The Misandry Bubble is Similar to other Economic Bubbles

by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech on January 24, 2010

(Disclaimer for this post: I am not nor do I claim to be an economist or have any formal education in economics.)

By now you have read The Fifth Horseman’s post on The Misandry Bubble. (If not, go read it right now.) The term, misandry bubble, is very accurate because the misandry bubble operates like an economic bubble.

Economic bubbles fall into two types. The first type is typically a technological related economic bubble. The Railway Mania in the 1800s and the dot com bubble are two examples of this type. Both of those bubbles had all of the typical behaviors of economic bubbles, over-investment, rampant speculation, etc. However, when all was said and done there were real economic gains. The Railway Mania produced railroads, and the dot com bubble expanded the internet and created related businesses such as amazon.com. The second type of economic bubble is what might be called an asset bubble. The Tulip Mania of the 1600s and the recent (or current depending on where you live) housing bubble are both examples of asset bubbles. In an asset bubble the price of an asset increases beyond its fundamental value so the price of that asset must come down through inflation, a price collapse, or a combination thereof.

The misandry bubble is clearly an asset bubble. The fundamental value of women has not increased. Women aren’t becoming more beautiful, or smarter, or better cooks, or better girlfriends, etc. By any metric you wish to use, women are not improving. If anything they are getting worse so their fundamental value is going down not up. Thus, the misandry bubble exists because the demands, the “price”, women are demanding from men is going up while the fundamental value of women is holding steady or really going down.

In an economic bubble there are several social psychology factors. One is extrapolation, the idea that because prices have risen in the past they will do so in the future. During the housing bubble we saw this with speculators who flipped houses, and other people who bought houses because if they didn’t buy soon, “they would be priced out forever”. Realtors would say, “real estate only goes up”. David Lereah, the former Chief Economist for the National Association of Realtors, wrote books about how home prices would continue to rise until around 2010 or so. The same claims were made about the oil price spike of 2008 such as demand from the BRIC countries would remain high. We see the same claims in the misandry bubble. A lot of men accept the increasing demands of women because either they are “white knights” or believe that they have no other choice. However, as we see from the collapse of the housing bubble and the 2008 oil price spike, extrapolation is wrong, and this is true with the misandry bubble as well.

Another factor is herding, the idea that investors buy or sell in the direction of the market trend. In the housing bubble, many investment fund managers bought the investment vehicles that were designed to sell mortgages. During the bubble, there were hardly any voices speaking out about how the problems with these mortgage investment vehicles. There were people who noticed, but kept their mouths shut since it could mean losing pay or their jobs. Herding also existed on the level of individual buyers who bought because “everyone else was doing it”.

One aspect of herding that isn’t well know is the use of shaming language to get people who would be skeptical of the behavior causing the bubble to fall in line. There was plenty of shaming language used in the housing bubble. Many made claims that renters were losers and “would be priced out forever” (as in they would forever have the stigma of being a renter since they wouldn’t be able to afford buying a house in the future). The biggest example of shaming language has to be the Century 21 commercial from 2006 (the below video).

In addition to the shaming language to get the husband to buy the house, there is also a great deal of misandry in this video. This is a case of the housing bubble and the misandry bubble overlapping.  The husband was right to be skeptical.  This commercial aired in 2006.  If the couple was really worried about schools, they could have waited two years (when their oldest was starting kindergarten) and saved a boatload of money.  Even better they could have rented waiting out the housing bubble in the location with the schools they wanted.  However, it was more important to make the husband fall in line despite the fact that he was originally right.  With the misandry bubble, shaming language is nothing new as we have the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.

We also see moral hazards with bubbles where the decision making of investors in terms of risk and reward is interfered with.  With the housing bubble, they are plenty of moral hazards as the government was and is encouraging people to buy houses.  The $8000 tax credit for new homeowners is a prime example.  It encourages people who would otherwise rationally weigh whether they would want to buy a house or not to believe there is less risk in buying a house than there actually is.  Moral hazards aren’t limited to government policy either.  The explosion of exotic mortgages during the housing bubble allowed people to buy houses they otherwise could not afford.  These moral hazards lead to many of the foreclosures we see today since they threw the risk-reward relationship of whether to buy a house or not out of whack.  Moral hazards also exist in the misandry bubble.  The clearest example is with divorce and family courts.  With the way divorce works now, women can easily divorce their husbands and get rewarded for it both financially and in getting the kids creating an incentive to get divorced.  The same is true with the false rape industry.  A woman can get away with making false rape accusations which creates an incentive to make false rape accusations.  In the churches, priests/ministers/pastors “encourage” men to get married (using plenty of shaming language) creating a moral hazard of men marrying women they otherwise wouldn’t.

When economic bubbles happen, people who implicitly or explicitly realize there is a bubble, make changes in their behavior.  Many people decided to wait out the housing bubble by renting to the point of deciding to rent their entire lives in some cases since they were soured on buying houses.  With the 2008 oil price spike, people changed their driving habits and started buying more fuel efficient cars.  The misandry bubble is no different.  Many men learn game, go ghost, become part of the marriage strike, or even just minimize their time alone with certain types of women.

Overproduction and the search for alternatives is another aspect of a bubble.  With the housing bubble, many more houses were built than needed.  Areas were gentrified by people looking for cheap housing.  The 2008 oil price spike led to increased oil production where possible and investment into alternative energy and other alternatives to oil.  With the misandry bubble many men decide to expat to find women or bring foreign women to where they live.  In the longer term, alternatives will include virtual reality sex, sex bots, and artificial wombs.  The creation of these technologies is guaranteed by the fact that the misandry bubble is an economic bubble.

However, the misandry bubble is different from economic bubbles in one important way.  The prices due to a bubble must come down through either inflation, lowered prices, or a combination.  There is no equivalent to inflation in the misandry bubble so the “price” women are demanding from men must by definition collapse to where it was before.  With the creation of technological alternatives, it will collapse to a lower level than it was before.

{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }

Epoche* January 24, 2010 at 11:41

So long as the state subsidizes single-motherhood the price that women will expect from men will continue to rise until Sharia law is imposed upon the West, and by the time it comes I may not care.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 24, 2010 at 11:50

Compare it to the ‘Hate Da Man’ bubble. More accurately, hate the White Man.

That’s ran strong for decades – with not only zero indication of abating, but actually gaining momentum.

Yes. Keeping it Underground until Rosie, Oprah and Whoopi’s flabby thighs tire out from kicking us in our nuts is a good strategy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Brutal Corporate Male January 24, 2010 at 12:05

Firepower- True, but African American and Hispanic males get disproportionately screwed by white women claiming minority status.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
stillcode January 24, 2010 at 12:15

Great post! I’d like to add one more thought.

Bubbles are a normal phenomenon of the free market. Over time, people realize that something is overvalued and the asset should return to its premarket values.
However, in the US, we have massive government intervention going on. Taxes disproportionately cripple single men while rewarding single women. Our government subsidizes women at the expense of men at every level. The government can keep prices artificially high until men here decide to expat or the system collapses.
Even when new technology comes to free men, there is a good chance that the government can outlaw these new factors and we’re back to our misandric bubble. Imagine a USA where artificial wombs and sexbots and the like are made illegal. The price of women stays artificially high and the price of men stays artificially low indefinitely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 24, 2010 at 12:21

Brutal Corporate Male January 24, 2010 at 12:05

Firepower- True, but African American and Hispanic males get disproportionately screwed by white women claiming minority status.

Hmm. It’s no longer The Game of “Full House gets beat by Royal Flush.”

I’d say it’s more like Horseshoes – where “close enough” or “closer” is FTW.

Kinda like a combo of African-American Hispanic Female trumps ALL. And the poor bastard afflicted with that lethally visible, genetic “Caucasian Male Disease” gets the ultimate shaft over and any multiculti combination.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
J DeVoy January 24, 2010 at 12:27

I agree with this and would hope that it pops soon, but some thoughts come to mind from Richard Posner’s A Failure of Capitalism, which examines the credit/housing bubble and subsequent collapse:

-Bubbles are not broadly recognized until they collapse
-Cassandras crying about the impending pop of the bubble are not heeded until after it pops, as nobody realizes we’re in a bubble

Good, quick read in my opinion, with several lessons that are applicable in this situation. The problem is that recognition that this is a bubble will be limited to this sphere until it’s too late and the nation’s demographics are ruined. This isn’t a racial issue, but it is a socioeconomic one – children from broken homes do worse, on average, than those from untied families; split family arrangements necessarily mean lower household income and networth, as parents have to divide their money between two households, two cars, two sets of everything, rather than putting their surpluses toward the child and family unit. Thus children come from poorer households than they would if the parents were united, go to worse schools, and absorb lower class behaviors from their peers.

Much like how it was unthinkable to point out that housing values might not go up forever in polite company, pointing out these anti-male, anti-family realities earns a chorus of shouting about how the speaker “hates women” and wants to limit their freedom, which inevitably leads to non-sequiturs of Nazi comparisons and claiming you want to force women to have abortions. The difference is that the credit/housing bubble was on a shorter timeline as the Fed changed interest rates every few months, and the crisis was brought to an immediate head within a few years. The consequences of this won’t be clear for almost two decades as the offspring, or lack thereof, from this generation enter adulthood. (Or fail to do so by traditional metrics, which seems to be the case for my age cohort of perpetual students, racking up thousands in debt and useless degree after useless degree in an effort to appear well-credentialed and enter the workforce at a stratospheric level without having any relevant experience.)

I don’t think it will be a bubble that pops until after this up-and-coming generation of children living in an anti-male society has children of their own, and possibly later. Eventually, the government entitlements they demand will become too great to bear by the increasingly scarce number of functional, middle-class people who were fortunate or committed enough to avoid condemning their children to a baseless, dysgenic existence. By then, though, society will be so fractionalized — re-tribalized, even — to the point where getting a critical mass of men to cosign to any kind of reforms will be impossible. Just as today, beta males will live in denial that they need to change, denying the evidence that they are losers the game of survival and castigating the men who merely want to help them, as that assistance would require confronting their otherwise doomed reality head-on.

The best hope is probably in women who realize the desirability of familial stability and see the hollowness of jumping from partner to partner, however exciting and strong the biological urge to do so is. Again, though, that’s an issue of numbers. Given how badly the under-30 set has had their fortunes stunted by high debt and decreasing economic opportunity, it’s easy for women to slide into the underclass and absorb their traditions of low legitimacy rates and defend their choices under the banner of feminism.

Simply stated, we need to see society decay to realize that marriage works. Once there are clear costs to a family-less, self-indulgent culture, all but the dumbest and most hedonistic will realize they need to change their own behavior, and not rely on some ethereal state power to save them. We are, however, very far from that point as of now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 24, 2010 at 12:34

Even when new technology comes to free men, there is a good chance that the government can outlaw these new factors and we’re back to our misandric bubble. Imagine a USA where artificial wombs and sexbots and the like are made illegal. The price of women stays artificially high and the price of men stays artificially low indefinitely.

Yes and no. Outlawing VR sex will be difficult since the tech used for it will be indistinguishable from standard gaming tech. Microsoft, NVidia, Sony, AMD, etc. will not let that happen because they would lose billions of dollars. Sex bots and artificial wombs are easier to outlaw since these are discrete concepts. However, to truly make such a ban effective the government would have to restrict travel outside the country. Otherwise more guys will just expat.

Firepower January 24, 2010 at 12:41

J DeVoy January 24, 2010 at 12:27

The best hope is probably in women who realize the desirability of familial stability and see the hollowness of jumping from partner to partner, however exciting and strong the biological urge to do so is.

You do realize, that this is the epitome of “wishful thinking.”

My best hope for getting Megan Fox may be Santa – even though I’m richer, wittier, smarter and just plain better than Brian Austin Green.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating just how “exciting and strong the biological urges” actually are – compared to scholarly thought.

Sasha Grey sells more copies than Richard Posner’s A Failure of Capitalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Paul January 24, 2010 at 12:43

I thought this article was very impressive being both highly intelligent and informative. The comments are also very perceptive. Stillcode has a good point. Governments manipulate the misandry bubble just as they can for economic bubbles. In both cases the collapse can be deferred for a very long time. What some people claim is that the longer the correction is deferred the bigger the collapse will eventually be. As far as misandry is concerned I honestly don’t know if this is the case. What I see if I look at history is that there have been much worse conditions than there are now. So my point is in terms of things getting worse we still have much further to fall. The condition of men could well reduce to slavery just as it has in the past. Misandry could drive this slavery and be much worse than the slavery of old.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 24, 2010 at 12:52

”””””’The condition of men could well reduce to slavery just as it has in the past. Misandry could drive this slavery and be much worse than the slavery of old.””””””

I agree hopefully soyleant green is initiated first to do you all a favor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 24, 2010 at 12:54

Women use shaming language and name calling to try to humiliate men into doing their bidding. You men only have to follow me around on internet discussion groups to see how much of this I attract…or any man who posts on feministing.

My advice to all men, young and old, is to consistently and forcefully call women the intellectual equivalents of children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions until such time as women are sending women who commit crimes against men to jail. Exactly like men will send to jail men who commit crimes against women.

I will simply continue to call women hypocrites until such time as they do this. And it is true. They will call me all sorts of names. Great. More evidence they are children. The only real ‘discussion’ I engage in with women is to point out that they have been by far the priviledged gender for 10,000 years and I only have those discussions in front of men so the men can see how hypocritical women are.

Gents, it is time to label and use shaming language on ANY woman who is not willing to incarcerate women who commit crimes against men. I see no reason not to do this. They want to label us ‘rapists’ unjustly? Well we can label them children and hypocrites with plenty of evidence to back that up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 24, 2010 at 12:57

“There is no equivalent to inflation in the misandry bubble so the “price” women are demanding from men must by definition collapse to where it was before. ”
Actually, I think the ‘price’ men are willing to pay for women is going to fall much FARTHER below where it used to be. Men were brainwashing into the ‘women on pedistal’ ideal. Now women are clearly down off that pedistal and showing their true selves I do not think men will put them back there in generations to come. We are seeing this in places like Russia and Germany.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Reality2010 January 24, 2010 at 13:00

while the fundamental value of women is holding steady or really going down.

You’re far too kind. Women in the U.S. by and large have degraded to the foulest, fattest, VD-ridden, abominations known to god in history. Talk about the fifth horseman- American women would be that fifth horseman. In addition, American women have the most god-awful personalities – a combination of nannyish hen pecking and shrieking, demanding childishness all barked in a fake, artificially inflated bravado- are completely unaccountable, drearily predictable (banal), zero faithfulness and complete self-centered.

Whenever I feel ‘lonely’ all I have to do is go to the grocery store and look at all the women around me and listen to them, and then I ask myself, “lonely for what exactly?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 24, 2010 at 13:01

Paul January 24, 2010 at 12:43

So my point is in terms of things getting worse we still have much further to fall.

whew. That means I still have time to stop posting and grab me a Sam Adams and a steak before NFL.

We’ll know it’s truly The End when we feel The Oprah-ite Police tap our shoulder as we’re effectively typing away on our keyboards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
J DeVoy January 24, 2010 at 13:03

Firepower:

You do realize, that this is the epitome of “wishful thinking.”

True, but that’s why there’s the force of law and social shame. It’ll never be perfect, but can be better than it is now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 13:05

Thanbks, PMAFT,

The thing is, once men become immune to female shaming language (Game can play a part in this), then women really have no other weapons to debate anything.

Then they will resort to state coercion, but that is not self-financing in the long run.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Epoche* January 24, 2010 at 13:08

If anyone is familiar enough with economic bubbles, the bad debt must be allowed to be liquidated, and bad actors must face the consequences of their actions. I know this is just a metaphor, but I dont see any equivalent in misandry. Bad actors (such as unfaithful wives, single mothers) will never be forced to face the consequences of their actions. The family will continue to breakdown, the least fit will have children instead of the most fit, taxes and crime will continue to increase, and the state will look to psychiatry and social workers to play the role of wayward father and husband to generations of children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 13:17

Another thing I foresee is :

1) All countries (except perhaps America) want high-talent workers.
2) As US power wanes, other countries will get bolder about not complying with the US.
3) Some country, maybe China, will say “All you American men paying alimony and child support, come to China. We will not extradite you. You can start afresh here. We have job openings in China.” This is assuming these men still have their passports.
4) When America whines about China taking in these ‘outlaws’ and demands extradition, China will simply say “Show me where in the US constitution that it says these men should be punished.”.
5) So China gets a large pool of new expertise, who were near-slaves in America.
6) Isn’t that how and why peasant Europeans fled to America in the first place, 100 years ago?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 13:18

Bad actors (such as unfaithful wives, single mothers) will never be forced to face the consequences of their actions.

Women as a whole will certainly bear the costs of feminism. This is already happening.

Now, as far as bad women getting punished and good women avoiding punishment, that distinction will not happen. But women as a whole will bear the costs. The ‘good women’ should have fought feminism while they had the chance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 24, 2010 at 13:19

J DeVoy January 24, 2010 at 13:03

True, but that’s why there’s the force of law and social shame. It’ll never be perfect, but can be better than it is now.

“Can be’s” are as valid as “shoulds” and “mightbees.”

They’re Dr. Seuss characters.
If you’re agreeing with my statement that you are engaging in wishful thinking, you posess honesty and thus are capable of understanding that social shame no longer exists in a society that lauds Madonna, Al Sharpton, Heidi Montag or any other despicable icons.

Nor law, in a world that cheers alimony looting bitches and simultaneously jails husbands for refusing to pay an injustic.

There’s a thread here about an example – the very same guy I predicted would be forgotten in 5 days… but everybody forgot about it.

I hope you can discern these contradictions; you write like you are valuable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 24, 2010 at 13:46

Reality2010 January 24, 2010 at 13:00
Good to see you here dude! And yes, lonely for a western woman? Duh. That’s like saying lonely for getting a red hot poker shoved up my arse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 24, 2010 at 13:47

6) Isn’t that how and why peasant Europeans fled to America in the first place, 100 years ago?

-TFH

Some of them, sure. But more importantly, this is why the first Americans – the colonists – fled Britain. British law in regards to its men was so oppressive in some places, Scotland and Ireland in particular, that the men simply left it behind to risk being murdered and eaten by savages while trying to carve a place for themselves out of the wilderness. Of course, the collective memory of their experience in the old country played a huge part in the American Revolution.

Entire Scottish and Irish counties were depopulated during the 17th-18th century — all the men had left for the colonies (many as slaves) or been slaughtered.

Given that our country was founded in opposition to unjust laws and policies regarding free men, it’s really a shame to see what’s happening here now. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the process is reversible barring some great catastrophe — some event that convinces the masses that the Government has lost the mandate of heaven.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 24, 2010 at 13:48

The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 13:18
“Now, as far as bad women getting punished and good women avoiding punishment, that distinction will not happen. But women as a whole will bear the costs. The ‘good women’ should have fought feminism while they had the chance.”
Yep, I have pointed this out to many women but they lack the intelligence to realise this truth. The good women will suffer. Bad luck for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Arpagus January 24, 2010 at 14:10

I for one want access to women’s bodies, not a technological alternative. It would be great if a significant number of men were satisfied with sexbots or VR sex and thus brought down the price of women so much that I can get a girlfriend, but I don’t see that happening. While we don’t need a particularly intelligent woman, most of us do need her to pass the Turing test, and until the alternatives can do this, they are just useless unsatisfactory stopgap devices like the porn and masturbation we already have. And when/if the Singularity does happen, all bets are off and we don’t know what will happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* January 24, 2010 at 14:18

Globalman January 24, 2010 at 13:48

The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 13:18
“Now, as far as bad women getting punished and good women avoiding punishment, that distinction will not happen. But women as a whole will bear the costs. The ‘good women’ should have fought feminism while they had the chance.”

This is really an interesting question, because I dont know if many women (0r men for the matter) were aware of the consequences of radical feminism in the 1970s. In the pushbutton world men had created and freed from excessive procreation by the pill, it was probably hard to not think of a world where men did most of the earning as an oppressive one. Also, most women had the benefit of family and probably could not have conceived of a world where the family would breakdown to this extent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom of Covent Garden January 24, 2010 at 14:51

What makes you think there is a misandry bubble? We have historically ALWAYS had misandry, it had simply been so prevelant as to be the norm, and therefor, had gone unnoticed (until feminists invented the notion of sexism, which MRAs have eventually appropriated).

I have read a study which shows that the male idiot stereotype in soap operas is not a new phenomena, but rather its prevelance has remained constant over a fifty year period. Also, in Italian literature, the Ineuto (check spelling) is a stock male idiot character, and goes back several hundred years.

The reason we pretend misandry is getting worst, is because we associate its use with the rise of feminism, and therefor presume misandry MUST be getting worse, lest we are to acknowledge that feminism actually reduces certain types of misandry (and I’ve read research which Steve Moxon missuses (2008) which actually backs up what I’m saying here – the more feminist someone is in their appearance and attitude, the less likely they are to express misandric views). The lay antifeminist woman is a much bigger man hater than the lay feminist on average. If their is a bubble of misandry to pop, make sure and point the spearhead in the right direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Novaseeker January 24, 2010 at 15:01

This is really an interesting question, because I dont know if many women (0r men for the matter) were aware of the consequences of radical feminism in the 1970s. In the pushbutton world men had created and freed from excessive procreation by the pill, it was probably hard to not think of a world where men did most of the earning as an oppressive one. Also, most women had the benefit of family and probably could not have conceived of a world where the family would breakdown to this extent.

Most women, yes, but the ringleaders certainly had this in mind. Why? Because they knew (and openly wrote) that maintaining the family as the core unit of society empowered men too much for their taste. Only with the family removed would women be truly free of men, which was the whole point of *radical* feminism. *Most* women went along for the ride, but the ring leaders certainly wanted the family to be liquidated as the main social unit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 24, 2010 at 15:05

The reason we pretend misandry is getting worst, is because we associate its use with the rise of feminism, and therefor presume misandry MUST be getting worse, lest we are to acknowledge that feminism actually reduces certain types of misandry (and I’ve read research which Steve Moxon missuses (2008) which actually backs up what I’m saying here – the more feminist someone is in their appearance and attitude, the less likely they are to express misandric views). The lay antifeminist woman is a much bigger man hater than the lay feminist on average. If their is a bubble of misandry to pop, make sure and point the spearhead in the right direction.

This is the old “feminism is good for men, too!”/”the Patriarchy is bad for men, too!” idea rehashed to be peddled in this forum. Too bad some of us are wise enough to spot it and call it out for what it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Snark January 24, 2010 at 15:10

the more feminist someone is in their appearance and attitude, the less likely they are to express misandric views

The most hateful, anti-male sentiments I have ever seen were from feminists.

Though I concede, that there are also anti-male sentiments made by non-feminists;

Perhaps it is not just the expression, but the intensity of anti-male views, which counts here.

E.g. radical feminist Mary Daly was quite sincere in her view that 90% of men should be killed off.

Whereas your average hag might moan and bitch about how ‘men do this’ and ‘men do that’ and ‘wouldn’t it just be better without any men’ during a particular moment of rage, but deep down, she doesn’t really believe that; she doesn’t really consider it as a serious proposition, it’s just venting. She is not sincere in that belief.

I know that feminists claim to be against ‘gender binaries’ and gender stereotypes full stop – but in the next sentence, they are railing against ‘men’, who are collectively defined according to stereotype, and if taken to task on this they will simply claim that it is the right of the ‘oppressed class’ to attack their ‘oppressors’. Never mind that plenty of women are far more privileged than plenty of men. This is actually why I think ‘intersectionality’ may even be a positive development in feminist thought – they might, one day, actually realise that middle class women are far more privileged than working class men, or that white women are more privileged than a lot of black men.

That would mean renouncing their primordial claim to victim status, of course. I doubt they want to make room on that pedestal.

And let’s not forget that it’s feminists pushing the actually misandric laws, policies, legal redefinitions, etc., which will have no effect except to criminalise and destroy the lives of innocent men.

It’s also feminists, rather than non-feminist women, who are more likely to see consensual sex as ‘rape’. Whether it’s the old school ‘all intercourse is rape’ or the more recent ‘yes can mean no’, it is feminist women who pose a threat to innocent men. Not that they believe ‘innocent men’ actually exist: feminists are those who actually systematise sex according to morality, and believe, explicitly or implicitly, that possessing a penis is sufficient grounds for declaring guilt. Non-feminist women carry all kinds of societal (feminist-induced) prejudices against men, but I find nowhere near the level of hostility that I do from declared feminists, whether radical or moderate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 24, 2010 at 15:17

And let’s not forget that it’s feminists pushing the actually misandric laws, policies, legal redefinitions, etc., which will have no effect except to criminalise and destroy the lives of innocent men.

And also feminist groups like NOW, the largest and most highly funded feminist organization in the United States, actively intervening in state legislative processes to thwart changes to family law that would lean toward shared parenting upon divorce.

Equality my ass. Feminists are female supremacists, full stop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
David January 24, 2010 at 15:20

A couple of points.

It is true that the husband-as-idiot stereotype is old. I remember my teacher, dear old Miss Flynn, complaining about the lack of respect shown to the husband in the old Dagwood cartoons. This was in 1963! Another woman’s magazine used to run a Mere Male column for years in Australia, decades ago. Wives would send in funny stories about their husbands’ little follies. It was largely meant in fun.

On the matter of “moral hazard”, I think we need to be careful to use this term correctly. As I understand it, a moral hazard is a risk of people taking excessive advantage of an option only meant for a drastic situation. For example, divorce and abortion were sold as only ever being intended for the most drastic situations. Of course, as we have seen, people now have recourse to them for the least reason.

Yes, western women are bad. But I think men have lost the age-old capacity to handle women. I firmly believe that it is lack of male authority being exercised that has led to nine out of the ten unhappy women one comes across today. People really are not happy if they are not shown the way. And men have failed to do this for decades now.

The church I attend treats husbands with old-fashioned respect. I was thinking this morning that a wife who attends this church will automatically have her respect for her husband thereby enhanced. The culture must rediscover these kinds of little things which can make a big difference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 24, 2010 at 15:53

I think the misandry bubble will pop only after a male birth control pill hits the market and men USE IT extensively.

You can’t fix a malady if you don’t have the right medicine.
A marriage strike has little or no effect if it is not done together with a reproduction strike.

When no more (or too few) babies are born, then and only then, will it make a difference.

In addition, when men decide, collectively, to work just enough to satisfy their minimum requirements, therefore starving the states, then we might be able to see some light.

But that won’t happen without very heavy sacrifices: we must be able to forsake our high standard of living and become poor ourselves.

But don’t hold your breeath..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti January 24, 2010 at 16:11

I’m not sold on the “misandry bubble” metaphor.

The dot-com and housing bubbles were a product of the extension of cheap and easy credit to consumers who otherwise couldn’t afford it. As a result, resources were malinvested, an artificial market was developed, and when the consumption that propped up this artificial market topped out, the bubble popped.

So unless you can show men taking out bank loans to “buy”/maintain more and more expensive women (and more and more women being produced and brought into the market because of this high “price”), it seems to me that the metaphor is less than ideal.

But perhaps I am missing something in the argument, and need to be educated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo January 24, 2010 at 16:27

Right now, women are 60% of all college students. They outnumber men 60:40. Even if every single male graduate marries a female graduate, 20 out of 60, or one-third, of all female college graduates will not be able to marry a male graduate in their age group.

In a strange coincidence, homosexuality is now practically part of the curriculum at most US universities. It’s actually a violation of campus codes of conduct to read aloud any verse from the Bible that condemns homosexuality in public at many universities. This is incompatible with the First Amendment, but apparently that Constitution stuff was dropped from the curriculum to make more room for political indoctrination.

Women’s studies professors must be licking their chops at all of the coeds that are coming through their doors. “Lesbian Until Graduation” was a phrase that I never heard twenty years ago. It wasn’t considered to be a normal phase of socialization for women to bed each other in college. The times have indeed changed.

These ladies apparently don’t have very good math skills, or they would realize that one-third of them either must marry a man with less education (and probably less money) than they have, or else they must marry each other. Many of them will be forced to be lesbians long after graduation if they insist on partnering with a fellow college graduate.

If the ongoing marriage strike continues to build momentum, then far more than a third of these women will not be able to have a lifelong marriage to a male graduate. I think that this might be the “needle” that pricks the bubble of misandry. When women realize that they have been deprived of equally educated (and solvent) husbands, they just might reconsider the wisdom of turning our university system into an estrogen ghetto.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Epoche* January 24, 2010 at 16:44

no the bubble bursting is sharia, which I think will occur eventually in western governments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 24, 2010 at 17:02

3) Some country, maybe China, will say “All you American men paying alimony and child support, come to China. We will not extradite you. You can start afresh here. We have job openings in China.” This is assuming these men still have their passports.
I agree with the sentiment, TFH. But China might be a bad example. They’re having a severe wife shortage right now and the natives might not like a bunch of wealthy Yanks coming and taking over the gene pool.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 24, 2010 at 17:07

@nemo:
“If the ongoing marriage strike continues to build momentum, then far more than a third of these women will not be able to have a lifelong marriage to a male graduate. I think that this might be the “needle” that pricks the bubble of misandry. When women realize that they have been deprived of equally educated (and solvent) husbands, they just might reconsider the wisdom of turning our university system into an estrogen ghetto.”

They DO realize it, believe me. Still don’t hold your breath. We will not see that happen in our lifetime.

After that, it’s game over for our good society.

Women KNOW it and yet they don’t care.
So why should we?
Didn’t men create civilization for women? Now, if women don’t want it, then why should we strive to maintain it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
globalman January 24, 2010 at 17:08

Black&German January 24, 2010 at 17:02

Russia. Russia is not going to extradite anyone.

And like I keep saying…alimony and child support is voluntary…you don’t have to pay it anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 24, 2010 at 17:46

Russia is definitely a better destination than China, as Russia has a woman surplus. Then men there drink themselves to death.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Arpagus January 24, 2010 at 18:01

More Men Marrying Wealthier Women. Funny how the article puts all the blame for why this isn’t working on the “insecurity” of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 24, 2010 at 18:06

Some say that there are some women out there who are in support of men.

Well, I will tell you one personal experience that proves, at least in my mind, that ALL women have the deepest contempt for men.

The other day, I was having an (honest) coversation with a woman who has claimed time and again that she was an antifeminist to the core.

When I asked her what she thought about the treatment men receive in divorce cases (loss of children, etc..), she said : “They deserve all of it for the terrible things they have done throughout the ages and that it was about time that men were put in their proper place. What is happening to men is bad for them, but they fully deserve it”

I was taken aback! … And voiceless…

When I say, repeatedly, that men must abandon women, it is somehow related to that incident, which, by the way, was repeated afterwards by other women.

It’s not hate: it’s the deepest imaginable contempt.

The wedge between the genders is stuck in that position. Forget about love, forget about family and most of all, FORGET ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY : to your country, you are nothing more than canon fodder.

Things are now broken beyond repairs. Don’t even try to fix the mess: you would end up in jail. Don’t you know?

The best (and only) thing to do is to let women to their own designs: they see us as animals. Worse: as insects.

They (women) have already gone their own way. We must do the same..or perish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jay Hammers January 24, 2010 at 18:10

Love it.

Also:
“Overproduction and the search for alternatives is another aspect of a bubble.”

Sounds like men need to start going gay!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Novaseeker January 24, 2010 at 18:10

Russia is definitely a better destination than China, as Russia has a woman surplus. Then men there drink themselves to death.

And still get laid, actually.

The advantage Western men offer is not that they are sober, but that they treat women differently from how Russian men treat women, per the equality regime of socialism, which is that women are comrades with vaginas.

I love Russia and I have always been floored by Russian women when I have been there. So fantastically feminine while being professional. They have that down. American women are an either/or thing — or, if they try to transcend, end up being ball-busting bitches that men do not like … whereas Russian women probably get the same umph while managing men better by deploying femininity, instead of kicking a guy in the crotch and laughing at him with her girlfriends.

American women are pretty much worthless, barring a few exceptions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Epoche* January 24, 2010 at 18:17

Jay Hammers, we need to drop the notion that there can be any master plan for attacking feminism. I will follow the words of the german poet lenau in his three gypsies
http://myweb.dal.ca/waue/Trans/Lenau-Zigeuner.html
here is the summary

Threefold the gypsies revealed that day,
how, when one’s life is benighted,
to sing it, to smoke it, to dream it away -
and thrice to detest and deride it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 24, 2010 at 18:28

The New York Time’s Room for Debate series has revisited the topic of Marriage. Yes it’s that same NYT blog where we had a great showing during the last-hurrah months of DGM2.

For this debate they are keying off of that Pew Research Center study that “shows” married men are better off, supposedly due to the wives bringing in extra income.

The topic is called “Alpha Wives: The Trend and the Truth”

http://anonym.to/http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/alpha-wives-the-trend-and-the-truth

The NYT Editor’s ask…

What is the effect of the social shifts on the institution of marriage? And why, as the Pew study detailed, is a smaller proportion of the population getting married in the first place?

The mini-essays making the various points this week are from:

Stephanie Coontz, historian
Claudia Goldin, professor of economics, Harvard
Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School
Andrew J. Cherlin, professor of sociology, Johns Hopkins
Janet Reibstein, author of “The Best Kept Secret”
Kathleen Gerson, professor of sociology, N.Y.U.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Institute for American Values

The topic just got posted 2 hours ago. These usually run their course over 36 hours. I think anyone can comment. Perhaps we should share our unique perspectives with them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 24, 2010 at 19:46

1) All countries (except perhaps America) want high-talent workers.
2) As US power wanes, other countries will get bolder about not complying with the US.
3) Some country, maybe China, will say “All you American men paying alimony and child support, come to China. We will not extradite you. You can start afresh here. We have job openings in China.” This is assuming these men still have their passports.
4) When America whines about China taking in these ‘outlaws’ and demands extradition, China will simply say “Show me where in the US constitution that it says these men should be punished.”.
5) So China gets a large pool of new expertise, who were near-slaves in America.
6) Isn’t that how and why peasant Europeans fled to America in the first place, 100 years ago?

Yes, that is how many Europeans came to America. While I’m not sure China is a good candidate since they already have a male-female ratio problem and China has several structural problems that are going to come to a head soon, there are other countries that I could see doing this. Japan is one possibility as their population is shrinking, and the northern half of the country is fairly empty. Russia is another strong possibility. They have more women than men and a shrinking population as well. Not only could I see Russia encouraging American (and other Western) men to migrate there, but Russia might even set up some sort semi-autonomous region for Western men to migrate to. In addition to the shrinking population, Russia has the problem of keeping people in Siberia. This problem is particularly pronounced in the Russian Far East where they have a massive illegal immigration problem from China. I could see Russia setting up this semi-autonomous region to kill multiple birds with one stone. This would mean moving to Siberia, but as things get worse for men in the West, Siberia will start looking better and better.

So unless you can show men taking out bank loans to “buy”/maintain more and more expensive women

Take a look at the Century 21 commercial I embedded. Men have been taking out larger and larger mortgages to satisfy women like the man in the commercial who was browbeaten into buying a house he knew was a bad idea. Even engagement rings could be an example as this requires a “loan” typically from a credit card.

(and more and more women being produced and brought into the market because of this high “price”),

What about men bringing in foreign women? Or men who expat? Government has been interfering with men marrying foreign women with IMBRA and the like which falls into the category of government trying to prop up a bubble.

3DShooter January 24, 2010 at 20:38

Not enough time to read through all the comments, so if someone has already made this point my apologies.

While the article was interesting to consider, I think that the misandry phenomena isn’t the real bubble, but rather an artifact of the real bubble. The real bubble is the bubble of government that has grown too large and to bloated – one that has to pander to feminists and other favor seeking factions to maintain its existence. And I for one say let it die and all of the faction reinforcing propaganda it creates.

People need to learn to deal on an individual basis again and to take responsibility for the choices they make. This is a point feminists are loathe to accept because it exposes the hypocrisy of their position. Without gov’t backing their agenda they will sink rapidly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 22:14

I’m not sold on the “misandry bubble” metaphor.

Women are receiving privileges that are unsustainable, but they don’t realize it.
Women receive better treatment than men, but don’t realize it.
Women overrate the market value of themselves and other women, but don’t realize it. Things like a woman getting a ring and bridezilla wedding from the man presume that the WOMAN is making the sacrifice by entering into marriage, which was never the historical norm.
Forces to greatly reduce the power the average women has today, are on the horizon.

Sounds like an inflated sense of unjustified entitlement, about to be popped through a correction in valuation. A bubble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 22:22

EW,

Essentially, consider the treatment women receive today, relative to the treatment men receive today, compared to historical norms, and whether the current level of treatment is sustainable.

Hence, the ‘valuation’ metaphor comes in. A women consuming far more than she is producing, or receiving far more from men than she is doing for them, is analogous to a dot-com with a P/E of 400, or a house that can be rented out for only half of its mortgage rate. Both of these were followed by corrections.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Nutz January 24, 2010 at 22:27

@3DShooter

“People need to learn to deal on an individual basis again and to take responsibility for the choices they make. This is a point feminists are loathe to accept because it exposes the hypocrisy of their position. Without gov’t backing their agenda they will sink rapidly.”

I agree, personal responsibility has gone into the shitter the last 20 years. But the other side of the govt backing special interests is when those rules get applied across the boar it isn’t the feminists that take the fall, but nations as a whole. That’s where things are truly heading IMO. Will it be 20 years or another 200 I have no idea, but it’s quite clear we’re witnessing the decline of American. I fully expect to be paying 50% taxes by the time I’m “retirement age”. I didn’t say retire because I think Gen Xers such as myself will be the ones making the transition to working until they can’t any longer. I’m gonna say it right here that the Gen Yers who are benefiting from all this rampant misandry and budding socialism will never be able retire. When they try to force the govt to let them then it’ll be yet another incremental tax hike. If I had to guess I’d say we’ll be looking at 60% taxes around 2040 or so if we keep going at our current pace.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin January 25, 2010 at 01:06

The bubble is about 200 years old.

Prior to the Married Women’s Property Act of 1848 (UK) women had no legal right to their own posessions in marriage, men always got custody, a woman who left her husband left with the cloths on her back (including jewelry, hence the emphasis on expensive items).

The legal structure gave men all the power in marriage – hence men had an incentive to marry. Female choice was severely limited.

Over the last 200 years we have given women more freedom and more power, to the point where they now have power without responsibility – licence to kill, in fact.

So you can think of it as a bubble in female power.

The reason it is a bubble is because female power isn’t sustainable. Because female power means female choice. And what sort of choices do women make, when they are freed of all consequences?

NOT choices that create a stable, strong, functioning society. Women, as a group, are not rational actors. (Heck, men aren’t either unless they have sense beat into them during early adulthood. I’m wary of giving anyone under forty a vote).

Since its been a long time coming I’m not sure this bubble will pop any time soon.

The eventual answer to a sustainable society is a return to father-custody, to shift the balance of power in relationships and create an incentive for the women to be co-operative. This also ends issues of alimony and child support at one stroke. There is none, because the father is supporting the children, not the mother ( although the father can delegate care of the child to another, even the mother is she is amiable). A return to death-to-us part marriage is not necessarily required ( or desirable) – it is what happens to the kids that matter.

A return to father-custody can only happen if there is a widespread social recognition of the fact that women are not reliably rational decision makers and the legal framework needs to given fathers, not mothers, the upper hand, in order to encourage good behaviour by women.

I don’t see this kind of recognition coming any time soon.

How far away are we from widespread social acceptance of the idea that women cannot be relied on to treat fathers fairly, and the law needs to favour fathers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith January 25, 2010 at 01:22

As I understand it, a moral hazard is a risk of people taking excessive advantage of an option only meant for a drastic situation.

Close, but not quite. Moral hazard exists when a person takes excessive risk but can make someone else pay for part or all of that risk. The most obvious example is insurance of every kind.

Cheap and easy credit creates moral hazard, because if you can’t pay or the value of the collateral dissipates, it’s the lender not the borrower who usually eats the loss.

Women now have much less incentive to avoid pregnancy because child support laws make the man pay even if he’s not her husband. That’s one of the reasons women hate game, they think they’re hitting the jackpot by hooking a rich man’s sperm but it turns out he isn’t rich.

In divorce, the woman isn’t transferring risk to her husband, she’s straight-up stealing from him. That’s an example of perverse incentive, not moral hazard. False rape accusations are another example of perverse incentive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David January 25, 2010 at 02:15

Bob Smith:

Women now have much less incentive to avoid pregnancy because child support laws make the man pay even if he’s not her husband. That’s one of the reasons women hate game, they think they’re hitting the jackpot by hooking a rich man’s sperm but it turns out he isn’t rich.

David: Or putting it in biological (or evol psych) terms, a woman wants to have sex with and perhaps get pregnant by a superior male. What game does, as others have said here I think, is the male equivalent of a woman wearing high heels and lipstick – it helps him fake sexual attractiveness.

As I have said before, we are in an arms race between men and women on faking attractiveness. Women complain that they are competing with gorgeous girls in magazines, but men are now competing with the rich man who owns the magazine. Men have to fake high status.

Evolutionary psychologists have speculated about the adaptiveness of psychopathy in males. Perhaps psychopathy is the ultimate in what Robert Trivers has written about, self-deception. If a man is genuinely convinced that his needs are primary and he has little insight into his own amorality, he could be highly successful in a reproductive sense. And psychopaths are notable for having charm.

It is possible that feminism – by setting the bar higher for men to demonstrate masculinity – is selecting for psychopathy in men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Krauser January 25, 2010 at 02:49

I think you’re on the money here. BTW, I’d dispense with the “I’m not an economist” disclaimer. Most economists are retarded because they study Keynes, Friedman or the like and thus they completely missed the bubble themselves. Six months with the right books is all you need to understand economics better than most professional economists. I think that’s why you find so many MRAs tend to know economic logic and link to the likes of Mises.org

As for the bubble – a few observations:
- The peak of the bubble is characterised by the peak of optimism and confidence in the true believers. It is precisely when women are convinced they’ve “won” that they are all-in and fully invested.
- The speed of the crash is always brutal. Faster than the rise.
- The complete 180 in attitude shocks the believers.
- There’s usually a 50% retracement of the loss (see current stock market) before the long slow grind downwards. There will be a feminist / mangina fightback that will temporarily reverse MRA gains.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Migu January 25, 2010 at 04:36

And those books are as follows

“Human Action, theory of money and credit, and socialism”
all authored by Ludwig Von Mises

Continuing on we have “the mystery of banking” by Murray Rothbard

and who can forget the complete works of Frederic Bastiat. Broken window anyone?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Robert January 25, 2010 at 05:18

The Fifth Horseman January 24, 2010 at 13:17
Another thing I foresee is :

1) All countries (except perhaps America) want high-talent workers.
2) As US power wanes, other countries will get bolder about not complying with the US.
3) Some country, maybe China, will say “All you American men paying alimony and child support, come to China. We will not extradite you. You can start afresh here. We have job openings in China.” This is assuming these men still have their passports.
4) When America whines about China taking in these ‘outlaws’ and demands extradition, China will simply say “Show me where in the US constitution that it says these men should be punished.”.
5) So China gets a large pool of new expertise, who were near-slaves in America.
6) Isn’t that how and why peasant Europeans fled to America in the first place, 100 years ago?

EXCELLENT POINT! Our forefathers fled England to escape criminalization. I wonder how they would feel is they were to return to modern day america.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 25, 2010 at 06:44

The problem is that feminism is spreading quickly across the globe. Soon there will be nowhere to run to.

The problem with Russia and Central Europe will be the Muslim men are slowly spreading and taking over the countries.

When I asked her what she thought about the treatment men receive in divorce cases (loss of children, etc..), she said : “They deserve all of it for the terrible things they have done throughout the ages and that it was about time that men were put in their proper place. What is happening to men is bad for them, but they fully deserve it”

That’s terrible. It’s like the old “Where’s my 40 acres and a mule?”

And I wonder about her use of the term “proper place”. You guys complain about religiosity, but you must admit that when there is no religion, you leave the definition of “your place” to women. Without religion there is a true leadership and morality vacuum.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 25, 2010 at 07:36

Well said B & G. Religion, however; need not be of the prescription type. I was raised catholic, and for the most part I just listen what Jesus said, not those claiming to represent him.

Funny thing is Jesus, Mohamed, Krishna, and Buhda all the said the same thing. “Be good to your fellow man.” I don’t think we need to define good here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 25, 2010 at 08:12

That NYT piece cited by Puma had some interesting takes.

One of the authors basically said he thinks that the black community is the canary in the coal mine about what lies ahead for marriage given the educational and earning disparities.

Another female commentator said that the issue is that highly educated women simply will not respect men who are their “lessers”, and that because male status is based primarily on one’s job, this bodes ill for the vitality of marriages for this set moving forward.

Perhaps the best comment noted that in the far larger demographic group of men and women without a college degree, marriage is basically dead — so that all of the posturing among the elites about egalitarian marriages and so on among highly educated people is missing the main story that for most of the population, marriage as an institution is already virtually dead.

A good read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 25, 2010 at 08:38

Some mockery is used to diminish an opponent in your mind and get you psyched-up for a fight.
Sometimes mockery is the noisy celebration of victory after the battle.

There is no misandry “bubble.”

Only the mocking of a once imposing, now fallen foe.
Dancing Nazis in a Mel Brooks farce.

It’s the cheer of celebration.
Who has balls to fight them

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pointer January 25, 2010 at 09:16

There is no equivalent to inflation in the misandry bubble so the “price” women are demanding from men must by definition collapse to where it was before.

Wouldn’t you say a comparable (albeit today unlikely) form of inflation on the dating market is the decimation of male population through war? As The 5th Horseman points out (I think) in his treatment, this was arguably a factor in the post-WWII marriage and baby boom and ensured men were respected by women.

That is, the current unusually even sex ratio (1:1) contributes to the misandry bubble. By comparison, you could argue that black males in the US command respect from black women in part due to the scarcity of eligible males (incarceration, high youth mortality).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 25, 2010 at 09:46

Good point, Pointer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 10:02

Pointer,

Well, societies with 1:1 or worse male ratios (China, India) still don’t have misandry. Misandry is a byproduct of the laws and media climate, which partly has gained strength due to lack of opposition on the part of men. Men (whiteknights, etc.) are almost as much to blame for misandry as women are.

Sex technologies do lower the market position of women, however, due to the same ratio-adjusting effect (particularly by increasing the supply of the equivalent of all-too-rare 9s and 10s).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 25, 2010 at 10:11

That is, the current unusually even sex ratio (1:1) contributes to the misandry bubble. By comparison, you could argue that black males in the US command respect from black women in part due to the scarcity of eligible males (incarceration, high youth mortality).

Actually I think that the *effective* sex ratio is lower than that, when you take out males who are out of the pool (gays, inmates, other undesirables) and factor into the equation hypergamy as this plays itself out in a context where women are 60% of college grads. I think this low effective sex ratio is what helps to support the free-for-all sexual market today long past college (in college it’s even more firmly entrenched).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Nemo January 25, 2010 at 12:15

Hmmm … during WWII, tens of millions (perhaps as many as 20 million) mostly male soldiers died defending the Soviet Union.

Potential husbands were pretty scarce after 1945.

Today, women in Russia are notably more respectful of men and more willing to accentuate their femininity than Western chicks.

Strangely enough, we may have Adolf Hitler to thank for the niceness of Russian women today. I suppose every cloud, even the darkest cloud ever seen, has a silver lining for someone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 09:41

Nemo January 25, 2010 at 12:15

Hmmm … during WWII, tens of millions (perhaps as many as 20 million) mostly male soldiers died defending the Soviet Union.

True, but Louie B. Mayer and Steven Spielberg et al
didn’t make movies about those guys,
so they don’t count.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 09:59

””””” black males in the US command respect from black women in part due to the scarcity of eligible males (incarceration, high youth mortality).””””””””””””

Respect?

Naaa more like black males are kitchen bitches to black woman. No respect. They are forced to work at kitchen duty since birth in single mother households.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 10:02

A strong man tends to change the equation though. It is all about what you are willing to put up with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TDOM January 26, 2010 at 22:43

“The fundamental value of women has not increased. Women aren’t becoming more beautiful, or smarter, or better cooks, or better girlfriends, etc. By any metric you wish to use, women are not improving. ”

I would disagree. Women have gotten better. They have gotten educated. This makes them far more marketable and far more valuable. Men simply have not kept up. Women are achieving economic independence and no longer need men. Single parenthood is acceptable to them. As long as they have the courts on their side, they can have their cake and eat it to. Mothers can out-earn fathers and still take a large part of the father’s income thereby keeping men as a slave underclass. the rich have done this to the poor for years. The difference now is that women are the new rich and men are the new poor. There will be no incentive for women to marry a man who can’t contribute more to a household than he consumes, not when she can force his contribution while denying consumption.

“In the longer term, alternatives will include virtual reality sex, sex bots, and artificial wombs.”

Women won’t care whether men turn to alternative means to sex. They will bid good riddance. The technology already exists to produce sperm from female stem cells, though it cannot yet produce a child. This will occur before the development of an artificial womb. When it does, men will be obsolete and women will have no further use for us. It will also mean that any children produced in this manner will be female as female cells contain no Y chromosome. This will skew the birthrates resulting in a drastic reduction of the male population. Endgame. Women win.

Several “second wave” feminist writers advocted that the male popuation be controlled and maintained at around 10% of the population for reproductive purposes. When this occurs, they won’t even need that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
David January 27, 2010 at 01:00

Black&German:

“You guys complain about religiosity, but you must admit that when there is no religion, you leave the definition of “your place” to women.”

David: I think the answer to most of the problems discussed here would be a mass conversion to traditional Catholicism. It would solve the low birthrate problem and the feminism problem.

Oddly enough, I said something similar to my wife not half an hour ago, about the need for men to tell women their place. We were discussing an article in a prominent Australian women’s magazine, in which a conservative male politician is interviewed about his feelings about women. I haven’t read the article, but my wife’s reaction suggests that his views resemble mine – robustly conservative.

Like me, he makes almost no concessions to feminism.

I have a strong suspicion that reading the article intrigued her and the politican (Tony Abbott) resembles me in some ways. Among other things he is a socially conservative Catholic.

I remember reading an article in a British women’s magazine (Nova, I think), which said that men had lost their nerve in the face of women. This was in about 1970. The authoress seemed a bit sad about it, but of course things have only become worse since then. We have seen recently where the modern British girl has ended up – panties around her ankles in public.

I notice that the rare male public figure who actually stands against feminism gets a lot of public respect, even from women. I think they find it “cute”, in a good way. Intriguing.

My wife, at least, rather likes me defining her role. I suspect that many women ache for male authority to define them. The Catholic Church is notorious for telling women what they are and what to do, but it does not seem to affect its popularity among women.

If one believes, as I do in a sense, that spiritually woman was made for man, it is natural that a woman would want to be given her role by a man.

Modern women are less happy than before precisely because no man in authority has told them what to do with their lives. So they slut it up while they can and then make worse and worse decisions as they got older.

On TDOM’s remarks, I can only say that women will always need men for one thing – invention. If men suddenly disappeared, women would regress to a very low and painful level of civilisation. Even feminist writer James Tiptree Jr (her pseudonym) realised this and wrote a story “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?”, in which there is a woman-only society. To quote Wikipedia:

“Technology, and science and culture in general, seems to be relatively unadvanced considering the long period of time that has elapsed. Even while playing chess with the Gloria’s senior member, it is noted that only one new opening has been developed in 300 years.”

That sounds highly plausible. And it is not just technical inventions that men create – it is social inventions. Men literally and figuratively create the structures in which women live. Modern women show little gratitude for this, but I must agree with globalman that in this regard at least women are like children. Children show little gratitude.

Women are good at following men into new fields, but they rarely invent anything new themselves, and I doubt that they could maintain the current level of technology. I think that after about a month, women would be communicating using tin-cans and string.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 27, 2010 at 01:20

I notice that the rare male public figure who actually stands against feminism gets a lot of public respect, even from women. I think they find it “cute”, in a good way. Intriguing.

My wife, at least, rather likes me defining her role. I suspect that many women ache for male authority to define them. The Catholic Church is notorious for telling women what they are and what to do, but it does not seem to affect its popularity among women.

If one believes, as I do in a sense, that spiritually woman was made for man, it is natural that a woman would want to be given her role by a man.

Modern women are less happy than before precisely because no man in authority has told them what to do with their lives. So they slut it up while they can and then make worse and worse decisions as they got older.
@David
__

Good points buddy!

I think you will find this interesting and pertaining to what you say -

Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature

OTOH, White women seem to have so much greater freedom than Hispanic women, but they seem to be so much more miserable! It’s like the more freedom you give women, the less happy they are, and the more they complain about Male Rule.

Even when the women are in charge, increasingly the case nowadays, the women keep complaining about the Patriarchy. As Female Rule deepens, the women get angrier and angrier (paradoxically as they get more and more rights and power!) and become more and more masculine. This upsets Nature, and Nature doesn’t tolerate defiance. She demands balance, just like in the forests and jungles.

As the women get increasingly masculine, the males will have to become increasingly feminine to compensate and create the Balance of Nature. As women become increasingly masculine, they get more and more unhappy, because it violates women’s own nature. On some level, the female organism knows that acting masculine is fucked up, and this throws the organism into disarray.

Of course, as males become increasingly feminine, they get more and more miserable too, because femininity violates man’s own nature. So you end up with Northern California White People, where even the straight people act like queers and dykes.

It follows from this scenario that you would see increasing situational and opportunistic homosexuality in both sexes. As males feminize, they engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality. As females masculinize, they also engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality.

As Female Rule deepens, women will increasingly reject persistent marriage and raise fatherless men. Once again, a violation of Nature. Nature demands that both males and females have fathers. Nature punishes those who defy her.

She punishes fatherless males by turning them into criminals who lash out at the World As Surrogate For Missing Father. She punishes fatherless females by turning them into sluts, trying to screw their way to Daddy’s Missing Love.

Both criminals and sluts are often unhappy, probably because most men are not supposed to be criminals and most women are not supposed to be sluts. Both criminals and sluts frequently lead at least difficult and often tragic lives.

Women can have power, but only if they either don’t upset Male Rule or at least only try to be equal. …

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/female-rule-violates-the-laws-of-nature/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
TDOM January 27, 2010 at 05:59

@David

I can see where progress might slow or stop, but I don’t see any regression happening. Even if women don’t invent much new technology, they will survivie on what is currently available. However, one reason women haven’t invented much is that they haven’t yet infiltrated the STEM industries. That’s why they are pushing more young women to take math and science courses. Men and women’s mental abilities are more alike than they are different, so while there may not be as many women who can do these jobs as there are men, there will be some. They won’t have to invent new technology, they will only need to maintain what is already there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 27, 2010 at 15:09

TDOM, everything you suggest is pure supposition. There is no reason to think that women are suddenly going to become technically inventive. There have been no barriers to women patenting for many decades, and they don’t. In fact, it is one of the strongest and most reliable of all sociological observations – that 99% of inventors are men.

I’ll say it again, because it bears repetition. It is the height of bad manners for feminists to give men no credit for creating entire fields, and to claim that – given the chance – they will be just as good as the men. It is just vain boasting.

A classic example is the recent government diktat in France that 40% of all board members in French companies shall be women. These are companies created and built by the efforts of men. Once they are a success, women want in, and they want in purely because they are women. It is disgraceful when you think about it.

I now routinely assume that any senior woman in business has achieved her status through affirmative action.

If they are so damn smart, why do they not create their own companies? I think we all know the answer to that one.

With a very few exceptions, women aren’t suited to or needed in STEM. They are better off being good wives and mothers, supporting men in STEM. That has worked well in the past, and still works well in Asia.

As Dr Johnson said, “clear your mind of cant.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
CrisisMaven February 4, 2010 at 05:33

Interesting points of view … however, on one I beg to differ: while railway and dotcom bubbles may have created “value” somewhere that is, like Potemkin villages, no end in itself, as there are as a rule more assets destroyed or squandered elsewhere than are gained by irrational bubbles. Of course, after the, in hindsight, ineconomic expenses have been made, the structures that were created are then sometimes used. But it’s more like you wanted to by a fork, bought a spoon instead, now have no more money left, so in future, until your finances recover, you eat your salad with a spoon. But that never makes it a prudent investment with regard to the intended use. By the way, I have just added a Reference List to my economics blog with economic data series, history, bibliographies etc. for students & researchers. Currently over 200 meta sources, it will in the next days grow to over a thousand. Check it out and if you miss something, feel free to leave a comment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Stu August 28, 2010 at 18:18

I don’t agree that if women took over everything that there would not be regression. There would be regression and women would not be able to maintian current technological or social standards. Their influence is already having negative affects. Innovation has dropped with more and more women in universities and with degrees. In society……have a look at the laws they make…..they have practically thrown out the US constitution and replaced it with misandrist laws that are purely based on self proclaimed victim status and emotional rubbish. The greatest most advanced civilisation ever to exist……and all built by men……is crumbling. This is also the civilisation that created the most privledged, pampered human beings ever to have walked the earth…..the western women. No human being ever walked the earth that had higher standards of living……less responsibility…..or more rights. Nearly all high IQ……over 130 points…..are men…….this is not a product of education as education can not increase IQ……this is a product of biology. IQ determins what level of education can be attained by an individual………not the other way around. I can teach a monkey to ride a bike….drive a car…..communicate with sign language etc etc etc. But those monkeys will never be able to build a bike…..mine the metals required……fix a car……etc etc. They can only do the things they can do because someone else provided them with the tools……and the know how…….and they won’t maintain that past maybe one generation once the people providing those things are gone.

Besides…….problems arise……new problems……hurricans…..earthquakes……..new diseases……pestilence…..etc…….men manage those things with their inventivness just as much as with their brute force. A world with out men or with too few men would regress all the way back to the stone age.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous June 30, 2011 at 18:31

I read the original long essay and found it fascinating, particularly the Four Horsemen of the “Fem-pacalypse”. I’ll comment on the first 2:

1: the proliferation of “game”. Learning game is like learning any performing art. This item is not the game changer because as more adept betas learn game, the alphas will simply improve on theirs. It’s like anyone can learn to play guitar, but there’s only one Jimmy Page. It raises the stakes instead, locking out middle of the road betas on down. All it does is make a man shortage, but not severe enough. See African Americans about an insufficient man shortage.

2: the proliferation of sex simulation. THIS is the game changer. Why? As the better betas are priced out by new improved alphas, they will join everyone else already priced out. This creates a severe man shortage. When “Fuku Sheila” (a play on a nuke plant’s name) for the X-Box comes out, the priced-out anything but alphas will buy it up, except possibly disinterested omegas. Why pay $500/month in alimony when for $300 one time only you can get a Perfect 10 that you align in the game?

Only the top of the line real women will ever get sex since lesser alphas on down can get a virtual reality harem of 72 perfect 10 virgins. This might slow terrorism even! And if the AI virtual woman acts up, just hit delete.

With the technology of interactive porn, there will be a lot of sex starved women as real women can’t compete with virtuality adopted by men who just gave up.

3: expatriation of high-end alphas. Some will “pull the ejection seat lever” on America, but that’s an option for few. A lot of high-end alphas will too much like the easy sex with the top of the line perfect 10 of the perfect 10 women.

So, put on the sensation suit and VR goggles and enjoy… (and let sex starved women try to hit on you to no avail…)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 7 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: