Mansplaining is a concept that emerged in 2008 in a LA Time article by Jessica Solnit named, “Men Explain Things To Me.” If you have any skin the game, you should already know women are primarily looking for venting their emotions in life rather than somebody solving their problems. That is precisely why women continuously and almost always toss monkey wrenches in the machinations of men.
Mansplaining is defined as when a man, when talking to a woman, treats her differently than he would a man and talks down to her with arrogance, pretends she is ignorant, talks with upsetting tones and doesn’t recognize the dignity, humanity and competency of the female engaged with.
This definition is classic narcissism as the women who believe in the concept start from their experiences and extrapolate from there. They don’t understand the concept of larger trends and forming opinions about the world around them from those trends. They don’t understand the concept of men and women being biologically different and socialized differently. They talk a big game about gender and socialization, but that is just a smokescreen for what they really believe – everybody is just like them if those oppressive, gendered masks come off.
With the smashing of sex roles, women love to pretend they are civilizing the men across the board. It is not good enough that women watch men from the home,women must enter workplaces, locker rooms and male only spaces – of course, creating diversity and making the world a safer place (for them). Mansplaining reeks of the supreme self-centeredness of the modern woman, thinking her feelings are first priority in any situation that involves men.
The modern woman is so paranoid she is in constant awareness of being a female and constantly worrying men are thinking of her as a woman instead of a human being. She thinks differences between men and women are erected in order to suborn women and thinks the solution is she needs to be treated as a human being devoid of sex – but one also with significantly heightened sensitivity, due to sexism of course. Someday she will deal with her low self-esteem once the patriarchy ends – oh, wait. She doesn’t even realize that is the majority of her problem. Hence, the narcissism.
![[Image: jen1.jpg]](http://manosphere.at/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jen1.jpg)
Women, like the above Jen McCreight, treat serious issues as fun, empowering and exhilarating – often taking many pictures and making kissy faces or other ludicrous poses. This is mocking behavior, as they have been taught that men and what men do is and are inferior to what women do. All those TV shows for kids that show ass-kicking females and male followers inculcate views that males are boorish, ineffectual and are simply side-kicks to a female’s life. Later in life, groups and movements aimed getting women into math and science programs reinforce the idea that men have it better in society and women need a leg up over the hopelessly privileged man. The drowning multiplicity of government and private programs exclusively aimed at coaxing the oppressed woman up the dreadfully sexist male corporate hierarchy (with the direct aim at blasting the misogynistic glass ceiling) is the final nail in the coffin that allows women to pretend they are better than men, while simultaneously allowing them to believe in male privilege.
Nirvana awaits “there,” as they are told. “There” is whatever mythical construct they have erected into their head about how their life will play out, with respects to career, fashion and male partners. Children vaguely factor in after that, taking on a dangerously high importance in middle ages as their narcissistic dreams are dashed on the cold coasts of reality.
Kate Bolic, working with Susan Walsh, penned a narcissistic piece in The Atlantic in which she laid out the metaphor that women and climbed the staircase into their middle age, with the pithy and pretend achievements of career success, and find there are no handsome, roguish men waiting to sweep them off their feet and into in vitro-aided marital bliss. That metaphor is how life has been dictated to them by associates, friends and the all-powerful media. You think aging women want to consume media that states that at age 30 that only 10% of their eggs are left? No, they will consume media that states they are in their sexual prime with the “real” men stepping up to capture their narcissistic heart.
If this isn’t bad enough, they have been tearing through colleges and workplaces, demanding equal treatment which, to them, means treating them as they wish to be treated. They falsely assume how men treat each other, then demand to be taken seriously as equals in these institutions they seek access to. When they find out that they might get challenged or just treated as “one of the boys,” they find out their delusions about themselves are being cracked, so they claim that such behavior is sexist, violating her human dignity and is exclusionary.
In their self-absorbed collective effort to stymie opinions that spur uncomfortable feelings, they also drown intellectualism and human achievement in the shallowest pool imaginable. Valuing comfort over challenge, they lay to rest the competitive – and often brutal – world of intellectual debate. Remind me again – are men better comedians than women? Gee, I wonder why.
A common refrain in feminist and female circles is how they love a vigorous debate, but then toss in massive roadblocks suffocating debate. Often times, especially with feminism and so-called women’s issues, the roadblocks are so severe that if you were even begin to climb them, you would immediately treated as a misogynist. They claim to be pro-this and pro-that, but their actions belie their true intent. The complete and utter suffocation of true intellectual sparring is what is desired. The replacement is the feel-good world of authority figures dispensing with – often times cruelly and hatefully – out-group members who have yet to convert to the state religion of politically correct feminism.
![[Image: rothman_mansplain_post.png]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/rothman_mansplain_post.png)
Mansplaining is yet another attempt at suborning men to women.
They pretend men talk to them in such a “sexist” manner because they are women. What they have done is find out when men treat women like equals. We debate, attack and go back and forth constantly with other men. We break each other’s balls and mock each other. Then we go get drunk at the bar like brothers. Women don’t understand that. Since they start from themselves and extrapolate outwards, they take every slight as personal and meant to degrade them – you know, how women treat each other. They apply the relational calculus to men and find the answer is horribly sexist because they falsely assume if equality is achieved between men and women then conflict, anger and all untoward emotions will drain away into a modern day Eden.
The most dangerous assumption is that human progress, done often by the elites, is a product purely of privilege. It truly is done by genius, hard work and luck. I can’t even begin to count how many women I have had passing contact with who giddily assume once they get degree X, job Y or the nebulous Z they will finally be able to start changing the world, inventing that or greatly forming that. It reminds me of somebody who thinks they need a degree in English to be a writer. It is the narcissistic idea that America will always be great and always prosper. Like I noted with McCreight above, she is supremely superficial and her pathetic little sign, “Science In Progress!” while showing her boobs is just sad. She reinforces women watch men make scientific process while flaunting her only sexual goods. Checkmate, feminist.
Mansplaining, at its heart, is about the idea the progress just happens and men will continue to invent, theorize and do it all with women present – just so long as they censor their thoughts as women wish. It is like going to a psychologist and your therapist saying, “You can say whatever you think or feel in so long as it does not offend me.” There would be no therapy on that psychologist’s couch.
Women will pretend they are part of technological, scientific and theoretical progress, often times clinging to the coattails of a man who needs a female name on the study. It needs to be said that a few women do do original research, but the majority of women are just around to status-whore and self-aggrandize. Some women do contribute greatly, but their accomplishments are crowded out by self-absorbed women who are only interested in advancing their self-image as X, Y or Z. Women are just there for the ride, clinging to the idea they have the same qualities as the men they desire and get fucked by.
This fatal self-absorption portends dark things for America. As the arc of America keeps pressing further and further downward, women will clamor for more government money, more governmental intervention and more seats at the table of power, claiming women’s voice will cure the ailments of America, simply because they want the trappings of power, not real power.
What they don’t realize is they are asking for the exact poison that felled America. The crushing narcissism and authoritarianism of the modern women has greatly contributed to the decline of America, but who really cares? Life is all just a performance, just a facade.
Read Next: The Scorpion And The Frog
“Mansplaining” is just another ad-hoc sleight-of-hand feminists use to shield themselves from criticism. Just the name of it sounds so patently pathetic that anyone with an IQ over room temperature should be able to see the facade it is from the beginning. Of course, egalitarianism, being the religion that it is, makes otherwise intelligent people believe in things for very unintelligent reasons.
It’s just a shit test. Ignore it. Loving your articles, Wycked.
Interested that there’s now a term to describe what I’ve encountered, from time to time, from women who have called me “arrogant” and “condescending” when I’ve tried to explain things to them, and often when I’m exasperated in doing so because logic has gone out the window when I wasn’t looking.
Oh, yes . . . and my exasperated tone and inadvertent stern tones come across as “hurtful” and “mean.”
Brilliant article. The moment I saw the title though I had a different impression. I thought this: The Frog seeks to ferry the scorpion across the pond on his back in order to ‘save’ the Scorpion from whatever, on the condition that Scorpion promises not to sting him. The Scorpion, not wanting to drown readily agrees. Halfway across it stings the frog anyway, sinking them both. The Scorpion apologizes explaining that she couldn’t help it because it’s in her nature. What came to my mind was women who wait there whole lives to get married to a “good man” and then when that finally happens and they are being carried along across the pond of life, fuck the whole thing up because their hypergamous natures kick in and they metaphorically drown themselves, their husbands, and their kids- because of course, “they couldn’t help it.”
What’s worse, women are now encouraged by society to sting because of militant feminism, profiteering divorce lawyers, and the System, which justifies its existence by raping men for child support and alimony.
This article is filled with so. much. win!!
“A common refrain in feminist and female circles is how they love a vigorous debate, but then toss in massive roadblocks suffocating debate. Often times, especially with feminism and so-called women’s issues, the roadblocks are so severe that if you were even begin to climb them, you would immediately treated as a misogynist”
This is same sort of thing is why I can’t stand watching political debates. There is so much mental gymnastics involved because they simply can’t address the root if the issue(s) because someone is likely to be offended. Not only that, but you say 1 thing that is even remotely off color, and that shit will follow you 10, 20, 30 years down the road.
Vigorous debate. Pointing out how you don’t like the tone in someone’s voice doesn’t equate to “vigorous,” same goes for excessive shaming just because someone hasn’t conformed to your cookie-cutter mentality. I especially love how they go into such detail about how reactionary they were after reading some things. “That post almost made me spit up my organic chamomile tea all over my computer screen.” I’m sure you did. Please go back to pinterest where the slightest things won’t get you all in a tizzy.
“The modern woman is so paranoid she is in constant awareness of being a female and constantly worrying men are thinking of her as a woman instead of a human being.”
Until being a women is in her favor. Its like Best Buy bonus points for certificates towards purchases. She builds up points until those few select moments arise and she will cash in like a mofo.
Side note, check out this article about house husbands. Turns out, women want them, but don’t respect them. Another blatant contradiction. Not only that, women still walk away with custody. While being statistically twice as likely to abuse and neglect their children:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467390/Househusband-backlash-high-flying-wives-ditch-men-em-em-wanted-stay-home.html
Here is something I found interesting, and it is very recent. Women are getting the hint, but it might be far too little, far too late.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/05/10031/
That is a good article. They word it as if women are so much worse off economically. And this part is…wtf:
“Yet under no-fault divorce, a woman can find herself essentially a single mom, drained of family resources by court costs and lawyer fees, and suddenly required to work against her will and sacrifice time with her children. Her former spouse can direct money that was rightfully hers, even if she did not work outside the home full-time or at all, toward a mistress and her children.”
But I read far too many tales of women kicking their spouse out of the home. Keeping the home, and moving their new boyfriend in while the ex hubby is still making payments. Not remarrying intentionally to scam the laws where they lose the alimony or whatever.
Women still leave with no fear of becoming destitute because more often than not they already have a plan of action.
The women in this society want geldings except when it comes time for a man to do their bidding for them. Well, honey, it doesn’t work that way. And men need to stand up to the Girls and let them taste the bitter medicine of reality.
Just look at what’s happening in the military – men are being corralled left and right for trumped up sexual harassment and sexual discrimination charges. The Girls want to de-ball the military. They want all the benefits of equality, but none of the burdens that come with it. Except of course, when they need the very same men they’re trying to emasculate to protect them in a time of war.
I say put the Girls on the front lines and let the Girls drop the bombs. Let’s put the femcunts and skirts in the infantry and in the bombers since they wanted it so bad.
It’s also interesting to note that when the Costa Concordia cruise ship ran aground in Italy, the old notion of women first went right out the window based on accounts from those on the ship. Of course, women were bitching and moaning about this, asking where has chivalry gone. Well, I say BRAVO to the men for looking out for themselves first. After all, why should women be allowed to go first when equality is what they crave?
A man shouldn’t be forced to stick his neck out for women who really don’t serve any useful purpose anymore. They can’t and/or won’t fulfill their biological initiative to reproduce the next generation and they can’t and/or won’t fulfill traditional gender roles to be good mothers and good wives. Honestly, what are they good for? What about this setup is worth a man giving a damn anymore? I don’t want a stinger planted in my back.
Precisely. You don’t get to say “I’m a strong independent woman who wants to be treated equally” and then insist on preferential treatment when it benefits you. No fucking way. They want the benefits of traditional gender roles without the responsibility. For 10,000 years there natural hypergamous instincts were kept in check by nature. Contrary to the feminist narrative, they weren’t “conditioned” or “socialized” to be subordinate to us, they evolved that way. If their theory was correct how is it that “patriarchal” societies evolved everywhere on the planet by civilizations that in some cases had zero contact with each other. In fact, the only thing that Romans, Mayans, Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and African countries all seemed to agree on was that women were property like land and cattle and thats their function, duh. The struggle for survival constantly reminded women of the importance of men – in fact, it was self evident. But now that men have built a civilization (yes, men who invented and created everything the modern world takes for granted) so prosperous, so luxurious, so easy, so comfortable, and so decadent that survival is NOT a struggle any longer, they have in the last few decades forgotten their proper place in the evolutionary scheme of things. Time to reset the board.
Cody, women’s biological and social role hasn’t been removed like a cancer out of their guts. It’s still there, but can be easily clouded and distorted by decades of social engineering aimed at making them one precious, lucrative consumer demographics. Women have job, they will spent their money on stuff. Women wants to feel free and independent: we’ll make them highly dependent, when not obsessed, about our carefully-crafted AIDA (attention/interest/desire/action) patterns. The powers to be have squeezed the lemon to the last crushed seed. They have pretended to give women, and men for that matter, the power to choose their own life paths, only to put a big fat toll machine at every intermediate stop of every possible path, apart from maybe one of total social isolation.
And by the way, can we remind ourselves that the same social engineering is full at work on men, as well? Can be please be honest to ourselves?
I think women are just as capable as men but patriarchal men prevent them from reaching their true warrior potential.
Let’s establish female-only combat battalions. Front-line combat units free from boorish male behavior. Let womyn go pedi a mano with the sexist, brutish enemy and show us how it’s done. Please make it so.
Amen.
Amen and amen.
This article mentions how there’s all this support for women and men get pushed down because they’re supposedly privileged:
“All those TV shows for kids that show ass-kicking females and male followers inculcate views that males are boorish, ineffectual and are simply side-kicks to a female’s life. Later in life, groups and movements aimed getting women into math and science programs reinforce the idea that men have it better in society and women need a leg up over the hopelessly privileged man..”
But it’s worse than that. Men are actively demonized as rapists, creeps and abusers. The 1 in 4 rape myth is a prime example. I just wrote a post about that today at justfourguys that looks into how the stats were totally juiced by at about a factor of 5, meaning that it’s more like 1 in 20 or less. This isn’t new news to those aware but since so many universities, feminists and the media are still beating men over the head with this and scaring women with it, it needs to be debunked over and over again.
Forgot the link:
http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/
Forgot the link:
http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/
This article mentions how there’s all this support for women and men get pushed down because they’re supposedly privileged:
“All those TV shows for kids that show ass-kicking females and male followers inculcate views that males are boorish, ineffectual and are simply side-kicks to a female’s life. Later in life, groups and movements aimed getting women into math and science programs reinforce the idea that men have it better in society and women need a leg up over the hopelessly privileged man..”
But it’s worse than that. Men are actively demonized as rapists, creeps and abusers. The 1 in 4 rape myth is a prime example. I just wrote a post about that today at justfourguys that looks into how the stats were totally juiced by at about a factor of 5, meaning that it’s more like 1 in 20 or less. This isn’t new news to those aware but since so many universities, feminists and the media are still beating men over the head with this and scaring women with it, it needs to be debunked over and over again.
Send them to the coal mines with their make up, fake tans etc
Haha. I’d love to see that. Let’s send them to do some Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe, too.
Good points, too bad they won’t listen. Take care of yourself, and stop informing them. There is no point it.
They will continue to status whore, and go shopping. Too bad we had to burn a top level science researcher’s/engineer’s (read male researcher/engineer) check so she can do it. Oh, and also all the valuable research/designing he would have done had Big Daddy G not hit her G-spot by kicking him out so she can shop with more money, and better health care for her future hell spawn.
Calling all credit card companies; mommy and Lucifer junior need new shoes. Coupled with the ability to crush us all with more debt.
This is another quality article. Too bad this paragraph kind of spoils it.
Women will pretend they are part of technological, scientific and theoretical progress, often times clinging to the coattails of a man who needs a female name on the study. It needs to be said that a few women do do original research, but the majority of women are just around to status-whore and self-aggrandize. Some women do contribute greatly, but their accomplishments are crowded out by self-absorbed women who are only interested in advancing their self-image as X, Y or Z. Women are just there for the ride, clinging to the idea they have the same qualities as the men they desire and get fucked by.
Somebody is still on about girls in academia and R&D being nothing more than drones who roam lab corridor and seminars more to show their boobs than their research achievements. Why “few” women? Where are the stats? Last time I checked the average reputable academic group (from telecoms to comp sci, to nanotechnology and genomics) I saw more women than men. Women feel cosier in a research post because their creative potential is not as testosterone-fuelled and competitive as that of their their male fellows. At least in academia, I don’t think women are there for the ride. Unless you’re pointing to the very common problem of pandering to the professor in order to hope in a research Associateship or permanent tenure, which is something that applies to all the juniors, either sex.
Do you really take academia seriously?
Women are there precisely because it has no real power, just the trappings of it.
And you missed the point of that paragraph – probably willfully. Read my words again. I didn’t say women were not there, but that few women actually make real contributions.
I read that, 2Wycked. I almost feel mean to criticise such a well-written and well-argumented article as yours above, but I really have to wonder where you got the impression that few women actually make real contributions? It should be relatively easy to prove or disprove such arguments, given the wealth of academic research indexing and analysis sites. I will leave this as an exercise to the reader. All I feel like saying is that I have absolutely no reason to think that women contribute far less than men, as I have no ground to assert the opposite.
Reading your comments produces a repetitive pattern of
“I feel”
“I don’t think”
“I don’t believe”
So you disagree, but it’s all subjective to you. It would be easier to show proof. Why? Well because you then say…..
“It should be relatively easy to prove or disprove such arguments, given the wealth of academic research indexing and analysis sites.”
OK then show it. Unless this “wealth of academic research” is hyperbole. But noooo because…
“I will leave this as an exercise to the reader.”
Oh but why don’t you do it? You have plenty of time to write lengthy comments projecting your feelings. Why would anyone who does not have a vested interest in the opinions you state here care to do that? You don’t think we will find info stating the opposite? So is this summary of how you debunk things you disagree with:
-“Oh I feel you are wrong. I don’t think what you say is true. I believe something else and I can EASILY prove it but…you look it up. I can’t POSSIBLY be bothered” (takes a sip of green tea with milk)
You have a point to prove so you should provide the proof since you would be more suited to know where to look.
Provide the example(s) that will solidify your “claims”. Because if we are talking strictly subjective, I am certain, not I feel or I think..I am certain that more men have objective opinions that speak contrary to yours. Good day.
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-academia
I left this as an exercise not because I couldn’t be bothered to substantiate my “thoughts” or “feelings”, but because googling for statistics isn’t that hard at all. I have been working in a lab during my Masters year (my prof wanted to give me a Phd so I had to do some extra work during the summer, then ended up declining his offer) and saw at least 4 girls every 6 boys, and all of them were at least as productive as the boys, if not more. I have lots of friends in academia or hybrid industry/academia positions, as the industries closer to my career path (telecoms and software engineering, and financial mathematics) are kind of revolving doors between university and companies. And for the female ones, it would be no less than an insult to their intelligence or hard work to come up with a statement like the one I put in italic above.
And by the way, where are the hard facts in the original post? If the original author chose not to back any of his claims with hard proofs and statistics, perhaps fully aware to be preaching to a majority of converted, why should the burden be on me?
The fact you tend to agree with almost everything written on here doesn’t make those arguments any more solid and factual. Having said this, I do admit 2Wycked is a quality contributor and his entries are always full of good points for debate.
So you post a link of positions and enrollment…ok they hold positions. They have Phd’s
Where are the damn contributions? What did they produce that is of value?
The fact that they are there does not mean they contribute. Plenty of people are on the job in numerous fields who are not actually working. Or contributing at the same level as their more invested, more talented counterparts. Someone is always going to be better than you. That is empirically true. To try and state an equality in production with no tangible factors is pointless.
No one is insulting anyone’s intelligence. If anything, it;s insulting to presume that because one is smart and credentialed, they suddenly become productive.
Nah. What is the end game of research?
Results. The people who get results are responsible for the contributions no? So who gets results?
Men.
Show some results that women have provided and or produced. Otherwise, you are simply playing with niceties in the guise of being fair. Well buddy…
Life is not fair.
Not interested in your personal experiences. You are anonymous to me. You could be a very masculine woman for all I know. You could also very well be making this shit up.
Doing a quick census check on the US: people with a bachelors degree or higher age 25+ is 28%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Should we just assume the women in that number are “contributing”?
So what about those women outside the 28%? I can name plenty of men who made major contributions to society who did not even graduate high school:
Richard Bransen of virgin records for one. And the numerous men who never graduated college: Gates, Zuckerburg, Jobs, Newell etc.
I had to say ETC. because the list is so damn long.
Guess what’s not on that list?
Women.
However when it comes to the fine arts, I think, I feel, i believe women excel far beyond men in that area. Great performers, actresses and singers.
“And by the way, where are the hard facts in the original post?”
-Well..you could have asked for them if you wanted. You supplied your own subjectivity, then made claims that there’s proof you simply weren’t bothered to provide. If you had proof to counter why would it have mattered if the author had any ?
“The fact you tend to agree with almost everything written on here doesn’t make those arguments any more solid and factual”
No. I Actually don’t. I avoid the topics I could care less about. I don’t read nor comment on shit I disagree with. Most of the time I supply my own personal anecdote. That’s it. That is not an agreement. You appear to disagree with the entire site. But you can’t show us why. You just feel things are wrong. I’m only using your terms here.
So you post a link of positions and enrollment…ok they hold positions. They have Phd’s
Where are the damn contributions? What did they produce that is of value?
That’s a completely different game, and it depends on what you consider as being of value. Especially if you nurture a general mistrust towards the academic research world at large. Women are in the academia on a healthy balance to men, say 35% to 45%, so statistically you can expect a similar proportion of academic output. If you consider that their presence is more rarefied in higher tenured positions, which tend to get all the credit for original published research, then you just can’t expect women to be that prominent when the big research results are announced on Nature or Physics Letters A. Women are still undervalued in academia, full stop, and heaven knows how much original discoveries have been swallowed by (male) big academic fish and purported to be theirs. Do I have statistics to back up this claim? No. Exactly my point. We’ll probably never know.
The fact that they are there does not mean they contribute. Plenty of people are on the job in numerous fields who are not actually working. Or contributing at the same level as their more invested, more talented counterparts. Someone is always going to be better than you. That is empirically true. To try and state an equality in production with no tangible factors is pointless.
I agree with that, but doesn’t that apply to everybody, not just women? You’re assuming that women are working and/or producing less just because they’re women. What’s the basis for that?
No one is insulting anyone’s intelligence. If anything, it;s insulting to presume that because one is smart and credentialed, they suddenly become productive.
Again, a very plausible statement that though applies to both male and female academics.
Nah. What is the end game of research? Results. The people who get results are responsible for the contributions no? So who gets results? Men.
Men are a majority, and that for a mix of merit and historical prevalence at the upper echelons of the ladder. That is not to say women are incapable of getting results. Again, lots of research on hot topics like applied quantum physics research, nanotech or genomics are the result of such large international teams that nobody even begins to care about the gender mix. One of my high school classmates (and neighbour) is now a very successful astrophysics researcher. Fabiola Gianotti is leading up the Large Hadron Collider research team at CERN. And so on. Of course the mix favours men. Yet, that doesn’t say much about women being completely uncapable to rival men when anything from pure research to applied (= result-driven) research is concerned.
Show some results that women have provided and or produced. Otherwise, you are simply playing with niceties in the guise of being fair. Well buddy… Life is not fair.
Dude, I think I have written enough to make my point. It won’t change a iota about your line of thought, to bring you 10 or 100 examples.
Not interested in your personal experiences. You are anonymous to me. You could be a very masculine woman for all I know. You could also very well be making this shit up.
So are you, my friend. My points remain valid and I have a different view on who’s making things up to purport male intellectual superiority, which is a baseless sexist remark, not dissimilar to those who believe blacks are naturally inferior to whites and Asians biologically smarter than Caucasians.
So what about those women outside the 28%? I can name plenty of men who made major contributions to society who did not even graduate high school:
Richard Bransen of virgin records for one. And the numerous men who never graduated college: Gates, Zuckerburg, Jobs, Newell etc.
Oh come on now. You say Richard Branson I say Madonna. Women have only started to enter research and applied science in large numbers recently, say 10/15 years ago. Just wait and see.
“And by the way, where are the hard facts in the original post?” -Well..you could have asked for them if you wanted. You supplied your own subjectivity, then made claims that there’s proof you simply weren’t bothered to provide. If you had proof to counter why would it have mattered if the author had any ?
I don’t think the author even wanted to post stats and numbers. I see a tendency about interleaving text with pictures of random hotties, rather than tables and pie charts. I would leave it like that 😉
“The fact you tend to agree with almost everything written on here doesn’t make those arguments any more solid and factual”
No. I Actually don’t. I avoid the topics I could care less about. I don’t read nor comment on shit I disagree with. Most of the time I supply my own personal anecdote. That’s it. That is not an agreement. You appear to disagree with the entire site. But you can’t show us why. You just feel things are wrong. I’m only using your terms here.
Neither do I. I don’t disagree with the entire site. I am just trying to understand what the manosphere is all about, on a critical mind. This is my way to embracing something new. Believe me I am doing my fair share of reading, whether from this blog, RVF, Post-masculine, down to that Makow nutcase. I will eventually triangulate and draw my conclusion. Thesis/antithesis/synthesis dude.
Oh I see.
Well I think you pretty much summed up the “rational” mind of this community. Your subjectivity is taken as sacrosant truth and needn’t proof (an axiom, basically), while everybody else need to prove things with hard numbers to try and convince of the opposite.
I am not trying to defend women, just attempting to rebalance the debate with a measure of common sense, which you seem to have forgotten. I said “wait and see” because lots of women in high academia role haven’t happened yet. What else can I say? You have mistrust towards the entire sector, anyway.
Some women do contribute greatly, but their accomplishments are crowded out by self-absorbed women who are only interested in advancing their self-image as X, Y or Z
The above statement doesn’t bring a shroud of proof in its support, but it’s a standard expression of your line of thought, therefore wholly embraced, acritically.
See, the manosphere doesn’t revolve around objective facts, either. It’s a fringe way of seeing society, women and gender dynamics, made by PUAs selling a certain flavour of self-help stuff, young guys who think they can find sexual nirvana by consuming the self-help stuff above, or adult men jaded by society and previous failed relationships who try regain some control over their lives stating that “oh, now they see”, after the legendary red pill.
Its argument are sometimes well written, but more often than not mediocrely exposed and peppered by anecdotes and “personal experiences” that wouldn’t be out of context in a nerdy teenage’s diary. I have seen this style of writing here, on RVF and many other places too, so I assume it’s your standard way of substantiating “facts” while giving your egos a good stroking.
Try as I may, my objective mind clashes with statements like yours above. You are roaming in the realm of pure subjectivity yourself, but with the presumption of being totally right. This ain’t going to cut it mate, at least not with me.
By the way, if you don’t take academia seriously, and you may well have a valid point there, I don’t believe the reason is because women spoiled it. More like decades of underfunding, massive biases on directions and results dictated by pandering research boards and private corporate cartels, & so on and so forth. Don’t see feminism anywhere on that list.
Underfunding due to overcrowding.
Instead of adequately funding a very small number of exemplary practitioners, nowadays “everyone” must go to college, half of them get graduate degrees, and then “do something related to their field.” Which result is academia being 90% busywork. Publishing and presenting irrelevances that wouldn’t put food on anyone’s table, were it not for a cultural bias in favor of simply going though the motions of “doing research”, backed up by a degenerate legal climate and, as always, that expendable bastion of worthlessness called the government.
That’s a worrying tendency, true. Once upon a time large corporate interests would lobby and influence public research towards specific targets and results by dint of selective funding. Nowadays they are stopping this altogether, preferring doing that research themselves, in their own labs, and patenting everything they can.
Men dominate academic research in the sciences and engineering. E.g.
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/misc/Top100Chemists2000-10/
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=2&topdomainid=2&subdomainid=0&last=5
Women want to be treated as equals, but they cant take being treated like a man. bottom line.
No better example of all this than today’s NYT article about efforts to make Harvard Business School more comfortable for the ladies.
Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-equity.html?_r=0
I have posted a few comments :
Otis E Plainfield, Tx The College of The Permian Basin
Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths. In broader socio-economic terms, we have given women the opportunity to build on their weaknesses(ability to compete against men) and discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility). They compete through artifices of fairness and inclusion that are borne on the backs of an ever-dwindling pool of male supporters.
We have weakened society as a whole by building on women’s weaknesses in attempts to make them the equal of men, rather than encouraging them in their natural strengths. And while this charade is going on, men are encouraged to adopt feminine attitudes and lifestyles at the expense of their own natural strengths, now deemed unnecessary in the new gender-neutral economy.
——————————
Elmer E, Zenith, Ohio, Pacific Coast University
MBA Pacific Coast University 2005, with credit for life-long learning. What I found in my studies was that women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. Women can only insult me and deprive me of opportunity. Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labarynthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.
btw Elmer, took up your advice about starting to learn dance. Only been to one lesson so far but think you are onto a winner.
Mansplaining, never knew such behaviour had a name, it is bad enough that it exists as such.
While i read this article it occured to me that there is one institution that exhibits such behaviour to all people, regardless of age, race or gender. The computer store.
Even if you buy a simple usb-cable, they always look at you like you are terminally stupid, nevermind the fact that you are twice their age and that you have more knowledge of computers than they do, they will always frown upon you…I guess it is a must-have prerequisite, otherwise you will not be hired.
” . . . they will consume media . . .”
Media cannot be consumed.
As my dear, sweet granny used to say, “Watch yer fucking language.”
Pedantic and incorrect.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22consume+media%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22consume+media%22&start=10&tbm=bks
I think that I shall never see,
a forum post lovely as a tree.
Q: What was consumed in this bit of media?
A: Thermal energy useful for doing work.
And now you are part of the media of the message. Shall we consume you?
Here on my desk I have a jar of honey and a box set of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. I have purchased both. I have consumed neither.
I clicked your link. It was nonresponsive.
Excellent article explaining how American female narcissism is now fully pathological in many aspects.
By the way, there is not much more satisfying than looking at a bitch law professor’s aggro facial expression right after shooting man glue into her hair. That was an Internet dating highlight of 2011 for me. “Sorry- I tried to aim for your tits”
2Wycked, the word you’re looking for is “subordinate,” not “suborn,” which is an unrelated legal term.
No offense, RoK, but these posts about how women are the devil are getting old. Yes, feminism is evil, yada yada, and we all know that but we are here to learn how to fuck these women, not to hate them(they’re not mutually exclusive things but I digress).
I really hope the manosphere doesn’t turn into another MRA type of outlet.
Great article though
First off, MRA’s do not hate women. Actually take some time to actually read what they talk about it instead of regurgitating whatever talking point the mainstream media pushes.
Second, the point of the article is women are seeking comfort over all else and that includes treating men as objects (lesser than women), killing competition, etc.
I seriously don’t get how this article is about hating women unless you still operating under the blue-pill mindset that criticizing the poor dears is inherently misogynistic.
Hence, the article.
My beef is with criticizing them to the point where articles bashing them are becoming too common, when we should be bettering ourselves. How does criticizing a deaf, blind man improve anyone’s life? It doesn’t.
Not a blue-pill mindset, I am just tired of this shit. Women are what they are, we have to deal with it. Talking about their shortcomings is not going to change them. Considering what we know about females, it is only going to encourage them.
No offense but these articles, besides making fun of women(the one on mcqueen was hilarious), pointing out their mental flaws and making us shake our heads don’t teach us anything new or really bring anything to the table for us as guys.
People complain about Roosh’s book review posts but at least they are bringing something. This is a dead horse that has been beaten too many times,
This article is well written, yes, but I feel like this topic is overdone. More game posts, lifestyle posts, girl posts, or whatever, but the feminist logic thing is kind of overdone frankly
Women aren’t “what they are.” Rather they are shaped by the environment they live in. And that environment is, in turn and in the final analyses, shaped by men.
I do agree that too many self proclaimed “red-pillers” fail to grasp that one; but I’m hoping that will over time change.
True. There is a reason patriarchal societies restrain female sexuality. There is also a reason why all thriving societies, present and past have used that model.
In short, western women today are what we have made and allowed them to become. We cannot unmake them with words, so saying they have changed isn’t helping anything. Rather, articles on what we could do to revert this would be much more helpful.
Men are too shaped by the environment they live in. Men are weak, fragile beings, twisted and bent until they become docile consumers. BOTH genders are hopelessly in the same boat.
While men are also shaped by their environment, they are also much better equipped to, hence more responsible for, actively shaping it themselves. Women are, to a much greater extent, hardwired to follow the current alpha; while men have in them a natural reflex to wish to challenge him. In dystopias such as our own; that reflex is just ridiculously suppressed, with the result that we are where we currently are.
I don’t know about that, Stuki. Men don’t have a stronger personality by virtue of their gene pool. They too get traumatised by dysfunctional family dynamics, they get bullied and subjected by peer pressure, they feel isolated, frustrated and unheard and let down by the people they naturally turn to for advice and support.
For how deep I reflect on this, I can’t imagine a situation where men naturally have more antibodies agains the global lobotomy.
In almost every species with any social organization; the only challenge to the existing alpha/powerstructure, is from other males.
Men whose genes are still with us, are those that has done a god enough job of either challenging or routing around the existing alpha, to obtain some mating opportunities on their own.
While women generally do best reproductively and resource wise, by submitting as fully to Top Dog as they can.
It’s hardwired.
False.
The system needs women more than men because they are much better consumers.
Is most marketing targeting women or men? Think about it.
It’s targeting both. We men are inside it so it’s harder for us to realise. Women have all those clothes and shoes and accessories, cosmetics and aesthetic surgery…but men are catching up fast, especially since the metrosexual attitude is no longer associated to being vain and gay.
We have cars and tech gadgets, videogames and sport/hobby equipment. Both genders are being carefully groomed as consumers since very tender age. Marketing knows that for the past few decades women have been weaker and more impressionable consumers.
I read this book quite a few years ago and found it extremely telling.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Buy-Science-Shopping/dp/1416595244
There are lots of differences between male and female consumerism. Yet, all I can see is that the marketing/advertising/sales machinery is well oiled to maximise chance of purchase regardless of consumer gender, age, locale and social status.
Talking about alpha males for mankind is tracing back our genetical makeup for hundred of thousands of years. Power structures haven’t been about physical strength for quite a while. And unless the woman bumped into an unwanted pregnancy, her children are going to be with the kind of man who’s alpha on aspects like intelligence and financial success, rather than physical strength/personality.
Of course you guys love talking about “beta providers” who choose or are forced to raise their women’s children from alpha scumbags, but reality is those tend to be exceptions rather than rules.
For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter why someone is alpha. All that matters is that women will side with the alpha much more unconditionally than men.
For a woman, sticking by the guy in charge, is simply the lowest risk strategy for seeing to it that her children, hence genes, survive.
For men, things are different. Unless they happen to be the alpha du jour, their optimum reproductive strategy is to either challenge him, or simply leave. As in Going West.
Which is why it is men who are the ones we need to look to, to overthrow the currently well entrenched alpha; the totalitarian progressive state we are stuck in; and the minority profiteering from it. Bitching about women liking Obama, and that they really should like, and vote for “real men”, goes nowhere; for women are hardwired side with the alpha, and currently Mr. O remains the alpha di tutti alphi.
Men, at least traditionally and in non dystopias, don’t hate women. Feminists do; which is why they so desperately try to pretend that they are all men.
Great observation! and I concur. They claim to love women (and themselves) and perhaps in some ways they do. But the breadth of their behaviour is better understood if you just assume that they hate themselves – they abandon the beautiful (women/femininity) in hopes for attaining the sublime (men/masculinity).
Correction: the writer you reference in the first paragraph is named Rebecca Solnit, not Jessica.
The only other thing I have to add to this is that “mansplaining” willfully ignores that close to 100 percent of things we deal with were invented and put together by men, hence the need for men — not women — to explain how they work. Of course, when the storm hits, then they DEMAND the men to explain why the power is out.
I once knew a guy who I played video games with and we were very competitive. After a long win streak by him I checked the game options and found out he had made it to where he had had computer assistance on for his character for the duration of his streak. I was pissed not so much at the computer assistance or the fact that he won, but the shit he was talking while he was winning when he knew he was cheating. He turned out to be a bitch, and working with women is a lot like playing with him- a bunch of shit talking when assisted to victory, but no real substance.
Well at least Ms. McCreight is considerate enough to carry a bio-hazard label as a warning.
You know?
euneaux
It’s my opinion that you hit the nail on the head with this one. Sometimes I wonder if it’s even worse than narcissism; if they haven’t progressed to full blown psychopathy (at least of the more anxious – secondary – variety). One more reason I limit my interactions with women… I met a girl recently, she was a beautiful girl. I immediately felt my self being “taken in” by her but I couldn’t resist (cause and effect). Because of our schedules, we met at the same place and talked for a few hours a day. I was distracted by her beauty (and my desire for her) so she completely slipped past my “defences”. I failed to notice, until the other day (when I had sometime away from not seeing her regularly), she had an emptiness/hollow inside her: perhaps, for a variety of reasons, she is also more adept at hiding this emptiness. I’ve since changed up my routine so I no longer bump into her as I did before, but this took a lot of will power on my part (because of various social mores, norms, expectations and of course my own desire), and was a case of me making a smart/executive decision even though my body wanted something else. I won’t bother explaining how (I believe) our interactions would have played out overtime, but I will say that I’ve seen it many times, and I always say to myself, how can men be so “blind”. It’s not naiveté though, it’s our sexuality. Nothing is quite as powerful and insistent as our sexuality, and in our modern times, it just so happens that our sexuality can quite literally ruin us. But the same current that fuels our sexuality also fuels our (self) protective instincts, and once I had time to reflect on it, I realised that every time I was around this girl, the hair on the back of my neck stood up – as if I were in the company of a predator. I share this with you because I suspect many men have this experience (as I can see their behaviour outwardly change in compensation for this subjective feeling), and yet they ignore it (for whatever the reason and perhaps there are many). It’s been my experience that women like this are hopelessly shallow (though they can often feign depth), they have no inner-life (all of their problems are externalised), they can never love anything but themselves (and in truth they don’t even really love themselves), they have an incessant need to shore up their self-esteem through what ever means necessary and often at your or other’s expense, and most importantly, they tend to give others, especially those closest to them, they tend to give others their pain (they’re sadistic). The worst part is is that aside from the more stupid ones, they get away with it because unlike men, they very rarely uses overt, direct, or physical tactics. And society tends to see women as victims.
Great article btw!
“Mansplaining” is when any male speaks any time. We can’t even talk anymore…fucking bitches. I’m so sick of this “girls in science” drive. Was there a concerted effort to keep women from being scientists?? You broads can’t do chemistry or math? You either solve a problem or invent something or you don’t. More men go into science because men have an inherent aptitude for this….
2Wycked, I like your posts, but dial your usage of the word ‘narcissism’ down a notch.
Reminds me of the #whatshouldwecall websites. Great article
You write the best articles on here
You write the best articles on here
Great article. This touches on so many truths none of us should be surprised with them, yet the feminists and male apologists will not read this. Even if they did, they wouldn’t understand the truth behind the words and merely write it off as misogyny and ship us all off for re-education classes.
Exactly right.
I’m almost done with a degree in electrical engineering. Among the different engineering majors, it’s pretty much agreed that EE is in the top 3 hardest. There are precious few females in my major. I know two females that kick ass. They put in a lot of hours and really work hard. One’s overweight, and the other has a nose that looks like the wicked witch of the west. ALL the others are lots more doable, but are about as lazy as you’d expect. I partnered in a lab class with a pretty one. She didn’t do a damn thing all quarter except lean over and show us her cleavage. Another one took a week off to go to Coachella or something. This article is spot on.
I found this article while surfing the web. It sounds like the author of this article was burned in a relationship. This is the first time that I’ve heard of “mansplaining”. I’m in my mid 20s, a college graduate, engaged, and getting started with my career. I’ve also never been a slut. Watch the strawmen (and strawwomen).
What I think is interesting is your perception that my opinions stem from being burned in a relationship.
This post wasn’t about you, but about larger trends of women in America.
I would gladly agree that women are superior to us, if it could dissuade them to consider themselves our equals.
« Je conviendrais bien volontiers que les femmes nous sont supérieures, si cela pouvait les dissuader de se prétendre nos égales. » Sacha Guitry – French actor
Best article I’ve read so far on ROK. Bravo, sir.
Suborn…nice word! I haven’t had to look up a definition in a long time, and I particularly like that one. Good article, I enjoyed it.
In fairness, I feel the need to add that there are some fairly amazing women scientists and entrepreneurs out there. Beyond that… the emotional influence strategy has likely worked well in history, and usually is useful when there are enough resources available in the economy already to be accessed through people.
“. All those TV shows for kids that show ass-kicking females and male followers…”
Shows for adults. And movies. It’s become like a title 9 requirement for a woman to be able to take on and win against one or more men in an actual fight.
Women want two men, one who is a guy to do what they want and bail them out of trouble should they need help… they want a second guy who is challenging, not serious, just has fun all the time and infects them with the same fun for having sex with. Of course, the 2nd one can’t be a real relationship, because no one can just have fun all the time and keep having fun.. you’ll eventually go broke, die, or whatever… so she has to rotate through the 2nd profile while keeping the poor bastard from profile one cuckolded to try and take care of her not knowing about the current guy filling profile 2.