I’m Starting a Cult Called “Your Gender-Politics Cult is Bullshit”

gender politics

Much of the fighting is ridiculous. Stop acting like you don’t want to sleep with each other. (Image/stephenwhitehead.org)

[15-minute read]

“Don’t call my cult bullshit, you pansy-ass mangina!”

Sorry, Johnny Men’s Rights. Maybe stop peddling bullshit.

“You tell ‘em, Matt! Radical feminism is the BEST!”

Or it’s not.

Equality is the best. NOT SAMENESS. Not advancement at the expense of others. Actual equality.

Equal doesn’t have to mean “identical.” Equal doesn’t have to mean “the same.” It can mean simply “has the same value.” We’ll get into that shortly.

A significant number of feminists (and some subsection of men’s rights groups) want just that—equality.

Fairness. Non-bullshitty fairness for everyone. I like those people and I hope they join my new cult.

Actions and words that lift people up WITHOUT tearing down others in the process are best.

Feminists and Men’s Rights Activists promoting equality for all while NOT being massive dick holes to enemies, real or imagined, deserve our support.

And since I think most people who angrily pit men and women against one another to perpetuate political and social gender wars are scummy shit-eaters, and also think being a cult leader sounds rad, I’ve decided to start one.

Join My Sweet New Cult – YGPCIBS

My cult is going to be awesome, so you’ll definitely want to join it unless you’re already in a gender-politics cult.

My cult teaches ideas that are unpopular with other gender-politics cults—groups that have a stranglehold on the hearts and minds of millions of people, including maybe yours and mine.

My cult has only one member so far because I just invented it five minutes ago, but all are welcome and encouraged to join—especially if you feel like there isn’t a place for you in one of the current batch of gender-obsessed political cults out there.

The name of our new cult is: Your Gender-Politics Cult is Bullshit, or for short, YGPCIBS.

For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Cult Leader Matt. (Hi!)

Yes, I have an agenda. I want our movement to inspire people. Before this is over, I want people who identify with Red Pill philosophy and members of the Women’s Liberation Front to be licking arsenic-free purple Kool-Aid® off of one another.

That’s not the primary goal, mind you. Our primary goal will be to reduce instances of assholery regardless of gender and politics (OR, if already in the non-asshole camp, to continue being awesome).

But just so we’re clear, the porny licking thing will probably be among the cult’s top-three objectives because we’re also going to be a bit juvenile.

‘Hey, Cult Leader Matt! Why Do You Think Feminist and Men’s Rights Groups are Bullshit?’

First, I do not think everything about all feminist or men’s rights groups are bullshit.

I do not think all of the stated beliefs and objectives of these groups are bullshit. And even if I did, I certainly wouldn’t think all individual members of those groups are bullshit.

But, I would say that I perceive an uncomfortably large percentage of any politically motivated gender-based group to NOT be committed to equality, but to winning.

The two groups we need to perpetuate the human species are at WAR with one another. And the hilarious part is that it’s for the same reasons the average couple struggles with communication and understanding one another.

I am firmly and strenuously committed to FAIRNESS. To justice. To actual equality. Not fake-equality.

“Hey, Cult Leader Matt! What’s fake-equality?”

I’ll give you an example.

I have a job where I sit at a desk and spend most of the time typing things on a computer.

All I need to do my job effectively is a laptop computer with internet access. Which means I can pretty much do my job from anywhere connected to the power grid.

But, if I want to keep my job, I’m not allowed to work from wherever I want. If I don’t sit in a designated spot in a specific corporate office building for 40-50 hours per week, they’ll eventually fire me.

That means no working from home. That means no working from coffee shops or restaurants. That even means no working outside on company property on picnic tables or whatever.

Why?

Because other people at the company have jobs with a function requiring them to be inside the building. You know, maybe they pack and ship boxes. Maybe they stock shelves. They can’t do those jobs while sitting outside.

And so, if those of us who can do our jobs from anywhere were to be seen working outside on picnic tables, or discovered to be working from off-site locations, “that wouldn’t be fair to all the people who can’t take a laptop with them and get their work done!”

That is fake equality.

Some bureaucrat decided to write a rule that “Everyone Must Be Treated The Same!” without accounting for the fact that all the company executives get an ass-load of financial and schedule perks unavailable to most employees, and that everyone in maintenance gets to work outside all the time.

Treating everyone as if they are “THE SAME” is fake equality.

Real equality is treating everyone equally.

I shouldn’t necessarily get paid the same as the company’s CEO. I shouldn’t necessarily get the same perks as someone who has worked here 25 years.

Parents don’t typically prevent their 18-year-old kids from activities just because it wouldn’t be fair to their 9-year-old siblings. That would be some next-level fake-equality bullshit.

Just like all the anti-men and anti-women political cults out there. They’re just like shitty parents and silly corporate rule-makers.

People are often NOT the same. This reality needs to be okay.

But, all people have equal value. And THAT must be a core principle guiding our treatment of others.

Anyone taking the stance that men—by virtue of their gender—are better than women, or that women are better than men, have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by an evil cult leader somewhere, and they need our help.

When discussing human equality:

  • Equal can never mean “the same.”
  • Equal must mean “of similar value.” 

The Inherent Danger of Us vs. Them

If the aim of a person or group is to gain advantage at the expense of another (outside of activities where competition is inherently involved like sports, business, job candidacy, dating, etc.) then I’m of the mind (and so it is decreed by YGPCIBS) that they’re doing it wrong.

YGPCIBS cult members will not blindly take sides in identity politics.

The same people crying foul about feeling stereotyped are the same people participating in grand-scale groupthink, and exacerbating a bunch of Us vs. Them nonsense.

The only possible end to an Us vs. Them conflict (that isn’t resolved diplomatically) is one side winning and the other side forced into shit-eating submission.

And if you believe all humans have value and don’t aspire to live your one life being a massive penis, then you’re going to want to avoid any zero-sum games involving human wellness.

I remember one male blog commenter writing: “Way to betray your own gender,” under one of my posts. That guy was totally being a massive penis, which I get because I’ve also acted like a massive penis. (I might be being one right now.)

Identity politics—the act of fighting for or against the agendas of a particular group of people—is one of the biggest problems in our world today.

So that guy who accused me of betraying my own gender because I told the truth about what I’ve observed in male behavior (and done myself) that I believe contributes to massive amounts of divorce and broken families—does he think I should side with every “group” of which I’m a member?

I mean, I’m also white. Does that guy think I should be a racist cock and join some “oppressed white guy” group that denigrates and fights against the prosperity of anyone who has different skin tones?

I’m also straight. Does that guy think I should start harassing gay people and maybe go commit some hate crimes against anyone who has different opinions and/or personal interests than me in the sexual-intimacy department?

Racism. Bigotry. Sexism. Misogyny. All of these are bad things that have no place in our cult because they violate YGPCIBS’ most sacred core principle: Don’t be evil assholes.

Here’s another thing: I’m exhausted trying to tiptoe around with my words when writing about male-female relationships. I blame all the bullshit cults for this.

There are millions of people out there who have never been exposed to the types of relationship discussions we have here. And if one of the ways to affect positive change in a couple’s relationship, or in someone in the dating pool, is to offer real-world examples that play on gender stereotypes, then I feel I have a moral obligation to do so.

Some of you may not know this, but in the United States, sugary carbonated soft drinks are commonly called one of three different names, depending on which region of the country people are from.

In the Northeast and on the West Coast, people call it “soda.”

In the Midwest, people call it “pop.” (Despite being born in Iowa and spending the majority of my life living in Ohio and Illinois, I’ve said “soda” most of my life.)

In the South, people inexplicably call it “Coke,” even if they’re ordering Pepsi or Mountain Dew or Sprite.

Customer: “I’ll take a Coke with that.”

Waiter: “What kind would you like?”

Customer: “Wild Cherry Pepsi.”

That’s insane, right? It’s a minor miracle Pepsi executives and stock holders aren’t regularly arrested for having violent outbursts every time they witness such an exchange.

I don’t call soft drinks “pop,” even though most people I interact with do. Is it wrong, offensive, insensitive, inherently harmful, or some other negative thing to say that most people in the Midwest call soft drinks “pop”? Even though it’s demonstrably true?

Of course not.

Now, if I say that everyone who calls Mountain Dew “Coke” is a dumb redneck, or that everyone who says “soda” is a liberal, elitist snob, could that be called harmful or wrong?

Totally.

It’s all about passing the Asshole Test. And you, Male Right’s Activist and Radical Feminist, are failing the Asshole Test. Or passing? I don’t know. Whichever one means: “You’re being an asshole. Please stop.”

Yes, I have written MANY times that I perceive the actions of men to be the biggest negative influence on relationship success.

That doesn’t mean women don’t sometimes (or even, often) suck. It doesn’t mean women are perfect. It doesn’t mean some men aren’t among the most honorable and wonderful people roaming this earth, because some totally are.

It just means that if you line up every single romantic male-female relationship in human history, I believe it’s the stereotypical actions of the common man that we can pinpoint as the root cause of relationship failure most of the time. (Beginning with their relationship, I mean. The ACTUAL root cause is all of the psychological and emotional baggage left over from childhood which they were too young to understand or do anything about. I’d blame the parents, except they ALSO didn’t know any better. Because their parents did the same thing. And so did their grandparents. And so did their great-grandparents.)

Men have a problem.

Math is math. Seven out of 10 divorces are initiated by women.

This is the part where the MGTOW guys cry conspiracy theory, and where The Red Pill guys try to pawn their alpha-beta and female-imperative nonsense.

Umm. No, dipshits.

If your wife left you, one of four things happened:

  1. You did a shitty job selecting a partner.
  2. You did a shitty job being a husband and/or father.
  3. You were two very decent and well-meaning people who accidentally hurt one another so much through the years, that she finally decided to pull the trigger because she was more afraid of being in a painful marriage than she was of living alone and/or losing time with her children. (1 & 2 may still apply.)
  4. You were the victim of an elaborate, pre-planned con carried out by your spouse over many years, and I’m sorry. That must be really hard. (But, 1 still applies for-sure, and maybe even 2.)

I’m tired of the cult of self-righteous, know-it-all feminists and butt-hurt men freaking out if I dare to suggest that men and women commonly display certain stereotypical behaviors.

If the path to understanding that other people often think, feel and experience things in radically different ways than we do comes courtesy of examples of what a person’s opposite-sex partner might commonly experience, and then a bunch of previously irreconcilable relationship differences can be reconciled, and fewer people feel miserable and like dying after a bad breakup or divorce, then I’m having a LOT of trouble identifying the downside.

That’s a worthy cause. This trying to help-people-not-divorce thing. It’s one YGPCIBS is committed to.

OF COURSE not every member of a particular group exhibits identical traits as every other group member. Gender. Religion. Race. Geography. Even identical twins developed from the same genome frequently demonstrate radical differences in personality and temperament.

We are all individuals.

I’m tired of the cult that is Men’s Rights Activists, including the MGTOW guys, and the internet tough guy Red Pillers and their bottomless barrel of bullshit.

You’ll find guys who label themselves as Men’s Rights Activists to be the least-annoying sect of the men’s cult scene because they have several good intentions and redeeming qualities.

They do a good job fighting for parenting rights for fathers, and for the civil rights of men who are sometimes unjustly crucified in domestic violence cases where they were actually the victims.

Men’s Rights Activists help draw attention to some telling statistics related to men’s wellbeing in 2017.

  • Men kill themselves five times more often than women.
  • Teenage boys kill themselves nine times more often than teenage girls.
  • Men are twice as likely as women to be alcoholics or drug addicts.
  • Men are four times more likely to be clinically depressed than women the same age.
  • Men are victims of the majority of violent crime (but they also cause the vast majority of it).
  • Men more often occupy the world’s most dangerous jobs.
  • During an emergency, it is still the cultural norm in virtually every society in the world to get the women and children to safety first, because men are deemed more expendable. Count the death totals from every military conflict in human history. Every tribe, undeveloped and developed nation in the world systematically sends their men to die first.

These are not insignificant facts. It would be intellectually dishonest and patently unfair to dismiss them when discussing men’s issues in 2017.

But then we also have the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) clan and Red Pillers (which mostly exist in a loosely formed way on the subreddit  r/The RedPill).

MGTOW members reject any type of long-term personal relationship with women. No marriage. No cohabitation. Not even something like driving to pick up the child of a single mother. They avoid any action which they say “might be used in courts to turn him into her legal indentured servant.”

This is where all the butt-hurt Men’s Rights and MGTOW guys lose me, because they don’t accept any responsibility for their choices. They don’t own their shit.

I have an idea, assholes: DON’T MARRY PEOPLE WHO DO HEINOUS AND EVIL THINGS.

Hell, don’t marry anyone who annoys you a lot. Don’t marry anyone for any reason you can come up with! The fewer bad marriages we have, the better.

What’s so lame about their whining is that they never raise their hands and accept responsibility for:

  1. Whatever bullshit they brought to their failed marriage.
  2. Whatever poor judgment they displayed to MARRY someone so horrible.

That’s why so many of these guys like to go to the “ALL women do this!” card. It alleviates them of having to take responsibility for anything, or change any of their asshole behaviors.

Anyway. You get it. Many of them are dicks, and my YGPCIBS cult is better than theirs.

The Red Pill is a philosophy, and reddit.com/r/TheRedPill is its home.

According to an article in the NewStatesman, “the nearly 200,000-subscriber-strong subreddit describes itself as a place for the ‘discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.’  In itself, perhaps this doesn’t sound too bad.

“In practice, to ‘swallow the Red Pill’ is to accept the uncomfortable truth about reality. The phrase comes from 1999’s hit film The Matrix, in which the protagonist Neo must choose between the Red Pill – which would allow him to escape the Matrix but see the real, darker world – and the Blue Pill – continued existence in his comfortable, but ultimately fake, life.

“In r/TheRedPill’s instance, the ‘dark truths’ that the subreddit’s subscribers have swallowed are these: feminism is toxic, sexism is fake, men have it harder than women, and everything the media teaches about relationships is a lie. In reality, (the argument goes) women don’t want soft-centered men/chocolates; they want to be dominated, controlled, and manipulated. The most extreme Red Pillers even believe that women want to be raped [by “high-status” men].”

If any of you guys remember a blog commenter here named Jeff Strand (a fake name), he was a Red Pill guy. He remains the only person in four years of blogging here that I’ve ever had to ban from commenting, and it had NOTHING to do with silencing his dissenting opinions, and everything to do with him being an intolerably dark-souled shit-eater.

There are always extremes.

Layers.

Shades of grey, if you will.

I believe there are decent men out there who call themselves MGTOW or Red Pillers.

But I think their ideas are inherently dangerous, and jeopardize the futures of our sons and daughters.

I May Be a Shitty Cult Leader, but Our Awesome Cult Beliefs are Worth Believing (Unless They’re Not)

Here’s a summarized YGPCIBS overview, and my qualifications (or lack thereof) for being a cult leader.

No, I don’t know any good mind-control techniques. I Googled “how to be a successful cult leader” before writing this and according to the only article I read on effective cult-leadership, I’m doomed to be a shitty cult leader. Bummer.

Yes, I hope you send me ungodly amounts of money. I apparently need to build an elaborate cult headquarters somewhere to fit in. Maybe a remote compound. Maybe a high-rise office building. Just somewhere with a nice swimming pool and plenty of high-end tequila, please.

If you’re already in a gender cult, you’re inevitably going to hate YGPCIBS. Some of your reasons will be foolish and immature. (My cult believes things that challenge and contradict your cult’s beliefs). Some of your reasons will be totally valid and appropriate. (My cult called your cult “bullshit”—and meant it.)

A successful cult leader insists that her or his cult’s beliefs are THE ONLY WAY.

People who think they have discovered the magical secret to Life and the Universe—and that only they are RIGHT, and everyone else in the world and human history is WRONG—scare me. This is among the many reasons I won’t succeed as cult leader.

A successful cult leader asks for a suspension of disbelief. And sure, I want you to suspend your own beliefs for a hot minute to ask good questions and challenge any false beliefs you may have, but by joining YGPCIBS I don’t want you to believe aliens flying a spaceship near the Hale-Bopp Comet will magically beam you up to a VIP Comet Party that only you and your 38 closest human friends are invited to IF you kill yourself. Remember: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

A successful cult leader aggressively recruits new members. It’s totally possible this is the last time I ever mention YGPCIBS because I often struggle with follow-through.

A successful cult leader convinces you that you’re always wrong. But you’re not ALWAYS wrong. Maybe not even most of the time. You’re just often wrong. Like me.

A successful cult leader teaches a superhuman model of perfection, and promises to show you how to achieve that state of being. But there is no state-of-being destination for the human condition. The curse of “succeeding” as a human being is that one rarely feels successful, and the feeling is short and fleeting when we do. Successful people rarely think and feel that what they’ve done is good enough. They’re already chasing the next thing. Exceptional people don’t think they’re exceptional because they’re often in a constant cycle of trying and failing to achieve what might be an unattainable ideal.

I don’t believe we get to the top of a mountain one day and think Awesome! Now I’m done and can just feel great every day while I party and stuff! No. Mountain climbers look for higher mountains to climb, or more challenging ways to climb the dangerous mountain again.

A successful cult leader suppresses dissent. I encourage challenging questions. If I can’t answer them, it means I have more to learn.

Every disagreement has THREE possible outcomes and two of them are awesome:

  1. You help someone understand something they didn’t understand before.
  2. You learn something you didn’t know and correct a false belief.
  3. You cling stubbornly to a false belief.

A successful cult leader convinces the group members that they are special and that our specialness makes us better and more important than everyone else. But we’re not special. And it’s okay.

I won’t succeed as a cult leader because I KNOW that I’m not better than you. I know we’re not better than them.

I know that we’re all flawed and a little bit broken. That we’re occasionally weak and afraid. That we’re often selfish and thoughtless. That for every good thing we do, we also are capable of harming others even if we don’t intend to.

This world has ONE chance, and it sure as shit isn’t pitting the genders against one another.

The continuation of our species DEPENDS on men and women working cooperatively and having intercourse and stuff.

To make little humans and raise them to be the kind of people who want to be in good cults like YGPCIBS and not huge-asshole ones.

Many men—most men—have exceptional qualities. Awesome ones. Look for them. Appreciate them. Because the world needs them.

Many women—most women— have exceptional qualities. Awesome ones. Look for them. Appreciate them. Because the world needs them.

We need each other. Need.

And even if we didn’t, my hetero brethren and sisthren, stop being dishonest little sacks and acting like we don’t want each other.

Now, who has the purple Kool-Aid?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

95 thoughts on “I’m Starting a Cult Called “Your Gender-Politics Cult is Bullshit”

  1. Annette Ahnemann says:

    This was long, but it didn’t take 25 minutes to read it…and it was fantastic. Every time I read your posts, I find myself wondering how you could have such a tremendous gift of insight, yet claim to have been a shitty husband. I find it hard to believe. At any rate, I consistently enjoy your writing. The world needs more men like you, Matt.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      1. It didn’t!? Those internet calculators failed me. I’ll see about adjusting it. (Appreciate the heads-up.)

      2. Thanks for the nice note, Annette.

      Like

      • Annette Ahnemann says:

        I read fast! However, I read somewhere that most people rarely read to the bottom of any article online so maybe don’t tell them how long it is. :-)

        Like

  2. annadenko says:

    Trite, tired, and unflattering. While this may have been insightful at some point in this fever dream, the point was quickly lost as soon as this morphed into a whining soliloquy.

    Like

  3. raesmithdesigns says:

    Holy shit, this is one of the best things I’ve ever read.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      annadenko thinks you have VERY poor tastes.

      But, thank you.

      Like

      • raesmithdesigns says:

        I like the underlying MO of your cult, Matt, which I believe is just essentially stop being a wiener, and be kind to everyone equally. If that means I have poor taste, well….shucks. (Also, I consider myself to have an advance degree in identifying whining – I have a 3 year old)

        Liked by 1 person

        • Matt says:

          Thank you. I realize we’re all calibrated differently, and I try really hard to stay mindful of the fact that any given thing I see, hear, taste, feel, experience, etc. might be perceived ENTIRELY differently by someone else.

          But in a society with laws and cultural expectations largely rooted in Good vs. Bad, and Right vs. Wrong (and mostly getting it right — murder/rape/kidnapping is bad; charity/manners/liberty is good) it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask all mentally capable adults to root their core values in “Good” or “Right” in this grand, macro-level sense that I think almost all of us instinctively feel.

          If the thing you’re doing or saying brings HARM to another person or persons (and understanding this, a person continues to do and say those things) then, in virtually all instances, the thing is BAD.

          And we shouldn’t intentionally do BAD things. (I’m all for mischief. I’m all for naughty. But, I’m entirely anti-evil.)

          Liked by 1 person

  4. anitvan says:

    Dude. THANK YOU! Finally, somebody with the courage to say what we all been thinkin.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      I don’t know if it’s courageous to encourage people to be good to one another.

      I hope anyone triggered by the headline will ask themselves why it bothers them, and try to find a little truth among the discomfort.

      It’s VERY uncomfortable when you realize you’ve been a dick to people (if you care about not being one). Almost every post on this blog is me realizing I’ve been a dick to people, and talking about it.

      Like

  5. Lindsay says:

    Sign me up please! I LOVE reading your work. I am a Marriage and Family Therapist thinking of starting a blog of some sort. I have been greatly inspired reading your journey of self discovery. Thanks for all of the insights that you deliver with humility and humor. Keep up the good work.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      This means more to me than you might think, Lindsay. Thank you. I’ve had a steady stream of actual professionals in this space saying very kind things about my writing, and encouraging me to get some things published, and get over myself and start speaking.

      I get pretty nervous in front of groups and even in front of cameras (which is why I haven’t done any videos).

      But I’ve been having discussions locally about getting involved with the Toastmaster organization, and overcoming this public-speaking phobia, and maybe trying to take the next step.

      So, I’ve been thinking a lot about this, and I appreciate the encouragement. Thank you.

      Like

  6. Fank Johnson says:

    Matt

    I read your article about 1 hour ago. I thought I would pass along this article which seems to dovetail with your article about the sexes. It is a good read. You might change your view just a little.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ladies-check-your-privilege/article33797846/

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      I promise to give it a read. And I appreciate you sharing, and I in no way want to sound as if I’m going to stubbornly cling to false beliefs in the face of better ideas or clear evidence.

      But I also don’t know what part of my view could be argued with by anyone but the fringe extreme members of Men’s Rights or Feminist activists.

      I am for treating EVERYONE as well as we possibly can, both as individuals and as a society.

      I am ardently against oppression and discrimination of ANY particular group, no matter what group they are.

      Only people who want to advance male or female privilege at the expense of other people’s well-being should disagree with me.

      Of course, I could totally be missing something. It wouldn’t be the first time.

      Like

    • Matt says:

      Okay. Just read.

      I didn’t disagree with one thing written in that piece, and don’t believe it contradicts anything I’ve written here, minus the part where I used some mocking, juvenile tones that I (probably futiley) hope people will read as playful.

      The things I think feminists could fairly come back with are the long list of shitty things women have collectively endured that aren’t addressed in that piece.

      Also, the article mentions things like the violent crimes that affect men WAY more than women without mentioning that men commit virtually all of the violent crime.

      I just want people to be cool to one another. I don’t understand why so many people struggle with treating others with basic decency.

      It’s just not that hard.

      Like

  7. Fank Johnson says:

    Matt

    I have a clip for you to see. I saw this just 5 minutes ago, and realized this also dove tailed with your article. This video keys in a many points you write about, and it is not good. It is not good you blame men and give women mostly a pass, and it is bad for men, women and society.

    https://www.avoiceformen.com/relationships/the-man-shaming-project-the-fiamengo-file-episode-11/

    I realize you are a good man, maybe better than me. I only ask to examine your ideas more.

    Like

    • Matt says:

      I do NOT think I’m better than anyone else.

      And I’m shocked, frankly, that your takeaway from this blog post is one of me BLAMING men and giving women a free pass for the state of 2017 gender politics.

      I can only assume you skimmed over certain parts of this in order to derive that conclusion.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lindsey says:

        Ok, may be not an “activist”- yet, but definitely a men’s rights supporter.

        Like

        • OKRickety says:

          You make it sound like “men’s rights supporter” is a bad thing, but you say elsewhere here “I would call myself a male rights activist because I care about men….”. I don’t see a significant difference.

          Matt said: “Real equality is treating everyone equally.”

          If you agree, then the question is whether or not both men and women have equal rights in all areas. I think that men have fewer rights than women when it comes to issues such as domestic violence and divorce. If so, then change is needed, but is unlikely unless the problem is communicated.

          Like

          • Lindsey says:

            No, I think supporting mens rights is a good thing. I was just making a distinction because my level of activism with anything I care about is nil.
            … You commented that you feel like men have fewer rights with issues like domestic violence and divorce.
            Honestly I don’t have any statistics on hand, but what I think the point of this post is, is if that is true, and it’s a matter of rights that you are talking about, then attacks and/or aggression Or even pointing fingers at the opposite sex is not a way to alleviate that.
            Women, by virtue of being women, are not the ones to grant “men’s rights”. If there are issues that seem to effect a group of people that seems highly unfair- especially if you’re talking about legal aspects of those issues, then the people you need to address are law makers.
            That means researching and creating a strong case.
            Saying that there is unfair bias with domestic violence cases and in divorce, and then blaming women as a generalized whole doesn’t do anything for you or other men. …or for society as a whole.
            But I agree, that if there are problems they need to be communicated.

            Liked by 1 person

            • OKRickety says:

              “Women, by virtue of being women, are not the ones to grant “men’s rights”. If there are issues that seem to effect a group of people that seems highly unfair- especially if you’re talking about legal aspects of those issues, then the people you need to address are law makers. That means researching and creating a strong case.”

              You give lawmakers more credit than I do. I think they are more influenced by money, potential votes, and, of course, what they suppose is popular opinion based primarily on what they hear from the mass media and lobbyists.

              Are women responsible? Not directly, but it would certainly help the cause if they supported “men’s rights”, even if only verbally.

              Like

              • Somewhat comical, but I’m often to be found on facebook supporting men’s rights, against men, who insist patriarchy is oppressive and silences women. Then they usually silence me, kick me out of the conversation, and unfriend me. Comical because it tends to mess with your head, but the point being, this is not really a gender battle, it’s actually an ideological one.

                Liked by 1 person

                • OKRickety says:

                  Yes, it’s an ideological battle. And, contrary to what is being claimed, I am not blaming women as a sex for the problem. I think that the problem is feminism, perhaps disguised as egalitarianism. Perhaps it would have changed the conversation if I had stated such, but I have great doubts.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • I think it’s far more complex then just feminism or egalitarianism. The free love movement of the 60’s, even some of the mra’s of today, are all about reaping the sexual rewards of feminism, of all things allegedly now being equal. So a lot of our mra’s are actually against traditionalism, against marriage, against male sexual responsibility, and are all about red pilling and exploiting women. So than feminism pushes back, because women are now perceived as having so little worth and value we simply exist as totally disposable sexual recepticles. Then red pills decide they’re going to bash feminism and lecture women about how rebellious and egalitarian we are, and it just doesn’t work. They’ve lost the moral upper hand because they are even more invested in harvesting the fruits of women’s sexual liberation than women are.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Matt says:

                      As an unapologetic fan of using generalizations to explain big ideas, and as someone who knows you to be QUICK to come to the defense of men in many of these common domestic scenarios we talk about here, I appreciate this, IB.

                      Still confused about all of it, though.

                      When we default to positions of kindness, and not trying to “win,” all the ugliness on this matter goes away.

                      Unless someone has VERY specific causes they’re fighting for (men’s paternal rights, women’s health care, etc), I don’t understand the need to join a team, or side, or–cult.

                      Humans have enormous problems to solve within and beyond our own humanity. Seems silly to intentionally pit ourselves against others and never getting to the place where we can tackle the things that really need tackled.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • One problem I see, is that you’re often speaking of the goodness of men and defaulting to kindness. The thing is, our default as humans is neither good or kind. I think you can see evidence of that in the world all around us. So fems, mras, red pills, what they really all want is revenge and control. You join a team or a cult to build a tribe so you’re more powerful and can defeat your perceived enemies.

                      Like

                    • Matt says:

                      We’re swimming in semantics here, I think.

                      Good = NOT Evil

                      Clearly, we all have weaknesses, and fall short of the ideal way to do things or treat people or handle stressful or difficult life events.

                      But I will go down with the sinking USS Hope if I must.

                      The day I believe the majority of people wake up in the morning with the GOAL and PURPOSE of making life shittier for other people… Jesus.

                      I think maybe I’ll just find a nice quiet place to hang out on the coast or something and spend the rest of my days drinking excessively.

                      People will continue to fight their fights. The only thing I can think to do is to try to fight for everybody.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • LOL! Well, I already live on the coast and dream of being a lighthouse keeper on a solitary island somewhere, so I’m probably not the best person to ask about the nature of people. :)

                      Like

                    • OKRickety says:

                      Yes, it’s far more complex than just a label or two. I think feminism is a huge part of the “gender wars” issue but there are many influences, with changes in sexual behavior being one of the more important.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • OKRickety says:

                      Matt, I’ve tried to post a comment here 3 times now and it’s not appearing. Any idea why?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Matt says:

                      Hey. I don’t.

                      Two reasons I can think of:

                      1. You’re posting at the bottom of a comment thread that has a comment limit. (That’s done by WordPress for readability reasons, and if you’ll just start a new comment thread, I’m sure it will show up.)

                      2. I think if there are multiple links embedded, WordPress tags it as potential SPAM, and auto-sends it to a folder where I need to approve it. But I’m not seeing that, so I think it’s probably the first one.

                      I hope you didn’t write long, well-thought out ideas, and then lose them all. I know what that experience feels like, and it’s immensely frustrating. I’m sorry if that happened.

                      Like

                    • OKRickety says:

                      Matt, IB, (continuation of comment thread from here) (Part 1 of ?)

                      I think the utopia that Matt envisions is only possible through all people being Christian, and I doubt that will happen. Instead, I think IB is on the right track in saying that people are neither good or kind. Those attributes are certainly not default human nature. I think selfishness is the one common denominator of human nature. Sure, most people have been taught otherwise (at least from a “tribal” perspective), but when push comes to shove, selfishness shows up and it often is the “winner”. I don’t think that’s best but I believe it’s reality.

                      Matt, I think your objection to winning is the supposition that winning is a binary situation; if one “side” wins, the other must lose. For example, in the “gender wars” scenario, it is supposed that equal rights for one side means the other is being denied some or all of their rights. Really? If the rights are equal, then both sides have their rights without infringing on the rights of the other. That’s one of my problems with feminism – I think the claim is that feminism desires equal rights for both sexes, but I don’t see it expressed in action.

                      To be continued.

                      Like

                    • OKRickety says:

                      Part 2 of 2?

                      I think it’s far better to be part of a team working towards improvement than to be stuck dreaming of an ideal world, the fantasy that someday there will be only Team Mankind. Instead, people are drawn to specific causes that they identify with and are willing to subjugate their selfishness when motivated. Then progress occurs. Society improves. But, unfortunately, it usually only happens slowly. Dream big, but take small steps.

                      Liked by 1 person

              • Lindsey says:

                Rickety,
                “Are women responsible? Not directly, but it would certainly help the cause if they supported ” men’s rights” if only verbally.”

                This statement still shifts the responsibility/blame onto someone (or some group) other than yourself.

                It’s really easy to say /think/feel like life is unfair and you are being shafted, it’s even easier to blame someone else.

                I don’t know if “the cause” that you support is the same idea as what I support.
                I want men to live fully and emotionally well. ..Maybe actually reduce incidents of divorce and domestic violence, (instead of making domestic violence any less criminal than it actually is. )

                There are issues like men taking the most dangerous jobs, etc. That would be interesting to explore.
                Do they feel expendable? Like it’s their duty? Do they just like living on the edge, with greater risks?
                A lot of the points stated about men (somewhere?) previously aren’t matters you can blame on anyone else, short of society as a whole.
                They are sort of just matter of fact.

                I support exploring the “why’s” and the effects of those things in order to understand men better and to create a more whole and healthy society.

                I support understanding men’s needs and what brings them health.

                I don’t support the insistence that one gender is evil or to blame for issues that really have to do with much broader social influences and dynamics.

                Like

                • OKRickety says:

                  “This statement still shifts the responsibility/blame onto someone (or some group) other than yourself.
                  […]
                  I don’t support the insistence that one gender is evil or to blame for issues that really have to do with much broader social influences and dynamics.”

                  Is “someone (or some group)” significantly different from “much broader social influences and dynamics”? After all, social is referring to people as a group.

                  Did I say that women are evil? I don’t think so. Did I say women are to blame for men’s rights issues? I don’t think so, but I did say that women have some responsibility for its continuance. It seems you are interpreting my comments differently from my intention. My point was that women are contributing to the problem by not supporting men’s rights. This is also true of men who are ignorant of the problems.

                  “It’s really easy to say /think/feel like life is unfair and you are being shafted, it’s even easier to blame someone else.”

                  I really dislike that argument. While I agree that doing nothing but complaining is extremely unlikely to change the situation, there are certainly situations where action is extremely unlikely to change it, too. For example, a slave in South Carolina in 1850 who wanted to be free had no practical possibility of achieving freedom by his/her own action. As an individual, it is quite difficult to effect change today.

                  Like

                  • Lindsey says:

                    Rickety,
                    First I want to preface this by saying I don’t really think debating this stuff is very effective. For one: I’m not very good at it, and two : who gives an F what two blogtards think if it isn’t somehow translated into something useful in real life. If what I am trying to say is met pre-emptively with resistance and disagreement then it isn’t very useful to you.
                    But, out of respect, I will try to answer.

                    First I want to make sure we are both clear as to what we are talking about.
                    You asked about me differentiating between supporting and activism (which I may not have thoroughly answered. When I say support, I mean I agree or am “for” it. When I say activism I mean actively seek social/political change. I was merely commenting on my lack of actively seeking change.)
                    You mentioned that you believe men have fewer rights than women in issues like divorce or domestic violence. Which you also state that change is needed and change can’t happen without the problem being communicated. (I totally agree that change cannot happen without the problem being communicated. )
                    I responded back in an attempt to bring it back around to the blogs original post that the gender war crap has GOT to go. That is why I brought up, that it could be that men are treated unfairly in some areas, but blaming women for those things is sort of pointless since we as a gender have little authority over establishing or protecting men’s rights- anymore than any other demographic group does. The issue isn’t men vs. women, but men vs. a government institution. (And just so that you are aware even when there are laws established to protect a groups rights it’s a totally different deal for society to recognize those rights in a socio-normative way. That’s why racism and sexism still exist. Welcome to the world of being a marginalized minority- I guess we all get a turn!)
                    So, again- if men’s rights need to be established it is something that legal authorities need to establish, and then society as a whole (not just women) would need to integrate and adopt into their world view. Women are not your enemy, and we can’t make society treat you any differently (though on a personal level some individual women may be mindful and sympathetic to your experience).
                    You seem to dismiss this idea that directing your complaint towards those that can establish laws with a bit of (well earned) fatalism.
                    My only response to that is, you aren’t wrong. That just means it’s difficult, not that it’s impossible.
                    You then also say no, women are not directly responsible but it would certainly “support the cause” if we supported men’s rights, if only verbally.
                    My little psycho-analytic mind reads this as saying that women as a gender group “should” help. It’s still laying the responsibility at womens feet. If we didn’t help, does that we are against men?
                    I explained that there may be a difference between what you believe men’s rights to be vs. how I would support men.
                    How I would support men MAY include pushing for men’s rights, but it depends on what you are talking about.
                    What do you mean by divorce is unfair to men? Is it the custody? The alimony/child support? Is it garnishing of wages? What exactly is unfair? The laws around all of those things vary from state to state.
                    You also mentioned domestic violence. I would ask the same questions- what ways are domestic violence laws, and how they are carried out biased and unfair?
                    Do men get arrested more than women? Does the sentencing feel too extreme?
                    Just to note, I am very aware that men do get hit by their spouses, and are far less likely to report any such thing. But that is a personal choice that men make. Looking at why they make those choices would be a more appropriate remedy than changing laws.
                    If what you are against men getting arrested more often when there is a mutual physical confrontation, in spite of all the internet noise around that subject I know that in my area both get arrested. It could be different in different areas, but it certainly isn’t a universal thing. And how about instead of everyone saying it’s unfair and the other person is to blame that both parties get counseling and figure out how to be decent to each other?

                    I ended with saying that I don’t support blaming one gender or demonizing one gender when it really has to do with much larger social influences and dynamics, to which you ask:

                    Is “someone (or some group)” significantly different from “much broader social influences and dynamics”? After all, social is referring to people as a group.

                    My answer is yes, the influences and dynamics are much broader than gender.
                    There are many “social groups”, and individuals fall into several categories of those groups.
                    I’m white, female, *almost* middle aged, Christian, Texan, non-partisan, etc, etc…
                    How do all of those other facets influence my view of those issues?
                    All of those things play a part.

                    In response to the rest:
                    “Did I say that women are evil? I don’t think so. ” You did not say women were evil, however I was mostly referring to the demonizing that goes on behind any “war” and when we take sides.
                    “Did I say women are to blame for men’s rights issues? I don’t think so, but I did say that women have some responsibility for its continuance.” Please refer to what I stated previously. I have to affirm strongly that women being women aren’t the ones responsible for whatever way you feel men are being cheated.
                    Are there “bad” women?- yes. But that is an individual, not a gender. Same thing with men.

                    “It seems you are interpreting my comments differently from my intention. My point was that women are contributing to the problem by not supporting men’s rights. This is also true of men who are ignorant of the problems.”
                    No, I don’t think I mis-interpreted it at all. You are saying women are contributing to the problem (responsible for) the problem because we aren’t supporting it.

                    To which I have to say again- this is an attempt to blame and give the responsibility to someone other than the person with the problem.

                    And in addition, if you are saying women are causing problems for men- then yes, you are generalizing and to some extent demonizing an entire gender.

                    “It’s really easy to say /think/feel like life is unfair and you are being shafted, it’s even easier to blame someone else.”
                    I really dislike that argument. While I agree that doing nothing but complaining is extremely unlikely to change the situation, there are certainly situations where action is extremely unlikely to change it, too. For example, a slave in South Carolina in 1850 who wanted to be free had no practical possibility of achieving freedom by his/her own action. As an individual, it is quite difficult to effect change today.”

                    It’s no one persons responsibility to single handedly effect change. But, it is men’s responsibility, if that is who it is affecting.

                    As a white male (I am assuming) you are the ones most empowered to make change. You are the demographic with the most power.

                    It took about 150 years, but slavery was abolished. It has taken about another 100, but slowly I am seeing more black people actually empowered in their lives.

                    I don’t think you can compare your experience as a white male to the experiences of a slave in 1850.
                    I don’t think you can compare your experiences as a white male to the men and women who lived through the Jim Crow era.

                    Nothing personal, but it doesn’t even come close, sorry.

                    It may be eye opening for you to go sit and talk to some black folks in the nursing home some afternoon. They could tell you some stories.

                    Like

                    • Lindsey says:

                      “Is “someone (or some group)” significantly different from “much broader social influences and dynamics”? After all, social is referring to people as a group.”

                      I should have also explained that what I was referring to with broad social influences and dynamics is that the conditions we find ourselves in now are the outcomes of decades of social evolution.
                      If men are typically not granted full time custody, for example, it’s because traditionally men were breadwinner and women were the ones who raised children. So, for a long time courts believed it would be better for children to go with their mom’s. That isn’t the most common scenario anymore. But when it was, it wasn’t because women wanted to get back at men and keep them from their children. It was because of other social influences.
                      Could other, similar influences be effecting what is being seen as unfair?

                      Like

                    • OKRickety says:

                      This comment “thread” continued here.

                      Like

          • Lindsey says:

            Also for some reason I replied to the wrong comment. That post was just an afterthought to the comment I made to Frank Johnson.

            Like

      • Honest K says:

        Digital high five, oft, make it a high ten! Loved this, very fair. I have no idea why some people read that as you taking a side. Which is exactly the problem. You’re genitals mean nothing, we are all humans.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lindsey says:

      Frank,
      Hi there! My name is Lindsey. Just to be honest and up front, I haven’t had a chance to read the articles you posted. (Yet…?….I may not get a chance to read them, sorry).
      But from your comments to Matt I just want to say no, Matt is not giving women a free pass.
      Matt is pointing out one glaring thing that happens in marriages (men’s “poor” behavior) but even that is a symptom of much deeper rooted issue with the male psyche.
      I would call myself a male rights activist because I care about men- both in my personal relationships and as a gender.
      I love men!
      But I think what it means to be a man has been twisted, or mis directed.
      I am leaving a link to a you tube talk by Richard Rohr- I am into his stuff for many different reasons and didn’t realize he also does “men’s work” until the last year or so, which I was extremely excited about.
      You could probably get away with going to the second (fairy short) videos in the 4 part series without missing a whole lot, but this is the link to the first video anyway.
      Hope it is helpful.

      Like

      • Lindsey says:

        And, just to note – he mentions being sort of popped in the face as initiation rights into the priesthood. I don’t necessarily think that physical contact like that needs to be a part of “becoming initiated “. To me that can just be interpreted as showing dominance and I think that is the wrong direction towards building up men.

        Like

  8. Fank Johnson says:

    Matt, do you see a pattern?

    So that guy who accused me of betraying my own gender because I told the truth about what I’ve observed in male behavior (and done myself) that I believe contributes to massive amounts of divorce and broken families—does he think I should side with every “group” of which I’m a member?

    Yes, I have written MANY times that I perceive the actions of men to be the biggest negative influence on relationship success.

    It just means that if you line up every single romantic male-female relationship in human history, I believe it’s the stereotypical actions of the common man that we can pinpoint as the root cause of relationship failure most of the time.

    Men have a problem.
    Math is math. Seven out of 10 divorces are initiated by women.
    No, dipshits.
    If your wife left you, one of four things happened:
    1. You did a shitty job selecting a partner.
    2. You did a shitty job being a husband and/or father.
    3. You were two very decent and well-meaning people who accidentally hurt one another so much through the years, that she finally decided to pull the trigger because she was more afraid of being in a painful marriage than she was of living alone and/or losing time with her children. (1 & 2 may still apply.)
    4. You were the victim of an elaborate, pre-planned con carried out by your spouse over many years, and I’m sorry. That must be really hard. (But, 1 still applies for-sure, and maybe even 2.)

    I have an idea, assholes: DON’T MARRY PEOPLE WHO DO HEINOUS AND EVIL THINGS.
    Hell, don’t marry anyone who annoys you a lot. Don’t marry anyone for any reason you can come up with! The fewer bad marriages we have, the better.
    What’s so lame about their whining is that they never raise their hands and accept responsibility for:
    1. Whatever bullshit they brought to their failed marriage.
    2. Whatever poor judgment they displayed to MARRY someone so horrible.
    That’s why so many of these guys like to go to the “ALL women do this!” card. It alleviates them of having to take responsibility for anything, or change any of their asshole behaviors.

    You end with this

    Many men—most men—have exceptional qualities. Awesome ones. Look for them. Appreciate them. Because the world needs them.

    Many women—most women— have exceptional qualities. Awesome ones. Look for them. Appreciate them. Because the world needs them.

    We need each other. Need.

    THIS I THINK WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER TOPIC TO WRITE ON.

    You are a good man. Keep on writing, I just offer a view to consider.

    Regards, FJ

    Like

  9. Lindsey says:

    Wow! I’ve totally been looking for a cult to join.
    YGPCIBS is a sort of annoying long acronym, though. Is there a helpful mnemonic or a catchy jingle to help us remember? :).

    Great post with many excellent points!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Nope. It could shift, but right now most feminism is toxic garbage. It’s not “some feminists” and “most men’s rights groups” it’s “most feminists” and “most MGTOWs & PUAs”

    As long as your stance is “Men have a problem” not “Men and women have a problem” your sex-based identity cult is kinda crapulent as well.

    Pass.

    Like

    • Matt says:

      “Crapulent” deserves its place in the sun for a moment. That’s a good word.

      I think there’s a not-so-subtle difference between men and women, between white people and any darker-skinned ethnicities (in the U.S., at least), between straight and gay, and/or between Christians and members of any other faith/belief system — one is in the MAJORITY and has benefitted historically from favoritism.

      If we want to get REALLY whiny, we can talk about how systems designed to promote fairness and equality have worked “unfairly” against the majority on a case-by-case basis in our lifetimes, but we also tend to lack the wherewithal when thinking about our personal lives to see where we’ve benefitted simply from being the most “common.”

      The reasons I’m divorced today are the same reasons I try to be more mindful of these things now.

      I grew up in a little Ohio town where it was unusual to be black or Hispanic, where it was hostile to gay people, where any belief system other than Christianity was met with silent judgment and the assumption of imminent damnation for them.

      It was also a place where the unspoken expectation was that my mom, grandmother, aunts, or friends’ moms would make the meals, wash the dishes, clean the kitchens and bathrooms, do the laundry, vacuum the carpets, dust the furniture, buy the groceries, change the diapers, pack school lunches, etc.

      And the men’s job was to be employed and mow the lawn occasionally.

      Despite all of this, I am committed to fairness for men today. I don’t think today’s men should be punished for the sins of their ancestors.

      But let’s not be lying little fucksticks either, and try to pawn off the idea that (at least in my 38 years of life) everyone has always been playing with the same deck of cards.

      That, I think, would be some pretty disingenuous bullshit.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ” …I grew up in a little Ohio town where it was unusual to be black or Hispanic, where it was hostile to gay people, where any belief system other than Christianity was met with silent judgment and the assumption of imminent damnation for them….”

        And how did that work out for the folks there in terms of systemic self-destruction of the sort experienced by Detroit’s Black or Reservation-living Amerinds London’s chavs? If you shoot your parents, it’s hard not to bring cynical about you tale of orphaned woe.

        Not to mention women are the majority, and have enjoyed this past institutions massively skewed in their favour, at least in terms of what feminists consider to be favorable Their current woes are largely self-inflicted.

        Stable marriages, safe communities, and Christian institutions* maximize happiness and success for women, children, and the most vulnerable members of society.

        TANSTAAFL

        (*non-secular Jewish ones work well also)

        Like

  11. OKRickety says:

    “… all the company executives get an ass-load of financial and schedule perks unavailable to most employees….”

    Absolutely! Which they somehow justify in their own mind as being their due for all the stress, responsibility, etc. As if the other employees have none. I think the gap between the executives and low-level employees is growing, much like the separation between upper class and lower class in our society.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      I don’t believe in class warfare anymore than I do gender or racial or any other kind.

      I don’t begrudge financially successful people their wealth, nor do I believe the average company president owes any apologies to the average office worker for their respective careers and lifestyles.

      HOWEVER. In the world of Human Resources, I struggle — big-time — with rules that don’t have a defensible WHY statement justifying its existence.

      “Because this is just the way we do it here,” or “Because that’s the way it’s always been done” are unacceptable answers.

      Everyone who says one of those two things should have to give me all of their cars and electrical appliances, and travel on horseback for their rest of their lives.

      Like

  12. Ren says:

    I love this! Sign me up!! I’m sharing with my family and I hope they all join too. Probably, we all have a similar view. Keep up the good work 🤗

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Jackie says:

    Excellent post as usual Matt! So glad you keep writing.

    A couple of points to add:

    Feminism is an ethical philosophy that, in its true form, suggests equity for all people: men, women, people with disabilities, people of various race, religion, etc. It’s about creating capacity for every single person to maximize their potential (See Martha Nussbaum). Radical feminists or radical men’s activist groups piss and moan about the other gender and are not even in the same town housing the ballpark that is feminist theory. They’d rather operate “bullshit cults”.

    Fairness and Equality: If most people in a movie theater are not wearing glasses, then nobody should be able to wear glasses

    Equality: Giving everyone what they need to be successful. So that we can all watch the movie.

    Keep writing Matt.

    Unlikely to join your cult but trust that your suggestions on thinking in new ways will resonate with most.

    Thanks.

    Like

    • Matt says:

      Thank you so much for illustrating the difference better than I did, or could.

      I said it my Facebook post earlier, but didn’t in the blog post. The distiniction is in whether the fighting is being done to attack others, or whether it’s being done to defend others (from a place of justice for all).

      No problem on not joining the cult! It’s totally fake and satirical. I can barely post here once a week. My cult members would mutiny and move home by Week 3.

      Whenever we ask a human being why they believe what they do, or feel what they do, most will have reasons for doing so.

      Even the man- and woman-hating fringes of gender politics came to their conclusions because of a bunch of (presumably unpleasant) experiences we were blessed enough to have not had to deal with.

      And I believe that if we knew how to connect all of their life dots, we’d at least understand why they feel as they do. Maybe even empathize a tiny bit.

      But huge swaths of people have dedicated much of their lives to HARMING others to promote their own gender. In a war. In a fight where there can only be one winner, if they continue.

      If THEY get their way, either Men or Women will be SLAVES to the other gender once the way is over, because they’ve left no middle ground for being friends and shit after the battle.

      If the only possible end to a battle is the slaughter or enslavement of one side?

      It’s laughable that so many sit around allowing such a thing.

      Like

  14. superwifeandmummy says:

    😂This is fab. Please, if you have the time and/or inclination, read my posts called, Feminism is a Lie and Feminism is a Lie – part 2.
    Anyway, great read. Thanks for this. Too much BS going on in the alleged “gender politics” (if I could do even bigger quotation marks , I would) fight. Honestly, sometimes I wonder how brainwashed people are.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Ha! Hilarious. Great post. I should warn you, I consider it my mission in life to kick cult leaders and roast sacred cows. Not sure what’s wrong with people these days, but “don’t believe everything you think” is a fabulous saying. The problem with the red pills, MRA’s, and feminism, is that it’s all rooted in wounding and bitterness. Everyone wants to change the world but nobody wants to change themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. OKRickety says:

    [continuation of comment “thread”]
    Lindsey, thanks for your reply.

    I do not belong to the camp who believes that all comments on a blog post must stick totally to the blogger’s original post.

    “… I don’t really think debating this stuff is very effective.
    […]
    (I totally agree that change cannot happen without the problem being communicated.)”

    I perceive that debate can be helpful in communication.

    “The issue isn’t men vs. women, but men vs. a government institution.”

    And women are part of the government institution. On another blog, a commenter stated that every official in her divorce court session was female, except one clerk. I think that could lead to sexism.

    Yes, I lean strongly towards fatalism. This exchange is not leading me away from it.

    “My little psycho-analytic mind reads this as saying that women as a gender group “should” help. It’s still laying the responsibility at womens feet. If we didn’t help, does that we are against men?”

    If whites don’t support the fight against racism, does that mean whites are against blacks, etc.? That seems to be the general perspective – that failure to speak against something means that you support it. I don’t agree because it is a logical fallacy to argue that silence proves support or not.

    It seems you already have some ideas about how divorce and domestic violence is biased against men. Yes, it varies, but as a generality, it is true. I see no need to bother with details at this point.

    “Looking at why they make those choices would be a more appropriate remedy than changing laws.”

    No! If the deck is stacked against you, it may be wisest to say nothing. Specifically, if the law or its enforcement places you in a lose-lose position, you take the path that is best. Changing the law and its enforcement would be improvement. Understanding the choices would be the first step toward knowing what needs to be changed in the law.

    “I don’t think you can compare your experience as a white male to the experiences of a slave in 1850.”

    I was mistaken to suppose that using an example involving black slavery was likely to be understood to support my contention that a given individual may be in a position that they have absolutely no ability to change. Instead, it is construed that I am ignorant of the impact of slavery, etc.

    “To which I have to say again- this is an attempt to blame and give the responsibility to someone other than the person with the problem.”

    If others really are responsible for your problem, then how is it wrong to recognize that?

    Like

    • Lindsey says:

      Rickety,
      I give up. You’re right. Women are a brood of evil lusting to suck you dry of all life and goodness.

      So now what?

      You standing on your proverbial mountaintop shouting out the cruel injustices dished out to you
      serves no one but your ego.

      Your attitude reminds me of a 300 lb grown man sitting in a highchair with a dirty diaper and a rattle.
      Not a pretty picture.

      Lest this devolves into further harsh words I’m bowing out.
      The end.
      I hope you find some sort of resolve to your own personal issues.

      Like

      • OKRickety says:

        Well, that was not fun. It reminds me of the times that I have thought “I wish I’d never been born”. In other words, it hurts. In this case, primarily because I think you are misunderstanding so much of what I have tried to say. That is the opposite of what I desired. I am disappointed but I shouldn’t be surprised.

        Like

        • Lindsey says:

          Rickety,
          I am not going to apologize for my observation.
          What you do with it is up to you.
          You can use it to reinforce your story, or you can ask yourself if there is any truth in it and use it to create a different story.
          Im totally rooting for the awesome things that can happen when we change our stories.

          Like

    • Sometimes it can be so frustrating when people cling to gender wars, because they are handing all their power away, plunging themselves into a form of victimhood where they lack the ability to change or heal. You see this within feminism and mra circles.

      So slavery is appalling of course,but if we genuinely wanted to help people trapped in a horrrible situation, we would not just keep reminding them they are slaves, powerless victims, instead we would point their eyes to something higher than themselves.You can’t always change the world or your circumstances but you can change yourself and your perspective. That is true freedom of a spiritual sort. You’ll die long before the world gets it together and realizes the error of it’s ways.

      I’ve been through some dark and ugly stuff, but I can assure you, others are NEVER responsible for my problem, whatever “my problem” happens to be. When we hand blame over to others, we lose our own power and freedom and become slaves to someone else’s behavior.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lindsey says:

        Very on target, IB. If people are genuinely in need of help they are the best ones to articulate what it is that is causing undue or unfair suffering. If we just point fingers it is blame. What did Brene Brown call it? The expression (?) of pain and anger.
        I don’t like anyone to suffer in that, either. But the best way to get out of that is to get clear on what is actually causing it, and if it’s just because we feel in some way entitled, or that someone owes us something that they aren’t willing to give or do, then we have to forgive. We can’t force other humans to be props for our expectations, desires or even needs. That has to be freely given.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      No apologies are warranted, Linds. People talk here, and we don’t always agree. Sometimes, we even emote because we feel things. I think as long as we’re basically decent to one another (and I think you are basically decent to virtually everyone, always), you owe me no Sorry’s. But thank you for caring.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. erinchafig says:

    I would like to point out that if you include childbirth in your “most dangerous jobs” category that the balance shifts dramatically.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      I think that’s an excellent point, since babies are ultra-important on several levels.

      I also think it’s obvious that the word “job” in this instance was referring to employment.

      It’s a MIRACLE what mothers do. Anyone dismissing that can go get bent anytime they want.

      Truth distortion is very bad. People like to engage in it in the gender-war game.

      People should be honest with themselves and everyone else. I stand by the “dangerous jobs” statement about guys. 93% of workplace fatalities are men.

      That’s not because of discrimination toward men or women. That’s because men more often than not occupy jobs where the risk of death is greater.

      That’s a societal norm, globally. And I don’t think it’s irrelevant. I think it’s fair to ask the question: Why do we collectively decide that adult men are the most expendable age/gender demographic?

      Probably for the same reasons we do almost everything we do: behavior models we’re shown and beliefs we’re taught and habits we develop.

      Like

      • erinchafig says:

        I agree in the sense that I don’t think people should be expendable, and one gender shouldn’t be more expendable than the other. I do feel that you’ve missed my point somewhat, so I will try using more words. If we go back 150 years, before birth control, before surgery, childbirth was the number one killer of women. That was the mode of risk for women, the way that women contributed to society. Conversely, men went to war. I sense that the risk taken on by both groups was pretty equitable; different source but same impact. Fast forward to today. Women have birth control and all kinds of amazing medical interventions that have reduced the risks from childbirth, although death is still a distinct possibility. In a similar way, safety culture has improved working conditions for the vast majority of workers. Still, there are dangerous jobs, and men are still more likely to hold them. (Part of that has to do with active exclusion of women, but that is a whole other discussion.) So both men and women in the population are participating in activities that 1. Benefit society and 2. Carry the possibility of death. I look at it this way on purpose because women are not compensated by the economy, but men are. Just because childbirth isn’t a paid job doesn’t mean that it doesn’t play the same role in society. So I have adjusted the framework to be able to make a more useful comparison.

        Now, what are the implications of my framework? (Heavily influenced by my moral base, so not everyone will agree.) If equity calls for equal risk and equal contribution to society from its members, I think that we are mostly getting things right. Women have the ability to avoid childbirth, men have the ability to avoid dangerous work. Now, the draft is a place that we are still faltering. I personally think we should go either full volunteer with no draft (which is what we basically have at this point, but we still require selective service registration, and I would like to see that go away) OR we go every citizen has to participate in the military, police, fire, or some other protective and dangerous service. I very much disagree with including women in the draft, and this is really the best illustration of how my framework provides a better way of measuring equity. Since women’s risk/contribution value has shifted in large part due to the ability to opt out, then men should also have the ability to opt out. Forcing women to take on additional risk they didn’t choose just feels imperialistic. (This is where my moral base begins to color my conclusions.)

        I hope that I was more clear this time. I understand that “jobs” meant “paid labor,” but I find that it ignores certain biological realities. I definitely agree that we need to move away from sending people to die in war. And I very much disagree with saving women and children first from a disaster. Families should come first. All of this to say that I think we both value human life, male and female, and would like to dismantle the structural systems that lead to devaluing various groups, including throwing away young men.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Matt says:

          Framing it historically helped. Thank you for doing that. That makes total sense.

          It’s hard to quantify the value of one over another.

          In a general sense, I think contributing LIFE by physically, emotionally, spiritually bearing the load of human reproduction, motherhood gives more to humanity than “dangerous work” does.

          But imagine if, for example, Nazi Germany had won WWII.

          Where would we be today? Would people even be free to mate with whomever they chose, and raised children (as insane as the world sometimes feels) in the relative safety of modern-day society?

          I apologize if you felt my post in any way devalued women, mothers or ANYONE (except maybe the Red Pill guys and fringe members of the feminist community–one might argue I wasn’t particularly charitable to them).

          I wasn’t trying to be controversial, really.

          I see and hear a lot of people out in the world screaming about battles that shouldn’t be happening in the first place.

          But they won’t change themselves to end the war. They’re addicted to the fight. They’re addicted to trying to win, without ever really thinking about or articulating what it would look like, or how they would spend their time, if they ever did “win.”

          Kindness cures many ills.

          I appreciate you reading this, and providing thought-provoking commentary, etc.

          Like

          • erinchafig says:

            Not at all! I like the way you talk about things, and I see you as a thinking person who likes discussion. I try to bring nuance when I can.

            The idea of living with Nazi rule is vomit-inducing. That they are rearing their ugly head again is disturbing. Fortunately, I think the opposition is stronger.

            I agree so much about living the solution you want to see in the world. A lot of people don’t get that. And even those of us who do still struggle; we are only human after all.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Matt says:

              I assure you, I see all of my suckage. The pile is substantial. I try to not be too critical of others.

              Philosophically, I’m supremely confident in my position that if everyone chose kindness (not even “niceness,” necessarily), that disease and natural disasters would be all that remains for us to fight.

              And we’d all be on the same team. That’d be refreshing.

              Liked by 1 person

  18. linseyewing says:

    I like you, and I want to join your cult. I stumbled across this post as I was struggling to publish my second (ever) blog post (https://litewingsink.com/2017/06/29/a-non-binary-moment/ if you’re interested) on gender identity. There are so many piles of struggle in my life at the moment—it was refreshing to see you simplify (without downplaying) all this noise to “don’t be an asshole.” love it.

    Also, very glad membership is low key—I totally could not deal with a high-pressure cult right now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Matt says:

      Hey. Awesome. Super low-pressure. In fact, it’s pretty much just going to be one huge decentralized cult with no semblance of cohesion or active participation.

      It’s like the ultimate shadow organization, when you think about it.

      I have to leave tomorrow morning for a week-long trip, and I’m packing for it at 11:15 pm, so naturally I stopped to check this blog notification on my phone.

      That’s a metaphor for how YGPCIBS will be managed.

      Thanks for checking it out.

      I’m glad you’re writing. Don’t stop.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Donkey says:

    Happy 4th of July to Matt and my other internet friends in the States! :)

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Lindsey says:

    I’ve been thinking about something, and I’d love to hear what others may think on the subject (Jack, Rebekah – I hope you guys see this because for some reason I think you guys could offer alternative perspectives).
    We talk an awful lot about “compassion fatigue” in health care, and in mental health. It happens when things start to feel futile, or really it’s just that you are always interacting with people at the point of their need, and the needs are unrelenting ,that you just stop caring.
    I wonder how that also happens in a marriage. Especially when one partner is someway unable to meet a need that keeps getting brought up.
    Sort of like the flip side of the dish by the sink. I know the real issue was the dismissal of the request, but say that if that wasn’t there – what if he tried to comply with the request, but kept forgetting? What if he was UNABLE to comply with the request. What about when one partner has a higher sex drive and keeps asking the other partner who just doesn’t have it in them or they are unable to get an erection? What if one person is really introverted and gets physically exhausted when socializing, but the partner complains that they never go out with them (at least not to the extent the partner is satisfied with)?
    What if someone struggles with their weight and the other partner shows less interest when they gain a few pounds? I know in a perfect world we would maybe have chosen different partners. But let’s just say these people married young , or felt such a strong attraction or bond that they wanted to get married anyway.
    So, 15 years down the road one is unhappy. And the other one is burnt out on hearing about why their partner is unhappy. They just don’t care anymore. (They maybe want to start spiking the others morning coffee with an antidepressant to just slow down their damn libido, or maybe some Xanax to just keep them sedated.. (This is totally the evil part of me joking about that..:) )
    Is this what happens to many married couples?
    There are various lists of ways to combat compassion fatigue – most of them talk about learning the symptoms: not caring, a short fuse, etc.; taking good care of yourself (diet, exercise, sleep) ; having a life outside of work (in marriage, hopefully having some connection with each other that isn’t impacted by whatever need, or by having other social connections) there is also mention of taking breaks – does it ratchet up everyone’s anxiety level to think of married couples taking separate vacations, or at least an additional vacation away from the family?

    This also made me rethink my ideas around couples growing apart. I think I was viewing it mostly superficially. I think what I was thinking was people can guide their growth to stay inline with one another – they can talk about ideology, how they want to live and how they want their family to be. I think we can guide growth together in how we communicate and work through things, but what I wasn’t really thinking was the emotional growth and changes that occur in us.
    I look back at how my own perspective has changed in the last 2-3 years (even as a middle aged adult!) As well as how I have changed emotionally.
    My thought is sometimes we CANT guide how we mature emotionally- and I think that effects our ideology, and the ways we want to live in the world and how our families live…so, maybe we DO have less control on “growing apart”… I don’t know. What’s do you guys think?
    Maybe I have just been in a bit more cynical mindset, maybe I have a little bit of second hand PDSD (post divorce stress disorder..I’m making that up…:))
    But the whole idea of compassion fatigue really resounded with me.
    Is there a point where it is the ” right” thing to do to stop asking for something the partner is having a lot of trouble giving?
    Where is the line between being responsive to your partners needs and drawing a boundary around your own?

    Like

    • I totally believe marriage is like a dance and so both people have to stand on their own two feet and keep their own frame. So compassion fatigue sounds like what happens when one person expects the other to meet all their needs. After a while, you just get numb, you don’t care about their needs anymore because they have unjustly burdened you with their own mental health and well being. We don’t really “grow apart,” we actively push someone away.

      So often to remain married, to preserve connection and relationship, one must look at the dirty glass on the sink and think,what can I do to fulfill that need within, to preserve my sanity in the midst of dirty dishes, to take care of myself outside of a spouse changing?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lindsey says:

        IB, I tend to agree. You can’t expect the other partner to fulfill all your needs, or at least not all the time. ..a lot of things happen as phases, so needs will change.
        I think it is wise to ask for what you need in a relationship, definitely, but then we have to accept what our partner can actually give.
        Actually, I am a little perturbed by the excessive use of the word “need” right now. ..
        I would hope that relationship is more than “the mutual gratification of self need”… taken to the extreme that just reduces all us to a bunch of sense organs needing to be fed.( And not just the sexual sensory organs), – pretty much, ” if you make me happy then I like you, and I will make you happy.” …that doesn’t last long.

        (On a slightly different note, I have a very untested hypothetical theory that has to do with us being sensory organs that may interest you ….)

        So Dan Seigel (and others I’m sure) did a lot of research and concluded that our brains developed the way they did because of the social context that we lived in. We have the capacity to love and connect and empathize because those were needed to live successfully in the environment we lived in however long ago.
        I know people have differing beliefs on evolution, and I don’t want to press that button, but for arguments sake let’s say that evolution is true.
        It hasn’t stopped; we are still shaping our environment and our environment is still shaping us. As a society we have become less family/tribe oriented and more individual oriented. More people live alone, and also live hundreds or thousands of miles from their families of origins.
        It’s normal for humans to feel lonely and isolated in those conditions, but add the Internet to that and you get the sense of being connected, so that we feel less lonely. But mostly what Internet connections do is occupy our sense organs. It stimulates all the little neurons that make us feel connected, without there being true intimacy. We can portray ourselves in whatever way we like, we can turn it off when we don’t want to be there, etc. etc.
        So, what will this do to your brains over the long run? Will we become a species that DOESNT need community or connection? Will we lose the capacity for empathy, co-operation, etc.?
        I think it’s possible that those could be the outcomes. And, if we are just a bunch of sense organs that can be stimulated and occupied by cute kitten videos on you tube, or whatever, then what does that do with the idea of the human soul? Having purpose, experiencing love, experiencing some sort transcendence of self are all a part of what we identify as the soul.
        What happens when our purpose is reduced to being stimulated/occupied, love reduced to a dopamine and oxytocin rush that really has no impact in our daily lives, and transcendence reduced to your documented Web history on line?
        I can sometimes be pretty Rousseau-nian when it comes to tech. progress….I’m just wondering how much technology is going to effect the evolution of our brains, as it has already effected the evolutionary of society.

        Like

      • Lindsey says:

        IB,
        Can you explain why you don’t think we grow apart, but actively push each other away?
        I’d like to “get” what you mean better.

        Like

        • First regarding tech, social media, culture, it’s impact on our brains, those are pretty much the things that led me to start blogging. “See there’s this thing called biology” became a social commentary on how we forget who we are as people.

          We really don’t grow apart just as we really don’t fall in love. These are passive phrases that imply we are just powerless victims of our own brain chemistry. Long before we feel things there are thoughts and actions that take place that set the whole thing up. In order to grow apart we have to stop investing in the connection, relationship,we have to a harbor some negative feelings, usually resentment, and we have to make a effort to withdraw emotionally. To “grow” apart is kind of like what a plant does, but when it comes to people, we are actually the ones choosing how we think, feel,and act.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Lindsey says:

            I agree that if we humans have any advantage it’s our ability to have meta-analysis, to think about what we think. That applies to both of the topics (interestingly…:).
            We are much more aware of the fact that we can choose influences, we can choose our thoughts, etc. Even though we know this, I still think our reptilian, emotive brain, still has a lot of say in our thoughts and actions. It still has a faster impulse to inform the PFC. We can learn to pause our actions, and do something else with A LOT of awareness and intention.
            But also, when we are babies our right cortex is more active, it collects impressions from the environment (warm fuzzy ‘s, or prickly irritants) that aren’t stored in active memory but can recall emotion, instead. That could even be a primitive survival instinct – go towards warmth, withdraw from irritants.
            So much of our emotional make up is created at that time. I think somethings can be changed and modified, but it is really difficult to redirect that “gut” impulse.
            So, while I think we can learn to tolerate things that stir emotion I don’t know how much the emotion can fully change.
            In this case I was thinking more about the turning off of emotion towards someone/something that did once stir emotion (and in marriage/couple hood I am assuming emotion to be an essential element in attraction/bonding), I suppose that we may have some control over what we chose to think about our partner, and ways to induce the return of said feelings.
            But I just want to note that those emotions are usually fired off way before we have conscious thought. We just really have to learn his to catch them by the tail and reel them back in.
            I really like talking about this stuff, thanks for indulging me!!

            Liked by 1 person

    • Donkey says:

      Interesting!
      So much ould be going on. it can be so hard to discern what’s the issue(s) are, and then we need to try out what can we realistically do to adress that. Here are some of my thoughs:

      1. Maybe we really don’t have enough empathy for our partner. And we ought to stretch, remind ourselves that it’s healthy to tune in to them, create some kind of homework for ourselves to make that happen to a larger degree if necesseary. Maybe therapy of some kind is needed.

      2. Maybe our partner really is expecting too much compassion. They’re expecting to be attuned to almost as if they were a baby and their partner their attentive caregiver. They’re not doing enough to address their own problems. So maybe we then need to put some boundaries around it, say “I can listen to you talk about your problems for 20 minutes every day, and we can brainstorm solutions for an hour every week, but I can’t do more than that”.

      3. Maybe we do, in general, have enough empathy for our partner and our partner isn’t expecting too much in this area. Maybe we’re worn out due to too much work and not enough fun and rest in our lives, but it’s not really the fault of our partner. Tiresome family members, unresolved emotional issues, stressful communte, partner isn’t doing their share of the responsibilities. So take steps to reduce our stress and increase well being.

      4. Maybe we have too much stress because our partner isn’t doing their share of responsibilites. We’re stressed and resentful. Create boundaries around sharing responsibilities and work, responsibly share with partner and/or deal with in some other way (jouranling, therapy et) feelings of resentment

      Of course, could be a combination fo things. And all this is so much easier said than done.

      I would think that if someone really is trying very hard to meet a reasonable need their partner has, but they are not able too, most people would be happy with the effort. Of course, it depends on how big a deal this exact thing is to their partner. But say, with the dishes thing, if someone chronically forgets to put their dish in the sink, but they are generally great at doing their share of other life responsibilites, I’d think it’d be easy for many to let the dish thing slide.

      Or, with the sex drive thing, or eretile dysfunction thing…. (and lets for simplicity’s sake assume that this really is an isolated issue, not because someone feels mistreated by their partner, insecure, stressed or something like that (which I often think is the problem)). I think it’d be a very different thing if someone was actively taking steps to address their partner’s legitimate needs, seeing a doctor, looking for other ways to share physical intimacy

      If a person has one or a few things they are not able to do, even after trying, but they are a respectful and attentive partner in other ways, I think many people will be happy with that.

      “Where is the line between being responsive to your partners needs and drawing a boundary around your own?”

      Ah yes that’s the billion dollar question isn’t it (and not just partners but friends, family etc). ;) Trying and failing will probably help. Listening to our wisest inner voice, talking with wise people, reading good material as to what healthy looks like, checking in with our deepest values, doing work to figure those out, asking ourselves what *we* actually can realistically do, even if “everyone” else seems to be doing a lot more etc.

      Like

      • Lindsey says:

        Donkey, you said “Or, with the sex drive thing, or eretile dysfunction thing…. (and lets for simplicity’s sake assume that this really is an isolated issue, not because someone feels mistreated by their partner, insecure, stressed or something like that (which I often think is the problem)). I think it’d be a very different thing if someone was actively taking steps to address their partner’s legitimate needs, seeing a doctor, looking for other ways to share physical intimacy
        If a person has one or a few things they are not able to do, even after trying, but they are a respectful and attentive partner in other ways, I think many people will be happy with that.”

        About the seeking medical attention thing, especially in regards to sex, if its E.D. that’s one thing. There is treatment for that and usually both partners still desire it. But if it’s a partner who legitimately says I think “x” times a week is enough and the other says they want more than that greatly decreases the liklihood they would seek help. To them, they don’t have a problem. It’s the other persons problem. …
        Not to mention it also becomes something that can be resented because everything else is really good – why do they need to point out one area they feel dissatisfied in. (Of course the range of dissatisfaction can be a variable.)
        I don’t know I was just thinking that one partner that continues to say I’m unhappy in x way, even as the partner is trying to meet the need creates an even deeper rift in the relationship.
        There needs to be a point where we humans say “good enough”. ..otherwise it’s just an endless seeking.

        Like

        • Donkey says:

          “I don’t know I was just thinking that one partner that continues to say I’m unhappy in x way, even as the partner is trying to meet the need creates an even deeper rift in the relationship.
          There needs to be a point where we humans say “good enough”. ..otherwise it’s just an endless seeking.”

          I very much agree.

          Like

          • Matt says:

            We don’t talk about this. But it’s important.

            There’s a line between “Things That HURT” and “Things I Would Personally Prefer to be Different.”

            Both are reasonable.

            One of them is on the person inflicting the pain to stop the pain-causing behavior, and the other (in the context of a good marriage) is on the just-unsatisfied person to actively pursue contentment and gratitude.

            I think the fact that the differences are so nuanced that it’s sometimes hard for people to know the difference, make it difficult to navigate this effectively.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Lindsey says:

              I think a lot of times those things we are dissatisfied with can be boiled down to the life phase we are in. The things that really matter to us change as we get older. (Apart from some very core things). Our sex drives, our expectation for social position, what we seek in friendships – all these things change as we get older (at least for a lot of people.)
              Recognizing “these are my needs right now” as well as recognizing the partners needs as “right now” may be helpful in offering some space for understanding the other.
              The problem with that is we hardly recognize that who we are and what we want will change while we are in the middle of it.

              Like

              • Matt says:

                I was thinking about writing on this today, just because it’s so interesting to me.

                I fear the subtlety will be a little much, though.

                I don’t always have time to parse through all the semantics and whatnot. But I think I’m going to try anyway.

                I had a most mostly written last week, but I didn’t really like it that much.

                So thanks for bringing this up, Linds. Something interesting to kick around. I’ll try to do justice to the topic.

                Like

      • Lindsey says:

        Just to note – I don’t mean good enough as in settling, I mean good enough in realizing everything is really good…

        Like

    • Esmeralda says:

      Compassion fatigue is a thing, in inter personal intimate close relationships, and I’ve also felt it, but as a women I am expected to be compassionate and men are generally held to lower expectations when it comes to compassion, so I’d need to see more compassion from them to b able to understand any “fatigue” they have.
      But this reasoning is better then “They just stopped caring, wanted a mother, can’t look after themselves, et cetera”

      Like

  21. Esmeralda says:

    haha, go after MRA’s, Red Pillers and MGOTW, they are the worst.

    (and I know you go after feminists, but really your only enemy;’s are trans gender cultists, who don’t think female and male are different genders”

    Like

Join the Conversation!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: