Misogyny Of Epic Proportions

I’ve come across an article that makes regular misogyny look like a cute game of pole-tennis in the backyard in the middle of a balmy summer. One that most regular misogynists would want to distance themselves from. It’s so bad that I wish it was satire, and I would be thrilled to find out that it is. Looking at the context, though, I’m pretty sure it’s real. “The Case Against Female Self-Esteem is the sort of title that never precedes something good, and this time it precedes something reprehensible. Irony is thick in the air as I read the website’s byline – “The man who shouted love at the heart of the world”. He has a very special definition of love. Anyway, on to the content.

I’m just gonna come out and say it: I love insecure women.

 That’s not a good start. Do you know what kind of people like insecure women? Abusers. If she’s insecure she’s more likely to accept the abuse doled out to her – mental, emotional, physical, sexual. And later on we see that the author seems to be quite in favour of physical abuse.

The idea that women should have self-esteem or need it, beyond a low baseline to ensure they don’t commit suicide or become psycho stalkers, is one of the most disastrous social engineering experiments of the modern era. A woman with excessive confidence is like a man with a vagina. It’s an attribute that is at best superfluous and at worst prevents women from fulfilling their natural biological and social functions.

So apparently the little ladies don’t need to feel good about themselves, because it makes them manly. Now is it making women manly, or is it threatening the male grip on social power? If women are encroaching on the male domain, masculinising them makes them less threatening and more acceptable (but not too acceptable, the little ladies should really be back in the kitchen). and let’s round this all off with a nice naturalistic fallacy – because this is how women were created/have lived for years/centuries/millenia (we shall ignore completely the constant changes in the role of women in society) then that is how it should be. Sir, you do not get to define women’s social functions according to your own weird little definitions. The world is bigger than that.

In order for America to right itself, there needs to be a massive and concerted war on female self-esteem.

Oh. Well, at least he’s going straight to the point.

1. Most girls have done nothing to deserve self-esteem.

What, so you have to be something special before you get to feel good about yourself? You can’t take the little things that you achieve as little victories for yourself? I think that you have your definitions screwed up, Mr Forney. Self-esteem isn’t something you earn by gaining the approval of other people. It’s not even necessarily related to what other people think or do. And sir, the truth is that it is the same for men. Getting the approval of others feels good, but self-esteem begins inside. It’s not earned. 

The vast majority of girls work useless fluff jobs: government bureaucrats, human resources and various other makework positions that exist to give them the illusion of independence. The jobs that keep the country running—tradesmen, miners, farmers, policemen, the military—are still overwhelmingly dominated by men. If every girl was fired from her job tomorrow, elementary schools would have to shut down for a couple days, but otherwise life would go on as usual.

Let’s for a moment ignore the pigeon-holing of women into “makework” jobs, and have a look at what would actually happen if every girl was fired tomorrow. Most of the nurses would disappear from hospitals. Good luck with that. Most cleaners would disappear. Have fun cleaning up your own shitty mess, gentlemen. And would you like to go out to a restaurant? Well, good luck with getting any service. And some of those “makework” positions that you’re so disparaging of are things you might miss – things like the payroll girl. That useless one answering the phones? Well, you can do it, because it’s actually kind of important to your business. And the girl who serves at the lunch counter down the road that you all get lunch from? Sorry, useless and gone. and finally, sir, where are you going to find girls of negotiable affection if they’ve all been fired? After all, they’re just doing “makework”.

Feminists can screech as loud as they want, but they will never change this fundamental reality; men accord respect based on merit, and if girls want to play in our world, they’ll have to obey our rules. Otherwise, they know where the kitchen is.

This couldn’t get any more stereotypically misogynist. ‘This is our world, and you don’t belong”. But it adds an interesting contradiction to his earlier stance that women who work are manly – of course they are, you’ve demanded it of them. They’re playing by men’s rules, and to your eyes that makes them manly. You can’t have it both ways, Mr Forney. And somehow, despite it being the most overused trope in the stereotyped misogynist armoury, he’s brought in the ‘Get back in the kitchen’ trope. Boring, overused, makes no point except that the writer has no original thought.

Given their lack of physical strength, a woman on her own should be frightened as hell without men to protect her.

Because of course the little ladies are completely helpless and useless. Given that the biggest threat to women is men, maybe instead of being protectors, they should focus on not being threats.

If a girl needs me, feels that her life would end if she were to lose me, I’m doubly inspired to be there for her, to shield her from the cruelty of the world. Frankly, it’s pretty hot. 

Or maybe, it’s pretty worrying. Are you sure you want to take on someone that unstable? What happens when you move on, and she’s left with a hole in her life? You’ve dated a few women, and you’ve left most of them. When you’ve stopped sheltering her, and she’s emotionally damaged as well as unstable. To do that to a girl is cruel.

In order to love someone else, you need to be emotionally vulnerable, more so women than men (as girls are attracted to confident men). You need to be willing to open yourself up, to give yourself over to their judgment, to risk being hurt and rejected. Without this emotional openness, any relationship you have will never go beyond the infatuation stage. But girls today are told to erect gigantic walls around their hearts, cutting them off from an crucial part of their humanity. The emotional dissonance from this feminist social engineering is why antidepressant usage and mental illness are skyrocketing among young women. Ordinarily a depressed or insecure girl would seek solace in the loving embrace of a man, but daily hits from her good friend Saint Xanax short-circuit her feminine instincts.

And here I get REALLY angry. The first bit it sick – you need to open up and be vulnerable to we can judge you and crush you, and a throwaway assumption about what women want. Ho-hum, misogynist prick, getting a bit used to his outrageousness, and then he starts on mental illness. And he is so painfully under-qualified to do such that I am furious. Blaming mental illness on “feminist social engineering”, whatever the hell that means, is bizarre. Blaming it the lack of a “loving embrace of a man” is just bloody offensive. Many of the mentally ill women I know have a loving man, and that doesn’t bloody cure them. There is nothing special about snuggles that makes someone well again. Support and feeling loved can help, but it’s not a magical cure. And enough with the idea that women are acting against nature. Naturalistic fallacy bullshit.

Essentially, “confident” women are incapable of viewing men as human beings.

Bull. Confident women are just as able to see men as people as underconfident women. It would be nice, though, Mr Forney, if you would start treating women as people rather than as puppets just waiting for you to pull their strings.

If I’m not the center of a girl’s world, I’m not going to be in her world period.

Is it just me that finds that a bit creepy? Make me your everything or I leave you. Next we have confinement to the house to keep her away from men who will want to seduce her and female friends who are a bad influence. And when the house burns down due to an oil fire in the kitchen, she’s found in the ashes chained to the stove (yes, I exaggerate).

Why do you think the average urban slut machine is downing enough Prozac to poison the water supply? Pharmacological assistance is the only way she can make it through her day without slitting her wrists, or alternately realizing that her life is a complete lie. Every day, women show through their actions that they despise their strong, independent lives

So here we have slut-shaming (and branding swathes of the population with a nasty epithet). We have misunderstanding of mental illness. And then we have an unfounded assertion that mental illness shows that women are denying that their lives are a “complete lie”. More bull, less energy by the minute. The guy’s slimy to the touch.

They want nothing more than for a man to throw them over his knee, shatter the Berlin Wall around their hearts, and expose the lovestruck, bashful little girl within.

So what women really want is to be spanked until emotionally they resemble little girls, and what men really want is a “lovestruck, bashful little girl”. Beating up a woman is, of course the perfect way to render her lovestruck. And all men really want to deal with emotional children. I don’t even want to think to closely about that.

Feminists can claim that women don’t need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention.

Are you kidding me? Men and women need each other just about equally, because otherwise we just die out. Any other concerns about who needs who the most is semantic rubbish.

I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

You know what? Screw you buddy. You’re jumping into a reality you don’t know the first thing about. It’s not something women just make up this stuff to feel vulnerable. Feeling vulnerable in the way is devastating. And really, until you walk that road or somehow find yourself a new perspective, your place is not in the auditorium shouting. It is in the bathrooms cleaning.

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for “equality”; they’re a cry for help. Girls don’t want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master’s degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

Earth to Forney. Come in Forney. You’ve wandered off onto Planet Horseshit . . . Forney? FORNEY? Dammit Jim, we’ve lost him. Another one drowned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s