Feminine surrender as emotional dominance

The first in the V-leaks series: Uncovering the Feminine Codex.

This series is going to focus on an examination of how women develop and employ power in a feminine way. And by feminine I mean as a manifestation of some combination of feminine biology and socialization.

Just a note to stem off the inevitable charges of misogyny: If you consider this series misogyny, then by extension the entire body of work looking at men’s use and abuse of power—including my own vlog on male power structures called apexuality—is an ocean of misandry sufficient to drown the entire world.

A while back there was a domestic terrorist in Canada who was targeting infrastructure related to gas processing and transportation. He was doing this because he felt this infrastructure was responsible for illness in his family. He was a survivalist and a very religious man.

At some point they interviewed one of his daughters. She explained that she had been taught that “women were weaker than men.” The news obviously included this particular bit in order to vilify her father as a horrible misogynist. But I picked up on a very different dynamic. She expressed this sentiment in the exact same way a young man might arrogantly proclaim his ‘pimp skills.’

Now, why is that?

To explain the origin of her smugly superior attitude let’s dissect the related concept of the surrendered wife. For those not in the know, a surrendered wife is a woman who has decided, usually unilaterally, to abdicate all agency and responsibility in a relationship. She simply responds to whatever her husband does by enduring it without comment and enjoying a god-gasm over being a good Christian at his expense.

An example of a ‘surrendered wife’ is a woman who, when her husband made a wrong turn off a freeway, never informed him of his mistake and let him drive for half a day in the wrong direction.

Getting the picture?

How is this related to female emotional domination, you might ask… that is, if you’re not picking up on it already.

Well, I’ll explain what’s really going on.

Human beings have an extremely strong instinct to take care of creatures that are helpless. We have this instinct because our offspring are the most helpless and dependent in the entire animal kingdom. Our instinct to help the helpless is therefore the most highly developed on Earth.

It is capable of superseding our survival instinct. There are plenty of examples of people (mostly men) sacrificing their lives to save others. Our instinct to take care of the helpless also supersedes our sexual instinct, which explains why paternal caretaking in the human species is so involved and common. Instinctively, human men will focus on taking care of their offspring preferentially over courting further sexual options (there are exceptions to this, of course, but these exceptions prove the rule.)

This protection instinct can be taken a step further in men. Not only do men have it but they are also socialized to see their gender identity revolving around exercising it. The implicit assumption of ‘women and children first’ is that it is men who provide the ‘first’ and if they don’t, they aren’t men.

To coin a phrase, a man’s social body, his positive social or spiritual identity–thus his connection to human society–is made up of his ability and willingness to fulfill the needs of those perceived to be more helpless than himself. So not only do men have an instinct to help the helpless, they also have a strong social compulsion on top of that instinct.

Remember this. The very survival of a man’s social body—his positive spiritual identity–is contingent upon sacrificing for the needs more helpless then himself.

Now let’s take a closer look at how someone can exploit this instinct in an aggressive manner.

Everybody understands that when person A puts a gun to the head of person B and makes demands, that person A is placing enormous pressure on person B to do whatever Person A wants.

What people don’t understand is that Person A can easily point the gun at her own head, and by pointing it at herself put the same or more pressure on person B to do whatever she wants.

In the first scenario Person A is triggering Person B’s survival instinct; in the second she’s triggering his protection instinct. Functionally, both actions are about bringing to bear tremendous coercive pressure on a target by triggering a powerful instinct. The second action has the added benefit of allowing person A to remain ‘a victim’, ‘powerless’ and ‘not harming anyone’ since she’s just threatening herself.

The reality is that she is covertly harming person B through the use of coercive force.

So, while you read the rest of this article, remember that triggering a person’s protection instinct is as coercive a force as triggering their survival instinct. If you need to, every time I refer to a woman triggering a man’s protective instinct by presumptively submissive behavior, imagine, instead, her putting a gun to her own head. Or if that still doesn’t clarify the coercive nature of triggering his protection instinct enough, imagine she’s putting a gun to his head instead. This image is not far fetched, because when a man fails to protect a woman, his social body is in jeopardy, therefore every instance of her triggering his protection instinct is also an instance of her threatening the continued existence of his social body, his positive connection to his community.

When a woman engages in the ‘surrendered’ lifestyle (in any of its forms, including secular ones), she is, in essence, inflating her helplessness in order to parasitize both her mate’s protection instinct and the connection between the survival of his social body and him providing for the helpless. The more helpless she is, the more his instinct is triggered and the more implied threat she is directing towards his social body if he does not provide for her needs.

If she does it right, she can attain a level of apparent helplessness that can supersede even that of an infant. This is because she is in possession of a relatively adult level of agency (even if she isn’t going to allow her husband to benefit from its existence) and is capable of avoiding an infant’s kneejerk communication of discomfort. Thus she can appear even more inert and uncommunicative and thus more completely helpless than an infant.

Think how thrilled new parents would be to not only have to deal with the all-consuming needs of a newborn, but to have a newborn that had absolutely no way of communicating those needs. The child is completely silent  and unable even to cry.  This sounds, on the surface, like it might be a relief not to have a fussy child but take a moment to imagine how much worse it is to be a new parent gripped with the endless fear of not knowing if they’re doing anything right or wrong or not enough or too much.

Not only does the surrendered wife want her husband to find her needs as all encompassing as those of a new born baby, she encourages a terrifying level of uncertainty in him that he’s actually fulfilling them.

It’s sort of like her not only putting that gun to his head, but not even explaining the actions she wants him to take to avoid having his brains blown out.

This leaves no room in the relationship—and I use the word loosely—for the man’s needs and vulnerabilities. Just ask any parent of a three-month year old child how parenting an infant has affected their sense of self and being able to take care of their own needs. In fact in the ‘surrendered wife’ model because the infant is man’s presumptive partner, not only is there no time to address his needs but there exists no other adult in the relationship to address his needs. (And just a note, addressing your male partner’s needs is not synonymous with giving him fifteen minutes of uninspired ‘godly’ sex every two months. I know this will come as a shock but each man, being human, has his own unique tapestry of fears, insecurities, things that make him sad, you know, vulnerabilties.)

Since this isn’t a relationship of emotional equals—it’s a relationship of mistress and emotional slave–a woman has to look elsewhere to get her adult emotional needs met. That’s why all people recommending the surrendered wife model insist that a surrendered wife have female friends.

The surrendered wife, on the other hand, is likely her husband’s primary or only emotional relationship, his only real connection to humanity. Likely this assists in the process of hijacking his agency like a body-snatching alien pod since he has no other outlet for getting his emotional needs met. Or even an outside perspective on what’s happening to him.

Another clue to the real nature of the surrendered wife phenomena is how often women engaging in it talk about it achieving their aim of getting their husbands to do exactly what they want them to.

As a very intelligent MRA noted, a women’s limitations are a man’s obligations. The more helpless a surrendered wife is, the more he has to revolve his life around sacrificing for her. Until there is no autonomous life left in him.

The end result of this is emotional emeshment is that he becomes no more than a vehicle of her needs. In that context telling her that she must ‘obey’ her husband becomes a sort of farce. There is no autonomous being to obey.

It’s also interesting how people evangelizing the ‘surrendered wife’ model seem to assume that a woman emotionally dominating her partner—either through overt verbal abuse or through invasion-of-the-body-snatchers style emotional emeshment—is just a given. Either you’re an abusive harridan or an all-consuming waif.

But there exists a third possibility that is opposite to both: a mutually respectful adult relationship in which a woman is grateful for her husband’s strengths and respectful of his vulnerabilities.

We often misunderstand the nature of the ‘surrendered wife’ model as somehow beneficial to men because we are locked into seeing dominance on male terms. We think that the dominant partner in a relationship is the one making all the decisions, when in fact the dominant partner is the one those decisions are being made for. The partner who’s in the driver’s seat, so to speak, is the one whose needs have been prioritized over the others’. And the one who’s needs have been prioritized is always the one who has co-opted the other’s protective instinct. The one who is seen as the weaker party. That’s also the partner who’s deriving the primary benefit from having the relationship.

Conversely when a wife respects her husband’s vulnerabilities, by definition she will take the lead when he is vulnerable. But it’s his needs that are the driving force behind the decisions she makes while in the lead.

This is why the husbands of surrendered wives are the subordinate partners in the relationship. Their wives never take the lead, thus they never take the lead in making decisions driven by their husband’s vulnerabilities. In every equal relationship each partner gets some ‘me’, in the surrendered wife relationship there is only she.

This is how you end up with a woman who will let her husband turn off the wrong exit on a freeway and say nothing while he humiliates himself by driving for hours the wrong way. She would rather see him suffer than expose her own agency and risk lessening her own power over him. Alternatively she doesn’t even see him as an autonomous person; his mistakes are just a disaster, like a flood or a tornado, that she endures in order to rack up her god-points.

Now not all surrendered wives are going to take this toxic dynamic to the extreme of complete emotional domination of their husbands. What I’m saying is that this dynamic provides no protection for the man from a wife who will.

Particularly in a Christian community where the husband is held strictly liable for all of his wife’s behavior. ‘Why are you complaining? Isn’t your wife’s godly supplication to you sufficient?’

And men are particularly vulnerable because they don’t pick up on the subtle cues that indicate a woman is practicing this sort of psychological aggression against them. When a man ‘surrenders’ it’s the end of his power; whereas when a woman ‘surrenders’ it’s just the beginning of hers.

Further you can see this dynamic in a lot of secular, non religious relationships as well. The harridan wife is just a subset of the surrendered wife, except like a fussy infant she’s more vocal about her requirements. And you see the same coercive dynamic in some political ideologies: Make yourself look like a victim to appeal to men’s instinct to protect you. It’s just the ‘surrendered’ wife lifestyle distills the dynamic to it’s clearest essence.

And no, I’m not saying it’s impossible for a male partner to exploit his female partner by triggering her protective instincts, I just don’t see an entire subculture dedicated to it or ubiquitous cultural expectations supporting it.

So in conclusion, why was the daughter of the survivalist telling the viewer that she was taught that ‘women are weak’ with such a palpable air of smug self-satisfaction?

Let me translate her words from female dominance language to dominance language men are more likely to recognize. ‘Weakness is my pimp hand, yo. And you boy-bitches better fall in line, because my pimp hand be strong.’


About Alison Tieman (Typhonblue)

Alison Tieman (aka Typhonblue) is a Canadian writer and social observer. She is a Senior Contributor and Editor to A Voice for Men, penning superlative works that analyse gender-related behavior in men and women. She also writes for Genderratic, and is a founder and member of The Honeybadger Brigade.

Main Website
View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Otter

    Yea it’s really hard to kill your protective instinct.

    I’m trying to starve mine by force-feeding my survival instinct.

    • Transhuman

      I am in a place now where I wonder at my ability to forgo an instinct I do not feel but others describe as being essential to their being a man. I am a man, I have looked after many injured people, men, women, boys and girls. Some of them have been dying and I have tried to my best ability to stave off death for them. I do it because they are people and, frequently, I alone have the skills in the crowd to make a difference to their state of suffering until medical aid arrives.

      Yet I do not feel protective of women; should they require first aid I will render it as I have been trained but not because they are women. I don’t care if women are frightened by shadows, or walking to their car alone at night, or getting in a lift with me, or cross the road when I walk towards them on a street. The fears of women are immaterial, unless I am their first aider. I think because I believe fears of an injured or ill person are real, rather than the attention-seeking ‘fears’ of city-bred women.

      I wonder though, how is it I do not care like others do, about women and how they feel.

      • Otter

        I’m no expert but I would look to the way you were raised. I know that I had a particularly odd upbringing which has shaped my perspective in weird ways. My mom was a devout feminist who divorced the hardest working man I have ever met. I had three sisters and no brothers and all I ever heard was shouts of girl power and cries of sexism. You could say I grew up behind enemy lines and I can tell you firsthand that is not a healthy environment for a boy. I am in the business of saving people as well although in a different way. You sound pretty unique in your lack of sexual bias and i for one think think that is something to be celebrated

  • Sheldon Walker

    So essentially you’re talking about women who prey on white-knights, and the ignorance of their enablers.

    This is a concept that is not foreign to most men. In most cases, It’s not that the men are unaware of whats happening, it’s just that, the display you’re speaking of it is not even worth paying credence to.

    The caricature of male articulation of dominance based on 1980’s rap speak also leads me to believe that the author is out of touch with current trends.

    • typhonblue

      I know, don’t explain the joke…

      It’s not intended to parody ‘male dominance speak’, it’s intended to convey the fact that ‘female dominance speak’ translates to the crudest forms of caricatured ‘male dominance’.

      • typhonblue

        Not only am I going to explain the joke I’m now going to belabour the point.

        The entire purpose of that ridiculous send up of bad rap lyrics is because we have this vision of women as being these nurturing, fluffy, saccharine sweet, ‘sugar and spice and every thing nice’ helpless creatures.

        When a lot of their language and dominance power plays basically are no more evolved then ‘ogg smash! OGG SMASH HARDER!’

        Once you understand them, at least.

        • Stu

          Was just watching one of your vids Typhon, not featured one on this page, you’ve got your hair down, and a black singlet top. I just thought it was funny….there is a guy sitting in the background not far behind you…….playing video games……the whole time.

          I don’t know why……I just found it hilarious…’s saying something funny to me…..but I don’t know what lol

          • typhonblue

            Yeah, that’s my husband. He’s also playing video games in the featured video too. And my third one I believe.

            He gives not a fuck.

          • Stu

            Gee Typhon, you’re gonna have to get him involved. Maybe in the next vid you can have some lines for him.

            I know, something easy. Have him sit there like always, playing vid games……but he can yell out now and then……..”MORE BEER”……”WOMAN……MOORREE BEER GOD DAMN IT”

            I don’t know why it seems funny. But what you said about him not giving a fuck has something to do with it……you an MRA…….husband doesn’t care about men’s rights……why is that funny……I don’t know, but it is. It looks funny in the vid anyway.

          • Stu

            I’ve worked it out…..what’s funny that is.

            It’s like, your doing something very interesting…..something he should be interested in. But no, the vid game still has his attention. And I guess I wonder……what have you got to do to get his attention…..and even if you are doing that…..interesting stuff to get his attention that is… you have to like……keep your head out of the way of the screen.

          • typhonblue

            @ Stu

            “And I guess I wonder……what have you got to do to get his attention…”

            What have I got to do to get his attention? The answer is that he gives me his attention when he choses to; there’s nothing in particular I can do to get it.

            He’s sort of like a cat in that respect.

            As for ‘fetching him beer’, if I did that he would probably ignore the beer I fetched, fetch his own and drink it in front of me. Just because.

            He’s the most implacable man I’ve ever met, except maybe for my father who also has that aire of ‘I have my own agenda, and no, I’m not explaining.’

        • Darryl X

          Yeah, I kinda figured that out when I used to play in a sandbox.

      • Stu

        The only times in my life that I’ve ever taken a wrong turn and drove the wrong way for hours is when my wife is navigating……..from the map……..the one she’s holding upside down and rotating around every time we make a turn. But now I get it………it’s all a plot so that we have to drive…….and read the map as well.

        • Shrek6

          Stu, I have never yet met a woman who can effectively read a map. Hang on, I must admit that once a pregnant woman read a map perfectly and only once, then directed me for more than 30 minutes of driving. Outside of that, the same woman when not pregnant, couldn’t read a map to save her life.

          • Darryl X

            OMG. I never met a woman who can read a map either. I thought it was just me. And why should they when they can just get a man to do it for them. Or get the government to fund development of GPS devices that tell them where to go.

          • Girl Writes What

            Women tend to navigate by landmark. It’s the most reliable way when you’re close to home, where you recognize your surroundings. (gatherers)

            Men tend to navigate by orientation–direction, time, distance–more tricky, but the only way to find your way home after venturing a long way afield. (hunters)

            Maps are an orientation method of navigation. I remember screwing up a female friend of mine by telling her, “You turn south onto 91st, then head to the freeway and exit west.” Using “south” and “west” instead of “right” and “left” completely stymied her, and she ended up lost in an ikea parking lot on the other side of town. Then she called me all panicking and freaked out because it was dark and the stores were closed.

          • BeijaFlor

            Darryl, Shrek – my case is utterly different, because two of the four women I dated in my life were women I met at the office. Women who worked in my career field … as professional cartographers. Mapmakers.

          • Darryl X

            @BF – Actually, I DO understand. I am a professional mapmaker – it’s a big part of my job. And it’s a big part of the job for my coworkers to read the maps I make.

            I’m very good at what I do (I have received performance bonuses for my exceptional work and my maps have been published in scientific journals).

            In one instance, a female coworker who was supposed to read the maps I made complained to our supervisor that the maps weren’t good enough for her to use.

            So I was asked to make new ones. How I could make them any better was a mystery since the problem with the first ones was never clearly explained to me and there was nothing special about the maps. They were pretty simple.

            She couldn’t read the new ones or the new ones after that or the new ones after that. (I work for the federal gov’t so this takes a lot of time and money and the public would be furious if it learned how much money was being wasted on this woman’s nonsense.)

            Ultimately, tens of thousands of dollars later, it was determined that this one woman whose job it was to read maps and who was hired specifically to do that could not read a map. Not even a commercial Rand McNally road map. Nothing. She was cartographically illiterate.

            But she and our female supervisor were so stupid that they didn’t understand the problem wasn’t my maps. It was their inability to read them. They were so consumed with themselves that they refused to admit what was obvious to anyone else on the project: they couldn’t read maps.

            Ultimately, I was disciplined for misconduct because these women were unable to read any maps that I made.

            Meanwhile, they were promoted into higher ranks because they showed exceptional administrative skills by lying about their skills and abilities to read and interpret maps and then when they couldn’t, they were exceptional at conspiring to portray their incompetence as misconduct on my part.

            Of course they were promoted. That’s how our government works. Malignant narcissism in full display.

          • Darryl X

            @Girl – I appreciate your causational analysis of the difference between women and men and how they navigate. I’m always happy to read something more than mechanistic analysis (which is great too but there is a lot more of that than causational).

            As a humorous aside, I would propose that women tend not to navigate at all. They get a man to do it for them.

            Kudos for your observation about your friend’s panic not so much about being lost but the stores not being open. It’s one of the funnier lines I’ve read on this site. Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Doesn’t happen often.

            My favorite is by Paul Elam (I think). It went something like this (paraphrase): “Yes, a few crazy men have killed women because they hate feminists but that only shows that even crazy people aren’t necessarily stupid.”

      • Sheldon Walker

        I completely understand what you’re saying.

        That snark = dominance.

        However, I disagree with that assertion.

        When this particular tactic is employed it is usually perceived as “Oh she made a cute comment~”.

        Rather than “Oh no she’s dominating me.”.

    • Paul Elam

      “This is a concept that is not foreign to most men.”

      That is certainly news to me. Where are the great works of literature or evidence of mainstream consensus that demonstrates men’s cognizance of these dynamics?

      Indeed, the concept is foreign to most men, and most that actually do come to understand it will remain silent out of fear. We see that here every day.

      • Shrek6

        I personally do not believe most men are aware of this concept at all. I believe most men are totally ignorant and unaware of the fact that they are being taken for a huge ride when they hold this perceived position of power within the family structure.

        Typhonblue has a great video on this page and I think I might get my teenage boys to watch it, because there is a lot they can learn from it.
        I wish I had known about all this stuff, before I was sentenced to 23 years of abuse, then loss of homes and children.

        • Darryl X

          I think they are aware that something is wrong but they can’t articulate it. It’s pretty disorienting and completely illogical and irrational. Trying to understand it and be aware of it is a pretty big step. Most men just aren’t conditioned to behave this way and can’t even comprehend that someone else would behave that way and treat them that way.

          • valdez_addiction

            Now I can agree with that statement.

      • vklaatu

        The classic line “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” was uttered when Rhett Butler didn’t want to be jerked around by Scarlett O’Hara anymore, and refused to be her white knight. I’d say he was very much aware of what she was really all about. for you youngsters out there, that’s from Gone With the Wind.

        • Paul Elam


          And we still see the occasional Rhett Butler wandering around alone in a world of Willie Loeman’s.

          He is the exception, not the rule.

        • Mr. XY

          “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”

          Yeah…and when you say that to a parasite, what do you think happens next nowadays?
          Act 2 will be her playing a helpless victim to police, family courts, etc. I guess it depends on how deep you’re in it. If you’re married or have kids with the woman you don’t say anything…you get the hell out…fast…or better yet, if you’re smart enough you bow your head, say “yes dear” and make a good plan to get out with your penis intact.
          Today, men need to take two red pills and a red suppository…maybe act more strategic and less reactive.

          • vklaatu

            By the time Rhet said that to Scarlett, they’d already had a child together, and the girl died. That often destroys marriages. In my case, and in Rhett’s case, we just let the women throw themselves under the bus after we’d already bailed them out repeatedly and finally got tired of their self destructive nonsense.

            I have managed to avoid courts, inspite of one paticularly sticky situation that I’m not going to air out here in public. I might discuss it in private, at my own discretion.

            I have never had one shred of respect for tradition outside of, occasionally, science, the arts, and my military service. I’ve defended women’s equality in the past as a point of honor, but after the feminized culture fails for decades to reciprocate good men’s kindness and understanding, then I finally have to say, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” And if the women, manginas, and white knights dont like my tone, then they can, as Paul would say, kindly go fuck themselves.

      • Sheldon Walker

        Maybe, I’m aware of this due to the fact that I have two sister and my social circle and I’m projecting my personal experience onto all men.

        I’ve experienced what Ms.Blue is describing quite a bit during my formative years.

        I actually remember one time during summer camp my younger sister convinced me to confront another boy physically because she claimed that he had taken a book from her in a rather aggressive manner. Later on I find out that this never happened and my sister just wanted the book… This was at around the age of ten.

        So it could be that I’m aware simply due to overexposure.

        For those that are unawares it’s better to simply ignore this type of behavior than to confront it.

        • Paul Elam

          “For those that are unawares it’s better to simply ignore this type of behavior than to confront it.”

          i would love to hear your rationale for that.

          • Sheldon Walker

            The dominance being applied relies on acknowledgement of it’s existence.

            The most effective way to invalidate is by acting as if it doesn’t exist.

          • Darryl X

            Hard to ignore it when it’s institutionalized in politics, law, society and finance. Otherwise I would agree. That’s another Catch-22.

          • FreeMan

            If I’m getting Sheldon’s meaning correctly, then in keeping with typhonblue’s analogy of Person A holding a gun to her own head in order to manipulate Person B, Sheldon is saying that Person B should just walk away.

            Or even tell A to go ahead and pull the fucking trigger.

        • valdez_addiction

          “For those that are unawares it’s better to simply ignore this type of behavior than to confront it.”

          You’re comparing apples and oranges. This type of behavior may be easily ignored if you’re dealing with your a sister or mother… A woman whom you don’t have to live with.

          This behavior cannot be ignored in romantic relationships. Ignoring this type of behavior in a wife or girlfriend is like ignoring the fact that the person who gives you a lift to work likes to start his day with a shot of Jack Daniels.

          This behavior as innocent and insignificant as it seems cannot be tolerated. The solution for the latter is the same for the former.

          Don’t be a passenger when the inevitable happens, because being naive won’t save you.

          • Darryl X

            Or worse. If it’s institutionalized in politics, law, society and finance. Can’t ignore it if it’s constantly hunting you down. Our government and every mechanism of life today is informed in large part by feminism (fascism).

    • Lordmep

      While many men might be familuar with this idea, typhonblue is taking the idea and putting it to words. Something I have regularly heard expressed on this site is the notion that many men know that there is something wrong with the world around them but are unable to figure out exactly what it is.

      I consider a subset of the Men’s Movement’s efforts to raise awareness is the process of giving voice to relatively well known concepts. For example, many men might can get the impression that most if not all women in their lives hate them, but they’ll not likely know about misandry unless they hear it from an MRA.

      Keep up the good work typhonblue. You are performing a most valuable service.

      • Kai

        Well, I know that there’s a lot of misandry in society. But do the majority of women in my life actually hate me for being male? One can argue that, but do you have any solid evidence?

        • Girl Writes What

          They can hate Men without hating every individual man, or even any man they know on a personal level.

        • Darryl X

          Yes. And here’s the evidence: Statistically, one-third of all adult women (if you’re in the US) have deliberately and unilaterally and maliciously divorced their husbands (that requires breaking the law and violating the Constitution and a at least a few Commandments). Another one-third have violated the law some how to defraud a man by making false allegations of rape, paternity fraud, sexual harrassment, etc… So, when I walk out the door every day, just speaking statistically, at least two-thirds of all adult women have proven their hate for me just because I am a man. That doesn’t even include the number of women who benefit from my hard labor and do not even acknowledge my labor or even understand that they benefit from it. The list goes on. Yes, a majority of women in your life hate you. But it’s actually worse than that. They hate you so much that they won’t even waste the time to give you the attention and let you know they hate you. They do it by proxy. That’s how much they hate you. They are in a permanent out of body experience.

          • valdez_addiction

            You do realize that a woman wrote this article pointing out female manipulation in an attempt to help men understand the acts of, “some” women.

            Just putting it out there…

            Besides that, what you just said is proof of what women are allowed to get away with. It’s not proof of some deep seeded hatred for all men.

            Granted there are plenty of women who hate men because we live in a society that encourages that hate, to say statistics are proof of the fact that all women hate all men is a bit of a stretch.

            That’s like saying children hate authority because if we let them, they’d do what they want.

            No. It’s because it’s human nature to test our limits. It’s how we learn what our limitations are.

            Children would eat candy all day every day if we let them; but we don’t. It’s because we understand the consequences.

            The moment most children become older and more experienced they also understand the consequences. So to avoid a stomach ache they’re far less likely to get, “Chocolate Wasted.”

            The problem with most women is that they are never taught the limitations of their behavior therefore they believe none exists.

            As I’ve said to you time and time again. It’s a learned behavior just like men putting up with it is a learned behavior.

          • Darryl X

            Yes and I am eternally grateful for women like Typhonblue and Phylis Schlaffly and Erin Pizzey and others. And I will especially applaud all these women who have fought hard for men when the war is over and they return to their traditional roles. Supporting a household so that men can support everything else.

            Hate is determined praxiologically. When someone wants to exterminate me and other men using the machinations of gov’t, then I call that hate.

            Perhaps I shouldn’t use terms like that. I agree that they can be misinterpreted and appear judgmental and I do not wish to qualify behvavior like that but just describe and quantify its implications for people and their lives.

            If women want to have rights then they have to have responsibilities. Understanding the difference between right and wrong is inherent. It does not need to be taught. If someone doesn’t understand then difference between right and wrong, then they are praxiologically evil. They can be taught that there are consequences for certain behaviors (or not) but they can’t be compelled to understand based upon a complex analysis of costs and benefits the difference between right and wrong. Especially if they have no analytical skills and the composition of their brain prevents them from it.

            That’s not to say I should not have compassion for these people. However, when put into a situation where it’s either me or them and they refuse to let me choose both, I’ll choose me.

          • valdez_addiction

            I can agree with every part of that comment except the fact that people are knowing right and wrong is inherent.

            I used to believe the same thing until I came across certain individuals that were taught the opposite of what I was taught.

            I did not believe it was possible for a human being to not be born with the ability to automatically know the difference between right and wrong. And I was in denial about that for a long time which almost cost me my life.

            As much as I hate to admit it, it’s a reality of our world. There are actually 3rd and 4th generation Bloods and Crips who are born into the gang lifestyle and you’d be hard pressed to convince them it’s wrong.

            This is why some people have no hang ups about committing horrific acts. Their parents convinced themselves long ago that the lifestyle they chose was correct and instilled this behavior in their innocent children from birth.

            This type of programming becomes so deeply ingrained that it’s as powerful as religion.

    • Darryl X

      I don’t think they prey on white-knights. They prey on all men this way. White-knites probably fair better than non-white-knights. Malignant narcissists are furious at men who do not acquiesce to their manipulation. They just use white-nights but they destroy men who aren’t.

  • ThoughtCriminal

    Let me translate her words from female dominance language to dominance language men are more likely to recognize. ‘Weakness is my pimp hand, yo. And you boy-bitches better fall in line, because my pimp hand be strong.’

    LOL. Contrary to popular opinion,most of us would never say anything like this.

    “Conversely when a wife respects her husband’s vulnerabilities, by definition she will take the lead when he is vulnerable. But it’s his needs that are the driving force behind the decisions she makes while in the lead.”

    You can say that. I’ve never seen it. I’ve yet to see one single instance in MY life of a woman making her man’s needs the driving force behind anything. Usually it’s “I did this for us” or “I did it for the relationship” but never, “I thought YOU might be thirsty,so I picked up a six pack of beer for YOU. Why don’t you call some of your buddies over and YOU can have a few drinks together?”

    The only time I ever came close to seeing anything like that was when my girlfriend brought me some food once while I was sidelined with the flu.I couldn’t eat anything,though. And then she left. She was cheating on me a lot during our relationship,looking back on it, that’s probably what she was doing while I was sick.

    If women give a shit about their men at all,besides how his problems will affect her, they’re doing a pretty damn good job of hiding it.

    I’d like to believe a woman could structure her plans around a man’s needs,especially in cases of physical incapacitation, but I have seen no evidence for it at all.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Just to put an idea out there…as a woman who HAS ventured out into those weeds…it seems to me anyone of either gender ends up getting screwed for going that route.

      “I thought YOU might be thirsty,so I picked up a six pack of beer for YOU. Why don’t you call some of your buddies over and YOU can have a few drinks together?”

      File that under “No good deed goes unpunished”.

      I think Paul even touched on that same thing in a video. It’s when a person doesn’t give a damn it seems the other person in that relationship starts tripping over themselves to get their attention or approval, regardless of gender.

      It’s too bad, but that is how it is.

      You’ve got to admit, it’s the self centered, selfish, narcissistic women who end up becoming “trophy wives”, handed the keys to the kingdom and placed on pedestals as highly prized, while the good hearted, self sacrificing and considerate women are handed a brush and Lysol to clean their lowly pedestals.

      • ThoughtCriminal

        You’ve got to admit, it’s the self centered, selfish, narcissistic women who end up becoming “trophy wives”, handed the keys to the kingdom and placed on pedestals as highly prized, while the good hearted, self sacrificing and considerate women are handed a brush and Lysol to clean their lowly pedestals.

        I’ll admit it. But I submit to you, and to other women witnessing this phenomenon,that it is not the narcissistic or manipulative qualities that are prized by men. In fact, these trophy wives are probably secretly despised for those qualities,and the implicit knowledge that it is basically a given that they will eventually cheat, while prized for their other qualities.

        The narcissistic women place more emphasis on their looks as the tools of their trade,manipulation. As a result, men are more likely to want to show off these women. A hausfrau, in contrast,often lets her looks go or regularly wears unflattering clothing. The tools of her trade are her homemaking skills, which most men value as much in women as their appearance. However,appearance is and will always be the primary attractor,because fertility is more important than longterm survival and comfort in the male hindbrain.

        The danger for women is in thinking because the women men seek most are personally conceited manipulative bitches, that men are “looking for a challenge” or “don’t value” other types of women. There’s no causal connection there. Men aren’t evaluating these women based on their personality, women are. The conceited women simply put more effort into their looks and prioritize sexiness because they are narcissists.

        A woman like yourself,of a humble and good-hearted nature, could grab and hold a man’s attention indefinitely by simply grabbing him up out of the blue,kissing him all over,looking him in the eyes playfully and asking him to make love to you once in a while,even without 100% stellar flawless looks.But those women, self-sacrificing and good-hearted as they are,suffer from the opposite set of character flaws;namely self-consciousness,shyness, and a structural inability to be the initiator,which sexiness in a woman sometimes requires.

        Would you agree with me on that last sentence?

        • Darryl X

          No. Although some female behavior is learned, most is hard-wired. More male behavior is learned.

          Also, to the degree which behavior is a function of early learning and conditioning and discipline, much more resources are redirected from development of intellect to reproductive capacity at an early age (and getting earlier) for females than males.

          Also, intellectual development, to the extent it picks up again after puberty, is again stalled for females during pregnancy when more resources are redirected from brain to reproduction.

          Women are parasites. Their entire composition is designed to get reluctant men who know better because they have a more developed intellect to fuck them (I mean if you think about it, it’s pretty stupid).

          That’s pretty much it. Seriously, without considerable manipulation by a woman, would you honestly want to sleep with one? All of a male’s intellectual development tells him not to do it.

          All the development of a female’s primitive mind-set (or lack of intellectual development) tells her to manipulate him into doing it. Once in a while the female wins and that’s why we’re still around as a species.

          The problem is mitigating that existence with a social structure that still allows men to survive after being parasitized. It’s freedom for men we have to worry about. Not women.

          Women will always be free. Or at least they will never have an intellect developed well enough to distinguish between freedom and not. They certainly can’t tell whether or not they’ve hurt someone else. They have no empathy. That’s because they have no analytical skills. For a woman, there is no difference between right and wrong and freedom or not.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I wish I could agree with your last sentence, but I’ve found in my own personal Life & Times the more vain, narcissistic, selfish and self serving I am… the better treatment I receive.

          It’s just my own personal theory, but I think men mistake selfishness for how much a woman values herself, and the more she “values” herself, the more men value her.

          As much as I hear men griping about over indulged, selfish and immoral Western women, I have never heard men talk about Muslim women when they look to “foreign” women. For all the “good” humble and unselfish virtues they may have… they undeniably get treated like crap.

          • valdez_addiction

            @ThoughtCriminal. What you said makes perfect sense. Trophy wives being more attractive to men is only proof of our attraction to physicality first and mentality second.

            Very beautiful women having fucked up attitudes is only proof of the false sense of entitlement they receive from years of being treated like royalty because of the world’s misguided infatuation with anything aesthetically pleasing.

            Darryl X is only disagreeing with you because his perception of women is only one step above feminists perception of men. He obviously didn’t see the post Dr. Paul made telling some of our MRA brothers to stop women bashing.

            @Darryl X. All women are not the same no matter how much you beat the drum about it. You are doing yourself a great disservice by constantly trying to prove women have some genetic predisposition to being bitches. It’s insulting to the women who have joined our cause and I for one wish you would cut it out.
            You seem to have the same point regardless of which article you’re commenting on. Being an MRA is not about hating women. It’s about making sure Men and Women have equal rights under the law.

            @OneHundredPercentCotton. Okay, first of all, men put up with your vain, narcissistic, selfish and self serving behavior because most men are not informed enough or have enough self respect to recognize if for what it is. And others are willing to do anything to get in your pants.

            (Thanks for the confession by the way)

            But by no means is it proof that we accept and reward that behavior.

            Hence the term, “Women, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.”

            In most cases the sex explains no being able to live without them and the not being able to live with them is everything else.

            And your statement about Islamic women being treated like crap is bullshit. I’m willing to bet you no nothing of the Islamic faith except what you’ve seen on CNN.

            That statement you made was a generalized statement that’s both insulting and ignorant. Saying that all women who are Islamic are unselfish and undeniably treated like crap is just like feminists saying all men are violent or misogynists saying all women are bitches.

            I know some Islamic women who are worse than the average radical feminist. And I know some Islamic women who are well rounded individuals. Some have husbands who are assholes and some don’t.

            The only difference between them and us is the fact that you can see signs of their religion by how they dress, giving you the opportunity to put them all in one box with a statement of bigotry.

            Being a Muslim man doesn’t automatically make you a terrorist.
            Being a Muslim women doesn’t automatically make you oppressed.
            Being a Japanese man doesn’t automatically make you smart.
            Being a Japanese woman doesn’t automatically make you submissive.
            Being a White man doesn’t automatically make you privileged.
            Being a Black man doesn’t automatically make you a criminal.

            But assuming the things a person chooses to do has anything to do with what’s going on outside of his head is bullshit.

            And if I were you I’d be careful because proudly voicing those stereotypes in a public forum is proof of the bullshit in your head.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I knew I was going to take a bullet on that one, Val, but you surprise me. You usually have more well thought out remarks.

            I’ve tried it both ways, and I can tell you, as a woman, the more you act like an ass, the more you get your ass kissed.

            NOT my rules – it’s my observation and experience.

            I can provide ten thousand examples to prove my point. I can ask you to provide just one to disprove it.

            I’ve never seen a photo of a Muslim woman drunk in the streets of Cancun with her skirt hiked up around her waist with her legs thrown wide open.

            Doesn’t mean it has never happened, it just means I’ve seen plenty such photos of Western women but have yet to spot one of a Muslim woman.

            I worked with, and have friendships, with Iranians (mostly engineers I worked with) from over forty years ago, loooong before our current Muslim bashing, who came to this country ashamed and disgusted by the way their mothers and wives were treated in their homeland. Stories of a young boy seeing his mother kicked into a ditch by a passing bicyclist because a wind storm blew off her headcoverings. My impressions were formed long before CNN, and came from talking with people immigrating from those countries. I’m more inclined to take THEIR word over yours, if you don’t mind.

            The only person “automatically” stereotyping is…you.

          • valdez_addiction

            Actually no. My statement was the opposite of stereotyping. In fact it was the point of my statement.

            By the way, saying that you’re surprised at me because my statements are usually more well thought out, is proof to two things.

            1. The fact that the moment my statement became authoritarian in nature it also became, “less thought out,” in your opinion.
            2. You are well versed in the art of, “Shaming tactics.”

            First of all you’re never gonna see an Islamic woman piss drunk in the streets with her dress over her head. This speaks more to the fact that their cultural background does not allow such things; hence your story about the woman being kicked for the wind blowing off her head wrap.

            The fact that she was kicked is not proof of Islamic women being treated badly as much as it’s proof of Islamic, “people” being treated badly.

            In Islamic countries men who are accused of rape are subject to castration. Islam has always had severe punishments regardless of the offense… Or the gender.
            The only stories that are told is the ones about the women.

            Hence the whole men’s rights movement…

            And the fact that you believe the stories (which may or may not be fact since you didn’t experience them yourself) of a few immigrants who could possibly be seeking social approval in a new land is, in fact, Stereotyping.

            I would imagine if a group of American feminists moved to another country they would have quite a few tales of their own to tell about oppression and abuse.

            That doesn’t make it true

          • Otter

            Hi there, I wanted to try to shed some light on something you said that seems to me to be a false correlation. Check this out:

            “But those women, self-sacrificing and good-hearted as they are,suffer from the opposite set of character flaws;namely self-consciousness,shyness, and a structural inability to be the initiator,which sexiness in a woman sometimes requires.”

            Absolutely true. Self-conciousness, shyness, and the inability to be the initiator are all unattractive traits.

            “it is not the narcissistic or manipulative qualities that are prized by men.”

            Also true, narcissism and a manipulative personality are also unattractive traits.

            “the more vain, narcissistic, selfish and self serving I am… the better treatment I receive.”

            Here is the disconnect. Yes, you will receive better treatment acting vain, narcissistic, selfish and self-serving than you would acting self-concious, shy, and closed-off. This is because by acting vain, narcissistic, selfish and self-serving you are projecting an image of self-confidence, extrovertedness, and ease of ability to discourse with others. Those things you are projecting don’t have to be lies. You can choose to be confident, extroverted and engage comfortably with others without acting vain, narcissistic, selfish and self-serving.

            Trust me when I say that confidence is very attractive to men, but so is a genuine and decent personality. Kind people are attractive, but they must also be confident and comfortable in their own skin. You sound like you are just projecting the appearance of confidence at the price of decency and kindness. Not attractive for long, it just fools us for a little bit until we get to know you.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            So…I’m using “shaming tactics” in reply to your “shaming tactics”?

            Well, shame on me!

            Instead of countering my observations (my “confession” as you put it) with valid observations from your own perspective, you went on a personal attack about Muslims this, Japanese that, white men, black people, shame, shame, shame?

            When I mentioned my friendships and shared stories with Muslim ENGINEERS from an era when Muslims were WELCOMED as students and employed ENGINEERS in this country, I PRESUMED you’d realize I gleaned my perspective from MEN who emigrated here seeking a better life for their wives and daughters, especially since the story specifically mentioned a BOY seeing his mother kicked into a ditch by a passing stranger.

            Call me crazy, I have no reason to believe a highly intelligent, well educated, quite wealthy MALE Muslim would be telling feminist lies in an era that PREdated feminism just to impress little old me.

            Starting with mistaking me for being male, you’ve been 100% wrong on all your presumptions, don’t know me or anything about me, so maybe discussing the ideas posed instead of going off on personal attacks and character assumptions is the way to go until you actually know for sure I don’t know a few unintelligent Japanese people.

            My initial impression was you were a critical thinker. I’m starting to feel disappointed in myself.

          • valdez_addiction

            lol. First of all, none of the statements I made were personal attacks on you because as you so clearly stated, I don’t know you.

            All I do and will continue to do is voice my opinion, so if that bothers you, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. In here men are allowed to have opinions… And we’re not ashamed to voice them or challenge others.

            All I know about you is your opinion, which is what I’m speaking on.

            Aside from that if you actually took the time to read my post instead of rushing to post a reply, you’ll see that I’m pointing out that your observations are just that… Observations and not facts as you originally presented them to be.

            “Call me crazy, I have no reason to believe a highly intelligent, well educated, quite wealthy MALE Muslim would be telling feminist lies in an era that PREdated feminism to impress little old

            No, but your original post implied that you do believe this same type of male represents an abusive group as a whole since you said, “Muslim women are undeniably treated like crap.”

            Your words, not mine.

            And I never said your, “esteemed colleagues” were telling feminist lies. I made a comparison to show you how easy it is for someone’s perception to be compromised by their own self interests. I was taught that a story is only a story until it’s proven to be a fact.

            And by the way, you said your experience was 40 years ago. That predates second wave feminism. There is a first wave you know. So if you’re gonna correct me, try using correct facts.

            As far as me making assumptions… There’s another word for that. It’s called an educated guess. And my educated guess about you was only based on what you posted and how you responded to me. It has nothing to do with you personally. And it’s sad you would take that from me disagreeing with you.

            I get the impression you’re not used to it. And it’s unfortunate that you are disappointed in yourself, but that is a personal issue and has nothing to do with me.

            And you have to excuse me if I point out the fact that you not only admitted to the type of behavior that men on this very site are the victims of and fighting an uphill battle against, but you also had to nerve to admit that it’s gotten you results.

            And that’s not an observation on your part. That’s like a murder saying they observed themselves shooting someone in the face.

            You may have observed it but you also pulled the trigger.

            I have no patience for women who engage in that behavior… Especially ones who admit that it gets them the best results from the men they’ve manipulated.

            So on that note I have nothing else to say to you, nor do I care what your opinion of me is.

          • ThoughtCriminal

            I am really unable to reply to this line of thought that you’ve started because,as you said,you’re talking about your own personal observations.

            I don’t know what you mean by “self-serving”,”vain”,”selfish”,etc. Perhaps you could provide examples to clarify.

            What you’ve said does not comport in my mind with anything resembling my own experiences or attitudes toward women,so I think it may be a case of us talking about two different things.

            For instance, my father,god rest his soul, got involved with a young woman who was quite vain in my opinion. She wasn’t very pretty and she had a lot of issues. My father was about 30 years older than her. She became addicted to pain medication. She finally left one day, but not before she stole all of my elderly father’s prescribed pain medication to feed her habit.

            In my opinion,that is egregiously self-serving and narcissistic. Ask any man here or ANYWHERE if he thinks stealing an ailing old man’s medication is something that should be tolerated. He will positively recoil at the idea, and you will probably have to restrain him to keep him from knocking such a woman out.Thus also would be the reaction to something like a woman spending the money for baby formula on a crack habit or new shoes or handbags for herself.

            These are the sorts of behaviors I am referring to when I reference self-serving behavior or selfishness,and these are deal-breakers. They are so horrific and repulsive to my sense of ethics,that all sexual attraction is instantly snuffed out by them. For me,the woman who engages in behaviors of this sort renounces her humanity and reduces herself to something more like an animal. No longer do I feel companionship,no longer attraction, possibly pity,certainly disgust,and definitely apprehension,the way one would regard a man-eating lion or a strung out junkie on the sidewalk of any major city. Probably the closest thing to compare it to would be the feeling most people get when they come across a particularly haggard -looking homeless person in a dark alley.

            There’s no way in hell I would kiss the ass of someone like that. I can’t imagine anyone else with a moral compass doing it either,not even for pussy.You’d have to be even more screwed up than the woman herself.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Thought Criminal, we found out my husband’s Aunt has been bilked out of nearly $50,000.00 by a house painter. The neighbors said this 33 year old guy was showing up with Champagne and flowers while painting her house for almost a year now. Supposedly the DA is investigating, but I’m going to bet nothing comes of it.

            His Aunt was always a very shrewd and sharp lady, but it’s come to light she’d been hiding her encroaching dementia.

            It sad part is just 10 years before HER Aunt had been bilked out of her inherited Philadelphia mansion, family antiques, and emptied her bank accounts by a neighbor’s son who was “caring” for her. I guess no one suspected he was “romancing” her since he was only 24 years old and gay, but 90 year old women of that era wouldn’t have been very aware of the implications. She was taken in by relatives, penniless, and to everyone’s disgust would wonder outloud when he would come back for her. She totally believed he loved her.

            Elder abuse is very common, sad to say. My sister was a social worker with elderly clients. She quit the profession in disgust at the neglect, abuse and out right thievery known jokingly as “Elder Findings”.

            The woman who harmed your father was a druggie – a criminal. It’s not really fair to say her behavior is typical of “women”. A criminal is a criminal, and that goes for either gender.

          • Darryl X

            @Valdez – I think I have qualified the reality that all women are the same under a feminist regime because many are coerced into behaving badly whether they want to or not AND because their behavior is really characteristic of herd mentality. They really do think and act together. You are doing a disservice to the MRM when you portray the observations by myself and others about female behavior which are verifiable and documentable in the scientific literature as “women bashing” when it is an accurate portrayal of their behavior. Condemning the criminal and dangerous and cruel behavior of women is not “women bashing”. It’s calling a spade a spade and I don’t give a fuck what anybody else thinks. Actually I do. So thanks for your input but I’ll have to disagree with you on this one. In a show of solidarity, until the feminist regime is overthrown then I encourage all men to condemn all women and their pathological behavior. It’s for their own good as well.

          • valdez_addiction

            Well, my only issue here is making sure we don’t put all women in one box labeled, “Heartless Bitches.”

            Although a great deal of what you’re saying is true and you’re more than welcome to challenge what I’m saying, but I didn’t like it when women made comments about all men.

            Certainly any woman who fits into that box should be verbally bashed for her behavior, however there’s a growing number of women who don’t fit in that box.

            I’m merely trying to convey to you as my MRA brother that, as much as we have a justified right to dislike the thinking and behavior of the average female, we still have a responsibility to rise above the same behavior that has us in the situation we are currently in.

            We cannot protest hate with more hate. We can only shed light on the bullshit. And as much as I feel where you’re coming from, there are women in our ranks that are helping to shed that light.

            There’s only a couple of guys and one women on this site I’ve disagreed with. You, Dennis, Alek Novy, and myself have debated tooth and nail, but I still respect you guys and consider you my MRA brothers.

            OneHundredPercentCotton on the other hand admitted to the fact that she’s found in her own personal Life & Times the more vain, narcissistic, selfish and self serving she is… the better treatment she receives.

            Because of this I choose not to acknowledge her but I don’t hate her.

            My efforts with you Darryl X is just to point out that we shouldn’t give them anything they can, “legitimately” use against us.

            That’s all. I respect your opinion and I respect your right to disagree with mine.

          • Darryl X

            Point taken.

            “Although a great deal of what you’re saying is true and you’re more than welcome to challenge what I’m saying, but I didn’t like it when women made comments about all men.”

            I distinguish my blanket condemnation of women from the blanket condemnation of men by feminists because the facts on which my condemnation is based apply to (unfortunately) a great majority if not most of the female population and I expect them all to be held accountable since they have all participated in and benefited from feminism (whether indirectly or directly).

            And most demonstrate the behaviors that must be condemned. Most men do not demonstrate behavior that may be condemned as feminists have. Portraying most men in the way that feminists have is a lie. Even women who support the MRM have benefitted from feminism. When they decline those benefits then I will not condemn them.

            So maybe my condemnation of women is more than a step above the condemnation of men by feminists.

          • valdez_addiction

            Okay, so what you’re saying is you’re condemning all women who are feminists and all women who benefit from feminism.
            And those who deny the benefits of feminism should speak up against feminism.
            Then and only then are they worthy of our respect.

            Is that what you’re saying?

            If so I can agree with that.

  • Demonspawn

    The surrendered wife, on the other hand, is likely her husband’s primary or only emotional relationship, his only real connection to humanity.

    Why do you think feminism was so adamant about breaking up any gathering of men? To increase women’s power over men.

  • Otter

    Jesus Christ I just had some woman eyefucking me at the train station with a big fat rock on her finger. What a reassurance in the decency of American women…

    But yea I’ll be the first to admit, sometimes I fantasize about saving people and being a hero.

  • keyster

    Men don’t fully understand the “mystique” of female power over them. Women understand it instinctually.

    That’s what she’s trying learn us here.
    Listen to what she’s saying.
    Read it again.

    It’s further down the rabbit hole than most men care to venture. It’s transcendent.

    “Weakness” is the ultimate pimp hand.
    Men are fools for it, because the reward is validation of his masculinity. It’s the opposite of shame, which is also affective.

    The macrocosm of this dynamic is men believing women were victims of their repression, which is still happening. Guilt, shame and exploiting men’s need to save and protect the “weak”, is how feminism plods on uncontested.

    They shape-shift between weak and “empowered” as the situation dictates. This keeps men off-balance and confused; which keeps women in the power position.

    Unenlightened men don’t stand a chance.

    • Kimski

      I agree.
      Basically it boils down to keeping men off balance and confused, no matter what it takes.

      As in Ogg smash, as typhon stated earlier. Men assume they are dealing with rational adults, which is probably one of our biggest mistakes, when push comes to shove.The truth is more likely that we’re dealing with irresponsible children, with the capability of making rational decisions.Somewhere along the way we just stopped holding them accountable for their behaviors and actions when they didn’t.

      I think that happened because men are somewhat aware of the fact,-maybe at a more or less subconscious level,-that they are dealing with Les Enfants Terribles, and the consequences that must come thereof.

      The passing of VAWA and similar laws like that are like handing the matches to the kids, and leaving the house unattended. Of course they’re going to burn it down and call it ’empowerment’, because in a twisted way that is precisely what it is. All they have to do afterwards is cry on command, while claiming ‘they didn’t mean to’, (-or were victims), and all is forgiven. Just like we do it with children.

    • Otter

      “They shape-shift between weak and “empowered” as the situation dictates.”

      Nail. Head.

  • vklaatu

    Actually, manipulation by suicide threat is an all too common tactic used by personality disordered women. My last ex used it on me numerous times. She also warned me that if I ever tried to call in professionals on her over it she’d deny all of it. It’s one of the most heinous forms of manipulation. It’s an extreme form of the woman using her “weakness” to get what she wants. Another phrase for it is emotional blackmail, and when I’d point this out to her the floodgates would open and bring on the tears. I ended the relationship and moved out after three and a half years, but she had the gall to keep calling me after I left, for advice on how to handle her rebound relationships, until I got rather irate one night ordered her to stop calling me. I wasn’t very nice about it. She hasn’t called since.

    There’s a great scene in James Clavell’s Shogun where Blackthorne’s married (and not to Blackthorne) mistress explains the dynamic that Typhon just described in this article. Basically, when the lady submits to her husband, and he would become “putty in her hands.” In this case, the husband was a samurai, in feudal Japan and about as macho a white knight as anyone could be. That is to say, she really was his only connection to humanity!

    I’ve had women prior to this article point out to me the tools of a woman’s trade, specifically a couple of counselors, and a few women who I found out later had designs on me and were trying to undermind a competitor. They never took the time to completely analyze the manipulation in this much detail, though.

    Thank you for an excellent article, Typhon, I look forward to reading more!

  • Shrek6

    Typhonblue, thanks for a great article. You are helping in my education on this topic. Although I am aware of all this now, I need to learn more so that I can impart this knowledge on to my boys and indeed my daughter also.

    Keep up the great work, because your efforts are greatly appreciated by those of us who are raising children.

  • Jade Michael

    Typhon, your article is powerful, insightful and entirely reflective of relationships I’ve either been in or been privy to. So many women think the less they put into a relationship the more “power” they are giving to their men, but really it’s just a drain on men and it strips us of the opportunity to focus on our own personal happiness.

    Oh…and I LOVE “god-gasm”. Brilliant! :)

  • AndrewV

    For some reason I am reminded of a story my Aunt told my Mother a long time ago.

    Bear in mind that from what I could see, my Aunt had a very successful marriage. It was clear that they were a team. They had adventures, like a road trip across France (after their kids had grown) where they avoided hotels and camped out instead.

    Here is what happened shortly after they got married.

    Her husband had just given her a lecture on the importance of proper planning and attention to details, and then the car he was driving ran out of gas.

    So they sat there in the car in silence for awhile. Finally, he turned to her and said “Say something”. She said she turned towards him, looked him in the eyes and said one word “No”.

  • Paul Elam

    @ Shelldon Walker

    “The dominance being applied relies on acknowledgement of it’s existence.

    The most effective way to invalidate is by acting as if it doesn’t exist.”

    Chuckle. Please tell that to a police officer slapping cuffs on you because he is serving as proxy thug on behalf of the power you refuse to acknowledge exists.

    Hint: The handcuffs are real.

  • Otter

    To sever the cord between self-respect and social approval, to live.

    • B.R. Merrick

      Indeed. To reject the collective in your mind and embrace your individuality, knowing that it is your mind and no one else’s, is to embrace life. There’s no better way to encourage human cells to continue dividing.

  • Fr Bob

    I have read the article and watched the video a few times now and the one thing that sticks out in my mind is your statement of new parents with a child that could not cry. I was a parent of a child that could not cry she had no vice due to damage of her vocal cords while in the NICU. It was terrible you could not even sleep not right anyway because you didn’t know if she was crying or not.
    Loved the article, quite insiteful.

  • TruthInAdvertising

    Ok, I’m going to be dredging up some really juicy stuff from my past here:

    When I was 18, I dated a girl my freshman year. We were both very young and inexperienced with the opposite sex. Her voice occasionally took on characteristics like a little girl. This stirred up such incredible protective instincts in me, you wouldn’t believe it. Like an idiot, I told her so. The shit testing started, which I also failed like a dumbass, and she broke up with me in an incredibly cruel way a couple of weeks later. Yeah, I know that was bad. You guys probably all want to smack me right now. In my defense, I eventually got ok at dealing with women in college and the next year I was nailing a hottie two hours a day after class. With a few more girls waiting in the wings if I wanted them.

    TyphonBlue’s essay is really important to study, both for interpersonal relationships and in how we deal with society in general.

    • Sting Chameleon

      Nah, you were a rookie so it’s expected to make mistakes. All women know they can elicit that protective response on command, and we must learn to suppress it. I find it easier when I remind myself of the fact that they can use my protective instinct to screw me over (and not in the good way), and that they silently support the tyrannical feminist governance.

  • respect for men

    I am a conservative Christian wife of nearly 14 years and I have to say that if a woman is claiming to be “surrendered” or as I would call it submissive, and yet she is manipulating her husband, she is nothing more than a hypocrite making Christianity look bad and she doesn’t have a clue about true biblical submission. True surrender would be obedience as well as love, respect, and self-sacrifice. Any less would be just a manipulative feminist. It is not dominance to realize that men and women are different. I homeschool our children, clean our house, make my family’s meals, and happily have sex with my husband whenever he wants to. When a woman uses sex to manipulate her husband, or as a trade off for something she wants, she has just turned herself into a prostitute. The real Christian meaning of surrender/submission would be putting the needs of husband/family ahead of your own. I am sorry to hear of these situations where women exploit men’s goodness but let’s not call it something it’s not-and it’s not surrender, submission, or Christian.

    • typhonblue

      “I am a conservative Christian wife of nearly 14 years and I have to say that if a woman is claiming to be “surrendered” or as I would call it submissive, and yet she is manipulating her husband, she is nothing more than a hypocrite making Christianity look bad and she doesn’t have a clue about true biblical submission.”

      You might have missed the point of the article. It’s not that you, yourself, wouldn’t pull the trigger, it’s that you have the gun pointed to your husband’s head in the first place.

      • Bombay

        The difference between what “respect for men” offered and your article is that the former would support and speak up. This is not having a gun, it is not taking issue(s) to the point of being at loggerheads.

        • typhonblue

          The thing is that how far she decides to take this lifestyle is _her choice_. If she wants to stop with ‘not being at loggerheads’ that’s her choice; if she prefers to take it to it’s extreme, it’s also her choice.

          He has no defence against whatever choice she makes.

          • Bombay

            Yes, but she is not the person you describe. The decision to let go and be submissive at the level she brought forth is at a normal level for both sexes. I am sure there will be an equal number of times when he submits to her as well.

            We all have and make choices with our interactions. I tend to be a believer in natural consequences and after a couple of suggestions that the driver is going the wrong way – will let them drive hours without saying another thing. I did tell them. Once someone know this about me – they begin to measure what I say to them. The same will be true of this woman’s husband. He will begin to know what to listen to and she is accountable for speaking up – and she knows it. She is not playing the submissive game because she is obligated to speak up.

          • Darryl X

            Under a feminist regime, any behavior, even the most well-intentioned and benign and innocuous behavior, becomes pathological.

    • Shrek6

      Unfortunately, I have to mostly agree with TB, because it is very hard to find a woman nowadays who will not use all the tricks in her bag to take full advantage of the man she has married/partnered. Females are taught these skills from the time they go to pre-school and they learn very fast just how they can manipulate and control the males in their peer groups. If they can’t they simply throw a tantrum and then the adults force the boys to give way to the girls anyway.

      Although I have never experienced the sort of marriage you are referring to ‘Respect for Men’, I also have to agree with your point of view. In your situation, if all things are equal, you and your children will all be getting your needs and most wants met by your husband/father.

      If the marriage has both spouses ‘on board’ so to speak and they are working as a team, then neither one is giving more than the other. In fact, the respect is equal and the treatment is equal. And yes there are marriages that exist like that today, but I do not believe there will be many, because feminism has infected all Christian religions just as it has the secular society.

      RFM, I respect you for coming in to this discussion and giving us your point of view. Please don’t feel misunderstood, because I certainly know where you are coming from.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Who teaches them this?

        Their mothers? Other girls?

        No. It’s the boys who hold them in higher regard over the girls who don’t engage in that behavior that teach them that.

        It’s the boys who “respect” girls who behave that way, even if they are disreputable, while disrespecting the “one of the guys” girls.

        Even the homliest, over weight girl is a “winner” if she catches on quickly to this. It explains why so many unattractive women have such attitude.

        It’s also why actually sincere Christian type women are not highly prized or sought after, but in fact are laughed at and scorned.

        There aren’t a lot of advantages or incentives for women to be chaste, fair, or self-sacrificing in our modern society – or any other society come to think of it.

        • ThoughtCriminal

          It’s the boys who “respect” girls who behave that way, even if they are disreputable, while disrespecting the “one of the guys” girls.

          I’m going to take a stab at explaining this as best I can. It will be difficult because it is a complicated subject.

          Women, if you want to have heterosexual relationships with men, the “one of the guys” routine is not going to get you anywhere usually. If it does,though, you’ll probably end up with a pretty square deal. A guy who is willing to get involved sexually with a woman like that is going to be a pretty laidback dude.

          The “one of the guys” girls are always going to incur disrespect from men at first. This is not based on your gender, it is based on the nature of male hierarchies. Any time ANYONE joins a group of men for weeks,months,or even YEARS they will be teased,pranked on,put down, given the shittiest group assignments,and so on. The only way it will ever stop is by physically proving yourself able to overcome obstacles or difficulties that the strongest men in the group cannot overcome, by treating the teasing as though it means nothing and turning it back around with even stronger teasing and pranks,by proving yourself able to acquire or produce resources the group cannot otherwise or conveniently obtain,or by beating someone’s ass-the apparent leader (Usually the teaser too. This approach can backfire.) from the group, or the leader of a rival group (usually the better choice).

          Nobody gets a free ride, either you have a job you can do in the group,or you are not accepted.This is how male societies are structured.

          Ask yourself, as a woman, are you able to do any of that? If your answer is “no”,you will probably be viewed as a fifth wheel, the same way a male in that position would be treated.

          Being a cool woman does not automatically grant you respect from men. If you do succeed at truly integrating into a male group as “one of the guys” you will have to have effaced all the qualities that make you attractive as a woman to men in the first place. Your efforts will be self-defeating.If you are a lesbian,though,I say go for it.

          This is a rough treatment of male hierarchies and I don’t nearly do it justice. The best way to learn is to be subjected to it all your life like we are.

          If you’re looking for a man, femininity is more important than common interests. It is your differences he will value in you. If you’re looking for merely a male friend, be one of the guys. We love that shit in our platonic female friends if we have any. But don’t assume a connection between intimacy of this kind and sexual attraction in men. That’s not the way it works or every group of men would fluctuate in sexual orientation like groups of women do and we are mostly one way or the other. Emotional intimacy has no connection to sex for men. We don’t need to trust you or even like you, because you probably won’t be putting any of your appendages into our bodies.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            “There aren’t a lot of advantages or incentives for women to be chaste, fair, or self-sacrificing in our modern society – or any other society come to think of it.”

            These are the characteristics I meant by “one of the guys”. I wasn’t meaning those idiots who try to keep up with men by drinking themselves under the table or putting out power point presentations rating men they’ve slept with.

            Those were the characteristics once sought out in women just a generation before mine, a dying breed that soon will no longer exist.

            These are the characteristics still demanded by men in foreign countries where women who comply really ARE oppressed and mistreated while their badly behaving sisters else where are living the high life.

            Bad behavior in women is highly rewarded not just by some unseen “society”, courts and justice systems, but in everyday, day to day life by the very men who complain about it.

          • ThoughtCriminal

            These are the characteristics I meant by “one of the guys”.

            Ah, I see now.

            Well….hmmm. That kind of presents a conundrum in its own right. How would you give women incentives to promote good behavior? Which rewards are we talking about and how would you have us proffer them?

            In today’s climate, if you send a woman wine and roses she reacts as though you’d put a knife to her throat and demanded her anal virginity. I can’t think of anything nice to do for a woman that won’t get the cops called on me,or get me labeled a stalker or creepy or something.

            I’d like to give good women incentives,but a lot of women are just completely insane. Too many kind gestures could actually get me killed by some woman’s brother or one of her ex-boyfriends.

            I figure it’s safer to just ignore them altogether, but if I must deal with them, treat them all like shit and whether they’re good or bad in nature, I at least won’t wind up in a courtroom.

            What should I do? When a woman’s being agreeable, should I just slap her in the face and say “You fucked up again,bitch!”? If wine and roses are rape,does that make outright abuse love?

            I’m not the guy for this problem,these waters are too murky and there be monsters out there.

          • BeijaFlor

            ThoughtCriminal, this reminds me of one of my colleagues from the days when I was making maps. I didn’t find her “sexually attractive” in the least, but I liked her and got along well with her … and as she developed her judgment as a map editor, my professional respect for her grew to the point that I appointed her my successor as “air chart team leader” when I moved from the production area of Defense Mapping Agency to an instructor’s position at its Defense Mapping School.

            I’ve seen way-more-than-enough evidence that a woman can be a fully productive “team member” and even a “team leader.” But such a woman, in a team of men, must needs forfeit all the “feminine advantage” – because the use of that will do irreparable damage to the team and its work.

            Yes, I am old enough to have reflected on the existence of something I privately considered as “female chauvinist sows” …

          • valdez_addiction

            ThoughtCriminal… Dude, you’re awesome. Unfortunately I’ve never been able to possess the ability to explain the way guys think to women without coming off insulting.

            You do it very well. Or maybe it was insulting and I didn’t notice because I’m a guy.

            Anyway, women have never understood this unwritten code we follow as me. The reason why is because they’ve never taken the time to understand it. Societies rules tell us to delve deep into the female and understand all her intricacies and all her bullshit and accept it.

            Meanwhile our behavior is written off as primitive or useless.

            It ironic how they say you can never understand a woman when in actuality, we’re the ones who are misunderstood.

        • Otter

          “Chaste and fair” girls are extremely dangerous.

          In this day and age so many young women are rape-crazy. Part of the reason I go for the girls who advertise their sexuality is because in way they’re safe, they are saying “I am interested in sex, and I’m not going to scream rape or mace you just because you said hi to me.”

          Sure I’d love to go for the shy and nice girls but I don’t wanna go to jail.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Shy and nice girls are inclined to be false rape accusers?

            I’ve only known a couple of false accusers personally, and they were openly promiscuous.

            The neurotic borderline personality disordered part wasn’t obvious except in don’t see it coming until it’s too late.

            The Duke LaCrosse and Kobe Bryant accusers weren’t exactly Church ladies…

            I thought that was the reasoning behind rape shield laws…”Just because I slept with everyone else doesn’t mean I agreed to sleep with him”.

      • Whitney

        TB’s argument is not that women will or will not use the gun, it is that the gun is in her hand. We as a society have placed that gun in her hand and aimed it squarely at the heads of men. Whether or not she uses it is irrelevant.

        • Bombay

          Yes, the gun is always there and it is largely due to women good, men bad. Claiming to be submissive is just one trick.

          Everyone has deceptions they can use, some being better at it than others, and society/government helps some demographics in that regard. Just as I do not want to be around a deceptive woman, I also do not want to be around a deceptive man. Whether a woman uses any of the deceptions at her disposal is very relevant IMO.

      • Darryl X

        @ RFM – I agree with Shrek6. Don’t feel misunderstood.

        @Shrek6 – Yeah. They learn this behavior very early on. When I was in elementary school, the female teachers would conspire with the female students (we’re talking like six or seven years old) and gang up on a boy. It was pretty scary stuff. Stuff that even to a six year old boy just didn’t make any sense.

    • Darryl X

      In a real Christian marriage, the wife submits to the husband and both submit to God. Too many couples leave out the God part though.

    • Sting Chameleon

      You’re still neglecting to exercise your personal and moral agency, even if you don’t overtly use sex as a coercion weapon. And by doing so, you rob your husband of his personal power.

  • Roland3337

    Excellent article. Reminds me of something from “The Myth of Male Power.” A man’s greatest weakness is his facade of strength. A woman’s greatest strength, is her facade of weakness.

  • valdez_addiction

    Great article Typhon.

    This is one of those forms of manipulation that is usually foreign to us guys because our mind does not work this way. It has more to due with evolution than anything. For thousands of years women have evolved as manipulative creatures simply because they’ve always been the physically weaker of the sexes.

    You have to have brains if you don’t have brawn. And that’s not to say we’re dumb or less intelligent than women. We just think differently.

    Let me just say thanks for writing this article because you can provide some insight into some of this behavior. As men we can tell something is wrong because our logic is kind of like a spidey sense. We can’t always tell what it is exactly, but we know it ain’t right.

    A prime example is how women use touching or kissing as instant gratification or justification for bad behavior. When I first recognized this it made no sense but the more it happened, the easier I was able to identify it for what it was.

    It’s still a little foreign to me but I’ll try to explain it as best I can and you guys can tell me if it’s ever happened to you. Maybe even Typhon can confirm this type of behavior.

    There have been times where my girlfriend has done something that was unquestionably wrong on her part but she didn’t think I would recognize it much less hold her accountable.

    Well once I’ve pointed it out, we end up going through the song and dance of if she was actually wrong. A usually tactic to avoid admitting fault on her part.

    Once I’ve realized that the argument is going nowhere, I stop talking and continue doing whatever it is I’m doing. Or I find something to do. Anything to get away from her. Sometimes this last for hours or even days.

    Once she realizes I won’t accept nothing less than an apology, she will provide a half ass apology that doesn’t acknowledge any accountability.

    An example of this is, “I’m sorry you feel that I was doing “fill in blank,” instead of, “I’m sorry for doing “fill in blank.”

    I immediately point this out which doesn’t lead to the actual apology; just more silence on both our parts.

    After a while she’ll say, “Can I have a hug,” or “Can I have a kiss?” The average guy is not perceptive enough to recognize what’s happening at this point.

    The question is both disarming and surprising especially after a heated argument. It’s an easy solution to a problem that hasn’t even been solved. It’s a test.

    And that’s all it is. It’s a test to see how strong your resolve is. Are you a man of convictions or do you jump at the first treat offered to you like some domesticated dog?

    The reason why I say this is because agreeing to that hug or kiss is the same as accepting her half ass apology and dismissing her accountability. Most people would say she’s only offering an olive branch.

    Well, that olive branch isn’t worth shit if she actually did something wrong. She didn’t really apologize because she knows that if she really apologizes for the act, she’s admitting that she’s wrong. And admitting that she’s wrong by extension is also admitting that she understands she’s not supposed to do it again.

    That’s the trick.

    It’s the act of an apology with zero accountability. Like a legal loophole, the devil is in the details. Details and words that can be changed after time has passed making it easy to gaslight you later.

    Granting the hug or kiss request is in fact a reward, which tells her it doesn’t matter that she’s not accountable for being wrong.

    Ultimately she can maintain the mindset that any and all behavior is acceptable and easily repaired with an act of affection.

    Anything to avoid being held accountable.

    The problem with this type of behavior is it’s manipulation to the point of psychosis. And anytime you explain psychosis that is uncharted territory, it makes you sound crazy. Can you imagine someone explaining schizophrenia for the first time.

    This is why men often hear phrases like;
    “You read too much into things.”
    “I already apologized, what else do you want me to do?”
    “I don’t tell you how to apologize to me.”
    “You’re blowing this way out of proportion.”
    “That’s not what I said, you’re putting words in my mouth.”

    • Otter

      “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

      That always sounded wrong to me. When I finally called a girl out on it she just started laughing.

      “She didn’t really apologize because she knows that if she really apologizes for the act, she’s admitting that she’s wrong. And admitting that she’s wrong by extension is also admitting that she understands she’s not supposed to do it again.”

      so. effin. true.

      • valdez_addiction

        Trust me Otter. I knew something was wrong with that the first time I heard it.

      • BeijaFlor

        Abso-luckin’-flutely. Call it an accuse-o-pology at best.

        Something like this:

        “You’re a (label).”
        “WHAT? I won’t put up with this. Apologize.”
        “I’m sorry you’re a (label).”

        All I see in that sort-of-apology is a “sincere regret that you’re a (label)” – in other words, the same insult couched as an “apology”!

        The accusation has not been retracted. If anything, it’s been strengthen by that “sincere regret”! It becomes more than an angry statement, it becomes a supercilious sneer. “You can’t help being a (label), and it would be nicer for me if you weren’t a (label), but you are most intrinsically and surely a (label) and you aren’t even enlightened enough to know it. But I can look down on you (in all ways!) from my supercilious perch on the Mountain Of The Goddesses, and see you as exemplifying this belief of mine, so you are stuck with this (label) and I honestly feel smug and superior to you about this. Especially since you can’t understand anything about it, when I’m swappin’ spit with you.”

        • valdez_addiction

          BF, you just expressed it perfectly. A disagreement when you’re right followed by that type of apology is the most infuriating thing I’ve ever experienced.

          It insults your intelligence and makes you wanna flip out. (The desired result, I imagine)
          Then once you flip out over being toyed with, the guilty party feels justified in retracting the fake apology or even demanding one from you for flipping out.

          I swear to God someone should write a book about this stuff.

          • Otter

            I think I’m even further offended in that situation that they’ve cheapened any further relationship. To me an apology is a big deal, admitting that you’re wrong, that you made a mistake, and owning up to that and expressing your unspoken promise to try and avoid the same result in the future. That’s really big stuff, not necessarily negative or positive but inevitable and powerful and a mark of respect and love.

            When someone uses an apology as an insult and an emotional weapon I really don’t see any turning back. It’s self-reflexive in a way because it’s not like they can ever apologize for using an apology to hurt you. Any future apology from them is worthless. So I think I get pissed not only because they insult my intelligence but because they also cheapen our relationship to the point of no return.

          • valdez_addiction

            I can definitely agree. This type of person doesn’t see the value of accountability and how much it relates to trust. It’s a reflection of their personality. They don’t trust anyone so they don’t appreciate trust or even understand it. They want you to be accountable but only if it benefits them in some way like flowers, candy, gifts, or more manipulation.

    • TruthInAdvertising

      But woe betide the man, if he is ever guilty of being less-than-perfect to her.

      She will remind you over, and over, and over again. Often crying about it months later.

      • valdez_addiction

        Oh no… She wouldn’t dare accept such a pitiful excuse for an apology. She’s gonna hold out for the real deal and in some cases, (with the right white-knight) she’s gonna hold out for flowers and candy.

        I remember feeling guilty about something that I had done without being accused of it. After a confession of guilt, my apology was met with the words, “what else you got?”

        Can you imagine?

        This is why I have a strict, “No apologizing” policy when it comes to women.

        I can admit when I’m wrong and I can even fix or avoid doing the same thing again, however I will not speak those magic words most women love to hear.

        “I’m sorry.”

        I’ve found that saying you’re sorry to a woman is a gateway to further manipulation.

        And given the fact that women hate being manipulated, it explains why they’re so reluctant to say it… If ever.

    • Darryl X

      “The problem with this type of behavior is it’s manipulation to the point of psychosis. And anytime you explain psychosis that is uncharted territory, it makes you sound crazy. Can you imagine someone explaining schizophrenia for the first time.”

      To a schizophrenic nonetheless.

      Yes, manipulation to some degree for a woman is, in ecological or evolutionary terms, selectively adaptive. When it gets out of hand, to the point of “psychosis” and becomes maladaptive, not just to the man but to the woman and children and population in general, then it is called “runaway sexual selection”. Think of a species of bird and the females choose males with long, er… tails. The birds can fly. But as the females continue to choose males with longer tales (because that’s what they are genetically hard-wired to do) as generations progress, then all the males have such long tails they can no longer fly and escape predators and then the entire population goes extinct. That’s where we are right now when it comes to sexual selection and our population and how it is driving our social organization. The traits women are selecting in men have become so maladaptive to civilization that it has collapsed and we have reverted to a form of primitive social organizing. Yes, women are manipulative but they are choosing men who acquiesce to that manipulation and in our culture today, those are the only men who survive. Those men who acquiese to a woman’s manipulation have no analytical skills – they’re idiots. Malignant narcissists. Idiots and scholars are mutually exclusive. Civilization was not built by idiots. It was built by scholars. Select all the scholar genes out of a population and you’re left with idiots and no one to sustain or build civilization.

  • Mr. XY

    typhonblue, that was an amazing article and video. WOW…can’t say much more than that. Thank you.

  • Ben

    What stunning zeal you have, TB. How freaking discerning and shrewd. I had no idea you were so journalistically dangerous! I have read this several times. So, I have learned that the protector instinct in humans is stronger than the survivor and sexual instincts. Thus a damsel in distress call is the most powerful piece of kryptonite to the reptile brain of all. No wonder we are in the shape we are in! Femifascism is evolutionarily cultivated in this environment. Good grief, this is a devastating piece — not taught in any politically correct college classroom.

    • Darryl X

      Femfascism is the default form of primitive social organizing for humans (20% males and 80% females rule over the other 50% of the population and the 20% males are put up as figure-heads to satisfy the excessive demands or addictions of the 80% females lest the 80% females will get rid of the 20% males). That’s why we have to constantly fight to maintain our freedom. That’s why the Constitution and faith in God are so important. Without them, we are all slaves. And that’s why women can never be in positions of power lest they will abuse it. Men are much less likely to abuse power because they are genetically programmed not to. That’s how civilization works. A majority of men (who are not malignant narcissists) rule the country (population). Once you throw women into the mix, that population will always revert back to feminism.

  • Rper1959

    Thanks Typhon Blue , very interesting, and love the analogy of this relationship dynamic to that of the feminist and their white knights.

    I believe the traditional fully functional family with defined roles and financial, emotional and spiritual interdependence of husband and wife worked well and led to individual fulfilment and social stability but of course this is a thing of the past, unfortunately all too often replaced by the sort of emotional abusive dysfunctional relationship dynamic you so eloquently describe.

  • Dr. F

    Typhon mate,

    Bloody great article this. Ta.

  • Darryl X

    Great analysis, TB. Wish more men and women understood these dynamics and considered them in family court or child support tribunals.

    Reminds of the time (one of many) which my ex and I were driving down a street and I was looking for a particular cross street. My ex knew which cross street I was looking for because I asked her to keep an eye out for it since I was driving in traffic and couldn’t always watch. A few miles down the road, I asked my ex, “We’ve been driving a long time and I thought we should have seen the street by now. Did you see it?” She responds, “Yeah, I saw it. It was back there a couple miles.” She said it in an insulting way like I’m some kind of dummy. So I asked her, “Why didn’t you tell me?” Her silence in response told me that this person is just going to go on creating problems in our marriage by refusing to cooperate on every matter and then blame me for any mistakes so that she doesn’t have to be responsible for anything. Of course, she’s right. The feminist government regime will absolve her of any responsibility all the way through a divorce while she pursues her life of leisure and excess while everybody scrambles around her to server her laziness and entitlement. I hope everyone understands how treacherous a woman like this is not just to a marriage but to the country and all of civilization. This behavior has been institutionalized in all of politics, law, society and finance. It is deliberate and is intended to be destructive. She knows what she is doing and knows its destructive capacity. She just doesn’t care about anyone else but herself. Women like this need to be punished severely.

    • Dr. F


      My o’ my you are telling a story like this to the masses and I swear it we’ve all been immersed in this sort of nonsense.

      Ex huh ? Nice one. You don’t want that next to you when you wake up or in the supermarket or dinner engagement or film night or picnic or house renovation or financial decision or anything and everything bloody well else.

      Let me ask you this Darryl X. Did you ever think you were alone when you were with her ?

      If so then nice one again for Shepard crooking yourself out of that “gold framed” picture on the wall.

      Stay clean to yourself as you do and press on without that backpack of lead on your back.

      Talk about a bullet that zinged on by clipping your ear aye ?

      • Darryl X

        Did I ever think I was alone when I was with her? Interesting question. Absolutely! She was not a partner. There was no shared responsibility and no shared risk. I was responsible for everything and took all the risks and suffered all the consequences.

        And she was responsible for almost all the consequences. Whenever I did something to support my family, she would undo it just to show how much power she had. She would destroy her own family just to show that her destructive capacity was greater than my constructive one. Great relationship, that. Unfortunately, it is a microcosm of all society today. Men built civilization and women destroy it just to show how much power they have.

        Eventually, and pretty early on in marriage, I refused to acquiesce to her manipulation. Of course I knew what the consequences would be but I wasn’t willing to sacrifice my integrity and self-respect by indulging a relationship with her. And I wasn’t going to serve as that kind of example to my children.

        I’d like to say I left her but she left me. After trying to kill me a couple times (she told the judge she was afraid of me – well, if I tried to kill my spouse I guess I would be too). Although she wasn’t really afraid of me because I didn’t give her a reason to be.

        She realized that she could no longer manipulate me and satisfy her addiction to power and control so she needed to escalate her abuse by snatching our children and running off with her boyfriend and turning the courts and the community on me.

        Yeah, I felt like I was alone. And once I realized how similarly disposed almost all women are and a significant proportion of men, that loneliness has only increased exponentially.

        Since learning what I did about her, I am always suspicious when I talk with a woman. Any woman. Can’t trust any of them. And more often than not, my suspicions are validated. Realizing that there are so few out there I can trust creates a very lonely and desolate world.

        Why am I here again? Yes, the world is a very lonely place. And it’s interesting but the loneliness greatly eclipses any fear of harm. Which is why I think so many men find themselves in these circumstances. Companionship is a powerful motivator more than fear of harm discourages its pursuit.

        That’s why I don’t think educating men and boys will help. I think most men and boys know. They just have no choice. If you are on a deserted island, you will pick up and listen to any sea shell or inspect any bottle for a message which washes up on shore to find companionship. Even if you know the odds are against it. You will always try.

        • Stu

          I would say educating young men is working. There are massive amounts of young men now who just couldn’t give a shit about women and their wants. Sure they are still lead astray by their libido but apart from their sexual wares, a lot of them don’t see anything else they want from them.

          The younger generation is a hell of a lot less willing to “man up” and a lot less willing to listen to feminist bullshit. A lot of this is because of them actually being selfish to the core themselves. Also, most of them have watched their fathers, step fathers, uncles, and nearly every man they know of be run through the meat grinder. They have been raised in a feminist society, feminist education system, when they were children, they belonged to the woman and children first group…….now they don’t……now after all the years of being special……they are just shit under women’s feet. They have less respect for anybody outside of themselves then any generation before them, in a way they have the same entitled mentality of modern women…….but without the ability to extort or attain anything from it.

          Women don’t give a fuck about them, and they don’t give a fuck about women.

          I’ve seen young guys just dump their girlfriends so they can spend more time hanging out with their mates and playing video games, and all the blow jobs on offer in the world can’t compete. They nag, they try to control, they try to get them to “man up”, and they just can’t be bothered. So many of them don’t seem to have any plans of a financial nature beyond spending everything they get enjoying themselves…..just like the modern women in other words. It’s almost like subconsciously they know that spending it all is the only way to stop others stealing it. If you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to steal.

          Lets face it, if a guy sweats and slaves away, and buys a house, and a nice car and has a bunch of money in the bank, and then winds up in a relationship, and it goes bad, then you have to worry about how much of your assets is going to get stolen……so you stay in this miserable relationship……a prisoner…..because so much of what you have invested your life working your arse off, will be stolen. The guy who just spent it all having fun……that’s gone……he has nothing to steal……and if his relationship goes bad……he can just throw some bags in the boot of his old bomb car and hit the road……..he’s free……and nobody can take away what he’s spent his money on…….holidays…..parties……fun…..the courts can not take that away from him……a good time had is yours forever.

          • Sting Chameleon

            My sentiment exactly. I don’t want to live the life my dad and my grandpa lived, I refuse to be viewed as an appliance and working mule. I will become a self-reliant man with very little things that tie me up to a particular place, all I need is a roof, decent food, power and a laptop with Internet access. I don’t care about status symbols, I don’t give a fuck about slaving my life away just to please some broad and support her spawn.

            I just want to be my own man, and to devote my life to my passion which is biomedical sciences.

        • Bombay

          When I am asked if I will be getting married again, my answer is that I already have two children and do not want a third. My children acted more mature at 13 than most women I have known. I am done raising children, and the “third” child would never grow up.

  • Dazza

    Great article Typhonblue.

    As someone who used to go to church, I can say that feminism is all through the church. Misandry is also all through the church.
    Some women would act ‘submissive’ towards their husbands while others were almost completely opposite, acting as if to dominate their husbands. Both types of women were being manipulative and controlling, they were just using different ways to manipulate and control.

    The women that were ‘submissive’ were in fact playing the victim card (as mentioned in the article) and gained a lot of sympathy from other women (and men). Instantly, it was assumed that the wife was being submissive because the husband was being so controlling and domineering. As a result, the submissive wives would receive a lot of attention from the other wives, as well as racking up her god-points.

    The other wives were overtly misandric in their behaviour and would treat their husbands like dirt, often belittling them in public. It’s these gestures in public, whether overt or covert, that did create a lot of power over their husbands.

    My theory is that the submissive women are hiding something. Perhaps they feel guilt and shame about some part of their lives (they might have a secret gambling problem or they are having an affair) and they are using their submissiveness/humility as a cover for their guilt and shame. A person can hang their head in shame, or humility.

    A lot of the submissive wives seemed to lack any kind of personality. They were quiet, often looked blank and really didn’t seem to have any substance or vitality. It would be hard being married to a women like that.

    Once again, great article.

    • Dr. F


      Very interesting post you make here.

      I never thought about the opposite ways of presenting being as two irons in the fire as it were. Interesting and I can visualise exactly what you proffer here.

      Either type, I just know if I found myself waking in a bed with her sleeping under my arm I’d chew it off and make my escape.

      It’s a backpack of lead I swear it, and I’ll be buggered if I’m going to strap that bastard to my body.

      • Dazza

        I agree.

    • Darryl X

      Yes. I agree that feminism has corrupted the Church. That is why I do not participate. I worship God by myself. I wonder if the Church understands how much it has alienated so many of its constituency this way.

  • Otter

    It reads like a Greek Tragedy. A man willing to sacrifice everything in himself to save any woman he meets. His tragic flaw is that he doesn’t consider himself worthy of saving:

    “Do I not also deserve protection? Am I not valuable? Am I not human?”

  • B.R. Merrick

    The reality is that she is covertly harming person B through the use of coercive force.

    Yes! YES! Coercion is death! Beautifully written article!

  • .ProleScum.

    Another stunner Typhon.

    You guys’ ability to spring the tenderest of traps blows my mind.

  • Tawil

    “Human beings have an extremely strong instinct to take care of creatures that are helpless. We have this instinct because our offspring are the most helpless and dependent in the entire animal kingdom. Our instinct to help the helpless is therefore the most highly developed on Earth.”

    In 1971 Esther Vilar wrote an amazing book entitled ‘The Manipulated Man’ that described feminism as a project that exploited human concern for protecting vulnerable children. The theme of the book is that women (and particularly femininsts) act like children in order to receive the immense attention, protection, and indulgence by men playing the protective adult role.

    All this amounts to a kind of ‘Games people play,’ in this case the game of adult by males, and child by females. The basic technique used by any child to solicit attention is to exude ignorance or anxiety – a method well summed up in psychologist James Hillman’s description of the child archetype;

    “Exposure, vulnerability, abandonment are its verty nature. Its defense is mainly that of innocence. Without structured walls, lost in the woods or afloat on the waters in a frail basket, its predilection is to remain protected by its own helplessness. Its style of defense, of paranoia, is innocence: “I don’t know”, “I didn’t realize”, “I didn’t mean anything”, “It just happened”. [‘Abandoning the Child’, chapter in Loose Ends, Spring Publications 1975]

    There is nothing more powerful than victim power…. when you act like a vulnerable child you have the whole world at your disposal ready to serve – just like TBs article makes clear.

    • Bombay

      I bought that book off the Internet. It was pretty good. I believe it is no longer in print….

      “Only women can can break this vicious circle of exploitation. But they will not break it, for they have no rational reason for doing so. Thus the world will continue to sink into a kitschy, barbaric, and feeble-minded morass of femininity.”

      • Tawil

        Here’s another from Vilar’s book:

        “Woman’s greatest ideal is a life without work or responsibility – yet who leads such a life but a child? A child with appealing eyes, a funny little body with dimples and sweet layers of baby fat and clear, taut skin – that darling minature of an adult. It is a child that woman imitates – its easy laugh, its helplessness, its need for protection. A child must be cared for; it cannot look after itself. And what species does not, by natural instinct, look after its offspring? It must – or the species will die out. With the aid of skillfully applied cosmetics, designed to preserve that precious baby look; with the aid of helpless exclamations such as ‘Ooh’ and ‘Ah’ to denote astonishment, surprise, and admiration; with inane little bursts of conversation, women have preserved this ‘baby look’ for as long as possible so as to make the world continue to believe in the darling, sweet little girl she once was, and she relies on the protective instinct in man to make him take care of her.”

        She emphasises this woman-as-child theme all the way through the book.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    TB: Did you comment on Salon? If so, I recall your getting attacked for saying some women appreciated young males and their bodies.

    I commented as MererlyMortalMale.

    Anyway, per the power of weakness….

    Yes. Nancy Friday wrote about it (and other female ruses) in “The Power of Beauty.”

    White Knights are created by primary caregivers. Historically they’ve been female. Early on they socialize theretofore emotionally-expressive boys to man-up by clamming up. That is, they shape lads to stop showing certain feelings and to never-ever-ever hit girls…even when they strike first.

    Since young boys are totally dependent on moms at the time (dads being at work), they take the lesson to heart. At that age love means life. Not being loved by Mama can lead to death from “failure to thrive” (Even dolphins choose social contact over food and isolation). In short boys get socialized, too. But since theirs consist in not complaining, it only SEEMS like girls endure more.

    Think, then, how worse things are today for males. Millions of boys get raised by bitter single women. They live in an acid bath of misandry. Antsy at school, feeling unsafe and unwelcome, they are drugged to act like compliant girls.They have little choice but to become white knights and manginas.

    It’s crazy-making, though. A sexually awakening girl will give up belching and catching frogs to be with “bad boys” (that is, non-manginas). She also learns of the magnetic power the “magic box” between her legs has. Said box allows her to remain safe and passive while making boys jump through hoops to get what they BOTH want.

    She also learns she can judge (often harshly) the sexual first-moves men must make, ones she’ll avoid all her life.

    So…voila: the birth of PUAs, who seem to offer a way out.

    Young men then learn to stop listening to what teen females say and start watching what they DO. This can drive males crazy. They now have to pretend that what goes on doesn’t (“No, I’m not trying to get in your pants!”). And learn that being manipulative and false can get them laid (by females who insist they want honesty).

    Female “surrender” only works if men agree to shoulder the burden. The tendency to do so is difficult to undo. Men were raised to love the Moms, pleasing them by following often male-sacrificing advice.

    It’s not just bad advice, either. It’s also men putting all their emotional eggs in one basket. Many men stop seeing male friends when in “relationships.” So they lack support to make truly independent choices, deferring instead to “She Who Must Be Obeyed.”

    It’s the Stockholm Syndrome, really.

    That’s why the MRM is so important. It offers facts as well as pro-male support. Exegesis as well as emotional guidance.

    When men start demanding that women be equal, females will either grow up or remain children. If the latter, they can be sheltered in all-female, paternally-protected places (ones feminists SAY they hate).

    Partner dancing pertains. It’s true that men must lead. However, it’s also true that women often do more complicated moves. I’ve seen salseros dancing where the guy barely moved while his female partner was a blur of turns and twists, shines and stylings.

    So I think equality is best.

    Now, per your home life: hope it’s working. It’s one thing to be a MGHOW. Quite another to be a cold, aloof, self-centered galoof. Only you can tell the difference.

    • typhonblue

      “Did you comment on Salon? If so, I recall your getting attacked for saying some women appreciated young males and their bodies.”

      Not that I’m aware of.

    • typhonblue

      “Now, per your home life: hope it’s working. It’s one thing to be a MGHOW. Quite another to be a cold, aloof, self-centered galoof. Only you can tell the difference.”

      I’m pretty free-range myself. Plus I was exaggerating for comedic effect. He makes it fairly obvious that he’s emotionally attached to me. Just not in the typical cloying ways.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    What do Jesuits say? “Give me the child until he is seven and I care not who has him thereafter.”

    It’s the power of early bonding and imprinting… historically a female-dominated enterprise. Young boys live in a gynocracy, surrounded by mothers, grammar school teachers, nuns, nurses, nannies, crossing guards, store clerks, etc.– all female. And all bigger, stronger, and more knowledgable than they are.

    Urged to stuff feelings, growing males soon lose the ability to even SENSE emotional manipulations.

    I remember a Sunday papers cartoon that showed a sweating boy pulling 2 smiling girls in a wagon. They cooed, “Oh, Johnny: you’re soooo strong!”

    Feigning weakness, offering some appreciation/love, they got him to do their bidding. He became a willing workhorse for a few kind words.

    Mothers make love conditional, starting around age 5. Little Jimmy, hurt on the playground, now learns he will only be hugged and kissed if he DOESN’T cry. He must act like a soldier, become stoical, stop “acting like a girl.” From then on he learns (1) he has to earn love daily and (2) he needs love to survive and (3) only women can give love. Before his best buddies were other boys. Now he gets called “gay” (often by girls) if he has close male friends.

    All that makes males incredibly susceptible to emotional manipulation by females.

    That can translate to playing hurt during sports (so as to impress cheerleaders) and rushing off to war to protect hot, helpless maidens (another “Gone With The Wind” theme).

    Alas, fembots see empathy as a zero-sum game. They believe any attention paid to male grievances must come at the expense of females. It’s a very selfish, solipsistic sisterhood. Even after 4-5 decades of pro-female pandering, we STILL hear “there’s more to be done” for wimminz.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “Who teaches them this? Their mothers? Other girls? No. It’s the boys…”

    And who teaches boys that love is conditional, honest expression of feelings verboten, sex something only men want, and women passive snowflakes who expect men to talk all risks…emotional and otherwise?


    The same “society” wimmin say effs up females. The one that includes mothers (and neighborhood women), fathers (and area males), and other influences: TV shows, movies, ads, books, relatives, cops, rabbis, etc.

    It’s a complex mix, one that feminist simpletons blame simply on “Patriarchy” (like others blame sunspots or werewolves).

    To mix metaphors, it takes a village to tango.

    For every female plaint there is an equal male one. For every “nice” girl who played by the rules– but wasn’t asked out– there’s a “nice” boy who was always rejected as a chump.

    We’ve heard the female “narrative” for 50 years. Now it’s time for male “discourse.”

    Similarly, we learned of obvious, overt, male acts of commission. Now we’re learning about subtle, covert, female acts of omission. Yang, now yin.

    It’s going to be fun seeing feminists take what they relished dishing out.

    • Perseus

      Auntie says it, so I don’t have to.

  • Perseus

    I don’t shed conflicted tears of joy, relief and anguish often, but when do, I prefer to do it while consuming the piercing analyses and insightful articulations of Typhon Blue.

    Can’t tell you how I love this.

    Power through weakness. It becomes clear that feminism is an aberration that was allowed to occur simply because men were too busy and forgot what eons of prior men had known about ‘the feminine’- that largely, it’s irretrievably disgusting.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “the nature of male hierarchies. Any time ANYONE joins a group of men for weeks,months,or even YEARS they will be teased,pranked on,put down, given the shittiest group assignments,and so on.”

    I disagree. There are all sorts of male groupings, just like there are ways to run countries and slice apples.

    I grew up playing neighborhood sports. Sandlot sorts of things. There was no “hierarchy.” Some guys were respected for athleticism, some for bringing sandwiches, others for telling jokes. Still others had great equipment to share. Everyone fit in. Everyone played. Disputes were first discussed, then, if necessary, plays redone. There was far more cooperation than competition. Hell, sometimes a good player played on both teams.

    > “treating the teasing as though it means nothing”

    Or refusing to put up with it.

    Why let men shit-test? I’ve never had a close male friend put me through “trials.” Men who did didn’t become my buds.

    Stoicism is a stance taught at Mama’s knee. At males’ expense.

    The military treats animals better than it does men. They train dogs using only positive reinforcement, whereas human males learn negatively, by insult, shaming, and name-calling. Who needs it?

    > “This is a rough treatment of male hierarchies…”

    Only some. Most likely in groups of hazed males who then haze others in turn. Why celebrate and pass on pain?

    Like coaching, male groups can be brutal or beneficent, Spartan or Athenian (and recall: Athens lost the Peloponnesian War mostly due to the plague.) “Winning” Sparta’s ass was soon kicked by supposedly less invincible forces, too.

    For every harsh equine taskmaster there is a “horse whisperer.” For every snarky Howard Stern a gentle Mr. Rogers. Different strokes for different folks.

    > “If you’re looking for a man, femininity is more important than common interests.”

    To some. Having Cupcake around just for shagging soon grows boring. Many men prefer to grow– and grow old with– females they have much in common with.

    > “It is your differences he will value in you.”

    So one-eyed albino female amputees with permanent halitosis are in great demand?

    > “Emotional intimacy has no connection to sex for men.”

    Really? So poems and songs and such-like by love-struck dudes are all…fakes? A man in love doesn’t mind his woman sleeping around?

    Garsh! The things being said about men could be written by Gloria Steinem. You know, “Guys are emotionally-bifurcated dolts who enjoy nothing more than snapping towels at each other’s arses.”

    So Frank Sinatra never sang a heart-broken song about “one for my baby… and one more for the road”?

    In Rick Springfield’s song, Jesse’s friend wasn’t upset that HE didn’t get the girl?

    “And I’m lookin’ in the mirror all the time
    Wondering what she don’t see in me, I’ve been funny
    I’ve been cool with the lines
    Ain’t that the way love supposed to be about?”

    Kurt Elling wasn’t aching for sex and love when he sang?

    “One day, I know, she will come my way;
    bringing a warmer night and a cooler day.
    We will build our life like a sculpter molds her clay.
    And we’ll never say goodbye.”

    Each man has his personal preferences, things that “float his boat.” Why generalize to their detriment? Some men separate sex and love (probably when they’re not in love). Others don’t. ‘Nuff said. Like religion, there are many paths: Celebacy and polygamy. Silent monasteries and bustling inner-city seminaries. Hermits and social bellwethers.

    • ThoughtCriminal

      Harsh. But I did say I wasn’t going into depth. Sociology and Anthropology are not my strongest suits and I never said they were.

      “Or refusing to put up with it.”

      That’s pretty much what I was saying. Only,simply walking away gets you called a pussy most of the time. If you fire back at the person giving you static and THEN walk away,out of self-respect, most of the time people won’t give you too much trouble.

      “I grew up playing neighborhood sports. Sandlot sorts of things. There was no “hierarchy.” Some guys were respected for athleticism, some for bringing sandwiches, others for telling jokes. Still others had great equipment to share. Everyone fit in. Everyone played. Disputes were first discussed, then, if necessary, plays redone. There was far more cooperation than competition. Hell, sometimes a good player played on both teams.”

      The substance of your comment is nearly identical to my outline except I’ve never been involved in anything where everyone fit in. That must be nice. Remember back in my comment when I talked about jobs that everyone in a male society does? That’s what you’re describing. In your group that everyone fit into, was there a slot for a guy that only ate all the sandwiches but never fetched any,or an asthmatic kid who didn’t play sports and refused to even keep score? If so, I wish I had grown up where you did.

      “Only some. Most likely in groups of hazed males who then haze others in turn. Why celebrate and pass on pain?”

      I’m not talking about pain,I’m talking about discipline. Sometimes the two are intertwined, other times not.

      “Really? So poems and songs and such-like by love-struck dudes are all…fakes? A man in love doesn’t mind his woman sleeping around?”

      I’ll answer that with a rhetorical question that I hope will clear things up. How many times have you felt compelled to know what a woman’s favorite color,food, or when her birthday (not the year,the month and day, as in to check your star sign compatibility or something) was as a prerequisite to feeling comfortable enough with her to have sex?

      “Garsh! The things being said about men could be written by Gloria Steinem. You know, “Guys are emotionally-bifurcated dolts who enjoy nothing more than snapping towels at each other’s arses.”

      If that’s the way you want to read it. The important thing to note,I think,is that while feminists have said a man is incapable of emotional intimacy,I just said it wasn’t connected to a man’s sex drive,which I think is true. Pillow talk usually comes after sex for a man,not before, and not during. Emotionally vulnerable moments don’t exactly get my dick hard, which is why I prefer Hustler or Penthouse and close-up vaginal insertion shots for masturbation as opposed to Oprah,but like you said-people are different,if that’s something a lot of men out there are into and I’m just not keeping up with the times (which is entirely possible),I apologize.

      “So one-eyed albino female amputees with permanent halitosis are in great demand?”

      Nope. They are not in great demand. Neither are women with mustaches,hairy armpits,bad teeth,large biceps,narrow hips, hard calloused skin,hairy legs,or crypto-penises,precisely for the reasons I stated. The things that are most attractive in women,soft round faces, flowing clean and fresh-smelling locks,large breasts,soft skin,curves,etc, are things not found in men generally (and here I am not saying all men are hairy dirty neanderthals with jutting jaws and foreheads,etc,but that in the course of actually getting shit done,you get chipped teeth,broken noses,appendages cut off or mangled, visible scars,sweaty,greasy,and dirty,callouses,in other words,work takes a toll on your body) hence my comment that men value women’s differences. Of course, I’m commenting on heterosexual relationships,I don’t have any experience with any other kind of relationship and so I can’t speak to those issues intelligently at all.

  • Atlas Reloaded

    A fantastic article Typhonblue and yeah, like many guys I was unaware of that kind of behavior although now recognize seeing it played out many times. Mostly with my mother to my father but also in couples I have known. Not all of whom are Christian.

  • Robert O’Hara

    Women who express the desire to be the passive little housewife and have a man “take charge” of things have always frightened me and I have always had trouble explaining why. This article puts it into words beautifully!

    I have always felt that women who have an open contempt for men they deem week and indecisive truly see men they see as strong and decisive as their tools to use and if they aren’t that way, just like any other tool, they can discard it for another one.

    I also view women like this as very dangerous as they are the ones most likely to commit violence via proxy through their menfolk or the state.

  • Lillith

    You’re trying to describe behaviour known in the BDSM scene as
    ‘topping from the bottom’. Subbies of all genders and sexual
    orientation do this(or try to), and everyone agrees that this
    sucks, to the point that there is a well known (gender-neutral)
    acroynym for this: SAMs which means ‘smart ass masochist’ and
    ‘smarting ass masochist’ respectively.

    Also, I don’t think that we should worry about X-tians or Muslims
    social mores either, they do they own thing in their own culture,
    they are not an example that is useful to us in any way because
    they are just too different in too many aspects and their
    premises are not of our world either — as the Irish farmer
    advises when asked for directions: ‘I would not start from
    here’… :)

    Ironically, your much of you view is a direct product of feminist
    misdirection and their neutering effort that labels any dominance
    and submission behaviour as errant and only accepts total
    neutrality and equality in all things, no matter how minor, as
    the only valid model.

    Take your both your attitude over beer delivery. You would feel
    dishonoured, and he’d feel like he is abusing you. The only
    honourable course you both have is to fetch your own

    That’s how deep the petty feminist brainwash goes — adult people
    nowadays use beverage delivery terms as a marker on how equal
    their relationship is.

    And it’s also a sad monument of how far feminists have managed to
    neuter us all into blessed equality and shoehorned us into a
    corset of officially acceptable behaviours.

    And nothing alarms a feminist more than a submissive women
    (even though they have no real concept of what this actually
    means in real terms) and as a result, that meme of submissive
    women being useless, leeching wimps runs deep in our society —
    which is why you view the surrendered women’s stupid behaviour as
    manipulative and evil, instead of seeing it as a silly fail of a
    flailing person who is still damaged and confused by feminism in
    an profound way and thus ends up erroneously believing that
    submission is letting her partner fail for his own good and that
    she needs to shame him into manning up.

    And what about the man in this story? You paint him as a
    hapless, manipulated victim who is comically failing in his
    attempts to live up to the dominant male ideal that is not very
    well defined either and usually a target of public ridicule and
    disgust. And you don’t tell us what happened after he found out
    what happened or what course of action you’d have thought
    reasonable here. I’m sure that had be punished her you’d be
    upset about that(abuse!), and that only a long pep talk
    admonishing his women to ‘feminist up’ and not to be such a
    manipulative wimp instead of a equal, strong, independent women
    would have been the only course of action he could take
    reasonably in your eyes.

    Right now, our attempts at recreating a sane culture that
    respects and encourages gender differences is akin to a cargo
    cult — we have an idea of what we don’t want, a vague idea of
    what we’d like, and almost no-one has any experience of making it
    happen, and nobody even dares to go back to reconstruct from
    first principles, but almost every attempt gets bogged down in
    trying to find a way out of the mess that is acceptable to
    feminist society.

    • valdez_addiction

      Okay… Where to begin?

      First of all Lillith, which is an interesting choice of names considering her back story and the fact that feminists regard her as the very first feminist (basically their goddess) because of her back story.

      I don’t know if you chose that name for the irony of it or what. I hope you didn’t choose it to reflect your personality because all I got from the back story was that she was the devil’s whore. A demon who set out to destroy mankind.

      I suspect it wasn’t for the irony considering your attack on Typhon for her well written article. But that’s just my opinion.

      Although TB had done a great job of defending herself I find it necessary to point out the fact that the average feminist minded woman lacks both the understanding and humility that it would take to write an article of this caliber.

      The point of this article is to shed light on the subtle forms of manipulation that the surrendered or submissive woman, consciously or unconsciously uses on an unsuspecting spouse. Thus reenforcing the unwritten laws that have governed male behavior past and present.

      Although men are aware of the fact that women can be manipulative, we rarely understand how and when it’s actually occurring due to the social programming that convinces us it’s normal for her and honor bound for us to accept.

      I believe that TB wrote this article in an attempt to enlighten us about this unknown subject matter.

      And I for one applaud her efforts because like so many of us here trying to make a difference… She doesn’t have to do it.

      Thanks for the article Typhon. Keep it up.

      • Darryl X

        “Although TB had done a great job of defending herself I find it necessary to point out the fact that the average feminist minded woman lacks both the understanding and humility that it would take to write an article of this caliber.”

        Or the intelligence. Yeah, I don’t think many people are thinking about relationships this way. You would never hear a marriage counselor provide an analysis like TB did for a couple because that would implicate the woman in the problem and then the marriage counselor wouldn’t make any money. This kind of understanding about men and women instead of the typical politically correct narrative is much needed. Too bad it won’t help me but maybe it will help my children. Plus TB is cute – too bad she’s married.

        • valdez_addiction

          I feel you on that. I really wish there were sites like this when I was a teenager.

          I could have really benefited from this type of insight.

          • Darryl X

            Yes, I agree that sites or resources like this in our youths would have been helpful. I relied upon the Bible and other literature. Which makes me worry that feminists will outlaw the Bible and sites like this someday soon.

            In the absence of resources like this one (which I firmly believe is changing or even reversing the descent of our society perhaps not more than the Bible but more than other resources) there should be common sense guiding us.

            That being said, men have been conditioned or brainwashed to ignore their own common sense which dictates if it seems wrong upon analysis then it must be wrong.

            Common sense doesn’t always give you the right answers but it does more often than not and a helluva lot more often than no sense or analysis at all.

            All it takes for evil to prosper is a few good men to do nothing. I am inspired to see more than a few good men doing something.

            For much of my life I was frightened by my belief that if I ever got stuck or ran into trouble with this feminist regime I would have no where to go for help but I believe otherwise now.

            This site is a good start. Education. But I still believe men should invest collectively in a safe haven if and when the feminist regime drops the hammer down on them.

            I’m thinking real places to which men may retreat or take refuge or escape from politics, law, society and finance. Form our own country somewhere or something like that.

            Education like that which this site provides is critical but we also need real practical resources. There is no political, legal, social or financial solution to our dilemma.

            Our solution must be PHYSICAL. It must be real. And it must be outside the realm of existing politics, law, society and the economy.

            They have been irreversibly corrupted. The solution must be away from the arm of the Central Banks. Away from the feminists. Away from the long arms of the corruption which has become US law. Away from our narcissistic culture.

    • John the Other

      In your comparison to BDSM culture, you’ve outed yourself as not only understanding Typhon’s argument, but also agreeing with it. After that revelation, your persistent pretence of incomprehension and disagreement is obvious as a deliberate smogging of the issue. Your argument is dishonest, and further entertaining you with explanation is not warranted.

  • typhonblue

    “Take your both your attitude over beer delivery. You would feel dishonoured, and he’d feel like he is abusing you. The only honourable course you both have is to fetch your own drinks.”

    It’s interesting how people interpret this in completely different ways. Auntie thinks that he might be an aloof galump and you’re convinced I feel ‘dishonoured’ and he doesn’t want to ‘abuse me.’

    The reason why he would purposefully fetch his own drink is because he is exactly that independent. He does not like giving up control in any aspect of his life.

    There’s a reason why I’m not responding to the rest of your post. And that’s because nothing you’ve written addresses what I wrote in a logical, rational manner.

    I will say one thing though. If this is ‘feminist’ thought, then it’s feminist thought that nullifies ‘patriarchy theory’ once and for all. Which means it’s simultaneously ‘feminist’ yet undermines–if not destroys–feminist theory.

    Finally I can’t help but note how both people who have stepped up to defend the ‘surrendered wife’ phenom are female. While all the people who’ve told me how they felt abused and trapped by a submissive woman are male.

  • truth_seeker

    I knew there was something that bothered me about the “surrendered wife” concept, which on its face appears to be completely man-affirming. Yet, carried too far, it’s not affirming to either. I agree it’s better if a woman can appreciate his strengths while still respecting his vulnerabilities. It should never be done out of manipulation, but the concept of “mutual submission,” lived out in a marriage is a better model because each is putting the others needs ahead of their own, and both have their needs met. She is his equal in so many ways, though not exactly like him. She is “interdependent” with him, not dependent on him.

    • xnook

      I knew there was something that bothered me about the “surrendered wife” concept, which on its face appears to be completely man-affirming. Yet, carried too far, it’s not affirming to either.


      It’s conflating a useful shortcut for avoiding running arguments (phrased in a way that tends to better match typical male/female thought patterns, but still useful if broken out into roles and default authority) with total surrender.

      Submission (voluntarily, to authority) is NOT surrender. As a steam plant mechanic in the navy I “submitted” to authority – to obey lawful orders – but I never, ever surrendered my agency to do right, wrong, to help, or not, to do maintenance, or not, to make every decision and take care of my responsibilities – personal or for the ship – that I could. or not.

      I didn’t lose my humanity, my free will, my ability to see what was in front of me, or the responsibility to take care of my own crap. And since I took on the obligation of military service – the responsibility to do as well by my compatriots by doing my job as well as I could.

    • Darryl X

      The fundamental concept of a “surrendered wife” is not wrong or bad. It’s good. That is what a marriage is supposed to be.

      A “surrendered wife” can still correct her husband’s mistake. It’s her responsibility. It’s the responsibility of both to help one another.

      But like the feminist interpretation of anything, the “surrendered wife” turns pathological. It’s a form of pathological martyrdom. She surrenders herself to the point where she makes her husband accept responsibility for all her mistakes.

      This kind of relationship is perfect for malignant narcissists because to them the “surrendered wife” is absolved of any responsibility and they have the perfect scapegoat.

      It’s when the “surrendered wife” refuses to cooperate using the excuse that she is surrendered and let her husband do all the heavy lifting when the relationship becomes one-sided.

      This interpretation allows the wife to do nothing, take no responsibility and blame her husband for any problems, including the ones that she causes. It’s extremely cruel.

      Women like this think they are very clever and smart but the reality is that it is indicative of severely impaired cognitive development. But under a brutal feminist regime, a woman can behave like this without consequence because the gov’t will always take care of her, indulge her chronic victimhood.

      There is a time when a woman like this at the least would simply fail to survive in the real world and at the worst would be stoned to death in the public square. Today, she is rewarded.

      • valdez_addiction

        Well the biggest problem is we’ve always had to tip toe around the subject of a surrendered or submissive wife.

        Especially since feminists have redefined submissive as oppressed. Add that to the fact that they’ve made the average woman despise the idea of being a mother and a housewife. Ultimately men and children suffer for it.

        I’ve told many women I’m looking for a submissive women. And I’ve had to defend that on several occasions. I’ve had to explain that being submissive doesn’t mean your husband bosses you around. I simply means you trust him enough to take the lead in the relationship.

        Now of course there’s exceptions to this. If you’re wife is better at finances then she should take the lead on balancing the budget.

        But that doesn’t mean she buys what she wants and he can’t.

        What women don’t understand is men don’t need an equal, we need a compliment.

        We need someone to compliment the qualities we already have, not match them. I think the biggest problem in somewhat decent relationships is the women spends to much time trying to compete with the man. Trying to show him she can be his equal which is one of the most emasculating and unattractive things a woman can do.

        At least to me it is.

        It’s cool to have a career and it’s cool to be independent, but quit trying to show me up at every turn.

        • Darryl X

          Totally agree. What we need is a “complement”. “i” instead of “e”. Compliments are nice too. A man is not complete or perfect without a woman. The greatest gift God can give a man is a wife. (Unless she’s a screaming harpy shrew.)

          • DruidV

            + infinity

  • xnook

    I know I’m late to this party – but here goes (and I’d like to know what Typhon thinks)…

    As you pointed out – the nasty trap in this is that extreme, childlike surrender works – especially in religious communities – because it plays to our protective instincts while appearing “good” and “non-confrontational” in a very, very passive-agressive way, without actually holding the “woman” in question accountable for her own decisions – including her decision NOT to decide. Ever.

    She gets all the great parts of childhood while avoiding a huge decision fatigue load (on top of all the stress of providing, etc.), and in this day and age isn’t even obligated to obey or listen to her husband that she’s just undercut.

    Part of why this is particularly nasty in religious communities, at least christian ones, is that in a lot of cases there’s been a very selective reading of scripture and advice. Dalrock’s pointed that out over and over again when it comes to divorce, and other issues.

    Granted, we’re not talking the kind of women that Dalrock often complains about, that raises their hackles at the injunction to obey their husbands (no one can tell me what to do! Hear me roar! A bug? You! Man! Squish it for me!), or more often, not to divorce.

    It’s fairly clear between proverbs, the gospels, historical study, and other parts of the bible that women were not expected to be without their own capacity to decide and act. It may have been circumscribed for tribal/survival/other reasons (and I’m not advocating a return to that, but I think GirlWritesWhat had an excellent overview of obligations in the past vs. rights…), but a good woman was hardly a meek little victim, and a good wife was not someone who couldn’t make decisions, even if they mostly related to running the household while the husband was taking care of matters outside. Nor was nagging, or preying on a man to sap him of his strength, etc. considered a good thing.

    In religious terms we’re instead talking about women who’ve cherry picked the “obey your husband” part, but a) forgot the “love/support your husband” part (as well as the don’t be a nag part, and others), and b)completely, falsely conflated it with with “your husband makes all decisions”.

    The two are NOT equal. The captain of a ship may have the final say in things, and MUST be (traditionally, and in navy-military terms, short of unlawful orders) obeyed. Yet, that doesn’t mean the captain does everything, or makes every decision. he CAN’T.

    Sure, if the XO or a subordinate officer does something that can cause problems, the Captain can step in and countermand or override things, but he doesn’t actively make every decision. Heck – there are entire scopes of day to day decision making on the part of officer and enlisted subordinates that are either rubber stamped by the Captain, or never even go that high up the chain, and to which the Captain only pays attention as needed to make sure things are being competently run. Other aspects – like personal advancement and learning, etc., rarely EVER fall inside the scope of the CO’s decision making.

    For that matter, it’s considered our responsibility to advise when something is wrong, or “off.” Blows that whole “went the wrong way and I didn’t speak up” thing out of the water.

    But responsibility requires adults. As you pointed out, the dominance-through-submission thing relies on pretending that one ‘virtue’ is actually something else entirely different – an abdication of all responsibility, while not getting called on it.

    Now I’m not terribly religious anymore, but I still see the value in the basic advice given. A couple SHOULD have a default, designated tiebreaker for most issues. This saves a lot of argument and hurt feelings over who won or lost if someone cannot be persuaded to a different course. Yes, there will be cases or decision “zones” where the other person will be better suited, and that too should be recognized. EITHER WAY – whoever not making the decisions needs to follow the lead of whoever’s making them, instead of bickering (much like whoever’s the initial man in charge at a casualty scene STAYS in charge until there’s a chance to turn over, even if someone more senior shows up), and the person who is making the decisions needs to “show love” to the other by making sure that their needs are met, and that their input is taken into consideration (it’s _supposed_ to be a partnership, right?).

    I know this meandered a bit – but hopefully, I’ve managed to point out a few ways that the arguments used by dominant-submissives can be disabled or at least shown for the childishness they are, even in communities that admire “submission.”

    Like Inigio Montoya says – I don’t think it means what they think it means.

  • JSutherland

    This article was sensational! Ever since I read it I’ve thought about it every day and seen the dynamic play out in so many of my relationships and interactions with people. In fact one of my sisters passed my her camera at a wedding the other day and said carry this for me, I said “No! It’s your camera!” and she replies, “awww, but I don’t want to carry it all day, I’ve no pockets.”

    The camera was an SLR with lenses and thus no pocket was ever going to fit it in! Her comment was purely to arouse the protective instinct, not to address facts.

    She gave up on me and moved onto someone else before giving up and carrying her own camera.

  • JustTookTheRedPill

    wow !!! do i feel like a fool !!!
    all i seem to have ever wanted was this chance to prove my self a man and to be given the chance to protect. i feel conned…… i seem to fall back into this being conned all the time i would even consider my self a “daddy dom” i need more red pills!!! i think i am low on and need my dose upped……

    • Paul Elam


      • JustTookTheRedPill

        thanks Paul for the for the welcome i listen to the show all the time and have all of them archived the show a voice or men rocks and i love it.

        you all will have to bear with me i am grammatically challenged at times yet i am not stupid tho some times my lack of grammar can make me look that way any way i wont rant so…. any way thanks again

        ps is this aritcal based on a book ??? some women i am talking to says there is book this is from ????

  • valdez_addiction

    What we have here is a prime example of how women manipulate and abuse men.

    This is the bedroom scene from the movie, “Eyes Wide Shut.” I couldn’t find a clip of the full scene. If you’ve never seen it, I recommend you watch if from the beginning.

    In the scene before this Nicole Kidman’s character manipulates Tom Cruise’s character into a pointless argument. For the most part he handles it pretty well with as many, “Politically Correct,” answers as he can find.

    His calm demeanor and logical answers only seem to make her angrier (I suspect she’s looking for justification to commit adultery). Well, in this scene she decides to punish him for not losing his cool and what she does is the equivalent of an abusive husband beating his wife within an inch of her life.


  • Lillith

    Valdez, better just read what people write, not what they call
    themselves. :)

    And I did not ‘attack’ TB, I simply disagreed with her in a
    straigthforward way that took her seriously as a debater.

    @ TB:

    “The reason why he would purposefully fetch his own drink is because
    he is exactly that independent. He does not like giving up control in
    any aspect of his life.”

    So, beverage delivery is indeed an important marker of independence in
    your personal culture, and I was correct in my assessment :)

    Minor errands such as delivery of edibles and admirables are a bonding
    and wooing mechanisms, whether you buy your partner flowers or fetch
    them beer. It’s a good idea to do this often and whenever you have
    the chance, no matter what your gender. Small things like that go a
    very long way to keep the homefire burning and usually the first sign
    of a failing pair-bond is when people get independent, unattentive
    and/or petty in those little every day things. Moreover, someone who
    is a difficult customer in small matters, will be an absolute
    nightmare to deal with when big issue appear, so, yes, it’s a
    significant marker of the quality and future potential of the
    relationship overall.

    As a general rule, if you’re independent and want to stay that way,
    you have no business in a serious relationship (marriage or not)
    because you are not ready to play at the neccessary level to have
    success in the endeavour, and lover squatting is uncool. Having friends with benefits is very different from bonding with a life partner, the two situations simply are not comparable in any way.

    As an aside, this idea of ‘independence’ and the fake equality demands
    it generates is the main method by which feminists poison marriage
    success for both sexes. Those details seem small and insignificant,
    but if you add those socially enforced unkindnesses up over time, it
    does not create a space where love and trust can flourish.

    As a thought experiement, how would your friends feel if you kept
    serving your guy food and drink whenever he asks? They’d laugh at you
    for pandering to him and frown at him for being mean, right? What if
    he yelled: ‘Fetch beer bitch’ you’d be livid/embarressed because
    everyone can hear him, and those everyones would later tell you how
    oppressive and disrespectful this dude is and that you two should not
    be engaging in co-dependent behaviour like this, because it’s
    ‘unhealthy(tm)’. Try it for a day as a joke and watch the reactions of
    the people around you, if you dare. Then again, be aware that some
    keen people could probably make a case of you oppressing him by
    feeding him stuff he does not have get up for himself and accuse you
    of causing him to become obese deliberately and thus disempowering and
    demanning him with your submissive refreshment spamming. (this one is
    not easily winnable *smirkle*)

    If you want to talk about doms and subs and find out if subs really
    oppress the doms, visit the BDSM community (in fact, you should post
    your theory to there and get some answers from people who actually
    know and have experienced what you’re talking about …[1])

    Leave the religous people alone, unless you are part of their
    community or want to join it, AND your critique is constructive to
    them… instead of simply vilifying them as the public bad example
    nr. 1. You may be right, but it still has no class. Besides that,
    Christians don’t tend to debate as openly or robustly as your style
    requires, so it doesn’t even give you a useful return on your effort.

    “here’s a reason why I’m not responding to the rest of your post. And
    that’s because nothing you’ve written addresses what I wrote in a
    logical, rational manner.”

    A hearty passive-aggressive meow back to you :)

    ” Finally I can’t help but note how both people who have stepped up to
    defend the ‘surrendered wife’ phenom are female. While all the people
    who’ve told me how they felt abused and trapped by a submissive woman
    are male”

    And let’s not mention the ominous lack of lesbian dommes posting here
    about being trapped by female submissives… 😀

    Jokes aside, maybe it’s because not many people who have real life
    experience with this topic visit here? Maybe it’s because there are
    not many people with this particular experience and expertise out
    there who can be bothered to post comments on the interwebs? Maybe
    it’s because it takes quite some personal chuzpah to be an ‘outed’
    submissive, and not everyone has balls (or boobs) of steel to discuss
    this kind of thing on this very blog here of all places?

    Maybe it’s because most people here have no idea how a traditional
    marriage with traditional gender appropriate behaviour actually
    works(when it does), because we gave that habit and knowledge up as a
    society 60 years ago and there are not many good examples out there
    from which we all could learn?

    Remember, most people are not involved in men’s rights because things
    are going OK for them, they are here because they realise how fubared
    our current society is. Some come here because they have paid a steep
    personal price or seen someone get burnt real bad by the attempt to
    have a family.

    Also, most of the people in our culture that are under 60 have been
    brainwashed, gendered and neutered into femnised men and masculinised
    women by feminists ever since they started nursery, hence the idea
    that hyperegalitariasm is the fix for the mess of feminism and the
    only officially acceptable view to hold.

    It’s gotten to a point where submissive women get called abusers on a
    men’s rights forum, which is quite funny, in a grim way 😉

    So, I hope that solves the mystery of the suspected feminist
    conspiracy in your comment section.

    [1] There are subs that do abuse their doms, and often the feminist
    imprinting is part of the problem those couples have, the brainwash has affected both genders in very profound ways. You should not
    assume that this is a mere female on male problem, it’s person on
    person. The D/s attempt just makes it come out to the fore but it’s
    caused by dysfunctionalities in their personality, if they were
    vanilla, they’d use whatever ‘weapons’ they have within that context,
    just as successfully. Crazy does as crazy is… no point in looking
    for a deeper reason, there’s no-one at home.

    • valdez_addiction

      Okay Lillith. This may be a concept that’s difficult for you to grasp but you don’t get to tell me what to focus on.

      And if I chose to focus only on what you said, I would have still made the comments that you obviously dismissed. But don’t worry. We’ll chalk it up to your lack comprehension when it comes to logical statements.

      And as far as your name, it only points to the fact that you’re either a smart ass or completely oblivious to what type of site you’re on.

      Logging into an MRA site with the name Lillith is tantamount to logging into a Jewish forum under the name Adolf Hitler. It’s insulting to every man here and I don’t think the shit is funny.

      And in case you haven’t noticed, I don’t give a damn if you like it or not.

    • typhonblue

      You’ve admitted that in the BDSM community subs are capable of abusing their doms in exactly the way I describe.

      Now the BDSM community prides itself on informed consent and respecting boundaries.

      I’m talking about a community in which this dynamic is played out with the participants _completely in the dark_ and uninformed to what’s actually going on.

      The possibility of exploitation becomes exponential in that situation.

      Even so I did make the disclaimer that not all surrendered wives would do this, just that their husbands _have no protection against those who would._

  • cipher

    “Ironically, much of your view is a direct product of feminist
    misdirection and their neutering effort that labels any dominance
    and submission behaviour as errant and only accepts total
    neutrality and equality in all things, no matter how minor, as
    the only valid model.”

    I agree with this. There have to be healthier expressions of the so-called ‘surrendered’ wife than what is depicted here. A blanket statement (and I realize the article is not making this blanket statement) that a submissive woman is purely bad sounds like feminism in my opinion.

    To use xnook’s words, I’d propose as a good example of a surrendered wife one who doesn’t forget the love/support part.

    A (religious) woman on youtube wrote this, for example –
    “Men and women were designed for each other. I accept the fact that we are different, designed with our strengths and weakened by our sinful nature. Our weaknesses are going to be different because as man and women we are. I understand what my role is as wife and mother and I am not in a competition with my husband. I am here to help him and encourage him and help him feel like a man any way I can. I feel I understand him and he understands me. It is not my mission to destroy my husbands masculinity. And he is not on a mission to destroy my femininity. I let him be a man and he lets me be a women.
    He lets me decorate the house, I let him build things in the garage, go camping, and blow things up because I understand he needs this as a man. And he lets me take the time to take care of myself and embrace my feminine qualities. We do all of these things with reason of course. But we understand each other and we are best friends. ”

    That sounds surrendered (perhaps as in ‘not at war with?’), but not vacuous or manipulative in my opinion. This also acknowledges that men and women are different and allows those differences to be respected. If the mrm starts saying men and women are not different (which I think is subtly implied by the idea that a woman submitting to a man is bad) then they are headed in the same direction as feminism. It is that biological difference that is at the root of everything feminism is at war with.

    Hypergamy, for example, is often written about and in practice naturally results in women feeling somewhat weaker than and presumably submissive to the men they choose to be with. It’s natural.

  • typhonblue

    If masculine ‘dominance'(I’d call leading for the benefit of others to be nurturing not dominance) is natural, nothing can change that, but this situation can become a lot more honest and upfront. For starters it can be recognized that nothing about the ‘surrendered wife’ lifestyle is for the benefit of men. (Unless they take their identities from their wife’s surrender, but then why are they taking their masculine identities from a relationship with a woman in the first place?)

    Further what if her husband likes stuff outside of what she’s decided is ‘masculine’, does she respect that?

    *edit* After talking to Paul, I think I can put this succinctly.

    Vulnerabilities and needs are coded feminine so whenever a man has one in these kinds of relationships, it’s a woman’s place to ignore them and respect his ‘masculinity’ instead. Therefore his needs and vulnerabilities are never addressed. Only hers.

  • Samwise Gamgee

    Yay!!! I am grateful to read something written about this power, typhonblue! The power wielded by women using this coercive force of abdicating “all agency and responsibility in a relationship” needs exposing, and I am glad you are writing about it. I look forward to reading more in your V-LEAKS SERIES.

  • Frodo

    You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (spam). [Ref: 1840]

    Additional remarks:

    witch doctor spam