, BTW, and although I had experiences with sexism, the misogyny and socially backward views of the kind I found in the 'sphere were not something I've seen first-hand -- or eye -- before.)

      So you'll see my ongoing (but gradually dwindling now*) astonishment and attempts to understand this most peculiar social phenomenon of the manuresphere, seasoned with that visceral revulsion, in my comments on the subject on Cinzia's blog (and not only).

      *It becomes same ol' same ol' after a while. Once you've seen one manurespherian ideologist, you've seen them all: they all drink from the same poisoned well.

    21. "I'll bite, Y"

      Thanks for that response, I can relate.

      "The revulsion -- to the misogyny (fear and loathing of women that permeates the sphere) and to its backwards and horrendous views on so many human issues"


      "is visceral, followed by astonishment and attempts to understand"

      I can relate. Specially at the top (Roissy, Roosh, etc) the US vs THEM is prevalent and the view is distorted. Half self victimization, half sadism.

      But then I look up around and find sites like this, and I see a bunch of people in the same state, not even throwing rocks because no criticism here is ever going to be read or have any effect on anything, so it's all chit chat and gossip among the lines of (copied from below):

      "Yohami is the saddest sack on the internet."


      "XX is a piece of trash and XXX"

      So what's the point?

      I visited sites like puaHate where they would talk shit about PUAs and what not. In some sites where all the do is talk shit about HUS, etc. What's the point, what's driving that? it aint curiosity, it is revulsion, but it has no effect... it's like swimming in your own poo after you ate something that poisoned you, it's like I would open a blog to talk about how bad Jezebel is, sniffing their ass every day to then report what they ate. What for? how is this nauseabund behavior better than Roissy, how's also a sick piece of human being?

      I guess there's a self elevation that happens while passing judgement? if so, do I have to imagine that somebody is happy while writing negative stuff, even if none of that will ever have an effect? so this is the equivalent of omega virgin basement troll on 4chan, just with a little more class?

      Or Im overthinking it... but seriously I also get the "wtf is going on here" by reading some of these comments

      Peace :-)

    22. "My (still) primary emotions when encountering the manuresphere's "revelations" are revulsion and astonishment, in that order."

      What do you think can be done about the manosphere poisonous aspects? where do you see the problems, what would you do as a cure?

      And do you see problems on what the manosphere is trying to fight against? namely feminism.

    23. Hm. What's the point of you posting on manurespheric sites, Y, if you see how pointless and poisonous they are? (ir)Rational Male, J4G, and others are no different from Roissy et al.

      As to "XX is a piece of trash and XXX" that's classic behavior on blogs. I don't see you objecting to it when it's done on, say, J4G etc. In fact, you usually join the fray and pile on.

      So what's driving your own behavior?

      Peace. :)

    24. Y, why is feminism -- a movement to accord women equal rights and opportunities -- such a threat to man(ure)spherians?

      When I read their "the feminist sky is falling! they are coming to kill all men any moment now!" fear-mongering, I cannot help but laugh. None of the things the spherians are so freaked out about are happening or ever will.

      "What do you think can be done about the manosphere poisonous aspects? where do you see the problems, what would you do as a cure?"

      There is nothing that can be done about it. The sphere is like a cult. You cannot reason with cult members, especially not on their territory. Can you imagine us having this convo on any manurespheric site? Exactly. (Generally, you cannot reason or otherwise help people who see human beings as numbers or silly labels; alpha, beta, and omega are letters of the Greek alphabet, and not people.)

      Cults thrive on maintaining their rigid beliefs and divisions between "us" and "them" -- "they" are routinely demonized and portrayed as destroyers of "us," toxic agents whose influence should be avoided at all costs. So no, outsiders' interventions will not work. Men created this monster and men would have to take it down -- but they won't.

      There may be hope for its individual members, in that they may see the light somehow and seek help (and notice reality) outside of their cult, but that would take time and a stroke of luck, however understood. I have no illusions about "righting" the sphere and ridding it of its poisonous aspects. Cult members thrive on shared delusions and would rather give up their lives than the comfort those delusions provide.

      And then, of course, there are the cult leaders who directly profit from infecting others with their poisonous nonsense (Red Pill, etc.). Those should be unmasked for their feet of clay, but, again, I have no illusions that such unmasking works on a small scale (it could, possibly, if a massive public scandal were involved; but although I'm certain there is enough scandalous material in their lives, these men are simply not important enough to pique anyone's serious interest to make it public).

      The sphere represents a phenomenon of a socially deviant group that thrives on the margins of society and attracts men who are not able to integrate with it (society) for whatever reasons. There are always such a-social or antisocial men, or men who for other reasons are disenfranchised, in every society, since forever. And there are plenty of such groups in which they congregate -- cults, gangs, secret societies, etc. -- that give them a sense of belonging, meaning in life, and some form of status (visibility and importance, even if very limited). Notice, please, that men who do something genuinely important or worthwhile in life do not join the sphere.

      The sphere, like all those other deviant pseudos-societies, makes those deviant / disenfranchised men feel that they and their lives matter. That's not a bad thing in itself. The bad thing is that their (i.e., the deviant groups') existence is based on a faulty and harmful ideology that further alienates their members from society and does not help them in any significant way, even though they believe otherwise (that belief is essential in sustaining the cult members' faithfulness).

      As to your WTF question, I come here to vent my revulsion and astonishment. Doing so under an anonymous moniker is liberating. Nobody knows me and I rarely post anywhere else. I don't do this for readership -- if one person (say, Cinzia :)) reads it, that's great. If not, it's alright too -- I know there is at least one person who knows what I'm talking about and probably agrees with me. That's really all that matters.

    25. "What's the point of you posting on manurespheric sites, Y"

      Same point for posting here, dialogue, curiosity.

    26. "As to "XX is a piece of trash and XXX" that's classic behavior on blogs."

      The times we live in.

      "I don't see you objecting to it when it's done on"

      Im not objecting to it, Im asking why, what's in it for you.

      "J4G etc."

      There's very little "XX is a piece of trash" on J4G

      "In fact, you usually join the fray and pile on."

      In fact, you're wrong

  24. Kate: "I chose Mark for very specific reasons: his ability to challenge me mentally, his ability to comfort me emotionally, and his sense of humor (something most of the world is shockingly lacking)."

    I agree this humor is lacking in the world.
    Mr Minter's sense of humor (I'm taking a leap of faith here) is also lacking in every post. I wonder why, if he is such a humorous and engaging fellow in private? He should tap into this very very VERY deeply hidden resource he ostensibly possesses.

    1. All Minter ever had. His one-trick pony show, was fake victimhood. Not humor.

      Huge irony in that.


  25. I think you've missed the point that Mark's writing is about women other than myself.

    Oh, sweetie, don't kid yourself. In three or four years, you'll be just another cunt to him. A man who can muster up no love for the mother of his children, for his sister who supported him financially, for his own mother or own daughter, will eventually lump you in with the rest of fatally flawed womankind. All you need to do is disappoint him once. First he will idealize you, then he will demonize you.

    This is a man who once defended his decision to marry you to the morons at CH by implying you sent him a nudie picture, for God's sakes. I'd die of embarrassment and humiliation if my husband shared something like that with anyone much less that collection of idiots and racists. I believe he also added your relative youth and his being too old to want to be alone as other factors. That doesn't sound like a man in love to me.

  26. Maybe if you keep trying, one these days, you girls just might be able to bust us up. Yeah, some of the stuff said here takes a toll and it affects us for a bit.

    Mark, no one has to try to bust you two up. Based on your previous track record, odds are good you'll do that on your own. According to Psychology Today, "Past statistics have shown that in the U.S. 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce." Is this number 4 or number 5 for you? It's number 2 for Kate, right? Now, add in the step-daughter (Read the PT article.) A woman probably has a greater chance of evading AIDS at a gangbang than staying married to you longer than 5 years.

    I'd bet my home and all my savings that this won't last.

    1. Wouldn't this be marriage number 5?

      3 for Minty + 1 GK + 1 Demarkate = 6

    2. Oops, that should be 5, finger hit the wrong key. Sorry 'bout that.

    3. "All you need to do is disappoint him once. First he will idealize you, then he will demonize you."

      A classic form of narcissistic "love."

      Somewhat OT, it reminds me of another Mark The Narcissist, one in the news because of his "love" life again: Mark Sanford, known for his Appalachian Trail "hike."

      He announced last night -- on FB -- that he's breaking up with his Argentinian soul mate.

      Thing is, he forgot to inform the soul mate about it -- she learned of it from FB and the news, just like everyone else.

      Narcissists don't change. They will eventually treat you the same way they treated others who had the misfortune of no longer serving as objects of their narcissistic need / wish fulfillment. What goes around, comes around, and all that.

    4. @Anon 8:48PM


      Interesting how that rambling FB screed blamed the ex-wife for somehow being responsible for the adulterer having to break off the engagement with his mistress. (Whom he could have married at any time, but chose to string along for 5 years.)

      It's always the woman's fault. Kinda reminds me of someone's postings on the Manosphere... Whomever could it be?

    5. Oh, and I especially liked the way he threw in all the God and holiness stuff!

      However, I thought the Bible said we are supposed to stone adulterers? Leviticus 10 says we are supposed to put them to death, not public office! Also, since he used public funds to pay for his "hiking on the Appalachian trail," THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. What is the punishment?

      Can someone clarify? TIA

    6. "Whomever could it be?"

      Present company excepted (too obvious), how many names can we put on that list? ;)

      Every previously married (and some not) manurespherian would qualify. Eeeeverything's always the women's fault; these poor fellas are never responsible for anything that happens in their lives, not a single thing.

    7. Anon @ 9:14 PM

      You'd have to take that question over to Dalrock's place. They are all experts there on Biblical punishments for adulterers -- although they only talk about female ones (cuz men are holy and wise, and never do anything bad).

      Sanford thinks that somehow invoking Christ (and God, and Christ again, and then God, repeatedly) will make us all go aww and forgive and forget.

      Oh, the gall of a narcissist...

      Imagine Belen's surprise upon discovering that her "soul mate" has no soul. But at least now she has no illusions and can calmly state that this is all about him and his career, and realize it has always been and will be just about him and his career. Narcissists are predictable, gotta give'em that.

      On a less snarky note, his rambling FB statement does suggest that he is mentally unstable. It is all over the place, with way TMI, and a serious lack of boundaries. Perhaps his ex is right in asking for a psychiatric evaluation for him.

    8. Minter's ex wants a psych evaluation?

      Now I'm wondering what WTF Price's ex'es have to say about him... it's probably different from what he says

    9. That FB post from Sanford is disturbing in many ways.

      I would not doubt that his ex is doing her "best" to destroy him. I watched an interview Charlie Rose did with her way back when, shortly after she published her book (post-breakup with Mark) and I saw a cold, calculating woman with a resolve to bend everything and everyone to her will.

      If what he says in that statement is true -- and it likely is -- she's not acting in good faith, but trying to exact the bloodiest possible revenge on him. It is sorta understandable, given how he (mis)treated her, but it looks as though she is in a more powerful position, financially and socially, than he, and could afford to be a bit more merciful.

      Then again, as a narcissist, Mark has the requisite skills to play the victim and say just the right things to make it appear as though he's the wronged party. Judging by my own mixed reactions, it works.

    10. Anonymous 9:38

      Actually, it's Sanford's ex-wife who wants the psych eval. Honestly, looking at a rambling, unhinged FB note for airing out a family's dirty laundry (while asking for subsequent gag order for the rest of the court stuff), I don't think it's completely out of line. This is a guy who has violated a no trespass agreement, AND introduced the kids to his mistress at his victory celebration WITHOUT WARNING. The poor kids looked mortified.

      As for Minty's exes, his 2nd ex-wife posted (on ManBoob?) that Minty got fired from jobs so his pregnant wife had to go back to work right after giving birth while she supported them all. (Hmm, this is starting to sound familiar...). He also neglected to pay child support AND has back taxes due.

      According to the ex-Mrs M, any sign of income and the IRS will pounce. She may be keeping tabs on him online so Minty better step it up, or else stop bragging about BMWs to drive around in.

    11. LMAO!

      No, Sanford's ex wants a psych eval for him.

    12. @anon 9:50
      Fambly values and Christian morals in action!

      I can understand (even if I don't condone) her anger: Basically she used her family money and connections to get the guy elected, gave him children, ran his campaigns. Plus, she gave up a very high-powered job in NYC to move to South Carolina and pander to the Religious Right. Being a political wife is basically giving up everything, including your privacy, to support your man.

      And apparently this was not the first time he hiked the Appalachian Trail. Plus all that crap cheapskate stuff about giving her a picture of a $25 bike for a gift, giving her a necklace then taking it back because it was too expensive.

      She's basically regretting the last 25 years of her life and that's not a good look on anyone.

    13. "Family values and Christian morals in action!"

      As always exemplary, aren't they. ;)

      Yes, I too can understand where she's coming from, but her demands strike me as excessive. The kids are not little any more and her insistence, for example, that they should be shielded from the presence of their father's "paramour" sounds silly, unreasonable, and just punitive. Any possible religious reasons behind it are also out the window now, after the affair and divorce and all the mess he created for them. I think the goal should be for those two to smooth out their differences for the sake of the kids, for whom they supposedly care so much, and not use them as pawns in the war with each other, as they appear to do (she more so than he, I must say; although he's the one who created this mess). He is a d-bag of astronomical proportions, but she's not going to change that now (or ever).

      Speaking of those family values: my impression of Jenny Sanford was negatively influenced by something she said in that Charlie Rose interview. She mentioned, proudly, that she always did her best to raise her boys according to "capitalist values." Ugh, I thought.

    14. @Anon 10:21PM

      What do you think about this:

      I think both of them sound AWFUL as human beings, and probably parents (those poor kids!) but Jenny didn't cheat, lie or sneak around.

      Their true love is capitalism and ill-gotten gains. Jesus did say something about a rich man, a camel and the eye of a needle but I'm sure exceptions would be made for such HOLY people as the Sanfords!

    15. Dear Lord... This is a different level of crazy, but somehow it fits these people. They are both awful human beings, I agree. They embody those cherished "capitalist values" to a T.

      Thanks for the article.

  27. Hi J2.0!

    You should join in the commenting. You fit in perfectly with this crew.

    Ahhhh.. I shouldn't be rude... Hi Giggles!!

    1. Who are those people you mention?

      And what is "this crew"?

  28. Yohami is the saddest sack on the internet.

  29. A crowd of cunts you got here.


    1. So alpha.

      Yes, that's exactly what Cinzia's post is about.

  30. "why is feminism -- a movement to accord women equal rights and opportunities -- such a threat"

    Because of its premise that the system is built in a way where there is an oppressor class and an oppressed class, with men always being the oppressors and women always being the oppressed. With that premise, "equality" can only be achieved by elevating women and pushing men down, regardless of merit, circumstances, justice, or truth. With feminism the same actions have a different value if executed by a male or female. Basically anything a man does is oppressive, and anything a woman does is empowerment. In short, fuck feminism. I root for equality.

    1. It is apparent that you don't understand feminism, and, like all the spherians, rely on your imagined, fear-infused and curiously inverted version of it.

      Feminism does none of the things you've described above for gender relations any more than abolitionism did any such things for race relations. The emergence of both movements -- and yes, they are roughly equivalent -- was a historical inevitability to right the abominable wrongs against women and blacks, respectively. If you indeed rooted for equality, as you say, this would be obvious to you.

  31. "As to your WTF question, I come here to vent my revulsion and astonishment. " More power to you.

    1. Thank you.

      Since one WTF question / answer deserves another, why don't you take a stab at answering Anonymous August 17, 2014 at 1:05 AM questions, the answers to which would be very interesting for all to hear, namely:

      "More specifically, if these men [the spherians who claim to be happily married / paired up] are indeed happily married (and by their own accounts they are), what is the source of their ongoing generalized fear and hatred of women?

      Are they even remotely aware of the discrepancy between their expressed generalized negative feelings toward and opinions of women and those toward their wives (which are presumably different)?

      Do they understand that the world and specifically women as they perceive them through the prism of their fears and hatred significantly differ from their own lived reality? IOW, do they not realize that their fearful imaginary world is just imaginary, while their daily existence with women, or at least that one woman, is not only bearable, but even content, if not happy?

      Do they ever stop to reflect on what motivates their generalized fear and hatred of women and how it can (and likely does) affect their marriages (and parenting)?

      Do they not see that women like their own wives -- normal and decent woman people: intelligent, trustworthy, giving, etc. -- are the norm, and not exceptions?

      Last but not least, how, if they are happily married, do they manage to find so much time to bitch, moan, and whine about women online each day? And -- oh, again and again -- why? Shouldn't they be basking in the marital warmth and/or having hot sex with the wives (whichever comes first -- ha)?

      In general, what kind of a psychological warpage is required to live such a split and profoundly unaware existence?"

      The phenomenon of men who claim to be happily married / paired up with women, but who regularly vent their fear and contempt for women in the sphere is genuinely fascinating. What is your take on it? I'm all the more curious, since you seem to reject the explanations offered by others here.


Thanks for commenting!