Misogyny Festers Here

[Aardra]

As my loneliness is caused be rejection from women i have no reason to like any of you, You never look at the one sided sexism and misandry your gender dishes out in the media everyday. You always make out that woman never do any wrong but its because of women's constant blaming men and incels and ignoring our problems that causes men to want to hit back. You have plenty Feminist websites preaching hate and sexism against men and boys . Men dont have many similar site sso if we come here to give you bastards your owmn medicne then toobad for you.



This Forum is for lonely people, my loneliness is caused by rejection from women and it always has been, its thanks to the constant feminist blaming of men and boys in the media that some of us want to fight back against your sexist double standard misandry. Women have loads of websites preaching hate and sexism against men and boys , men have hardly any. Even on face book incel page there are women insulting us . Its a case of we have got what we want so why bother about men which is why some incels fight back and why some of us come here because we dont have the massive number of sites feminist hypcrites have. Women get help , men get blame, the real problem is festering misandry and failure to understand that incels are unfortunate human beings who are regarded the same way the Nazis regarded the Jews. Women have no consideration for men so your excuses about how wonderful and patient we women are mean nothing to me. I Know what cruel bastards you are. Its only fair we should have posts about festering misandry.

Cringe.

 

[Slick]

There's been a lot of talk lately and in the past of lonely people who are or were in marriages. Even after you've climbed the hundred foot high wall(if you manage to), what's on the other side is likely to not be pleasant. Most relationships either fail or become empty husks more harmful than none.

My first marriage of 22 years was a dead zone...he was a Nam vet and raging alcoholic...I divorced him. While we were married I raised our 3 daughters, took care of our home, and eventually went back to work full time and supported the family...my second marriage was totally different...we were great friends, in love and did so much together, laughed a lot , shared a lot.....sadly at 51 he was dx with stage 4 lung cancer , I watched him suffer for the last 3 years of his life..he passed at 54....I was never lonely in either marriage...it's all in what you make it...

 

[polyp]

My first marriage of 22 years was a dead zone...he was a Nam vet and raging alcoholic...I divorced him. While we were married I raised our 3 daughters, took care of our home, and eventually went back to work full time and supported the family...my second marriage was totally different...we were great friends, in love and did so much together, laughed a lot , shared a lot.....sadly at 51 he was dx with stage 4 lung cancer , I watched him suffer for the last 3 years of his life..he passed at 54....I was never lonely in either marriage...it's all in what you make it...

Did you have relationships before your first marriage?

 

[polyp]

@TheSkaFish
You wrote something just this Wednesday that fits perfectly into what I was saying.

And I didn't have to "prove my value" or any of that ****, either. I didn't have to be strong enough, rich enough, witty enough, good enough at anything, didn't have to think and talk a certain way to come across as "charming" enough, didn't have to play all these mind games.

Dogs are loyal and straight forward. You don't have to "prove" yourself to them in conversation. They don't care how form fitting your clothes are or how many friends you have or if you're funny... At the end of the day, people want a warm body next to them in bed, so it seems far more sensible to me if you could have that without the social game bs.

I'm still mystified by how you disagree with me.

 

[TheSkaFish]

I'm still mystified by how you disagree with me.

It was the part where you said something like "if we could get dogs or pigs to look like women, guys would want that instead". It was just too much for me.

And this:
"At the end of the day, people want a warm body next to them in bed"

That's the thing, I don't just want a warm body. I want someone with a mind of their own. It's just that I don't want them to judge me only by what I don't have, to say that the only thing that counts about me is a lack of money, toughness, risk taking, cockiness, and sarcasm/casual meanness.

I don't like the mind games either. But I'm hoping to find a woman who doesn't play those games. I just hope I don't find some way to blow it with them too though.

 

[Aardra]

That's the thing, I don't just want a warm body. I want someone with a mind of their own.

I find this somewhat refreshing as the primary grievance among men who subscribed to incel thinking is almost always some structurally-enforced lack of sexual fulfillment framed as an eternal, almost metaphysical struggle between "Alphas" and "Betas" over explicitly-commodified women who, in the context of this mythology, both have the agency to deny men sex but not enough agency to make sound and well-informed decisions.

The remedies proposed are either full divestment from "the game" (MGTOW, which is, whether or not they accept it, a complete resignation to circumstance) or the procurement of sexual services, neither of which serve to fulfill the desire you expressed: emotional and intellectual companionship.

It's just that I don't want them to judge me only by what I don't have, to say that the only thing that counts about me is a lack of money, toughness, risk taking, cockiness, and sarcasm/casual meanness.

I have a feeling this will fall on deaf ears, but... there are plenty of women out there willing to give you the time of day. It's just that you don't notice them, because they're not even on your radar. Outside of the context of this forum I would have indulged conversation with you. But for the sake of conversation, let's run down the list of things you suggest women deny you for not having, okay?

1. Money. Is money important to a woman? Well, unless you disagree with the notion that women are people, then it depends. There's a myriad reasons that a woman might prioritize the financial assets of potential partners. On the more dreary end, she may come from or exist within a more vulnerable socioeconomic bracket. She may have children, or a disability, or belong to a stigmatized class or marginalized group (hem hem, she may be trans). In these cases the idea of a potential partner may to her (in addition to companionship) mean safety: someone who can split the rent, utility bill, groceries, etc. If you're put off by the idea of that being important to a woman, then don't date women who look for that. Generally speaking, however, since we're irremovably enmeshed in the morally-destitute hellscape that is contemporary capitalism the inability to contribute to basic and mutual needs isn't exactly an endearing quality. On the other hand, a woman may have a career, be well-paid, and in a relatively secure socioeconomic position; in this case she may not be looking explicitly for a partner with money, but rather one who can operate within the norms and expectations of her socioeconomic bracket. Similarities of class, wealth background, level of education, et cetera, all serve to form cohesive bonds between individuals within a symbolic interactionist framework. Ultimately, the reality remains that, contrary to what we see in romantic comedies, lasting relationships don't tend to develop between people of wildly disparate socioeconomic backgrounds as the behavioral and value differences between them invariably become unresolvable.

Tl;dr, it's complex, but certainly not reducible to some quirk of biological psychology that renders women predisposed to like money. Like most sociological phenomena, it's tied to class and culture.

2. Toughness. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Physical toughness? Emotional toughness? You'd have to define what you mean more explicitly. But from the context, I assume you're referring to the typical Western embodiment of toxic masculinity: that is, the culture of boys and men socialized throughout their lives into maintaining a toxic standard of emotional stoicism, even, or perhaps especially, among the people they're closest to. In which case, no. Gross. This is a matter that has nothing to do with women as a gender. No one wants a partner who is either perpetually emotionally distant or perpetually emotionally exhausting. People look for mutuality in a relationship, a system of "support and be supported." No one finds a partner who is nothing but emotional dead weight to be endearing. Neither do people want one who is completely emotionally divested. I think that's common sense.

3. Risk taking. Again, not sure what you mean here. It also seems highly individualized, and the word you probably want to use is "spontaneous." Personally my idea of an awesome evening is pizza + wine + cuddles, and maybe a few episodes of Doctor Who. I might feel the occasional call to adventure now and then but there is by no means some universal attraction of women to men who "take risks."

4. Cockiness; sarcasm/casual meanness. So, again, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. By cockiness/sarcasm, are you implying that women like witty men? Well, duh? Most people like to be around others who make them laugh or engage them intellectually. Isn't that kind of a given? Are banality, anti-intellectualism, and incuriousness generally qualities that YOU look for in a partner? Yeah, thought not. As for the meanness, I don't know where you get the idea that women like mean men. I've never met a woman who is attracted to flippancy or anti-social behavior in general, though they certainly do exist (see: women who stan serial killers). But you can ask most any woman and they will tell you that casual meanness is a turn off. For me personally, one of the biggest red flags to look for on a date is how the guy treats the wait staff. "Pleases", "thank yous," and general small courtesies are more than good manners; they're indicators that a person is capable of thinking outside themselves and possesses a well of empathy. That, in short, is hot.

Incels inherently treat dating and relationships as a zero-sum game. They maintain an abysmal self-image that fatalistically roots them in a lower social category than the men whose advancement in this game, they falsely believe, comes at their expense. They see dating and relationships as incomprehensible (and in some cases, metaphysical) frameworks of reality: unnavigable shoals they they lack the skill or talent to safely traverse, and so they resolve to avoid them entirely. Because it's all framed as game, they refuse themselves entry either by claiming it is rigged or by insisting that "the only way to win is not to play." But the pathology is ultimately sourced in seeing natural and healthy human interaction as hyper-atomized competition to be won at the expense of the loser and lost at the gain of the winner, instead of an opportunity for growth and self-exploration, even if the "end goal" is not always a given. They won't heal until they start to dismantle this harmful mental map of reality and begin treating dating not as competition between individuals, but as cultivation of the self.

And, I guess that's all.

 

[polyp]

It was the part where you said something like "if we could get dogs or pigs to look like women, guys would want that instead". It was just too much for me.

And this:
"At the end of the day, people want a warm body next to them in bed"

That's the thing, I don't just want a warm body. I want someone with a mind of their own.

I think you're selling dogs and pigs a little short lol. Besides that, you may have misinterpreted me a little. I'd also like to have conversations and do things with another person. My point was that sure, you don't JUST want a warm body, but it would be nice, right?

If there was an option were you could at least get that for sure, it makes perfect sense that many guys would go for it. Doesn't exist though. Maybe it sounds embarrassing, but I think if it was an option, part of you would consider it.

My ideal partner would be able to talk and do things with me, but wouldn't really have a mind of their own. That's overrated. People say they want that for the sake of their egos, "this person chose me out of all the other people". Humans already run mother nature's program though. The love parents have for their kids isn't any more "legitimate".

I don't really give a ****. I'm not interested in being "chosen". There's no ego or pride in it for me. I don't care if hypothetically, there's women out there who would be so gracious as to offer me a chance to woo them. I just want to be satiated physically and emotionally.

I'd pay money for it. I'd do manual labor. I'd sell my kidneys. The option to get what you want via straight forward, logical means does not exist though. All you have is your "hopes" that you'll meet a women who likes you because you are you. Worrying about "blowing it" is so self-hating.

 

[squidge]

Cringe.

cringe , yes that,s your horrible little mentality

 

[ardour]

1. Money. Is money important to a woman? Well, unless you disagree with the notion that women are people, then it depends. There's a myriad reasons that a woman might prioritize the financial assets of potential partners. On the more dreary end, she may come from or exist within a more vulnerable socioeconomic bracket. She may have children, or a disability, or belong to a stigmatized class or marginalized group (hem hem, she may be trans). In these cases the idea of a potential partner may to her (in addition to companionship) mean safety: someone who can split the rent, utility bill, groceries, etc. If you're put off by the idea of that being important to a woman, then don't date women who look for that. Generally speaking, however, since we're irremovably enmeshed in the morally-destitute hellscape that is contemporary capitalism the inability to contribute to basic and mutual needs isn't exactly an endearing quality. On the other hand, a woman may have a career, be well-paid, and in a relatively secure socioeconomic position; in this case she may not be looking explicitly for a partner with money, but rather one who can operate within the norms and expectations of her socioeconomic bracket. Similarities of class, wealth background, level of education, et cetera, all serve to form cohesive bonds between individuals within a symbolic interactionist framework. Ultimately, the reality remains that, contrary to what we see in romantic comedies, lasting relationships don't tend to develop between people of wildly disparate socioeconomic backgrounds as the behavioral and value differences between them invariably become unresolvable.

I doubt many many of us would resent women refusing to date someone who can barely support themselves, or even have a huge problem with the idea of money as an indicator of ambition. However typically they do not date at their level or below, while men do, which is a supported by evidence. It's part of what is driving women's 'where are the good men at' mentality in their 30s.

Sometimes it's funny to sit back and watch someone have a mini meltdown because they can't find an upper middle class guy "at their level". There was someone like that here a couple of years ago - complaining that should couldn't find a 'bougey' man working in the trendier STEM fields.

 

[squidge]

I find this somewhat refreshing as the primary grievance among men who subscribed to incel thinking is almost always some structurally-enforced lack of sexual fulfillment framed as an eternal, almost metaphysical struggle between "Alphas" and "Betas" over explicitly-commodified women who, in the context of this mythology, both have the agency to deny men sex but not enough agency to make sound and well-informed decisions.

The remedies proposed are either full divestment from "the game" (MGTOW, which is, whether or not they accept it, a complete resignation to circumstance) or the procurement of sexual services, neither of which serve to fulfill the desire you expressed: emotional and intellectual companionship.



I have a feeling this will fall on deaf ears, but... there are plenty of women out there willing to give you the time of day. It's just that you don't notice them, because they're not even on your radar. Outside of the context of this forum I would have indulged conversation with you. But for the sake of conversation, let's run down the list of things you suggest women deny you for not having, okay?

1. Money. Is money important to a woman? Well, unless you disagree with the notion that women are people, then it depends. There's a myriad reasons that a woman might prioritize the financial assets of potential partners. On the more dreary end, she may come from or exist within a more vulnerable socioeconomic bracket. She may have children, or a disability, or belong to a stigmatized class or marginalized group (hem hem, she may be trans). In these cases the idea of a potential partner may to her (in addition to companionship) mean safety: someone who can split the rent, utility bill, groceries, etc. If you're put off by the idea of that being important to a woman, then don't date women who look for that. Generally speaking, however, since we're irremovably enmeshed in the morally-destitute hellscape that is contemporary capitalism the inability to contribute to basic and mutual needs isn't exactly an endearing quality. On the other hand, a woman may have a career, be well-paid, and in a relatively secure socioeconomic position; in this case she may not be looking explicitly for a partner with money, but rather one who can operate within the norms and expectations of her socioeconomic bracket. Similarities of class, wealth background, level of education, et cetera, all serve to form cohesive bonds between individuals within a symbolic interactionist framework. Ultimately, the reality remains that, contrary to what we see in romantic comedies, lasting relationships don't tend to develop between people of wildly disparate socioeconomic backgrounds as the behavioral and value differences between them invariably become unresolvable.

Tl;dr, it's complex, but certainly not reducible to some quirk of biological psychology that renders women predisposed to like money. Like most sociological phenomena, it's tied to class and culture.

2. Toughness. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Physical toughness? Emotional toughness? You'd have to define what you mean more explicitly. But from the context, I assume you're referring to the typical Western embodiment of toxic masculinity: that is, the culture of boys and men socialized throughout their lives into maintaining a toxic standard of emotional stoicism, even, or perhaps especially, among the people they're closest to. In which case, no. Gross. This is a matter that has nothing to do with women as a gender. No one wants a partner who is either perpetually emotionally distant or perpetually emotionally exhausting. People look for mutuality in a relationship, a system of "support and be supported." No one finds a partner who is nothing but emotional dead weight to be endearing. Neither do people want one who is completely emotionally divested. I think that's common sense.

3. Risk taking. Again, not sure what you mean here. It also seems highly individualized, and the word you probably want to use is "spontaneous." Personally my idea of an awesome evening is pizza + wine + cuddles, and maybe a few episodes of Doctor Who. I might feel the occasional call to adventure now and then but there is by no means some universal attraction of women to men who "take risks."

4. Cockiness; sarcasm/casual meanness. So, again, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. By cockiness/sarcasm, are you implying that women like witty men? Well, duh? Most people like to be around others who make them laugh or engage them intellectually. Isn't that kind of a given? Are banality, anti-intellectualism, and incuriousness generally qualities that YOU look for in a partner? Yeah, thought not. As for the meanness, I don't know where you get the idea that women like mean men. I've never met a woman who is attracted to flippancy or anti-social behavior in general, though they certainly do exist (see: women who stan serial killers). But you can ask most any woman and they will tell you that casual meanness is a turn off. For me personally, one of the biggest red flags to look for on a date is how the guy treats the wait staff. "Pleases", "thank yous," and general small courtesies are more than good manners; they're indicators that a person is capable of thinking outside themselves and possesses a well of empathy. That, in short, is hot.

Incels inherently treat dating and relationships as a zero-sum game. They maintain an abysmal self-image that fatalistically roots them in a lower social category than the men whose advancement in this game, they falsely believe, comes at their expense. They see dating and relationships as incomprehensible (and in some cases, metaphysical) frameworks of reality: unnavigable shoals they they lack the skill or talent to safely traverse, and so they resolve to avoid them entirely. Because it's all framed as game, they refuse themselves entry either by claiming it is rigged or by insisting that "the only way to win is not to play." But the pathology is ultimately sourced in seeing natural and healthy human interaction as hyper-atomized competition to be won at the expense of the loser and lost at the gain of the winner, instead of an opportunity for growth and self-exploration, even if the "end goal" is not always a given. They won't heal until they start to dismantle this harmful mental map of reality and begin treating dating not as competition between individuals, but as cultivation of the self.

And, I guess that's all.

The harmful mental trap caused by female chauvinist hypocrites who are basically spoiled priviliged brats and misandrist hypocrites

 

[TheSkaFish]

I have a feeling this will fall on deaf ears...

Believe it or not, your post didn't fall on deaf ears.

I had some things to say about it (not criticisms or negativity, just thoughts), but I see you turned off your Messaging.

I just wanted to say that I don't hate your thoughts or input, I don't dismiss them out of hand, and in fact I thought your post was very insightful. It gave me a lot to consider, which is why I didn't reply right away.

Take care,

Ska

 

[nerdgrl]

This is pretty condescending. There is an ignore feature on profiles. Use it. Don't click on the posts to see what is said. Thats your responsibility, not censoring people who could actually use the help.

"Ignore" does not stop a person from stalking your posts/comments and commenting on your posts/comments. It only prevents you from seeing that person's comments. Unless I missed it somewhere, there is no way to block a person from accessing you on this forum.

 

[TheRealCallie]

"Ignore" does not stop a person from stalking your posts/comments and commenting on your posts/comments. It only prevents you from seeing that person's comments. Unless I missed it somewhere, there is no way to block a person from accessing you on this forum.

So what if they do post to your stuff? Just like anywhere else on the internet, if you don't like something, don't read it. The ignore feature prevents you from seeing said comments unless you click on them to see it. If you click, that's on you, just like Abstamyous said.
This is public forum, sorry, but people can and will see what you write and they can and do have the "right" to post to it if they want to.

 

[A02]

As my loneliness is caused be rejection from women i have no reason to like any of you, You never look at the one sided sexism and misandry your gender dishes out in the media everyday. You always make out that woman never do any wrong but its because of women's constant blaming men and incels and ignoring our problems that causes men to want to hit back. You have plenty Feminist websites preaching hate and sexism against men and boys . Men dont have many similar site sso if we come here to give you bastards your owmn medicne then toobad for you.



This Forum is for lonely people, my loneliness is caused by rejection from women and it always has been, its thanks to the constant feminist blaming of men and boys in the media that some of us want to fight back against your sexist double standard misandry. Women have loads of websites preaching hate and sexism against men and boys , men have hardly any. Even on face book incel page there are women insulting us . Its a case of we have got what we want so why bother about men which is why some incels fight back and why some of us come here because we dont have the massive number of sites feminist hypcrites have. Women get help , men get blame, the real problem is festering misandry and failure to understand that incels are unfortunate human beings who are regarded the same way the Nazis regarded the Jews. Women have no consideration for men so your excuses about how wonderful and patient we women are mean nothing to me. I Know what cruel bastards you are. Its only fair we should have posts about festering misandry.

yeah no point in even talking about the truth to females and I.T users they are blinded

 

[SecondStarTotheRight]

Can something please be done about the deluge of thinly-veiled misogynistic posts?

Thread after thread after thread, by the same 3-4 individuals. It never ends. It's basically masturbatory at this point.

We get it. You're keen to blame your lack of romantic success on some phantom of biological psychology that you believe predisposes women to being vapid and shallow. The same tired points and cherry-picked studies are shared on dedicated incel and MGTOW forums. I really wish I wasn't being confronted with them here.

I've seen nothing but patience and attempts at understanding from the women here but the aforementioned posters are just too wedded to the idea that there's something fundamentally corrupt about the female brain. They frame their misogyny with self-deprecation but that doesn't make it not misogyny.

I'd love for this forum to be a welcoming place where I can come and just chill with other lonely people, network, and maybe even make friends. But every time I log in I'm met with the same ridiculous arguments and bitter attitudes. It's exhausting.

Fully expect to get pushback for posting this. But there you go.

Just found this post. Thank you for articulating this, Aardra.
This was the reason I left years ago. It's never-ending. Can't imagine what would happen if a fraction of the innuendo and explicit hate posting were directed at just about any other group, race, religion...

I admire anyone who takes the time to show compassion in dealing with the self-loathing hate posters. There are truly some formidable hearts and minds that are tolerant, here.

Also love the ones that go for the balls with intelligence and courage.

I've been silenced on many forums, like many here probably have been. But not for hate. For challenging it.
It gets old being told to "block" certain people. Blocking a bully doesn't stop them. They still do it. Hurting and degrading others. Some aren't as strong as others, or in a bad patch of life, and I worry about them.
And it's a cop out to say that it's all subjective. Common sense and decency tells you what is obviously demeaning to someone else. Should, anyway.

 

[ardour]

Just found this post. Thank you for articulating this, Aardra.
This was the reason I left years ago. It's never-ending. Can't imagine what would happen if a fraction of the innuendo and explicit hate posting were directed at just about any other group, race, religion...

I admire anyone who takes the time to show compassion in dealing with the self-loathing hate posters. There are truly some formidable hearts and minds that are tolerant, here.

Also love the ones that go for the balls with intelligence and courage.

I've been silenced on many forums, like many here probably have been. But not for hate. For challenging it.
It gets old being told to "block" certain people. Blocking a bully doesn't stop them. They still do it. Hurting and degrading others. Some aren't as strong as others, or in a bad patch of life, and I worry about them.
And it's a cop out to say that it's all subjective. Common sense and decency tells you what is obviously demeaning to someone else. Should, anyway.

Being offended and put off is one thing but I don't see female posters here being followed around and harassed so it seems like a fairly simple solution of giving certain posters a wide berth. Just don't engage.

In many corners of the internet it's acceptable to talk about men as if they were barely sentient sex obsessed creatures, mock men who commit suicide as weak and privileged - happens on dozens of female majority and rad fem leaning subreddits.

 

[TheRealCallie]

but I don't see female posters here being followed around and harassed

Oh really? I'd beg to differ on that.

 

[user 139760]

Oh really? I'd beg to differ on that.

How would you know anything about that?

I've seen that often enough for myself as well. Everyone can be a target for online harrassement depending on their views and opinions, but I've seen some being targeted not for those reasons, but because they are women.
I've yet to be criticized by someone with "A man like you wouldn't know..." yet I've seen the reverse many times.
Maybe it's just people with too much time on their hands that would be better spent polishing the ol' walrus.

 

[Slick]

Did you have relationships before your first marriage?

I wouldn't call them relationships...more just boyfriends.....but they were all good to me , respectful....my first husband was sweet and kind before we got married...marriage and children seemed to have triggered the horrible family life he had as a child and the 2 monsters who raised him....we dated for 4 years before we married...and loved being together....he changed completely within 2 months after we married and got progressively worse as time went on..

 

[Memyself]

Implying or outright saying that women are prone to shallowness, selfishness, and cruelty due to a quirk of evolutionary biology is misogyny. I'm not "throwing around the word."

Being subjected to misogyny, women have the ability to sniff it out. And you did say “thinly vailed”. Careful wording around it provides no cover. We see you.