Book review: A man's guide to avoiding psychos

the article sounds good.

one thing that bugs me is that they're making excuses for those abusive women.

they don't seem to consider the fact that women are also taught since birth that the male gender is pure evil.

but then, the feminists might shut them down if they did.

(From the author) -- "The reason why women can manipulate men so easily is because, Roy says, they are simply more in tune with their emotions.

Men experience the same degree of emotions but don't tend to have the vocabulary to deal with it. A man doesn't know, generally speaking, whether he is upset, frustrated or angry."

That's bullshit.

If a man has to be confused about being upset, angry, or frustrated ...

then he is retarded, married, or gay. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

Stupid is as stupid does.

Feminists count on male stupidity.

Disguised as chivalry.

What is the solution?

This is how the average psychologist or psychotherapist, is going to blow off the book and it's controversy:

"Well, anyone, man or woman, can become involved in a realtionship in which they feel that the other person is being manipulative or vindictive..and I'm not sure that it's only women who can appear to behave as if they have those traits. Also, it's not good to label.."

Note the simpleton's astute choice of words: "feel that" the other person can be vindictive; "I'm not sure" it's just women; "appear" to have those traits; "label".

This is a subset of the standard horseshit vocabulary used by these "professionals", since it is "important how you say things..so as not to make someone uncomfortable.."

Sorry to change the subject, but this just came to mind as I was in the process of diagnosing my cousin, who is a therapist.

"A man doesn't know, generally speaking, whether he is upset, frustrated or angry."

If he really said that, i don't need to look at his book. I'm sure he will make some valid points in it, but it is sadly obvious that he buys into feminist notions about men, which have become "accepted wisdom". Also I wish he'd speak for himself.

Also I hate to say it Roy, but all human beings have roughly the same range of emotions. Maybe men aren't as "good at expressing them", i.e. they don't wear their hearts on their sleeves, and besides they've been socialized to repress their emotions - as this has historically been necessary, for them to be the protectors of women. A housewife is more free to show her "range of emotions", than some guy working in an coal mine.

Besides, women are virtually always critical, when men do speak up or try to express their emotions.

This is basically where I disagree with Farrell - I think it is a holdover from his NOW days, where in his books he clearly lays 95% of the responsibility at men's feet, to begin speaking up about their feelings. Sorry, that ain't gonna happen on any mass scale, until women start actively making a conscious effort to listen without criticizing, and make it known that they are open to men expressive themselves. Whereas the current situation is for a woman to hold a man in contempt, or be repulsed, if he tries to speak about his feelings. (Farrell seems to realize that this is true, but for some reason he still lays most of the responsiblity on men).

-ax

ax,

I have to disagree. Why are you on this site? It's to talk about how you feel about men's rights. I'm sure we've all had various degrees of discussion with other people in our lives, men and women, about these issues. Where I work I'll often try to provide a 'male perspective' on issues as they come up, and I encourage other men, who may not actively thing of themselves as 'MRAs' to speak up as well.

The unwillingness of most women to listen to these issues isn't men's fault, but men not speaking just because they think women will ignore it can certainly have the blame put on men. To quote one of Farell's book titles, "Women can't hear what men don't say".

I looked up the book under its U.K. title and there are two copies left at $25 a pop.

Looks like a vanity press item where the author pays the costs of having his genius published and distributed.

As for Farrell, his latest book on why men earn more places a lot of responsibility on women for the career and lifestyle choices they make, so maybe he's becoming more balanced. Though his N.O.W. credentials always make me look closely for the residual feminist bias in his writing.

The U.K. book at least acknowledges the Catch-22 of the "sensitive man," which is what our feminized culture proposes women want from men. (They don't.)

Test out the sensitivity schtick sometime by saying something like -- "Honey, I'm really becoming more sensitive about how I'm being exploited as a wage-slave, and so I'd like to cut back on how much time I spend at work..."

That's the kind of male sensitivity women really want.

Not!

I don't mind guys having a moan but I can't stand men who break down on reality tv or because they didn't win the singing contest or similar ,perhaps because I am 70 and was taught never to cry.Do they put them on tv to embarrass us or what?.
Can you imagine soldiers crying to the press because they have been posted overseas?

Sorry you don't think I should be on this site because I occasionally disagree with some people here. Also I have been posting for 3 years, and this site is NOT just about men expressing their feelings; lot's of topics come up.

It is in fact "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" that I referring to in my post below. It is ludicrous to place all the blame on one party. Women must be complicit in this for it to work; whereas men must be brave and not remain silent. Sorry if I implied that it is "all women's fault", that was not my intent.

-ax

I didn't mean to imply you didn't belong on the site.

"Why are you on this site?" was a rhetorical question, which I immediately answered. I wasn't questioning whether you belong here.

I had a feeling we were talking at cross purposes anyway.
But come on, don't women bear at least some of the responsibility? (I am not coming from the childish perspective of, "hey, it's not just my fault!!")

Could the tendency for men to accept full responsibility, as protectors, be coming into play here?

-ax

I suppose part of the reason I'm willing to side with Farell is because I've always felt that people far too often try to rely on subtle signals and body language. At the end of the day, you can only perceive a persons unwillingness to listen, you don't actually get their reaction until you've spoken up.

Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but if a woman claimed she was raped because, although she never spoke up, he never asked her if she was okay, we'd all be calling the case ridiculous.

The stoic, reserved, chivalrous "take-it-like-a-man" code that we all know and understand works 100% in favor of women and especially feminism!

Truly the last thing feminists like Kim Gandy at N.O.W. want is for men to begin sensitively articulating what they feel, how they also experience exploitation, how the Evil Patriarchy is a myth about a kind of power that does not exist, etc. etc.

Why do you think the mens' rights movement even in its current infancy is so threatening and must be supressed? (By VAWA and IMBRA, and what's coming next under President Hillary?)

Because it is giving voice to a class of persons long-silenced by social coercion of the most subtle and sophisticated kind.

When you tell a boy over and over "act this way and we'll accept you as a real man" that is a lesson in
P-O-W-E-R and C-O-N-T-R-O-L ... something the feminist vicimologists love to argue is a solely male privilege to use against women. Not so.

On an interpersonal level, most women do not really want to be burdened by having a relationship with an expressive, honest male.

It interferes with his primary utility as an ATM machine in sneakers. After all, a talking wallet is harder to objectify and exploit.

Farrell should write a follow-up to his book "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say."

He might call it "Women Now Hear What Men Are Saying ... and They Want Men To Shut The F*&k Up!"

I've never been a big fan of emphasizing or keying too much on body language anyway.
It's not really any specific individual instance(s) of men expressing feelings that I'm talking about here. What I mean, is that yes it is obviously true, that to determine a woman's reaction one must speak up first (althought it is also true that a woman may initiate by asking, "how do you feel..").
I mean once a few men have started speaking up, women must develope a "track record" of listening without criticizing; then as it becomes known that they are doing this, more and more men will start to speak up. As it stands now, women have more of a record of not listening, whether that means criticizing, ignoring, arguing, blowing off the man's statements/feelings, or whatever.
-ax

They, for the most part, are definitely not going to listen, and the "radical" ones actively try to silence men. I'm talking about more open-minded women.

Although there are some women who call themselves feminists, who are not really against men (like McElroy).
-ax

ax, I gotta take issue with Wendy McElroy, who loves to describe herself as an "individualist feminist."

She is the perfect example of a trojan whore for MRA's, always willing to sympathize, always more than ready to give men instructions.

It is a logical oxymoron to be "individual" and "feminist" because feminism is above all else a herd mentality.

Wendy writes some fine pieces now and then, and lately she's backed off from being so "expert" on men's issues.

But she is still best received as a gender fascist, until she relinquishes the "feminist" self-label.

She can spell it "I-fem" or 'i-fem" ---

Caps or no .... Sexism is as sexism does.

In all that I'ver ever read by her, I just don't see where she's anti-male. It sounds like you expect her to be an MRA, or at least a "perfect" woman.
-ax

(From a reader's review on amazon.com of Wendy's book defending pornography) --

"Wendy McElroy has exposed for all to view the dark sickness that has seeped into the heart of feminism."

It is precisely because Wendy understands and manipulates that "dark sickness" of feminism that I do not trust her.

There is really nothing she could do to make me believe in her integrity, unless she would publicly abandon the "i-feminist" foolishness.

She is, after all, female.

The duplicitous sex.

I am never disappointed.

i
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
p
o
s
t
b
u
t
t
h
e
s
p
a
c
e
i
s
s
h
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
!
!
!
.
.
.
.

To win, we need the help of moderate feminists, as well as MRAs. Wendy M. is one of the good guys.

...I'm with Roy on not trusting anyone who happily self-identifies with the nutcases in the dozens of self-serving feminist "movements". The fact that a woman calling herself a feminist (side note: that very word is sexist, if they were interested in equality they'd call themselves humanists, hence the reason feminists do "equity" not "equality", now back to your regularly scheduled ranting and raving...) occasionally manages to open her mouth without spewing misandric bile and spittle on everyone in sight doesn't necessarily qualify her as an ally.

You might be interested to know that Wendy has recently rejected men's issues entirely and has crawled back down into the women-first, women-only narcissism from whence she came, just as most of us expected someone calling herself a feminist to do. It was as predictable as the setting of the sun to those of us who've lived through all five decades of the long reign of error of radical feminism (and gender feminism and cultural feminism and i-feminism, whatever the hell that's supposed to be). All I'm saying is that I'd be careful who you ask for help Sosickoftheirlies - you might just get it.

You want a feminist ally? Start with people like Erin Pizzey. Or Camille Paglia. Or Christina Hoff Summers. But don't expect too much. They're still feminists, not humanists, and most of us ain't female, so we don't count.

Feminists are all for "females" not for men. Never let anyone that calls themselves a "feminist" fool you into thinking otherwise. The few women who support men do not declare themselves feminists, equity feminists, i-feminists or any of that sexist bullshit.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

I think that a lot of women react negatively even to the word "feminism," and rightfully so. But most of those women aren't activists, unfortunately.

They will swear up and down that they are not adhering to male bashing ideology yet they always do and believe in the exact same things that the feminists do. This is why the problem is deeper than feminism. Feminism is the product not the source. The feminists did not lie when they said "women made the personal, political." What we are experiencing now is what has been going on for hundreds of years albeit men were not wise enough to see it.

They allowed the predatory female to pull the wool over their eyes and hid behind the lie that men are in charge. The actual problem is chivalry and the female entitlement mentality accompanied by the female's self-absorbed nature and obsession with forcing everything to conform to her will. Women don't change, they force everything around them to kowtow to them instead.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek