Don’t complain about the wiminz

I was catching up on a pod-cast from  AVfM news and listened so intently to what Fidelbogen was saying about why complaining about the relationship between men and women and specifically about hypergamy is not helping the MRM, that I missed my junction on the M11 and had a 30 mile diversion to listen to more of the programme.

It got me thinking.

I know why men complain about how hypergamy and how many are royally screwed over by women in relationships. As a woman who has had difficult relationships with women myself up until I started on my “zero tolerance for bulls-shit” approach when I was 37 years old, I have some clue just how utilitarian some women can be. I’m also partnered with a wonderful man who is getting six colours of crap kicked out of him by his crazy ex-wife and the family courts.

However, I come back to the maxim in life “chose your battles wisely”.  The SO and I could complain endlessly about “fitch base” (our pet name for her), but then she would hold sway over all our relationship. So we let of a bit of steam then talk about things that matter to us. Equally, I can moan and complain about being on the receiving end of social marginalisation by cliques of women at work, or I can go out and have fun on my own terms. If you hate, you let those who wish you harm win. The best outcome is not hating, it is feeling indifference, so you can ignore them.

We need to consider what we can change and how we can act to change it, and the main thing we can do as individuals is change our own behaviour and personal script. Over on a Shrink4Men, lots of the discussion is about “how are you going to change the pattern, because you can’t change the crazy behaviour of your spouse?” While not everyone is in a relationship with crazy (thank goodness), this same applies here, when it comes to deciding what we should address in the realm of interpersonal relationships publically within the MRM.

Coming back to complaining about hypergamy. One of the hosts pointed out that women when reproducing want a stable provider and this is a valid reproductive strategy.  As a “non-breeder” I’ve never had need of one, but I do occasionally wish I had greater financial security, so I do get the impulse.

Where the problem lies is not in the need for stable provision, it is the crazy expectations about how much is needed to meet these perceived needs.  I often sit in amazement at the amount of stuff generated by a baby shower, knowing in my family “the new baby suitcase” is making its journey around the second generation now. This suitcase is full of little baby outfits that are quickly grown out of. Each mother replaces items that are too worn when it is due to be handed on,  and it saves a vast amount of money. There is also the 1,2 and 3 year old suitcases  (full of lots of jeans, dungarees and t-shirts because of the vast numbers of small boys in my family). My oldest nephew recently said of the jersey worn by his 3 year old son “Hey, that’s mine” – as he spotted the T. rex with red blood dripping from his fangs knitted on the front (my Mum had an evil sense of humour – that was her creation).

Is the average woman ready to hear and understand about hypergamy? Probably not. However some women (and some men) are increasingly concerned about the commercialisation of childhood, and this is a way into the conversation about expectations and values. Open discussions about the difference between needs and wants in a relationship needs to happen early. Overt materialism is a huge red flag in my opinion. However, perhaps a better assessment of the issue is, you both need to have similar financial goals and aspirations and be prepared to stick with the plan to achieve them together. A mate should demonstrate they are going to follow-through, and anyone whose words and actions don’t match is a risky proposition.  I made a similar mistake in my own marriage, so  I get how easy this is to say and hard to do.

In my opinion, the real elephant in the room in male-female relationships is about male disposability, specifically if a man loses his utility through age, illness or ill-fortune.  That’s the discussion that needs to be bought into the open, because unlike hypergamy one element of changing the male disposability script is about men changing their own attitudes about their value in life.

My father’s second wife is a woman who exhibits hypergamous behaviour. She also has demonstrated she only values my father for his utility, by a living will which states pretty much that his children will have to look after him if he becomes incapacitated. My father is complicit in reinforcing his utility value, because his own living will does not have the mirror statement imposing her care once incapacitated on her children. He intends to look after her no matter what.  He will do stuff for her, even when exhausted and in ill health. When he visits me, he struggles to slow down and be looked after, but then settles down and appreciates that he is given space to be free to think, dream and do things at a gentle pace. I’ve often reiterated to him that he is lovable because of who he is, not what he can do.  Yet he can’t or won’t break free of the assumption he needs to do things to be loved. As my father is an autonomous adult, he has the right to make that choice, but it saddens me to see this elderly man still “chasing pussy” using a script that damages himself.

There will always be spaces like a Shrink4Men where men (and women) can deal with the interpersonal issues directly confronting them, but I think we need to be smart on the front-line messages of the MRM and exert force and effort where we can get change. Sometimes that change might be something small, or sometimes our efforts together can shift the world on its axis.

About Aimee McGee

Aimee McGee lives in rural Eastern England in the community where she
nworks as a health professional. She is a human rights activist with interest in gender equality and disability advocacy. She plays in a brass band and shares her house with 2 tabby boy cats. Good coffee and English beer are her main vices.

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

  • Skeptic

    Thankyou Aimee.

    I think you’re right about the elephant in the room being male disposability.
    However it isn’t hypergamy on it’s own that many men complain about.
    You almost stated it – it’s hypergamy PLUS the sledgehammer of misandric laws and conventions coming down on guys as they part from wives that worries so many of them.
    Imagine you’re the typical western man for a moment.
    It isn’t so often the case of your wife just going off with a bigger success object-wallet.
    The rejection of that hurts, but it’s WAY more traumatic than that.
    It’s that in the process of separating from you she often takes your kids, car, house, furnishings and up to 2 decades of future income AND you, as the hapless man, not only get to be alienated from your kids but treated to false accusations – humiliations which too often drive you to suicide (the slow way with drugs and booze or the fast way with a revolver, or some mix of the two).
    As John the Other eloquently pointed out recently, men need to understand that – ” In every simple interaction between a man and a woman in this culture, that brings us to the question of the gun in the room.
    What gun is that?
    It is the gun that in western cultures every woman brings to the conversation. It is the gun that if you are a man speaking to a woman — is pointed at you. Hypo-agency, or feminine agency by proxy.”
    And here’s the nub Aimee – although I agree with you that many men need to value themselves more, no amount of men valuing themselves can change women viewing men as disposable appliances rather than intrinsically valued human beings if they so choose.
    That’s the emotional growth women have to do for themselves, and that’s also assuming women en-masse can get past any hard wiring they may have to do so.
    My personal ‘jury’ is still out on answering that question.
    As the Men’s Rights message of rejecting male disposability gradually but inexorably filters its way into the mainstream consciousness I’m going to be very interested indeed to see how the great masses of western women respond.
    This line of thought leads me to a deep and perplexing question to ask myself – What am I going to do if I find that say, 5 years from now with female hypergamy and female violence by proxy well understood by most western women for its harm to men treated as disposable utilities, women for whatever reason refuse to change?
    So you see, women have an enormous amount to prove before I’ll quit complaining about them.

    • Augen

      I agree with the distinction Skeptic makes here between nature, which in and if itself may be forgivable and workable, versus misandric law and cultural norms that render the female side of human nature a cudgel on men.
      I also agree with the commenter below who remarked that it doesn’t really matter if most women are unprepared to hear about hypergamy.
      Look at it from the other side. The male low-road that is the counterpart to hypergamy could be called, oh: youngerwomanupgradagamy. Bill Maher explained this in a fairly well trafficed clip where he fisked feminism, basically explaining and I paraphrase, “ladies, it isn’t the boob jobs or face lifts or botox or plastic surgery … it’s old, …and new.”
      Our legal system has long recognized this dark side of male sexuality and the propensity of some men to toss out the frumpy mother of their children when her time has passed and he is in ascent to run off with a younger, tighter, hotter model.
      The legal system used to basically say: men, you can do this, but you will lose your house, your kids and you will pay lifetime alimony.
      Women were still hurt when men counted the cost and pulled the eject lever, but you could still say there was some justice.
      Thanks to feminist updates of the law we now have “no fault divorce” where she can leave him … because she’s bored, or he isn’t productive enough or really whatever, and strangely, he still loses the house and his kids and lifetime alimony is replaced by child support payments that drive men to homelessness, jail and suicide. Oh of course she can relinquish her parental rights AND responsibilities, but his parental financial responsibilities are ironclad, even if he doesn’t want to be a father. Equal protection indeed.
      Really … the legal and moral arguments are unassailable. Child support imposed on men who do not wish to be fathers or on men whose children are robbed from them by the courts … is slavery. We will NOT under any circumstance hold a woman hostage to her uterus, but we will enslave men to the same uterus. It is slavery, there is no other way around it.
      And why? Because all across the strata of society, from legislator to senator to professor to judge to highest judge of the land to the person having tea in your kitchen this afternoon, we. Won’t. Deal. With it.
      Because: women are not prepared to hear about hypergamy, or many many other things for that matter.

      • http://none universe

        This, laid out very well for all to see, Augen. (As others, too).
        What, and men aggrieved by intrinsic enabling grievance industries based on unsound principles and the resounding mundane effects of such shouldn’t speak out on these matters? No offense to the well-meaning on this board – hah.

        Culturally enforced, personally adopted credos of automoton risk taking puddle cloaking for any reason promotes more of the same unrealistic expectations from those it benefits. But when practiced in extreme times the waters will overrun the garments it’s then time to shine the lights so a useless swamp dries up.

        I agree with the distinction Skeptic makes here between nature, which in and if itself may be forgivable and workable, versus misandric law and cultural norms that render the female side of human nature a cudgel on men.
        And, Because: women are not prepared to hear about hypergamy, or many many other things for that matter.
        – One voice, what the following proposes, doesn’t define what men are communicating here and elsewhere, but with these isolated quotes above – I am left with concluding that if left unchecked and blindly assented to hidden aspects of female nature will lead the many common over a cliff.

        Fuck notions of schematic feminist equality. Equality under the law means all are subject to long evolved but working ideals of fairness and sovereign limitation. Supplanting human flawed but workable rules built on sacrifice with notions of “our” or no way dictums designed to further sacrifice the sacrificial (the disregarded disposable) lead to the resourses for all common withering at the vine.
        When faced with organized theft, jail time and other thievings of freedoms built from and by the nature of guarded secrecy I’ll take and further reason and rounded expository discussion over resulting howlings from the many possessors of feelings and arbitrarily based decisions from such.

        Again, one voice, but we’re discovering why the ancients excluded women from governing authority. Want proof of female nature in legislative assemblies? Attend the galleries of such and observe who and what the female representatives represent. And watch these same when ruled by the notions of modern feminist ‘equality’ and lazy acceptance of the equality ideal in general. Things for “us”. And to the rest – ‘who’, ‘what’? But you pay.
        This style of hypergamy wants (the illusion of) what others appearing greater than them seemingly have. Legal and social hypergamy without the cost of working acquisition yet with the sacrifice forwarded to the hated misunderstood others. Just sick. 50 Shades of Gray fiction convoluted excitability applied to real macro social settings. Sick.

        With due respect to Aimee’s contribution I believe decorum is the central message. But given the measures imposed upon maleness a plurality of decorum is evidenced and utilized by the varied approaches to discussing the identified social illness currently plauging the culture. Given the spirit of the age there is more than one way to be heard. But right time, right place? Not everyone is going to play that way.

    • by_the_sword

      I will not give women and girls a pass on hypergamy. You are all human beings and you should act like it. No one gives men a pass for listening to his monkey brain, so why should we cut ‘teh wimmenz’ any slack?

      Instead of counter-bitching about what men bitch about, why not encourage your sisters to stop acting like a bunch of chimps?

  • Sickofit

    I found this article a little… bewildering to be honest. Men like your SO are getting the crap kicked out of him in Family courts because women like his ex have the power and routinely execute the power to do so. I understand that men pass these laws but that doesn’t change the fact that it is individual women who have consistently initiated divorces in such high numbers. To be honest it feels like this article is saying to me – exactly what the title says. So to be more specific are you asking that the MRM shun those that wish to “complain about women” and instead spread info on MGTOW lifestyles that many men simply will not adopt? Or should the MRM be espousing “Game” and PUA techniques to appease the naturally evolved desire for sex and companionship?

    I frequented Shrink4Men a lot as I recovered from a brutal relationship with a BPD ex. There was plenty of complaints about BPD’s and their behaviours on that site because the men and women who sought understanding there had been hurt by BPD’s. I have a hard time imagining S4M take the stance that complaining about BPD’s and outlining their behaviours does not help people recovering from BPD relationships.

    I should state that before I became an avid reader of MRM material I had very little understanding of hypergamy. Now that I do I’m very grateful for the info that has been shared.

    “Is the average woman ready to hear and understand about hypergamy? Probably not. ” As a male reader on a site meant to voice male concerns let me just say that I don’t care if women are ready or not. I don’t care. Were slave owners ready to hear and understand the concepts of enslavement from the slaves standpoint? Did MLK care if whites were ready for his message? Probably not.

    I believe that men coming into the MRM should have a place to vent and yes this involves complaining about the women in their lives. I believe that understanding hypergamy is important for newcomers and the more men that understand it and see it in the women they interact with the better off they will be.

    • scatmaster

      I don’t care if women are ready or not

      I believe that men coming into the MRM should have a place to vent and yes this involves complaining about the women in their lives.



    Changing women should be a non-issue for the MRM.Changing women is like a surfer wishing they can change the ocean, better of learning the tides and risk mitigation.

    • feeriker

      Exactly. Leaving aside the fact that your analogy to changing the ocean is spot on, if we men complain (justifiably so) that women have right to attempt to change us once they become our spouses/SOs, it would be the height of hypocrisy for us to insist upon changing them.

    • feeriker

      Exactly. Leaving aside the fact that your analogy to changing the ocean is spot on, if we men complain (justifiably so) that women have no right to attempt to change us once they become our spouses/SOs, it would be the height of hypocrisy for us to insist upon changing them.

  • dhanu

    It’s not all just about social. The imbalance is created by the collective political power that the women have and the feminists misuse to formulate misandric laws which in turn are used by the women. The solution can simply not be social alone, because the problem is not social alone. Jumping directly to my point, I’d say we’ll begin to see the solution as soon as the men get some kind of political representation, say, a ministry or a department for men and boys, or something similar. Until then, no solution can be effective and this should be clear by now as I’m sure people have tried all these solutions and others. None of these solutions is recognizing the root of the problem and only scratches it from the surface. The main goal of the MRM should be achieving a political stand and ground for the men’s voice. Once that happens, all other pieces of the puzzle would start to fall in place.

    • Skeptic

      Although I gave your comment an uptick, upon further reflection I think the changes that need to be made are starting to happen as the social (grass roots) level exerts pressure on the political powers that be. Case in point is fathers in UK recently getting law which entitles them to parental leave instead of mothers if that’s what the couple chooses.
      I don’t see it as a case of either the social or the political. Neither body are mutually exclusive.
      Indeed I full expect sooner or later some male political figure/s (BTW I don’t just mean politicians) being unfairly crushed by the femily caught$ and/or DV industry and or Sexual abuse industry and they’re going to create one holy shit storm for their would be oppressors.
      My money is on Julian Assange for starters NOT going quietly if he’s fucked over by feminists and their white knight enablers.

      • Andy Man

        >Case in point is fathers in UK recently getting law which entitles them to parental leave instead of mothers if that’s what the couple chooses.

        I don’t agree. The change could have granted both parents equal right to parental leave, but that’s not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that a father can only take parental leave if it is not used by the woman, so in effect he needs his wife’s “permission”. This is terrible oppression being presented as “entitlement”.

        • yurlungur

          Yep I agree:
          Give the man and the woman equal time off:* let’s say 6 months each.
          Give them each the ability to transfer their parental leave how they see fit.
          *I would give the woman a week extra to recover from the child birth.

        • Skeptic

          I stand corrected Andy Man.
          I apologize for not looking into this deeply enough.
          Firstly it is only a proposal, not yet law until some time in 2015. Secondly the proposal – Fathers will be able to take the majority of the first year of a baby’s life off work if the mother goes back to work under coalition proposals, it has been reported where readers can have their say on the matter:

          I’ve already done so under the name MensWritesActivist.

          In a way I think that’s good as it means there is some time for UK men to pressure for changing something gynocentric and misandric into something equitable for men, and more importantly for their children.

    • chris3337

      “The imbalance is created by the collective political power that the women have and the feminists misuse to formulate misandric laws which in turn are used by the women. ” Perfect statement.
      I agree that nothing will happen until we get political representation. Which in itself would sound most ridiculous to most people who see only men as politicians and leaders but fail to recognize who actually controls them.
      The feminists did exactly this , they created political representation. Canada still has a Ministry For the Status of Women and many government authorized subgroups with legal status and veto privileges in courts. Men have nothing. So misandric laws continue to be enacted influenced by special womens groups with legal status. Men need separate political representation to systematically reverse misandric laws and actually apply constitutional or Charter laws of equality.

      • Darryl X

        Be careful what you wish for. This whole problem of feminism started with the right for women to vote. Then they created all kinds of programs and laws and institutions with which to parasitize the most honest, innocent and responsible men.

        I have always discouraged the creation of a similar movement for men because the last thing we as men need is government to solve our problems for us. The last thing we need is more government. More government is not a solution but a bigger problem.

        Governments are comprised of bureaucracies, the only purpose of which is to expand by creating problems to solve, even when there are no problems. They will make them. Feminism is a problem for many reasons but in part because it is represented by government and its bureaucracies.

        Men have an obligation to solve their problems themselves, independent of government. In the US, we have a huge debt problem (LOL -“huge” doesn’t even begin to describe it) mostly created by women and feminists. Presently, the only solution our government (both parties of our strangulated bi-partisan system) can come up with to solve the problem is more debt.

        The solution to the problem of women and feminism and the governments and their bureaucracies is not more governments and bureaucracies to help men but to eliminate the governments and bureaucracies which already exist and represent women and feminists and have caused the problem.

        The last thing anyone with a problem should do is ask the government to help them. If your car broke down, would you go ask your local serial killer and psychopath to help you fix it? Governments always (ALWAYS!) abuse power. It’s what they do. Because the people in them abuse power. It’s what people do. That’s why governments need to be as small as possible and have powers that are as restriced as possible.

        There should be no Mens Studies at universities. There should be no Presiden’t Council on Men and Boys. There should be no Congressional Committee on Men’s Health. Women’s Studies should be eliminated from universities. The President’s Council on Women and Children should be eliminated.

        There should be no Congressional Committee on Women’s Health. And so on. More government bureaucracies should not be created. We can’t afford the ones we have. And the ones that exist have already done enough damage already. And have done absolutely no good.

        • dhanu

          Any practical realistic way of achieving that?

        • chris3337

          But what is dragging men down? Nothing other than misandric laws created by feminist controlled politicians. As individuals or as a group men are powerless to stop them since it requires legislated reversal. Without political representation how is this acheived? Men can take care of themselves, but not when women call on their state-sponsored proxy-violence perpetrators as in the BS 911 call or when feminist-sensitzed judges pass judgements on them without any benefit of the female discount. The list is long.
          The only way to change these things is to remind politicians that men are also here and we make up 49% of the votes and that we want equality straight down the line. Both the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter guarantees it.

  • Tawil

    @Aimee: “If you hate, you let those who wish you harm win. The best outcome is not hating, it is feeling indifference, so you can ignore them.”

    Agree, hate and love both indicate connection and relationship, whereas indifference provides the ultimate statement of independence.

    @Aimee: “When he visits me, he struggles to slow down and be looked after, but then settles down and appreciates that he is given space to be free to think, dream and do things at a gentle pace. I’ve often reiterated to him that he is lovable because of who he is, not what he can do. Yet he can’t or won’t break free of the assumption he needs to do things to be loved.”

    There’s something important in what you say about providing an environment (like the one you provided your dad) where men’s training to act as a utility is neutralised. My father is in his 80s and he has no environment -ie. no woman- calling on his services to do…. and like your dad he is now free to think, dream and stop to notice all the fascinating little details of life and nature. Being has replaced doing. He’s literally enraptured by this newfound freedom after being indentured to service most of his life.

  • harrywoodape

    Movements have different stages. Basically, when enough people start getting fucked over it takes a while to start penetrating the public consciousness – especially when the victims and their stories are deliberately ignored by mainstream media and there is a long and well funded anti-victim campaign to deal with. A big part of Feminism’s function is to deny male victims legitimacy and to keep control of all public institutions and agencies (police) so that they don’t ever forget who the victims are and who the oppressors are. A movement against this builds to a boil because the harder they try to exert total control and stifle men and women from speaking out and reaching the public mainstream, the more they reveal what a sham our legal systems, media, and laws are. So the law loses legitimacy as a whole. Once a society fucks over enough of it’s own citizens badly enough, it starts a fuse that it will have to deal with eventually. So far, men’s rights has moved from the stage of being ignored and is now being ridiculed by feminist watchdogs. That is significant because it means that they are now unable to ignore us because the movement has grown. So the next stage is when they start to try to play hardball. Gag orders from judges and threats from law defenders and intimidation is also starting to occur. Linking men’s rights to terrorism is where they seem to want to go…but it won’t work…all it will do is dilute the label of terrorist…which is a worn-out shoe anyway.
    Complaining is good. Complain to whoever and let them all know the truth. Complain at high levels complain at low levels. Each time you threaten someones adopted belief…you force them to think or change their perception. The truth from the heart, is what any worthy movement is built on…and it is eternal and cannot be erased.

  • yurlungur

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    As a second wife, for my daughter, it’s having another woman jerking the lease around her husband’s neck at any whim.

    My daughter had to apply for WIC recently, even though her husband is a higher ranking Marine. His ex wife decided he was “neglecting” his first child by having children with his new wife and demanded additional child support payments.

    My daughter was told by The Courts that HER children were “valued” at only $75.00 each, so the first wife was granted $850.00 instead of $1,000.00 per month, calculated on his higher deployment income, not his regular pay.

    Years before Ex had agreed to a lesser amount because he assumed over $250,000.00 in medical debts from her father’s illness in the divorce settlement. She was pregnant by another man but was awarded full custody anyway. She doesn’t work, of course.

    Hearing about the new car and flat screen TVs from his daughter while her children go without was pretty difficult for my daughter not to go into “stepmonster” mode.

    When she qualified for WIC, the woman processing her claim jabbed a pen in her husband’s direction and said “HE’S not to touch any of this – this is for you and your children only”, as though he was some welfare bum, instead of a serviceman who’d been deployed three times in the last five years.

    So now the Taxpayers help provide for my Grandchildren while his Ex enjoys the extra spending money.

    • Bombay

      “My daughter had to apply for WIC recently, even though her husband is a higher ranking Marine.”

      I am having difficulty here. Your post seems to be focusing on the secondary effects of $$/support for your daughter and grandchildren rather than concern about “her husband” being raped and being used as a utility.

      • Suz

        Um, I suspect that the husband shares rather deeply, her concern for his children. Since many of us believe that men’s rights and children’s rights are inseparable, how would the welfare of this man’s children be “secondary?”

        You’re free to assume that WIC-wife’s anger is at least in part on her own behalf, and it probably is, but is sounds to me like she’s very supportive of her husband.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Thank you, Suz. I was rather taken aback by that comment and didn’t quite know how to respond.

          I suppose in trying to be brief I wrote this from my female centric view.

          I can’t speak for fathers,but to to have a government agency tell me one of my children is “valued” at $1,000.00 per month, and another “worth” only $75.00 – which is not ANYbody’s idea of a”livable” amount even for a child, would have to be disconcerting, or so I would presume.

          As far as government agencies go, his other children can starve in the street while the MOTHER of one child is laughing in his face. There is no accountability, there is no reasoning. SHE is free to go about unfettered with her life, having as many children as she pleases while some man or another bankrolls it, while HE is at her mercy.

          I’m only guessing, but to have lost custody of a child to a woman who got pregnant by another man while deployed serving your country, to have no say in your child being raised half a continent away and calling another man “Daddy” because she only sees you once a year would be heartbreaking. Having your child taught that her “new” Daddy is “rich” and her “other” Daddy is poor(while providing the “fun” money) has gotta hurt.

          Now, to have this woman rewarded with “play money” because she decided you did not have the right to start a new life, like she did, is one thing. Then to have a government agency speak to you like you were a shiftless bum (in front of your wife and children) when you’ve put your life on the line TWICE in the last 4 years serving your country is pretty much the cherry on top.

          …and this is ME whining about it, not him.

          • Suz

            While I disagree with Bombay’s interpretation of your comment, it is to be expected that on this forum men will view women’s words with a jaundiced eye. You say you were “taken aback,” but judging by your past commentary, I suspect you weren’t offended. It’s a new experience for us Red Pill Women to be required to measure our words carefully; personally I enjoy the challenge.

        • Bombay

          Quite frankly I would resent the mother-in-law viewing me as a utility for her daughter.

          The point is that people should stop treating men as utilities, not that there is not enough utility to go around or not the “right” people are getting it. To harp on the latter is still view men as utilities. He is most likely very upset that his level of support for his second family is being siphoned off, but because he feels that way does not diminish the real issue – viewing men as utilities.

          If the problem is a matter of not enough money going around – then he should just earn more or get a second job. This shows the same compassion for him as complaining that his family has to be on food stamps.

          • Suz

            Perhaps she views him not so much as a “utility” but as one of the two most important people in her grandchildren’s live. Perhaps she is angry on their behalf and on HIS behalf, because his (voluntary) utility to his younger children is handicapped, not by his (also voluntary) utility to his older children, but by his mandated utility to his ex-wife.

            When he had children he CHOSE to become in part “a utility,” and you can bet that’s how he sees himself. Yet you object when a female (one who doesn’t profit from his utility) commends him and sympathizes with him? Because she happens to be aware of the part of him that IS a “utility?”

          • Tawil

            Well said Suz.

          • Bombay

            @ Suz

            The issue is that his choices (supporting his current family) are being usurped rather than his poor kids are having to take government assistance.

            And I am offering a word to the wise. I would resent my mother-in-law for harping on the results of me not being able to support my family rather than on the cause – government mandating my utility.

            AND I would have the same opinion if a guy had written it. So now sex is an issue here?

          • Bombay

            I was required to pay $2300+ to my ex in child support and alimony and did not have enough to live on even though I had my kids 50% of the time. I could not take them out, go on vacation with them and many other activities. All the while the X was not working, taking them out and taking them on vacation. AND I did resent it when comments were made that the kids were going without. After all – is that not my utility and my choice? I did appreciate it when people focused on the issue rather than my inability to support my kids when they were in my care.

            Jaunted? Definitely. I would prefer to think of it as first hand experience. I can only tell you how it was, if you prefer to ignore and react to that so be it.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Thanks, Suz. Again – I’m rather taken aback. I can only presume if you haven’t lived or witnessed the lifestyle, it’s pretty unimaginable.

            “Utility” is a two way street, Bombay.

            “The Corp Comes First” is the first thing Military families learn. There is no getting a traffic ticket or dashing into the store dressed like a slob. Your behavior is a direct reflection on your husband’s career, and he is called on the carpet to explain your transgressions.

            There is no getting a second job when you are on duty 24/7/365. Your child’s first birthday is over ruled with a last minute drill practice or some extra duty assignment. There is no “family first”. My Son In Law was in Afghanistan for the birth of both their children and will soon be home only a few weeks at a times for the next three years.

            My daughter lives far from home, raising small children with no one she knows around to help with the kids once in awhile, aquaintances come and go, nothing lasts too long, nothing is permanent.

            It’s a very lonely, isolating lifestyle, and from what I can tell, most of the men deeply appreciate the sacrifice and support – it’s certainly a lonely and isolating lifestyle for them as well.

            You better believe she loves and supports her husband. He had pretty much given up and was planning to move near, and spend the rest of his life being around to see his daughter once in awhile.

            I didn’t want my daughter to marry a divorced man, and certainly not with a child and nasty “EX” in the picture. I’d heard far too many nightmare “second wife/step mother” stories to wish that on my daughter.

            She asked me to meet him first, before judging him. The minute I saw him, holding his little daughter’s hand while she looked up at him with such open love , he could do no wrong in my eyes.

            My Grandaughters now look at him just the same way, I find myself photographing, trying to capture the way those little girls look at him. It’s incredible.

            So, no, Bombay. The problem isn’t the money. The problem is it’s a one way street with the person who deserves the least say (the ex) being granted the most.

          • Suz

            “The issue is that his choices (supporting his current family) are being usurped rather than his poor kids are having to take government assistance.”

            The first four paragraphs of Cotton’s comment made that very point.

            She CONCLUDED her comment with statements about public aid, because that is one of the unjust results of the first part of her comment.
            Yet you said, “Your post seems to be focusing on the secondary effects of $$/support for…”

            Did you only read the last line?

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Bombay – to reply to your next comment – the point I am trying to make is your EX can go onto to marry someone else, have more children with her new love without giving a thought or having any obligation to you. What’s the worst that can happen? No more alimony?

            If you, on the other hand, find a person you want to marry and have children with – your parenting options will not be determined by you or your new love – it will your ex calling all the shots.

            It gets sticky here, discussing child support, because OF COURSE you love your existing children and OF COURSE you are not abandoning them.

            I’m out of my depth speaking about child support, I have no experience with it.

            I know a women who bought her boyfriend a new truck with the kid’s money. I know several women who buy drugs or expensive cars with their support money. I don’t know if this is the norm, or if it’s an abberation, but it does seem to me there is no accountability, and there should be.

            In my son in law’s case, the ex agreed to a reasonable sum for his daughter. She agreed because he took on her father’s medical debts in the divorce agreement.

            It’s my understanding every five years The Ex can take you back to court and change the agreement. My son in laws’ ex took him back to punish for having moved on with his life – just like she did, and he is not the first man I’ve heard of the being done to.

            I know women that howl and cry that no amount of child support is ever enough, but I think if the additional amount they demand is going to throw another family in the lurch – there should be someting to account for it other than she wants a more expensive car.

          • Bombay

            I do not think you understand me.

            Every time he hears about his children not getting what they need…

            Every time he hears about the X getting $$ while his family goes without….

            Every time notices that something his current family needs something, but is going without….

            He feels bad. All the logic in the world will not take that away. Nothing will take that away.

            So back to my original post – I would resent a mother-in-law bringing that up – I already feel bad most of the time. Any time that I am not feeling bad – I do not want that interrupted by someone pointing out that my children are not getting what they deserve.

            This is my point. The more people around him bring it up, the more pain he will be in and eventually he will resent people who bring it up.

          • Suz

            “He feels bad. All the logic in the world will not take that away.”

            Bombay, his feelings are understandable, but should Cotton refrain from discussing the injustice he has suffered, because the reminder is painful to him? What should she do, ignore it and hope it goes away? I’m guessing hundreds of men every day feel painful reminders of their own injustice, every time the open this site and start reading. Should we stop talking about the injustices that make them feel inadequate, so they won’t resent us?

            What are you actually getting at anyway? First you implied that Cotton only cares about her daughter’s social and financial standing; now you chide her for bringing up a painful topic, on a site that is devoted to painful topics.

          • Bombay

            Cotton can do what she wants. I offered advise hoping to help her. I am done here.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            This is an anonymous posting on a site my son in law does not frequent, Bombay.

            My daughter has sold her car, found a much smaller, less expensive home to rent and proudly sends me pictures of cute clothes she finds at garage sales for the kids. Lemons out of lemonade. Living well is the greatest revenge, and all that good stuff.

            I’m PROUD of the way she has responded, it’s exactly what I would have done in the same situation.

            His daughter innocently chats about her mother buying an expensive new car recently,new clothes and flat screen TV (for herself not the child). His DAUGHTER repeats the disparaging remarks she hears from her mother about her father being “poor” and it takes a LOT of self control not to react with anger.

            She does NOT rub her husband’s nose in it – she supports him because, like I already said – he’s a wonderful father and husband.

            My husband and I certainly don’t discredit the man who has made our daughter so happy. We, too, struggled on one income with the belief our kids would be the better for it – and they are.

            My BEEF is with the system that allows a trampy ex wife such much power and him so little recourse.

            If you find that “wrong” on my part, I don’t care.

  • Aimee McGee

    Thanks for the responses, I think it’s interesting getting different perspectives. I see the misandry of the family courts as being more intimately linked to male disposability than to female hypergamy. Although some women on leaving seek to ‘upgrade’, there is a family court attitude of ‘the kids don’t need fathers’, which is what has done the SO, the most damage. On the hypergamy I’ve always felt this affects men on the dating scene, and self-respect permitting yourself to fail the shit tests is the cure there.
    Tawil, I’m so pleased to read about your Dad…it is my dearest wish Dad will get that time for himself to reflect on the riches of small pleasures, but I fear it will not happen

    • Astrokid

      I dunno why you are fixated on hypergamy alone. There are a whole lot of issues with human nature.. both male and female.. that have come together to create the mess we are in. And the MRM needs to talk about all of them…else there’s no understanding of how we got to where we are.

      Some of the issues with femininity are:
      Rotating polyandry
      (sensitivity to) Objectification (which causes women to treat attention from unwanted males like dirt)
      Neoteny (which results in innate sexism.. treating women with kidgloves)

      I have an acronym for this: GROANS, and a slogan to boot: “A woman GROANS and the state white-knights, so I MGTOW”.
      I will be happy to see someone identify the constellation of issues with male nature and come up with a handy acronym.

      • typhonblue

        Politicians and judges are mostly male; female hypergamy doesn’t explain their behaviour in sacrificing other men. Male disposability does.

        • Suz

          They are mostly feminist-indoctrinated males, who sacrifice the more “disposable” males *on behalf of* female hypergamy.

          Isn’t it bad enough that disposable males are sacrificed for profit and in war? Sacrificing them for women’s haaapiness is utterly depraved.

        • Skeptic

          I disagree.
          On a subconscious level some men with power dispose of other men to gain favor in the eyes of hypergamous women making them their harem members.
          So I think there is a link between female hypergamy and male disposability.
          I seem to remember you and/or GirlWritesWhat saying something like that on aVfM radio show recently and thinking to myself “Good, she gets it”.

          • typhonblue

            Yes but… those men aren’t saying to themselves ‘I want a powerful husband.’

            Hypergamy is not their motive.

            Their motive is to dispose of other men in order to generate power and attract the approval of women.

            Now, women can challenge their hypergamous instincts and should, but the only thing men have control over are their own motives.

            That’s what I’m getting from the post.

        • Bev

          In Australia there is another aspect. Judges are expected “volunteer” to complete a training course which outlines feminist legal theory and feminists viewpoints on DV, marriage, rape etc. Only the feminist view is presented and no counter theory is presented. I have seen snippits of these “packages” and its feminism 101. Now while a judge cannot be removed easily from the bench (no overt threat) there is a covert threat to toe the line and see things from a womans (feminist) point of view.

        • Skeptic

          I think it’s BOTH men and women treating men as disposable. Allot of men do it to become the alpha who gets the women. Allot of women do it to discard the betas in favor of snagging the alpha.
          So we’re talking about two sides of the same coin.
          So my point being female hypergamy isn’t something seperate from male disposability because it includes females disposing of males as a function. I don’t think that can be argued against.
          Here’s a practical example to illustrate the point.
          It’s an experiment I have done myself with exactly the results I spell out below.
          A guy lets himself go ragged, not shaving for several days, gets dressed in old worn out gardening clothes and goes public.
          Then the next day, shaved and spruced up, wearing an expensive suit and watch he goes to the same public place.
          What changes, apart from his appearance?
          Here’s what –
          The ‘lower class’ man gets in a sense disposed of by women, as they don’t even notice him. He is all but invisible.
          To them he doesn’t even exist. Disposable.
          By contrast the ‘high class’ man receives lots of female attention. You know what the opposite of word disposable is? – usable.
          Now do you see what I’ve driving at? how female hypergamy contains male disposability.
          Indeed I’ll a step further and say that male disposability is to some extent instilled in men by women – remember the hand that rocks the infant boy’s cradle and schools him in his earlier years sets the emotional template of (conditions) the boy who eventually becomes the man – prone to disposing of himself and other men.

          The questions then that arises in my mind seeing this dynamic is how to evoke compassion towards men from women who dispose of men by enacting apex fallacy behavior. And how to evoke compassion towards men from men who dispose of other men in blind competition for pussy.
          Interestingly the answers to overcoming early imprinted patterns of emotion and behavior often lie in psychotherapy whereby people explore the conditioning they received earlier in life in order to overcome it.

      • Aimee McGee

        Astrokid, love both mnemonic and slogan. I laughed out loud.
        This was trying to condense my thoughts on the AVfM news interview, however I acknowledge the other issues you raise and would love to see more articles.
        As an aside I have a very pronounced face shape that meant I lost the neoteny look before I was 10, so had years of being ‘plain’, ‘characterful’ or ‘interesting’. Now in my 40s I’m comfortable in my own skin and those unfavourable comparisons no longer sting, but the whole ‘neotany pass’ does interest me.

        • Astrokid

          I listened to the fidelbogen show, and in the framework of a ‘first principles’ to come, they say its preferable to tone down certain rhetoric coz it can come across as anti-women.. we can wait for that article to show up on AVFM and discuss it then, but my first reaction to that was.. what GWW said in her ‘how feminism conned society’ vid.. where she explains why even if we just talk about male aspects only.. such as male disposability, it WILL be viewed as anti-female. Thats her experience. I invite to go check it out.

          Also, Glenn Sacks has followed this approach for decades now.. IIRC he has an article on exactly this subject.. dont bash the wimmin. He met with very limited success.

          I dont really want to say this is what the MRM should do or that.. But I am reminded of Shrugging Misandry
          No matter what we do, the bottomline is:
          Women’s whining = pursuit of justice.
          Men’s pursuit of justice = whining.

          Finally, I will just quote AngryHarry

          Quite simply, the evidence and the facts are always twisted to advantage women (and government) at the expense of men. And, in practice, one cannot escape from this by appealing to some kind of perfect formula or theory.

          Indeed, in practice, our rulers simply try to minimise the amount of fuss and aggravation that people cause them while forever attempting to empower and enrich themselves further.

          That’s the way that it works out there.

          The upshot of all this is that in order to change the situation that prevails – e.g. the anti-male laws, the misandric rhetoric, etc etc – there needs to be applied a considerable amount of heat. The ‘evidence’ on its own is not enough. The data and the statistics are not enough. The ‘science’ is not enough.

          And, of course, a truly excellent example of this derives from the fact that despite the huge negative effects on societies that arise from fatherlessness – effects which are clearly attested to by the evidence that surrounds us as well as by the data and the statistics – western governments have continually created laws and policies that actually encourage fatherlessness!

          And, loosely speaking, there are two main reasons for this.

          Firstly, the feminists have generated more heat than have fathers. Secondly, fatherlessness and the breakdown of families empowers those in government; e.g. see Why Governments Love Feminism.

          In conclusion, therefore, my view is that until ‘men’ start undermining, or threatening to undermine, very significantly those forces and those groups of people who are the cause of the problems that beset them, they will achieve very little.

          • Kimski

            “Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.

            Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”

            ~ Bruce Lee.

            This little quote also extends to the fact, that the harder you hit water, the harder it will hit back. There’s a time for fighting viciously without compromise, and there’s a time for ‘seeping through the cracks’.

    • Skeptic

      The point about the femily caught$ and female hypergamy is this – females have proven they will routinely trade a husband who is going through a rough patch in for separation through the ‘court’ and welfare payments.
      They allow the state to supplant fathers or another way of putting it is they make the state substitute father.
      So I think it’s still a form of hypergamy.
      Let’s say for example Joe gets laid off from his construction job. His wife Lucy gets itchy about this and ends up getting a divorce, because she know full well doing so she’ll get more money from the state doing so and also she can, free of Joe who’s been dumped, look for another provider wallet.
      I’ve seen this female dynamic enough times now to accept it is a deeply ingrained part of womanhood.

  • droobles

    Great Post!

  • Darryl X

    “If you hate, you let those who wish you harm win.”

    For some of us, hate is the only thing we have left to keep us warm on cold nights. Just saying the obvious.

    For many, especially those not in the US, problems with women are an inconvenience. In the US they are in a significant percent of cases life-threatening.

    Although I think your article provides appropriate distinction between hypergamy and male disposability, I think it soft-pedals the consequences and significance of that disposability.

    It kinda does what a lot of feminists do: portrays the practical consequences for men of feminist criminal behavior as an emotional problem of men to distract from the criminal behavior of feminists.

    • Aimee McGee

      DarrylX, I totally get your point that I’ve not emphasised male disposability enough. I’m hoping to get together an article around some individual cases in my work that illustrates a mindset of male disposability in healthcare, but I’m struggling to anonymise the cases enough.
      I suspect if I were male I would be a MGTOW, and this is reflected in my attitude to hypergamy, which is ‘drop the rope’ early. This of course does not solve for those already in relationships with lasting responsibilities

    • lensman

      Despite living with an HCP wife who makes my life miserable, and despite getting severely dissapointed by women, I still, in my heart of hearts can’t bring myself to hate them.

      The reason is simple… women, as currently raised and socialized, aren’t evil. They are children. Five-year-olds living in grown up bodies.

      And there is nothing more pure, and more cruel than a child.

      That, in itself, wouldn’t be a problem, but society today gives those children the power to destroy lives without any consequences for themselves. They can sign contracts that cause debt, they can point fingers and get men arrested, and they can vote for politicians who can makes their whims into law. Which means that those children are fucking up everything for everybody else.

      Do I hate women for this?

      No. I couldn’t hate a child that never learned how to behave properly and become a functional member of society. I don’t loathe the child, I pity it.

      That doesn’t absolve women of blame or makes me even less weary of them however.

    • Aimee McGee

      Wanted to add; don’t mistake anger for hate. Nothing wrong with well channelled anger, and that is what can keep me going if I’ve got a tough piece of advocacy going. Often I’m angry that a human is being treated badly by another when I go into an advocacy session. However, I seldom hate the individual I’m up against. In a fair few years of doing advocacy, I’ve only a couple of times had individuals on the other side who are genuinely nasty and malicious. Mostly, they are either ignorant or bound by some financial or other constraint, often which has been misapplied.
      Fitch Base approaches my hate threshold…but I am not going to give her that power over me. And she hates me for my refusal to play the hate game.

      • lensman

        Look man, I get where you are coming from, I really do. But speaking of “disposal” and “annihilation”, and letting your hatred take you to a really dark place is definitely not the way to go.

        No, I am not going to use the “If you advocate for these sort of things, then you are no better than the RadFems” argument. Instead, I am going to pose a question.

        What is violence, or talk of violence, going to accomplish?

        Apart from labeling the MRM as a “public threat” and pushing a noble cause, true equality between the sexes back into the fringe, I mean. Paul Elam said it best in one of the podcasts: It only takes one idiot talking about “disposal” and “annihilation” to fuck things up and undo all the progress which has been made so far.

        Violence is only going to beget even more violence, even more restrictive legislation, and the “Good Men” that lead countries are going to look at posts here to justify “preventative arrests” and “shutting down of dangerous/hatefull websites”.

        Activism, like the one happening here is AVfM may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but, as the recent cases of Mary Kellet and Lori B. Jackson have shown, it actually works and gets things done.

        Overgrown, narcisissist children may not be able to grasp basic moral ethics, but they are able to understand consequences -which is why sites like “register-her” are so important.

        • Darryl X

          I was not writing of violence. Usually, exposing someone’s evil behavior is enough to drive them to their own destruction. I disagree that they are able to understand consequences. That has been an important dilemma. It’s why we are where we are. Failure of feminists to understand the consequences of their actions. You can ignore the truth but not its consequences. But evil people do not relate those consequences to their behavior.

        • Paul Elam

          I wish I had time to keep up with all the comments. And I wish I had seen the one by Darrly X or been advised of it sooner.

          Instead, I found out here:

          Darryl is no longer in the building. Not this one anyway. I don’t know what it is, but at any given time there always seems to be one ignorant ass motherfucker that has to put a shit light on everything we do with a virulent mouth.

          I know, the damage done in this crazy culture is enough to drive many good men to dark places. And I really hope Darryl gets some help with focusing his anger in a way that does not drag him down. But I cannot allow it to drag this place down.

          Thank you, Lensman, for stepping up and saying what needed to be said.

          • Suz

            Thanks, Paul. One of these days I’m going to ask you how to recognize the difference (among online commenters) between reasonable people whose toes occasionally start to cross the line, and unreasonable people who occasionally present themselves as reasonable.
            Like Bombay, upthread. I usually like his comments and I felt like a nit-picking nag pinning down minutiae, and I certainly didn’t want to go all Team Woman on behalf of Cotton, but I didn’t like the tone set by his attack. Where is the line between censoring dissenting opinions, and preserving credibility – which is what allows us to make progress?
            I read all over the Manoshpere and I keep coming back to this site (and working for it) because it’s one of the few places that consistently remains ‘above the fray.’ You never allow legitimate anger to devolve into personal vitriol. I have no idea how.

            I’ll stop fawning now; I have some surfing to do in WV and ME.

          • Paul Elam

            Unfortunately, it is just a judgment call, but I feel somewhat better about making it since everything on this site comes back to me, personally.

            I look at this stuff the same way most people look at porn. No one can define it, but everyone knows it when they see it (mostly). Some cases are more blatant than others.

            This one was way over the line. I really enjoyed a lot of his posts, but saying “They must be disposed of without mercy and with extreme prejudice,” is clearly inciting. Anyone who has ever seen Apocalypse Now knows what those words were intended to convey.

            There are nut cases on the fringes of all movements. I am not saying Darryl is one of them. I don’t think he is. But his language appeared to be intentionally designed to appeal to someone with the same anger and less psychological stability.

            This is not just about image or worrying about comment mining. I do not want it on my conscience at all that someone might be inspired to an act of violence by reading something on this site.

            We do a lot of edgy stuff, including some very edgy satire, but we do make it clear that it is satire; clear enough I think that the only risk is comment mining from people who know it is satire when they take it out of context. Risking that is fine with me, as we already know we are dealing with liars (read Futrelle).

            But this Darryl had not a hint of satire or qualification in his comment.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I read the comment and apologize for not complaining or bringing it to your attention.

            I realize how inured I’ve become to this type of rhetoric. Usually it’s directed at a man who screwed up, and roundly applauded.

            It just registered as an annoyance to be ignored, as all hate talk does with me these days. I’ve just realized how jaded I’ve become not to have distinguished unacceptable hate from acceptable hate.

          • Dean Esmay

            It’s amazing how inured you can become to certain shit.

            But just troll through any anti-MRA site and watch the people calling for violence, cheering on suicides, belittling, demeaning, ten times worse than any of this. Do the Stalinist fuckheads ever think twice? No, they don’t have to. They cheered on someone who wanted to kill themselves for fuck’s sake. They consider a man who set himself on fire in protest to be a “terrorist.”

            That’s what evil people look like. And it’s what we’re up against. The trick is to avoid falling into the same pit full of ooze they swim in every day. Very tricky business.

          • Raven01

            You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it.
            Noam Chomsky
            With that as a premise we should have few worries of becoming the monster we fight.

          • Skeptic

            As 100%cotton mentions above, I too realize I’ve become somewhat jaded to the point of ignoring hate-speech.
            In future I’ll try to be more responsive as I don’t want to see aVfM tarnished with dehumanizing commentary.
            A shame that some will fall into that pothole and good on those who saw it and steered us around it.
            I’ve followed some of Daryl X’s postings and gleaned that he’s been through the mincemeat grinder. I’m not excusing his dehumanizing commentary just noting where he’s coming from.
            If you’re reading this Daryl, then best wishes with your healing. You might want to think about issuing aVfM an apology and ask to be readmitted to the community having done so.

          • Sasha

            And me. You’ve actually got to be very self-aware not to let the poison from ‘the other side’ affect your own thoughts. I try to be sympathetic to the anger of men like Darryl, who I can see are working through and trying to make sense of traumatic experiences. If you’re reading this Darryl, then there are many of us who are also making our way through the tunnel. A Shrink 4 Men, if you’ve not been there already, is a good source of help.

      • Aimee McGee

        DarrylX, I spent the 12 years after my divorce wrestling with how to reconcile my experience of evil with my belief that there is ‘that of God in all people’
        I realised that evil people neither listen to the Light indwelling nor seek to honour the Divine in others.
        My stance is far from naieve, this stance is held despite having met some truly evil people on my journey. I had to really grasp the nettle and understand this after being asked by my faith community to work as the area lead for protecting children & vulnerable adults from harm in our congregations. This role requires cool, logic driven calm, not anger and hate. Already, I’ve been called on twice for difficult decisions, which would consume me with hate if I let them.
        I apologise to readers for using religious language here

        • Darryl X

          No, they don’t like references to God and faith on this site. LOL There is no anger and hate from my end. Just resolve to rid the world of evil and deliver those who want to be. But in order for good people to be protected, evil must be exposed and destroyed. Men always get shit for having to do the tough jobs. To be able to grasp the nettle as you put it. Grasping the nettle is men’s work. Not women’s.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          “after being asked by my faith community to work as the area lead for protecting children & vulnerable adults from harm in our congregations.”

          What in the world does that mean?

        • Aimee McGee

          @100% cotton,
          Under the statutory requirements of the Charities Commision, all charitable organisations must have policies and proceedures on safeguarding vulnerable adults and children, to prevent abuse.

          I’m the person in our area (7 congregations) who has the responsibility to train on our polices and proceedures, and I am also the first point of call when there is a disclosure or a concern about the care of someone who might be at risk of harm. I also would have a role coordinating the support and care for anyone who did disclose while the appropriate authorities did their investigations.
          So far, we have had two concerns, both of which were dealt with “in-house” through pastoral support, and I have trained around 25 members of the community in the understanding of the principals of safeguarding. I’ve also advised two congregations on establishing safe practice for children’s meetings. I’m currently working with our overseers (the closest thing we have to church wardens) to look at how we should ensure transparency when a member of a congregation acts in the financial or legal interest of a vulnerable adult who is not a family member.
          When I was appointed, those on nominations committee were well aware of my stance that false accusation was an overlooked problem and needed to be activly confronted, particularly when there was relationship breakdown involved. They still appointed.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          We’re talking predator panic I presume?

          • Aimee McGee

            No, this includes preventing carers becoming exhausted and acting out of frustration and exhaustion.
            Sadly, churches are vulnerable to predators, we’ve had several instances in the wider Quaker community

  • Dr. F


    Thanks for this write here.

    Another contribution that causes interesting discussion and what a grand thing that is.

    Not so sure it’s a good thing for our detractors, and perhaps that in itself is another grand thing ?

    • Aimee McGee

      Dr F, I really enjoy the level of debate here, and understand the vast range of experience and attitudes in the MRM since I’ve started posting. It’s all good…diversity is a good survival tool when a movement is gaining ground.
      To our detractors, let them be dismayed. As a woman posting here, I feel privelaged to participate in male space, and I feel accepted as a human being first and a woman second. That is true equality

  • Codebuster

    It seems that feminists were right about one thing… marriage really is prostitution. But instead of prostitution as something that women resort to out of dire necessity (the feminist interpretation), we see that that’s exactly how women want it… ie, prostitution is just business as usual.

  • TheBiboSez

    My Dearest Beloveds –

    Perhaps those of us who need to talk about the wretched harridans in our lives could start a new forum – call it, “AV4M+”. For clarity, we could call this old forum here “AV4M*”.

    The “+”, for “Plus Female Hypergamy & Male Disposibility & Female Perpetual Victimhood & Female Priviledge & Female Criminality & Male Activism…” – you know, all the stuff that makes feminists clutch their pearls and shit their thongs.

    Then, dead husk of AV4M* could merge seamlessly with the Good Men Project, and all will be right with the world.

    And please, pay no attention to those whom, like GWW, point out that when wymynz enter men’s spaces, the first thing they do is try to change the rules to force those spaces to be more psychologically safe for those infants who need to be trigger warned lest their widdle feewings get tweeked.

    And that is what the BiboSez.

    Bless you.

    • lensman

      Can we bring out box-cutters and start tearing down feminist, pro-women posters? Or start filing false DMCA claims?

    • Perseus


  • shmiggen

    This article addresses a problem within the MRM, the problem being men are their own worst enemies. This movement won’t go anywhere if men can’t keep cool. While I understand men need a place to vent, we need to bear in mind unfocused anger is useless.

    How often do you find yourself enjoying someone’s sob story? I know I turn around and walk away as fast as I can the minute I hear someone complaining of how rough they have it. Now, there are times I won’t. I read the Spearhead daily because Welmer’s articles are lucid and thoughtful. That’s the key.

    Was that the message of your article, Aimee, or did I totally miss it?

    • Aimee McGee

      Not 100% but it is a valid point too.
      My feeling is we need safe (read non-public) spaces for men to vent feelings that may or may not be male only depending on collective group decisions, but when it comes to our outwards (read public) messages then we need to think smart about how we are perceived.
      I do lots of health behavior change work and I’ve got a low sympathy threshold for ‘Ain’t it awful’ stories when a client has reasons they can’t change to do with other folk around them, I will cut in fairly quickly and say ‘its tough, but what can YOU do?’
      Only thing we can guarantee to change is ourselves. I can say ‘I don’t like this. Please don’t do it.’ Sometimes the other person will change, but I can’t control that. If they don’t I either have to put up or walk away, and my no BS threshold means I walk far sooner than before.

      • Darryl X

        “Only thing we can guarantee to change is ourselves.”

        “My feeling is we need safe (read non-public) spaces for men to vent feelings…”

        I understand this philosophy and it’s something most of us ( I would think – certainly myself) learned while playing in a sandbox at the age of six. But it applies to feelings and emotions and not practical reality.

        This philosophy you promote in your article is one that has been used by many psychopaths and malignant narcissists to excuse their criminal behavior, blaming the practical suffering of its victim’s by portraying it as a problem with his feelings in response to the criminal behavior by the psychopath.

        And thereby dismissing or distracting from the psychopath’s criminal behavior. Basically blaming the victim for not being able to accommodate the criminal’s behavior instead of blaming the criminal for not being able to stop itself from imposing upon its victim. One thing that makes psychopaths and malignant narcissists tick is their ability to condemn their victim for not acquiescing to its manipulation. “I’m angry because you won’t let me defraud you. I’m going to punish you now.” Our entire institution of law, politics, society and finance is based upon this single premise.

        It is also a philosophy which only applies to circumstances or situations when or where a man CAN change himself without sacrificing or compromising his integrity and his manhood and fatherhood. When confronted by feminism, I’m not aware of any instances in which that is possible. That’s the dilemma many men face today. Basically they have two choices, acquiesce and impose upon others and adopt a philosophy of pure evil or die. Not much of a choice.

        It’s nice and diplomatic to write and believe the only thing we can change in response to our practical dilemma (imposed upon us by someone else) is ourselves. And I’m all about having a good attitude and remaining optimistic. Believe you me, I can do that better than most. You don’t hear me complaining about my feelings in response to practical imposition upon me by others. And certainly not emotional imposition by others. I learned to ignore such nonsense decades ago.

        But what about the practical imposition and its consequences. You can ignore the truth but not its consequences. The economy of the devoloped world (including Australia for all you Aussies who haven’t felt it yet – you will because it’s coming) is collapsing not because of the emotional impact upon men of feminist practical imposition but because of the practical impact.

        In the US, seven-percent of all adult men eligible for work (ie not retired) have been condemned to poverty and slavery and many to the street and prison and even death because of the practical imposition of feminism. And the consequences for them have been dismissed as their inability tor unwillingness to change themselves. Most of those will never be able to retire or live above the threshold for poverty.

        They will never get the medical care or other benefits they need from programs to which they contributed disproportionately more than those who will get them. When you write that the only thing these men can change is themselves, what changes do you recommend these men make? There are no mechanisms or opportunity for these men to improve their circumstances. Those have been denied them.

        I’m not sure what Dr F means by detractors but I think my comments at least are relevant to the article and are relevant points concerning the failure of the MRM to advance really during the past forty-four years. An important obstacle has and continues to be the misrepresentation of the circumstances of men in an emotional context instead of a practical one. It seems to me that everytime a man tries to illustrate or express his concerns about the circumstances of himself or other men, those concerns are misportrayed as emotional problems of himself instead of real practical problems that resulted from the practical imposition upon him by feminists. Maybe in other countries that is the way it is. But not the US. And some other places I can think of.

        Damn the patronizing. Feminism is a hate movement. But it is also a lot more. Like the extermination, enslavement, imprisonment and sexual mutilation of men and children. Don’t shoot the messenger. The problems that many men experience as a consequence of feminism go way beyond those which they can change in themselves. “What can they do?”

        It really does require a dramatic change in the context in which men exist. I’m a man. And I’m pretty fuckin’ awesome because of it. If the country and the society I live in doesn’t like it, then they are going to have some pretty big problems. Looks like they already are.

        And without me and other men like me, those problems aren’t going to be fixed any time soon. So aside from changing myself, I think others are going to have to make some pretty big changes or else they are going to suffer the consequences of their imposition upon me. I’m not changing. Forget all this nonsense about feelings. It’s solipsism. Men are about fixing the problems imposed upon them and everyone else. Not feelings. I don’t care about anyone’s feelings because they are a slippery slope vulnerable to manipulation. They are impractical. Utterly useless if not downright destructive.

        I’ve spent my life listening to women whine about their feelings. I don’t need any of them telling them me about mine. Especially when there are far more important concerns.

    • Augen

      Awhile back … not a very long while, I almost swore off MRM because there seemed to be an avid resistance to the assertion that there is a problem with having an online support group and being a political movement, that there is a difference between rightwing libertarianism and a universal human rights movement.

      Not that there shouldn’t be support groups, but you don’t see the Democratic party hosting “this is how my republican neighbor screwed me, let’s all boo at him” chat groups. Parties organize and operate. Emoting is for somewhere else.

      Three things kept me. Stopped reading the spearhead. Stopped listening to chapin (yeah i know some of you are fans but callin it as I sees it, tear away the goofy snear, funny sarcasm laced ah hominem and probe and those things we call arguments actually intended to persuade, …purty scarce) … and, around the same time this site seemed to change focus.

      There has been a change. This site is trying to be serious. We can’t be a serious political movement taking on corrupt DAs, corrupt or inept police and Delaware AGs or corrupt West Virginia family court judges, and be a venting session support group or cover for the Tea Party.

      We’ve already moved in that direction. I suspect most regard it as a good thing.

      • Dean Esmay

        At some point you gotta decide if you want to bitch or if you want to get shit done. You also got to decide: do I care about one political party or movement, or do I care about THIS ISSUE most of all?

        I care about THIS ISSUE most of all, and that requires people of all stripes who are agreed on these issues, people in any and all political parties willing to work on them. Period. Or so I see it. That’s why I won’t belabor you with my own political views. Does it matter if I’m a Democrat or a Republican? A right-winger or a left-winger or a socialist or a libertarian? Does it matter? Or am I on your side on these issues and willing to work with you on them regardless of all that? I say it’s the latter.

        • shmiggen


          I’m with you. I really don’t think much can get done when one is incensed. Let me use a sports analogy. It’s often thought that when boxers are in the ring, they are full of rage and fury, and that they hate their opponent. In fact, the opposite is true. Anger would sap them of their strength and they wouldn’t last more than a few rounds. As it turns out, boxing is a highly technical sport. Punches are timed, milliseconds count. To succeed, a boxer has to be cool.

          My point is, I would rather win these battles we have with organized feminism than lose. But perhaps we have to do it incrementally, methodically, with poise and deliberation. Just as in boxing, a punch thrown doesn’t count if it doesn’t connect. We need to remain focused on the bigger picture. It’s why Paul left Men’s News Daily. To them, it really did matter that you were a Republican. To be a Democrat was to be with the enemy. At some point, it’s easy to see that alienating one half of all men is not a winning strategy. We need men from all walks of life – from the lawyer to the line cook. But most importantly of all, we need to remain focused on our only job, our one true mission – to put men’s issues on par with women’s. (ie all universities required to house a Men’s Resource Center, full funding for Male Studies in all universities, a male contraceptive pill, Male Abortion Rights, otherwise known as Legal Paternal Surrender, default joint custody in the event of divorce, the abolition of alimony, the implementation of the ERA with a female draft, etc etc etc)

          • Dean Esmay

            Yep. And I don’t care how many people get mad at me, we fucking NEED WOMEN.

            I don’t mean we need to “include women’s issues.” Fuck that, we have a billion groups for that, including a ton of groups who claim to speak for “women” when they really just speak for themselves (N.O.W. comes to mind). No, I mean we need women’s support and insight.

            And I don’t mean little wilting lilly women who are going to cry because someone used some rough language or said something they don’t want to hear.

            If you’re a woman who can’t hear the words “some women can be serious manipulative lying cunts” without getting outraged or dissolving into tears or screaming “misogyny!!” we don’t need your help.

            No, we need women with fucking balls. And oh look: we got some. More all the time, in fact. Why? Cuz they got brothers. And sons. And fathers. And male lovers and male friends. Men in their lives who they’ve seen get fucked over by this society and want to see it fixed.

            I’ll be even more blunt: I will get in the trenches and fight side by side with a woman like Tara Palmatier or Typhon Blue at my side sooner than I will with 10 MGTOWs who do nothing but bitch and moan about how evil women are. Why? Because to be blunt, she’s useful and they aren’t.

            Nothing against MGOTWs. But those women are useful. You guys aren’t, IF (I said “if”) you aren’t going to do anything more than complain. (If you want to give constructive criticism or, y’know, actually help out, that’s a different story, welcome aboard then.)

            If Paul Elam told me “we don’t want women as integral parts of A Voice for Men,” I would tell him “well good luck with that, I’ll see y’all later.”

            Furthermore, if he told me I had to be an atheist, or, I had to be religious, or, I had to be conservative, or I had to be libertarian, or I had to be liberal, or whatever, I’d also say “well good luck with that. Bye.”

            Remember it’s not “the” voice for Men, first of all, and second off, “For” has two meanings, and the way I’ve always read it as meaning “IN FAVOR OF.”


            That means black men brown men yellow men green men purple men gay men straight men bisexual men liberal men conservative men moderate men smart men stupid men average men. It means MEN: WE ARE FOR THEM. Because they are good, they are in trouble, and they need our help.

            And we can’t win it with men alone. Know why? Most people, they’re women. At least in this part of the world. In America, 10 million more women voted than men in 2008 and that likely will be the case again this year. So what do you want to do? Become like the radfem Lesbian Separatists and cut yourself off from the entire other sex for life? Or do you want to work with whoever will work for you as long as they’re on the same side as you?

            With all respect, if you’re—and I mean generic “you,” not any person in particular—if you’re too stupid to know that women are an important part of the struggle, just like non-Jews have been integral to helping Jews, just like whites were integral to ending slavery and getting blacks their civil rights, hell, just like feminists needed men to get a lot of their agenda enacted–if you’re too dumb to see we need the other sex’s help and welcome them (so long as they understand that it’s men’s and boys’ issues that’s our focus), then frankly, I find you worthless and hope you will wander off to some other site where you can get with your fellow radical Male Separatists and sit around bitching about women. Good luck and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Since you mentioned Chapin, much as I love the guy (and I do) as far as I’m concerned, he’s part of the problem, not part of the solution.

        I subscribed to his channel, but was kicked off very shortly afterward, with the remark “We don’t need guys like you on here”.

        It …wasn’t cool.

        It was odd to be disrespected like that, and not as a woman, but as a man ( he called me “guy” I’m presuming he thought I was male).

        He was promoting right wing politics as the ONLY way any male should vote, and I simply pointed out how enthusiastically right wingers promote male incarceration. He had the usual “ha ha ha don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” .

        We DO, inexplicably, have the world’s largest male prison population,with it’s massive scale abuse, and untold numbers of disenfranchised males banned from voting in elections because of it…

        … his response was to boot me and delete my posts.

        Right Wing guys – please, understand, I do not promote “menz gotta stick together right or wrong” tribal herd think.

        But…this is flipping ridiculous.

        There is an underlying current of “man hate” and it’s not coming just from “evil” women.

        Even knowing the proliferation of false DV and rape accusations, the idiotic failure of the drug “war” and the family court debacle it’s mind blowing to hear a MAN on this site bleating that idiotic statement “If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime”.


        We can explore women and their motives til the cows come home, but once in awhile it’s time to turn that disinfecting spotlight on male enablers, and I’m not talking about “manginas”, white knights or pussy beggers.

        I’m talking about the power enablers: Judges, attorneys, politicians and those with political clout pulling the strings behind the scenes to the destruction of other men. I’m talking about advertisers, newscasters, and movie makers.

        I’m talking about well intentioned MRM guys who aren’t even aware of their own hidden bias.

        I’m talking about becoming aware it’s not just in others, but in yourself – identifying it, and calling people on it when it’s appropriate.

        …even when it’s someone popular and well liked.

        • shmiggen

          Don’t sweat that, Cotton. Chapin must know by now that his ego has relegated him to the dustbin of history. I don’t say that with smugness. It’s just a fact that you will never succeed if you tell men they must follow you or else. To tell men they must register Republican in order to be an MRA is a fool’s game, and I believe he knows that. It’s just that pride will make anyone double down before admitting they’re wrong.

          • http://none universe

            In terms of voting in the U.S. 2016 election perhaps what remains is whether any polared party is to support and adhere to the rightful interpretation of their respective governing federal mandate – in the U.S. The Constitution.
            In future Canadian elections that would be maintaining The British North America Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This Charter does not negate or lessen the effect of the former.
            Elsewhere the same applying to their respective foundational adherences.
            Certainly this maintaining of constitutional principles has been said by others on this site so not a revelation by any means. But involves more work for maintaining a principled standard, if people are in unanimous agreement on such matters, yet better than arbitrary states of quick selfish conveniences.
            Is this what divides adherents to party politics – the suspending and fall-out from the original regulating fundamentals?

  • Perseus

    I appreciate the thought and sentiment expressed here, but I tend to disagree a bit. The nature of the evil hydra we face warrants both spearheaded key battles and also fastidious annihilation of the varied tentacles.

    The double x-chromosome genetic supremacist movement, or DXCGSM, collectively and on an individual basis, has been flagrantly and belligerently slandering, defaming and in all of the most odious ways narrating the image and perception of males for so long that it will take a LOT of counter expression to clean up that cesspool.

    Hypergamy, and topics like it, are important and should be freely, openly and broadly discussed by anyone with interest, anywhere, anytime.

    • Darryl X

      Great point.

    • Bubbles

      Thank you, Perseus! Hypergamy is something young men need to know about.

  • Perseus


    If there was any question about this:
    Democrat Party = Feminist Party = Democrat Party = Feminist Party

    “If this president wins, it will be because there is a tremendous gender gap and women will make up the margin of victory,” said Neera Tanden, president of the liberal research group Center for American Progress and a former adviser to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton. “I feel comforted that there’s a woman at the table.”

    • Augen

      today I did my part for MRM. All state judges from superior to state court in Arizona, once appointed, are subject to retention votes by the general public. So while my kids watched mythbusters on tivo I sat with my laptop and googled every judge withthe term “father’s rights” to see what I could learn before casting my ballot.

      I was sure to vote for those showing fairness, and I cast my vote against any where there were indicators of bias. Sometimes I literally had to read thei judgments because data was so sparse. In one case I voted against a judge on the basis of an opinion he wrote in an appeals case where he vacated the appeal of a man whose wife was awarded sole custody when he showed up for court at 1:30 instead of 9:30. Page afterr page explaining why he should have known the time.
      meanwhile, nothing less at stake than his children’s lives. The man has priorities, and they are shared by his colleagues and its one small thing I can do to show my disapproval.
      BUT…point is, data on judges’ quality is hard to come by. I did eventually find 3 helpful though insufficient sites. The best is the product of an anonymous conservative attorney who seemed concerned with conservative/liberal leanings, and with overall quality. I do give this attorney props for not letting his conservative favor get in the way when there was other good evidence of a quality, fair judge, even if a liberal one.
      however, while this site was useful for being the most complete and data rich, I found it very frustrating that there was simply NO CORRELATION AT ALLL between his ranking on political leaning and judges’ reportedd treatment of fathers.
      Sometimes a judge was ruled conservative (good by this guy) but he felt it necessay to report that reputable attorneys felt the judge to be biased against men.
      other times he roundly condemned the judge as unacceptably liberal and “almost certainly a democrat” but the father’s rights website held the same judge up as an example for how other judges should be.

    • caimis.vudnaus.

      While I truly believe feminism is an ideology that persecutes men too often it is portrayed as the arch enemy of men.

      This is not the case, feminism has been successfully ruining the lives of men for 60 to 200 years, depending on your definition of feminism, but I ask were men’s lives any better 200 years ago before any form of feminism?

      Democrats may be in bed with feminists but Republicans not only placate feminists half the time but when they specifically go against feminism it is not for the benefit of men but to put forward “traditional” values which have enslaved men to women for all of known and unknown history.

      Do not fall for the either or trap of politics. Democrats may be more firmly in bed with feminists but that’s only because Republicans are in a ménage à trois with feminism and traditionalism. Neither party cares about you as a man.

      • Darryl X

        Yes, the lives of men AND women were truly better before feminism. No matter how you define it. Actually, feminism is all that existed before four-thousand years ago. During the past four-thousand years, feminism has reasserted itself many times. It was fundamental to fall of the Roman Empire. Feminism is anathema to civilization. In order for civilization to exist, feminism must not. It is primitive social organizing. Whenever there is no feminism, men and women are much better off. Despite what women think which is the problem. They don’t.

      • Darryl X

        Republicans and Democrats both promote and profit from feminism. There is no distinction between the two parties, which is why the US has continued and will continue to decline until feminism and feminists are destroyed.

        • Darryl X

          To elaborate on my last post above and as an example, Democrates created the mechanism of chronic victimhood for women to divorce their husbands without sense or reason. Republicans created the mechanism with which the Divorce Industry may affect that divorce for them. Real men with a conscience and not willing to take advantage of either dishonest mechanism were screwed by both.

      • Dean Esmay

        Glad you noticed. Former Republican here. One of the reasons I say “former” is because of exactly that. Republicans will say nice things about you, but if anything you’re more disposable to them if you for one second fail in their definition of “being a man.”

        We need supporters in both parties. Because we sure as hell have enemies in both parties, even if some of them have that sugary sweet poison that looks up to men and tells them they’re brave and noble and strong and courageous… and disposable.

    • by_the_sword

      …Republican party=white knight party, Democratic party= white knight party. Neither repubs or dems give a crap about your rights and will eagerly sell your rights away for a chance to be in power.

  • Roger O Thornhill

    I’m relatively new here to the AVFM site, and I’m personally disgusted!
    All I hear from all of you morning, noon and night is Logic, Logic, Logic!
    Seriously this new fangled logic you have here, is oh so sweet to my eyes and ears!!!

    I have also found that the Red Pills freshen my breath and give me day long confidence to say NO to strange wimmin demanding I help them change their flat car tyres or carry heavy things for them.

    A great read from you once again Aimee!


    The most important word we can teach our young men is….no.

    One must keep their word when they say no by following through.

    No means no…

    • Aimee McGee

      YES….I mean no means no, you know!

  • Bubbles

    Men need to know about hypergamy. We’ve been raised to believe that women are the model monogamous innocent victims of the male libido, and it’s false. With all due respect to Fidelbogen, educating men about hypergamy is important. He specializes in his own angle, and it’s a wicked good angle, but hypergamy education has its place in the MRM.

    • Augen

      The hormone raging 20something with ZERO forebrain head knowledge to counterbalance the endocrine storms sees hotness, Megan Fox, Jessica Gnomes, Angelina Jolie 15 years ago … he doesn’t even have to think “I have to have that” … “I have to have that” comes in the subprogramming, before conscious thought is required. The motivation to hotness is like water around a fish asking “what is water?”
      if he is beta programmed he will suplicate. If he’s alpha programmed he arouses. Either way, he asks nothing of women. Taken in macro, women are pedestalized and infantilized simultaneously.
      It wont be enough, but men need to know about women and hypergamy same way women need to know what makes men tick. It’s basic survival knowledge. My sons may repeat some of my mistakes but it will not be for lack of instruction and warning from dad.

  • Klar

    “he struggles to slow down and be looked after, but then settles down and appreciates that he is given space to be free to think, dream and do things at a gentle pace”

    had me thinking a lot about how someone, who has spent 30 years in a structure, can easily think freely.

    There have gotta be disconnects, pain and simple survival tactics that come into play for someone shown freedom after so many years of bending the mind to cope with chains.

    How does one admit to oneself that more authority over a relationship should have been applied? when such words were discouraged by society and sacrificing everything, including life, was the expectation?

    A brief holiday from the grind is great, and if more people did what Aimee does it would change the world.

    I recently spoke with a friend of 40 years – well educated with a dedicated father who just died and who I knew well. We were discussing casualties in the workplace when with a straight face she explained how when technology gets better that will be the appropriate time for women to enter and until then if there’s a death then there should be more funds going to the poor widow. I was dumbfounded. My 40-year friendship went down the tubes right there and then – this was too much.

    Male disposability entered my mind before I even knew what such big words meant. Asking other 8 year olds why TV always makes it clear only men are cannon fodder, or later about the term ‘women and children’, and on it goes…

    All of the issues raised here are important but I think the formerly taboo topic of male disposability needs to be recognized as the key societal attitude responsible for so much destruction.

  • bob

    Sorry Aimee. Hypergamy is front and center in understanding WTF is going on with 99.999% of women.

    The knowledge of hypergamy and it’s many implications is one of the most essential ingredients of the Red Pill.

    Without knowing hypergamy, you don’t understand why assholes get laid, while nice guys get fucked.

    Without understanding hypergamy, you don’t understand why every fucking thing that 99.999% (conservatively) of women say and do is a lie.

    To fail to teach a young man the dangers of hypergamy – and to condemn the women who fail to control their own hypergamy, as traditions used to do – is prepare young boys for butchery.

    • Suz

      I agree with Klar. Hypergamy is a survival trait, and not inherently bad. Hypergamy hopped up on excess is the real problem. We are all vulnerable to temptation; very few people of either sex will resist taking what they are offered. Our social and legal systems simply offer women too much “free” stuff, and demand that men pay for it in every way.

  • Klar


    the hypergamy angle is interesting but has had way too much credit given as some kinda answer to what ails us.

    Your emphasis of it is embarrassing since both men and women have a natural attraction to new stuff, each in their own way – always has and always will be – non sense to bring it up as some kinda ‘new understanding’.

    How individuals control their urges and how society rewards those controls is a key.

    • bob

      Klar, you have missed my points, though you seem to see some of it.

      It’s today’s hypergamy on steroids that I decry:

      – The preference of young women for “bad-boy” “alphas”, especially when ovulating – as proven by both anecdote and science.

      – The preference for, and willing to chase (while destroying an existing family) the Bigger Better Deal.

      Both were inhibited by law and tradition in the past – which I think you mentioned.

      Both are raging unimpeded today.



    “Having your child taught that her “new” Daddy is “rich” and her “other” Daddy is poor(while providing the “fun” money) has gotta hurt.”

    Makes you wonder how the the next generation of women will treat men.

  • Suz

    It’s ALL important: the anger, the behavior analysis, the alternatives, the politics. There is too much useful and important information for just one site or just one focus; if one site attempts to “do it all,” it will do nothing because of infighting. Different men have different priorities, and telling them that there is only one solution, is dishonest and will alienate them.

    I can’t stand it when PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOW take potshots at each other. I’ve learned so much from all three groups, and one thing is certain: no single approach will accomplish much of anything without the other two. There’s not much point in advocating for men’s legal rights if most men don’t see anything wrong with the system; MGTOW and PUA sites teach men how twisted women have collectively become, and how to cope with women, one on one. By the same token, what’s the long term point of GTOW and PUA? Both are viable immediate alternatives to bowing to the system, but they serve the individual, not the future of the community; they both have an element of nihilism. I’m not making a “Man Up” moral judgment on that, but we are a social species with an instinctive need to cooperate and build a safe civilization for our offspring. They address the here-and-now in a practical manner, and their anger and disillusionment appeal to many men who think “activism” is for hippies. For some men, PUA and GTOW will be permanent solutions, but men’s innate altruism will push many more of them toward changing the future for everybody, not just themselves.

    There is a place for bitching and venting; there is a NEED for it, but I personally respect AVfM’s attempts to not get mired in vitriolic grrrl-bashing, because while emotions and philosophy are valid, they aren’t proactive. I also think that for the sake of long term credibility, it’s important for activist organizations to distance themselves from anything that can be construed as “misogyny.” Perceptions might often be false, but they influence people anyway.

    • Darryl X

      It’s very common for women and feminists to misinterpret and misrepresent condemnation of criminal behavior by women and feminists as misogyny. Condemning the crimes women and feminists commit is not the same thing as condemning women. I get this all the time. I’m women-bashing when I’m not doing any such thing. My typical response is that if you don’t want to be condemned for your criminal behavior, then stop committing crimes. And I always make sure they understand that I’d condemn men for the same crimes and it wouldn’t make me a man-basher. (But really the problem here is that men don’t commit as many crimes as women.) Women are incapable of understanding cause and effect which is why they think that it’s women-bashing or misogyny when men condemn them for their crimes. It’s a great feat of mental gymnastics that women are capable of separating themselves from their actions. That’s how they are able to absolve themselves of any guilt when they do evil things. There’s a psychological term for that but I forgot what it was. Dissociation. I forget. There are so many when it comes to women. Your post above almost sounds like you want to be able to absolve women of any responsibility for anything. Accusations of misogyny are common but almost never valid. They are almost always used to cover up the criminal behavior of women. Trying to force women to be responsible and accountable for their crimes is not misogyny. It’s civilized.

      • Suz

        “Accusations of misogyny are common but almost never valid.”
        Exactly. They’re not valid but people believe them due to their emotional appeal. When men’s complaints about women become highly angry and emotional, even when they’re valid, the door is opened. If the statement is emotional, the response will be emotional, and not many people will even bother to look at the reasoning behind the conflicting emotions – they will simply go with their bias.
        I’m not excusing that bias, and I’m not justifying it, I’m saying that is how most people think. It’s a lot easier for them to cry, “misogyny!” at men who refer to women with derogatory terms (I know, Pot-Kettle, I do it too) than at men who civilly discus trends in specific crimes and documented behaviors.

        People’s perceptions are their reality, and we won;t change their perceptions by acting like exactly what they are biased against.

    • Skeptic

      I think you’re building a few strawmen arguments here.
      Men discussing women’s hypergamous character and it’s impact on them ISN’T vitriolic Grrl bashing as you seem to suggest.
      Conversely I think such behavior IS much needed and very proactive.
      For it raises awareness that brings more men into the MRM.
      As to being construed of as being misogynists that’s going to happen anyway as some folks balk at males speaking up for themselves agitating for human rights for men, and try to shame them back into silence with the baseless ‘misogyny’ guilt trip.
      That isn’t going to happen.
      Here’s a though experiment to try.
      Try imagining John the Other NEVER mentioning female hypergamy again.
      Totally ridiculous idea isn’t it?

      • Suz

        I disagree on one point: a great many COMMENTS are vitriolic, and they do bash girls. That’s how many men express their new-found anger and awareness. I do agree that this is proactive in one way – it’s many men’s first ever safe place to vent and learn, and it draws in more men. The downside to that openly expressed anger is that it turns other people off.
        Did you read my first sentence? I’m not condemning PUAs and MGTOW in any way; I’m doing just the opposite. I’m saying that every proactive approach to rebuilding masculinity, is important and valuable.

  • obmon

    This article really pisses me off.

    The entire article, including all the female comments seem to be purely apologetic in nature (as in.. an apology from men to women on how men are going their own way written by a woman. Get your head around that one.

    The point is that men are tired of women’s bullshit and simply refuse to accept or deal with it. Why is an MRM site allowing a woman to apologise for us? I DON’T WANT TO APOLOGISE. How dare you speak on my behalf?

    The point of MGTOW is that they recognize the fact that ALL women LIE. They lie to get what they want. They lie to invade spaces meant for men. They lie to convince us that they are NAWALT. They lie to show us that they agree just so they can take over the argument. They lie so they can lie in the future. It’s like setting anyone who’s listening up for a change later. Like a child doing something nice for mommy so he can tell her later that he broke her favorite vase.

    Man, this pisses me off.


    Only a woman would try to minimize the truth about Hypergamy. Hypergamy is THE reason for the state of the justice system, relationships, etc. EVERYTHING a woman does will ultimately lead to hypergamy.

    Any argument that does not take that as FACT is an argument that is weak and irrelevant.

    • Dean Esmay

      IF you believe that hypergamy is fundamental to female nature and cannot change, and that going your own way and having no relations with women is the only sane choice for any man, then I respectfully submit to you that you’re wasting your time on any men’s rights activist site–this one or probably any other. Because you’ve already made the a priori assumption that nothing can change, activism is irrelevant, and that somehow, change will only come if men en masse all decide to quit and society collapses. If that’s your choice, it’s your choice.

      My belief is that society isn’t going to do that. Those of you who just quit will just remove yourselves from the gene pool and within a generation or two you’ll be gone, and nothing will change, except all the negative trends we see now for men and boys will probably just worsen.

      Me? I’ve got two sons I care desperately about. I don’t want them living lives of solitude unless that’s what they want. I don’t want them living in a legal, social, and educational system that treats them like disposable commodities. I want a better world for them. And that means activism, and that means, amongst other things, cooperation from everybody of all races, creeds, colors, nationalities, sexes, and sexual orientation who share the same goals.

      While you are free to dismiss activism, I won’t.

      • obmon

        I was brought here from another site that was discussing this article. As far as I am concerned, I have accepted the fact that I will never find a woman that can be considered NAWALT. I’m fine with that, more time for me, and when I get old, I’ll volunteer at boys homes and big brother type organizations.

        That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in activism. I simply refuse to accept activism that blatantly disregards the truth about Basic Human Nature and it’s effects on the dynamics of society.

        What exactly do we hope to change, if we don’t address these issues? If we don’t recognize the truth behind our natures, the courts aren’t gonna regain their justice because a bunch of unhappy men are unhappy about it.

        Ignoring hypergamy, or minimizing it as the author has done, merely fuels the fire.

        I am a programmer. I can tell you, in a professional sense, that when I need to solve a coding problem, I go deep down into the bowels of the code to find the error. Otherwise, the solution is just a “hack” not a real solution.

        This article was apologetic, when we should not be apologizing. That was my point. Women who join the MRM have an innate desire to apologize on behalf of men, as if that is what we need to fix the issues at hand.

        • Darryl X

          “I am a programmer. I can tell you, in a professional sense, that when I need to solve a coding problem, I go deep down into the bowels of the code to find the error. Otherwise, the solution is just a “hack” not a real solution.”

          I know what you mean. Many in the MRM believe that the solution to our dilemma is to change the laws or make more laws or create more agencies or bureaucracies or institutions. If the laws which were supposed to do the job before don’t work, what good are more laws going to do? Malignant narcissists abused the old ones for their own personal gain. They’ll just abuse the new ones too. This is not a solution to our problem or worse, it just creates more problems and is what I think you would refer to as a “hack”. They are not a fundamental solution. Like you, I go deep. For this reason I always get accused of being defeatist or unable to understand the problem when really I have a much more comprehensive understanding of it than those complaining about me. I don’t let it bother me. Keep fighting the good fight.

        • Dean Esmay

          As a programmer, you must know then that if you identify the wrong problem, you can waste an endless amount of time on a fix that doesn’t fix anything. You must also know that bad data will give you a bad result most of the time, even if all your code is otherwise perfectly correct.

          The belief that the problem is primarily one of female hypergamy is, I submit, bad data.

          Not that hypergamy does not exist. It does. But it’s much like asserting that Pi=3.2. It’s close to correct, but it isn’t correct. You just aren’t likely to notice until you’ve spun out calculations enough to notice that you’re far akilter from reality.

          I assert firmly that hypergamy is NOT a firmly-embedded-in-the-genes reality. We did not evolve as a tournament species and we are not a tournament species. We were no such things before the agricultural revolution. We were no such then a hundred thousand years ago, and we were no such thing a million years ago. That isn’t how we operate, and any coding done which starts with the base assumption that men endlessly compete for young nubile females and women endlessly compete for the best provider and dump any men who is no longer utilitarian is going to give you lousy long-term results, even if the short-term results look promising. Because there is some truth to that, just like Pi looks a little like 3.2.

          Male disposability is something we have chosen to embrace. It is not a biological predestiny, any more than is the fact that men have a preference for young clear-skinned nubile females causes males to become harem-driven. It’s faulty starting assumptions on which you will build bad code if you accept it at face value.

          • obmon

            and I assert firmly that you have a warped knowledge of evolutionary sociology.

            Also, I NEVER said male disposability is biological predestiny. Quite the opposite. What I actually said was HYPERGAMY is a female trait evident since Homo Habilis.

            Don’t put words in my mouth to suit your argument.

            “It’s faulty starting assumptions on which you will build bad code if you accept it at face value.”

            My starting assumption was that love is beautiful, and as a man, I should seek a loving wife to take care of and provide for. In the same analogy, you can say the bad code was written by non-approved outside consultants with their own agendas.

    • Darryl X

      Great analysis.

    • Aimee McGee

      I am wondering why you think I am speaking on behalf of men? While I recognise I could have been more careful with “I” language, I was seeking to provoke discussion on what seems to me a topic worthy of debate (Do you think I succeeded?)
      I was giving my thoughts based on listening to a radio show and thinking on it in relation to my experiences as a partner and a daughter of men.
      I’m also responding as a woman who has made her own way, in part because I have experienced being treated as “other” by women, and in part because I have always preferred to stand on my own two feet financially and in practical terms.
      You are welcome to disagree. That’s one thing I like about the MRM, and about the kind of relationships I have with men – there is scope to disagree that is not taken personally or as an emotional threat.

      • Darryl X

        Yup. You succeeded in promoting discussion – LOL.

        “I’m also responding as a woman who has made her own way…”

        I disagree and I would hope that every single man who visits this site and a whole bunch who have yet to discover it would too. NO woman in the entire developed world and most of the rest of it and Canada has made her own way.

        Men make their own way. Women are entirely dependent upon men in every single way. Any woman who has tried to convince any man with whom I associate that they have made their own way has ended up looking short-sighted and narcissistic, failing to understand and greatly underrepresenting the vast contributions by men to the lives and livelihoods of women.

        When you look out your window (or even if you don’t and just confine your gaze to the room you are in), everything (and I mean absolutely everything maybe with the exception of about 0.001% of it) was created for you by a man, frequently at the expense of his life and livelihood.

        And what did that man get in return. Nothing but grief and persecution. It is an expression of extreme narcissism and complete utter lack of analysis that you would dare to assert that you or any woman has made her own way. Not only has almost everything you benefit from been the product of men’s labor and intellect, but women have actively punished those men for their contributions and rewarded to excess those men who have contributed nothing (feminists, cowards, manginas, white-knights).

        Or worse, actively persecuted the real men who did contribute. Real men who contributed to your standard of living are slaves. And you reward the men who contributed nothing with children and support to continue contributing nothing so they can persecute those men who do. Take away their children, their passports, their incomes and means.

        Then you add insult to injury by failing to even acknowledge all that those men have provided for you and that there is no way you could ever provide for yourself (NO WAY) and yet you attribute it to yourself. I mean really. Oh, BTW, your welcome.

      • Skeptic

        Aimee you say ” I have always preferred to stand on my own two feet financially and in practical terms”.
        I’m glad that’s your preference, but I don’t know any women who actually achieve that.
        For a start there isn’t a single woman in western nations, yourself included, who lifestyle isn’t financially subsidized by MEN what with all the government largesse only women get which men pay taxes to support. If you’d like me to explain that to you in detail I’d be very happy to do so.
        I’m not sure what you mean by “in practical terms” either.
        In practical terms you are supported by MILLIONS of men – builders, engineers, miners, drivers, designers etc, as are we all.
        So your statement of independence means nothing to me.
        I agree with others that it’s not right to be coming into men’s space and trying to tell men what to do – namely to silence themselves instead of complaining about female hypergamy and how it affects them.
        We get enough of that kind of shit from feminists.
        I want you to consider something deeply.
        Men, horribly wounded, isolated and confused come to sites like a Voice for Men and start reading about such things as female hypergamy and that opens up understanding which helps them to survive and move on wiser about how for example ‘sweet cupcake’ could have devastated them through divorce/ a false rape charge/ false domestic violence charge etc.
        In turn they learn how women use shit tests as part of hypergamy.
        They learn about how male disposability is a function of female hypergamy etc.
        In brief (I could write an essay about this and may well do) men complaining about women serves to consciousness raise.
        And get this Aimee – we’ve had decades of women dominating the culture’s dialogue with endless complaints such that male voices are drowned out by the cacophony – it’s din and terrible exaggerations.
        That changes now. Or men continue to be silenced/disposed of.
        So I encourage more men to complain about female character and behavior, not less. As Warren Farrel is fond of saying – “Women don’t hear what men don’t say”.

        • Darryl X

          Big thumbs up…

        • Kimski

          “For a start there isn’t a single woman in western nations, yourself included, who lifestyle isn’t financially subsidized by MEN what with all the government largesse only women get which men pay taxes to support.”

          In this country the numbers looks as follows:
          During her lifetime, every woman receives 2,4M from the state in various forms of support, including pension and so on.
          During a man’s lifetime, he pays 840.000 to the state, depending on income, with the listed number as the lowest, and pension is something that he has to earn from working.

          Based on those numbers, I would say it is safe to say that no woman has ever made it on her own in this country, without the financial support from men in one form or another. Add to that the work being done by males to sustain any western society, and it becomes pretty obvious what would happen if men decided to stop doing what they do.

          We would be back in the dark ages in less than a month.

          If women stopped contributing to society, both financially and labor wise, nothing would change dramatically for a very very long time, because there are more than sufficient unemployed men to do their work in the western hemisphere.

      • Darryl X

        “I am wondering why you think I am speaking on behalf of men?”

        Besides the title of this site which is “A Voice for Men”? I can’t think of a good reason.

  • Darryl X

    I get obmon. Women and feminists aren’t going to change. The context within which women and feminists exist is the problem. That context must change. Laws must be enforced again which keep their evil dispositions in check. That’s all we can do. Expecting women and feminists to stop being evil is futile. Feminism must be destroyed. As long as it exists, there is no way for a real man to survive in this world. Activism is about destroying feminism. Not about convincing women that there is an alternative to their behavior. That’s pointless. I agree with obmon that this article is apologist. A lie setting us real men up for more lies. It’s the camel in the tent routine. I have children too (even though I haven’t seen them in ages) and I do not want them to endure what I did. There are enough real problems to deal with in life. That is an important dilemma presented by feminism, that it has distracted me and other men from being able to deal with those real problems. And then the feminists swoop in and destroy all.

    • Aimee McGee

      Which comes back to my point, “are most women ready to learn about hypergamy, probably not”. If this is a biologically driven attitude, it is going to be hard to resolve without some major societal shifts.

      I disagree on the war-like narative of your post, but I agree that there is a need to make real change.

      My SO’s daughters (please note, they have not consented to a relationship where they consider me a step-mother, so I do not consider them step-daughters), have learned both hypergamy and male disposability from their mother.
      I hope they will get time and space with me to learn that there is great emotional rewards in being self-supporting and in respecting men. I’m not confident it will happen, but I will keep trying. In the mean time, I support their father 100% with how he parents them as this has more chance of influencing their thinking than I do.

      • obmon

        Your comments has given me pause. But, in all honesty, not for long.

        I will let others, such as Darryl X, argue how insulting it is for a man to have a woman claim to understand us; they do a pretty good job of it. Instead, I will attempt to show you the ROOT of the problem.. Hypergamy.

        The answer is, funnily enough, in your own article.

        “My father is complicit in reinforcing his utility value, because his own living will does not have the mirror statement imposing her care once incapacitated on her children. He intends to look after her no matter what. He will do stuff for her, even when exhausted and in ill health.”

        It’s about evolution. How we got to where we are. Your article attempts to lay yet another layer of correction on a ready-to-topple Jenga tower.

        It starts with Homo Habilis.

        Before H. Habilis, males of the species were polygamous and apathetic to the plight of their children. That was the job of the mother. However, children were seen as part of a tribe. In other words, any female can take on the role of mother within the tribe. The males ate plants, horsed around, and had sex with any female who ‘presented’ herself for mating.

        H. Habilis changed their environment. They went from relatively safe forest environments, up in the trees, to a life on the plains. This caused the role of the males to change drastically. They can no longer be apathetic and had to take on the role of protector and provider (this is where the reference to your dad comes in. It’s ingrained from a million years ago).

        By the time Homo Erectus emerged, the females evolved to this new dynamic role of men. Namely, they no longer ‘presented’ themselves for mating. It became an imperative to ‘hide’ their mating readiness in the attempt to secure the long-term patronage of the males of the species.

        In other words, the male’s base biological role changed, yet the female’s did not. They did not discard their hypergamy trait. They simply learned to manipulate it.

        That’s ok though. For 1,000,000 years society has reinforced the roles of men and simultaneously rejected the hypergamy trait in women. This was for the sake of society’s success.

        Feminism is not about equality. The suffragettes managed that without a large sweeping movement that affects every area of life. While the suffragettes aimed to gain equal vote, they did not aim to change the dynamics of male-female relationships.

        Feminism is about removing the societal rejection of their hypergamy trait. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.

        THE PROBLEM is that while throwing off the ‘shackles’ that have allowed society to reach such dithering heights, women still attempted to reinforce the male trait of provider and protector, and then vilified any man who accepts that he must change to survive.

        We can not go back. Nor should we. Today’s society has no need for the traditional male role.

        I have no problem with women attempting to redefine their roles, my issue is with women, and the society they continually influence, rejecting the redefinition of the male role. They want their cake and to eat it too.

        In reference to your article, you attempt to confront the ‘disposability of men’ without accepting the fact that it stems from the natural hypergamy of women which has existed since H. Habilis.

        Without hypergamy men would not be disposable by definition.

        • Skeptic

          The money quote – “Without hypergamy men would not be disposable by definition.”
          Thank you. I’m glad you understand what I’ve been trying to say.
          I’m digging my heels in now. I reckon any discussion about male disposability that doesn’t relate it to female hypergamy is a cop out, and women trying to tell men to buy that cop out and silence themselves is daft and condescending.

        • Kimski

          Standing ovation, and gets my vote for comment of the week.

          • Darryl X

            One of the best comments I’ve ever read on a site.

        • Sickofit

          Well done (golf clap).

        • Darryl X

          That is beautiful. You wrote it better than I have ever been able to. I’m in tears. I love you, man.

          • obmon

            Awww. Shucks.

        • Dean Esmay

          I don’t believe hypergamy is a million year old trait.

          I believe it is a 10,000 year old trait at most.

          Humans are a naturally pair-bonding species, more so than almost any other pair-bonding species. Pair-bonding does not mean exclusive sexual monogamy, although when it comes to sexual monogamy, humans are also surprisingly more monogamous than most animals including most other primates.

          The fact of the matter is that until the dawn of the agricultural revolution, which happened only 10,000 years ago (and only to some, it didn’t come to other humans until much later than that) we lived in hunter/gatherer tribes or small nomadic tribes. And in those tribes, there was rarely that much competition between men for women, or between women for men. While there was some of what we would call adultery or “cheating,” mostly, not. And in any case, almost all children were raised within a tribal/extended family setting, NOT within what we call a “nuclear” family.

          Furthermore, until the dawn of agriculture, it was impossible for most to become so wealthy and strong he could accumulate multiple wives for himself. And even if he did, that would not last long.

          Looking at the prehistoric record, it appears that one of the hallmarks of our evolution from animals to sentient beings was the advent of MALE COOPERATION WITH OTHER MALES. It was also the advent of fatherhood as more than a biological role but a hugely important social role. Males by and large love children, and are great with children–and statistically, even now, are less likely to hurt or kill children than women are, which is very unusual among most species.

          We did not evolve as a tournament species where the strongest male automatically accumulated a harem of willing females. That is an extremely unusual and rare innovation found only in a few places, mostly in agricultural societies where it’s possible for a few males to accumulate vast amounts of power and wealth at the expense of all the others.

          Therefore, whatever we see in hypergamy is a trait that’s mostly developed in humans in the last 10,000 years or less, for the most part. With room around the edges.

          Furthermore, hypergamy is a long-term poor strategy for most females. Of all the hypergamous females I’ve ever met, the vast majority have wound up miserable and alone in their dotage, and without very close relationships with their kids either. Hypergamous females are more likely to be estranged by their own adult children, unsupported by their own adult children, and to have children who do things like get involved in drugs, go to prison, or commit suicide.

          So we need to stop this genocentric thinking. Hypergamy almost certainly has some genetic basis but it is much much too easy to exaggerate it, and turn it into a “just so” story. Uh uh. If it were really like that, we wouldn’t be the way we are: men would ruthlessly compete for women. And for the most part, they actually don’t do that. Historically they mostly didn’t–a little yes, but not a lot. And if you look at pre-agricultural societies they don’t do a lot of that either.

          Humans are natural pair-bonders, human males naturally tend to like each other and cooperate with each other, and humans even tend towards monogamy–moreso than most other animals.

          Women are subject to criticism, don’t get me wrong. But we must shy away from easy assumptions in our criticisms. If I really believed what you believed, I’d have already quit by now. But my experience, and my reading of biology, and history, and anthropology, leads me to believe you’re mistaken.

          • obmon

            I resent the notion of ‘genocentric’ thinking or making easy assumptions. You do not know me well enough to make that accusation. Honestly, your comment is as bad as the original article. It is exactly this nature of apologitic, ‘let’s be soft with the ladies because they are gentle” attitude that is throwing men into the sewers of society after their use has been extracted.

            Also, It seems as though you assume that I have ‘quit’. That is not true. Men have, are, evolving. All I want is for women to evolve with us.

            As for the rest of your article… well, you don’t have to take my word for it…



            From Wikipedia:

            “According to genetic studies, primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[2] The family Hominidae diverged from the Hylobatidae (Gibbon) family 15-20 million years ago, and around 14 million years ago, the Ponginae (orangutans), diverged from the Hominidae family.”


            mating habits of gibbons


            “Gibbons seemed to be a perfect example of monogamy in non-human primates, there being little sexual dimorphism between males and females, one adult member of each sex being found in a pair that defend a territory by duetting and chasing members of their own sex out of the territory. Such observations helped support the idea that the gibbons had a strong pair bond.. behavior of the gibbons forms an appealing natural narrative, but we now know that such stories were far too good to be true.”

            “As I noted previously, it used to be thought that gibbon pairs formed when a subadult male and subadult female from two “families” met up and gained access to their own plot of forest, and this does in fact happen. What was unexpected, however, is that gibbons are much more opportunistic and do not stick with the same mate their entire lives. A longer 6 year study, undertaken by Ryne Palombit and others, showed that gibbons will often leave their partner if an opportunity arises nearby, i.e. a male might abandon his female partner if the male of another nearby pair dies or disappears. In turn, another male might move in when the 1st male leaves or the abandoned female might die, but it was a bit surprising to find that not all pairs were subadults that were in permanent, monogamous relationships. The realization that gibbons “cheat” and “divorce” leads us to a very important realization; there is a difference between social monogamy and reproductive monogamy, the presence of one not necessarily indicating the other. This illuminates the fact that reproductive monogamy is much rarer than previously thought, mating being a much more opportunistic affair than one dictated by social bonds…. the pair bonding of gibbons perhaps having much more to do with defending a territory (and hence resources) than whatever sense of long-term affection was attributed to them previously.”

            “Clearly, the notion that White-Handed Gibbons are pair bonded for life to the sweethearts of their youth cannot be maintained, who pairs up with whom seeming to have a lot to do with opportunity and territory.”

            –> From:

            “Siamang pair bonds show greater heterosexual cohesion than those of white-handed gibbon as reflected in higher rates of affinitive interactions such as close proximity, relaxed physical contact, embraces, and communal use of sleep trees. Although males are more responsible than females for the maintenance of close proximity in both species, sex differences in intra-pair allogrooming suggest divergent mechanisms maintaining pair bonds in the two species. In white-handed gibbons, the female rarely initiates grooming and grooms her mate significantly less than he grooms her, partly because she solicits grooming from him at higher rates while simultaneously ignoring more of his ‘presents’ for grooming.”

            mating habits of orungatans


            “Although sub-adult males will occasionally form travelling bands, and play between juveniles is common, adult male competition is hostile, and has been cited as a major determining factor in orangutan social organization, caused by both ecological pressures and access to sexually active females.”

            “Relations between flanged and unflanged males are marked by imposed tolerance. While flanged males avoid each other, unflanged males often stay near flanged males, particularly during consortships, usually at a distance of 40-50 meters. Studies at Suaq Balimbing in Sumatra suggest unflanged males will spend more time in association with flanged males if they are in a consortship with a fertile female, than not. At this site, unflanged males tended to stay closer to the dominant male, who monopolized fertile females in the area.”

            “The orangutan mating system is based on a mixture of female choice and male harassment and coercion, and it is believed that this fierce completion for female mating opportunities has resulted in the extreme sexual dimorphism and arrested development, also known as ‘bimaturism’, seen in orangutan societies. Females mate promiscuously… Generally, though, females demonstrate preferences towards the dominant flanged male in their home range, and will actively seek out this male, who will advertise his location by giving long calls. Consortships and matings between females and dominant flanged males are generally cooperative, and dominant flanged males will sire the majority of offspring. In comparison, matings between females and unflanged males are generally forced and usually only come about after the unflanged male has actively travelled through an area to locate the potentially sexually active female. Although female preference and mate choice is an important factor in orangutan mating systems, it has meant males have had to develop two contrasting strategies; call-and-wait vs. sneak-and-rape”


            “A resident male is one that has a home range that envelops the ranges of one to several adult females and he is considered the primary breeder for those females within his range.”

            “Male-male competition for mates is quite intense because of constraints on female reproductive potential and wide spatial distribution”

            “Subadult, or unflanged, males (ages eight to 15) have fully descended testicles and are capable of reproducing but remain in a morphological state quite similar to adult females. When the proper social conditions arise, mainly in the absence of a resident male, they begin to develop the characteristic cheek pads, throat pouch, long fur, and behaviors of resident adult males (Rijksen 1978; Schürmann & van Hoof 1986)”

            “Because females preferentially mate with flanged males, this process of sit-and-wait is effective for fully developed males. Females may also seek out flanged males for protection from sexual harassment by unflanged males (Fox 2002).”

            mating habits of Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus and Us


            “This sultanlike breeding behavior could well have undergone radical change with the evolution of Homo habilis, “handy man”: Smith postulates that subordinate habilis males, scavenging meat and offering pieces of it in exchange for sex, upset the earlier breeding system.”

            “The cooperative hunting groups that began with Homo erectus — our most recent evolutionary predecessor — ushered in relatively high levels of sperm competition. Homo erectus males were not much larger than Homo erectus females. Homo erectus was a communal species who not only gathered edible plants but hunted mammoths and used fire. Eating and sleeping together in groups — the sort of cooperative groups needed to hunt — may have made them far more social, more talkative, and better barterers than their sexually dimorphic australopithecine ancestors. And more promiscuous.”

            “”Sexual selection requires (and provides a potential explanation for) a sexual dimorphism.”

            –>From: The Metamorphoses of Kinship, page 426

            “By concealing their time of ovulation, women would have compelled males in these primitive times when they were driven by the sole need to propagate their genes, to devote more time to them than would be required by the simple act of reproduction, thus guaranteeing themselves a durable production” -Levi-Struass

            “…And evolution is supposed to dispel the mystery of the ‘decisive leap from nature to culture’ by which ‘humankind cast off the animal state with the birth of human societies’. However, it is because humans, with their more highly developed brains, possessed the capacity to analyze the consequences of their acts for the reproduction of society, of their social existence, that they were able to prescrive laws, standards that placed sexual relations under the control of society, which regulated them.”


            The whole article is a good read really..


          • obmon

            I posted a rebuttal here, but it had so many links that I think it was tagged as spam.. Anyway, it clearly showed studies confirmed what I said. Shame, but I really can’t be bothered retyping it all and reposting all the quotes from various articles around the web.

            If you are curious, just do some google searches on Hypergamy in Homo Habilis (2 million years ago), Homo Erectus (1 Million years ago), and in our closest primate cousins, the orungatan and the gibbon monkey.

            Also read:
            Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan
            The Metamorphoses of Kinship by Maurice Godelier, Nora Scott

            You’ll see my argument of the nature of hypergamy in our history is correct.

            As for the competitive nature of man.. if you can’t see the “tournament” nature of man, then really, you are too irrational to debate with.

            I just want to say, you are as bad as the original author as you attempt to re-write our evolutionary history with apologetic feminist-provided rhetoric and passive-aggressive condescension evident in all your posts here today.

          • typhonblue

            I googled for scholarly articles on hypergamy in homo habilis and erectus and didn’t find anything relevant.

            Could you post your citations? Further, how does ‘hypergamy’ work in the absence of capital?

            Here’s something from wikipedia on Ardipithecus ramidus.

            “The canine teeth of A. ramidus are smaller, and equal in size between males and females, which suggests reduced male-to-male conflict, increased pair-bonding, and increased parental investment.”

            Pair bonding is likely to have evolved in the Homo line well before Homo Sapien. Meaning that our instincts most resemble those of pair-bonders. Most likely something you might call ‘egalitarian pair-bonders’ in which multiple mated pairs existed within one family or tribal grouping (many other pair-bonding species only have one primary breeding pair.)

            We are not a tournament species. There is now genetic, anthropological, anatomical and hormonal evidence that we are pair bonders. (In fact humans being pair-bonders is a non-controversial statement in biology that no longer requires proof or citation.)

            The simplest counter argument to us being a tournament species are the very father’s rights activists that form the core of the men’s rights movement. If we were a tournament species not only would men not care about their children, women wouldn’t dare taking a second mate because that second mate would invariably kill his step children.

            How is arguing against humanity being a tournament species feminist? Is pair bonding a feminist conspiracy?

            Does it make any impact at all that the man arguing we should live in communes and raise our children communally without regard to paternity is a feminist?

            Let me just reiterate. The author of ‘Sex at Dawn’ who advocates a promiscuous ‘tournament’ style mating system in which women either mate with the strongest or with as many men as she wants and every other man gets to chip in for the resultant offspring via communal child rearing is a feminist.

            Does that mean people who advocate human beings being tournament style breeders are feminists?

          • Darryl X

            Another really good book is “Philopatry, Inbreeding and the Evolution of Sex” by William Shields. Not a long read but very fundamental.

          • Astrokid

            @obmon: Just following up on the ‘Sex at Dawn’ reference, the author most certainly doesnt seem to be credentialed beyond a PhD in psychology, and in fact the scientific community seems to think that his work is largely crap and there’s even a rebuttal called ‘Sex at Dusk’.
            Wikipedia entry on the book is quite scathing..

            He [A reviewer] accuses his fellow scientists of failing to give the Sex at Dawn the attention it deserves because of its popularity and potential to mislead the public, stating that the book presents “a distorted portrayal of current theory and evidence on evolved human sexuality” to the general public. David Barash, author of The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People wrote that Ryan and Jethá “ignore and/or misrepresent reams of anthropology and biology in their eagerness to make a brief for some sort of Rousseau-ian sexual idyll that exists—and/or existed—only in their overheated libidinous imaginations” in an approving review of Sex at Dusk, a rebuttal to Sex at Dawn. Barash writes that he finds it annoying that the book “has been taken as scientifically valid by large numbers of naïve readers … whereas it is an intellectually myopic, ideologically driven, pseudo-scientific fraud.

            Humans are not meant to be Monogamous – Christopher Ryan: If You Want Fidelity, Get a Dog

          • obmon


            No. I can’t be bothered doing the legwork for you. I found many links with references to hypergamy in primates and our early ancestors. So I think you are lying.

            In any case, my method was simple. I went to google and searched for “Human Evolution”. The first returned link was wikipedia, in which it says in the first two paragraphs that Gibbons, then Orangutans, then H. Habilis all branched off the same line of ape-like ancestors. So then I did a google search for “Mating habits of Gibbons”, “Mating habits of Orangutans”, and “mating habits of Homo Habilis”. All my citations in the spam-flagged comment came from the first page of search result for each of those searches. So you don’t have to go father.


            You can email the owner of this site, Paul, and tell him to put my comment back up. It is VERY long, with multiple references and quotes. He can’t miss it.

            As for pair bonding. I didn’t say there wasn’t any. Again, people putting words in my mouth. Hypergamy and pair bonding are not exclusive. As an MRM, you should know this.

            and, I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that we are not a tournament species. Competition among males and females is rampant on public display. It’s built into us to challenge each other for a bigger piece of the pie. I honestly don’t understand how you and Dean came to the conclusion that we are not a tournament species. Of course we are.

            What is capitalism, the driving force of human civilization since the advent of agriculture, if not about competition in the face of scarcity?


            I regret the reference to Sex at Dawn. It is heavily biased and pro-hypergamy, and perhaps wasn’t a good example. However, my argument still stands. I still believe that women are destined for hypergamy without the constraints of a society which rejects this innate trait.


            I will end this post by saying, I do not intend to argue this point further. This thread has become difficult to read and digest, and the arguments have become cyclical.

          • typhonblue

            @ obmon

            Homo Habilis + hypergamy


            Homo Erectus + hypergamy


            “The first returned link was wikipedia, in which it says in the first two paragraphs that Gibbons, then Orangutans, then H. Habilis all branched off the same line of ape-like ancestors. So then I did a google search for “Mating habits of Gibbons”, “Mating habits of Orangutans”, and “mating habits of Homo Habilis”. All my citations in the spam-flagged comment came from the first page of search result for each of those searches. So you don’t have to go father.”

            Homo Habilis would have arisen after Ardipithecus ramidus.

            Here is the wikipedia article on Ardipithecus ramidus.


            “The less pronounced nature of the upper canine teeth in A. ramidus has been used to infer aspects of the social behavior of the species and more ancestral hominids. In particular, it has been used to suggest that the last common ancestor of hominids and African apes was characterized by relatively little aggression between males and between groups. This is markedly different from social patterns in common chimpanzees, among which intermale and intergroup aggression are typically high. Researchers in a 2009 study said that this condition “compromises the living chimpanzee as a behavioral model for the ancestral hominid condition.””

            Currently Ardipithecus ramidus and Orrorin tugenensis seem to be front runners for the species closest to the split off between the common ancestors between chimps and hominids.

            One of the big differences between hominids and our shared ancestor with chimps(and our even earlier shared ancestor with gibbons, orangutangs and gorillas) is the fact that hominids lost a significant amount of size based sexual dimorphism (orangutangs and gorillas) and lost canine dimorphism (chimps.)

            This loss of size and canine dimorphism may have occurred as early as Ardipithecus ramidus and definitely was in full swing for the Australopithecines.

            Our early ancestors were likely not a tournament species; they were more likely to be pair-bonders.

            That doesn’t mean hypergamy is not a problem, it means it’s not an evolved trait.

            Alternatively hypergamy is a throwback to primitive simian instincts. Or it could be that when you tell women that their sexuality is more valuable then men’s, they expect more in exchange for it.

          • Dean Esmay


            Your articles did get tagged as spam–the spambots have a mind of their own–but I went in and pulled it out of there. If it happens again just post a message “hey something I just wrote seems to have been grabbed by the spambots, will someone fix it?” and one of us admins will grab it.

            As for the rest: you’re being argued with on the substance of your statements, not out of any desire to be an apologist for anyone. And my notion that your arguments are genocentric is based on my assessment of your statements and not anything else.

            Most of the articles you reference have no meaningful bearing on humans since we are neither orangutans nor gibbons. Cooperation between males is massively greater among humans than it is with any other primates, and it has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, before any elaborate civilizations formed, and is still what is seen in the remaining hunter-gatherer tribes that are still around and is what’s been observed in all of them over the last couple of centuries of study. You may find this helpful:


            Male humans do not compete over females the way orangutans do, even “in the wild” in preliterate, preagricultural societies where the most sophisticated tools are rocks and sticks and no one can even read. That is not how humans behave. It is not our nature. It is not elaborate systems of law that cause our behavior to be pair-bonding, we are a natural pair-bonding species.

            Pair-bonding does not mean “exclusive lifelong monogamy” by the way, nor does it mean individual humans will not form multiple simultaneous pair-bonds in some circumstances. They will do both.

            Nevertheless I will repeat my question, which now Typhon has also asked, which has not been answered: in a totally primitive society, in which your clothes are animal furs, you don’t even know what reading and writing is, you live in a culture with only a couple of hundred other people at most, and your most sophisticated tools are rocks and sticks: what makes you think hypergamy would even WORK? And what evidence do you have that HUMANS, any time in the last MILLION YEARS, ever behaved that way on a broad scale?

            Evopsych assumptions that rest on the notion that we are like gorillas or baboons or gibbons are cheap. The main hallmark of the human species is COOPERATION BETWEEN MALES. It has been so for a very, very long time, before we were even Homo Sapiens Sapiens it appears.

          • Skeptic

            To me there seems something strange about the stance you’re taking here Dean.
            As for every single example of males co-operating you’ve given recently I can think of how even within those co-operating groups of males there is competition between them.
            Let’s take one of your examples – construction crews.
            Sure they co-operate up to a point. But i don’t think it should be overlooked that if I want a job on the team I have to compete with others in the labor market. Then if I want to ascend the payscale I have to compete with fellow crew members, then at all times my company is in competition with other companies of MEN to produce winners who get the spoils of victory and losers who may literally go hungry and homeless.
            I can do exactly the same process for every one of the examples of co-operating groups of men you mention. And here’s the nub for me Dean.
            Every instance of co-operation + competition I can think of be it the army, corporations, scouts, construction crews etc falls under the watchful hypergamous gaze of materially covetous females.
            I think I’ll go ghost today – dress down in jeans and a T. It suits my current mood.

          • Dean Esmay

            @skeptic: Don’t know how to break you out of that. I suppose if you believe, like Obman above, that capitalism is the driving engine of civilization (bull-fucking-shit, it’s a state invention that’s less than 300 years old and its modern form less than half that old) I suppose you believe the horse-shit that competition is what drives cooperative behavior. I don’t know how to help you with that except to say that I see no scientific basis whatsoever on which to base that.

            Every example I gave except the construction crews is one of human males cooperating because they want to, not because they have to. And do you really think construction crews compete primarily for status with females? Have you ever actually worked a blue collar job like that? I have. That’s not what they’re doing. And you get in a work crew like that, what I can tell you is those guys care a fuck of a lot more about each other than out-doing each other (although there’s sometimes a little rivalry) and tjeu develop bonds of loyalty to each other that are quite intense. It’s natural and it’s normal.

            Any study of pre-agricultural humans, i.e. hunter-gatherer tribes, shows the same fucking thing. ALL OF THEM. Without money, without writing, without any tools more sophisticated than sharp sticks and rocks, what is most notable about humans is that they are massively cooperative. There’s some moderate competition when young people are looking for mates, then we basically pair-bond and actually biochemically change (both sexes) once we do. There’s some cheating and adultery on both sides, but for the most part stable bond-pairing, to a degree higher than most species of an animals including other primates, is the norm.

            Modern day competitive capitalism warps the shit out of normal functional human interactions.

            By the way, this does not mean I embrace Marx’s daffy bullshit theories (I vehemently reject most of them) nor that I embrace Rousseau’s “noble savage” concept either, although it’s a (little) closer to reality than Ayn Rand’s dipshit stupid fantasy that pretends to be a coherent philosophy. Males enjoy rivalry with each other–at a very moderate, mostly non-violent and fairly gentle level until life and limb are on the line, or there’s competition for desperately-needed things like food and water, and even then, cooperation is the norm until things become dire enough. It’s everywhere.

            The whole notion that we’re a tournament species in constant rut with males constantly trying to attract nubile young females and females constantly trying to attract males with the most resources–again I ask, WHERE IN HISTORY WAS THIS EVER TRUE? WHERE? Where is it in the preindustrial socities? Where is it in the preagricultural societies? Fuck, go all the way back a million years and we were still living in TRIBES, tribes meaning, collections of males and females helping and protecting each other. The oldest documented use of fire for cooking is between 1 and 1.5 million years ago, people were getting together in groups and cooking food THAT long ago.

            It is cooperation, especially cooperation between males, that is one of the most startling hallmarks of our species.

            Even now, you’re in a position where you’ve learned mistrust of females. OK, so who do you trust? Got any male friends? Trust any of them? If so, why?

            The whole Alpha/Beta thing? Not entirely without truth, but often wildly exaggerated.

          • Skeptic

            Yes I’ve worked a blue collar job – in sawmills and factories where I saw the kinds of competition I mentioned.
            I’m not saying men don’t co-operate in the kinds of organizations you’ve mentioned, but I’m also not saying they don’t compete at the same time also. I’m not saying that’s a good thing either, just that it exists, and that I’ve seen enough of it to realize it goes on under the watchful gaze of materialistic hypergamous females.
            For the record I’d like to see much more male co-operation as I reckon a lot of guys would benefit by dropping the pussy begging and strutting for female attention in favor of helping other men. Goodness knows other men need the help far more than over privileged women.

          • by_the_sword

            @ Typhonblue;

            In the absence of capital, the ability of a male to violently oppress or kill other males serves as sexual currency.

            I refer to an article written by Paul Elam where he illustrates:


            “From a study done on the Yanomamö, a large Amerindian hunter-gatherer people that reside in the Amazon Basin, some very telling observations were made regarding sexual competition and violence among men by Chagnon (1988, 1997).

            First, in Yanomamö culture, like most all hunter-gatherer (and agricultural and pastoral) societies, violence occurs either continuously or frequently. It is the men who are more aggressive and violent. And it is the most violent men that are successful at being selected for sex.

            Yanomamö who are fierce warriors, and “fierce warrior” is defined by those who have participated in the killing of at least one member of a rival village, have 2.5 times as many wives and 3 times as many children as men who don’t kill.”

          • Dean Esmay


            I’m a smidge surprised by that old article by Paul but I’ll be happy to debate him on it if he likes, if he wasn’t just being sarcastic. Anthropologically speaking, he’s wrong you see. It also surprises me because I think he knows as well as I do that female propensity toward violence is much greater than is generally believed; I actually wonder if his article was meant to be satirical or sarcastic in some manner. If not, well, I’d like to have a front-page debate with him about it.

            The Yanomami are interesting in a number of areas, one of the chief among them being their unusually high level of violence among hunter-gatherers, so extremely unusually high that initial studies of them were called into question and other anthropologists who later looked in on them questioned some of the early findings. One of the reasons they caused such consternation was because their pattern of violence was so EXTREMELY UNUSUAL compared to study of virtually any other hunter/gather society that’s ever been studied in the last couple of hundred years ago, and flies in the face of what most of the archaeological record reflects. Furthermore, if you research it, you’ll find that multiple anthropologists attribute their modern level of violence more to unique historical factors since coming into contact with the modern world. Whatever is going on with them, they are not typical for hunter/gatherers at all, at least, not typical for what we know of any other hunter/gatherer group we’ve ever looked at.

            One of the more important things the science has shown on male humans is that until there is a serious perceived group threat, the most unusual thing about male humans is how cooperative they are with each other, not how violent they are toward each other. There’s a large variety of references I can give you on that if you like.

          • obmon

            @Dean Esmay

            Here we go again with your revisionist evolutionary theory… I’m not done with you Dean. I will prove you wrong. and in doing so, will hopefully discredit you for the remainder of your so-called MRA career. Your lies hurt our cause and men who read your comments need to be aware of that. Stay tuned..

            A quick brief (from an anthropological forum):
            “Human sexual behavior is the by-product of millions of years of evolution and is easily and parsimoniously accounted for using sociobiological principles. Our male ancestors produced millions upon millions of sperm, whereas our female ancestors produced only a few hundred eggs. This means that sperm are relatively worthless and eggs are precious. An additional consideration is that of differential parental investment, where the male is reduced to a single ejaculation, but the female must endure a period of gestation for 9 months, followed by breast-feeding and child-rearing. This makes the woman choosier or (in the language of F. Roger Devlin) “hypergamous.”

            An interactionist model seems plausible, where the social dimension of human sexuality operates within strict biological parameters. So, any heterosexual marketplace would reflect these gender assymetries in terms of differential reproductive investment, with an overabundance of men (millions of sperm) pursuing a small number of women (a few hundred eggs).”

          • Dean Esmay


            I tremble in such fear of your efforts to discredit me with your deep and powerful understanding of evolutionary biology so obviously greater than mine that I hereby offer to publish your proposed article right on the front page of A Voice for Men, if it’s as well-written as your comments to date, accompanied by references, and refrains from cheap personal attacks. Just use the “Contact” page to submit it.

            While awaiting that submission, I will continue my work to get innocent men out of prison, to end a culture which tolerates and encourages false allegations, to oppose genital mutilation, to bring sanity to domestic violence law, to make co-parenting the default status under law, to recognize parental alienation as child abuse, to address the continually growing crisis of boys in education, and so on, no matter how critical you or any of your friends are of me. I’ve been doing this shit for more than ten years in the face of withering fire and personal attacks and even threats from both feminists and conservative traditionalists alike, and I have no intention of stopping just because you don’t like me or because you have pet theories about evolutionary biology that are, in my opinion, incorrect because they are by and large incomplete, outdated, or flat-out wrong (which is what you’ve largely shown so far, although maybe I’ve missed something).

            I look forward to your article.

        • Sasha

          That’s a fascinating analysis, however I’m not sure that male disposability IS dependent on female hypergamy.

          The fundamental reason why men are disposable is that women are the limiting factor when it comes to reproduction. Put simply, a woman is only fertile from puberty to menapause, can only produce a single egg each month and can only be pregnant once a year. Men are fertile all their lives, and could (in theory) reproduce with an unlimited number of women.

          This is why it’s in a woman’s interests to guard her fertility carefully, select the ‘best’ mate etc. Men compete to be considered the most eligible mate and this endless, age-old dynamic drives most of society: for instance there’s a pretty much endless stream of media commentary directed around advising men and women how to promote themselves as having ‘good’ genes by buying products that give you clearer skin, brighter eyes a youthful appearance etc. etc.

          Fair enough, that’s the human condition, no point worrying about it. If it creates a lot of pressure and drive to succeed for men and a lot of pressure to be popular and attractive for women, well that’s as it is and there’s not much point moaning.

          The problem as I see it is that this dynamic, which forces men to sacrifice and encourages society to treat them as disposable, is today seen as creating ‘privilege’ for men, and ‘oppressing’ for women. It’s nothing of the kind, but that hasn’t stopped lawmakers and the state from seizing on the plaintive wails from feminists and piling on more risk and sacrifice onto the shoulders of men.

          Today it’s not fucking enough that men are expected to die on the battlefield or work a 10-hour shift, when he returns home, he can find his wife’s taken the kids and slapped a restraining order on him.

          It’s not enough that men work like dogs, we’re treated like them too.

          In the past male sacrifice was, if not honoured or respected, at least recognised. Today it’s been switched around so that it’s seen as privilege, something to be taken away if possible.

          Feminists just didn’t get it. They promoted women’s ’empowerment’ and ‘independence’ and said they should all go and find a job. Then women found out the hard way that most jobs are shit; there’s nothing noble or fun about slaving in a call centre or working an assembly line. It’s not empowering, it’s a fucking drag. Men only did it because they had to. Pay and benefits aren’t called ‘compensation’ for nothing – it’s compensation for the fact that you’d rather be doing something else.

          And the result is that women are unhappier today than at any time in the past, and men are more stressed, lonely and struggling than at any time in the past. Families need two incomes, where one used to suffice, our children are looked after by strangers, and feral fatherless teens govern the streets.

          And because women on the whole can’t think, can’t see the bigger picture, and can’t see how their own instincts, pandered to for 40 years by corporates and the state, who only give a fuck about creating more consumers and taxable drones, have led to a corrupted society and atomised our families and communities, and can’t accept their own responsibility and agency, we’re all fucked.

          The only answer I can see is to educate men and boys. Recognise where all this shit’s taken us, recognise the damage these irresponsible harridens have done, and recognise that the best solution is to leave them the ruins and look after yourself.

          • obmon

            uh.. your argument actually supports mine.

          • Ex Machina

            This is a very sensible condensing of the issues,as I see it. It does,peripherally,support obmon’s argument.

            I come down on the issue about where you do. What is needed,as I see it, is for men to more aggressively defend their natural rights. Here in the United States, we have recently seen one of our most cherished rights blatantly violated by the government,freedom of speech. One of the few rights that the founders tacked a “shall not be abridged/infringed” onto the end,so important was it’s absolute non-restriction. Nobody did ANYTHING about it.

            We can have rights on the books. We can have laws on the books. And we can still be fucked….royally.

            Our rights are what WE say they are, and what we are willing to provide our blood and our muscle to protect.

            Hypergamy or no, tyranny or no, if we say “Fuck you, you WILL NOT do (X) or you will answer to US!”, well, they can’t get all of us and we CAN get to many of them in one way or another.

            That’s why I think Paul’s on the right track. It comes down to “What do we cherish?”,”What is important enough to defend with our lives,money, and time if necessary?”

        • Darryl X

          “Feminism is about removing the societal rejection of their hypergamy trait. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.”

          This conclusion has been fundamental to my argument that civilization and feminism are mutually exclusive.

          Civilization started only when marriage was “invented” to free up the labor of males for advancing civilization with tools like the Scientific Method.

          Males were given opportunities for procreation and companionship and a higher standard of living than they had at the margins of society. In exchange, males provided labor and intellect for advancing civilization and for defense of the population at whatever scale you wish to define it.

          Marriage was also “invented” to put a male between each female and the resources to prevent her from wasting them. Something the small number of males could not do when they were outnumbered. Unchecked my a male, females use more resources than males. (Consult any marketing study.) Basically, unchecked by a male, a female lives like a pig at a trough unable to regulate her own resource usage.

          Before marriage and civilization, humans organized as castes with a small number of males and a large number of females at the center of the society. The remainder of the males (the majority) existed at the margins of the society.

          These small number of males could not challenge the large number of females and so acquiesced to their excessive demands. Human females are much more violent than males and the small number of males had no choice but to acquiesce. Just consult data concerning domestic violence.

          Feminism is a primitive form of social organizing to which humans default. It is anathema to civilization. If males are no longer able to be between a female and the resources, they will be wasted. The men at the margins of society will be imposed upon to serve them. To fight wars for those resources or to provide slave labor (like they do today).

          If a male is no longer compensated with children and a family and companionship and a higher standard of living than if he were at the margins of society, then he will no longer provide his labor unless it is coerced (slavery).

          That’s where we are now. The end of civilization. We have devolved back to primitive social organizing where women dictate resource use and allocation and a small number of men and some women do their bidding (that’s our governments). Or force other men to do their bidding. Men who have been pushed back to the margins of society.

          • Sasha

            Darryl X –

            Great comment, I couldn’t agree more. I actually agree with obmon as well, but with the proviso that I don’t think hypergamy results in male disposability, I think it’s more accurate to say the two tendencies support and reinforce each other.

            I think Dean and TyphonBlue also have a point. However I’m also of the view that evolutionary psychology is in its infancy, and much of what passes for knowledge in the subject is not much more than speculation—or worse. There have been countless attempts to apply evolutionary theory to social life but, since there is no mechanism in society comparable to natural selection in biology, they have produced only a succession of misleading metaphors, in which social systems are mistakenly viewed as living organisms. Indeed, if there is anything of substance to be derived from an evolutionary view of the human mind, it must be the persistence of unreason.

            This is why I’m also sceptical of the value of demonising women rather than opposing the inherent flaws of a feminist cultural worldview. Humans are social animals, and we apply decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty, as a result human thought and perception are riddled with bias, inconsistency and self-deception.

            I believe, as you say, that feminism at its core is an organised attempt at removing constraints or objections to female hypergamy. It’s been very successful at this so far, but the problem is that hypergamy is enabled by male disposability, and as the restrictions upon hypergamy have been gradually lifted, the burdens of disposability on males have been increased to the point where only the most wealthy, resourceful and lucky men can bear them. If a man today experiences illness, unemployment or some other setback, or simply selects a partner with selfish tendencies, then he can have his life completely ruined.

            Furthermore, it’s impossible to unravel the growth of feminism, and its resulting imbalancing of society to the point where men are grossly disadvantaged, with the growth in the mid-C20th of a mass consumer society. Corporations needed ravenous consumers, the expanding public sector developed an insatiable appetite for money, and the best way for both to meet their needs was to push women into the workforce, which they were only too happy to do to earn the money to buy more and more. The consumer society created feminism and feminism relies on a consumer society.

            Therefore the problem is not that there is an evolutionary driver for a particular tendency amongst women to behave in an hypergamous way, the problem is that the creation of a mass consumer society created the incentives and opportunities for that tendency to run wild without check. It’s also the reason why the MRM, such as it is, will encounter such incomprehension and opposition.

            It’s not just feminists who object to it, it’s the entire media/corporate/commercial complex, which has come to rely on men complying with being disadvantaged and exploited, and women enjoying the benefits of parasitically existing on the fruits of that exploitation.

          • Darryl X

            @ Sasha –

            “However I’m also of the view that evolutionary psychology is in its infancy, and much of what passes for knowledge in the subject is not much more than speculation—or worse.”

            I agree. I have two independent (dependent?) directions of education – Ecology and Quantitative Psychology. I never liked Psychology because it is a soft science and for the most part very unquantitative. That’s why I approached it from the still burgeoning quantitative side. There have been many advancements in how we understand the human brain, how it works, how it is related to behavior and culture and social interactions. Of course it’s very complicated but that it is being considered at all leaves me with some (if only a little) faith in humans.

            Yeah. I agree with the rest of your post too. Spot on. The MRM will always be unpopular because it challenges the short-sighted motives of most people. Consumerism. Materialism. Vices. What have you. Civilization is about keeping these things in check. If one doesn’t do it and we aren’t vigilant about it for ourselves and others, then it’s a steep slippery slope. Presently, every one is enabling each others irresponsible behavior, their addictions, at the expense of those who can check themselves. Although I kinda think all of this irresponsible behavior is hard-wired, also hard-wired is the ability to keep it in check. We really do have choices. Unfortunately, most people choose short-sighted immediate gratification over far-sighted responsibility.

        • scatmaster


          Keep posting your links. I am sure at some point moderator approval will be forthcoming. If a shmoe like me does not have to worry about such inanities someone like you who has something to add should be approved tout de suite.

          I have been lying low for about a month now. Gone into a funk so to speak and your posts have woken me up a little. Still have a long way to go but please keep posting. I owe a few people on this board an email or two and you are helping in my recovery.

  • Bubbles

    When we have mandatory paternity testing and boys being raised to have both eyes open, maybe then I’ll ease up on educating my brothers about hypergamy…

    Nah, on second thought, I’ll always educate my brothers about hypergamy.

    • feeriker

      When we have mandatory paternity testing…

      An idea whose time, I’m afraid, may have finally arrived. While my libertarian core beliefs make me loath to force such a procedure on anyone, especially a newborn infant of parents whose circumstances would not appear to require such a test, I’m left to wonder if a paternity test at birth wouldn’t be a way of pre-empting costly and drawn out custody cases that emerge later on in a child’s life. If “daddy isn’t really daddy,” then let that fact emerge along with the child.

  • Sickofit

    Now that discussion has turned to evolution is it time to discuss an evolved solipsism? This is not about blame any more than we can be blamed for having canine teeth (cuspids) for tearing flesh. Are women ready to explore solipsism as a topic or is it too unfriendly to women for us to discuss here? Is this forum prepared to tackle such topics? I’m not trying to be mean to women here. Many have proposed that women’s solipsistic (to varying degrees) nature evolved naturally into female psychology to make it through war bride scenarios or when one clan destroyed another clan’s warriors; to protect their young and themselves despite the welfare of the father. If we are really going to “look down the rabbit hole”, how far are we allowed to look before women are offended? I want to see the bottom and not just the first 5 feet of the hole. For anyone unfamiliar with this topic pls look at Stardusk’s video on war brides which also references Rollo Tomassi’s article.

    The following is not an apology but a plea for understanding: I do not wish to undermine any female MRM contributors with this. I understand the irony at play when discussing solipsism in the comment section of a woman’s penned article on an MRM site. I fully appreciate all of the input and support the women in the MRM contribute but I feel this topic deserves discussion regardless. Even if it is an uncomfortable topic. The very fact that it is an uncomfortable topic should tell us something.

    • Dean Esmay

      Fire away. I don’t think anyone here denies the reality of hypoagency, or the reality of hypergamy, and any “Lady MRA” who dissolves into a puddle because someone suggests that women have a greater tendency to solipsism isn’t going to be someone who lasts here very long.

      All I’ll say is, I think Aimee’s right: until men themselves reject male disposability, until they they themselves reject being used as a utility, not much will change. She’s watching her own father do it to herself. I myself almost did it to myself and it almost destroyed me. If guys don’t wake up and say “stop doing that to yourself, stop doing it to your fellow men,” not much will change.

      Personally I think women tend to be more emotional, more fearful, maybe more solipsistic. I can also say negative and positive things about men, although they run in different directions than the normal cultural bullshit that we’re a bunch of domineering rapey thugs. We’re a highly cooperative species, to an extraordinary degree, and that’s between women, between men, and between men and women. The most amazing trait we have above all others is just how well we cooperate with each other, to a spontaneous degree most of the time.

      I firmly believe we evolved as a cooperative species primarily, not a competition driven species primarily, and because I believe that, I believe a lot of the assumptions made by the likes of Stardusk and Rollo Tomasi are just too broad to be more than marginally useful.

      • Sickofit

        If your theory on us evolving as a cooperative species (between men and women, men and men etc.) is to be taken seriously I can’t help but wonder why this website itself is necessary at all. Why aren’t male concerns in society addressed elsewhere? Where is this cooperation (to an exceptional and most times spontaneous degree you say) in family and divorce courts? Where is it in how we treat the homeless? Where is all this cooperation in global conflicts? Despite rosy outlooks there really is not an infinite amount of resources or land on this planet and mankind has and (IMHO) will continue to compete for it.

        I do not offer myself in any role of utility to anyone at all. Some might consider this selfish… even solipsistic:0! The truth is that through many relationships I have consciously involved myself with women in a much more self interested way. Why should I get married? Why should I have kids if the courts where I live routinely destroy the lives of fathers emotionally, physically and financially? What if more and more young men start to think the way I think or like the way japanese herbivores think and there is less and less tax $ to support the welfare queens and single mothers? How self interested/non utilized can males become before western governments and society as a whole weakens because of it?

        • Dean Esmay

          The evidence that human beings are a cooperative species is all about you, everywhere you look. It is all throughout the historical and archaeological record. Hell, even look at civilizations: which ones were actually built on men competing like Silverback gorillas for mates? Where was this ever the case?

          OK, now get away from advanced civilizations: Where were the pre-civilizational people who acted like that? They don’t exist, they’re not there in the record. Because that is not our heritage.

          Wars? Even wars themselves require massive, massive cooperation. Including, by the way, massive cooperation by females in most cases.

          Think really hard about hypergamy: it’s 20,000 years ago. Your name is Att, your wife is named Sar. You have three children. Do you life in a community where you are constantly fending off the other men in your tribe to stop them from raping her? Do you constantly have to defend your children from men who want to rape your wife and kill your children? If we were such a hypergamous, tournament-oriented species, that’s what your life would have looked like, but find me the pre-agricultural populations of humans or pre-humans who lived that way. There’s no evidence for it!

          Now sure, it’s possible Sar has used you as a beta provider and has cheated behind your back and at least one of your kids isn’t really yours. Maybe. Or maybe you’ve been sneaking around a little by yourself. But do you kill any children that you determine are not yours? That’s what most species of animals do, but humans in almost all societies recoil from such behavior. Why?

          Furthermore, if you’re Att 20,000 years ago, and you have your wife Sar, and your neighbor Grott is killed, do you automatically take on his younger, prettier wife? Why not? She’s younger, she’s prettier, why don’t you just kick your current mate to the curb? More likely, she’s devastated because she’s lost her man, and she sidles up to you, and you think about it but you realize you’ve got enough trying to provide for your current wife and kids, can you even handle what it takes to care for another one?

          No, no, no, this makes no sense at all man. What society does this rampant hypergamy and rampant competition for the most nubile young females actually exist in? When I look at history, and anthropology, it appears to be in one place only: among very rich, affluent, wealthy, decadent societies.

          Which means it’s not fundamental human nature per se, it’s a set of choices we make. They’re choices.

          If we fall into this genocentric thinking, believing it’s all “in the genes,” we not only have to ignore vast swaths of history and archaeological data, we also forget one of our most important inherited traits: neuroplasticity.

          • obmon

            … I’m dumbfounded by the obtuse nature of your arguments. Hypergamy and rampant competition is evident all around you. Just because it doesn’t manifest itself as men killing each other with spears for the right to sleep with the blonde, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Look closer.

            If you prefer spears, look up the Wodaabe men in Africa. I would post a link, but links have to wait for moderator approval.

          • typhonblue

            @ obmon

            The rampant competition you’re talking about takes place in a structure where people have agreed to cooperate regarding its fundamental nature.

            Think about how much trust and cooperation it takes to accept an abstraction in exchange for your labor.

          • Darryl X

            @ typhonblue –

            I don’t think I or many other men agreed to cooperate on its fundamental nature.

          • Sickofit

            To say men aren’t competing for women in society or never have… ? Even war is co-operative? That’s the first thing I think when I see piles of dead bodies being bulldozed into mass graves… how cooperative. Did the Germans co-operate with Jews? Did slaves co-operate with their owners? In your rationalizing logic I suppose the resounding answer is yes. I don’t know why I ask questions when from my very first post in the comments of this article nobody seems to address the questions directly and instead dismisses them. If I go look for a job tomorrow I will be competing with other men. If I land a job that pays I can get a car or house or what have you. In the dating scene I will compete with other men for women that seek provisions and security. Or by your logic I’ll co-operate with other men and women and together we will decide which woman is for me. Hmmm.

          • Dean Esmay

            I’m dumbfounded that you think competition is the primary hallmark when civilization would not, could not exist if men were constantly in the business of rampant competition, rather than tempered, generally friendly competition within a largely cooperative environment. I’m sorry, are football teams and construction crews and boy scout troops some kind of amazing innovation that run contrary to male nature?

            Are the natural games little boys and girls play together spontaneously as soon as they’re able to walk some sort of freak accident of modern civilization?

            And this supposed endless competition for nubile females that males are supposedly locked into for life: please point me to the civilization, or the primitive society, where this was the norm. Even in this civilization, where all the rules of courtship have been thrown in the air, how do men really typically play the mating game? By ruthlessly undercutting each other? Or is that how just a few hounds who generally wind up pretty unhappy typically act?

            Here’s what I witness among young men: they run in packs, and they try to help their buddies find girls, and develop a code between them as to who will go after which girl and who’s off-limits. “Bros before hos,” is that some modern innovation do you really think? Or is it because men naturally cooperate with each other even in the mating game, with a little friendly competition here and there in what is otherwise a mutual endeavor where they all want their friends to do well? And when a guy gets his heart broken, is it just because he didn’t get laid, or is it because he was EMOTIONALLY WOUNDED by a girl because he cared about her, not because he just saw her as a fuck toy he doesn’t get to play with anymore?

            I’m sorry, we are not a tournament species, and while we do compete, it’s in short, fairly tame bursts, that we mostly grow out of. We’re a pair-bonding species, not a bunch of rutters constantly looking to fuck the nearest vagina with a pretty face and a nice pair of tits over it. That’s just a misandrist lie. In fact, it’s a common *feminist* lie.

          • Skeptic

            Yes Humans exhibit neuroplasticity.
            They are very adaptable.
            I agree with you that humans do co-operate – when it suits them.
            When it doesn’t suit them, well, we all know a good deal about that don’t we?
            To me the whole argument about whether we’re co-operative pair bonding types or competitive by nature is not intersting.
            As for hypergamy being an evolutionary thing or a learnt behavioral thing – I couldn’t give a shit where it comes from either.
            I’m simply being pragmatic here. I have no wish to try and become some kind of psychological or anthropological expert – all I care about is that hypergamy exists as a character trait in the vast majority of women I’ve met, and in those I am going to meet in my brief time on this rock. The ‘working model’ in my head then is that women are all hypergamous to some degree or another – quite possibly on some kind of bell curve, and quite possibly as humans are very adaptable creatures, hypergamy is something that can wax and wane as the perceived need of the woman/women changes.
            If I get new data that contradicts that I’ll change my mind, but after 53 years of consistent life experience with females I’m not holding my breath on seeing that new data anytime soon.
            One thing is unequivocal with me. Female hypergamy has been used by countless women in places with feminist laws and conventions to DISPOSE of good men for the sake of female narcissism.
            As such I believe it’s a valid topic for personal AND political discussion.
            I won’t be fooled or shamed into dropping that attitude by any amount of “it’s whining”, or by lofty ideas of “but it aint political, which is where the MRM is headed”.
            Nor sidetracked by the latest anthropological or psychological theory into minimizing it’s existence.
            Like I said pragmatic.
            Now 2 questions arise –
            How much do I ghost from the female hypergamous gaze tomorrow by dressing down? and, what kind of life do I make for myself free from the need to impress and support women?

          • Suz

            So very well said, Dean. Thank you for not letting these irrational rants stand unchallenged. Unchallenged emotional rants are the foundation of ideology.

            The idea that men are not naturally cooperative, would only be promoted by a person who is so secure in what male cooperation has provided, that he can’t see it – because he doesn’t have to see it. It’s like a healthy, well fed child sitting in a warm house, complaining (on his cell phone) that his parents never do anything for him.

            It’s also like a Women’s Studies professor, calling herself “independent” because she doesn’t happen to be married to, or have any reciprocal obligations to, the many men who make her comfortable existence possible.

            That said, it is vitally important that men like obmon and Sickofit consider such theories seriously, **so they can work through them logically.** The point of the scientific process is to “prove” a theory by attempting to DISprove it. Unfortunately many people fall deeply in love with their theories, and shelter them from conflicting evidence that might damage them.

            Pardon my soapbox.

          • Dean Esmay

            @skeptic: Noting the reality that countless women have been enabled and even encouraged in hypergamous behavior is fair game with me. It’s the truth. I start rationally objecting when this is put forth as fundamental biological nature, rather than chosen behavior–and terrible behavior that is a long-term cause of misery, not just for the males rendered disposable but, in my experience, also frequently leads to long-term misery for the women who indulge in it. It’s not natural, it’s not healthy, but it’s also not something you’re going to browbeat women out of. We need social change, and that includes changing men’s attitudes and expectations of women.

            This is why I’m a little puzzled at the reaction to Aimee’s article. Her main thrust is about watching a man she cares about LET HIMSELF be used as a disposable utility by a woman, and how she’s helpless to get him to understand what he’s doing and why it’s hurting him and his children. In all but the most extreme cases (sacrificing yourself in a fire so your kids can escape or something), allowing yourself to be disposable isn’t just hurtful to you, it’s hurtful to your loved ones and to society as a whole, I would argue. Male disposability is more cultural than anything so far as I can see, and to whatever extent it’s rooted in biology it’s greatly amplified and distorted by our current culture.

          • Suz

            “Now 2 questions arise –
            How much do I ghost from the female hypergamous gaze tomorrow by dressing down? and, what kind of life do I make for myself free from the need to impress and support women?”

            You make some excellent points, but I have a third question:
            How do I protect OTHERS from the effects of rampant hypergamy? Others like my son and my nephews, and a 20 year old young man I know who is currently writing the rent checks for himself, his temporarily unemployed mom, and his teenage sister. See, his mom is cool; she’s grateful and she goes out of her way to make his life easier, but his little sister takes him for granted. Girls like his sister are what’s in store for him. I don’t doubt that life is going to suck for most men of his generation, because it will take at least a generation to begin to reverse the effects of feminism (one of which is out-of-control hypergamy.) Maybe, just maybe, if he has a son, that child won’t face with such a dangerous future.

          • Skeptic

            Maybe you need to do a quick aVfM poster run.
            I suggest you start with the telephone pole right outside the young men’s houses.
            Something like this might get them thinking –
            Better if it’s got a URL on it though.

            Also you could choose your moment and have a female tete a tete with the spoilt brat sister – how much you like to show your appreciation for guys who do such and such for you……….blah, blah, blah……you’ll figure out what to say……. and a gentle word in the brother-appliance’s shell – “Does your sister appreciate what you do for her?” “How does she show her appreciation?”

            Personally I don’t share your pessimism about young men. I feel pretty optimistic for the next generation of young men. They’ll have several tools at their disposal men of my generation didn’t have to anywhere near the same extent to deal with female hyergamy on steroids – Men’s Rights literature and videos, game, porn and the imminent arrival of new forms of safe reversible male birth control.
            For more on that you can check out a couple of posts here at aVfM –



          • Suz

            Skeptic I agree that young men have many more tools, but I think it will be a while before the use of those tools has much measurable effect. Women can still afford to dismiss men who don’t serve them. If the economy continues to get worse, long term, it would hasten the process. Less surplus means less entitlement.

      • obmon


        “The rampant competition you’re talking about takes place in a structure where people have agreed to cooperate regarding its fundamental nature.”

        That makes no sense whatsoever. Anything can happen in a structure where people agree to .. hell, thats not even sensical.

        Although, THERE IS a structure. It’s called society. Men compete for the best looking women. Women compete for the most successful men (then compete again, after they won, and their medal loses its luster).

        Just because you use big words, doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.

        “Think about how much trust and cooperation it takes to accept an abstraction in exchange for your labor.”

        Yeah. Men cooperate when women aren’t the goal. What’s your point?

        • typhonblue

          @ obmon

          “Although, THERE IS a structure. It’s called society.”

          Exactly. Without a high degree of cooperation there is no society.

          Other animals don’t create societies as complex as our own because a society’s complexity is based on how well people will cooperate.

          Cooperation between males is minimal in other animal species.

          • Darryl X

            @ tb –

            The cooperation to which you refer is when marriage and other mechanisms existed to check female hypergamy (and other behaviors).

            Today those mechanisms don’t exist. There is no cooperation. At least between the large number of ruling females and small number of males and the males at the margins of existence in this post-feminist dystopian fascist police state.

            I do not cooperate today. I like many other men are slaves working under perpetual threat of imprisonment. Or worse – extermination. No cooperation here. I was willing to cooperate when there was a social contract to be filled.

            That social contract was broken by women and feminists (our governments). I am at best an unwilling slave and at worst a soon to be revolutionary.

            Cooperation among males exists at the margins of society even when there is no civilization. It’s just that those males have fewer resources with which to work because the females who have aggregated at the center of their society use them all up.

            That’s why an important foundation of any civilization is divide the women up and discourage their aggregation. Otherwise they will take over. Women and feminists (including the male enablers of women) do not cooperate. Real men do cooperate. Just not to the advantage of women and feminists.

            Which is why I’ve written before, women need men more than men need women. And why women need to start thinking about how they interact with and treat men.

            When food runs short, sex isn’t going to be all that interesting to a starving man and women will just be relegated to the menu.

          • Dean Esmay

            @Darryl X: That cooperation existed long before there was any great civilizational structure that enforced rules like you speak of. It goes back hundreds of thousands of years, as much as a million or more. It’s a hallmark of our species.

            That someone doesn’t think it takes massive cooperation of males to even do something as hideous as make war tells me that some people don’t know anything at all about war. Do you think the Roman or Spartan war machines could ever have possibly functioned if men were not naturally inclined to cooperate with and bond with each other? And for that matter, these were civilizations that had strong rules on female (and male) sexual behavior.

            Furthermore, does anyone really think a primitive men living off the land could easily afford to be a provider for a half-dozen women? If hypergamy (which, I repeat, *does* exist) is so absolutely prevalent, then why wasn’t the reverse, with men dumping women the moment they were older and no longer nubile and fertile and highly attractive, the norm before alimony? Fact is that it wasn’t.

            Mate-dumping is a sign of a civilization in turmoil, or of high wealth. It’s not our natural state.

          • Darryl X

            @ Dean –

            “That cooperation existed long before there was any great civilizational structure that enforced rules like you speak of.”

            I guess I haven’t defined my terms. Sorry. I was referring to cooperation between the sexes. Men have always cooperated with one another (at least men at the margins of society and not the men within a core group). Women have always manipulated and coerced one another and men.

            Even before civilization, before marriage, men at the margins of society and existence, outside the core group of majority females and minority males (about 80% to 20%), cooperated because they had to. They faced harsh elements and imposition upon them by other populations and the core group.

            The women within the core group did not cooperate. They imposed upon the minority of males. The number of minority of males was too small really to cooperate and achieve anything like advancement of civilization. Their labor and numbers was not enough. So their labor and numbers were not selectively adaptive for cooperation and advancement of civilization.

            They invested their time and limited resources (after the females took everything for themselves) and used it to impose upon neighboring populations and the men at the margins to steal their resources. Or they coerced and enslaved the men at the margins to make war on others.

            The men at the margins, although they cooperated, were limited in resources (because the women at the core took everything) and they were often imposed upon by the core population. Civilization is a result of mitigating the wasteful behavior and hypergamy of women and mitigating the disposability of men at the margins.

            And harnessing their labor for defense and advancement of civilization in exchange for children, family, social acceptance and a higher standard of living. Men within the core group are unable to cooperate. They never developed those skills.

            Although it does take considerable cooperation to make war, it takes a lot more among men and between men and women to advance a civilization. It also takes intellect, neither of which minority of men at the core have. (But that the men at the margins do.) I understand your critique of my position and I wonder if it isn’t a disagreement about this point: most wars before and after marriage (civilization) was “invented” (I know that’s not a good term) were fought by the men at the margins, coerced to do so by the core group of majority females and minority males. That’s where the cooperation is – among the men at the margins. Enough cooperation for wars but not enough between men and women for advancement of civilization. And not enough men between the women to prevent them from wasting resources. Actually, the men and women really don’t cooperate, the men just prevent the women from wasting resources so the men can then advance civilization.

            And that is how our wars are fought today. Just like before the invention of marriage. Men are conscripted into the military or forced into it by economic necessity for fighting wars to support a populations of women who live like pigs at troughs (and still actually believe they “made it on their own” – LOL – God I still can’t get over that – absolutely delusional). After marriage has been destroyed by feminists.

            We are no longer a civilized society. As more and more men no longer have any benefits from living in our society (like myself) and drop out, the mass of labor and intellect for advancing civilization will drop below a critical threshold. And civilization will unravel abruptly and with remarkable speed. Any men who advance civilization (like me) or fight in wars (like most of our military) will be slaves.

            I like this hypothetical reconstruction of our social organization (primitive or advanced) because it explains so much about female and male behavior. Hypergamy and male disposability. The great disparity in responsibility for domestic violence by women and men. The excessive consumerism and spending by women. The minority of males in our governments who acquiesce to the whims of women without sense or reason. The perpetual wars we seem to be fighting (and now losing over the past fifty or sixty years). The collapse of marriage as an institution. The separation of children from their fathers and holding them hostages for ransom to coerce labor. So on and so on.

  • TheMoralGodless

    Aimee, if you want to co-opt the men’s movement, go post at the good man project.

    I know that Paul and John maintain a very open-minded editorial policy here. Which I support. Many perspectives are needed, as is disagreement

    And when the perspective offered (here, for example) is an prurient attempt to prop women back up onto a privilege pedestal, feminist-style, the disagreement I have to offer is a resounding G F Yourself.

    Women deserve every bit of criticism we give them. It is extremely important, because men and women both have to lose the pedestal of “woman as blameless non-agents” that you are trying to put them back on.

  • Kris W

    To a certain degree I agree with the Author, but perhaps for different reasons. Lousy people will always exist, that is a sad a cruel fact of life. How society reacts though when lousy people do lousy things, well no one ever got any rights by asking “please sir can I have some more”.

    We got to the point we got to today by yelling, screaming and making it made in perfectly clear terms that we will no longer accept being treated like second class citizens at best, and subhuman on average.

    In that regard I disagree, as well do I disagree with not calling lousy human beings out on their behavior. Because whenever someone say’s “don’t judge me”, 9 times out of ten they are guilty as sin and have many things to hide.

  • scatmaster

    No woman can speak for me.
    However I believe they can give an opinion to men on what they should do to avoid the pitfalls and give advice on the evils of feminism. See GWW’s post to a young man on reddit. Brilliant stuff.

    • Dean Esmay

      She should put that in one of her videos. Even when I don’t agree with her (and I *do* agree with her here) she’s brilliant.

      • scatmaster

        Dean: She is “brilliant”.
        How do I justify my comment “No woman can speak for me” when I read her commentary?
        I am so confused!!!!!

        • Dean Esmay

          LOL. How about “no one speaks for me, unless I say they do?” 😉

          • scatmaster

            Works for me 8)

    • Kimski

      That post deserves it’s own article on AVfM, and should appropriately be named “Everything You Want to Know About Your Future.” -A guideline in feminism and female entitlement for the next generation of young men.

      She managed to cut everything down to the bone, and present it so you’d have to be stupid not to get it.
      Now I have to go look for that donation button of hers.

      • Dean Esmay

        Working on it now. :-)

        • Kimski

          Thank you, Dean.
          More people need to see this.

    • obmon

      I’d marry Girl Writes What. That’s saying something.

      • scatmaster

        Me too. LOL.

  • Aimee McGee

    Yeegads, go to band practice and an early night and I come back to this number of posts…
    To those guys who disagree – good! This is how we learn and refine our arguments. Our opinions are our own, but if we can’t defend them then its gonna be tough out there. I’ve said it before and will say it again, I like this place because there is scope to disagree without it becoming personal.
    If you feel strongly enough, write something and offer it for debate…it’s a positive learning experience. If you think my intention is speaking for you, then make your own voice heard. The fact that I’m not speaking for anyone other than myself should not stop you either.
    Now before you think I’m retiring wounded, advance warning I’ve got a timetable full of meetings culminating in a piranha fest on Friday with the person who decides if I get to continue a programme of work I’ve piloted this last 18 months, so I’m not free to comment much until the end of week.

  • MenDiscontinued

    I don’t believe male disposability to be caused by hypergamy. It’s caused by the government system. They get workers and profit, simple to me.

  • TheBiboSez

    OK, for those who didn’t follow the link, here is the comment from GWW (on reddit) in answer to a question about Privilege Blindness. Everything that follows below is hers:

    It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit them, or that the other doesn’t have them and cannot benefit from them.

    Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege”. They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression”. They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else, and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men too”.

    What feminism has really done in the advancement of women’s interests is take men’s patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them as “rights” that women can choose or not as they see fit. It–with the help of advancements like the pill–has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life or provide their husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while keeping the entitlement to his financial support.

    And please don’t get me wrong. I’m not a traditionalist in any way shape or form. But I do live in reality, and I know what’s been happening over the last 40 years.

    The problem with what’s going on now is that as women are released from their obligations (to men and to society), without giving up corresponding entitlements…things are getting unbalanced. The system we had before sucked for a lot of people, but it was at least equitable for both genders–it afforded enough entitlements to offset each member’s obligations. When you remove obligation from one member while holding onto the entitlement, this places more obligation (and less entitlement) on the opposing member.

    A great deal of women’s traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc), but now men have been kicked out of the house, so to speak. Because women have so much more choice now–because they claimed things like earning income as rights rather than obligations–and because they owe nothing to anything other than personal fulfillment…well, choices cost. They cost economically, socially and politically.

    Men aren’t being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore–women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men’s benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are “non-profit”. They take a huge cut before what’s left trickles back down. They’re a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.

    That means we’re trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There’s a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not “manning up”. Men have always either provided for women and children, or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They’ve always put more in than they’ve taken out–women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they’re being asked to put even more in, and get less out.

    Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.

    But what’s this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD, she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their career as an obligation, and expected to be working 50-70 hours/week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.

    That female doctor has just taken out of society more than she’s put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, and take up the slack. We all pay, with our tax revenue, and by having to wait to see a doctor, and her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.

    And I’m not saying that women shouldn’t be doctors–hell, my sister is one. But I AM saying that though women have made inroads into the male roles, they haven’t embraced them in any meaningful away, because it actually sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you’re a man or a woman, and society doesn’t enforce this role with women the way it does with men.

    You won’t find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won’t even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.

    You’re young. You seem exceptionally bright and well-spoken, and you have every right to feel dismissed and disregarded by the people on AskFeminists. They are writers of revisionist history and revisionist reality–emotional reasoners who form narratives to explain their emotions, instead of living in reality. Please don’t get sucked in by them.

    There are women’s issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to those issues. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power–how even women won’t vote for them–and then in the next breath cast women in this role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive their own lives, all the while whining that purses are oppressive? I’m a woman, and one of the biggest problems I have with feminism is that it does not give women any credit.

    Anyway, I thought I would reach out to you–off thread, because I don’t want to cause another shitstorm right now. I’m a mother of three kids, two of them boys. My oldest is 17, and I worry about the world he and his brother are growing up in. I know my daughter will be just fine. That’s gotta tell you something.

  • PetraPenmark

    “If you hate, you let those who wish you harm win. The best outcome is not hating, it is feeling indifference, so you can ignore them.”

    I had to comment on that. It is so achingly true I absolutely had to thank you for saying it. Thank you. I’ve been through an abusive relationship and learned the hard way that my greatest victory is getting to a point where, yeah I still hate them, but it’s not a hate that bubbles up from deep within and hijacks my emotions every time I think of them. It’s a hate that says, “If I never saw them ever again, I would be happy with that.” And that’s what’s best for me.

  • Shadow7057

    I think that trying to shift the focus from women to men on a lot of problems that men are facing isn’t going to help.

    To me, the idea that “women seek a spouse with higher status (hypergamy)” is directly related to the feeling that men are “used for a utility/purpose, and tossed out after once that purpose is gone (male disposability)”.

    If the world was all men.. they would still look down upon guys who didn’t serve some purpose or help out in some way. The difference is that whole “disposable” part.

    In a society of all men, even the lowest person on the totem pole would still have importance/serve a purpose and not be looked down upon or as “disposable” in some way.. that seems to be a status that women attach to men who are “lower status” than them.. that these men are somehow “disposable”.

    • Sickofit

      Could not agree more. Here’s a vid Barbarossaaaa recently uploaded explaining exactly why we shouldn’t stop complaining.

  • Paul Elam

    @ Dean,

    You are welcome to debate me on that article, as time permits. But you will lose, lol. :)

    @ Obman

    You are free to take Dean up on his offer and we will be happy to publish it. I happen to agree with most of what you are saying, but I draw the line where it comes to using this forum to personally threaten the credibility of those who manage this place.

    What we do here is argue ideas. If you can’t contain your anger over disagreement to a level that promotes thoughtful vetting of ideas, then you are useless here.

    Check your anger, man, and don’t make threats like that in this forum again.

    • Dean Esmay

      No I won’t! I will destroy you Elam, and your women shall be mine!!!!

      OK, seriously, while I accept much of the thrust of that particular article, my arguments with it would be basically as follows:

      The Yanomamö example is problematic AS STATED because 1) there is significant reason to believe that the violence noted among the Yanomamö has to do with unusual circumstances that have arisen among them in the modern era, and 2) there is ALSO reason to believe that their violence has been intentionally exaggerated for political reasons by people who wish to persecute them as violent savages in need of pacification.

      And even if that is not the case, and they really are just that violent, study of the Yanomamö has been marked from the beginning as causing consternation among anthropologists because that level of violence is so unusually high for what’s normally observed among hunter-gatherers.

      So to assert that they are a blanket example of typical for hunter/gatherers is scientifically questionable.

      Otherwise: for some time now, the level of sexual dimorphism among humans has been on a generally DECREASING trend. On a macro level, Homo Erectus was significantly more sexually dimorphic than Homo Sapiens, for example. (Homo Neanderthalus was less sexually dimorphic but we aren’t directly descended from them.)

      What most clearly to my mind–and the mind of many anthropologists, and not just ideologues–is that one of the many unusual traits of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) is how cooperative with each other the males are, and just how quickly they bond with each other even when they aren’t directly related to each other and even–and this is the kicker–will HELP EACH OTHER get laid and find mates.

      If we were a tournament species like gorillas or baboons, for example, please explain how the phenomenon of the “wing man” would even arise. You know what I mean: two or three young men who go cruising for chicks helping each other get laid. Not looking for some girl to rape together (indeed, if we were tournament oriented, even gang raping a girl would be weird as instead the rape gang would all concentrating on beating the fuck out of or killing each other so the survivor could be the one to get to rape her), but actually working together to help each other find girls they like. You will occasionally see human males working to try to lay the same girl but usually they won’t; more often it’ll be like “You’re hot for that chick? OK, she’s off-limits to me, let me see if I can help you get with her.” THAT IS NOT TOURNAMENT-MATING BEHAVIOR but it’s crazy common.

      Furthermore, what would be the big deal of so-called “cock-blocking” if we’re a tournament species? Cock-blocking would be just what you do, man. But that’s not reality: if your buddy cock-blocks you once, maybe you get over it, but if he keeps doing it to you he stops being your buddy, and he probably loses a lot of other friends too.

      There is no question in my mind that females do most of the selecting for mates, and many females do apparently have primitive wiring that selects for big tough brutish thuggish guys, and those women bear responsibility for making such choices. But it’s clear if you look at the trends, and even the fact that human dimorphism has been DECREASING over the millenia not increasing, then the idea that we are fundamentally a tournament-mating species is just plain wrong. We are a cooperative species and always have been, and the weirdest thing about us when it comes to the mating game is the way men even cooperate in helping each other find mates. We do it all the fucking time. It’s natural. It’s normal. And it’s been going on not just since the dawn of civilization, it’s been going on well before that.

      So let’s be clear what I’m arguing: I am not arguing that women do not do the selecting. I do not argue that men who are rough and tough do not turn women on, because clearly they turn a lot of women on (or American football players, boxers, wrestlers, and yes, gangsta thugs would have a lot more problem getting laid than they do). It’s also clear to me that feminine hypoagency has an evolutionary basis. It’s clear to me that we don’t do anywhere near enough to hold women accountable for the bad choices they often make, and that a violent man does indeed turn a lot of women on–that’s just a brute reality and it doesn’t matter if ideologues don’t like it.

      But you look at the trend lines, and if you look at our actual development as a species over the millenia, the trend isn’t toward greater and greater competition among males–if it were, odds are you and I would both be probably twice as big and 5-10 times stronger and hairier than we actually are. Or dead by now. Men would probably typically be about twice the size of women, not just a little bigger.

      Furthermore, human fathering, bonding with their children, and human male cooperation with each other: it’s very very old. As in, hundreds of thousands of years old. What makes us so fucking dangerous as a species is that we cooperate, heavily. In our earliest years as a species, it was the only way we could survive. It is also what later led to us being the most successful higher species on the planet: our cooperation, not some mythical endless tournament of men killing each other so they could get laid. That’s what lions do. That’s what gorillas do. That’s not what humans do. Male human competition with other male humans is remarkably gentle compared to real tournament species.

      And if you think I’m wrong, I’m coming to Texas to scoop out your brains and steal all your wimmenfolk. 😉

      Although I’m not sure we actually disagree all that much. I think the only thing that tweaked me was what I feel is overgeneralization vis-a-vis the Yanomamö .

    • Dean Esmay

      Put it another way: if we were actually a tournament mating species (as biologists define it), there could not exist something called a PUA community, as it would be a contradiction in terms. A bunch of guys getting together to help each other figure out how to get laid is pretty much an impossibility for a tournament mating species. 😉

    • obmon

      @ Paul

      I apologise for my threats, but my anger is justified. Let me explain.

      @ Dean

      First, you have 10 years on me. Listing all you have done to show your superior involvement is pointless. I’ve only stopped taking the blue pill a few months ago.

      Second, I’m MGTOW, I don’t consider myself an MRA. For me, all you have done is well and good, and we should certainly have people on the front lines, but its akin to hacking away at the iceberg that sunk the Titanic with little more than a swiss army knife.

      What is truly important is knowledge. Understanding. Far greater change can be affected if men were provided with the truth about our biology. Far fewer men will get married, and those that do, will ensure they have iron-clad pre-nups to reign the female in.

      If the government, and society on the whole, is no longer capable of controlling hypergamy in women then men have to do it themselves. And they can’t if they don’t understand where it stems from.

      With real knowledge, men can change what has transpired. Half-truths cloud the reality.

      To quote The Matrix:
      “To deny our very impulses, is to deny the very thing that makes us human.”

      Earlier you used an example,

      “in a totally primitive society, in which your clothes are animal furs, you don’t even know what reading and writing is, you live in a culture with only a couple of hundred other people at most, and your most sophisticated tools are rocks and sticks: what makes you think hypergamy would even WORK? And what evidence do you have that HUMANS, any time in the last MILLION YEARS, ever behaved that way on a broad scale?”

      Let’s strip you example down even further. Let’s say there are only 5 men, and 5 women, all in a row, facing each other. What makes you think that each of the 5 women will pick one of the 5 men? Meaning everyone gets a mate, and society is better for it?

      If you believe that is what would happen, then I think I’m wasting my time.

      What would happen is that each of the 5 women will pick, or attempt to pick, 1 or 2 of the men, leaving the remaining 3 waiting in the wings, as worker beta slaves.

      I may have only been reading up on feminism and men’s rights for a few months, but even I know that.

      By saying that it is modern society, and only modern society, that created the modern women, you are basically saying that if we change society, women will change too. You can see how that may piss someone off. It’s apologetic, revisionist ideology. So you are not only hacking away at the iceberg with a swiss army knife, but you are using the blunt edge of the blade!

      “All I’ll say is, I think Aimee’s right: until men themselves reject male disposability, until they they themselves reject being used as a utility, not much will change.”

      Come on man. Really? Even when I was a blue pill-er, never did i think of myself as ‘disposable’. Quite the opposite. I was confused to how women couldn’t see my excellent utility.

      It is women’s natural tendency for hypergamy that makes us disposable. A fact that modern society before the 20th century has actively seeked to prevent.

      The reason for my anger… If you use half-truths, try to be PC, and apologise (or deny) the biological imperatives of women (and men), then you are not helping anyone. Write as many letters as you like. Real change will not happen. You may save one man, but millions will still be thrown in the gutter.

      Also, I am only debating your hypergamy argument. But as for being a tournament species. Of course we are. PUA’s take women away from and ruin them for good men. They do so willingly, and consciously. How exactly do YOU define tournament? We are humans, we do not need big arms and big testicles to be a tournament species. Our intellects provide us with the tools, and that makes our competitive nature, that much more complex. We challenge each other all the time for women. Even among friends who help other friends get laid. They are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They are actually removing competition from the playing field. Even if it is subconscious. Another reason for my anger at the false information you are providing to men who need to take the red pill.

      • Paul Elam

        I wasn’t questioning your anger. Just making the point that regardless of how you feel, there are protocols here.

        Some people like to chip at icebergs with Swiss army knives. I am one of them. I respect others who do the same, and try to find reason to respect those that won’t.

        But as an MRA to one who is not, I say, “This is our house.” I respect your right to disagree, but you should consider that Dean and other work their asses off around here, and they don’t get a dime for it. I can’t and won’t tolerate them doing their work while being threatened like that.

        • obmon

          Ok, I got your point the first time. Chip away.

  • Bewildered

    @ OneHundredPercentCotton

    ” My BEEF is with the system that allows a trampy ex wife such much power and him so little recourse.

    This makes me hopping mad. It’s bloody unfair !