Domestication of the human male

V Leaks 1.1:

In V-Leaks 1.0: Feminine Surrender as Emotional Dominance I detailed how women use submission as a way of developing dominance in their relationships. Two proponents of the ‘surrendered wife’ lifestyle weighed in to defend the dynamic. I will be addressing their criticisms in this vlog, as well as expanding some of the concepts touched upon in the original.

The Draft Horse

When the draft horse asks, ‘why am I plowing the farmer’s field?’ The farmer will answer, ‘because you’re stronger then me, of course.’

The draft horse’s identity then becomes a self-reinforcing solipsism based on the farmer’s flattering deception: ‘I plow the farmer’s field because I’m stronger than the farmer; I am stronger than the farmer because I plow the farmer’s field.’

A wild horse would have none of this. A wild horse would simply be; his identity defined only by what experiences he chooses to have. It’s not until a horse’s definition of himself can only be expressed in terms of the farmer that he becomes domesticated.

The horse is stronger, faster, smarter then the farmer, but always he is judged in relation to the farmer’s limitations and because this judgment is the domesticated horse’s identity, the farmer’s limitations become the horse’s obligations. When the farmer is weak, the horse must show himself to be stronger and pull her plow for her; when the farmer is slow, the horse must show himself to be faster and carry her upon his back; when the farmer is stupid, the horse must show himself to be smarter and solve the problem she has.

In each instance the horse’s strengths are used to benefit the farmer in her weakness. By tying the horse’s positive identity in opposition to her weakness, she tethers his effort to her benefit as well.

The draft horse then sees thoughts of freedom or any other aspect of his wild horse nature that does not relate to plowing  fields as a threat to his own identity. Finally, because the draft horse believes plowing fields to be his identity, he no longer sees the transactional nature of his relationship with the farmer. He starts to see her taking care of him as a benefit rather then an aspect of her exploitation of him. In his mind she takes care of him because she loves him; not because he’s a utility that requires maintenance.

A farmer does not bother to make herself aware of his draft horse’s emotional needs. If she did, she would have to face the fact that the entirety of the draft horse’s life is constructed for the farmer’s benefit and her benefit alone. Regardless of how much extra mash the farmer fetches for her horse as he impatiently stamps his hoof in his stall.

She might say to herself: ‘I feed him, muck out his stall, give him access to sex and raise his young to be future draft horses, what more can he possibly need?’

Of course a wild animal will not allow the farmer to clean it, to feed it, to control its sex life (even if it’s just deciding who the animal will have sex with) or even touch its young much less raise them. A wild horse must be broken, then tamed  first before it will even see the farmer’s service as a benefit. A wild horse prefers its independence to dependence on the farmer; that’s why the draft horse’s young must be raised by the farmer’s hand. So they too can learn to be dependent on the farmer’s service instead of independent and self-possessed wild creatures.

So when the draft horse asks ‘why am I drafting the farmer’s field’ and the farmer responds ‘because you are stronger than me’ this is not an answer. It’s a flattering deception. The greater strength of the horse is why the farmer has set him to plow her field; but the greater strength of the farmer is why the horse actually plows it.

The Human Draft Horse

Because women control and have controlled the fundamentals of human survival for generations upon generations, children grow up associating feminine approval with provision of their basic needs. This association persists even into adulthood. As a boy grows into a man, his association between feminine approval and his basic needs evolves into associating feminine approval and a positive social identity. Needless to say those entities we see as the source of our basic needs hold considerable power over us.

Respect for men is now measured in terms of respecting the identities women give them as draft horses, rather then respecting the needs of the men themselves. In fact by setting up a man’s personal needs and vulnerabilities in opposition to his socially approved identity as a draft horse, you create the perfect uncomplaining beast of burden. The biggest threat to this system is a man’s emotional matrix and the possibility he might imprint his emotional matrix on his children.

Each man is the key to freedom for his sons. If a boy associates provision of his basic needs—food, shelter, comfort—with the presence of his father, he starts to develop an association between masculine approval and a positive social identity. Eventually as he grows this will allow him the ability to develop a positive male identity distinct from women, because his social identity will not be provisional on their approval.

The reason why men’s emotional needs are conflated with their base drives for food, sex and hygiene and ignoring their actual emotional needs is disguised behind ‘respecting their manhood’ is because this allows women’s emotions to dominate the relationship, both her relationship with her husband and her relationship with her sons.

And like the draft horse who defines himself as stronger then the farmer, all the mechanics of a man’s domestication are hidden behind his manhood. Because to admit to himself that he is controlled by the farmer, would be to admit to himself that he is weaker then the farmer.

Domestication has become his identity.

The Carrot

A commentator on the article Feminine Surrender as Emotional Dominance posted the following comment.

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.

First of all, the surrendered wife dynamic may play out to exclude the man’s emotional needs from the relationship without the surrendered wife actually being aware of what she’s doing. That’s one reason why it’s so dangerous.

The commentator goes on to show this potential danger in action in her description of own relationship.

I homeschool our children, clean our house, make my family’s meals, and happily have sex with my husband whenever he wants to. 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.

In essence this surrendered wife is appealing to the ‘carrot’ offered the man to justify the submissive wife lifestyle.

Before I get into discussing this part of the response, I want to point out that I can only infer from what was written. It’s difficult to describe the entirety of a relationship in a short paragraph and no doubt information is lost in translation. Having said that, from this description I don’t get the impression this surrendered wife has any idea that her husband has a human emotional landscape at all.

First of all she defined all of her husband’s needs in exactly the same way a farmer would define her draft horse’s.

You could replace what she said with: I feed him, muck out his stall, give him access to sex and raise his young to be future draft horses. And lose nothing in meaning. The one thing that addresses a human emotional need is what she says about sex. Unfortunately she does not recognize whose emotional needs are being met in her sexual exchanges with her husband. When she says ‘I happily have sex with my husband sex whenever he wants to’ she believes that giving her husband access to sex when he wants it is an emotional benefit to him.

Access to sex is something you give a farm animal. Desire is something you give a human being.

Desire is the gift, not sex. So when her husband desires her, he’s giving her the gift. In the situation she describes it’s actually her husband tending to her emotional needs as a human being. Namely the need to feel desired.

There was a reason why I explicitly referred to the intricate tapestry of a human’s vulnerabilities, insecurities and fears when I described men’s needs. These vulnerabilities are the man’s emotional matrix. In an equitable relationship the man’s emotional matrix is given as much room as the woman’s.

In an inequitable relationship the man’s emotional matrix is misunderstood as identical to his base needs. In an inequitable relationship a woman provides a man exactly the same things that a farmer provides a well-performing animal. In an inequitable relationship a woman mistakes a man providing for her emotional needs with her providing for his.

This carrot, like all carrots is more about benefitting the person offering it then the one receiving it.

The Whip

To understand how the whip functions in the surrendered wife lifestyle, imagine it is, instead, a ring through a bull’s nose.

When the farmer tugs on the bull’s ring, the bull experiences pain—she tugs on his ring either overtly through shaming language, ‘you’re not strong enough’ or covertly by presenting a weakness in herself that he must act to address or risk losing his positive social identity as stronger then her.

Pointing out the existence of the ring is also painful because, being an obvious point of control and weakness, it challenges his identity as more powerful then the farmer. This pain functions as a control mechanism to keep the ring in place.

But when the farmer says ‘don’t point out the existence of the ring to the bull, it insults him.’ What she means is ‘don’t point out the ring to the bull, he might be able to pull it out if he is aware of it.’ And she’s hiding this truth behind presumptive compassion for his ‘fragile male ego.’

An online commenter using the handle Lilith had the following to say in defense of the surrendered wife lifestyle. The way the former commentator used the carrot, Lilith uses the whip.

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

This is in reference to the previous article in which I detailed a story of a man whose surrendered wife sat silently as he took an incorrect exit from the highway, allowing him to drive half a day before discovering his error.

The surrendered wife in question could have easily said to herself ‘I don’t want to insult his role as head of the household by pointing out his error.’ And felt her decision entirely justified by the ideals of the surrendered wife lifestyle. After all she was ignoring his vulnerability in order to respect his role as draft horse—or ‘head of the household’ if you prefer.

Which brings us to an irony. Lilith uses the existence of the nose ring to justify why we shouldn’t bring attention to the existence of nose rings.

Just as the surrendered wife could have justified her abuse by saying she was respecting her husband’s dominance, Lilith is in essence, saying, ‘Don’t point it out to the poor dears, it’ll only insult their manhood.’

On my part will continue point out the traps laid for men in these situations so that they can make their own decisions about what to do.  After I’ve pointed out what I see, it’s the man’s call to make.

Finally, since I don’t believe that men’s identities as men need to be predicated on anything to do with their relationships to women—either benefiting women or being stronger then them–I don’t believe pointing out the dangers these dynamics hold for men somehow reduces their manhood.

Rather, it empowers them to start to reclaim defining manhood for themselves. Which is probably the real issue here. Where’s the Love?

If you can talk about your partner’s emotional needs in the same terms a farmer would use to talk about taking care of a draft animal, then you do not even view your partner as human. Further this explains the sinking sensation that a lot of men have (spoken about by WF Price in his post ‘What’s Wrong With Wanting Love?’) that they are not loved.

No. If your female partner talks about you in the same terms as a farmer would about a draft animal, what she feels for you is not love. In fact she does not recognize you as human at all. Love comes from shared vulnerabilities; it’s comes from being strong for your partner which requires recognizing his emotional needs in human terms—not animal terms—and allowing them to drive your decisions.

This is precisely why women in the surrendered model of both secular and Christian relationships do not love.

Not only will your entire emotional landscape revolve around such a woman, no matter how much you serve her needs in exchange for her submission, she will never love you.  She may respect your role but she will not respect you.

This is an especially dangerous system for men since it is only the benevolence and forbearance of their female partners—the love of their female partners—that prevents them from being sent to the glue factory.

And a human cannot love a draft horse.

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

  • My Name is Frank

    Always the wordsmith.

    Although I care for and perhaps even love my dog, My family’s needs will always come before his.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Wordsmith is exactly what she is.

  • Otter

    Mustangs are feared and hated.

    Because they know the draft horses would follow us if they could.

  • AntZ

    Damn, this is beautiful writing.

  • Kimski

    “In his mind she takes care of him because she loves him; not because he’s a utility that requires maintenance.”

    This is definitely one of the sharper edges on the Red Pill, when you swallow it for the first time.

    This is totally awesome work, Typhonblue. You just keep slamming one good example and argument on the table after another. If every man on the planet had a chance to read this stuff from a young age, you might actually be in the process of eradicating marriage as an institution from now on.

    Thank you for explaining the BIG difference between sex and the need for being desired to any outsiders dropping in. I can personally name at least 100 women off hand, that will never fully understand this concept in regards to a man, unless said desire benefits themselves in some way.

    “..and happily have sex with my husband whenever HE wants to.”

    The one who teaches this shit to women should be dragged out back and shot repeatedly.The implied hypocrisy is staggering, to say the least.

    • valdez_addiction

      “..and happily have sex with my husband whenever HE wants to.”

      Yeah. This line got me too. It’s amazing that most women feel this way. They treat sex as though they are the only ones giving something in the exchange.

      As if they get no sexual pleasure from the experience.

      My uncle once told me a joke. He said, “Who enjoys sex the most, women or men?”

      Of coarse being young and programmed, I said, “Men.”

      My uncle laughed and said, “Take your finger and put it in your ear and wiggle it around. Which feels better, your finger or your ear?”

      That was my first red pill.

      • Kimski

        Yeah, your uncle is a smart man..
        ‘Multiple orgasms’ really says it all, right?

        I feel like I’m being oppressed by nature, whenever I hear that expression.

        • valdez_addiction

          You and me both

      • Alan Vaughn

        Yep, that is so true. I think this is probably THE biggest myth surrounding relationships between men and women. Most people, but I conjecture mainly men: assume for some stupid reason that only men like sex. (And women only do it when her man has been ‘a good little boy’ – here’s a cookie, you good little obedient man). As though, there is nothing in it for her, other than effectively keeping her man under control! What’s disturbing is how so many actually subscribe to that nonsense.
        I have been married a couple of times I know for sure that is NOT TRUE at all!

        It took me quite a while after much explaining to my wife (who is a lot younger than me), that sex is a mutual and shared experience and men DO NOT always want sex. In fact she knows and admits that she is probably the one that expects it all the time, not because she has been indoctrinated by the big myth about men, but simply because she does.
        She unashamedly tells me that there is nothing she enjoys more than sex and multiple orgasmic sex.
        Multiple orgasms… I could write a lot on that, but it is kind of personal (for both of us), but she most certainly has them, after a bit of ‘preparation’ (foreplay), but once that’s done – it works great for us both, but clearly she is the one enjoying the experience the most.

        I only wished I’d seen that analogy about scratching your ear, when I was trying to explain all that to my wife, it effectively replaces thousands of words yet it explains the sexual experience better than anything I’ve read, let alone tried to describe!

        This is a great article Typhonblue and I’ve learnt much in the last few minutes, simply by reading it.

        Thank you for your grand effort.

        • valdez_addiction

          Hey Alan, be sure to pass that story along. You have no idea how many feminists and other self righteous women I’ve shut up with it.

          The moment they start talking about when it’s acceptable to, “give him sum.” Bam! I hit them with the story and I even make them put their finger in their ear.

          The look on their faces right after their mind makes the connection is priceless.

          • Alan Vaughn

            Hi Valdez,
            yeah I’ve already started and my wife intends to as well. When I told her she laughed at first, then like me: realized how it is so true.
            She also believes that women are far more obsessed with sex than we are, or will ever be and that’s why they are more likely to cheat on their partners. She knows many such women.

      • Adi

        Take your finger and put it in your mouth and wiggle it around. Which feels better, your finger or your mouth?

        I like your story and there is some truth to it, but things are never that simple.

        Also, there are other parts of the male anatomy that a woman can pleasure one hell of a lot.

        • valdez_addiction

          Okay. First of all that story is not a scientific application. It’s merely to point out that women enjoy sex a hell of a lot more than men.

          And anyone who says different is full of it.

          • Adi

            I think most men never even learned how to really receive pleasure. One has to be able to let go – something we’re drilled to never do.

            Oh and spare me the “anyone who disagrees is full of it” crap. Nobody can really know how somebody else feels something. It’s not measurable unless you want to take women’s groaning as an indicator but there’s a whole lot wrong with that too.

          • Lee

            Just a thought – To my understanding, the extremely common practice of male circumcision decreases the sensitivity. Could this be affecting your analysis?

          • Dr. F

            @ Lee,

            Making light of male mutilation by weaving it into a hit and run “funny” comment is hateful.

            You should be banned from here for such a rotten comment.

        • valdez_addiction

          Okay, first of all Adi, Don’t tell me what I can and can’t say. I can say whatever the hell I want.

          And as far as men not letting go, that may be true for some but not this guy. I’ve learned how to enjoy the entire experience, not just the last couple of seconds.

          However feeling good through the sexual experience as a male having one, two, or possibly three orgasms is nothing compared to the experience a multi orgasmic woman has.

          It’s a feminist myth that we enjoy and want sex more than women. This is the lie that has been perpetuated to allow women to keep the only real power they have over men.

          Most of us have a climax toward the end, but they can climax during the entire process. There are also biological reasons they enjoy sex more than us but it’s pointless to address it here.

          Anyone who thinks for one second that men enjoy sex more than women is crazy. Plain and simple.

          • Adi

            It is YOU who’s trying to monopolize the discussion with sentences of the form “anyone who doesn’t share my opinion is crazy”. That way, you’re shutting down any possible discourse and it is THAT with which I have a problem. And I will call such bigotry out whenever I see it regardless whether you like it or not.
            And you telling me not to tell you what to do, is ALSO telling me what to do.

            And as for multiple orgasms vs single orgasms, you’re basing that on the assumption that men and women experience the same orgasm which is false. Perhaps also inform yourself a little and read up on male multiple orgasm before projecting your own experiences on the entire population and declaring everyone who doesn’t share your view as crazy.

            “It’s a feminist myth that we enjoy and want sex more than women. ”

            I never said that – and I never heard a feminist say it either.

            You’re also over simplifying by reducing sex entirely to the climax.

            The point is, nobody can possibly know. Not only does sex vary from one individual to another (good job reducing everything to the male/female dichotomy), but also only somebody who has experienced both can compare them. But nobody has – not even people who underwent a sex change.

            In general, only men know what it’s like to be a man, and only women know what it’s like to be a woman and NOBODY knows both. Hence nobody can compare. This applies to all experiences, not just sex.

          • valdez_addiction

            Wow. I guess you told me.

            But wait just one minute… By your explanation, nothing can be compared. Because nobody experiences what anyone else experiences, really.

            What’s pain to you may not be pain to me or the level or degree to which I experience it, but we still identify it as pain.

            Do you know why? Because we have something that is called a theory or an educated guess.

            Based on the knowledge that is available to us we can determine what is and what isn’t. And it is to that varying degree that we judge similarities in the world around us, because each of us experiences the entire world in a unique way.

            Soooooo. Based on what women, who have experienced sex as a female have told me about their experience I can deduce that their experience is better than ours because I’ve never heard any man including myself describe feeling the type of pleasure women feel.

            Now based on the fact that even though we’re individuals we still exhibit common behavior, I’m able to make certain assumptions about men or women as a whole. I know that’s not politically correct, but political correctness has nothing to do with it.

            If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… It’s a duck, no matter how bad you want it to be whatever name you try to give it.

            It is only a self delusion that we as humans are 100% unique to one another. The only reason I can identify with men on this site that I’ve never met is because regardless of our conscious ability to be individual entities we still have a large number of commonalities due to the fact that we all have human DNA and we all experience certain things as a whole regardless of how unique we feel our experiences to be.

            You do know what DNA is? It’s the building blocks of life. :)

            So to make this pill a little easier for you to swallow, I’ll make my point crystal clear.

            “It is my theory that the sexual experience is far more enjoyable for women than it is for men.”

            There… That should satisfy your sense duty to political correctness.

  • valdez_addiction

    Once again, fantastic article Typhon. If these articles are any indication of the type of wife you are (and I’m sure they are) your husband is a lucky man.

    You have managed to put into words how I’ve felt for most of my adult life. Growing up I’ve always wanted to be my own boss, and was always made to feel guilty about that. “Go get a job like everyone else,” is the cry I would hear from men and women alike.

    Meanwhile, just about every male success story includes a guy who chose not to work for someone else and follow his passion which was considered crazy at the time. Later depending on his amount of success he’s usually praised or ridiculed for it. Bill Gates dropping out of college could have went terribly wrong but that’s just one example.

    I always thought to myself why is having a job so important if I’m able to make money working for myself and enjoy what I’m doing. Especially during my eight year relationship with my children’s mother I was the subject of constant shaming, that almost destroyed my entrepreneurial spirit. I would always tell her, “I make enough money freelancing, why should I get a job?” I never understood what the difference was between how I make money as long as I didn’t do anything illegal or hurt anybody in the process.

    This article has given me my answer. It’s because the farmer didn’t decide my job for me. The only acceptable form of income was to plow the field like the other broken horses, which I wouldn’t like, but offered the most benefits for the farmer. (more security through life insurance and a guaranteed pay check every week or two)

    There were even times I’ve avoided asking people for relationship advice because I know the first qualifying question from anyone is gonna be do I have a job. Therapists, parents, and other figures of authority always connect relationship problems to a man’s status of employment. It’s almost the only defining definition of manhood that’s socially acceptable.

    My father worked two jobs for years and his life sucks. Sure now he’s single and attempts to do the things he likes, but with terrible health. After all those years of work, all he has to show for it is diabetes, a stroke, and a disability check. No house, no car, no valuable possessions; just the clothes on his back and a lifetime of regret.

    This article is a testament to the role that men are shamed and manipulated into believing is a rewarding life. But as the article tells us, it’s only rewarding to the farmer who purchases a younger more productive horse when the old on dies.

    Fantastic piece TyphonBlue

    • typhonblue

      “Once again, fantastic article Typhon. If these articles are any indication of the type of wife you are (and I’m sure they are) your husband is a lucky man.”

      I think they’re also an indication of the kind of husband he is. He never let me wallow in victim-consciousness; he’s always expected me to pull my weight emotionally. And he kept expecting it till it started to become second nature for me.

      He’s really made me a better person and I’m honoured to have spent my life with him.

      And, despite expecting respect for his vulnerabilities, he’s the strongest man I know. The world could turn on his sense of purpose.

      • valdez_addiction

        I have no doubt about that. The fact that you would respond to that praise I gave you by giving praise to you husband speak volumes.

        And as I’m sure you’re lucky to be with him, it reaffirms for me how fortunate you both are to have a mutual relationship.

        That is rare in this day and age.

        • B.R. Merrick

          It’s not rare for the sort of woman she is. It’s just the sort of relationship I would expect a woman like her to have and enjoy.

          • typhonblue

            Yeah it worked out for me and my husband.

            Marriage is still a bad deal for men and they should avoid it at all costs. Co-habitation too. Scary shit.

          • valdez_addiction

            If it isn’t rare that’s news to me because I haven’t come across it.

          • BeijaFlor

            She is a rare woman, in this day and age.

          • Otter

            I’m pretty sure there’s about 5 of them worldwide.

          • valdez_addiction

            Thank God. I thought I was going crazy, because if women like Typhon, GWW, and Dr. T aren’t unique maybe y’all know something I don’t know.

            Because if this is common where you are B.R. I and every other single MRA need to know that location or where you’re hanging out.

            We can match up with the chicks you know and start a utopia. A this isn’t sarcasm at this point. I’m dead serious. I’d love to find a woman with this type of insight.

  • Ray

    This article underscores the real gender war that’s going on, “THE WAR ON MEN.”

    In this election cycle, the feminists are coming out of the woodwork to pander for their own self interests. In doing so they are (metaphorically speaking) torching their own Feminist Reichstag, then blaming men for manufactured, or imagined, hurts. Feminists are grabbing red herrings off their bicycles as they are peacefully peddling on their way, and feeding them to the lame stream media. The mindless lame stream media is having a feeding orgy. One red herring was heard to exclaim to a feminist ogre with a gasp, “I know you need me, but don’t hurt my bicycle!” Oh, and yes, feminists are seizing at straw men and tossing them into The Feminist Reichstag fire to help fuel the bogus perception of a “War on Women.”

    It’s time to whip out those male fire hoses of truth and put an end to all the smoke and mirrors of the whiny feminists for whom all the world’s been a stage for their bogus grievances. :-/

  • operationoptout

    Excellent article!! So many statements made here I could quote and comment on. This one at the end of your article hit home.

    “Not only will your entire emotional landscape revolve around such a woman, no matter how much you serve her needs in exchange for her submission, she will never love you. She may respect your role but she will not respect you.”

    If the pack horse breaks his leg his owner is sure to send his crippled ass to the glue factory. Then it’s off to the stock yards, that fucking field wont plow itself. So many pack horses, so sad.

    Excellent article Tblue.

  • keyster

    You’re dangerously deconstructing the politics of the male/female relationship.

    If it’s wrong (or oppressive) for man to embrace the role of the draft horse, than what defines a man? He does it because he finds it gratifying and a validation of his manhood. Men actually enjoy the satisfaction of working all day and coming home to his wife and children and eating dinner with them.

    If a “traditional” husband and father is nothing more than a utility or “slave” to some woman and her children, than what’s the alternative path to happiness and fulfillment?

    Do you mean to tell me the whole concept of man as protector and provider of his family has been a complete ruse for millenia? If that’s the case men aren’t as smart as I thought. Or perhaps he does because he WANTS to of his own free will–because he finds it so damn rewarding; it completes his life.

    • typhonblue

      If all of this is chosen of men’s own free will then nothing I’ve said is dangerous.

    • valdez_addiction

      First of all let me say I’ve never found anything satisfying or fulfilling about slaving at a job all day, but that’s just me.

      What Typhon is saying here is that men should be allowed to define who they are as it relates to their individual happiness.

      If it’s working a 9 to 5 or being a bum in the street, that’s his business. No man should be judged by one set of standards that benefit everyone except him.

      Women can choose to have a career or not.

      Their are numerous statements that begin with the phrase, “A real man does [insert stereotypical responsibility].”

      There are no, “A real woman” phrases because women don’t have stereotypical responsibilities forced on them. Not even the one thing no one else can do, which is bear children.

      Tell a woman she can only find fulfillment in having kids and being a house wife and see what happens.

      You’re dangerously deconstructing the politics of the male/female relationship.


      They need to be deconstructed because they’re already broken.

      • keyster

        It’s sad that this is where feminism has brought us.
        Men and women are meant to couple and procreate, make families and be a part of extended families; family is everything as they say.

        The first step in enmity was women defiantly declaring their independence from men and house-wifery.

        And the second step is men saying, “You know what? You’ve got a point, being a husband and a father, your SLAVE, was a really crappy deal for me too!”

        So again I posit “Now what?” Now that innate gender roles have been shattered, become unfashionable as it were, what’s the alternative life course? To live and die alone? Because that’s what’s happening.

        Imagine if birds spontaneously stopped mating because they didn’t like each other anymore. Why should the female be burdened with laying the eggs? Why should the male be so brightly colored so as to distract predators and risk his own life?

        Is the future of fatherhood hiring surrogates and being a “Single dad” by choice”? Is that how bad it has to get between men and women? Let me tell you young men, the MGTOW is no panacea either. It has its own demons and pitfalls along the journey of life.

        The Anglosphere/western society has gotten itself into quite a pickle here. Men and women don’t trust each other, and don’t even like each other much anymore. Which is EXACTLY how feminists planned it to be.

        They WANT men to reject women, marriage and fatherhood. We’re falling right into their trap.

        • valdez_addiction

          No their trap is to keep men slaves or beasts of burden. Now that men are starting to wake up, an interesting thing will happen. Women will have to get their shit together if they want a mate instead of automatically getting one regardless of their behavior.

          Your story about the birds is right except the fact that you forgot to mention that the female birds have already decided they shouldn’t have to lay eggs or build nests.

          The male birds are still colorful as ever, dying to protect female birds who don’t even tend the nest. And even if they do lay eggs it’s only to extort the unsuspecting male bird. Hell, some female bird kill the baby birds.

          Relationships were broken long before men decided to go their own way.

          • Otter

            “Now that men are starting to wake up, an interesting thing will happen. Women will have to get their shit together if they want a mate instead of automatically getting one regardless of their behavior.”

            It’s funny to see them panicking because instead of asking what they are doing wrong they just keep trying to blame men. It’s like they can’t even conceptualize their own accountability.

        • Stu

          If every man, or even just a majority of men went their own way, avoided marriage, defacto relationships, kids, and kept all their wealth to themselves……it would force change.

          I don’t think things will improve until men take this action by choice……or it is forced on them because things are so bad that they have no other choice.

          I’m hoping they choose…….but I suspect too many men…..most…..will keep doing as women want…..until it’s so crazy to do so that to jump off the westgate bridge would be preferable.

          There are women that are exceptions, especially in the older age group. But each generation seems to produce more entitled princess types. I don’t think we will see many Typhonblues and GWW and Izzeys emerge from the Z generation. What’s really sad about this is that men could just crush this in a couple of months if they wanted too. But the fact is that the growth of the MRM will be slow until things are bad enough to motivate the majority of men.

          Our growth is proportional to the misandry that men are subjected to unfortunately. On the up side, we can count on them to ramp it up, and grow our numbers for us.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I don’t know who “they” are, but I know “they” are out there.

          We live in a world hostile to true love bonds – the bond between men and woman, the bond between parent and child.

          The endgame is that we are ALL available draft horses, interchangable, manageable, disposable.

          Feminists are just vying for the carriage positions.

        • BeijaFlor

          So again I posit “Now what?” Now that innate gender roles have been shattered, become unfashionable as it were, what’s the alternative life course? To live and die alone?

          That’s what I’m doing, Keyster; living, and eventually dying, alone.

          You can ask my dead Grandma, or my dead Mom, or my demented Dear Auntie, about my sense of responsibility toward them. But I grew up with “women don’t need men” and “men don’t deserve women” … and I stand them on their head:

          Why would men “need” women?
          Why would women “deserve” men?

          Simple biology answers the first question; the two sexes need each other to conceive and bear young. I can’t find a general-case answer for the second. I know a number of women who do “deserve” a man, but I say that because they’ve earned my good regard.

          I’m old enough to use the “set-in-my-ways” excuse, not to go “looking for a farmer to tame me.” I accept the consequence, that I will live alone and die without love in the room with me. It won’t stop me from living!

    • JinnBottle

      Keyster – I get where you’re coming from; but then again, I’m 3/4 of the way thru my life (ASSuming an average-case scenario). The “satisfied husband-provider” type is almost extinct; and by the time these kids (I use the term with greatest affection) like Typhon and Valdez run the show, he will be gone forever – and (T and V say) good riddance.

      I can see their point, too. These young people grew up under Feminist governance and single, often baby-brat type, mothers; they are under no illusions of the likelihood of “a wife” (even that term has had a stygmatized feel to it for 30 years) having “dinner” ready for her husband (tho *that* term is alive and kicking still) when he comes home from work.

      And the type of work a man traditionally “came home” from, was a wage-earning job. Wage earning men nowadays typically come home to (a) an otherwise empty, 2-room apartment, or (b) an update of just how precarious his title of “father/husband in the house” is getting. CEOs do not “come home for dinner”. They eat downtown: if their wife wants to meet them, fine; if not, they’ll have dinner with their girlfriend du jour.

      Just yesterday, I was invited to an annual get-together of men alumni of a men’s weekend I did over 25 years ago. I had to politely thank them, and tell them No. That weekend, last time I looked, some 15 years ago, with its basically static-traditional mindset on Men, was even then starting to become a glaring anachronism: Today, it is plain, dangerously unviable in the culture. Far from empowering men (as my weekend once did, to a great extent), it would be putting a magnet up their backs, as they walk by the jailbars that are today’s Feminist governance/big business.

      But to the extent you mean that a “self-actualized man” cannot exist in a vacuum, without relationship to the culture, I agree; such self-actualization is a chimera.

      Nonetheless, I think these young men “going their own way” is far more healthful than the fools paradise a thoroughly “traditionalist” wage-earning man lives in today. Sugar Candy Mountain is comin, men…Just one requirement for entry.

      You have to be dead.

      • keyster

        And to these young men “going their own way” I ask of them, “Imagine yourselves at 60 years old. Your family has died off, your friends are busy enjoying their grandchildren and the holidays are desperately lonely.
        Will you be able to handle that?”

        Being “uncoupled” is not a natural state and takes a strong constitution to contend with. You have to really enjoy your own company. This “self actualization” concept is easier when you’re young, idealistic and carefree. Your thoughts can begin to nag at you more than any female companion might have.

        Just think seriously before commiting to a MGTOW lifestyle choice. You need the stoic determination of a Hermit.

        • valdez_addiction

          That’s not a realistic scenario considering most married men don’t reach 60 years old and if they do they have so many health problems they can’t enjoy anything.

          MGTOW would be just fine because they would actually reach 60 and at that point they’ve lived a life that does not couple their happiness to female approval.

          It’s ridiculous to think that the only meaningful relationship is a marriage.

          So I guess this fictional guy doesn’t have any family or friends because he chose not to get married.

        • Patrick Henry

          After taking the red pill I feel like I’m on the Nebuchadnezzar eating gruel with Link and Dozer. I can’t go back but I don’t like this reality much either.

          Getting married again is laughable.

          Co-habitation is not much better than getting married. There’s still VAWA, palimony, and common law.

          One-night stands are emotionally hollow.

          Going gay is not an option; I’m not wired that way.

          MGTOW you die a lonely man.

          It seems I am dammed if I do and dammed if I don’t. All paths lead to dying a lonely man and if that is my fate, I’ll do it on my terms – fighting feminism with my dying breath.

        • Stu

          There might be a lot of 60yo men that are still with their wives now, but they got married to women that were born and bred in a different era……the young men that get married now will be just as alone at 60 as the MGTOW…..only diff is that most of their productive years will have gone to furnishing women with stuff.

          What’s required is for MGTOW, and MRAs, and Masculinists……and men in general……to form life long friendships with other men……groups of men…..families……and let no woman come between them.

          • keyster

            While I can certianly understand the abject cynicism that’s developed among young men, I’m not sure how tenable the end-game of this Mexican Stand-off is.

            Feminists got women to say, “We’re changing (becoming more like men) and if you don’t like it tough
            shit, you’ll just have to adapt.”

            And now MRA’s are hoping men will say, “We don’t like you being more like men; our competition. We want women, and until you revert back to being our partners and not our sworn enemies — we will reject you, and if you don’t like it tough shit.”

            So this Gender War will have disparate groups of singles working and coming home to their cold dark condos and microwave dinners. All because Feminists fomented this animosity towards men, and men are starting to realize it and reject it.

            Men will HAVE to change or women will punish them.
            Women will HAVE to change or men will punish them.
            None of this bodes well for civilization.

          • Bombay

            “And now MRA’s are hoping men will say, “We don’t like you being more like men; our competition. We want women, and until you revert back to being our partners and not our sworn enemies — we will reject you, and if you don’t like it tough shit.”

            I see more like men saying: “We will lead a full life.”

          • Stu

            If men do it, they will win, because women can say they don’t need men…….but they do……but men do not need women. Ok, there are a minority of women that don’t need men, like Izzey, but the majority of men can be like Izzey. And when I say need, I’m talking about practical things…..there is nothing a woman does for a man that he can’t do himself. Most of men’s need of woman comes from his sexual urges…..and emotional needs……but you can get sex without any committment at all….and you can live without it even if you can’t get it… can even be happy without it if you choose not to focus on it. As for the emotional stuff, men have been conned into believing only women will care for them, we are programmed not to care for men. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            I don’t tell men to be celibate MGTOW anyway, there is no point. If celibacy is a requirement than it will fail. What I tell them to do is not to pretend they are open for a relationship. Declare yourself committed to MGTOW and non-monogamous friendships with benefits. And rule out sex with any woman who wants more from you. You will not be lonely, you will not be without sex, unless you make the fatal mistake of having double standards… other words….an attitude of “I have my fuck buddies and sexual freedom….and my fuck buddies only have me”….epic fail….will not work….and it’s men who do this that will end up without sex, because they put off the woman who want monogamy, and they will also put off the woman who don’t want monogamy……and that leaves nobody. Then they start lying. A woman is interested in you, and you start pretending you’re interested in, or open to, the usual monogamous committed relationship, either to obtain her sexual services, or to maintain them…….it leads to a world of shit.

            The fact is that nowadays, if a man is in a monogamous marriage, or defacto relationship, or long-term committed relationship…….he….is the only one that is held to the monogamy……sure she might be monogamous….and she might not be…….but you are the only one that is held to it…..there is no social or legal sanctions for women who cheat… promises of monogamy are just words for her…..she doesn’t have to keep that promise just like she doesn’t have to keep any other promise she made to you to get you into that relationship…….you will be held to all your promises…..even ones you didn’t make……and pay through the nose if you try to get out of any of them.

            It’s like this, come home early and find your wife banging your brother and your three best friends…….you get to leave the house, and kids, and pay child support and alimony. She comes home early to find you banging someone… get to leave the house, and kids, and pay child support and alimony.

            She gets fat, bitchy, messy, and you don’t feel like sex with her anymore……you get to leave the house, blah blah blah. She doesn’t feel like sex with you anymore……she gets to find other lovers on the net while you’re at work…..fill her needs and you go without…..and if you don’t like it……leave the house, the kids, and blah blah blah.

            Yep, the only power a man has regarding relationships nowadays, is the power to refuse to have one to start with. There is no other avenue to changing things, apart from activism, which you’ll only be able to affectively do as a married man……if your wife lets you.

            So my advice to young men…….no marriage, no defacto, no kids, no monogamy. Make sure every woman you have sex with knows this is the deal.

    • tamerlame

      How many men where forced into a protector role they never wanted? You do know what an arranged marriage is right?

      If a women doesn’t truly love you, she is not worth wasting time on.

  • Just1X


    “It’s time to whip out those male fire hoses of truth”, I usually call it my penis, but your version sounds pretty cool…

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Thanks typhonblue, this is a beautifully written description of what I daresay most domesticated men would know to be true deep in their sub-conscious but are unable to express.

    I’m not persuaded, however, that being domesticated automatically means that a man is controlled in the way you described. While domestication of the man is often controlled by access to sex by the woman, free will suggests it can also based on a conscious desire to be useful. Useful in a way that ensures the collective output is greater than the sum of individual inputs. In that sense, domestication could also be voluntary submission to a higher purpose, a decision that has nothing to do with the opposite sex, but which invites and encourages them to co-operate according to an historical blueprint. This is essentially what Christian ‘submission’ in marriage means.

    The article also presumes that the farmers needs, insofar as they include the horse, are not also good for the horse in the long run. Wildness is presumed as the better outcome for the horse and domestication of the horse as a better outcome for the farmer. In human society, however, domestication leads to better civilisation and a better outcome for everyone, not just for women and children. ‘Wildness’ might feel good in the short term for a tamed man who feels trapped but it’s certainly not better in the long run for Man.

    This brings us back to voluntary submission, which seems to be where this article is heading. What’s missing is the higher purpose.

    What is the higher purpose, one in which the outputs are greater than the inputs, where the end result is better for both men and women? The truth is that with the physical, cultural, political, and economical environments constantly changing Man simply can’t know this with any certainty. Unlike the farmer, he can’t know with certainty whether a domesticating action today will result in greater outputs than inputs for everyone tomorrow. And so he has faith. Not an indiscriminate faith but a reasoned and articulated faith, based on the valuable experiences and hard lessons of prescient ancestors who cared enough to pass them on.

    I enjoyed reading this article, but aside from wondering if a woman can’t love a domesticated man what can she love (?), it leaves me with a much more compelling unanswered question – what’s so good about wildness?

    • typhonblue

      “I enjoyed reading this article, but aside from wondering if a woman can’t love a domesticated man what can she love (?)”

      That’s the wrong conclusion. A woman can’t love someone who she can’t be strong for. She can admire him, desire him, but not love him. It doesn’t matter if the man is domesticated or not. The flaw is in the woman.

      “it leaves me with a much more compelling unanswered question – what’s so good about wildness?”

      If we ever allow it, maybe we’ll have an answer.

      Of course the answer may be in one of valdez’s responses. Wild men have made the greatest leaps forward in human thought.

      Also, as I alluded to keyster, if there is no benefit to wildness then men will choose domestication of their own free will.

      Of their _own_ free will.

      • Alphabeta Supe

        Thanks for the quick response. That first question you responded to wasn’t a conclusion, it was more of a ‘questioning reflection’. I should’ve made that clearer.

        “Wild men have made the greatest leaps forward in human thought”

        I don’t agree with this. I’m comfortable with the idea that single, unattached men have made some of the greatest leaps forward in human thought, but not that “wild” men have made them, or that “leaps forward in human thought” leads to better outputs for all.

        “If we ever allow it [wildness], maybe we’ll have an answer”

        Therein lies the problem – civilised society doesn’t allow it. Wild people, if any truly exist, are hunted down and captured or destroyed. In any case, high thought is a cultivated process so I’m not sure those who are capable of it can exist outside of society. If by “wild” you instead mean merely ‘single and unattached’, then of course all things are possible.

        “if there is no benefit to wildness then men will choose domestication of their own free will.”

        And there you have it…most men do. As have they done through most of human history, even in periods of social upheaval. In fact, it is during periods of social upheaval that men choose domestication. I posit that it is not the woman who domesticates, but the man. Woman is the far wilder creature, servant of the earth that she is.

        I should point out that I’m perfectly OK with MGTOW, as opposed to wildness, as this is a considered and justifiable response to the abomination marriage in the West has become. But I don’t consider this in any way to be the same as going wild. Instead, I believe MGTOW to be an action of God, an action to correct a misstep in our eternal advance towards a frictionless society.

        I’d feel more comfortable with the idea that MGTOW have been responsible for “some of the greatest leaps in human thought”, instead of just ‘wild’ men. Jesus of Nazareth was such a man and he was anointed by his followers as the Son of God because of this.

        • B.R. Merrick

          Wild people, if any truly exist, are hunted down and captured or destroyed.

          By tame people?

          No. We are natural learners. We don’t believe this anymore because we’ve had decades of “kindergarten” (German translation: children garden), subdivided communities, and rotten popular culture that dispenses violence as a meme.

          I totally and completely disagree with your premise, I’m afraid. Humans naturally desire to relate and to give and receive help with survival. That is our shared human foundation as well as my premise, and it is wrecked by much of what Typhonblue is talking about. I would urge to to read and re-read.

          Then go wild.

        • Keith

          @Alphabeta Supe

          With all respect I beg to differ, Christ was baptized by a wild man named John who himself was a MGHOW. He was then anointed by a woman.

          Or so the story goes…….

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            …then King Herod had John The Baptist BEHEADED as requested by Princess Salomé (in exchange for dancing her “Seven Veils” number for him), because JTB called her a slut…

            …let’s get that whole story out there…

          • Keith


            Absolutely! it’s a great “wild man” story
            Times change and everything remains the same. I highly support the article and TB has cast the roles beautifully. I love the commenting but don’t quite understand the apprehension to the insight she provides. But I was never content as a plow horse.

            I tend to view the wild man more as a man governed by a broader understanding of his environment. Marriage and family of the type highlighted and often discussed here is a much smaller vista and much less fulfilling for many.

            Much like the horse is stronger than his owner, so is the perpetrator and so is the rapist. Horses with a different harness all serving the farmer. Both can get you beheaded. MGTOW seems to attempt to remove the harness. Now if I could just find some locust and honey.

      • Stu

        Of their own free will, but that doesn’t mean slaving away for someone else.

        I actually advise young men to work, save, buy a house, invest, all that stuff……but……do it for yourself….and don’t put yourself in a position where it can be taken off you.

        I worked hard, often two jobs. Most of what I accumulated was siphoned off during relationships by the women, and what I managed to accumulate, a lot of that was stolen off me at the end. My mistake was not working hard and saving and accumulating wealth… was being in the position where it could be taken off me.

        So my advice is, work, save, invest….and horde it all to yourself. No marriage, no committed relationships, no kids. And of course, get involved in activism for mens rights… that in the future it doesn’t have to be this way.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          “So my advice is, work, save, invest….and horde it all to yourself.”

          If being the richest man in the cemetary is the goal that’s good advice.

          My theory, for what it’s worth, is the love you give and the love you get is all you take with you when the party’s over.


          • valdez_addiction

            Are you the same 100%cotton who made this comment over at, The Good Men Project back in January of this year?

            “Poor Hillary. No money, no funding. The first REAL shot at a woman President and what happened? That big old bad Obama just privileged himself right over her head!”

            If so, what did you mean by this comment?


          • Otter

            “If being the richest man in the cemetary is the goal that’s good advice.”

            Eh? Who said anything about dying young? I’m sure I’d be more likely to live longer if I saved my money and spend it on myself while pursuing a healthy lifestyle than I would spending my money on some heartless bitch who gives me nothing but stress and hate in return. And trust me when I say that NO women is zero stress. They are fuckin programmed to stress men out and it’s not worth the investment. Bad for your health and shit. Sex with random broads is cool but relationships with women shorten men’s lives, they literally kill us with nagging and stress. Fuck that shit.

          • valdez_addiction

            Otter, I’d be amazed if she even responds. Notice she didn’t answer my question.

            Is it possible she’s been outed. First she admits that narcissistic and manipulative behavior benefited her. Then I find a pro feminist statement under her handle on, “The Good Men’s Project website. An article called, “Why women aren’t crazy,” which promotes the idea that gas lighting is a tool of men everywhere to manipulate woman.

            I know because yours truly went toe to toe with everyone on that site right before I got banned.

          • Stu

            By horde I mean use it how you want. Doesn’t mean you have to save it all up. You take nothing with you when you die……..when the party is over……it’s over.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            “Eh? Who said anything about dying young?”

            I don’t know. Show me where dying young is mentioned and I’ll weigh in.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I thought you were ignoring me, Val.

            I have never made feminist quotes on GMP or anywhere else for that matter.


            I don’t know the context of that quote, but when I make statements like that it’s because someone is whining there aren’t enough women elected.

            I LOVE LOVE LOVE smashing their noses into the fact that WOMEN could have voted for a highly qualified women -Hillary – but chose to vote for an unqualifed man – Obama – instead. In spite of all the complaints that MEN ignore qualified women and go with less qualified men, the majority of voters – WOMEN – did exactly the same thing they (falsely) accuse men of.

            I too have been censored and banned from GMP, so don’t feel special.

            I post as YellowCab on Huffpo as well, which probably won’t last long either. Everyone accuses me of being a man pretending to be a woman.

            Show me one statement I’ve ever made that is even remotely “feminist”. IN CONTEXT. I’ve posted dozens of times that women, the majority voters, don’t vote for women because they prefer men to obey orders rather than taking orders from other women.

            Stop the vendetta, Val. You are barking up the wrong tree.

          • valdez_addiction

            Ah yes. Remember, remember the 5th of November….That’s me, V for Vendetta… And I do like to bark. Sometimes I even bay at the moon.

            Okay CottonCandy, I’m not ignoring you. I chose not to acknowledge you (There’s a difference) until I saw that comment over at The Good Men Project.

            This is why I said, “It could be satire or not. I don’t know.”

            Which is why I asked you. The longer it took you to answer the more I began to think it wasn’t satire. I thought you were avoiding the question so I turned it up a notch.

            So If I’m wrong, please excuse me.

            I’ll call a truce under one condition….

            Rotate your Gravatar photo. It’s driving my O.C.D crazy.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Val – I’m ALWAYS sarcastic. Well, more like sardonic. People say I have a “dry” sense of humor.

            I’m painting my kitchen today, which means I didn’t have time or inclination to read AVFM.

            I don’t EVER back down from an argument.

            You really, really, really have a tendency to misread me.

            I’ve been posting here quite some time. I would have been “outted” long before this.

            As for the photo, I do apologize. I’m old enough to remember when Elvis was new and don’t have the faintest notion how to rotate it or change it. The minute I try to ask one of my kids they run for the door. I don’t even know how it showed up.

          • valdez_addiction

            I’ll keep that in mind for our future encounters. My sense of humor can be pretty dry as well.

            People don’t always realize when I’m joking.

            And I was joking about the photo. I figured you might not know how to rotate it.

          • Otter

            “I don’t know. Show me where dying young is mentioned and I’ll weigh in.”

            “If being the richest man in the cemetary is the goal that’s good advice.”

            You seem to be implying that I won’t live long enough to spend all of the money I saved on myself?

            “My theory, for what it’s worth, is the love you give…”

            We’re talking about money, not love. And no we will not be giving any money to women in return for their “love”

        • Jean Valjean

          When I die I will leave everything I own to the MRM. I have no children or wife.

          Only the MRM is important to me now.

          • Stu

            That’s the spirit. And I’d take out a life insurance policy with AVFM as the beneficiary…….do it from your death bed lol

      • Stu

        They love their children, if they are lucky, and especially if they are female. They love their sons, while they are kids, it seems to go away once they become men.

    • valdez_addiction

      Okay AlphaBeta, I’m gonna have to disagree with you. Horses were doing just fine in, “The Wild” which is their natural state.

      And just like the farmer, who’s to say what a man’s purpose should be other than that man.

      The fact is, we’re always chosen to work, struggle, or die for the greater good.

      The problem is, it’s so deeply engrained in us and society that we feel we have no choice in the matter even if it makes us unhappy. And any attempt to throw down the yolk and pursue our happiness is met with wagging fingers.

      So I’m sorry but until Horses actually begin to speak, we have no idea whether or not they prefer being in the wild. They may say, “To hell with your greater good. Pull your own damn plow.”

      And as for us it’s been proven men live productive lives toward the greater good, however we’re unhappy for the most part and live shorter lives as a result. The sad part is we can talk, but no one’s listening.

      • Alphabeta Supe

        “Horses were doing just fine in, “The Wild” which is their natural state.”

        “we have no idea whether or not they prefer being in the wild.”

        Not sure if these two statements of yours concur, brother. Clarification would be appreciated.

        “…until Horses actually begin to speak…”

        The fact is, we are not horses and we can speak. And speaking out our feelings is precisely what we’re doing. The tide is turning because higher-thinking men are employing their natural martialling power. I hear A Voice for Men not as a ‘call of the wild’ but as a rallying call on the battlefield between men who civilise, and feminists who don’t. The idea of abandoning disposability and involuntary servitude to women is, I should think, a great leap forward for secular society.

        • valdez_addiction

          Okay first and foremost the point of this article was to use the metaphor of a horse as it relates to the human male, because both are used as beasts of burden.

          If you don’t understand that, this clarification won’t make any sense. That being said here goes.

          “Horses were doing just fine in, “The Wild” which is their natural state.”

          If you believe in natural selection then it’s obvious that horses were doing just fine before we decided to utilize them for our own selfish needs.

          It is civilized man who causes more damage to nature by tampering with it’s natural state instead of co-existing with it. This is why the Native Americans (dubbed so-called savages by us civilized folks) only took what they needed from the land. They didn’t saddle their horses and they released them when they were no longer needed. They didn’t kill them for glue.

          “we have no idea whether or not they prefer being in the wild.” The fact is, we are not horses and we can speak.

          Of course horses can’t speak. Notwithstanding Darwin’s Theory I mentioned above, this is why I said we have no idea, “personally” that they like captivity better than the wild because they haven’t the ability to tell us.

          Natural Selection tells us they were fine in the wild because they wouldn’t be here if they weren’t

          But we don’t know what horses like because they can’t tell us.

          These two statement are not contradictions. It’s one of those, “Tree falling in the woods” type of statements

          U N D E R S T A N D

          Of course their alright in the wild because they were still here when we started riding them but we don’t know if they like it or not because they can’t tell us.

          Take a minute to let it sink in.

          As far as the being wild. The term here is used to describe the opposite of a domesticated man.

          Wild; a man who defines himself by his own definition instead of some false sense of responsibility forced on him by society to ensure he is useful to everyone with the exception of himself.

          Not; some crazed mad man running through the streets killing people.

          The very thing you’re saying man should be is exactly what this article is addressing we shouldn’t unless we choose to.

    • Bombay

      “In human society, however, domestication leads to better civilisation and a better outcome for everyone, not just for women and children. ‘Wildness’ might feel good in the short term for a tamed man who feels trapped but it’s certainly not better in the long run for Man. ”

      So you want to be a community draft horse? That is part of the problem. Most men are not only draft horses to the farmer but to the community as well. If that were not the case, public shaming would not be so widely used.

      • B.R. Merrick

        Indeed. The words of George Orwell, about another fictional, allegorical horse:

        “Boxer was an enormous beast, nearly eighteen hands high, and as strong as any two ordinary horses put together. A white stripe down his nose gave him a somewhat stupid appearance, and in fact he was not of first-rate intelligence, but he was universally respected for his steadiness of character and tremendous powers of work.”

        Sounds nice, but that’s just Chapter I. What about the end?

        “Boxer’s split hoof was a long time in healing. They had started the rebuilding of the windmill the day after the victory celebrations were ended. Boxer refused to take even a day off work, and made it a point of honour not to let it be seen that he was in pain.”

        Uh oh. There’s more:

        “‘Fools! Fools!’ shouted Benjamin, prancing round them and stamping the earth with his small hoofs. ‘Fools! Do you not see what is written on the side of that van?’

        “That gave the animals pause, and there was a hush. Muriel began to spell out the words. But Benjamin pushed her aside and in the midst of a deadly silence he read:

        “‘”Alfred Simmonds, Horse Slaughterer and Glue Boiler, Willingdon. Dealer in Hides and Bone-Meal. Kennels Supplied.” Do you not understand what that means? They are taking Boxer to the knacker’s!'”

        That’s what “tame” is. Control. Then death.

        You have no need to fear your natural self. It’s your free will; not mine.

        • valdez_addiction

          That’s what “tame” is. Control. Then death.

          That says it all. With any task master you’re only as good as your last race. Thorough bread or not.

        • Stu

          I remember reading recently about a bunch of women on a site, feminists, saying that men shouldn’t get old age pensions so all the social security money can be kept for the women. In other words……send the old men to the glue factory.

          My ex’s father in law thought he had a wife that loved him and all that. Behind his back she used to often talk about what she was going to do with all the money when he died…….live it up…….holidays overseas……casinos…..etc. She secretly hated the fact that he was still alive after he retired and had stopped accumulating wealth. She had not worked in her life…and he had managed to accumulate enough for both of them to live comfortably on in their old age….but not good enough for her………she wanted it all… she could consume it. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree either

          • valdez_addiction

            I hear you Stu.

            I used to work for this company that had to clean up Wachovia’s mess when they converted over to Wells Fargo. They lost a lot of records so we had to send out letters to get people to call in and verify their Home Owners Insurance if they had a mortgage with Wells Fargo.

            You have no idea how many old women called in. I very rarely got a call from an elderly man. Right there in front of me was the records of anyone who called in. Right beside the word Husband was the word Deceased.

            Over 90% of my calls were elderly widows living in the house their husband worked and died for.

            It was sobering to say the least.

          • Jean Valjean

            Inheriting is one of women’s primary fantasies.

            Getting that cash payoff with the death of a spouse is how they imagine they hit it big.

            Men dream of working hard and becoming a success. Some dream of buying a lottery ticket.

            Women dream that you will die and leave them a fortune.


          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            My Grandmother used to talk like that too – she was going to take a trip around the world after Grampa died.

            Ironically, she died a good 15 years before he did.

            After she died, he moved inot a small little apartment and lived very frugally in order to leave as much as possible for his kids. He was shocked how much money she’d already spent from their savings.

            All he asked of his kids was to save their share of the money and live off the principal.

            My uncle ended up divorced, his wife PO’d he wouldn’t break his promise to his father and spend the money on her whims.

            He wanted to leave the money to his daughters even though they never spoke to him again. His new wife ended up swindling the daughters out of their inheritance after he died.

            This is depressing, I’m going to shut up now…

          • Sting Chameleon

            That’s why many of us aren’t interested in accruing wealth beyond what we need for surviving and a bit extra for hobbies. By the time I die, there won’t be anything left for anyone to loot.

          • tallwheel

            “I remember reading recently about a bunch of women on a site, feminists, saying that men shouldn’t get old age pensions so all the social security money can be kept for the women.”

            WTF? So a man who works his whole life shouldn’t be entitled to pension while his wife should? I know feminists say some crazy sh$t, but what justification could they possibly provide for this?

      • Alphabeta Supe

        “So you want to be a community draft horse?”

        Not in the slightest. But a thoroughbred stallion who dies of old age in the top paddock, certainly. The key to becoming that thoroughbred is wise submission and selecting one’s farmer. Pining for The Wild and submitting to a farmer who wants to serve only their own interests will always end up being doleful servitude. Submitting to someone who wants only the very best for you and yours and is prepared to work hard for it will lead to a more secure and fruitful life. The Wild may be free and envigorating but it is also hard, dangerous, lonely…and temporal.

        • valdez_addiction

          “So you want to be a community draft horse?” Not in the slightest. But a thoroughbred stallion who dies of old age in the top paddock, certainly.

          You can’t be serious.

          The key to becoming that thoroughbred is wise submission and selecting one’s farmer. Pining for The Wild and submitting to a farmer who wants to serve only their own interests will always end up being doleful servitude.

          There is no wise submission into this type of slavery.
          And what is a thoroughbred compared to a regular horse. One’s better at being a slave than the other. But if I put that thoroughbred back into the wild, he’ll die. That alone shows you it’s wrong.

          Submitting to someone who wants only the very best for you and yours and is prepared to work hard for it will lead to a more secure and fruitful life. The Wild may be free and envigorating but it is also hard, dangerous, lonely…and temporal.

          Survival of the fittest is the natural order of things. It has it’s purpose in the grand design of things, just like men leading instead of being led.

          And now we’re in a world of shit because Men are walking around with a ring in their back pocket waiting to put it on the finger of the first women that treats them like a human being.

          If I was a dog in the pound I wouldn’t be the one waiting for someone to adopt me and give me a good home. I’d be the one trying to escape.

          • Alphabeta Supe

            “Survival of the fittest is the natural order of things.”

            In the animal kingdom, in which humans perhaps once lived, the fittest is defined as the male that breeds the most. So if the female controls breeding (as is the case with humans) the inevitable conclusion of Darwin’s theory is that a supremely fit male gets to breed with all the females, while the rest are left to themselves until they die along with their genetic line. What we seem to be calling “wild” in this thread are those who detach themselves from the breeding females, so they are certainly not the fittest. The fittest male is the stallion in the top paddock.

            The problem with Darwins theory of natural selection is not that there’s anything worng with it, but that it is too easily used perversely as a prescription for human behaviour. It was never meant that way, which something Darwin himself was at great pains to point out after its publication. Some editions of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection include an introduction by Darwin himself which expains how his observations are to be treated.

            If it is used prescriptively, there is no hope left for the draft horse OR the man in the wild. The RadFem hub also apply it prescriptively, with the added twist that the draft horse who won’t or can’t take the load is to be euthanised. The prescriptive absorption of Darwin’s theory into mainstream thought has opened the door to radical feminism in almost perfect quid pro quo.

            “if I put that thoroughbred back into the wild, he’ll die. That alone shows you it’s wrong.”

            You’re going in circles here. It’s not wrong to be a thoroughbred but wrong to put a thoroughbred in the wild. The wild is not the natural habitat for a man so the point you’re trying to make, while understood, is moot.

            “Men are walking around with a ring in their back pocket waiting to put it on the finger of the first women that treats them like a human being.”

            Red Pill men aren’t in a world of shit. Those would be Blue Pill men. Red Pillers are those who’ve made a conscious decision to throw down the the draft horses yoke and take up a more equitable one or escape. Both are valid Red Pill responses but only one could be considered fit in a Darwinian sense, and it’s not the one in the wild where the women aren’t.

          • valdez_addiction

            “Survival of the fittest is the natural order of things.” In the animal kingdom

            We are in the animal kingdom. Our only defining factor that separates us is our gift of invention. Just like you so clearly put it, we click on our computers and glamorize the wild. When the last drop of oil is gone from the earth (which is the life blood of our civilization) and we have to quit pretending we’re separate from the, “Animal Kingdom” we just might go the way of the dinosaurs because we’ve lost touch with the wild and the ability to live in the wild.

            Because just like that horse, we’ve domesticated ourselves as a human society with our grocery stores, cars, telephones, laptops, comfortable homes and every other luxury that allows us to be lazy.

            You’re right about one thing. Survival of the fittest doesn’t apply to man now(luckily for us). But what’s gonna happen when it does.

            We have about twenty more years of oil left. I’m sure you remember a guy named Einstein. “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

            You see as humans the only thing that surpasses our gift of invention is our ability to bullshit. Just like we lie about not being a part of the animal kingdom, we lie about having unlimited resources.

            At some point my friend we will have to go back to the wild and at that very moment, “Survival of the fittest will apply to us.”

            It does now, you’re just to convoluted to see it. Only man is arrogant enough to think he lives in a universe where every animal except him is subject to it’s laws.

            “if I put that thoroughbred back into the wild, he’ll die. That alone shows you it’s wrong.” You’re going in circles here.

            You’re the only one going in circles by trying to disprove my point with a game of semantics.

            So let me clarify AGAIN. By taking a horse out of the wild you destroy his ability to exist without your help which means his captivity is WRONG. This is what I was referring to when I said what would happen if I place a thorough bread back into the wild.

            ” Red Pill men aren’t in a world of shit. Those would be Blue Pill men. Red Pillers are those who’ve made a conscious decision to throw down the the draft horses yoke and take up a more equitable one or escape.

            Now who’s talking in circles. First you said it’s good to be a domesticated man and now you’re promoting MGTOW. Which is it. First you’re trying to shove a blue pill down our throats by saying we should be domesticated if we’re gonna be a thorough bread and now you’re ready to pass the red pill.

            Get off the fence already.

    • Otter

      “what’s so good about wildness?”

      It is honest and free. It is self-reliant and powerful. It is uncompromising and simple. It is elegant and graceful. It is creative and wide-eyed. It is unwavering and brilliant. It will chew off its own leg to escape a snare and will die of broken heart if you cage it. It is as old as this world and accepts everything in it. It never asked you for anything and for the brief moment that you both made eye contact it welcomed you into the eternal.

      • valdez_addiction

        Beautiful… Simply beautiful.

      • Alphabeta Supe

        You write about wildness and freedom as if they’re genteel, romantic and benevolent. The truth is they’re not. They’re hostile, dangerous, lonely and unrelenting, even if one is VERY clear and very disciplined.

        It’s easy to romanticise wildness and freedom as we sit at our desks with YouTube and Bear Grylls just a click or two away but few people can live in a dissocialised environment for an extended period and remain sane. I daresay a man living in the jungle all his life would kill his own mother for the security and comforts provided by domestic life. The noble savage is fiction.

        • B.R. Merrick

          Please don’t confuse my use of the term “wild” with words like “undisciplined,” “unthinking,” “chaotic,” and certainly not “violent.”

          I mean wild as in natural. It is our natural state to want to relate, to ourselves, our bodies, and others. The rest is negotiation through communication, trial, and error. Perhaps you call that taming. I call it self-discipline.

          My premise is that we naturally self-discipline. This is self-evident in that fact that we teach ourselves to walk and talk. We practically do it with reading as well, judging by how many little kids beg for storytime.

          It still seems to me that you feel this has to come from without. I don’t say it has to, like you need to tame someone else. I’m saying it’s natural. I’m saying relax, dude. Be your “wild” self.

          And now, in a fit of self-taming self-discipline wild nature that’s-just-me, I am bowing out of this debate. Goodnight.

        • Otter

          Wildness is neither genteel nor benevolent. It is raw simplicity and beauty through function. What we call romance it would call purpose.

          Wildness is neither hostile nor dangerous as an absolute, it becomes these things when attacked. When its existence is challenged it screams no. When it is backed into a corner it doesn’t bow and submit, it fights. And that is noble.

          You are right about one thing though, it is indeed unrelenting.

        • Adi

          Alphabeta Supe is right.
          There is a tendency to romanticize nature – especially by those who live most removed from it. In reality nature is cruel, heartless and unforgiving. There is no room for anything but sheer survival. There is no creativity, no productivity, no discovery and no hope.

          When people go on about rape culture, they have no idea that culture is actually preventing rape.

          • valdez_addiction

            Alphabeta Supe is right. There is a tendency to romanticize nature – especially by those who live most removed from it. In reality nature is cruel, heartless and unforgiving. There is no room for anything but sheer survival. There is no creativity, no productivity, no discovery and no hope

            What the hell are you talking about?

            Nature is creativity and productivity. How else do you explain the variety of species and the colors of the world. Not to mention the most creative creature is a product of nature. Us.

            If nature wasn’t creative or productive we wouldn’t be here. Name one thing you’ve invented that’s more creative and productive than the human eye. Nature created that. And our eye isn’t even the best version.


            The civilized world is also cruel, heartless and unforgiving. We kill just like animals do except the only difference is animals do it for food, protection, and survival which creates balance. We do it for all those reasons plus fun, sport, or personal gain which creates imbalance.

            AlphaBeta is suggesting that we as men submit to domestication for the benefits as if we’re some wild dogs who can’t survive without women.

            And you’re making statements about women and nature based on thin air.

            Nothing you or AlphaBeta is grounded in reality.

          • Adi


            Nothing in nature has been created. There was no creator and therefore no creation. All of the impressive complexity of life can be explained by evolution which has nothing whatsoever to do with creativity.

            “We kill just like animals do except the only difference is animals do it for food, protection, and survival which creates balance. We do it for all those reasons plus fun, sport, or personal gain which creates imbalance.”

            So do animals kill for reasons other than necessity. The only reason they don’t do it as much is they’re not intelligent enough. Concepts like sport or personal gain require a complex social structure the likes of which no animals have built.

            “And you’re making statements about women and nature based on thin air. ”

            What statements about women and nature are you referring to?

          • valdez_addiction

            I completely disagree with your entire statement.

            Evolution was a process that was triggered after the Big Bang which is the, “Creation” of the universe. And the process of evolution is very creative.

            And anytime an animal kills it’s for one of these reasons; fear, hunger, or rivalry. All “Necessary” for it’s survival even if we don’t agree.

            And the ability to kill for fun, sport, or personal gain is not a sign of intelligence.

            BTW. You do know this is all opinion we’re debating. There is no definitive answer about the beginning of the universe.

            Plus how can we be creative without creativity playing a role in our creation.

            This is a pointless debate.

            “Who came first, the chicken or the egg?”

          • Otter

            “In reality nature is cruel, heartless and unforgiving.”

            Nature is the name we give to that which we do not control. By personifying the universe and labelling it as “cruel, heartless and unforgiving” you make a common error in judgment. Specifically, you are owed nothing from the universe, neither your survival nor your very existence. And to criticize the universe for not being more gentle and caring is ignorant and childish.

            “There is a tendency to romanticize nature.”

            I keep hearing the word “romanticize” and in the words of Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means. I am neither idealizing the universe or dealing with it in an unrealistic fashion (if anything judging by your personification of the universe, you are). I view the universe as an impartial landscape filled with possibilities and while i enjoy the benefits of civilization i also bear its burdens and injustices. As with Rodion and Randle I find myself at odds with a society that seeks to use me to a purpose and provide me with a bare minimum of benefit. A society that provides maximum benefit for anything with a vagina, indeed protecting and providing freedoms for them that I am not only excluded from but expected to provide through my reduced safety and freedom. In such an unjust environment a comparison to “nature” or the universe at large sans civilization serves as a healthy readjustment of perspective rather than the “romantic” escape you would like to paint it as.

            “There is no creativity, no productivity, no discovery and no hope.”

            I find it hard to take you seriously after this gross statement. As oft quoted necessity is the mother of invention and where nature is admittedly a daily struggle for survival it not only encourages but demands creativity, ingenuity and perseverance. Do you seriously believe that no discoveries took place before society existed or that no hope stirred in people’s hearts? Then how did we ever come to create society in the first place!? Your ridiculous assumption asserts that society occurred in spite of a lack of hope or discovery or creativity or production when in fact the opposite is true.

          • valdez_addiction

            I gave up on this dude Otter. I think he’s disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Anybody making the statements he’s making can’t be serious.

            And if he is, it’s sad.

          • Otter

            “There was no creator and therefore no creation.”

            This is a flagrant solipsism. You went from saying that no creativity exists in nature to saying that because you don’t believe in a creator that nothing was ever created. You argue like a feminist, on the base level of semantics and with a wildly shifting stance. If you really want to argue over semantics then you should know that creativity refers to bringing something new or unique into existence, “nature” or the natural occurrence of events in the universe has done this throughout the existence of this world, and before you begin quibbling over the personification of nature, remember it was you who compared it to a “benevolent” society ascribing human qualities like cruelty.

            Quit shifting your stance and quit groveling over semantics. If you want to have a real discourse regarding society then ditch that chip on your shoulder and begin to try to understand and relate rather than strive to confuse and contradict. No one here is impressed by your clumsy rhetorical ballet.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I live in a town well known for it’s “non comformist” people.

          “Wild” isn’t the term generally used to describe these free range males… they are more often referred to less flatteringly as “feral”.

          a. Existing in a wild or untamed state. b. Having returned to an untamed state from domestication. 2. Of or suggestive of a wild animal; savage: a feral grin.

          While not so romantic, it’s a very fitting description.

  • Stu

    Very impressive Typhone. Your ability to describe and articulate the typical male experience and existence is amazing. I don’t think I could write half as well as you on my best day……probably why I don’t.

    Having said that, let me say this.

    Giddy up girl :)

  • Dazza

    Great article Typhonblue.

    The draft horse parallel is amazing. The draft horse wants nothing to do working the field, but loses his identity to it through the manipulation of the farmer.

    I love dolphins. Every time I am surfing and I see dolphins, I paddle out to them. Sometimes they swim away, but sometimes they swim with me.

    When I was a kid I swam with a dolphin at a marine park. It wasn’t the same. When I was a kid, the dolphin swam with me because it had to. When a dolphin swims with me out in the surf, it does so because it chooses to.

    So many relationships today are the controlling female/domesticated male. I cannot believe how many handsome intelligent men are married to fat, ugly, unintelligent, and highly disrespectful women. Like the article has stated, over time he has probably seen the wife as someone who is helping him, not someone he is helping. I read somewhere that women who are married are often more overweight than women who are single. This is because they have already ‘captured’ their man and see no need to work on themselves in order to entice one. And when a wife wants to have an affair, all of a sudden she loses weight again.

    Most young men have drive, ambitions and dreams. No doubt this is attractive to women. Over time, being married to the wrong woman leads to most of his dreams and ambitions beings squashed. He works to support his family. He is an appliance, who loses his years to a woman who spends her time watching TV, having hair appointments, nail appointments, shopping appointments, coffees with her friends (who spend their time badmouthing each others husbands), while he is working. Then when he does this for thirty years or so, he can stop working and then subject himself to his wife’s bitter nagging all day for the rest of his life. He lost his identity to a woman who never truly saw him, understood him, loved him or respected him. To her, he was nothing more than an appliance who she used to obtain for herself a better standard of living, with more material goods, less fear of uncertainty and a protector from potential dangers.

    I don’t believe many women will truly ever love their men. Using your analogy, they need to give up their farm first before they will ever truly understand them. Otherwise there is always an ulterior motive. He also needs to be willing to refuse the carrot.

    Thank you Typhonblue for the work you do. We need more women like you in the world who value men as emotional beings, with identities that are to be appreciated and not destroyed.

    • valdez_addiction

      I have to agree with you Dazza.

      The story about the dolphin is awesome. There’s nothing more disappointing than watching a trapped animal perform for a piece of fish.

      And what you said about most women is true. There are a large percentage of obese women in relationships because it’s not only unacceptable to tell them they need to lose weight, but they feel no obligation to.

      After all he better love her for who she is even if he can’t stand to look at her.

      I also read somewhere (i think the, “millionaire next door”) that the highest percentage of successful men are single and the ones who aren’t have extremely supportive wives.

      Excessive nagging tends to dull creativity. Which is sad because with the exception of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who among us have inventing anything of significance lately.

      It’s quite possible one of us would have found an alternate energy source by now if we weren’t so concerned with taking out the trash and making sure we don’t leave our socks on the floor.

      God knows the advances that could have been made in the last 40 years if man’s mind wasn’t clouded with the ridiculous behavior of dysfunctional women.

      • Dazza

        “God knows the advances that could have been made in the last 40 years if man’s mind wasn’t clouded with the ridiculous behavior of dysfunctional women.”

        Well said.

  • B.R. Merrick

    Because women control and have controlled the fundamentals of human survival for generations upon generations, children grow up associating feminine approval with provision of their basic needs. This association persists even into adulthood.

    Woman, you ought to write for Strike The Root. You’ve got your finger right on it. More, more, more.

  • Stu

    Remember this. The basis for a good bedtime story for boys.

    • Patrick Henry


    • Alphabeta Supe

      Absolutely priceless.

    • valdez_addiction

      Awesome video game. Imagine how many boys would be saved if super mario played that way.

      • Stu

        Yeah, I love the ending when he dies, comes back on his second life, fights his way through to get the key, then stops before he saves the princess…..thinks….and goes back and gives the key to the other guy lol. Smarter then most men in real life…..including me…..with most it’s just try try again.

        • Stu

          But if I wrote the game……..I would have him selling the key to the rich banker guy…..then slaving away putting in the pool, the car, flat screen and all that shit…and keeping it all to himself…….and living happily ever after.

        • BeijaFlor

          So! When is Super MGTOW Brothers coming to a computer near you?

  • Kai

    I would say that even domesticated animals, most commonly dogs then horses, have their emotional needs met these days. So in certain cases men are treated even worse than the animal they live with.

  • Perseus

    Typhon, wow. What is it about MRA’s that they have a way of sucking the thoughts right out of my head, fleshing them out and articulating them brilliantly .

    I’m going to share a personal bit.
    Not too long ago, although prior to my discovery of the MRM, I broke an engagement with a woman I cared for dearly. Every day I would go into work I couldn’t shake the visions of men flying through my head, typical men, as modern serfs, slaves. Domesticated, broken men, married and with children, who run to work everyday, so that they can run around at work all day so that they can run home everyday, to a seething boss even worse than the one from whence they came. The typical man’s life, him just being ground down to a broken shell by his two bosses. It’s not right. I just could not see how it could be right. The best analogy that I could muster and remember using, in desperate grasp to explain my dissonant feelings was, ‘I’m like a wild horse, I just can’t be broken.’ It just didn’t feel right. It couldn’t feel right. And I loved the shit out of that girl. Still do.

    • Stu

      And what was her reaction to you breaking it off, and what did you say when you broke it off?

      More information. Very sticky noses here.

      • Perseus

        She displayed the natural emotions of pain, anger, frustration and sense of betrayal (I own that guilt, forever). While such affairs are always multifaceted, the primary theme and words are quite true as described. Also, “I can’t do it, I don’t think I can live that kind of a life.” Of all that was said and went unsaid, I have always felt that the wild horse analogy was really the crystallization. I think it was a place where we both understood it as an accurate reflection of reality, to the point of being worthy of respect and acceptance. And she did. Ultimately she was understanding and bore the circumstance with grace. I might add that she was heroic and incredible and held off the social barrage to give me time. Fuck.

        • Stu

          Held off on the social barrage to give you time LOL. What then, did she let you have it? Ruin every friendship you have that she could?

          Damn, you wasted a good opportunity. Tell em what I always used to say……it’s the laws dummy. Oh, and your arse is too big….and your tits are too small. :)

          • Stu

            But seriously, I’ve said it’s the laws many times. One woman who kept sort of re-approaching the subject……..I said…..I’ve always wanted to go and live overseas……in a muslim country with sharia law…….if you come with me I’ll marry you. She laughed and said…..NO WAY……and I asked……very seriously….why not? Got the spiel about how I could just divorce her on a whim…..chuck her out of the house…..keep the kids……blah blah blah……then I just said… you know why I wont marry you here.

    • Tawil

      I can identify with your story…. I’ve never been able to go out and work purely for the sake of being a “good man” who gets and keeps a “good woman” by being a work-slave. I did try in my younger years for short periods but it always felt soul-destroying just like you described. Maybe all men feel it. My attitude since has always been – I work and pay for myself – and she can do the same (with lots of leeway based on circumstances). Suffice to say some women looked down their noses at me for not manning up to my expected domestication, but I nevertheless succeeded in forming long-term relationships with quality women. But even the latter tested me out to see if I’d take on the work stooge role while they crafted a lifestyle for themselves- they soon knew I wasn’t willing and accepted it.

      Males are all wild horses underneath the conditioning….. and unlike women who have a thousand books devoted to thier wild untamable natures -eg. “Women Who Run With Wolves”, males are still to find their wild liberation. Maybe Typhon’s piece is the start of a bigger book, “Men Who Run With Mustangs”.

      • Perseus

        Thank you for this Tawil, the relay of your success with standing your ground is highly instructive.

        “Males are all wild horses underneath the conditioning….. and unlike women who have a thousand books devoted to thier wild untamable natures -eg. “Women Who Run With Wolves”, males are still to find their wild liberation. Maybe Typhon’s piece is the start of a bigger book, “Men Who Run With Mustangs”.”

        This is just brilliant. Indeed, “Men Who Run with Mustangs.” All of us, one day.

    • valdez_addiction

      like the mighty Pegasus, blessed by the Gods to fly free, never to be tamed by man least he clip his wings to make him a much easier slave.

      Keep your wings Perseus. They mean more than any love, I can guarantee that.

      • Perseus

        Thank you, Valdez. These choice words are truly meaningful to me.

    • Kimski

      Right there with you, Perseus.

      Being in a longlasting relationship always made me feel like I was slowly drowning in mud. It is really a shame that modern day women have absolutely nothing to contribute with, that rivals your personal freedom.Whenever I feel any remorse about my choices, which actually boils down to not having children, all I need to do is look at my fishing buddies who are married, and what I see are men who suffer.
      And I always come to the same conclusion:

      ‘Now, why would I want that?’

      • Perseus

        Many Kudos Kimski,

        Can’t shake the sense that losing that personal freedom and agency for a male is like snuffing out the flame of his essence.

        I believe you have done well for yourself, guided by your wisdom.

        This all evokes reflection on the tv show, “Married with Children”. It’s difficult to fully appreciate the depth of social commentary going on there. Makes me appreciate the bedrock MR blog “No Ma’am”.


        • valdez_addiction

          Hey Perseus.

          Has anyone already started an MRM group with that name? Because I’m thinking of starting a NO MA’AM Chapter in my city. But NO MA’AM the way it would be if Al Bundy was a real person and an MRA.

          • Perseus

            Hi Valdez,
            Not that I know of, I’m only aware of that brilliant blog. But a local chapter, true to form, sounds like hip hop rock n roll to me.

            😀 Lol……. loving your avatar.

          • valdez_addiction


            I’m still in the planning stages but I plan on renting a hall and recruiting NO MA’AM soldiers of all races and backgrounds. As much as I love hip hop I wont be focusing on only that crowd. I want it to be open to everyone who’s passionate about men’s rights. And only those who are serious.

            I truly want it to be a serious MRA Organization that helps to address the misandry of my city and possibly branch out into other cities.

            Feminists have all kinds of activist groups and organizations. It’s time we did too. I’m not sure how many groups there are already but I wanna add to it and do my part.

            Even though that was a comedy sitcom, Al Bundy was the first MRA I was ever exposed to. And even though he was a fictional character many of his struggles ring true now more than ever.

            I think it would be fantastic if NO MA’AM was a real organization and I plan on making it happen.

            Could you imagine the fear, when feminist come out to lobby and protest and they see thousands of NO MA’AMers coming out to lobby and protest for men’s rights.

            Brings a tear to my eye.

          • Kimski

            If Al Bundy was a RL person he would be the supreme ruler of planet MRA.
            “Bowling and beer for everyone, and no women allowed!”

  • valdez_addiction


    Btw. There are other criteria to survival of the fittest besides procreation.

    Like humans who never lived long enough to procreate because they had bullshit ideas about how the world around them worked. Like, “Let’s run towards the guy with the spear” or “Why should we hide from that animal?”

    Now a days this still exists but our technology protects us from this law. But make no mistake, this technology we have is a very thin veil between us and the animal world.

    It’s an illusion Neo.

    This allows guys like you to say stupid stuff like, “there’s nothing wrong with being domesticated,” without any real consequences, aside from me talking trash.

    But think about this my friend. During our past 2,000 years of so called civilized life, the animals we used to be a part of have still been subject to survival of the fittest.

    This means they’ve been evolving.

    Guess what? We have too. Except we’re evolving under the new law. “Survival of the Laziest.”

    That’s how life works. Even when you’re not learning, your learning. What you don’t use you lose and we’ve lost our survival skills.

    You better prey we don’t need them again.

  • Atlas Reloaded

    Just keeps getting better with you Typhon. Great adendum to the last article. Hope there will be a youtube version.

  • Codebuster

    It’s ironic that The Typhoon has analytical powers that can compete with the best among men, yet she is an anti-feminist. Go suck on that, feminist pigs.

    • Jean Valjean

      How is it ironic? I expect the very best from women and I am often disappointed.

      The real “irony” is that after millions of years of faithful service to women, to the point that men cannot imagine happiness or a sense of self that is not a subjugated beast of burden for women’s pleasure, that women would then turn on us and blame us as their oppressors.

      Of course, even that isn’t irony since women have been using male protective instincts for their own advantage since, well, forever. Turning on us is just another way to gain even more privilege. It’s why feminists constantly portray women as victims. They are using helplessness as a way of gaining control. Meanwhile, they are disempowering men from being the beasts of burden that most women want and expect us to be.

      For men, that is very painful. We must achieve to be worthy of reproduction and yet we are all supposed to be equal. Because women compete against us we find it harder to achieve and that makes us even more disposable. And women feel entitled to be privileged in marriage and when a man cannot do that sufficiently she feels “unloved” because her love for him hinges on his utility for her.

      Women feel the desire to divorce first and then think of reasons to justify those feelings later. That is why there is no reasoning with a woman who wants to divorce you. Her reasons are all made up long after the decision was made. It’s like trying to rationalizing keeping a car that is totaled in a wreck. The only value is that of it’s scrap metal. Women think the same thing of husbands they no longer want.

      • Perseus

        I have a given a bear hug to a phrase GGW introduced on AVfM Radio last week- “The tyranny of the weak.” The victim card induces instant puke response and brings disgusting to a new level.

        “I am thrashing you with my sexual and social privilege powers, oh, and btw I’m ‘weak’ so get down there and clean the junk out of my toenails.” Sure sweetheart, as you wish..

      • Kimski

        *Standing ovation.*

        -Brilliant, sir.

      • Sting Chameleon

        And to make matters worse, they don’t compete fairly, since they’ve managed to rig the rules of the game and get the force of the law to aid them.

  • Jean Valjean

    typhonblue–I’ve been making this analogy between the farmer and mule and wife and husband for years.

    You’ve taken it a step further and articulated and defined concepts that I had previously been unable to.

    In particular the shaming language as the ring in a bull’s nose.

    That said, and in response to someone else’s post, men can return to the wild after being domesticated if only the government would allow us to.

    Child support, alimony, un-“equitable distribution”, etc. prevents us from truly gaining our freedom after being discarded by a woman.

    In the past a woman would have to give something back to her husband. She would actually have to muck out the stall, raise his children, provide him with good food, care for him when he was sick, and even give him affection.

    Now, with no fault divorce, she can get all his labor for free. She is no longer required to do anything. And if she gets herself knocked up she doesn’t even have to expend money on a marriage. It’s automatic cash payments for decades. Not to mention access to a cornucopia of government financial aid from welfare, food stamps, and grants for college.

    Getting knocked up is like Wonka’s Golden Ticket. Oh the goodies that await the treacherous single mother.

    • typhonblue

      In the past women were usually in the traces with their husbands.

      It wasn’t until we could afford it that all this craziness started. I guess you really understand a society’s morality when that society becomes rich beyond measure; not when it has to deal with bare survival day after day.

  • Terramercenary

    As someone mentioned above, I think this article articulates very well what all intelligent men have known, but relegate to the background of their conscious thought. For me, I understood the premise of this article by age fifteen or so. That said, I think it is important to keep things in context and look at this issue from a wider perspective.

    Working hard and building wealth, comfort, and safety for your family is not being a ‘beast of burden’ You are a ‘beast of burden’ if you earn said wages and turn it over to your wife to spend, and rely on her to make decisions that you as the ‘bread winner’ should be making. In other words, if someone else is controlling the fruits of your labor (whether married or not) you are a ‘beast of burden’. You can only be a slave if this is done without your consent, as in being forced.

    In today’s society a Man can take control of the family’s finances, build wealth, and even build a mini empire only to have the state take it from you, whether through taxes or divorce. This is the issue. The issue is government control.

    Being ‘wild’ or ‘domesticated’ is a choice each Man is free to make. Both have their positives and their negatives. However, the government has made ‘domestication’ so unattractive and destructive that I would never encourage any Man to move in that direction until family laws have been changed.

  • Steve_85

    This just in: Why plain women pick career over kids.

    (TL: DR) – They think they’re ugly!

  • valdez_addiction

    To all my fellow MRAs who are really down with the cause, y’all have to forgive me.

    I’m very passionate about our cause and it really pisses me off when fembots hide among us to spy and those who claim to be with us make asinine statements which contradicts the very core of what an MRA is supposed to be.

    The fact is this is a war and I hate traitors and enemy spies. And I’m sure you guys know who I’m talking about.

    I realize that some of the more seasoned MRAs choose to ignore these trolls. And I understand why. I guess I’m still young and filled with rage.

    So excuse me if I offended any of my real MRA brothers and sisters.

    I’m no General. Merely a humble soldier willing to attack at the first sign of the enemy.

  • Genyooin

    Typhonblue, I just wanted to thank you for a wonderful article.

    I’m new to MRM but determined to learn more and spread the red pill. For now it’s just good to know I’m not the only woman who thinks most men are wonderful human beings, wanting and deserving love and respect as well as freedom of choice in defining themselves. Unfortunately, most young women and girls I know have very restrictive ideas of what men ‘should be’ and ‘should do’. Even though the worst kind of feminism is fairly new in my country, it’s spreading up – add to this the restrictive gender roles for both men and women in my society – and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. I haven’t got any close female friends, probably because I don’t join in male-bashing in which they often indulge. And whenever I speak up for men, I get either dirty looks or scorn – mostly from my fellow women. It’s very sad.
    Thanks to your article I don’t feel as much of a social outcast as before.
    Keep up the good work and thank you again.

    • Patrick Henry

      Welcome to the MRM.

    • Kimski

      Welcome aboard the good ship AVfM, Genyooin.

    • Stu

      Where are you from Genyooin?

    • Sting Chameleon

      Welcome brother! I’m on the same boat as you are, feminism hasn’t fully taken over, but the boarding parties are already here and most men are completely unsuspecting of what’s in store for them. And yes, it’s sad that you can’t really have female friends since their attitude towards your fellow man disgusts you, or because they try to manipulate you and exploit your protective instincts for their own gain. You’re among brothers here, men who will lend you their support in this time of need.

    • Lee

      I too am a woman that is new here and am happy that I am not alone in thinking that a man should define himself.

  • Genyooin

    Thank you.

  • Genyooin

    To Stu: I’m from Poland.

    To Sting Chameleon: Thank you for your kind welcome. Just for the record, as I’m not sure if my post was clear enough on that point – I am a woman.

    • Sting Chameleon

      Gee, I guess I shouldn’t be reading AVFM at 3 AM lol.

  • valdez_addiction

    Thank you for pointing that out Otter. I thought I was the only one that noticed the ridiculousness of Adi’s statements.

  • Agapao

    Ever consider that a submitted wife in spirit and in attitude as well as in outward form actually can and does deliver a good many of man’s emotional needs? And I do agree with you that man’s needs are as complex and deep as woman’s. I just think that nature would have made meeting them efficient and practical. By making love, a man experiences many of the deep needs. I have thought long and hard about what a man’s needs are. Many of them start with an “A” and I don’t think any are innately pathological, although the pursuit of them at any cost can become toxic. They are: Acceptance, appreciation, approval, admiration, being treated with respect, companionship, friendship, feeling trusted, understood, etc. These I think are a man’s primary needs. His secondary needs include being cared for, loved, cherished, nurtured, etc, but these are not his primary needs, as they may be for a woman. Yes I did lift some of this from John Gray but it’s true to me. So a woman can show her appreciation by cooking for a man, and that counts for more than just words. It is also efficient and practical. I do think men are simpler, or at least simple. No less deep, no less emotional, but we are less material in our needs. But we do have a rich set of needs. I find that when a woman is functional as part of a team, my needs are getting met. I think that’s how it is supposed to be. I want to get into a traditional relationship role but not by force, but each by choice, and I do think it’s good for women to get free of their box, work a hard job, so they can recognize the value of protection and provision, and if they want, they can keep working and be single or 50:50, but I do think that children need stay at home mothers for a good percentage of the time. Thank you for yours

    • Mikko L.

      Hear, hear!

  • Jennie C-K

    A wonderful article (thank you Alison) that at last demonstrates the hidden power that women have ALWAYS HAD that has been brushed under the carpet by proponents of feminism.