The Manosphere Isn't About Men. Or Women

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You gay? What are feminine qualities in a woman in your opinion? Stoic? You like that Greek stoic on stoic action?

There is a context you are not picking up on - it isn't the statement quoted being touted as ugly.

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

There is a context you are not picking up on - it isn't the statement quoted being touted as ugly.

Please elaborate, I've read everything she said.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Elliott said:

Please elaborate, I've read everything she said.

It is the angry/aggressive feminist stuff that is perceived as ugly.

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is the angry/aggressive feminist stuff that is perceived as ugly.

The only anger and aggression i see is from the incels. I can't believe she can even talk to them, if I was a woman I would shoot guys like this, let alone not take time to try to explain something to someone obviously not willing to listen.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Elliott said:

The only anger and aggression i see is from the incels. I can't believe she can even talk to them, if I was a woman I would shoot guys like this, let alone not take time to try to explain something to someone obviously not willing to listen.

I can read anger/blame/aggression from both sides. It isn't hard to detect.

[Lila9]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

The only anger and aggression i see is from the incels. I can't believe she can even talk to them, if I was a woman I would shoot guys like this, let alone not take time to try to explain something to someone obviously not willing to listen.

They are frustrated because they will never reach my level of compassion, intelligence, wisdom, open-mindedness, and spiritual development.

They know I am better than them in every aspect, and therefore they try to humble me 😊

[Lila9]

10 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I can read anger/blame/aggression from both sides. It isn't hard to detect.

Come on. I was being truthful and accurate, and there is data that backs up my posts.

They say very personal and harsh things to me, and you moderators are ignoring them because of your obvious pro-male bias.

I got warning points for less than that, seriously.

You police women on the forum more harshly than men. This only proves why feminism is so important.

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

They are frustrated because they will never reach my level of compassion, intelligence, wisdom, open-mindedness, and spiritual development.

I'm certain they don't value any of those things.

They're just decimated existentially, by their indoctrination.

[Raze]

9 hours ago, Elliott said:

@Raze would your opinion on this topic change if women were vocal about sharing responsibility for providing for the family?

The problem is these demands are incoherent and they just behave worse the more they are met.

The feminist narrative for years was it was unfair that men were the ones earning and providing so they did everything to increase womens share of the workforce and income.

They just resented men more and now complain it’s harder to find a guy who earns more than them and continue to demand men spend money on them while justifying it with “I do unpaid domestic labor”, or as shown in the other thread even more ridiculous notions like because the patriarchy oppresses women men need to give them money to compensate. Obviously that’s ridiculous because mens obligation to provide is itself part of the patriarchal system, but just shows how they cherry pick.

But guess what, the amount of time men spend in childcare and doing housework is greater now than ever before on average. 

Did the rage at men decrease? No. They just got more frustrated and blame men more for the declining  marriage rates. 

There are other examples of this, for example for years berating men for not being emotionally intelligent and not being vulnerable, then when men started to do it they immediately coined terms like “emotional labor” “he treats me like a therapist” “mankeeping” to shame men for it.

My issue is it is incoherent and they just get more frustrated the more men give into their demands.

Personally I think the traditional arrangement works best, but I don’t actually care that much.

I’m open to any system from pure egalitarianism to role reversal if it is coherent and makes them happy.

But it never does. They just demand contradictory things and double down in frustration the more society tries to placate them. 

Edited April 16 by Raze

[Elliott]

@Raze let's check something

 

@Lila9

@Natasha Tori Maru

@ladies

Do guys need to make more than women, than you? Do the guys that help around the house still suck? Do all men suck?

Edited April 16 by Elliott

[Elliott]

@Raze i think you are mixing the worst people with better people to formulate your worldview. Not all women are the same woman, not all men the same man. Not all opinions by any woman are that of all women.

Edited April 16 by Elliott

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

@Raze let's check something

 

@Lila9

@Natasha Tori Maru

@ladies

Do guys need to make more than women, than you? Do the guys that help around the house still suck? Do all men suck?

 

[Elliott]

Just now, Raze said:

 

I agree guys help more, I disagree that women aren't happier because of it. Some guys don't do shit though.

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

I agree guys help more, I disagree that women aren't happier because of it. Some guys don't do shit though.

Then why isn’t there a correlation

[Elliott]

35 minutes ago, Raze said:

Then why isn’t there a correlation

I believe there is

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

48 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Do guys need to make more than women, than you? 

No - I do not care. I have always earned more than the men I have been with. It has never been an issue.

Quote

Do the guys that help around the house still suck? Do all men suck?

As in, does the quality of their help suck? Or do I think lower of them for assisting with normal living standards? 

Some people suck yes - its not a gender or sex thing

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

I believe there is

 

 

 

https://ifstudies.org/in-the-news/conservative-women-3-times-happier-than-liberal-peers-for-these-reasons

Edited April 17 by Raze

[Lila9]

https://lettersfromnomfundo.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-a-fucking-pipeline

Stop Calling It a fucking Pipeline

Why boys who idolize misogynists aren’t being groomed, they’re making a choice

There is something deeply dishonest about the way we talk about boys who idolize men like Andrew Tate.

We are told they are “vulnerable.” That they are “falling down a pipeline.” That they are being “groomed” into misogyny.

But listen carefully to what that framing actually implies.

It implies that when men are not centered, praised, or rewarded, they drift toward cruelty. That without constant validation, they become dangerous. That their violence is something that happens to them, not something they choose.

That is not compassion but rather quiet admission.

It is an admission that male morality is conditional.

Because let’s be honest about what is being said in all these headlines about “alienated young men” and “lost boys.” Strip away the soft language and the therapeutic tone, and the message becomes clear.

Men are angry that women have autonomy.

They are angry that women can say no. Angry that women can leave. Angry that women are no longer economically or socially forced to tolerate them.

And instead of confronting that reality, we dress it up as a crisis of male loneliness.

But loneliness does not create abusers.

Plenty of people are lonely. Women experience isolation, rejection, trauma, and systemic violence at staggering rates. Girls grow up in a culture saturated with objectification, sexualization, and threat.

And yet, women are not forming mass movements around the world to exploit, dominate, or violate men.

So what exactly are we saying when we claim boys are being “groomed” into misogyny?

We are saying that exposure to the idea of female autonomy is enough to radicalize them.

We are saying that when boys encounter a world where women are not subordinate, some of them interpret that as oppression.

And instead of holding that reaction accountable, we pathologize it. We soften it. We explain it away.

“He felt rejected.”

“He was bullied.”

“He didn’t have a father figure.”

“He was looking for belonging.”

No!!!!!

At some point, we need to draw a line between explanation and excuse.

Because the truth is, not every boy exposed to this content embraces it. Not every man who feels rejected turns to misogyny. Not every person who suffers becomes someone who harms others.

There is a choice being made.

And the refusal to name that choice is part of the problem.

The idea that boys need “better role models” is also worth interrogating.

Better than what?

History, culture, politics, religion, business. Nearly every domain of power and influence has been dominated by men. Boys are not growing up in a vacuum devoid of male figures to emulate.

What they are losing is not role models.

They are losing entitlement.

And that loss is being reframed as injustice.

So instead of asking why some boys admire men who openly degrade and exploit women, we are asked to empathize with the boys.

We are told to understand their pain.

We are told to meet them with compassion.

But where is that same urgency when women speak about fear? About violence? About the daily calculations they make to stay safe?

Why is male anger treated as a crisis to be solved, while female suffering is treated as background noise?

There is also something deeply disturbing in the suggestion that giving men access to relationships, families, or social status will “stabilize” them.

Stabilize them from what?

From harming others?

Because if the argument is that men need women in order to remain non-violent, then what is being proposed is not partnership.

It is containment.

It is the idea that women should absorb male frustration so that it does not spill out into the wider world.

That is not empathy. That is sacrifice dressed up as social policy.

And women are expected to play along.

To be more understanding. More patient. More accommodating.

To fix a problem they did not create.

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

Some men are not confused. They are not lost. They are not being misled.

They are responding exactly as intended to a worldview that tells them they are entitled to dominance, and that any deviation from that is an injustice.

Figures like Tate do not create that mindset.

They capitalize on it.

They articulate it.

They give it permission to speak out loud.

And the boys who cheer are not doing so because they have been hypnotized.

They are doing so because something in that message resonates.

That is what needs to be confronted.

Not excused.

Confronted.

Because if we keep insisting that men who embrace misogyny are simply victims of circumstance, we will never hold them accountable for the harm they cause.And without accountability, nothing changes.

Women are not responsible for managing male reactions to their freedom.

And the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the clearer this conversation becomes.

[Lila9]

[Elliott]

11 hours ago, Raze said:

https://ifstudies.org/in-the-news/conservative-women-3-times-happier-than-liberal-peers-for-these-reasons

That was not a scientific study, it was done by a propaganda group

"

+8

The Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is a US-based conservative think tank dedicated to strengthening marriage and family life while advancing the well-being of children through social science research and public education. It promotes policies supporting married, heterosexual-led families"

 

 

"Why do states with larger proportions of religious conservatives have higher divorce rates than states with lower proportions of religious conservatives? "

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/674703

 

"Based on data regarding women murdered by men (often termed intimate partner or domestic homicide), states with the highest rates frequently include Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Nevada."

 

 

 

Conservatives are so happy about their marriages that they have 3 a piece!!!!

 

 

"However, where they did exist, we found that more religious people were actually more inclined to lie than less religious people. Interestingly, people who were motivated by their religious practices because of external incentives such as socializing and feeling protected were the most inclined to lie."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-deception/202209/the-paradox-religiosity-and-dishonesty

 

Edited April 17 by Elliott