Young woman screaming with crazy expression

Dude, where’s my courtship?

The strong and independent daughters of the glorious gender revolution have a problem: Attractive men aren’t courting them anymore.

The always-excellent Dalrock posted a recent blog on why some women aren’t getting the courtship to which they feel entitled. His analysis focuses on the economic realities of modern dating, and I agree with many of his points. But I think there’s another reason why more men aren’t courting women.

They believe in gender equality.

Courtship and chivalry are fundamentally incompatible with notions of gender equality. And if there is one thing that modern women say they want, it is gender equality. As well as the need to be “free” from traditional gender roles. Despite this, a couple generations of women have been able to cherry-pick from traditional and modern gender roles if they so choose. Many men, due to their desperation for female approval and traditional social conditioning, continued traditional courtship behaviors decades after the feminist movement started agitating for equality.

But it turns out that when you tell some men you are strong, independent, and equal, they will believe you. It also happens that some men may be enthused by the idea of evolving their traditional gender roles. They no longer feel the obligation to demonstrate subservient provider capacity by wooing ladies with gifts and free entertainment. They are perceptive enough to know that courtship behavior is asking to get treated like a chump. They expect women to play an equal role in the courtship, and they’re perfectly happy to say “NEXT!” if she’s unwilling to reciprocate.

There are many women who are totally cool with this, and they go on to build fulfilling relationships with like-minded folks. However, as the constant wailing of “Where have the good men gone” indicates, gender equality doesn’t sit well with many. Hear their lamentations! A gynocentric traditionalist woman shoves a shame sandwich at men, and a young woman bemoans the struggles of making men pay for something she used to happily give away.

If women are strong, independent, and self-reliant, then men are no longer obligated to be protectors and providers. If the genders are equal, women are not more inherently valuable than men. Some men and women counter this with an appeal to biological assets. If you think women’s bodies make them entitled to special treatment, then don’t be surprised if men treat dating like a sexual supermarket. If you think women are entitled to special treatment because “that’s the way things should be” I urge you to realize the ship has sailed on that BS and shall never return.

Let’s do away with expectations of courtship, and promote reciprocity instead. Couples should do nice things for each other. If a woman does something nice for a man, he should reciprocate. If a man does something nice for her, he should look for it to be reciprocated somehow. Note that having sex does not entitle women to payment, any more than men are entitled to sex for taking a woman out to dinner. If you think sex in dating relationships deserves payment, I’ll again suggest that you shouldn’t be surprised if men treat dating like a sexual supermarket.

I adamantly reject wrongheaded expectations placed on gender, and I encourage all men and women to do the same. I don’t say this because I “hate” or “disrespect” women. I say it because I like women and strongly believe they are as capable as any man of being a self-reliant adult.

About Mark Trueblood

Mark Trueblood believes wholeheartedly that men and women of all backgrounds can work together to create positive change.

View All Posts
  • Imdefender

    *thundering applause *

  • Riku

    ” If you think women are entitled to special treatment because “that’s the way things should be” I urge you to realize the ship has sailed on that BS and shall never return.”

    Yep, spot-on.
    I find it funny that women demand privileges in several areas, claim “gender equality” and when it comes to dating stereotypes and roles they say they’re “old fashioned” and like males to courtship them. Yeah, this is a triple fuck up. The ship is gone.
    And since a year or two I’ve seen more and more whine articles pop up about how men aren’t paying for their stuff anymore and how they are actually expected to do more than just existing in dating. This is really ridiculous.

  • Seele

    Not a wasted word here, Mark; kudos to you.

    Now and again, friends ask me what I consider as attractive attributes in a woman, expecting me to say things on the physical aspect. They’re all quite surprised when I said, “honesty, and consistency”. Perhaps in the foreseeable future this is going to be an increasingly common answer.

    • Glenn Donovan

      Good luck finding that in a woman…

      • Seele

        Found only one but lost her to a car crash.

        But then, it might be worthwhile paying for the first dinner date: after getting half a bottle of Latour in her, listen to what she says very carefully, she might show her true colours more readily,

  • Turbo

    Interesting. I actually googled the following phrase just recently.

    “Who should pay on the first date’

    Their are hundreds of articles on this subject, many of which I read as well as the comments.
    Their seems to be three main answers to the question.

    1. The man should always pay, no exceptions.
    2. Whoever asked the other person out on the date should pay.
    3. They should go dutch or split the bill.

    There is no option at all even considered that the woman should pay.
    I will give you the rough mental percentage as I perceive them from all the female comments I read

    I would say that 80 % of women answered Number 1. Women still want men to pay.

    Next is 15% of women said Number 2, The asker of the date pays. Which is really a cop out on equality because given that men do the asking probably 99% of the time, this is really Number 1 in disguise.

    Last about 5% of respondent women said always split the bill or go dutch.

    There was a very strong opinion that the woman should always make a token gesture to pay half, (not all) but that that the man should always refuse to allow that. Like a scripted stage play that we always know the ending to. Woman do the reach for the purse and men just wave the hand dismissively and pay.

    But of course, if the offer is made and the man accepts this offer to share the bill, that is a deal breaker and there will be NO second date.

    I read one comment from a woman that said she was married to the most wonderful man on the planet, but if he had accepted her offer to pay half on the first date, she would never have seen him again.

    There you have it folks, there is having your cake and eating it too.

    • alek

      I dislike the number 2 respondents infinitely more than the number 1 responders, because I just hate dishonesty and manipulation.

      The number 1 responders are at least being honest. The number 2 responders are engaging in really crappy manipulation where they a) want number 1 without having to say they want it b) they indirectly marginalize all of the work and risk men take (the fact that 99% of the time it is the men asking by virtue of female mating laziness)

      • tamerlame

        I think number 2 is is plain psychotic. I hate the fact the women feel like they are not responsible for making clear communication with the other side. The level of contempt you must feel for someone to be so passive and entitled at the same time.

        Females equal to men? Why don’t they start acting like it?

        • alek

          I think number 2 is is plain psychotic.


      • Bluedrgn

        To be fair, there are probably at least a few women who answered “2″ that actually ask men out occasionally.

        But yeah… for most it’s cop out. Probably 90% of women have NEVER asked a man out (though I think it’s getting more common).

    • A.Z

      I actually vote for 3 though I am slightly leaning towards 2 as well. Going dutch sounds fair but if you’re in a relationship you can’t ALWAYS go dutch. Someone might want to throw a treat for getting a promotion or a birthday or something. But considering we’re talking first dates then yeah dutch is the best.
      I’m also leaning towards ‘the one who asks pays’ because I have no qualms asking a guy out or paying for it. It’s just a lot of times you try that with a guy and he complains about being ‘emasculated’. What’s the position of AVFM or the MRM on emasculation? I even saw a video by GWW somewhere where she said if a woman is rejected her value is diminished more than that of a rejected man. Does that mean women shoudn’t ask men out? (I’m new to the MRM so I don’t know about their stance on emasculation)
      I guess in a truly egallitarian society there would be no problem with 2 where women ask men out too, but for now going dutch seems the best option.
      Also chivalry is dead and should stay that way. Honestly *some* feminists are against it because it implies women are too weak to do simple tasks. Men are against it because obviously it puts the burden of being decent on their shoulders. I think what we need to bring back is manners in general. You know giving two shits about the human being in front of you regardless of gender. I remember I was once entering a restaurant and the waiter had a pile of plates and would have had to open the door with his foot so I quickly opened the door and stood aside. The look of astonishment on his face was heart breaking. I knew people generally treat food servers like shit but I also know it had something to do with his being a man. I say we bring back manners.

  • Mika

    “The strong and independent daughters of the glorious gender revolution have a problem: Attractive men aren’t courting them anymore.”
    Truly “attractive men” do not even have to try very much Mark. There is no shortage of women who will almost throw themselves at them. They have a very large field from which to pick and choose.

    The strong and independent, as you put it, have to fight it out with everyone else. They have no advantage because of their strength and independence. So if women who fall into this group frequently feel left out or overlooked, maybe it is because they are just plain or otherwise their personalities and behaviours are simply not a draw to most or many of these “attractive men”.
    (Besides everything else, attractive guys will usually go for the better looking women (the top 25% group) – because they can – and in the end they do not have to take any crap given the line up of multiple attractive prospects they have available to them)..

    • Mark Trueblood

      This is true, and it is precisely the same situation men encounter. If we want to date the most attractive women, we either have to be what they’re looking for or become it. If we don’t we have to lower our standards or decide we’d rather be alone.

      Men and women have to adjust their expectations to those who will have them. We need to be willing to improve ourselves, or not go for the guys/girls who have dozens of options.

      • tamerlame

        I think you are wrong on one level. A decent guy can get overlooked even if he is humble and has no high expectations. I have been ignored by girls or rejected by girls who I feel and objectively know I am higher value than. Even girls interested in me have to play shitty games and all that crap.

        I think western women are insane myself.

        I have been given dating advice by guys to just put up with female behavior. If women can go around acting insane and still get attention, that means men are enabling insane women.

        • Bluedrgn

          Honestly I think most western women have an inflated opinion of their attractiveness. Women who are “3′s” on the attractiveness scale think they are a “6″, women who are a “7″ think they are a “9″… and most that are 8 or higher think they are Gods gift to the human race.

          I would say I’m an above average looking guy (though nothing about me screams “Alpha male”, or “this guy has $$$”)… but seen women who I wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole react with horror and disgust if I asked them “the time of day” so to speak and they thought I was trying to hit on them.

          • bhillboy37

            I’m going to agree wholeheartedly with all of you above me. Each comment expanded the conversation.

  • patriarchal landmine

    practically every concern women have or will have continues to hinge on the participation and approval of men.

  • Bluephoenix

    It really is `put your money where your mouth is” time. It’s been said for a long time that women don’t need men for anything. With the advent of MGTOW we will see if this assertion is right or not. It’s going to be very, very interesting.

    Puts me in mind of the kid who intimidates all the others whilst playing by saying `It’s my ball and you HAVE to do what I say’…before finding himself/herself standing in an empty field with the ball at his/her feet.

    All yours…all yours.

    • Dasque

      If by “interesting” you mean “endlessly entertaining”, then yes. Feminists and those who have not spoken against it have made their beds and now they get to lay in them, alone.

  • alek

    TripleG wrote this good post that ties into this subject rather nicely:

    Here’s my comment on this article…
    I am not that bothered by women who whine about courtship dying off, they’re a far less serious issues than something else that’s a related issue…

    The thing that pisses me off far more is the double and triple-binds that even have legal consequences attached to them.

    For example, boys are told (by both feminists and traditionalist women) that if you don’t have a girlfriend, you have failed at life and must secretly be a paedophile mass murdering ted bundy in disguise. Ok, good so far?

    THEN the boys are bombarded by messages from feministic women that you should NEVER EVER under ANY circumstance make a woman feel akward, creeped out or uncomfortable and in FACT you should NEVER EVER make ANY kind of a move on a woman unless you are 100%. super certain she has “given you enthusiastic consent” to be allowed to make a move. The fact that only Justin Bieber and George Clooney get such “please take me!!!” in your face displays of interest – means the feminist dictate would result in 99.99% of the male population being celibate.

    But so what? Are boys owed love, sex, relationships? OF COURSE NOT. BUT DON’T at the same time bash them for being single/celibate when your fucking rules (if and when followed) result in it.

    (Ok, not so bad you say? Girls trick boys into massive amounts of rejection and force boys to either be celibate or break rules they’ve been taught only rapists break)

    But that’s not the worst part, the double and triple binds get even thicker when you introduce LEGISLATION:

    • alek
    • Mark Trueblood

      I debated writing a paragraph about how some women should start courting men instead of insisting on the passive role, but I felt it was sort of implied by the overall article.

      Some women are very forward to men in showing they like them. It’s happened to me several times. And in no case does it have to be a sexually provocative come-on.

      • alek

        Personally I’m indifferent about what women should or shouldn’t do – that’s up to them.

        My issue is only with the triple-bind that they put men in. I’m ok with women being lazy and not pursuing if its paired up with them giving CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS signals and/or polite/understanding of when guys mess up.

        A) Men should do all the moves, take all the risks and take all responsibility


        B) We women will not give clear interest in which guy we’re interested in making which move, in fact we will give purposefully vague and ambiguous, mixed signals that give us plausible deniability


        C) If you DO Guess wrong, we reserve the right to admonish you, creep you shame you, and humiliate you for guessing wrong (this is now law, where a single courteous, unrepeated, no matter-how-polite move can be deemed harassment)

        (whereas one woman is like “well dork, if you want to meet women, why don’t you go for women who do x, that’s what we women do when we want to meet a man”, another woman is like “JUST BECAUSE I am doing x, DOES NOT mean I want to meet men you fucking creep, we women do x for ourselves, has nothing to do with meeting men!!)

        [I have no issue with any of these 3 on its own, its the combination that's mindfucking absurd and unjust]

        • tamerlame

          I think it is a form of collective gaslighting. I think it is very abusive.

      • alek

        Some women are very forward to men in showing they like them.

        Sure, but even the few “very forward” come ons aren’t 100% – they still leave plausible deniability in them. In other words, a come on from a woman, no matter how forward, can always be said to be “just being friendly”.

        There’s also the case that at least half of super-forward women are doing it to get attention, and have no interest in you whatsoever.

        What’s wrong with that?

        You’re still held liable for guessing wrong. Feminist theory and now law clearly states that unless a woman literally walks up to you and says “I give you permission to attempt kissing me” – you are a creepy proto-rapist for trying – no matter how forward she was (in other ways).

      • tamerlame

        I had a very attractive women hit on me in my early 20′s. She was a sexy Italian women in her late 20′s early 30′s. I was so shy back then that I was too scared to do anything. She got upset at me ignoring her and I never saw her again.

        So it has happened to me once in 10 years. I am not shy anymore so If it happened again I would be on that. (Unless of course there where red flags.)

      • Billybobownway

        I think you wrote the piece very well. You could have gone on and on, there is so much to work with.
        You kept it simple and clear.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Here is Paul Elam’s hilarious classic “equality date” story :

    “On Going to War with Women- Part 1” (July 7, 2010) Youtube

    I’ve you’ve never heard it before, you’re in for a treat.

    • Kimski

      Damn! You beat me to it. I’ve been looking for that one all afternoon, but couldn’t remember the title.

  • donzaloog

    Thank you, Mark. You said it perfectly. All these “strong, independent women” who want to fall back on traditional gender roles whenever it suits them are full of it. A lot of them claim they want equality but the don’t know the meaning of the word. Buy your man dinner once in a while, or at least pay half the bill.

    Chivalry is dead and it’s women who killed it.

    • carchamp1

      I think the far bigger problem is the men, especially those in the men’s and father’s rights movement, who want to fall back on traditional gender roles. And make no mistake it’s the men, not the women, in this movement who can’t seem to get themselves out of the 1950s. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cringed at supposed men’s advocates who exclaim that providing for a grown woman is my “core” value. It’s in my nature, don’t you know? Fuck that shit.

      • donzaloog

        If these women were so strong and independent then why don’t they make the first move if they’re attracted to a man? Why do they get so clingy after sex?

        Traditional gender roles are bullshit. If women have thrown off their role it’s definitely time for us men to throw off ours. Ignore women completely, live you life for yourself. If they want a relationship let them come to you. Whine and complain to get men admitted into traditionally female fields. i want to see the entire system turned upside down.

  • carchamp1

    Oh my fucking God. 100% correct! Thank you one hundred times.

    Please, please, please make sure all of your fellow writers, especially the older set, on this site read this as many of them surely don’t get it. Send Dalrock a copy, too. I’m sure he’s pretty clueless on this as well.
    Hopefully a light bulb, or two, will go on after this one.

    • alek

      make sure all of your fellow writers, especially the older set, on this site read this as many of them surely don’t get it

      What are you even talking about? There’s nothing in Mark’s article that “fellow writers” on avfm would disagree with (and wtf is up with the age-ism)? It’s those fellow-older writers that decided to feature this article, so what are you even ranting about?

    • Mark Trueblood

      I’m not sure where this is coming from. I haven’t seen any traditionalists holding forth on AVFM for a long time.

      • carchamp1

        Am I the only one who actually reads what you guys write?

        “Protecting women, and providing for them and their children, is an innate instinct in men.” Paul Elam

        “Overwhelmingly, men who are fathers and husbands see their core value as that of the breadwinner, the one who provides the house, the food, the clothing, the schooling, the medical care for his wife and children.” Robert Franklin

        As for Dalrock, his piece on courting is simply a how-to manual for women to sucker men into marriage. Brilliant! (sarcasm)

        This is all just traditionalist bullshit designed to keep men in their place. Sorry, but someone has to ruffle feathers around here.

        • Paul Elam

          Am I the only one who actually reads what you guys write?

          No, LOL, but you may the only regular reader who actually fails to comprehend this stuff in context.

          Sorry to disappoint, but your observation lacks sufficient force to ruffle a wisp of goose down.

          Talking honestly about the nature (or socialized state) of men, doesn’t mean you endorse slavery to it. It’s like you think that if we observe the fact that a lake is polluted that means we are suggesting people swim in it.

          Also, there may be, from time to time, articles here that don’t march in lockstep with all the others. Imagine that, diversity of opinion.

          But in this case, this has not even happened.

          Every point in everything you referenced flew directly over your head.

          Keep working at it, though, you will find some feathers to ruffle if you manage to increase your comprehension of the material here.

        • Mr. J

          They’re all calling this stuff out, not advocating it.
          YOU need to comprehend.


          • alek

            I think carchamp1000 is too busy ruffling feathers to bother mastering reading comprehension.

  • Mr. J

    “women are not inherently more valuable than men”

    I would sure like to know where the hell people ever got this notion in the first place.

    • Mark Trueblood

      It’s probably rooted in pre-rational animal behaviors but it is heavily pushed by the Neo-Victorianism that dominates the US, Canada, and Western Europe.

    • donzaloog

      In the older days, it was probably necessary to put women up on that pedestal. To drive men to work and move society they needed to deify what every man instinctively wants. Love and the propagation of our genetic legacy. We need women to do that, so they were glorified.

      • Mr. J

        Those retarded, convoluted fuckheads, I say.

        • donzaloog

          The people in power always knew what drove human potential and have used it to maximize our output and potential. They know how to manipulate our base human instincts. Anyway, women demanded and have been given equality.

          But they quickly realized that life as a man is not one lifelong blowjob, and no longer want be equal they want to be special. All the “privileges” of being a man, none of the responsibility/accountability.

    • Hypatia

      Maybe from a time when human societies really needed to maximize reproduction because they lived close to the edge (preindustrial, pre-massive population increases of last two centuries.). At that time women were “the limiting factor” in reproduction because it takes them 2 years–9 months of gestation and 1-plus year of breastfeeding (which is partially contraceptive.). It takes men 2 minutes. Thus if you had a tribe of 50 men and 50 women, losing 30 men would not have the same disastrous effect as losing 30 women. (The 20 remaining men could keep the 50 women pregnant,). Instincts remain for a good while even when the original Darwinian reasons for them are moot. Thus men and awoken who have no wish/intention of reproducing go through these ancient dances–her checking him out for ability to provide for her and baby, him checking her out for health (for which beauty is a proxy.)

      • Dean Esmay

        Yeah, but be a bit leary about those generalizations. While in the short-term a society could survive the crippling blow of losing the majority of its menfolk, the next generation of children would be sorely in trouble, death and suffering for the womenfolk would be high, and the entire community would suffer massively. The fun fantasy for a man having ten wives quickly falls apart when faced with the reality of what that actually entails.

        Human males’ innate tendency to like each other, cooperate with each other, protect each other, and innovate together were driving forces in creating civilization. The notion of male disposbility is nowhere near as strong as some people seem to think; your society of 50 men and 50 women that loses 30 of its men may produce another generation of children, but they’ll be children who are genetically cheated, stunted emotionally and possibly physically, and at high risk of starvation and worse. An optimal male/female balance closer to 50/50 is not just a good idea, it looks like what’s optimal for long-term reproduction and survival.

        • Room101

          In many ways modern technology and organization while increasing our comfort level, has enhanced male disposability while giving women more freedom. Modern warfare is far more brutal and devastating than anything our ancestors living in the wild had to face, even if disease is no longer a major issue that it once was. WWI was considered a ‘modern’ war in the sense that it was the first major war in which the majority of deaths were due to combat, not disease. It was also one of the most costly wars in history.

          A tribe of 100 that loses 30 men would probably have to join another tribe or face extinction. A nation of 100 million that lost 30 million males would be devastated, but could still carry on. The Soviet Union lost easily a fifth of its population from 1930-45(the majority of whom were males), and it went on to be a superpower.

          Nonetheless ancient mating rituals are no longer relevant in today’s society where it all boils down to money and women can make just as much as men. Men can’t even be the primary bread winners anymore, and with modern police forces, being a ‘protector’ is just not as necessary. A like of guys like to cling to concepts like ‘alpha’ without realizing they were totally meaningless in the first place. An ‘alpha’ wolf is only alpha for one breeding season. You can bench 400 pounds, but if your job is being offshored to China, you are still basically a worker drone without a job.

        • comslave

          We’re already heading back to a harem based society. But instead of having 3 wives at once, men with wealth cycle through three or four wives in the their lifetime. In some ways, it’s a weaker society because the children no longer have the presence of a father.

          Since one man-one woman is no longer an option because women’s hypergamy has increased due to their own personal wealth, we are stuck with only the option of harems or multiple divorces. Personally I would go with harems. At least the children will have a father even if it’s a dozen kids per man.

  • IndependentShock

    Great article and comments above. Here is the funny thing: in the NYT article it was entirely female perspective. Every dating person they asked was a 20-early 30 girl not single a guy.

    As for this one: ” A gynocentric traditionalist woman shoves a shame sandwich at men” there is a just fantastic phrase out there: “…there is always an abortion (which is the greatest war against women, if we figure 50 percent of babies aborted are girls…”
    Abortion is the war on women because 50 percent of aborted babies are girls!!!! (she goes on with sex selection but this is largely irrelevant to the western world).

    • Mark Trueblood

      Media outlets like the NYT don’t know what average men are thinking, and they don’t want to know. It disrupts the Cathedral’s hymns to the glorious revolution.

  • donzaloog

    This Faulkner woman is a joke. She only lasted 4 hours before spending the rest of the week in the infirmary then quitting. She never had any intention of being a soldier, she just wanted to be the first woman to get into The Citadel. She’s an embarrassment.

  • Bluedrgn

    “Courtship and chivalry are fundamentally incompatible with notions of gender equality.”

    I agree. Any woman that calls herself a feminist should flatly refuse to let a man pick up the bill, open the door for her, or give up his jacket when it’s cold. Otherwise she is a hypocrite.

    Oh wait… if I say “feminist hypocrite” I’m repeating myself aren’t I?

  • feeriker

    If a man does something nice for her, he should look for it to be reciprocated somehow.

    HAH! Good luck with that.

  • Aimee McGee

    Having a completely different cultural take on courtship I was like “eh?” At the title.

    Am still splitting the dates 50:50 5 years into the relationship with Beloved. Don’t plan to stop any time soon.

    Courtship for me is about time spent getting to know each other…our first date was on top of a Scottish hill with smoked salmon sandwiches and 2 cans of cider and I insisted on carrying the bag. We ate, talked and held silence together. We talked about all kinds of things ranging from ethics to politics to films to books to family over 2 years…

    Because we spent so much time getting to know each other, when it became an intimate relationship, it was based on knowing we could trust each other…that’s the real magic of a real courtship

  • comslave

    It will take another generation of women before they will realize old school courting is gone. At that point, however, the family unit will be reduced to a single mom and her fatherless offspring. And because of a lack of role models, in the eyes of men, women will be reduced to temporary entertainment. The only role model they will know is the one night stand guy who porks their mother, and is never seen again. They will accept that as the norm.

    The future is going to be ugly and unromantic.

    If you’re bemoaning the loss of “good men” and courtship, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    • Mark Trueblood

      I hear what you are saying but I think it’s going to depend a lot on the culture in question. So-called “traditional religious” types and some ethnic minorities are having a lot of kids, and the trends in their communities won’t quite match with the greater society (Though they may become less traditional than they are now.)

      One thing we also have to keep in mind is the impact of sexual technologies which both men and women will enjoy using. This will be a definite game changer, so to speak.

    • katydid

      Speaking of another generation of women, can we talk about the corruptive influence Disney has on all of this?? Teaching little girls that the best thing they can ever hope for in life is to be beautiful and special enough for the handsome prince to fall in love with them? It’s usually the grown women who still cling to the Disney storyline that insist they deserve a prince to fawn over them.

      If Disney taught young girls that the best thing you can aspire to in life is to be brave, intelligent, respectful, and hardworking, and that a token lifemate was not awarded to you at the end for your inherent beauty an specialness, then we would have fewer grown women expecting to just get rewarded with princes for being pretty.

      Yes, if Disney (and similar cartoons) de-emphasized the physical beauty of its female leads, then I think we would have fewer real-life humans thinking that their inherent physical appearance entitles them to rewards.

      Just my two cents.

      • Mark Trueblood

        Actually, what would also help is if Feminists quit telling women they were morally and biologically superior to men, and then lobbying for government laws that made it happen.

      • Room101

        And what of the physical beauty of the male leads in such films? and the fact that they all either start of rich or end up rich?

  • jaytheman

    Those women that make the first move are out there and to be honest the ones that whine about where are all the good men will always be there. Some women have figured out that it’s okay to go out there and try and risk rejection. The woman i’m dating right now asked me out and even did it in front of several other people at a social gathering. She also insists on paying half or dutch on our dates and she lives on her own and pays her own rent. Also ironically she dumped her last boyfriend, because he insisted on doing everything for her and treating her like a princess. Now I realize I’am very lucky for meeting her and its still really early in the relationship, but so far it’s one based on partnership not ownership on either end.
    That idea of partnership is what equality really means and many feminists and modern women don’t get it. Of course neither does blue pill society, so they feed this idea that women need to be coddled and protected at all costs while telling them how independent they are. I honestly feel that there are women that go their own way as much as there are men that do. Imagine that a WGTOW movement that is real and not hijacked by feminism and the metaphorical gun held to men’s head. These women are out there and I believe many of them are in the MRM already and i have the pleasure of knowing one I care about dearly. Paul and some other writers here have pointed out that we can’t give up on women they are after all a crucial component to the human race.

    • Mark Trueblood

      I know there are women who make the first move, as it’s happened to me several times. There are also women who are very fair about who plans & pays for dates.

    • Vivica Liqueur

      There are women going their own way for sure, otherwise known as being authentic. So yup, lots of authentic women out there too and we’re just as sick of the entitled princess and those who support the abusive entitled woman as the ideal partner just because she’s drop dead gorgeous she can get away with murder.

      I’ve helped many men get back up after the trauma those walking disasters of self entitled princesses left them with. I’m not saying I have been perfect my whole life, I know I was unconscious myself as a teenager up until mid 20′s. I was able to do the work to pull my head out of my ass slowly but surely and continue to. So many men I’ve met who were so shattered by these women who cheated on them, some of who left them with scars both physical and emotional. I shared before how one of the men I dated was so afraid of being around a woman with a knife when he came into the kitchen and saw me cooking he would about-face and walk right back out. He joked about it but I realized he was traumatized. So many more stories like this and worse, it’s horrible. Gets me pretty pissed to think of it.

      I just can’t see how women keep getting away with being abusive and then go on to demand from men as if it’s owed to them. I’m glad chivalry is dead.

      I realized myself how I had all these b.s. stories I was fed that if a man didn’t pay for the date he didn’t value me-yup, these are the stories that are told to perpetuate the entitlement by tying in women’s self value, fucked up how the whole system works eh? and many more stories that are horseshit. I actually went through a time of questioning my own self worth when I started to date equally. What a mind fuck. But I got through it and realized the bullshit.

      The thing is, women are going to have to do the work and it’s good to hear we’re heading towards there being no other option. Love it. The amount of bullshit and justification I hear daily for women’s horrible actions and ridiculous demands is unbelievable. What’s even crazier is they really, really believe it. They really believe their claims to having everything paid for them makes sense, that men should tip-toe around them and be a watered down version of themselves for fear of upsetting these creatures. These self entitled women lash out at men, screaming at them at every turn and then want to be rewarded for this?? I can’t believe this is treated as sanity.

      • Mark Trueblood


      • Room101

        ‘should tip-toe around them and be a watered down version of themselves’ – the classic characteristics of a narcissist.

  • Peadair

    “Note that having sex does not entitle women to payment”

    Sex should be an internally equal transaction. She has sex with you, you have sex with her. Neither of you owe anything to each other.

    Only prostitutes should be allowed to ask for something to have to have sex with you. Girl friends, partners and wives should want to have sex with you because it is a mutually pleasurable recreational (and sometime procreational) activity.

    If it is an unequal transaction, then it shouldn’t be a sexist one, with only males owing something to females. If she wants sex, she should damn well earn it.

    • comslave

      In the passed 15 years, at least for me, most of the women who have gone out with me for more than 3 times has asked for payment of some kind. Usually the request is made as a hint, or a statement of need, but basically I’m expected to alleviate their financial problems with cash.

      Instead I just give financial advice. That usually kills the relationship right there.

      Once while I was being interviewed for jury duty, on a prostitution case, I was asked what I thought of prostitution. I replied “how do you tell the difference? I can’t anymore.”

      • Peadair

        Prostitution is legal in my country.

        I think prostitution is a reasonable transaction, I think women who want “stuff for sex” in a normal relationship are being unrealistic and frankly sexist. After all if a woman is in a lesbian relationship, would they both expect “stuff for sex” or only when they are in a relationship with a man?

        • SlantyJaws

          This is a world where you can buy anything if you have the money. There is nothing that cannot be obtained from a variety of goods to diverse services. Even “husbands” can be rented.

          The “hourly-paid” husband service is thriving these days after being first introduced in Georgia two years ago, landed in Korea in January last year.

          The services cost 20,000 won to 30,000 won an hour on average. However, the charges vary depending on what kind of service is offered and how difficult it is to provide. The exact amount is settled through consultations and agreement. The services are given when male assistants accept the settled price.

          South Korea’s rapid economic development has meant some startling changes within its conservative social structure, including the rise of so-called host bars, where wealthy women pay the equivalent of thousands of dollars for male company.

          In the dim light of an underground room, a dozen perfectly groomed young men kneel in rows, calling out their names.

          Muscular, with shiny boy-band hairstyles, they cram side by side into the narrow space, waiting for us to make our choice. Outside in the corridor, more of their colleagues are arriving for another night at work. It is 2am, and we are their first customers.

          Hidden beneath the pavements of Seoul’s ritziest postcode, Gangnam, the men at Bar 123 are part of a growing industry, which grew out of the long traditions of Japanese geisha and Korea’s kisaeng houses but with one crucial difference – the customers here are all women.

          Known as “host bars”, these all-night drinking rooms offer female customers the chance to select and pay for male companions, sometimes at a cost of thousands of pounds a night.

      • Bluedog

        re: “I just give financial advice. That usually kills the relationship right there.”

        CS-that is really funny as in I might keep that for my comedy routine funny. Seriously at Thxgvg dinner thursday I think I’m going to take that one and run with it, own it like its mine. What a great dinner discussion topic: how did you get someone crushing on you off your case? Oh yeah … gave her financial advise … was like cold antarctic water over that crush you could almost see the ghost fly from her eyeballs.

        Thx! I’m guessing there’ll be a whole hour of social traction on that one. I’m serious BTW, not tongueincheek.

        Trueblood … you and I, eye2eye, not often. But this article: superb. It makes me wax Betty Friedan (who I met once FTF BTW), “The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years … it was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning … the problem that has no name…”

        Only … you named it. Bullseye. Target acquired.

        Equal rights … all the way across the board even to and especially to dating … or bust. Well done sir.

        • Mark Trueblood

          It’s pretty amazing that it’s considered earth-shattering & controversial by society for some of us to advocate equality in dating and relationships.

        • comslave

          “remember that while you’re working, you want to save at least six months of cash in the event you get laid off or fired. Don’t spend any money on anything frivolous until you have that six month nest egg prepared” has the exact same effect on women as saying “My god, you’re fat”.

  • John Narayan

    OT but must vent…oh boy!

    The salon article Ruby Hamad quotes says

    “As a professor of early modern history at Oxford, Roper takes for granted several historical facts that may nevertheless be unfamiliar or surprising to the average reader. One concerns the diversity of the persecuted people. Some 20 percent of the Europeans tried for witchcraft were men. (This varied from nation to nation; in Iceland, 90 percent of the accused were men.) In some cases, including one that Roper covers in depth, the accused were children.

    The peak of the craze occurred not in the Middle Ages, when witchcraft was dealt with rather leniently, but a couple hundred years later. The practice had effectively died out by the late 1700s, but Roper also describes a particularly brutal trial that happened in 1745. The total number of Europeans killed is generally thought to be 40,000 to 100,000. (It’s not clear where Dan Brown, author of “The Da Vinci Code,” got the figure of 5 million, since 9 million is the incorrect number more commonly bandied about.)”

    Yet Ruby Hamad says.

    “”The witch-hunts that swept Europe in the Middle Ages and Renaissance lead to the torture and death of at least 100,000 people, 80-85 per cent of them women.”

    Never trust a feminist!


  • Louie Cipher

    I think the “shoves a shame sandwich at men” link went to the wrong page; the linked article was far more disparaging to the feminists.

    • Mark Trueblood

      I don’t agree. She did criticize Feminism, but only so far as to say that it has made women vulnerable to beastly and sex-obsessed men who can now “get sex for free” without manning up and putting a ring on it.

      • John Narayan

        “get sex for free” I normally retort with “well, now we know what you are we just have to agree on a price” works every time.

  • Snarge22

    “If women are strong, independent, and self-reliant, then men are no longer obligated to be protectors and providers. ”

    When I was younger all I ever got from women was the stink-eye, Then I got my engineering degree, and still got the stink-eye … until they found out what I did for a living. Then their behavior flipped 180 degrees. These empowered women still wanted someone to pay their way, they wanted that beta provider (especially if they were older). It was quite startling to me at that time having to previously endure the disgust of women.

    Some years later I had my fill of basketball (had enough of sprained ankles and attitudes) and started putting time in the gym. After about eight years or so I put on around 30 lbs of muscle. Never got the stink-eye again, ever. It was quite amazing (and even disappointing) to watch just how much women’s reactions to me changed.

    From my point of view the physicality says a lot about that “protection” quality, both in what men try to supply and how women really want it (no matter what they say).

    My take is they wanted ready ATM access and a violence receptacle in case things got really bad (otherwise just someone strong enough to move the furniture paid for with the man’s earnings). Or to put it another way, they really didn’t give a F about me, but only in what I could “provide”.

    But maybe it’s about market value, or more correctly sexual market value. Love of a man and his humanity have nothing to do with it.

    Somehow I don’t find it all that satisfying being a utility for women. I find it quite sad.

  • http://Yahoo lugger2010

    I’ve always said…
    “Equality for women is nothing more than a buffet. Women line up, and pig out on the “Rights and Priviliges” side, and totally ignore/ avoid the “Resposibility and Accountability” section !!!
    I love the looks on their precious little face when I tell them this….PRICELESS !!

  • Vladtheimpaler

    Something that was left out of the conversation, but touches on the making the first move and tactics women use, which some of you have discussed in the comments section. (and a taste of how far they will go to get what they want) Every time i hear this discussion, this particular tactic is never mentioned, so i am just going to throw it out there.

    Here is what has happened to me at least 4 times that i can remember. Ok i am/was an attractive man, i have been hit on enough times (dozens and dozens) by women to accept that most women wouldn”t run from me.. My face is what thy are referring to i assume, but i have a very fit body, all genetics, i have not done weights since playing sport as a teen, and eat only rubbish. My father is 70 with a six pack, so that should say it all.

    As i say i can remember 4 this tactic was used on me and others, but i think it may be more. I will explain the worst one, which will become evident as to why i call it the worst one. I was 21, so about 15 years ago, at a mates place, house party for 2-3 days as his old’s were on holiday. Many girls were invited and much fun was had…but not by me. I rejected every advance, i rejected every women there. which may have been a few months after a break up i think, but i was extremely annoyed by them, i just wanted to have fun and laugh, that much i remember. On the second day, my mangina mates approach me with a few girls in tow.

    “Mate a girl is outside crying because of you.” Huh? why, i haven’t insulted anyone, all i did was crack jokes for the whole time. Well turns out, she had sent repeated signals that she liked me and what-not and i ignored them all. Honestly i had that many instances where a girl would butt in to conversations to try and get my attention and numerous ‘hints’, all the way to a girl overtly trying to sit on my lap like she was my cat. I honestly didn’t remember any of this particular girls ‘hints’ she was not even close to the best looking present, quite pretty but a bit out there with a green mo-hawk and nose rings and stuff. not my style.

    But she found a very clever ploy. She would sulk and get all the hero’s to then attack me for making her cry. Like i was a big bad man because i wasn’t interested in her. The other girl’s were conned too. So, in a moment of stupidity i went outside to speak with her. One thing led to another and i quickly realized that by caring for her, and allowing her to sit on my lap and hug & snuggle me like a child, we had suddenly ‘hooked up’. she had staked her claim and the other women quickly recognized it. “Sneaky bitch!” “Bloody Sook” and such in shadowy corners. In truth they probably hated that they hadn’t thought to do that. To shame me into liking them.

    Well i noticed this trap after a while so made an internal dialogue that she would be disappointed when i didn’t even kiss her or anything. She did lean in to try a few times though. In the end i called shotgun on the couch and crashed out there.

    Here is the extra that made it the worse one. Boy oh boy was i shocked when 3 of the girls came to me the following day after “Miss sooky” Suddenly left unexpectedly the following morning with the friend she had come with.. Turns out she had confided in them that she was kissing me while i slept, well the girls must have approved so she gave even more info, but when their faces turned to shock she knew she had made a mistake in telling them too much and promptly left. Turns out that while i slept she had not only been kissing me, but fondling me, yes she took it out apparently as i was only wearing track pants, and to be honest who knows what else.. I am a heavy sleeper at the best of times

    But From all accounts, the look on the girls faces had prompted her to shut her mouth earlier then her account would suggest. I don’t believe she had sex with me, as i think I would have woken up, I’m pretty sure since i had no fluid or anything on me or my pants, but honestly cannot 100% certify that. One of my mates who went to the toilet at night blankly stated that he thought we had both initially slept on the couch when he saw her lying on top of me when he walked by, she “looked asleep on me” was she sleeping with her legs straddling my waist? or was she pretending when she heard my mate walking around.. Either way, in recent times that would be considered rape, or it should be. But since i am a male i should feel privileged that my body only belongs to me until a woman decides it doesn’t.

    Now i am not emotionally scared by it, but that doesn’t mean the next guy wouldn’t be. Nor did it lower my opinion on women, (that was rock bottom well before then) I was very angry however at finding out. Hard to explain, and without trivializing it, it was emotionally similar to walking up to your car to find your stereo ripped out. Your private space was entered and violated, even though i had no physical torment, or memory of it. i felt ‘used’. Dutch (whose house it was) Tony (who had seen her in the night) and my cousin were the only guy present to know. The three girls gave there word to never tell., i never asked for that from them, i honestly don’t care much for the word of a woman, i judge them on actions, so don’t care if they kept it or not. I doubt it though. To this day, i love the look on a female face who has known me their whole lives, and seen me as “Vlad, the alpha male, indestructible dominant man” when they say men are this or that. “What would you say if i told you i was raped by a woman?” Their initially reaction is to scoff, but then they see i am not laughing, and their faces drop like a brick.. When they learn it was while i slept, they are just about to dismiss it until i add, “i put a pill in your drinks, don’t worry i won’t hurt you, and you wont remember so it’s all good” That look is priceless!

    So anyway, aside from the crazy ending, the sulking victim to manipulate my humanity is a tactic i have experienced and witnessed many times. So when men don’t make the first move, and a women does, they have alternate ways, given the suitable surrounds, to make you accept their advances, interested in her or not. And no doubt had i ever seen her again, i would be expected to pay for our outing, in tribute to her interest in me. All men should be so lucky, right? *cue nausea*

    • Sting Chameleon

      I’ve had that sort of emotional strongarming thrown at me, and I ended up getting into a fistfight for not yielding to it.

  • katydid

    I made an account just to say I am a feminist (read: one who believes women should receive rights and respect *equal* to those of men) and, more broadly, an egalitarian (read: one who believes in equal rights and respect for ALL individuals) who agrees with this article. Gender equality means equality between genders, and chivalry is not equality. Chivalry is a sexist attitude against men.

    Yet when I try to make this case to other women—even sometimes to other feminists—I encounter resistance. I think it will take a bit of the balance of power fluctuating and evening out before the majority of women realize that the corollary to releasing the male grasp on privilege is letting go of female privilege also. But it will get there. Have faith with me that social progress happens, even if it happens slowly.

    I even encounter resistance when I make the case against chivalry to men. Recently, a young friend of mine went on his first “real” date, and he was very nervous and excited and asking all of us for advice. He wanted to do everything “right,” and he’s the kind of guy who doesn’t know how to interact with women at all. I told him, “Don’t go overboard with the chivalry and like insist on holding doors open and pulling out her chair and paying for the whole bill and all that crap. I find it very insulting when guys treat me that way. It’s like you care more about some notion of proper protocol than actual people.”

    Our other THREE friends present—two females and one male—all jumped on me, “What, are you crazy?! Definitely pay for her!!”

    As the three of them explained to me from both male and female points of view, it seems that when a man doesn’t offer to pay for the full bill, the woman takes that to mean he didn’t have a good time on the date and doesn’t see it going anywhere. And when a woman offers to pay for her half of the bill, men take that to mean SHE didn’t have a good time on the date and doesn’t see it going anywhere.

    Meanwhile, I am the sort of girl who will ask a guy out if I really like him, AND I will feel that it is right for me to offer to pay the whole bill if I am the one who invited him on the date. And I have gotten awkward vibes from men by doing that, and I have had to face fears and/or realities that I am “emasculating” him somehow. But if I really want a dude’s company, I’m not going to want the current state of his wallet to be a factor in deciding whether he says yes or no.

    At the same time, that random panel of three friends who were present that day would have me believe that every time I offer to pay my share when a guy pulls out his wallet, I am telling that guy that I’m not into him. My success rate with guys would certainly support that finding.

    But I think this is just the sort of relic of sexist culture that men and women have to work TOGETHER to abolish. It won’t just go away with men in one room fighting for masculism and women in the other room fighting for feminism. Masculism and feminism are only at odds with one another if either side is trying to get more than half of the pie; if each side is only fighting for 50%, then the two fit snugly together like a puzzle, and we can all work on that puzzle together. Masculism (50%) + Feminism (50%) = Gender Equality (100%).

    In other words, if guys are fed up with chivalry—which I for one feel that they should be—they’re going to also have to be okay with a woman taking the initiative in asking him out, paying the bill, texting him first to make follow-up plans, etc. (Which might mean that he gets texted sooner/more frequently than he wants to!) And this woman, for one, finds that there’s nothing sexier than a man secure enough in his masculinity to not feel it threatened by a woman taking the reins and responsibility for them now and then.


    • Dean Esmay

      Fair warning, self-proclaimed feminists are not liked here because we find a majority of the sisterhood does not share your attitude, and to us, mostly you wouldn’t look like a typical feminist at all and we’d wonder why you bother with that label.

      There are very few people here who call themselves masculists–I did at one time, many many years ago, but I dropped it because it’s dumb. I’m a human and civil rights activist with a focus on men’s and boys’ issues, which is where I believe they’re most desperately needed.

    • Anja Eriud

      @ katydid


      I was enjoying reading the comments on this article, and had just finished reading Vlad’s post, was about to read it again actually because his story resonates and I find myself wondering how many other men have been manipulated in this manner by scheming wretches, when the page moved down a wee bit and I caught sight of your post.

      More importantly, I stopped reading after “I am a feminist” sigh.

      Going to be up front with you, I loathe feminism, and have very little tolerance for feminists, even “nice” feminists, one reaches a point where being “nice” just doesn’t cut it.

      The whole “I just believe in equal rights” thing is a crock as well – I took a quick glance at your “Disney” post, typical “nice” feminist stuff – the emphasis being on how to make giiiiiiiiiiiirls feel better about themselves – again. Same shit – different day.

      This article is about dating/courtship from a MALE perspective – and yet you wittered on about how Disney makes girls feel bad.

      Sweetie, I’ve been listening to this crap for nigh on 30 years, every version, every flavour, every possible permutation, and it is old. Wrapping it up pretty bows and ribbons and putting it a box covered in shiny “nice feminist” paper is still a big fat feminist turd – with bows and ribbons.

      Let me give you a wee bit of advice. FORGET how you feel, FORGET what does or doesn’t make girls feel good totally. Put yourself in Vlad’s shoes on the night he describes.

      Imagine for a moment that every man looks at you and is disgusted by what he sees, thinks of YOU as scum, and wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Would laugh themselves sick if YOU were horribly mutilated, organises campaigns to tell the world that YOU, katydid were a sick, depraved monster and would harm little children if let anywhere near them.

      Can you imagine that katydid, the world barely tolerating your existence, huge numbers of people despising YOU.


    • alek

      Thank you for writing that comment KatyDid, it was a pleasure to read it.

      Do note that with your views, you are completely unlike 99.9% of people who carry the label feminist, so I find it odd you call yourself a feminist. (and most of us have years/decades conversing/debating/studying feminists)…

      • alek

        Masculism and feminism are only at odds with one another if either side is trying to get more than half of the pie; if each side is only fighting for 50%, then the two fit snugly together like a puzzle, and we can all work on that puzzle together. Masculism (50%) + Feminism (50%) = Gender Equality (100%).

        Unfortunately…. We tried reasoning with feminists for decades, they’re not intent on listening to a true-gender-transition movement.

        I think warren farrell is right when he says that (unfortunately) there will need to be a transitionary period of a men’s movement for a while, before we get to the final, third stage, that of integration where haminists work together on transcending gender and restrictive sex roles.

        You might be surprised to hear this, but a lot of leading MRAs wish we could just jump to that final integrative stage working on humanism. Unfortunately, it was through decades of experience that they found that feminists put up roadblocks to true gender-transition. Its ironic that feminists often pay lip service to how “sex roles hurt both men and women” yet feminists are the STRONGEST force behind ENFORCING traditional gender roles/responsibilities/values onto men (that of men carrying all agency, women being helpless agencyless victims, men having all responsibility to make change in the world, etc etc)…

    • Mark Trueblood

      Katy, you sound wonderfully fair and balanced. But I have heard Feminists like you say this stuff for my entire adult life. Yet your movement behaves more like a hate cult all the time.

      You should start taking your message to other feminists, not talking to men and women like me who want equality. By the way, I don’t claim the term “masculist” at all as what I truly want is something of an egalitarian meritocracy between the sexes.

      Thanks for your thoughts.

  • MGTOW-man

    “But it turns out that when you tell some men you are strong, independent, and equal, they will believe you. It also happens that some men may be enthused by the idea of evolving their traditional gender roles. They no longer feel the obligation to demonstrate subservient provider capacity by wooing ladies with gifts and free entertainment. They are perceptive enough to know that courtship behavior is asking to get treated like a chump. They expect women to play an equal role in the courtship, and they’re perfectly happy to say “NEXT!” if she’s unwilling to reciprocate.”

    —Careful Mark! Don’t be TOO truthful Not many people will like you. JK,OC

    “I adamantly reject wrongheaded expectations placed on gender, and I encourage all men and women to do the same. I don’t say this because I “hate” or “disrespect” women. I say it because I like women and strongly believe they are as capable as any man of being a self-reliant adult.”

    —By “wrongheaded”, do you mean… not working both ways fairly, true reciprocity, one side getting its cake AND getting to eat it too while the other side (men) loses on every front?

    I say this because not all expectations placed on sex are wrongheaded. Some of it is deeply rooted in survival (including productivity) and still relevant today, that is, in a sanity-seeking approach. For example, women working on an oil rig, actually thinking (feelings, stemming from wishing) that they are pulling their weight, is not only laughable but wrongheaded. I am not against women working there, but face it, in a free market they aren’t worth as much to the owners unless we blur the lines on what truthful, profit-making worth is. I have no problem with women getting to realize their dreams of being an oil rig worker so long as they know, accept, and quit trivializing (lying) about their limitations, including not getting paid as much for having less physical strength—something reticulated and inseparably relevant to worth in a physical environment for profit, objectively speaking.

    Do we not do the same thing to men in some ways? Reproduction is but one example. Since they do not possess the equipment, they, being penalized for things they can’t help (similar to women having less physical strength) have less power, etc.

    Women really do want it both ways while they could care less if men have any of it at all!

    I will not apologize for being truthful.

    • Mark Trueblood

      “Wrongheaded” meaning based on some view of gender roles skewed by either traditionalism or gender ideology.

      • MGTOW-man

        OK, I got it, I think. This does not include the ones derived from nature/survival/evolution/productivity. IOW if they are MERELY traditional or ideological and not based on something of value linked to n/s/e/p.

        This is not that big of a deal to me in the great scheme of things. I know we are united in ultimate concept and this is what our movement will need…for there will be MANY small disagreements, discourse, etc that which we might let cause us to compete ourselves out of a movement— if we allow them to.

        We won’t.

  • MGTOW-man

    I will also not apologize for being a capitalist. Feminists are socialists by default. I also believe most women are too, by nature, (compared to males overall) and do not even know it. I would like to see this spectacular innovative, technologically advanced, information-age machine we have at our disposal exist if it were socialism instead of capitalism. That, like it or not, is the point. Outliers, well-meaning as they may be, can’t be allowed to turn things upside down. That is what is wrongheaded.

    • MGTOW-man

      Apparently, we have some socialists amongst us. Well, the disclaimer DOES say that this site is a collection of diverse opinions.

      The only thing I have to say to them is that they need to think long and hard about how feminism IS socialism in many ways. Not only by default which is self-explanatory, but also with expectations of practices that feminists/women endorse and implement; the fact that their early (and beyond) mentors were confirmed socialists; as well as the nature of women to have more affinity for “communal” approaches—A four-sided whammy!

      The truth isn’t running a popularity contest.