Nice, Grainger and Karina. To help get men off the defensive on this issue, where we spend far too much time on just about every male-female issue, let’s add the fact as the opportunity arises, to point out that the power women have in keeping relationships together is also the power women have in manipulating and destroying relationships, and keeping people apart, by sowing discord with unquestioned credibility for their opinions, observations and rumors. It's not for nothing they do this “unpaid work.”
Yes if you do the relationship work you can also destroy relationships. If you throw the parties you decide who NOT to invite, etc. there’s a flip side to all this.
An awful lot of pixels spilled just to admit that women today are largely useless, entitled narcissists who are biologically incapable of not complaining. Society used to understand this, which is why it channeled their mischief into productive pursuits. As a gay guy I pray for the swifter arrival of female sexbots for my straight buddies, which will make them happier and richer than they’ve been in decades. For my part, I’ve been searching for a voice enabled LLM that can listen to my female clients and acquaintances explaining their needs and wants (of course without evincing the slightest interest in anything I have to say) for a good 45 minute stretch without giving the game away.
It’s a good, but disturbing point, if sex toys were better would men bother with women? Is this the appeal of trans porn and sex workers to “straight” men.
It's a good but disturbing question. Firstly, let me say that there are, yes, good women out there, to varying degrees. Some are straight up awesome. I'd argue that they're in the minority. The challenge is in discerning which is which. As Better Bachelor has stated a few times, it's like finding the right needle in a needle stack. At what point does one just stop fumbling around and go out and buy a reasonable alternative?
I wouldn't even delve into the whole 'trans' thing, but many years ago, Charlie Sheen said, "I don't pay women for sex. I pay them to go away afterward." In the context of this article and others like it, there's alot to unpack from his assertion - even if he is rather a scumbag.
I had an interesting conversation with Rev. Matt Littlefield on the subject of the societal effects of polygamy and how the consolidation of sexual access tended to destabilize society as young men were denied access to women, to sex and, really, to genetic propagation. What we are seeing now is the culmination (so far, and it seems to be getting worse) of women VOLUNTARILY choosing to share to some degree very high-status men rather than choosing a faithful man of lower status.
At the risk of sounding controversial, from a biological, evolutionary and practical standpoint, a man's interest in women, generally, is for a relationship, sex and, usually, procreation. Hence, marriage. But, if the patterns continue as they have been, what options remain to men? Our current trajectory is that of a significant cohort of women actively choosing from a sex standpoint polygamous, oligarchic aristocracy. What remains to the majority of young men on the outside looking in with a terminal case of blue balls and a sufficiency of morals to not become rapists. Will advance AI sexbots become the ultimate sedation that sidesteps open warfare or civil war? Because as much as women might SAY they'd prefer to encounter the bear in the woods, she should be terrified that feminism's open hostility to men will finally result in men's broad indifference to women, regardless of how loudly she screams as she falls prey to the predators.
Open question whether women will find sexbots equally useful. Feigned emotional involvement is not quite the same as the real thing, and also a sexbot for women will provide endless grist for the gossip mill, creating a hierarchy with those who have human husbands at the top, laddering down to women who can only afford progressively cheaper models.
As far as good women, the exception proves the rules, and among AWFLs, the rule is extremely well proven indeed.
Reading your comment becomes one of those it's funny because it's true kind of moments. In fact there was nothing that you said that made me think you had positive and improbable set of circumstances. The irony of feminism is the same as the irony of socialism. As much as the proponents of those systems scream out about the merits of egalitarianism, the inevitably construct hierarchical structures which operate camouflaged beneath those superficial layers of equality.
Oh, I like the format with 2 different takes on the same topic. 👍😊
A.M. radio had many political shows with Dem vs Rep co-hosts, and Sunday religion shows with Rabbi & Priest as co-host.
Bill Whittle has a show on YouTube with Stephen Green and Scott Ott, each offering their own take on current events. It’s a winning format that never fails to draw interest from the different opinions that are offered by the three co-hosts.
I see potential here, and I’ll be watching with interest to see what ‘Grainger and Karina’ develops into.
I hope that I am not stepping on toes here, but I came across this piece which I though was beautifully written, painfully honest and very courageous, in the way that Karina and Grainger's work here has been.
Of course we know that not all women asked for wimps and simps. I've been on the outskirts of this my whole life, pissed as feminists. Women (who were already upset with life) complained about toxic masculinity decades before I heard the term for the first time. And it was always stupid. I always knew it was stupid. But men who wanted to attract women, for some reason listened to this stupid idea as if that is what all women wanted (and not just a certain vocal subset of women).
That is actually one part in why I fell for someone double my age rather than the simps my age. I’m aware that wasn’t good either, but I could sense something was wrong with men who listened to and changed their true nature because of what these women with a victim mentality were complaining about.
Another thing, I will always try to note, is that the birth control pill actually turns women away from masculinity. So the feminists who love the pill literally stopped liking masculinity. Birth controlled women prefer feminized men. There’s a study.
If men had stayed themselves and not tried to win those sorts of loose women over, those men would have had their pick of the kind of women they wanted to date. It's men's own fault for listening to the whiny feminists and changing their behavior to fit that.
First, there are quite a few studies showing the effects of the pill, and a really good book about it (which I’m in the middle of right now) by Sarah Hill. It’s a fascinating subject. And yes, it causes the woman to desire less masculine traits.
And there’s certainly some truth to men just going along with it, rather than staying true to who they know to be. But it’s much more complicated than that.
Women have power. They hold the power of sexual activity, social reciprocity, emotional validation, and in some cases the conscientiousness that drives the family forward.
If you want your man to do something, you merely have to appeal to his primal instincts and he’ll do it.
If you went to bar tonight and walked up to a strange man and said “do you want to have sex tonight?” There’s a very high chance he’d say yes. Without knowing your name, or anything about you. And even if you make a demand following his agreement, he’d still comply.
It’s not just sex. In most areas. So we must understand the power that women possess. Men want all of the awesome things that women possess—that they don’t. It’s why men often marry someone much like their mother. And women can use that for good or for misguided malevolence.
My contention is that many chose the latter and men (mostly men that grow up in fatherless homes) succumbed. It’s two part culpability. But in my estimation, the one who holds the power is more culpable.
Is it possible that the effects and subsequently, absence thereof, are a contributor to gray divorce? Is it possible that menopausal women no longer on HBC, have the hormonal realization that they don’t like their husband as much as they ‘thought’ they did? Not saying that it’s the only reason, but it certainly seems plausible that it could be a contributing factor.
What I know about is there are studies that show when a woman comes off of the pill, how she sees her husband gets exacerbated.
If she finds him attractive, she’ll find him really attractive. If she finds him repulsive, she’ll find him very repulsive after coming off the pill. The
"there’s certainly some truth to men just going along with it, rather than staying true to who they know to be. But it’s much more complicated than that."
I don't think it's more complicated than that at all. If they stayed true, they would have met someone who loved them for their authentic self.
"If you want your man to do something, you merely have to appeal to his primal instincts and he’ll do it."
Do men NOT have boundaries? Would they be so easily moved by a woman's sexual attractiveness that they would throw away their values and morals? Those seem to be the simps I was referring to. Do you really believe ALL men to be so easily swayed to give up their authentic selves for a woman?
If you truly believe that, then it seems that this is really just a flipping of the victim-persecutor narrative. Men are not victims of women. They had free will to choose to change their behavior to try to get the wrong sort of woman rather than stay true to themselves to find someone who truly loved them for them.
We have hit an impasse. Reductivism doesn’t solve problems, it only blinds us to them. It’s simply not that simple.
We are victims of each other. People will acquiesce for social reciprocity. Especially when no one has taught them otherwise. And the one they’re acquiescing to is more culpable.
I think we have to stop viewing each other as victims. That’s the whole point of my Substack. It’s time we all take personal responsibility and do what we can do to better our lives and stop complaining about other people all the time as if it’s all their fault.
So, yes, and also, no. I recall an incident in which a suspect tried to blow his house up with me and seven other officers and a K9 still in the house. It didn’t happen and I wasn’t a ‘victim’ of a massive natural gas explosion. I was still quite pleased and satisfied that this suspect went to prison on 8 counts of attempted murder of police officers. I don’t complain about the fact of what he attempted, but that doesn’t mean that we cannot correctly and appropriately identify an action/consequence cycle. What’s the logical limit of your proposition? Should the man cheated on by his wife NOT complain about her behavior… in divorce court? What responsibility does he bear for her infidelity. And be careful here, because, if you try to assign some kind of responsibility to him for her infidelity, there is an equal and opposite opportunity when examining male infidelity. How your comments come across - from a woman using a talking point that, in my experience, has been a common means among women of sidestepping personal accountability and consequences - is entirely similar to the teen girl who made a false rape allegation in order to get out of trouble with her parents for violating her curfew: “Well, I didn’t say it was a particular person, so there was no victim, so I shouldn’t get in trouble for lying.” In my professional experience, this exact action and other similar actions were means of escaping accountability for curfew violations and infidelity (she didn't *actually* cheat on him; she was raped, the narrative of which fell apart under scrutiny). In other words, if there’s no ‘victim’ - and here, victim is a pejorative substitute for ‘object of my shitty, cruel, unfair, entitled, etc behavior - then why ‘complain’. OR, if I can lie and/or gaslight you into thinking *I'm* actually the victim, then I can commodify my victimhood into an escape from accountability for my shitty behavior. And, if there’s no ‘complaint’, there’s no necessity for honest introspection, self-examination, or improvement. A consequence of this is that people who treat others poorly will never change because there’s no necessity to do so - until enough people decide that bettering their own lives means isolating themselves from the people who treat them poorly.
So, in two short sentences, you managed to validate the accuracy (to some extent, at least) of the trope that accountability is like Kryptonite to women. And, you have also managed to express a sentiment which, if taken to its logical conclusion, validates that - at least from a man’s perspective - of the women who live their lives (especially their later years) childless and alone - there are very good and valid reasons which those women brought on themselves. No one is perfect. And honest critical feedback - from men and women alike - is useful for removing the logs in our eyes which blind us to our own failings. But your statement, taken to its logical conclusion and universally applied, removes that feedback loop.
Complaining about people on the internet is different than taking personal responsibility (such as enforcing a boundary by suing someone in court). You are misconstruing what I wrote, in what looks like a strawman argument.
You could have asked me what I meant if you wanted clarification, but you pretended I meant something stupid in order to make me look idiotic.
I don't agree with men OR women acting like they're victims if they could take some responsibility (which in some cases is enforcing boundaries). You can read my substack for more on that.
While on the one hand, you raise valid points about HBC and I appreciate your honesty and introspection about your choice of a man, I struggle with your closing statement. Is it not also the fault of whiny feminists for lying to men and the fault of non-feminists for not standing up to the lie? Why does blame/responsibility/accountability rest ONLY on the shoulders of the man. Granted, men COULD have told women they were lying at the time, but I don't know that such a claim would have gone over very well - especially in the absence of the several decades of data that we've now accumulated and are only now beginning to examine with a degree of intellectual honesty.
1) I am sure the women didn't realize they were lying about what they wanted. But, of course, it's their responsibility and they don't have any right to complain about weak men not protecting them if they specifically asked for men to be more emotional and less physical/powerful.
2) The blame/responsibility/accountability belongs to every single person for their part they played in creating the situations in their life. I never said it didn't. I always thought feminists were stupid for complaining about something they benefited from.
3) I also think parents not raising their children well (which WAS the parent's responsibility) has created generations of people who don't know what they want or how to get it effectively. But once the children grow into adults, it is time for them to take responsibility for their own love lives.
I am largely in agreement with you here, but where in this paradigm is there a remedy for those people whose lives - against their will - are affected adversely by others? Social and legal constructs are very adversarial to men seeking a remedy. The extant TEA app drama is a perfect example for so very many reasons. Another recent example: the case of the 5 Canadian hockey players whose careers were decimated by a woman lying. Did they act badly? Yes. Absolutely. They acted EXACTLY as badly as she did, in an exactly one-for-one manner. But she lied, gaslit the public in depicting herself as a victim and then tried to commodify her manufactured victimhood and was willing to send to prison five men who were innocent of legal wrongdoing. Like Trevor Bauer before them, and despite being flagrantly innocent of any crime, their lives were ruined and there is NO meaningful remedy available to them, not even if she was required to pay them the $3.5 million her lies got for her as a settlement from Canadian Hockey. That woman will never in her life have sufficient earning potential that she could make them financially whole. There is no meaningful action she could take to remove the scarlet letter they now unjustly and irreparably wear as a result of her lies. Is she being prosecuted for demonstrably, blatantly lying? Of course not. What about accountability for the prosecutor who tried to paint her on-record consent, approval and enthusiasm as non-consent? Is that not its own deceit and, does that not validate her deceit, and validate the notion of being able to retroactively transform consent into rape? And, all of this occurred with the enthusiastic support of feminists DESPITE the facts which, when they were disclosed in public, in court of law, were completely ignored by those same feminists.
If, in twenty years, Western women look on their lives and question how they are single, in their later years, and have never in their lives been approached by a man (perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but useful nonetheless), Western men can point to this (currently) anonymous woman, to Lindsey Hill, Laura Owens, Amber Heard, to Hilary Crowder, to hundreds - if not thousands - of less notorious women and reasonably say, "This is why." It's not just the deceit. it's not just the false victimhood, the gaslighting, the approbation of a loud, obnoxious segment of society, the demand - even today - to believe all women, or the total lack of any meaningful remedy for men - a systemic refusal to prosecute women who have been demonstrably proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied - and then being told 'It’s time we all take personal responsibility and do what we can do to better our lives and stop complaining about other people all the time as if it’s all their fault.' These ARE legitimate problems. Women actually do these things, and society is moving in such a way that the only untestable recourse remaining to men have is to divest themselves of contact with women to the maximum extent possible. This has already occurred to some extent in the workplace with the phenomenon studied and, again, women complaining about not being invited to social events, men refusing to be alone in a room with a woman, men declining to mentor women, etc. In other words, men doing exactly as women have demanded and leaving them alone. And, naturally, this, too, became fodder for complaint.
"a systemic refusal to prosecute women who have been demonstrably proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied - and then being told 'It’s time we all take personal responsibility and do what we can do to better our lives and stop complaining about other people all the time as if it’s all their fault.' These ARE legitimate problems."
They need to be prosecuted. I wouldn't have said what I said to someone enforcing a boundary by going to court with someone who lied. I was talking about people who just complain on the internet, not people who take action.
My whole life I have been pissed at feminists for make men scared to talk to other women. It didn't change anything. I've written about how they make things worse, and it didn't do anything. I get why men don't want to be around women, but it's not all women, and they go overboard.
I also know that we live in a feminized society at this point, but that's why I support the Disaffected Podcast and people who point the bad behavior of feminists out. I write about the Drama Triangle, to help people understand this better as well. I am not afraid to restack stuff that is anti-feminist (as I am). I'm doing my part.
I hope eventually people will disengage from the drama though. Complaining without taking action is stupid. Writing about bad behaviors is somewhat taking action if you're making a call to action, but a lot of social media writing is just complaints. Suing is taking action. And I don't know why anyone would think it wasn't.
'Talking about it" is a mechanism for garnering support, gathering data and consolidating or developing power and attempting to effect change.
As for prosecution? Yes. That. But it does NOT happen. Not nearly enough. The two teen girls who falsely reported being raped should have been prosecuted. The handful of cheating wives who falsely reported being raped SHOULD have been prosecuted. My ex-wife who lied on a petition for a restraining order SHOULD have been prosecuted. When she perjured herself in court and I ASKED to present evidence to impeach her and asked the judge to sanction her for her perjury, he ignored me.
On a larger point, controlling for the nature of the crime, men convicted of sex crimes against children receive 63% longer sentences than women. Again, controlling for crime, men are 2.84 times more likely (284%) to receive custodial sentences than women upon being convicted of domestic assault. This isn't drama. It's not 'being victims'. Women are systematically punished for criminal offenses far more lightly than men. Despite our alleged constitutional protections and guarantee of equal protection, men AND BOYS (!!) are objectively, demonstrably, statistically, socially, and institutionally LESS protected than women. That's not bitching. That's not 'being a victim'. That is an incontrovertible fact.
1. Pass federal legislation that requires that women be sentenced on a 1 for 1 basis taking into account the 20 year historical average of number of days sentenced and monetary restitution assigned to men having been convicted of the same crime.
2. Pass federal legislation that REQUIRES prosecution of a person who has been affirmatively proven in court to have lied in order to bring charges against another person and that, upon conviction that the perjurious party be sentenced to at least 80% of the maximum sentence that could have been applied upon conviction of the crime they lied about.
3. If a person has been affirmatively proven to have lied to bring about a false prosecution, make it easier for their putative victim to win by default in civil court for damage to reputation, loss of income, slander, etc and, if they are required to pay monetary damages, make is impossible for that debt to be discharged except by payment in full, even if their wage, benefits, pension, SSI, etc are dispersed for the duration of their entire lifetime, to include every penny remaining to them upon their death to be paid to the victim or the family of the victim.
I read this hoping for a balanced, nuanced take on modern gender dynamics. Instead this is the exact behavior being criticized in women. Emotional dumping, blame shifting, generalisations and a refusal to reflect inward. If the critique is that women offload emotional labor onto men or expect others to manage their feelings isn’t this article just a mirror image?
It’s easy to say men are judged unfairly but turning around and dehumanizing women as entitled, emotionally immature burdens doesn’t make things better. If the goal is understanding, growth and healthier relationships shouldn’t we be holding both sides to a higher standard? And not reinforce the same problem with a different target? Neither women nor men are perfect they are individual whole people with flaws and strengths.
You both raise valid points in this article about emotional labor and communication differences and the women’s studies but they get lost under a tone that reduces women to one dimensional caricatures.
And then I see Karina liked a comment that says women should be replaced by sexbots. That doesn’t just undermine the message it makes the whole thing feel gross.
To a degree I understand your point. But there isn’t much nuance to being a constant target in a feminized world.
The article we wrote was in response to an article written by two female writers for the APA journal of Men & Masculinities.
So this isn’t an indictment on “women.” It’s an indictment on those women who have asked for weak, spineless men for years and finally got what they asked for and refuse to take accountability for their role in this mess we’ve found ourselves in.
It’s a response to “how we got here.” It’s widely accepted to trash men, tell them to grow up when they’re trying to open up, but tell them they need to show their feelings more. Men can’t figure out which way to act for all the contradicting signals.
Of course men need to do better. We all know that. In fact, that’s all we all know. Because if we dare suggest that women need to do better, let men be who they are, or trust men more, we’re immediately labeled misogynistic.
I’m the first to call men out. Be a leader. Take initiative. Serve your wife. All consistent verbiage from me. I’m also not going to just sit here and allow this seemingly mainstream narrative that masculinity is toxic to be proffered into society without significant opposition.
I appreciate the clarification. And I completely agree on the frustration men must feel being told to “open up” and “man up” at the same time. Those contradictions absolutely deserve serious discussion.
My point wasn’t to defend that APA article or deny the unfairness men face. It was about the way your article came across not just in what it said but how it said it. A lot of valid concerns got lost under sweeping characterisations of women that mirrored the very imbalance you’re calling out. Saying “this is only about some women” doesn’t soften the impact if the tone generalises and dehumanises. That’s not the same as simply challenging feminist orthodoxy or defending men it’s veering into the same reductionism from the other side. We can hold space for men’s pain and frustration without reducing women to emotional angry feminists and I think that kind of nuance and accountability is where real change happens.
One other thing I want to add I only commented my critique because I think there’s a missed opportunity here to engage people who aren’t already convinced. People who might be open to this conversation but get pushed away by the tone and broad stereotypes. If the goal is to challenge the dominant narrative or start a cultural shift doesn’t that require pulling in people who are on the fence? Alienating them with generalisations or sarcasm might feel cathartic but it narrows the audience to those who already agree and we just keep preaching to our own corners. This article would have hit harder if it had of been grounded in clarity and genuine curiosity instead of generalisation.
If a thing is generally true, is it not fair to articulate it as such. Stereotypes do exist for reasons - often valid ones. An example: if I say 'rapist' our acculturated stereotypes tend to assign a specific gender - male - which is fair, since, statistically most rapists are men. This is not controversial. And it has no bearing on the fact that there, in fact, FEMALE rapists, or that IIRC Rollo Tomassi's count to date, there are in excess of 50 female child rapists who were also teachers and most of whom were Caucasian. The former stereotype doesn't invalidate the subsequent assertion. Articulating a generalization that is true isn't a generalization in the pejorative sense. Exactly how granular do you think anyone should get in trying to describe a set of behaviors that are generally true? Ultimately, someone who recoils from a statement that is generally true seems unlikely to have the intellectual honesty or forthrightness to accept a somewhat more granular approach. One can get granular down to the level of the individual, but at a certain point, the aggregation of individuals in question becomes a meaningful percentage. Is it not fair to say that generally true statement is also a reflection of the actions or speech of a meaningful percentage?
Jam, I see some of your points for sure, but the overall message I’m seeing in this thread is tone policing. It puts people in a rough bind of speaking the truth of something, at least as they see it, to say it in a way that is the most digestible for as many people as possible. As far as I’m concerned, some truths will piss people off no matter how it’s phrased, so might as well speak
Jam, if we’re going to judge me and justify positions based on what I ‘liked’ in online commentary, you might as well dig a hole and take me out. Lol. Let’s go.
I’m not sure if you were going for irony but it’s a little funny that Grainger responded with thoughtfulness and a willingness to engage even if he didn’t agree on everything I said. Meanwhile you did exactly what your article accused women of doing sarcasm, deflection and zero interest in actual dialogue. It’s kind of wild to call out emotional immaturity and then immediately demonstrate it in the comments. If the goal was to prove your point mission accomplished!
The only irony here is that it’s just not that serious. I’m not here to defend a PhD I’m working on, nor to collect validation points based on how well strangers think I write. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me — and I’m good with that. I’m a mother, a wife, a friend, and I write because I like it. I’ve been writing for years.
How you perceive my work is your experience; I’d never take that from you, even if I could. What I write and how I write is my experience, and I don’t care to manipulate or change anyone’s mind about anything.
If it is true that women do behave in ways that are entitled, emotionally immature and burdensome, how does it make things better to ignore this reality and continue to focus exclusively on men. And what Jam here clearly expects is a repeat of this process:
Feminist says, ‘There are 2 sides to every story.’
Man singularly and men collectively: ‘The corollary to the accusations you have leveled against men is this: many women display behavioral tendencies with suggest or express entitlement, emotional or cognitive immaturity, unrealistically burdensome expectations, impulsivity, irresponsibility, and an aversion to accountability.
Feminist cries out in all the angsty feminist rage, “Why are you such a misogynist!!!!”
Man singularly and men collectively: Looks at watch and shrugs: “Aversion to accountability. Just like clockwork.”
Holding people accountable for their behavior is not dehumanizing. In fact, it is explicitly humanizing. We don’t expect to have a conversation about expectations and social norms and civilized behavior with a dog when it bites someone, a horse when it kicks someone, a shark when it eats someone or a bear when it mauls someone in the forest. Dehumanizing is when a society collectively shrugs their shoulders, indulges the adult tantrum or just panders, saying “Well, we can’t judge them or hold them accountable. After all, they’re only (insert trait of choice here). This is no different than when one demands that one be the beneficiary of “The White Man’s Burden.” If one is willing to impose a set of standards on one person or another group of people and then excuse one’s disinclination or inability to uphold that same standard, one is being a hypocrite who feels entitled to be infantilized by everyone else. And yes, such an infantilized hypocrite is almost invariably a burden.
It’s interesting that instead of engaging with the points I raised about mutual accountability and not reducing people to caricatures you assumed I’d react with “angsty feminist rage.” I questioned whether the tone and framing of this piece serve its stated goals. If the goal is to encourage accountability and emotional maturity shouldn’t that include how we have conversations with each other too? I agree with many points of the article but the authors chose to stereotype and insult instead of expanding on their very valid points. I was hoping for a conversation that welcomed critique not one that uses sarcasm and strawmen to dismiss it. If a woman questioning generalisations about women is automatically labelled a burden and dismissed as an angry feminist then it’s clear the space isn’t open to honest dialogue only agreement.
Firstly, on the subject of mutual accountability, men have been taking a cultural beating for decades with some assertions being true, valid and accurate and others being unfair, simplistic, matronizing (I just coined that word and I think it's appropriate here) or purely false. This conversation, created by the authors, isn't about all of that. It's about female behavior; not male behavior. Please try to stay on topic. You assert in your initial comment that the authors' narrative reduces women to one-dimensional caricatures. You also ask in your first paragraph if the authors are not engaging in the same practice that feminist critics of men conduct. Not once, though, did you engage with the substance of what was said. Rather than engage with the ideas, your comments - and your reply to me - actually exemplify a valid critique of women's behavior that is generally, often, true: tone policing. Neither of your replies seem to be honest engagement with the ideas proposed. You just find objectionable the manner in which the message was delivered. And you seem to think that male behavior should be discussed in some kind of tit for tat tally. This does not strike me as intellectual honesty or good faith dialogue. It is, however, consistent with my experience of debating or discussing difficult issues with the vast majority of the various women I've encountered: disengagement from the issue at hand because the manner in which the issue was framed was objectionable: metaconversation, rather than actual, meaningful conversation as dialogue about the actual issue.
Secondly, exactly what are the straw men to which you refer? It's one thing to say it, it's another to back it up. What caricatures? And, even if you could back up the claim of caricature of women, Is that entirely a bad thing? You see, I think there are many man who are tired of being accused of being 'simple', of being the 'buffoon' caricature, the 'creep' caricature, the 'predator' caricature, and, really, in mainstream feminist zeitgeist, those seem to be the prevailing categories into which men are lumped. Unless, of course, the man in question is a billionaire neurosurgeon philanthropist sparkly werewolf, in which case, he's torrid affair material at least, and maybe marriage material. Yes, in one sense that's obvious hyperbole. However, in that one sentence, I also aggregated what seems to be the prevailing tropes for the kind of romance fiction that gets the motor running of many women who imbibe romance fiction.
Nowhere in mainstream conversation is there any push on women to attempt to dispense with the prejudices they hold as regards men and male nature. Women caricature men in various ways and then hold up those caricatures as proof of why women should be believed at all times (Me Too), occupy more positions of power, regardless of merit (remember how Elizabeth Holmes used to be a poster girl for feminist power and achievement?) or just, generally in charge of things, again, regardless of merit (ie Kamala Harris. I was a native Californian and lived most of my 50 years there. I know exactly how she got to where she was, and there is no position she ever attained that was solely on the basis of her merit, intellect or, especially, her rhetorical skill.)
Men - and some women who see and work to understand the issues that are unique to men - are exhausted and pissed off at feminist caricatures of men. Is there a point when feminists, having been sufficiently caricatured by their philosophical opposites might engage in a moment of internal examination and realize that if it doesn't feel good to them, it might not feel good to men, either? Or is feminist empathy largely reserved for (Believe) all women, children (usually), the transexual movement and illegal immigrants? Because that's what it looks like to many men - myself included. And, again, I'm not actually saying that the authors constructed any caricatures at all. I'm simply unwilling to universally dismiss the potential utility of caricature as a mirrored critique of feminism's caricatures of men.
If your interpretation of my closing comment was that someone questioning generalizations is a burden, I would ask you to go back and re-read the assertion in the context in which it was expressed. I stated that people - and in this case many women, as that's the topic of the conversation - who seek only to evade accountability for their actions infantilize themselves and require others to participate in their infantilization. Understanding, ownership and performance of duties, responsibilities and holding oneself accountable are adult behaviors. The converse aggregation of behaviors is, definitionally, juvenile. This is why, if you stop and think about it, the phrase 'juvenile delinquent' is an oxymoron. We do not expect juveniles to meet adult standards of accountability and responsibility as a general rule. And, what I actually said is that infantilized hypocrites are always a burden. I did not say 'all women'. I did not even say 'most women'. I didn't even say women in general.
Finally, in your second paragraph, your closing sentence is, "Neither women nor men are perfect they are individual whole people with flaws and strengths." In this context, it comes across as a fancy 'Not all Irishmen' fallacy. No one is saying all women everywhere at all times. In dealing with the human condition, the only universal truth is our possession of flaws. Beyond that, when dealing with broad social issues, generalizations are asserted to be true because it's the only way to address acculturated or endemic behaviors. And at no point have you addressed the assertions of the authors? Do you think they are true? If so, to what extent since, obviously, not all Irishmen? Or, if they are untrue, do you have countervailing evidence to present?
For the record, the sexbot comment was probably from DwarvenAllFather. He does not stop talking about replacing women with robots. No one knows what's going on with him, but he's fun to have around if you don't take him seriously.
In fairness to DwarvenAllFather, I'm pretty sure there are at least 5 Canadian hockey players who now realize that a sexbot wouldn't have lied about being an enthusiastic, instigating - demanding, even - participant in a gangbang.
Also like clockwork... Feminist inability to recognize, process and/or appreciate sarcasm, snark and satire. Taken in context with the rest of the post, Jam can't recognize the sexbot satire for what it is?
There is a distinction, I hope, between ‘women’ and ‘these particular women who are doing these particular things’. This article does not indict my wife for my (grown, married) daughters… because they do not do these things.
I get that the article wasn’t meant to target all women. My point is more about how it comes across. The tone and generalisations make it easy for people to feel lumped in or dismissed even if they’re not the intended target. That kind of framing doesn’t help bring people into the conversation it pushes them away. If they are only writing for people who already agree with them that’s fine. But if the goal is to actually shift thinking or challenge mainstream narratives I think the tone matters a lot more than you’re giving it credit for.
I get the idea: don’t respond to the vile with the histrionic. I just didn’t view it that way. Still don’t. It’s possible that styles of writing play a role.
I’m merely responding to the writers of the article in APA— 2 women supposedly writing for “Men & Masculinities.” I get the burden. I get that a man shouldn’t be word-dumping on his wife, and how that is truly burdensome for her.
But if they are going to call out men for this: they would at least need to address how we got here.
But they can’t, because to address that would humanize men and we just can’t have that.
My role was to address a male perspective of this. Karina’s style is much more direct and filled with “I’ve had enough.”
But that’s why I think it worked and resonated with so many. Because it had a balance of calm frustration mixed with fiery momma bear.
Also, to address this would - even if only obliquely - require an acknowledgment of the (often coercive) means by which we got here via feminist imperative.
And yes, this article worked because I appreciate both your styles and because I, especially, appreciate that readers can enjoy an intellectually honest straightforward conversation with Karina. Not that Grainger isn't those things, but that it's far more scarce in interactions with women (gasp! NOT ALL IRISHWOMEN!!!)
Sometimes, I think the anger is because the accusation hits too close to home. In your situation, you don’t even need to do the often-reflexive ‘not all Irishmen’ response because you know it doesn’t apply.
Nice, Grainger and Karina. To help get men off the defensive on this issue, where we spend far too much time on just about every male-female issue, let’s add the fact as the opportunity arises, to point out that the power women have in keeping relationships together is also the power women have in manipulating and destroying relationships, and keeping people apart, by sowing discord with unquestioned credibility for their opinions, observations and rumors. It's not for nothing they do this “unpaid work.”
Thank you!
Yes if you do the relationship work you can also destroy relationships. If you throw the parties you decide who NOT to invite, etc. there’s a flip side to all this.
An awful lot of pixels spilled just to admit that women today are largely useless, entitled narcissists who are biologically incapable of not complaining. Society used to understand this, which is why it channeled their mischief into productive pursuits. As a gay guy I pray for the swifter arrival of female sexbots for my straight buddies, which will make them happier and richer than they’ve been in decades. For my part, I’ve been searching for a voice enabled LLM that can listen to my female clients and acquaintances explaining their needs and wants (of course without evincing the slightest interest in anything I have to say) for a good 45 minute stretch without giving the game away.
It’s a good, but disturbing point, if sex toys were better would men bother with women? Is this the appeal of trans porn and sex workers to “straight” men.
It's a good but disturbing question. Firstly, let me say that there are, yes, good women out there, to varying degrees. Some are straight up awesome. I'd argue that they're in the minority. The challenge is in discerning which is which. As Better Bachelor has stated a few times, it's like finding the right needle in a needle stack. At what point does one just stop fumbling around and go out and buy a reasonable alternative?
I wouldn't even delve into the whole 'trans' thing, but many years ago, Charlie Sheen said, "I don't pay women for sex. I pay them to go away afterward." In the context of this article and others like it, there's alot to unpack from his assertion - even if he is rather a scumbag.
I had an interesting conversation with Rev. Matt Littlefield on the subject of the societal effects of polygamy and how the consolidation of sexual access tended to destabilize society as young men were denied access to women, to sex and, really, to genetic propagation. What we are seeing now is the culmination (so far, and it seems to be getting worse) of women VOLUNTARILY choosing to share to some degree very high-status men rather than choosing a faithful man of lower status.
At the risk of sounding controversial, from a biological, evolutionary and practical standpoint, a man's interest in women, generally, is for a relationship, sex and, usually, procreation. Hence, marriage. But, if the patterns continue as they have been, what options remain to men? Our current trajectory is that of a significant cohort of women actively choosing from a sex standpoint polygamous, oligarchic aristocracy. What remains to the majority of young men on the outside looking in with a terminal case of blue balls and a sufficiency of morals to not become rapists. Will advance AI sexbots become the ultimate sedation that sidesteps open warfare or civil war? Because as much as women might SAY they'd prefer to encounter the bear in the woods, she should be terrified that feminism's open hostility to men will finally result in men's broad indifference to women, regardless of how loudly she screams as she falls prey to the predators.
Open question whether women will find sexbots equally useful. Feigned emotional involvement is not quite the same as the real thing, and also a sexbot for women will provide endless grist for the gossip mill, creating a hierarchy with those who have human husbands at the top, laddering down to women who can only afford progressively cheaper models.
As far as good women, the exception proves the rules, and among AWFLs, the rule is extremely well proven indeed.
Reading your comment becomes one of those it's funny because it's true kind of moments. In fact there was nothing that you said that made me think you had positive and improbable set of circumstances. The irony of feminism is the same as the irony of socialism. As much as the proponents of those systems scream out about the merits of egalitarianism, the inevitably construct hierarchical structures which operate camouflaged beneath those superficial layers of equality.
Oh, I like the format with 2 different takes on the same topic. 👍😊
A.M. radio had many political shows with Dem vs Rep co-hosts, and Sunday religion shows with Rabbi & Priest as co-host.
Bill Whittle has a show on YouTube with Stephen Green and Scott Ott, each offering their own take on current events. It’s a winning format that never fails to draw interest from the different opinions that are offered by the three co-hosts.
I see potential here, and I’ll be watching with interest to see what ‘Grainger and Karina’ develops into.
Peace to all.
Wow. Thanks for that!
Thank you, Ron!
Brilliant. Thank you so much!
Thanks so much!
Thank you. Love this!
Thank you!
I hope that I am not stepping on toes here, but I came across this piece which I though was beautifully written, painfully honest and very courageous, in the way that Karina and Grainger's work here has been.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-169688560
Of course we know that not all women asked for wimps and simps. I've been on the outskirts of this my whole life, pissed as feminists. Women (who were already upset with life) complained about toxic masculinity decades before I heard the term for the first time. And it was always stupid. I always knew it was stupid. But men who wanted to attract women, for some reason listened to this stupid idea as if that is what all women wanted (and not just a certain vocal subset of women).
That is actually one part in why I fell for someone double my age rather than the simps my age. I’m aware that wasn’t good either, but I could sense something was wrong with men who listened to and changed their true nature because of what these women with a victim mentality were complaining about.
Another thing, I will always try to note, is that the birth control pill actually turns women away from masculinity. So the feminists who love the pill literally stopped liking masculinity. Birth controlled women prefer feminized men. There’s a study.
If men had stayed themselves and not tried to win those sorts of loose women over, those men would have had their pick of the kind of women they wanted to date. It's men's own fault for listening to the whiny feminists and changing their behavior to fit that.
Excellent points here.
First, there are quite a few studies showing the effects of the pill, and a really good book about it (which I’m in the middle of right now) by Sarah Hill. It’s a fascinating subject. And yes, it causes the woman to desire less masculine traits.
And there’s certainly some truth to men just going along with it, rather than staying true to who they know to be. But it’s much more complicated than that.
Women have power. They hold the power of sexual activity, social reciprocity, emotional validation, and in some cases the conscientiousness that drives the family forward.
If you want your man to do something, you merely have to appeal to his primal instincts and he’ll do it.
If you went to bar tonight and walked up to a strange man and said “do you want to have sex tonight?” There’s a very high chance he’d say yes. Without knowing your name, or anything about you. And even if you make a demand following his agreement, he’d still comply.
It’s not just sex. In most areas. So we must understand the power that women possess. Men want all of the awesome things that women possess—that they don’t. It’s why men often marry someone much like their mother. And women can use that for good or for misguided malevolence.
My contention is that many chose the latter and men (mostly men that grow up in fatherless homes) succumbed. It’s two part culpability. But in my estimation, the one who holds the power is more culpable.
Is it possible that the effects and subsequently, absence thereof, are a contributor to gray divorce? Is it possible that menopausal women no longer on HBC, have the hormonal realization that they don’t like their husband as much as they ‘thought’ they did? Not saying that it’s the only reason, but it certainly seems plausible that it could be a contributing factor.
What I know about is there are studies that show when a woman comes off of the pill, how she sees her husband gets exacerbated.
If she finds him attractive, she’ll find him really attractive. If she finds him repulsive, she’ll find him very repulsive after coming off the pill. The
repulsive is more likely.
"there’s certainly some truth to men just going along with it, rather than staying true to who they know to be. But it’s much more complicated than that."
I don't think it's more complicated than that at all. If they stayed true, they would have met someone who loved them for their authentic self.
"If you want your man to do something, you merely have to appeal to his primal instincts and he’ll do it."
Do men NOT have boundaries? Would they be so easily moved by a woman's sexual attractiveness that they would throw away their values and morals? Those seem to be the simps I was referring to. Do you really believe ALL men to be so easily swayed to give up their authentic selves for a woman?
If you truly believe that, then it seems that this is really just a flipping of the victim-persecutor narrative. Men are not victims of women. They had free will to choose to change their behavior to try to get the wrong sort of woman rather than stay true to themselves to find someone who truly loved them for them.
We have hit an impasse. Reductivism doesn’t solve problems, it only blinds us to them. It’s simply not that simple.
We are victims of each other. People will acquiesce for social reciprocity. Especially when no one has taught them otherwise. And the one they’re acquiescing to is more culpable.
That’s basic human capital.
I think we have to stop viewing each other as victims. That’s the whole point of my Substack. It’s time we all take personal responsibility and do what we can do to better our lives and stop complaining about other people all the time as if it’s all their fault.
So, yes, and also, no. I recall an incident in which a suspect tried to blow his house up with me and seven other officers and a K9 still in the house. It didn’t happen and I wasn’t a ‘victim’ of a massive natural gas explosion. I was still quite pleased and satisfied that this suspect went to prison on 8 counts of attempted murder of police officers. I don’t complain about the fact of what he attempted, but that doesn’t mean that we cannot correctly and appropriately identify an action/consequence cycle. What’s the logical limit of your proposition? Should the man cheated on by his wife NOT complain about her behavior… in divorce court? What responsibility does he bear for her infidelity. And be careful here, because, if you try to assign some kind of responsibility to him for her infidelity, there is an equal and opposite opportunity when examining male infidelity. How your comments come across - from a woman using a talking point that, in my experience, has been a common means among women of sidestepping personal accountability and consequences - is entirely similar to the teen girl who made a false rape allegation in order to get out of trouble with her parents for violating her curfew: “Well, I didn’t say it was a particular person, so there was no victim, so I shouldn’t get in trouble for lying.” In my professional experience, this exact action and other similar actions were means of escaping accountability for curfew violations and infidelity (she didn't *actually* cheat on him; she was raped, the narrative of which fell apart under scrutiny). In other words, if there’s no ‘victim’ - and here, victim is a pejorative substitute for ‘object of my shitty, cruel, unfair, entitled, etc behavior - then why ‘complain’. OR, if I can lie and/or gaslight you into thinking *I'm* actually the victim, then I can commodify my victimhood into an escape from accountability for my shitty behavior. And, if there’s no ‘complaint’, there’s no necessity for honest introspection, self-examination, or improvement. A consequence of this is that people who treat others poorly will never change because there’s no necessity to do so - until enough people decide that bettering their own lives means isolating themselves from the people who treat them poorly.
So, in two short sentences, you managed to validate the accuracy (to some extent, at least) of the trope that accountability is like Kryptonite to women. And, you have also managed to express a sentiment which, if taken to its logical conclusion, validates that - at least from a man’s perspective - of the women who live their lives (especially their later years) childless and alone - there are very good and valid reasons which those women brought on themselves. No one is perfect. And honest critical feedback - from men and women alike - is useful for removing the logs in our eyes which blind us to our own failings. But your statement, taken to its logical conclusion and universally applied, removes that feedback loop.
Complaining about people on the internet is different than taking personal responsibility (such as enforcing a boundary by suing someone in court). You are misconstruing what I wrote, in what looks like a strawman argument.
You could have asked me what I meant if you wanted clarification, but you pretended I meant something stupid in order to make me look idiotic.
I don't agree with men OR women acting like they're victims if they could take some responsibility (which in some cases is enforcing boundaries). You can read my substack for more on that.
While on the one hand, you raise valid points about HBC and I appreciate your honesty and introspection about your choice of a man, I struggle with your closing statement. Is it not also the fault of whiny feminists for lying to men and the fault of non-feminists for not standing up to the lie? Why does blame/responsibility/accountability rest ONLY on the shoulders of the man. Granted, men COULD have told women they were lying at the time, but I don't know that such a claim would have gone over very well - especially in the absence of the several decades of data that we've now accumulated and are only now beginning to examine with a degree of intellectual honesty.
1) I am sure the women didn't realize they were lying about what they wanted. But, of course, it's their responsibility and they don't have any right to complain about weak men not protecting them if they specifically asked for men to be more emotional and less physical/powerful.
2) The blame/responsibility/accountability belongs to every single person for their part they played in creating the situations in their life. I never said it didn't. I always thought feminists were stupid for complaining about something they benefited from.
3) I also think parents not raising their children well (which WAS the parent's responsibility) has created generations of people who don't know what they want or how to get it effectively. But once the children grow into adults, it is time for them to take responsibility for their own love lives.
I am largely in agreement with you here, but where in this paradigm is there a remedy for those people whose lives - against their will - are affected adversely by others? Social and legal constructs are very adversarial to men seeking a remedy. The extant TEA app drama is a perfect example for so very many reasons. Another recent example: the case of the 5 Canadian hockey players whose careers were decimated by a woman lying. Did they act badly? Yes. Absolutely. They acted EXACTLY as badly as she did, in an exactly one-for-one manner. But she lied, gaslit the public in depicting herself as a victim and then tried to commodify her manufactured victimhood and was willing to send to prison five men who were innocent of legal wrongdoing. Like Trevor Bauer before them, and despite being flagrantly innocent of any crime, their lives were ruined and there is NO meaningful remedy available to them, not even if she was required to pay them the $3.5 million her lies got for her as a settlement from Canadian Hockey. That woman will never in her life have sufficient earning potential that she could make them financially whole. There is no meaningful action she could take to remove the scarlet letter they now unjustly and irreparably wear as a result of her lies. Is she being prosecuted for demonstrably, blatantly lying? Of course not. What about accountability for the prosecutor who tried to paint her on-record consent, approval and enthusiasm as non-consent? Is that not its own deceit and, does that not validate her deceit, and validate the notion of being able to retroactively transform consent into rape? And, all of this occurred with the enthusiastic support of feminists DESPITE the facts which, when they were disclosed in public, in court of law, were completely ignored by those same feminists.
If, in twenty years, Western women look on their lives and question how they are single, in their later years, and have never in their lives been approached by a man (perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but useful nonetheless), Western men can point to this (currently) anonymous woman, to Lindsey Hill, Laura Owens, Amber Heard, to Hilary Crowder, to hundreds - if not thousands - of less notorious women and reasonably say, "This is why." It's not just the deceit. it's not just the false victimhood, the gaslighting, the approbation of a loud, obnoxious segment of society, the demand - even today - to believe all women, or the total lack of any meaningful remedy for men - a systemic refusal to prosecute women who have been demonstrably proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied - and then being told 'It’s time we all take personal responsibility and do what we can do to better our lives and stop complaining about other people all the time as if it’s all their fault.' These ARE legitimate problems. Women actually do these things, and society is moving in such a way that the only untestable recourse remaining to men have is to divest themselves of contact with women to the maximum extent possible. This has already occurred to some extent in the workplace with the phenomenon studied and, again, women complaining about not being invited to social events, men refusing to be alone in a room with a woman, men declining to mentor women, etc. In other words, men doing exactly as women have demanded and leaving them alone. And, naturally, this, too, became fodder for complaint.
"a systemic refusal to prosecute women who have been demonstrably proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied - and then being told 'It’s time we all take personal responsibility and do what we can do to better our lives and stop complaining about other people all the time as if it’s all their fault.' These ARE legitimate problems."
They need to be prosecuted. I wouldn't have said what I said to someone enforcing a boundary by going to court with someone who lied. I was talking about people who just complain on the internet, not people who take action.
My whole life I have been pissed at feminists for make men scared to talk to other women. It didn't change anything. I've written about how they make things worse, and it didn't do anything. I get why men don't want to be around women, but it's not all women, and they go overboard.
I also know that we live in a feminized society at this point, but that's why I support the Disaffected Podcast and people who point the bad behavior of feminists out. I write about the Drama Triangle, to help people understand this better as well. I am not afraid to restack stuff that is anti-feminist (as I am). I'm doing my part.
I hope eventually people will disengage from the drama though. Complaining without taking action is stupid. Writing about bad behaviors is somewhat taking action if you're making a call to action, but a lot of social media writing is just complaints. Suing is taking action. And I don't know why anyone would think it wasn't.
'Talking about it" is a mechanism for garnering support, gathering data and consolidating or developing power and attempting to effect change.
As for prosecution? Yes. That. But it does NOT happen. Not nearly enough. The two teen girls who falsely reported being raped should have been prosecuted. The handful of cheating wives who falsely reported being raped SHOULD have been prosecuted. My ex-wife who lied on a petition for a restraining order SHOULD have been prosecuted. When she perjured herself in court and I ASKED to present evidence to impeach her and asked the judge to sanction her for her perjury, he ignored me.
On a larger point, controlling for the nature of the crime, men convicted of sex crimes against children receive 63% longer sentences than women. Again, controlling for crime, men are 2.84 times more likely (284%) to receive custodial sentences than women upon being convicted of domestic assault. This isn't drama. It's not 'being victims'. Women are systematically punished for criminal offenses far more lightly than men. Despite our alleged constitutional protections and guarantee of equal protection, men AND BOYS (!!) are objectively, demonstrably, statistically, socially, and institutionally LESS protected than women. That's not bitching. That's not 'being a victim'. That is an incontrovertible fact.
And, here is MY call to action.
1. Pass federal legislation that requires that women be sentenced on a 1 for 1 basis taking into account the 20 year historical average of number of days sentenced and monetary restitution assigned to men having been convicted of the same crime.
2. Pass federal legislation that REQUIRES prosecution of a person who has been affirmatively proven in court to have lied in order to bring charges against another person and that, upon conviction that the perjurious party be sentenced to at least 80% of the maximum sentence that could have been applied upon conviction of the crime they lied about.
3. If a person has been affirmatively proven to have lied to bring about a false prosecution, make it easier for their putative victim to win by default in civil court for damage to reputation, loss of income, slander, etc and, if they are required to pay monetary damages, make is impossible for that debt to be discharged except by payment in full, even if their wage, benefits, pension, SSI, etc are dispersed for the duration of their entire lifetime, to include every penny remaining to them upon their death to be paid to the victim or the family of the victim.
I read this hoping for a balanced, nuanced take on modern gender dynamics. Instead this is the exact behavior being criticized in women. Emotional dumping, blame shifting, generalisations and a refusal to reflect inward. If the critique is that women offload emotional labor onto men or expect others to manage their feelings isn’t this article just a mirror image?
It’s easy to say men are judged unfairly but turning around and dehumanizing women as entitled, emotionally immature burdens doesn’t make things better. If the goal is understanding, growth and healthier relationships shouldn’t we be holding both sides to a higher standard? And not reinforce the same problem with a different target? Neither women nor men are perfect they are individual whole people with flaws and strengths.
You both raise valid points in this article about emotional labor and communication differences and the women’s studies but they get lost under a tone that reduces women to one dimensional caricatures.
And then I see Karina liked a comment that says women should be replaced by sexbots. That doesn’t just undermine the message it makes the whole thing feel gross.
To a degree I understand your point. But there isn’t much nuance to being a constant target in a feminized world.
The article we wrote was in response to an article written by two female writers for the APA journal of Men & Masculinities.
So this isn’t an indictment on “women.” It’s an indictment on those women who have asked for weak, spineless men for years and finally got what they asked for and refuse to take accountability for their role in this mess we’ve found ourselves in.
It’s a response to “how we got here.” It’s widely accepted to trash men, tell them to grow up when they’re trying to open up, but tell them they need to show their feelings more. Men can’t figure out which way to act for all the contradicting signals.
Of course men need to do better. We all know that. In fact, that’s all we all know. Because if we dare suggest that women need to do better, let men be who they are, or trust men more, we’re immediately labeled misogynistic.
I’m the first to call men out. Be a leader. Take initiative. Serve your wife. All consistent verbiage from me. I’m also not going to just sit here and allow this seemingly mainstream narrative that masculinity is toxic to be proffered into society without significant opposition.
That’s all we’re saying.
I appreciate the clarification. And I completely agree on the frustration men must feel being told to “open up” and “man up” at the same time. Those contradictions absolutely deserve serious discussion.
My point wasn’t to defend that APA article or deny the unfairness men face. It was about the way your article came across not just in what it said but how it said it. A lot of valid concerns got lost under sweeping characterisations of women that mirrored the very imbalance you’re calling out. Saying “this is only about some women” doesn’t soften the impact if the tone generalises and dehumanises. That’s not the same as simply challenging feminist orthodoxy or defending men it’s veering into the same reductionism from the other side. We can hold space for men’s pain and frustration without reducing women to emotional angry feminists and I think that kind of nuance and accountability is where real change happens.
One other thing I want to add I only commented my critique because I think there’s a missed opportunity here to engage people who aren’t already convinced. People who might be open to this conversation but get pushed away by the tone and broad stereotypes. If the goal is to challenge the dominant narrative or start a cultural shift doesn’t that require pulling in people who are on the fence? Alienating them with generalisations or sarcasm might feel cathartic but it narrows the audience to those who already agree and we just keep preaching to our own corners. This article would have hit harder if it had of been grounded in clarity and genuine curiosity instead of generalisation.
If a thing is generally true, is it not fair to articulate it as such. Stereotypes do exist for reasons - often valid ones. An example: if I say 'rapist' our acculturated stereotypes tend to assign a specific gender - male - which is fair, since, statistically most rapists are men. This is not controversial. And it has no bearing on the fact that there, in fact, FEMALE rapists, or that IIRC Rollo Tomassi's count to date, there are in excess of 50 female child rapists who were also teachers and most of whom were Caucasian. The former stereotype doesn't invalidate the subsequent assertion. Articulating a generalization that is true isn't a generalization in the pejorative sense. Exactly how granular do you think anyone should get in trying to describe a set of behaviors that are generally true? Ultimately, someone who recoils from a statement that is generally true seems unlikely to have the intellectual honesty or forthrightness to accept a somewhat more granular approach. One can get granular down to the level of the individual, but at a certain point, the aggregation of individuals in question becomes a meaningful percentage. Is it not fair to say that generally true statement is also a reflection of the actions or speech of a meaningful percentage?
Jam, I see some of your points for sure, but the overall message I’m seeing in this thread is tone policing. It puts people in a rough bind of speaking the truth of something, at least as they see it, to say it in a way that is the most digestible for as many people as possible. As far as I’m concerned, some truths will piss people off no matter how it’s phrased, so might as well speak
Jam, if we’re going to judge me and justify positions based on what I ‘liked’ in online commentary, you might as well dig a hole and take me out. Lol. Let’s go.
I’m not sure if you were going for irony but it’s a little funny that Grainger responded with thoughtfulness and a willingness to engage even if he didn’t agree on everything I said. Meanwhile you did exactly what your article accused women of doing sarcasm, deflection and zero interest in actual dialogue. It’s kind of wild to call out emotional immaturity and then immediately demonstrate it in the comments. If the goal was to prove your point mission accomplished!
The only irony here is that it’s just not that serious. I’m not here to defend a PhD I’m working on, nor to collect validation points based on how well strangers think I write. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me — and I’m good with that. I’m a mother, a wife, a friend, and I write because I like it. I’ve been writing for years.
How you perceive my work is your experience; I’d never take that from you, even if I could. What I write and how I write is my experience, and I don’t care to manipulate or change anyone’s mind about anything.
I wish you all the best.
If it is true that women do behave in ways that are entitled, emotionally immature and burdensome, how does it make things better to ignore this reality and continue to focus exclusively on men. And what Jam here clearly expects is a repeat of this process:
Feminist says, ‘There are 2 sides to every story.’
Man singularly and men collectively: ‘The corollary to the accusations you have leveled against men is this: many women display behavioral tendencies with suggest or express entitlement, emotional or cognitive immaturity, unrealistically burdensome expectations, impulsivity, irresponsibility, and an aversion to accountability.
Feminist cries out in all the angsty feminist rage, “Why are you such a misogynist!!!!”
Man singularly and men collectively: Looks at watch and shrugs: “Aversion to accountability. Just like clockwork.”
Holding people accountable for their behavior is not dehumanizing. In fact, it is explicitly humanizing. We don’t expect to have a conversation about expectations and social norms and civilized behavior with a dog when it bites someone, a horse when it kicks someone, a shark when it eats someone or a bear when it mauls someone in the forest. Dehumanizing is when a society collectively shrugs their shoulders, indulges the adult tantrum or just panders, saying “Well, we can’t judge them or hold them accountable. After all, they’re only (insert trait of choice here). This is no different than when one demands that one be the beneficiary of “The White Man’s Burden.” If one is willing to impose a set of standards on one person or another group of people and then excuse one’s disinclination or inability to uphold that same standard, one is being a hypocrite who feels entitled to be infantilized by everyone else. And yes, such an infantilized hypocrite is almost invariably a burden.
It’s interesting that instead of engaging with the points I raised about mutual accountability and not reducing people to caricatures you assumed I’d react with “angsty feminist rage.” I questioned whether the tone and framing of this piece serve its stated goals. If the goal is to encourage accountability and emotional maturity shouldn’t that include how we have conversations with each other too? I agree with many points of the article but the authors chose to stereotype and insult instead of expanding on their very valid points. I was hoping for a conversation that welcomed critique not one that uses sarcasm and strawmen to dismiss it. If a woman questioning generalisations about women is automatically labelled a burden and dismissed as an angry feminist then it’s clear the space isn’t open to honest dialogue only agreement.
Firstly, on the subject of mutual accountability, men have been taking a cultural beating for decades with some assertions being true, valid and accurate and others being unfair, simplistic, matronizing (I just coined that word and I think it's appropriate here) or purely false. This conversation, created by the authors, isn't about all of that. It's about female behavior; not male behavior. Please try to stay on topic. You assert in your initial comment that the authors' narrative reduces women to one-dimensional caricatures. You also ask in your first paragraph if the authors are not engaging in the same practice that feminist critics of men conduct. Not once, though, did you engage with the substance of what was said. Rather than engage with the ideas, your comments - and your reply to me - actually exemplify a valid critique of women's behavior that is generally, often, true: tone policing. Neither of your replies seem to be honest engagement with the ideas proposed. You just find objectionable the manner in which the message was delivered. And you seem to think that male behavior should be discussed in some kind of tit for tat tally. This does not strike me as intellectual honesty or good faith dialogue. It is, however, consistent with my experience of debating or discussing difficult issues with the vast majority of the various women I've encountered: disengagement from the issue at hand because the manner in which the issue was framed was objectionable: metaconversation, rather than actual, meaningful conversation as dialogue about the actual issue.
Secondly, exactly what are the straw men to which you refer? It's one thing to say it, it's another to back it up. What caricatures? And, even if you could back up the claim of caricature of women, Is that entirely a bad thing? You see, I think there are many man who are tired of being accused of being 'simple', of being the 'buffoon' caricature, the 'creep' caricature, the 'predator' caricature, and, really, in mainstream feminist zeitgeist, those seem to be the prevailing categories into which men are lumped. Unless, of course, the man in question is a billionaire neurosurgeon philanthropist sparkly werewolf, in which case, he's torrid affair material at least, and maybe marriage material. Yes, in one sense that's obvious hyperbole. However, in that one sentence, I also aggregated what seems to be the prevailing tropes for the kind of romance fiction that gets the motor running of many women who imbibe romance fiction.
Nowhere in mainstream conversation is there any push on women to attempt to dispense with the prejudices they hold as regards men and male nature. Women caricature men in various ways and then hold up those caricatures as proof of why women should be believed at all times (Me Too), occupy more positions of power, regardless of merit (remember how Elizabeth Holmes used to be a poster girl for feminist power and achievement?) or just, generally in charge of things, again, regardless of merit (ie Kamala Harris. I was a native Californian and lived most of my 50 years there. I know exactly how she got to where she was, and there is no position she ever attained that was solely on the basis of her merit, intellect or, especially, her rhetorical skill.)
Men - and some women who see and work to understand the issues that are unique to men - are exhausted and pissed off at feminist caricatures of men. Is there a point when feminists, having been sufficiently caricatured by their philosophical opposites might engage in a moment of internal examination and realize that if it doesn't feel good to them, it might not feel good to men, either? Or is feminist empathy largely reserved for (Believe) all women, children (usually), the transexual movement and illegal immigrants? Because that's what it looks like to many men - myself included. And, again, I'm not actually saying that the authors constructed any caricatures at all. I'm simply unwilling to universally dismiss the potential utility of caricature as a mirrored critique of feminism's caricatures of men.
If your interpretation of my closing comment was that someone questioning generalizations is a burden, I would ask you to go back and re-read the assertion in the context in which it was expressed. I stated that people - and in this case many women, as that's the topic of the conversation - who seek only to evade accountability for their actions infantilize themselves and require others to participate in their infantilization. Understanding, ownership and performance of duties, responsibilities and holding oneself accountable are adult behaviors. The converse aggregation of behaviors is, definitionally, juvenile. This is why, if you stop and think about it, the phrase 'juvenile delinquent' is an oxymoron. We do not expect juveniles to meet adult standards of accountability and responsibility as a general rule. And, what I actually said is that infantilized hypocrites are always a burden. I did not say 'all women'. I did not even say 'most women'. I didn't even say women in general.
Finally, in your second paragraph, your closing sentence is, "Neither women nor men are perfect they are individual whole people with flaws and strengths." In this context, it comes across as a fancy 'Not all Irishmen' fallacy. No one is saying all women everywhere at all times. In dealing with the human condition, the only universal truth is our possession of flaws. Beyond that, when dealing with broad social issues, generalizations are asserted to be true because it's the only way to address acculturated or endemic behaviors. And at no point have you addressed the assertions of the authors? Do you think they are true? If so, to what extent since, obviously, not all Irishmen? Or, if they are untrue, do you have countervailing evidence to present?
For the record, the sexbot comment was probably from DwarvenAllFather. He does not stop talking about replacing women with robots. No one knows what's going on with him, but he's fun to have around if you don't take him seriously.
In fairness to DwarvenAllFather, I'm pretty sure there are at least 5 Canadian hockey players who now realize that a sexbot wouldn't have lied about being an enthusiastic, instigating - demanding, even - participant in a gangbang.
Also like clockwork... Feminist inability to recognize, process and/or appreciate sarcasm, snark and satire. Taken in context with the rest of the post, Jam can't recognize the sexbot satire for what it is?
There is a distinction, I hope, between ‘women’ and ‘these particular women who are doing these particular things’. This article does not indict my wife for my (grown, married) daughters… because they do not do these things.
I get that the article wasn’t meant to target all women. My point is more about how it comes across. The tone and generalisations make it easy for people to feel lumped in or dismissed even if they’re not the intended target. That kind of framing doesn’t help bring people into the conversation it pushes them away. If they are only writing for people who already agree with them that’s fine. But if the goal is to actually shift thinking or challenge mainstream narratives I think the tone matters a lot more than you’re giving it credit for.
I get the idea: don’t respond to the vile with the histrionic. I just didn’t view it that way. Still don’t. It’s possible that styles of writing play a role.
I’m merely responding to the writers of the article in APA— 2 women supposedly writing for “Men & Masculinities.” I get the burden. I get that a man shouldn’t be word-dumping on his wife, and how that is truly burdensome for her.
But if they are going to call out men for this: they would at least need to address how we got here.
But they can’t, because to address that would humanize men and we just can’t have that.
My role was to address a male perspective of this. Karina’s style is much more direct and filled with “I’ve had enough.”
But that’s why I think it worked and resonated with so many. Because it had a balance of calm frustration mixed with fiery momma bear.
Also, to address this would - even if only obliquely - require an acknowledgment of the (often coercive) means by which we got here via feminist imperative.
And yes, this article worked because I appreciate both your styles and because I, especially, appreciate that readers can enjoy an intellectually honest straightforward conversation with Karina. Not that Grainger isn't those things, but that it's far more scarce in interactions with women (gasp! NOT ALL IRISHWOMEN!!!)
Hmmm.
Well, maybe. I would be surprised if someone who wasn't like the people being described felt attacked, but what do I know? I'm just a man ;)
Sometimes, I think the anger is because the accusation hits too close to home. In your situation, you don’t even need to do the often-reflexive ‘not all Irishmen’ response because you know it doesn’t apply.
Once upon a time I was privy to a great observation; "a man chases a woman until she catches him."
Banger of a short comedy video about this: https://youtube.com/shorts/5mZ6KL2LdwQ?feature=shared
It's funny because it's true!!! Also, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg