'Romantic rejections, misogyny and a new masculinity'

... I lost in in the trash can next to the desk. If indeed the author of this piece is in fact named Marc with all that that connotes, all I can say is, Good God, I hope he snaps out of it soon. But I will both try to keep my commentary constructive as well as maybe offer this poor fellow some advice, as it seems he needs it.

Occasionally I get submissions about blog posts on feminist web sites. I usually don't post them because there's little new there to read and they are about feminism. Practically speaking, if I posted every offensive feminist screed against men or MRAs, I'd have no room for anything else.

This one was worth the posting I feel because he addresses the question of how men react to rejection from women. Being, apparently, a man who has internalized feminist indoctrination, he seems to view himself as the source of his own heartbreak (and indeed he is), but that this is due to "patriarchy". He writes that he hopes the "new masculinity" will change that.

Obviously this guy is young and so I have some news for him: The "new masculinity" has been talked about now for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. There is nothing new about it, nor about femininity, one way or another. As long as humans are designed as we are, with endocrine systems and brains designed a certain way, we will be what we are.

But what this guy hasn't learned is this: Indeed, one cannot buy a woman's affections. Human biology is dictating his self-defeating behavior, not "patriarchy". When it comes to dating/sex, unless a man is categorically attractive to insecure women or to women who are "all about money" (eg: a man who is famous or rich), there is *nothing* a man can do to make a woman like him or be attracted to him. This is all about subconscious decisions around things like biological system compatibility and projective psychology ("button-pushing"). If a man was the child-bearer, it would be that way for him, too. But if he were, he would be the woman instead, right? Women do all the picking and choosing-- under a certain age.

By the time a man is in his late 30s and 40s, this situation changes. Men start to get to pick and choose a lot more than women do and not surprisingly the typical otherwise unattached woman becomes a lot less "choosy" about who she dates (sleeps with) and becomes increasingly more "desperate" in her behavior (see cougar). It is at this time that avowed so-called feminists seem to become born-again conservative women, too, when it comes to certain things. Again, this is biology at work, but now, heading in the other direction. This is Nature's Worst Trick on the Human Race.

But alas feminism has taken too many young men and taught them these kinds of bizarre things about themselves: that they are bad, evil, "oppressive". That isn't the case. What they are is male. That is all. And if they want to avoid situations like the ones this particular one describes, he has to do just this: Stop chasing tail. Let them come to you. If you don't like a particular woman, send her away. At his age, rejection is the extent of his power in romantic or would-be romantic situations.

A woman would understand that she CAN be bought. It is only because this man totally misunderstands women that he can write this tripe.

Women are "No, then yes" in dating. The reason for this is that it is to the woman's advantage both in immediate benefits but also in ensuring that she has a suitable mate in the end (one able to overcome adversity.. a good provider). Any guy who gives up too quickly won't be the type of guy to stick around during adversity after mating.

Ah yes, the "Men are patriarchy-programmed neanderthals whose only form of personal expression is destruction and violence" approach to gender relations. If you're hurt because of rejection, it's because of your patriarchal privilege complex. If you aren't, it's because you're a misogynist and objectify all women.

Whatever you do, if you're a man, you're wrong.

For feminists, the only answer to being dumped is to thank the female for showing you the error of your ways, and "honor her choices". What a load.

manonthestreet

Biology made me desire women. God knows I wish it hadn't but that the way it was. Patriarchy, whatever that is, had nothing to do with the overwhelming need which dominated my teens, twenties and beyond. There was as much game plan in the whole thing as there is when a starving man seeks for food. I think writers of this sort of article are just describing something they think exists but have never actually encountered for the simple reason that it doesn't.

Even the simplest logical analysis of the first paragraph makes it clear that this man can not think and hence should be ignored. And even though patriarchy obviously hurts men too, that fact is only ever brought up by feminists when they wish to distract us from the ways in which feminists and their rich mates hurt men.

"If the Men's Rights Activists are truly serious about men's health and well-being, they, too, would choose to take on issues of the constructions of masculinity. But it's not happening because they're neither serious nor do they really have any stake in this."

Just a straight out lie. What is Glenn Sacks doing when he goes on about how great it was to stay at home raising his daughter? What are most of us doing when we refuse to get married? What is Porky Domesticus doing when he reviews JCVD from an MRA standpoint? Conforming to the traditional constructions of masculinity? Balderdash. This guy is a typical feminist - part idiot, part liar.
----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.