Recently I wrote a post for my blog called “Facilitating Shaming Language” that among others things talked about a particular case of shaming language being used. Here is part of a response that I received:
I’m sorry your mother didn’t love you. I hope you get help.
I just wrote a post about shaming language and how do my detractors respond? With even more shaming language. This is not an atypical response. The Exposing Feminism blog which hosts a copy of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics received a similar response to the catalog from women that was also even more shaming language.
This tells us something important about shaming language. It is repetitive. While a user of shaming language might try to justify shaming language by claiming your behavior is “shameful”, the fact is shaming language can not be used to speak about your actual behavior. The user of shaming language is just repeating the same thing over and over again with slightly different wording despite being exposed as ignoring facts. It means that the user of shaming language is creating a strawman and not addressing their opponent’s ideas.
The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics exists because of shaming language’s repetitiveness. We get told the same things over and over again. You have a small penis. You are angry. You make me feel afraid. You’re a coward. You won’t grow up. You’re gay. You need therapy. Man up, etc. Sure it may be worded somewhat differently, all shaming language is saying the same thing. There are many ways to say, “you won’t grow up”, but it’s all the samel.
What we can learn from this is that we should not fear shaming language. It does not and can never describe our actions or behavior. The use of shaming language means by definition that our opponents have no real argument against us. If they had a real argument against us, they would use it instead of shaming language. Shaming language is the refuge of those who want to shut down legitimate debate and men who bring up reasonable questions and concerns.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
The counter tactic of the shaming language is the following: Just ignore it, concentrating the facts. Ignore is a very powerful weapon, if used properly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree. Ignore it. It’s only purpose is to disrupt you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had a pretty unruly, and abusive female employee who used to throw shaming language at me when she could not get her way.
Knowing what is was and how to deflect it was very powerful. In fact, she grew frustrated and left my office due largely to her lack of what she thought was power to browbeat.
Shaming language is a tactic of the female bully. Once you learn to deflect or ignore it, it is useless against you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The trouble is, what about males who have been exposed to such language since childhood and allow it to affect every fiber of their being? We may know what to do to protect ourselves but how do we help them recover?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree just ignore shaming, or ask what’s having a small dick got to do with it, stupid!!
But women and manginas have a three wise monkey attitude to the so called fairer sex. So determined they are to maintain the princess, sugar n spice myth that no woman can do wrong. Its the biggest gravy train they have got.
They see no evil hear no evil speak no evil, where women are concerned.
Absolutely SICK
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another thing, shaming language has always been a tactic of the political left,it is a tactic to end your debate or another way of saying SHUT UP!!! you racist, sexist, anti-semite etc etc etc
Leftist love to dictate not debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just stick to the arguments, the facts. We may never win over whoever is shaming us, but there are always bystanders willing to see the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shaming language also seems to be universally programmed in feme-sluts and manginas everywhere. I recently got into a debate with a mangina about what the bible really says and how it tells women to submit to their husbands. I quoted many passages and his only response was “You just hate women.” I replied that I don’t hate women, just feminism, to which he said “Shut up and man up!” as if that was the end all argument. How stupid is that?! I called him a mangina and told him that if he wanted to have a real logical discussion to find me but i wasnt going to listen to stupidity. Isn’t it a fucking shame that a majority of men have stuck themselve in such bondage?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The women who continuously use this tactic demonstrate their lack of creativity and predictable stupidity by engaging in shaming language. Ignoring the stupidity only incenses them further. Or to the ‘small penis’ insult one could respond like:
“You’ve got a small brain because that’s only about the millionth time I’ve heard a woman try that tactic, so we’re even”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A better way is to quit arguing.
Just drop the conversation , turn around and happily walk away: you just avoided a huge trap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is useful to link to the “The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics”, which is one of the most useful documents written for men, and point the color the shamer is using. You can add some comment like “I see you are so original”.
“The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics” is one of the most useful documents written for men and I would like to have in the Spearhead site. Until I read it, I didn’t realize how common shaming language is and how often women use it. Even my mother uses once and again. Being able to detect it and deal with it is the only step needed to avoid being manipulated by it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s repetitive in the sense that shaming for women is like breathing.
They learn it at the feet of their mothers and hone it through their femicentric educational system. Teachers constantly shame boys and the girls simply absorb the techniques as it works well with the conditioned males.
Women are unaware that they do it in response to just about everything a man does. Takes years for the males to even recognize that they have been programmed to accept it.
The implicit threat in shaming is that the woman will have a meltdown if the man does not comply. Since no male is interested in being subjected to such a hideous spectacle, they almost always give in. So it works well for women and they wield it constantly.
It is the fundamental bedrock of feminism. It is the special tool for corporate fems that no male would inflict on them. I have been subjected to it in the army, in the corporation, dealing with neighbors, retail clerks, on ad infinitum, ad naueseum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By the way, that photo of the girl shaming the dog is classic.
I think I dated that chick once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Any male who doesn’t expect shaming language
– and ANY other weapons –
used against him in battle,
is an utter fool unworthy of salvage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Funny thing is, women can’t get enough shaming in the sack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
speaking of SHAME
why the hell aren’t the RECENT articles viewable in the forum
men are supposed/ostensibly the best compugeeks and masters of the internetz, yet all we’re left with is this white page of death.
enable The Blue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is something that should be archived;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkVWz0uXiEA
All 1/6 .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Firepower
Welmer is still busy with his children, and meantime he’s working on the new system of the site- give him some time, i’m sure he will find the solution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is where you can download free software to download youtube videos. They can be burned to CD-R after saving them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is the link to CNET.COM where you can download free and clean software to download youtube videos.
The software is free.
http://download.cnet.com/YouTube-Downloader/3000-2071_4-10647340.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://download.cnet.com/YouTube-Downloader/3000-2071_4-10647340.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ignoring it is always an option, but there are so many ways to handle this once you identify it for what it is. The problem with using the same thing over and over is it exposes you to ambush. So why not make a sport of it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For example, if someone shames you by saying your mother must have never loved you, post back like you are serious asking why someone would say such hurtful things about someone just because they disagreed with you. I think we all know people who were mistreated by their parents. Is your friend who went through this awful experience somehow less of a person in this poster’s eyes? You are glad he doesn’t frequent this site because after years of therapy he is finally putting his life back together.
Same works if they call you gay, ugly, etc. Stand up for the downtrodden!
Or if they say you must have a small penis because you argued x, agree and amplify. Thank them for pointing this out, and say that because of their helpful insight you realize that you were about to argue Y until your small penis ruined everything.
These folks are so easy to mock or really shame back I think most people decide it isn’t worth the trouble. But it is great sport and it really disarms those for whom this is their only debating tool. Others will realize what they were doing and counter with a real argument, which is good too. We might learn something from that kind of exchange.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welmer, and everybody, they tell me there is a crisis in ‘femicide’….
This is worthy of a front page post…. check out this link…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/07/asylum_system_may_open_door_for_femicide_survivors.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The deathly fear of shaming language is the reason Republicans and Conservatives will rush to support any and all leftism as long as it is packaged as ‘chivalry’, the opponents of which are ‘misogynists’.
The left can get Republicans to support socialism and government expansions endlessly through chivalry-baiting shaming language.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So what is the best way to counter shaming language in an in-person setting?
Explain why ‘you only use this because you know you are wrong’ is not as effective against beings that never give importance to logic in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
post back like you are serious asking why someone would say such hurtful things about someone just because they disagreed with you.
I disagree, that makes you look weak. Appealing to the other side to ‘not be cruel’ will only make them want to do more.
You have to fight back in a way that disarms them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Proper response to something like that, to women and manginas alike, goes something like this:
“How cute. You actually believe that’s a valid form of debate.
So anyway…”
It’s a way of putting the spotlight on your ignoring/dismissing out of hand what they just said while at the same time staying on topic.
The best way to debate a feminist, or anyone for that matter, is sticking to the topic at hand. Do not let them troll you into debating their red herrings, straw man arguments, and ad hominems. Simply ignore them and stay on point. When they cannot argue the facts and their shaming attempts/logical fallacies fall on deaf ears, they’ll simply resign from the argument because the fluff tactics they use doesn’t stand up to cold hard facts and logical debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Proper response to something like that, to women and manginas alike, goes something like this:
“How cute. You actually believe that’s a valid form of debate.
So anyway…”
It’s a way of putting the spotlight on your ignoring/dismissing out of hand what they just said while at the same time staying on topic.
The best way to debate a feminist, or anyone for that matter, is sticking to the topic at hand. Do not let them troll you into debating their red herrings, straw man arguments, and ad hominems. Simply ignore them and stay on point. When they cannot argue the facts and their shaming attempts/logical fallacies fall on deaf ears, they’ll simply resign from the argument because the fluff tactics they use doesn’t stand up to cold hard facts and logical debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, when they get nasty with ad hominems replace “How cute” with “Classy” said in a condecending/sarcastical tone and continue as described above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@TFH
I disagree, that makes you look weak. Appealing to the other side to ‘not be cruel’ will only make them want to do more.
You missed the pivot. You point out what they did and then show how hurtful this would be to someone else. Make that someone else a woman if need be. First challenge them on why they would say such a thing over a simple disagreement. Then draw a portrait of a sympathetic figure and show how such cruelty would harm them. This is childs play, but it works because they see themselves as the protectors of the week. When you turn the tables on them and show them to be exploiting some hypothetical victim, they are crushed. You assume that because you wouldn’t be phased by this they won’t either. But you have to remember their own self identity script.
People who see themselves as protectors as gays will call you a homo to win an argument. Just turn this around on them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“How cute. You actually believe that’s a valid form of debate.
So anyway…”
That is good. Especially if you replace ‘cute’ with ‘classy’ when countering an older whiteknight man who is shaming you for not marrying and buying a house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
post back like you are serious asking why someone would say such hurtful things about someone just because they disagreed with you.
I disagree, that makes you look weak. Appealing to the other side to ‘not be cruel’ will only make them want to do more.
You have to fight back in a way that disarms them.
________________________________________________
Yes. Ignoring it is a terrible solution because you have allowed them to utter the last word and the one who utters the last word is the one who sticks in people’s mind. Appealing to their humanity is another useless solution because they have already written you off as a barbarian for questioning their personal experience/feelings of women and they will exploit your weakness to further undermine their enemy (you).
People watching this exchange will not reward the one who makes sense or uses logic, they will reward the one who exposes the other’s weakness and hypocrisy through verbal combat.
Anyone who suggests ignoring the mangina opponent’s personal attacks without a counter-attack or who suggests appealing to the opponent for responsible dialogue when they have already used shaming language has no idea and/or little experience in battle. And yes, this is a battle for hearts (application of verbal pain) first, and minds (logic, rationality and explanation) second.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The next question of course is how do we turn the weapon around. How do you shame a feminist? Obviously criticize physical appearance, sexual frustration, looks, slutiness. What else. We need a repertoire of feminist shaming tactics. Its not enough to learn your enemies tactics…you have to use the tactics against them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dalrock, your approach doesn’t work. You approach relies on the delusion that people know who they are and that their actions and principles are always 100% consistent with the image they hold of themselves. People, both manginas and 99.9999% of women, are walking contradictions and live thier lives without ever questioning their cognitive dissonance.
Only women can get away with the “I am a sympathetic victim deserving of your protection and to not do so should fill you with shame” Men, by design, protect women, they do not protect each other and women certainly do not have any instinctual desire to protect men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“What we can learn from this is that we should not fear shaming language.”
Especially from old crow neighbours who inquire wether you’re gay because there is no reason for a good looking man to keep to himself. What’s even worse, one of the harpies have full knowledge of the drama i had with an ex yet claim that was a while ago.
You have a small penis= slut
You’re angry= won’t put up with her shit
You make me feel afraid= my pussy tingle by your dominance
You’re a coward= finger bang me in public
You won’t grow up= i’m jealous you have a life/hobbies
You’re gay= why’re you not salivating over me?
You need therapy= i can’t manipulate you
Man up= please put me in my place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, on the internet it’s really easy to ignore shaming language; you just don’t respond to the post of the person. Or at least the shaming part of the post.
In person, you’re in a bit more of a bind. I think Roissy wrote a blog post about how to handle women’s shit tests. After all, what is shaming language from a woman but a shit test? He explained the three major tactics:
Agree and Amplify (A&A)
Reframe and Redirect (Rf&Rd)
Ignore and Switch (I&S)
The key to all three would be maintaing a calm attitude, cocky/funny, and positive energy.
So let’s try this out:
A&A:
That’s OK, I was only planning on doing you in the ass.
Rf&Rd:
It only seems that way because you’re so fat.
……
Rf&Rd:
You’re only bitter because you’re so fat.
A&A:
That puppy I ran over this morning wasn’t afraid…
Rf&Rd:
The only thing you should be afraid of is getting more fat.
Rf&Rd:
You’re right, clearly, unlike you, I’m scared of getting fat.
Rf&Rd:
Why can’t you stop your ass from growing?
Rf&Rd:
You’re fat.
Rf&Rd:
You need a diet.
Rf&Rd:
I like the way your cheeks jiggled when you said that. Very cute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You approach relies on the delusion that people know who they are and that their actions and principles are always 100% consistent with the image they hold of themselves.
Quite the opposite. I must be doing a terrible job of explaining what I mean. Here is an example:
Dalrock: I think we shouldn’t require men who were cuckolded to pay child support.
Aging Feminist: I’m sorry your mother didn’t love you. I hope you get help.
Dalrock: I’m really astounded that you would use such a statement because you disagree with someone’s point. You may think saying such things is a clever way to debate someone and that it is all quite funny. But such people exist and deserve better than the unkindness you offer. My wife is a teacher and has also volunteered in a shelter for abused children. These kids aren’t a punchline, they are real human beings who suffer unimaginable hurt. I’m guessing you didn’t consider this in your rush to score debating points, but people who endured just such abuse may be silently reading these comments. Please try to consider the feelings of others before making statements like this in the future.
Furthermore, by insulting me instead of offering your best explanation of why I’m wrong, you have deprived me of the opportunity to better understand why we disagree. I can’t learn anything from someone who decides to simply call me names.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the record everything I said in that example is true. My wife is a teacher, and she did volunteer in a children’s shelter. And anyone who would diminish the kind of pain caused by parental cruelty in order to win an argument is despicable.
I make it a point to draw on real experiences in this kind of situation, and I would suggest others do the same. When you think about what this scumbag is doing in the context of a real person it will piss you off and make it easer for you to express real indignation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Dalrock:
Mistake #1- believing that any progress can ever be made with an aging feminist. #1a- believing that well-supported arguments or indisputable facts will have any effect on her position. They won’t. But feel free to verify this for yourself.
Mistake #2- allowing her to control the frame (see Peter’s post above). SHE has crowbared YOU from discussing forced child support of another man’s offspring and sent you merrily down the path of defensiveness. Things are different on-line than in person (Where the “I think the way your cheeks jiggle when you get mad is cute!” type of response might work better, especially with an audience of other women present) . I’d have probably gone with something ~”Wow. Who can argue with logic like that?!!! Clown.” Then ignore everything she posts from then on and just write to the others viewing the thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve used this tactic and it works extremely well. You are assuming Aging Feminist is like you, and will blow past it. She won’t. She sees herself as the keeper of all wisdom and empathy. To many others make the mistake of assuming this can’t be true because it is so laughably false. So they never call liberal hypocrites out on their BS. But when you do it works really well.
Also, the logical people are probably already on your side. You need to sway the emotional ones. She tried to marginalize me with her comment. I turned it around and made her look like a monster (because she is). Whether she understands this is actually immaterial. The emotional ones will take a strong dislike to her and not be nearly as open to her opinions. Meanwhile I’m the nice guy asking if we can’t stop picking on poor defenseless kids and get back to the debate (which I do in my next post).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And the beauty of it is it never gets old. They will mix it up as is discussed above, but it is all the same crap. They want to attack you mercilessly, so they forget they have to watch their step. No one ever calls them on it so they get even worse. So when they throw a big rock at you, step to the side and let it hit the defenseless young woman seated behind you. Then ask why they would ever do such a thing to this nice young lady?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mistake #1- believing that any progress can ever be made with an aging feminist. #1a- believing that well-supported arguments or indisputable facts will have any effect on her position. They won’t. But feel free to verify this for yourself.
But I’m not trying to change her position. I’m trying to change the position of the people reading the blog. I thought this was a given.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is why I created the trollkingdom. Ive heard this shit since I was about 2 years old. I don’t know everything about cognitive dissonance, but I know alot. The best course I have found is to question everyhting and look at the world through a dynamic instead of emotive perspective. Ive thought that us men might be more emotional than women and women are definately more sexual. Most shaming language is an appeal to emotion. It is also an appeal to be disposable, and it is also a shit test. How do feminists get manginas to support all these laws, they appeal to their protective insitnct by blowing it way out of proportion. Basically they say this, 99.99% of females are raped, be a good man and save all these females. And Biden passed VAWA.
I don’t know how many times I have heard something like this, before the age of 18, :
Like, “don’t you have a mother, would you say that about her or to her face. Would you want your mother raped/abuse/[insert appeal to male defense/disposability mechanism here]….” I have hear my own mother, a radical feminist, say this to me. I have also hear most teachers, and feminists say this for simply questioning what rape is and what it should be on a legal, moral, philosophical basis.
What is incredibly insidious is how feminists appropriate and colonize masculinity. Who are they to tell me or any other man what is or isn’t masculine or maleness?
http://trollkingdom.blogspot.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve never had any of this shaming language used against me by females(with the exception of my mother lol) but I’m indifferent to anything a female says anyway. Perhaps it’s just a sign of age but I’m really not interested in a female’s opinion on any matter. I’m not interesting in arguing or debating with them either because this is just giving them the atention they crave and I’ve heard anything they have to say a thousand times before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter : So let’s try this out:
You have a small penis.
Yet no man uses the most appropriate response :
“You have a big pussy, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I remember awhile back I was speaking with a feminist and I was talking about single mothers in a pejorative sense. Her response was “well what about the fathers?” I said well, I dont think the emotional needs of lazy sluts is as important as you are making it out to be. Even if you dont get a lazy slut pregnant, you are still going to be taxed to pay for her unwanted bastard kid, in a welfare state single mothers arent responsible for anything except spreading their legs open so lets all spread our legs open and the state will take care of us.
She of course attempted to use shaming language on me, accusing me of being a chauvinist, sexist or a virgin. I countered, Being responsible for a lazy slut that I deliberately choose to avoid associating with, where is the sign up sheet for that!
———————–
Im not sure that this was the greatest example, but I say be uncivil, be rude, be disgusting. Im a big guy so I can get away with a lot of these things, at one point she said Im not used to being talked to like this. I said well youre virgin ears have heard worse and what you are proposing is at least as disgusting as the tone I am using. The solution is to simply talk to them like they are men. If they want to be men, then talk to them like they are men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I remember awhile back I was speaking with a feminist
That’s your first mistake
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Dalrock:
I very rarely engage in conversations online (or otherwise), but what you have been describing is a very similar attack profile I use against Internet denizens, who necessarily have no obligation to be reasonable. An element of emotion must be embedded if you intend to give a response to an emotional argument or shaming language. This can be tricky to do, but a clever and concise response that turns the tables can put both credibility, and most importantly, believability, firmly into your hands.
I used to play World of Warcraft, a place where intelligence and decency in players cannot exist. As such, I was completely socially inactive in the game, but every once in a while a player would address some abuse towards me. The simple fact that I typed with proper sentences and commas/periods immediately gave me the upper hand in credibility, but I also learned a method to completely defuse players’ attacks.
From observing people arguing online, I noticed that both participants seemed to be attempting to convince themselves of the intelligence and purity of their side, and the total lack of same from their opponent. Convinced of their righteousness, both would attempt to, with brute-force, shame each other, however neither would stop trucking along with the argument.
The first thing the opponents will do is mentally convince themselves that the other person is bad, evil, and their enemy. Blame this inclination on too many “good vs. evil” themes in movies, but effectively undermining your opponent’s sense of standing on the side of good will demoralize them and curtail their aggressiveness.
The question is how to do this effectively. Nobody sees themselves as “bad” or “stupid”, and I attempt to formulate a response that by skillful rhetorical framing requires them, as they read and process my statement, to conclude of their own volition that they are being so. Many people feel intellectually and morally justified in hurling abuse if someone is “pissing them off” or being “stupid” or “bad”. When they emotionally and unconsciously sense that they are beneath their opponent in rationality and honor, their resolve will be destroyed.
Often I would say simply nothing when attacked while playing Warcraft (the ignore approach some have promoted), but if I saw a vector for this approach (which wasn’t always present. Playing the game isn’t as complex as real-world topics), I would use it. It is totally not what people expect to hear, and they are left disarmed. Sometimes other players seeing the situation would laugh and respond favorably toward me. Online bystanders are genuinely impressed by a new type of clever ‘come-back’ other than “you suck.” I agree that it is them we wish to appeal to, as has already been said several times in this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I want to add one more thing with regards to my previous post. Depending on the exact situation, if my opponent carries on using emotional tactics, it might not necessarily be bad if they get the “last word.”
For example: The other day I watched a Youtube videoblog from Peter Schiff, a Republican US Senatorial candidate (a constitutionalist, not a fake conservative; he’s just using the vehicle). A commenter suggested that Schiff get in touch with a mother’s group who was against his Republican primary opponent, Linda McMahon (yes, the one of wrestling fame).
You already know exactly what this mother’s group was against: the quaternary effects of wrestling’s transient and tertiary ‘disrespect’ for women.
Peter, like most of his supporters, is unaware of the specifics of feminism, and I took this as an opportunity to mention how amidst the overt environment of violence against men in wrestling, the commenter and this women’s group can only bring themselves to care about how it might affect females. It was a gentle prod toward making him rediscover his objectivity, but I got the full-on mangina treatment.
He straight away attempted to convince himself that I was bad (they always do it!) by asking if I supported the depiction of women on all fours, being called bitches. He asked if this was freedom for women (as if what goes on in a wrestling ring can be an affront to women other than the ones getting paid to do this sort of thing). I was called upon to think of my mother or my sister or my aunt.
I simply responded by agreeing that someone supporting that view would be despicable, but I wanted to know how the hell he can bring himself to worry about the 3 minute video clip he linked of a woman being “degraded”, when I could present the box set of a Smackdown season as a small portion of the evidence for male “degredation” in wrestling. I told him to look at how in other media the vast majority of murder depictions are of men.
In truth, I’m not particularly worried about these having any real effect on crimes against men or women, but I did want to point out how his white-knight position was morally and logically absurd.
His response was an admonition for me to look at the gender composition of boardrooms and that I should be concerned about the wage gap. Totally changed the subject. I decided not to go any further with this fellow.
I had the distinct benefit of the fact that this guy was already antagonistic and irrational with a lot of people in the comments section, so he had already devalued himself massively in the eyes of anyone bothering to go through the comments. I had made my points clearly, and I believe a seed will be successfully planted in the minds of the bystanders, compelling them to at the very least notice the ridiculous lengths we go to if it supposedly benefits women.
He got the last word, but given the specifics of the situation, this was most obviously a win for the MRM.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some men are just as likely to throw insults around as women. Just look around this board. Unless they are females pretending to be males this place is knee deep in guys accusing guys of being “either a mangina or a woman or gay”.
What I find rather strange and VERY P.C is the term shaming language, no insult to the author of this piece but this seems to be the male pc word of the day.
There is a certain type of guy who is not in need of many words, those type are not likely to be posting verbatim on a site like this. They live life, not complain about it.
Other then those types of men, people in general seem to find a need in putting other people down. It’s not a gender thing.
(I’ve also found that women once their kids are grown, and they’ve gotten past menopause sometimes tend to mellow out regarding insulting others.)
But not insulting others is very rare in human nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk. “Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk. “Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
“Men and women don’t live in a vacuum from each other. It’s anathema to our psyches to have no regard for each other. We are programed instinctually by eons of evolution to notice each other, and to want each other’s recognition. ”
Yes, that’s true. But let me put it this way: when the game is rigged, i don’t want to play anymore.
“Relationships are built on shared responsibility. ”
That would be nice, but that’s not the case today.
How old are you, 12? Women don’t love you. They just need resources, that’s all. Your heart has no importance.
could almost ask you the same question. The way you talk it sounds reminiscent of my old school buddies, from when I was a young boy, warning me that girls have that strange affliction known as ‘cooties’.
The way you look at this is so wrongheaded, as to cause me bewilderment. Of course not all women love me. Some do, it depends on the individual person. And, they certainly don’t need any resources from me. If you haven’t noticed women are the majority of degree earners in schools and they are the most employed in the various industries right now. My heart has plenty of importance, both to me and to the people who love me.
menareangrynow
I liked the article and I understand where thehermit and james are coming from. As Paul was saying game is a good tool to weed out the problems. I would love to live in a world where you could just meet a woman win her over with love and respect and her to realise she is getting that from you and then she does her best to please you back. That world doesn’t exist any more. It hurts like hell inside to say that but that is the way it is.
To speak on the subject of Game is good. But to dog someone that uses game or not uses game is something I would not spend to much time doing.
The only Game that a man really ever needed in our bygone society of a more honest era and earnest age, was that Game he got from good parental socialisation and education in a home presided over by his father with his mother as second liuetennant.
It is only because mothers now merely on account of their gender, according to this awfully wicked society, are now entitled to kick out fathers and socially, sexually and economically dominate the family and boys in their fathers enforrced abscence, that GAME ever became topical. Boys are simply adjusting by circumstantial force, to their natural needing to learn how to be men from somewhere. A thing which was once a natural herittable right from their fathers whom as “Fathers” endowed boys with this entitlement as human beings wrought of their own flesh and blood.
But now, whilst this goddammned society of liars and fascists respects the fact that young girls should have the full unimpeded, unfettered access to their mothers from childhood to womanhood, boys on the other hand are to be denied the same rights of presence to and from their fathers. Consequently boys rights to the living presence of fathers in the family home are perpetually erroded away and denuded away as not as important or contary to womens intrests … unlike girls rights to their own mothers which is recognised as important. What a stinking nasty place for inocent boys eh ?
Any man seeing these things and really understanding this dirty, dehumanising society of cynicism and contempt for males, immediately sees and knows that GAME is simply a circumstantial treatment and not a veritable cure to the problems of malign intersexual politics and culture stemming from Genderism.
GAME will not bring up or deliver from evil, ALL our young genderclass brothers and male babies of our own sex born to fatherless homes from boyhood to manhood. Only the total and utter destruction of Genderism and its MALE supporters, suborners and co-conspirators, by a well schooled and politically aware militia will do to clean up /end its contamnation.
You shouldn’t stereotype an entire group of people, especially when you are aware that that’s what you are doing.”
Stereotyping is a form of pattern recognition, which is the basis for most thought. Science breaks all things down into groups and classifications to better understand our complex reality. Should we account for exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Should we ignore the rule because of exceptions? Absolutely not.
Its not like the people here just got screwed over by one women and turned MRA. Most got screwed over repeatedly, or once really hard by our system of laws and government, which are by there nature not “one of a kind” events.
The problem is they frequenly get this wrong, for example by saying over and over as if it were one of Newton’s Laws that females are naturally hypergamous and thus desirous of alpha males. They aren’t. Hypergamy is one of the pillars of patriarchy, it is thus an artificial cultural invention, and we all here know how women hate, resist, and want to undermine it. Everything built on the females-are-hypergamous axiom is going to fail miserably and one would do well to do the reverse of what it suggests doing. Much of what Paul says here supports this.
But the point of Game, which I now call Zeta Game, is in recognizing that while neither sex nor women are scarce
You need to move to where I live, which is right at the intersection of Yahoo-ville and Fugly-ville. I see a woman I might actually want to have sex with about every 3-5 years. This doesn’t mean scarcity increases value, it just means absence causes one to totally eliminate any such considerations from ones consciousness. The very rare occasions then are kinda like finding a $10 bill on the sidewalk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s like when minorities or left-wing liberals use the word ‘racist’ to shut down legitimate discourse on racial issues, especially those thought important to white males.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An alternative is to dismiss what she said out of hand, don’t get caught up in the emotional fencing, and stick to the gd facts. For example:
Femtard: blah blah blah small penis/mother doesn’t love you.
Me: Sticks and stones. Now explain why you disagree.
Short, sweet, and to the point….and forces them to use facts and logic to support their position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder why do men resort to shaming language. It sound like they’re either high and mighty, gay, a woman, la femme, white knightey or what others like to call a mangina.
Everyone has his or her own opinion to express. But sometimes there are those who would cross the line. Hurling insults, rather stating the obvious.
Oftentimes minorities, douche bags, dumb asses, left wing nutjobs, homosexuals and transsexuals would use the word racist just to shut critics up.
Besides, I never use the word racist or race. Even though I’m of a different background. In my opinion only a snot nosed bastard would use the word race and racist out of convenience.
In truth some people never seem to want to take responsibility for their own actions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder why do men resort to shaming language. It sound like they’re either high and mighty, gay, a woman, la femme, white knightey or what others like to call a mangina.
Everyone has his or her own opinion to express. But sometimes there are those who would cross the line. Hurling insults, rather stating the obvious.
Oftentimes minorities, douche bags, dumb asses, left wing nutjobs, homosexuals and transsexuals would use the word racist just to shut critics up.
Besides, I never use the word racist or race. Even though I’m of a different background. In my opinion only a snot nosed bastard would use the word race and racist out of convenience.
In truth, some people never seem to want to take responsibility for their own actions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This IS both important and educational for all non feminists;
http://www.4shared.com/audio/ds4tULRw/CF14.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women who use shaming languages are idiots. It’s that simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Bright Line
Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide . . . greetings!
The talk today has a very simple title. It is called “The Bright Line”.
In this talk, I would like to explain the most damning and revealing thing it is possible to know about feminism. I say damning and revealing, and my choice of words is well considered. It damns feminism not only by revealing its fundamentally damnable nature, but by revealing a principle which infallibly isolates feminism from the rest of the moral universe, and makes it available as a target.
Let me tell you how it is. Feminism offers women a generous system of incentives to indulge their baser human proclivities, but offers little or no incentive in the opposite direction. For you see, If women were held morally accountable to any meaningful extent, especially in their dealings with men, it would set feminism on a slippery slope toward extinction. Call that the executive summary. Now let’s dig into the fine points.
Feminism, as I have explained elsewhere, is built upon a system of manichean essentialism. This, like any kind of manicheism, holds that good and evil are a categorically absolute duality. And like any kind of essentialism, it holds that certain qualities are inherent to an object from the moment of its creation – factory-installed if you will.
Thus, the manichean essentialism of feminism holds that women are categorically good by nature, and men categorically evil. As a principle for daily application, this translates as: men in their essence are morally inferior to women; therefore men are the bad guys when any conflict with women arises.
Now, almost any self-declared feminist would deny that manichean essentialism is a feminist doctrine—and I doubt that you would find it flatly stated anywhere in the allegedly “official” corpus of feminist writings. After all, it’s a nervy thing for even a radical feminist to say! Even Mary Daly doesn’t quite say it unequivocally, and as for Valerie Solanas – well, you know the drill: she’s “not really a feminist”.
So in order to uncloak feminism’s manichean essentialism, you must proceed by reverse investigation from other feminist ideas, or from commonplace feminist behaviors. The presence of such ideas or behaviors will logically signal the existence of a certain prior concept, on the principle that where there is smoke there is fire.
And what we find is, that real-life feminists persistently behave in a style that comports with manichean essentialism—as if this were a motivating subtext at the bottom of all their words and deeds. Listen closely and you will catch the sound of it, like a serpent hissing deep inside the woodpile: “Sssssss! Man bad! Woman good!”
How, for example, to explain the almost unfailing feminist habit of letting women off the hook for nearly any transgression large or small – especially if it gains wide exposure in the media? Such feminist behavior seems to operate with even greater force when the transgression involves a man.
Yes. Feminism, as an ideology and as a movement, must always put women in the right and men in the wrong. And why is this? Because: feminism equals female supremacism. Female supremacism is an objectively real force in the world, a culture virus borne by many people who reveal it in many ways, and whatever you might think feminism is, it can neither exist in moral isolation from the reality of female supremacism, or fail to adopt a consistent moral stance toward that reality.
Manichean essentialism is the metaphysical cornerstone for female supremacism: it is the tiger in the female supremacist tank, and without it, female supremacism wouldn’t travel far at all. And the distillation of female supremacism in practice, is to give women the upper hand over men in every possible situation.
In order to rationalize female supremacism, feminist apologetics begins with a conspiracy theory of history, known as patriarchy theory. According to patriarchy theory, men have always held most of the power on earth, and have employed this power willfully to trap women in a state of subjugation. Patriarchy theory, you would say, is a macro-construct, and yet it purports to explain all of life—even daily life at the micro-level.
Feminism wouldn’t survive long without patriarchy theory because it would need to treat both men and women as individuals with moral agency. If feminist analysis had to factor life in all of its moral complexity and shades of grey, it would never develop enough traction to either make political headway or justify feminism’s existence in the first place.
Luckily, patriarchy theory rides to the rescue and makes life morally simple. Women, we are given to understand, lack equal power under the patriarchy system and so are constantly driven to “game” that system in order to level the playing field and “get their own back”. Thus, according to feminism, every woman becomes a kind of moral Robin Hood on behalf of the sisterhood, robbing the rich (read: men) and giving to the poor (read: women).
So, if it appears that the woman in your life is “playing games” with you, you need to become more sensitive to your patriarchal privilege, and try to understand the subtle ways that you are violating her and making it necessary for her to act that way in the first place. That is how patriarchy theory explains your life! Men have all the power, therefore men are the problem.
The possibility that women might be wrongdoers on their own initiative, and actually do wrong (especially toward men), simply does not factor into feminism’s moral calculus. Your average feminist will only grudgingly and with great reluctance allow that woman X might have been the guilty party in transaction Y—and only after every mitigating possibility has been hyper-analyzed to the last molecule. To extract any “judgmental” statement about a guilty woman from the average feminist, is like extracting teeth.
As a rule, a feminist hates to admit that women, or any particular woman, could be in the wrong about anything at all! Time and time again you see this. Feminist Robin Morgan (who once famously remarked that men should “possibly not exist”) campaigned to get the would-be murderess Valerie Solanas out of jail; feminists everywhere were curiously untroubled when Lorena Bobbitt sliced off her husband’s penis with a kitchen knife, and they even gloated about this; feminists everywhere will (on deeply flawed evidence) insist that “women are only violent in self-defense”, or that “women never lie about rape”, despite well-grounded probative evidence that neither of these statements is true. On it goes. . .
Keep your eyes open and you will see this pattern of feminist behavior replay itself time and time again.
Among other useful functions, patriarchy theory veils manichean essentialism, by offering a ‘structural’ explanation of male transgression. Men are “bad” only because patriarchy “makes them” that way. “I blame patriarchy” is the standard feminist cop-out: they may continually place men in the wrong (and on the defensive) without professing any belief in manichean essentialism—not even to themselves!
Without patriarchy theory serving as a prop, the feminist would need to address a complex world in which men and women share the blame equally, albeit in varied measure from place to place, and the business of liberating women would collapse into the all-but-unanswerable question of: “liberate women from what?”
From men? From other women? Or from the entire big, sprawling human mess?
Patriarchy theory would go to pieces like a bad suit if women were held morally accountable as individuals. And after that it would be impossible any longer to fudge the question of manichean essentialism, for it would soon become necessary to make a flat statement of belief or disbelief in this idea—at which point, the entire feminist enterprise would stand before a board of inquest. If you said, “yes, I think women are essentially good and men are essentially evil”, you would look like a moral idiot. And if you said “no, I think men and women are morally equal”, then you would render feminism pointless and toothless. Either way, you would condemn it to a long slide down the slippery slope to extinction.
But patriarchy theory keeps manichean essentialism forever at bay by means of an evasionary dither. It is no wonder that the average feminist hates to admit that women might upon occasion be in the wrong. Once you start down the road of allowing that women are even capable of wrongdoing (and then admitting more and more cases in practice), it ends in the collapse of feminism altogether, by rendering any theory of collective male transgression unworkable.
Patriarchy theory is manifestly flawed, and disingenuously employed by the feminists. It is a theory which pretends to explain all of life, and yet if it truly DID explain all of life, this would mean that no sector of reality could operate outside its reach. And if such were the case, nobody would have any moral agency, being trapped by the patriarchal “script” in a state of moral robot-hood.
Yes, feminism’s inborn proclivity is to bestow moral robot-hood on everybody—but most especially on women. And the shimmering, razor-thin line which divides moral robot-hood from moral agency, is the very same line that divides the feminist zone of influence from the entire non-feminist sector. That bright line, precisely, is the boundary.
Connect the dots and you will discover that bright line readily enough. Consider the many, many ways that women are given a pass or given a waiver—the prevarications, rationalizations, strained extenuations, praisings by faint damnations. Trace them from one to the next until they join together in an all-embracing circuit, like a contour line on a topographical map which wraps clear around the base of a mountain. You could even run a yellow highlighting pen around that line on the map, to make it stand out brightly.
The feminist strategy of concealment is to shade by gradual degrees into the surrounding world, so that the boundary between feminism and the rest of the universe becomes impossible to fix with any precision. This renders feminism invulnerable to attack because it offers no well-defined target area. But we have seen that the issue of women’s moral accountability marks off the feminist perimeter with all of the necessary exactitude. This makes feminism available as a target, as a zone of common understanding easily recognized and agreed upon by the rest of the world.
And that bright line around the mountain: you might picture it as a collar. Or possibly even a noose! And to call attention to that bright line—to PREACH that line, let us say—would be almost as if your were pulling the noose tighter. Need I say more?
So . . . when will the feminists hold women morally accountable?
In other words, when will feminism PREACH THAT BRIGHT LINE?
Fidelbogen . . . out!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
assman July 21, 2010 at 12:36
“How do you shame a feminist?”
You can’t. They have no honour. My approach now is to simply call women liars and hypocrites and tell them I want nothing to do with them. The BEST way of disciplining a woman is to ignore her. If she keeps at it I goad her about how she just can’t help attention whoring to an alpha-male. I rarely enter into discussion with western women and more. There is no point. None at all. They do not have the intelligence required to enter into any sensible discussion on this issue. There is ample proof of this on femi-fisting.
misterb July 22, 2010 at 11:26
“Women who use shaming languages are idiots. It’s that simple.”
Yes. And that would be ALL western women. I’ve never had an eastern woman try shaming language on me. Not once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if a woman used a shaming language on me. I’d slap her in the face. And throw her out of the window.
I know it’s a bit extreme. I actually told this to a friend of mine in one time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@anon hag
What I find rather strange and VERY P.C is the term shaming language, no insult to the author of this piece but this seems to be the male pc word of the day.
There is a certain type of guy who is not in need of many words, those type are not likely to be posting verbatim on a site like this. They live life, not complain about it.
I love it! We wouldn’t object to shaming language, if only we were better men. Irony can be so ironic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nutz
and forces them to use facts and logic to support their position.
I had to read that about 5 times to be sure you weren’t just kidding. I’m not sure what to say if you think you can do this. But you may just be a far better man than I am. If you can force feminists to use facts and logic, I tip my hat to you.
My approach is to recognize that the logical folks reading likely already get it, or will quickly get it with or without me repeating it over and over. So I make a logical case, but more of my focus is on the emotion driven segment of the audience part of which might be open to my opinion. Everyone else, including the feminist herself, is just a prop. If she behaves badly, all the better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bingo. If it qucks like a duck, swims like a duck…. it has no importance what they say about themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How about:
“Yes I’m a gay, woman-hating, mysoginistic neanderthal with a micro-penis, what’s your point?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One point if someone uses the ‘gay’ shaming attempt. As a hetero guy, the use of the gay term used against you is supposed to conclusively emasculate you, right?
By them calling you gay, they are revealing their hypocrisy and are blind of their own discriminatory values:
‘You’re gay! (therefore) > You’re not Hetero! (because in their eyes) >
Hetero = higher
and
Gay = lower
First of all, people wouldn’t use this shaming language against you in front of a bunch of gays. They’d get lamped. Anyone calls you gay, ask them if they have gay friends -and- whether they would call you gay in such a derogatory fashion – in front of their gay friends.
Easier behind a computer, right?
People are usually quite proud they know gays, all encompassing PC, I understand everyone, blah, blah.
To use the gay term to berate a hetero guy is extremely disrespectful – to the gay community itself. So it works out:
Gay > Lower (sub-human?)
Hetero > Higher (you would be functional, with a girlfriend, etc)
By calling you gay they have placed you in a societal heirarchy, and it’s a low one to them, not you. Use a bit of PC against them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I wonder why do men resort to shaming language.”
Because “Be a man!” = “Do what I want you to do.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shaming language is a goad to fight, a bid to make you lose control…..this is why it’s sexual slurs and sexist remarks. It’s the tool of women who don’t have the power to dominate by the strength of their ideas, so they try to make you lose emotional control and thereby make yourself ‘weaker’ than them…..getting a man all bent out of shape and angry constitutes a ‘victory’, the woman sees herself as ‘stronger’ and the ‘winner’. It’s the tool of the intellectually vapid.
I think ignoring it is a good idea, on the internet at least. In person, it’s much more difficult, but can be done. Reverse shaming is possible if in a group by exclaiming to others ‘Did you hear what she just said to me!?’ or ‘Say that again?’ to the person in question. If they DO say it again, well you know you’re dealing with someone with all the smarts of a turnip, and you’re well warned as to their true colors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think ignoring them is a bad idea.
If it’s in person then they will think they got away with it and will use it again on others. If there are other people around they will notice that you didn’t respond to their accusations and be wary of getting the same attacks.
If it’s online then it’s very difficult to co-ordinate ignoring them and they usually get the response and attention they’re looking for.
I think it’s better to ridicule them and highlight their bs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@crella
getting a man all bent out of shape and angry constitutes a ‘victory’, the woman sees herself as ‘stronger’ and the ‘winner’. It’s the tool of the intellectually vapid.
This really is an excellent point. Shaming language works when it pisses you off and you don’t know how to respond appropriately. Unfortunately most guys take the bait. Part of the problem is until you really understand it often times what they have done isn’t that clear. So you fall into their trap.
Ignoring them typically doesn’t work in my opinion, except if you are deliberately trying to lead them in before springing your own trap (very effective). They will continue to escalate so long as you don’t respond. As a man not responding makes you look week. I wish it weren’t true but it does. So getting overly pissed off and reacting without thinking, or ignoring the taunt are both bad options.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@XS
I think it’s better to ridicule them and highlight their bs.
Exactly!
Not to mention seeing their shock at you always being one step ahead of their formally scripted plan is very amusing. It is eerie, almost like you knew exactly what they were going to do before they did it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have absolutely zero tolerance for shaming language. When a woman tries it on me I go ballistic. I had to get out of the long-winded responses and deconstructing their words. That’s a waste of time and very ineffective. Women toss off shaming language like so many cliches so our responses should be short and sweet. Go on the defensive with responses like:
1.Pull your head out of your ass.
2.Come back when you grow up.
3.How dare you try to railroad me?
4.You women are such manipulators.
5.You’re obviously incapable of intelligent conversation.
6.I see that you can’t handle the truth.
7.How’s life for someone with such a small mind?
8.Stop being an intolerant bigot.
9.Quit your whining?
10.You’re a bone-head.
The rule to remember is never use more than a 10 word response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Correction. I should have said go on the offensive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Remember to always go for the jugular and keep it under 10 words.
1.Stick with the facts.
2.You’re full of crap.
3.You’re intellectually bankrupt.
4.Well if you want to be a child about it.
5.I see you’re into control.
6.So when the going gets tough the tough play games.
7.Are you for real?
8.What planet are you from?
9.Women who use shaming language are idiots. (Thank you for that one globalman).
10.You’ll never brainwash me.
11.Women are such children.
12.Women are liars and hypocrites (globalman again).
13.Women belong in the kitchen.
14.Aaaah, go bake some cookies.
15.You could use a big dose of reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The origins of “shaming language” began with the crack down on domestic violence. Woman has been gifted with the right to shame, insult, degrade and humiliate man, without fear of physical reprisal.
A man would not say such things to another man without expecting it to get physical between them; so it can be controlled to an extent. A woman can now unleash the venom of her words with impunity, and the man MUST take it without physical action on his part. Women know this and use it to control and subjugate men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
crella-
Amazing insight – you hit the nail on the head!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People who use those tactics are revealing their own weakness. To wit…
1. Ignore it. Let them stew in their own juices.
2. Snicker at them, laugh at them, roll eyes, sigh. Again let ‘em stew.
3. Dont get involved in the first place.
4. Vote with your feet.
Just leave them to argue with themselves. The biggest things those people have going for them, if the only thing, is your engagement. They need it, else they have nothing on you. Not a single thing.
Rise above it. If it suits you, act all superior and let them feel it.
Your intellect and reasoning is lost on them and they are useless to you in any event.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 7 trackbacks }