by Alex Torus
A mangina wrote this silly propaganda piece claiming — citing "scientific" studies to bolster his case — that feminist men have more satisfying, longer-lived relationships with women than do normal men.
If I thought that were true, I would consider becoming one, but it's not — it's a steaming pile of horse manure, as any man who wasn't born yesterday can readily figure out. I know plenty of manginas and I wouldn't say that any of them are getting laid more than the average guy. At least the average guy gets to retain his dignity.
One study found that women in relationships with feminist men reported healthier relationships — both in terms of quality and long-term stability — than those in relationships with non-feminist men.
I was with a woman for 23 years. While I've never liked feminists or considered myself to be one, their propaganda must have nevertheless influenced my subconscious assumptions, because my approach to the relationship was egalitarian. In retrospect, this idealistic attitude of mine, pretending that men and women are innately the same when clearly they are not, did nothing but screw up the relationship. We both wanted to have children and raise a family, but that never happened because we couldn't agree on basics, such as where to live or whose career should take priority. In the end, neither of us got what we wanted and neither of us were happy. If I had been at the helm rather than giving the woman — who, like all western females, was selfish and spoiled — an equal say, I would have gotten some of what I wanted, she would have gotten some of what she wanted, we both would have been happier, and we would have created a successful family instead of having to start our lives over again when our hair was starting to gray. Reproduction and survival would have had more value to us than a chimerical equality.
My conclusion after this 23-year failed experiment in egalitarianism is that somebody in a relationship needs to wear the pants, and the person best suited to wield authority is usually the man. I'm not suggesting that a man should be tyrannical and that the woman's feelings shouldn't count for anything, or that she shouldn't be left in charge of some things, but the man must have the final say. Giving a woman an equal vote in any matter is almost certain to lead to deadlock. Give her the right of veto, and you can bet that whenever you say white, she's going to say black. That's just her nature. Women are short-sighted, overemotional, childish, capricious, impulsive, petty, and vain and can't be trusted to make responsible decisions (or to even reach decisions at all; leaving it up to a woman to resolve something means that it probably won't be). Women may say they want a Mr. Sensitive, but believe me, what they really want is a strong, confident man who's going to keep them in line. Women don't truly respect nice guys and will walk all over them if given the chance.
More from the article:
[W]hen adolescent girls describe their first sexual experience, they frequently refer to it as something that just 'happened to them', whereas boys' accounts don't show this lack of agency. This power imbalance also occurs in adults, with men being more likely to initiate and lead sex than women.
Yet, researchers have also noticed that heterosexual scripts of romance are becoming more egalitarian over time. Spurred by the movement for equality, women are increasingly adopting active roles in initiating romance and are displaying more dominant sexual behaviours.
For women, the pay-off is obvious. Traditional cultural views of romance thwart women's ability to express themselves, as it requires a relinquishing of control and agency. We know this leads to dissatisfaction with sex and relationships. Conversely, greater agency and equality in a relationship has been associated with better communication, improved relationship satisfaction and a better sex life.
I can't speak for other men, but I would love it if women came up to me and asked for my phone number. I would love to be taken to dinner and a movie at her expense. I would love to be invited back to her place at the end of the evening and ravished. I would love to be her boy toy, to remain passive and let her do most of the "heavy lifting" in the bedroom. I'm not particularly egotistical. I don't have any macho hang-ups about this sort of thing. As long as she wasn't too aggressive, wasn't trying to back me into a corner, wasn't being a "pushy jerk," I'd find it flattering, not emasculating. I think it'd be great to be in the woman's position, being courted by multiple suitors and choosing the best ones to go out with. Beats being rejected or given the runaround, which is typically what happens when I pursue a woman.
The problem is, such reversals of the traditional roles are exceedingly rare in the real world. It might happen about once or twice a year that a woman of childbearing age sticks her neck out however slightly and makes an honest pass at me. Women almost never directly come on to men; they just passively signal them, then wait for the men to approach them (which fewer and fewer men are doing, since they're figuring out that most women are teases and aren't likely to put out, and since rape and harassment hysteria — for instance, the MeToo movement — has made approaching a woman a risky proposition).
I'm a middle-aged man and only once in my entire life has a woman asked me for my phone number. It happened last year. She did so only after I had initiated a conversation with her in response to a signal (she had looked at me and smiled), and even then, she only asked when she feared that I would walk away without asking for hers. She was post-menopausal and hence could be classed as a cougar. She was an impassioned feminist and held a belief that women should be more sexually aggressive. She later, on our first date, denied that she had signaled me even though she plainly had — I wouldn't have approached her otherwise — and even attempted to persuade me that it was I who had offered my phone number and not she who had asked for it. Obviously women, even supposedly "liberated" ones, find making the first move to be deeply humiliating, an affront to their femininity, and don't like the loss of control that comes from being the pursuer rather than the pursued.
Think about it — women have such frail egos and are so touchy about everything you say to them; can anyone seriously imagine women putting themselves on the line and facing rejection by asking men out? Women can't handle rejection. No matter how gently and tactfully a man rejects a woman, it will be a crushing blow to her ego. Women are natural cowards and would rather stay single than take such risks.
Women understand perfectly well that their power depends on men having to chase after them, and they are never, not in a million years, voluntarily going to give that power up. Women would sooner give up the right to vote than the power to passively select their mates, i.e., to accept or reject men's advances. Sexual power is the only real power women have over men, and to give it up in the name of some abstract principle like "equality" would be unthinkable to them. Women demand "equality" only when they think there's something in it for them. When, as in the case of courtship and dating, true equality would put them at a disadvantage, they won't lift a finger to change the status quo. Most women won't meet a man halfway, or even a tenth of the way; they expect the man to make all the effort and take all the risks, expect him to jump through hoops without having the slightest assurance that the woman even really likes him and that he will get so much as a kiss for his trouble.
If it were up to women to initiate sex, the human species would die out. Any man, other than VIPs like rock or movie stars, who waits around for women to make the first move is likely to remain single for a long time. Women leave men no choice but to be sexually aggressive. It's not, as the author of the article suggests, a matter of tradition or machismo. I think most men are like me and would be overjoyed at being able to obtain sexual love from a woman without having to suffer through humiliating mating rituals or act oily like a used car dealer. It's not men who insist on things remaining this way, but women. What planet is this mangina living on?
He's doing what feminists always do: attempting to blame men for the impossible situations women create.
Posted July 31, 2018.