Bailey Poland (@the_author_) is a fairly typical example of how feminism attracts sadistic women by offering them ideological justification for their impulses toward anti-male cruelty. Because of confirmation bias and epistemic closure, however, once a woman enters the feminist echo chamber, it becomes impossible for her to understand her own impulsive responses as emotion, per se.
Feminism as an ideology functions to rationalize negative emotions like self-pity and envy and, because the echo chamber reinforces this rationalizing discourse (“the personal is political”), it becomes impossible for feminists to separate personal problems from the political rhetoric by which she constructs her identity. Because feminism naturally attracts to its banner women with profound resentments toward males, the movement incentivizes a discourse of cruelty, where men are portrayed as underserving of respect, love or sympathy. The more a feminist expresses an anti-male rhetoric that demonizes males, the more encouragement she will receive from within the movement. This is why radical hatemongers — from Mary Daly and Catharine MacKinnon to Jaclyn Friedman and Meghan Murphy — have always found feminism to be such a rewarding career field.
Until yesterday, I had never heard of Bailey Poland, but I included one of her tweets in a roundup about the feminist hashtag campaign#ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe, and someone in the comments remarked, “I loathe Bailey Poland. She’s one of the most loathsome, divisive, and nit picky, yet totally self righteous feminists on Twitter.” Oh, really? This claim required investigation, and I quickly verified the commenter’s assertion. Then I began to read articles Ms. Poland had written about “toxic masculinity” and “benevolent sexism,” and then finally, “nice guys”:
The “nice guy” has made “being nice to women” his defining trait in attempting to get women to go out with him, and his niceness begins to wear thinner and become more and more brittle as he learns this does not work.
The “nice guy” has an image of himself that is fundamentally at odds with his actual behavior. He often sees himself as chivalrous, respectful to women, attentive to the women he wants to pursue romantically, and deserving of affection or romance in return. He sees his behavior as genuinely nice, and has been told all his life that niceness is rewarded. He will hone in on one woman or a few women and idealize them to the point of perfection, befriending them in the hopes that they will relive a dozen teen movies wherein the romantic interest realizes she should have been with her best friend all along. . . .
His niceness is a sham, and a tool for gaining what he perceives as leverage in earning or winning a romantic relationship. The “nice guy” tends to perceive himself as passionate and tender, while his targets see him as grasping and manipulative. . . .
The basic problem with “nice guys” is their sense of entitlement to relationships or sex with women based on nothing more than being nice to them. However, women see through this — and niceness that is performed in service of gaining something from a woman is not actually all that nice to begin with, and it certainly is not a free pass to demand anything from anyone. . . .
When “nice guys” complain that women only date jerks, they often just mean that women are acting outside the imaginary roles they’ve been assigned — women are dating men who do not meet the “nice guy” ideal of performing very specific types of behavior for a reward. Many of the men who are perceived as jerks may actually not be perfect guys, but they’re often honest about it in ways that allow for the negotiations of an adult relationship to take place. . . .
The other major problem with “nice guys” is that it’s not just their niceness that’s a sham. They also often hate women, but rely on romantic or sexual attachments to fuel their sense of self-worth. When the niceness gambit fails and they feel they have been denied something to which they’re entitled, “nice guy” misogyny often follows close behind. In addition to accusing women of being shallow, sleeping only with jerks, or “friendzoning” them, they will also frequently hurl a variety of gender-based slurs at the very women they claimed to idolize.
You can read the whole thing. We must begin by stipulating that the “nice guy” is a particularly pathetic kind of loser. Rather than confront his own shortcomings and failures, he basically throws a pity party for himself. The reason he keeps losing, he tells himself, is because others fail to recognize his superiority. He actually deserves to be with a Kate Upton lookalike, to be worshipped by women for his own special qualities, and the reason he keeps losing is because the world is unfair. The “nice guy” believes he has been wrongly cheated out of the romantic reward to which he is entitled, as a right, and any guy who travels very far down that road is apt to become dangerous to himself and others. Soaking in the juices of his resentful self-pity, a “nice guy” can become a monster — Elliot Rodgerwas an extreme example of where this mentality can lead.
Feminists, however, are not interested in helping men like this. Instead, feminists use these maladjusted losers as weapons in a permanent campaign to demonize males for “misogyny,” et cetera
Males are always damned if they do, damned if they don’t in feminist discourse, which is an exercise in Kafkatrapping, where the point is to humiliate males in order to justify the feminist’s exercise of her punitive authority. This is what Bailey Poland does with her “nice guy” column. She paints these losers as undeserving of sympathy, characterizing their misguided idealism as “misogyny,” in order to justify cruelty as a response to male attention. She herself has zero sympathy for males experiencing romantic disappointment, and believes that no other woman should, either. And her conclusion is self-serving pseudo-sympathetic“advice” to the pathetic losers she despises:
Be kind instead of nice. This requires a shift in thinking about your own behavior, “nice guys.” Do things for people without expecting anything in return. Think about what your friends actually need or want, and help them achieve it or acquire it without thinking you deserve anything more than a “thank you” from them. You’ll be surprised how often people do more for you when an act ofkindness on your part doesn’t come with any strings attached.
Get used to just being friends with women. Often, a “nice guy” is not capable of seeing friendship with women as good enough on its own; the relationship must be taken to the “next level” to be worth anything. This is not a healthy way to approach women, and it makes the women you are interested in feel used and disrespected. Being friends with women is rewarding because having friends is rewarding — sex should only come into it when both parties are interested, not when the friendship is being used as a springboard into a fantasy relationship
Translation: “Give me everything I want, loser, then go away and leave me alone, because men never deserve anything, period.”
Bailey Poland feels no obligation of kindness to males, yet requires males to treat her exactly as she wants to be treated, because otherwise she has been “disrespected” by these miserable losers.
The feminist can be as cruel and selfish as she wants to be, but any male who behaves similarly is condemned for “misogyny.” Bailey Poland derides men who seek a “fantasy relationship,” but what about her own fantasies? Yeah, buddy — her with the whip in her hand, and you on your knees, helplessly begging for mercy.
Guys, just walk away. There are more than 3.5 billion women in the world, not all of whom are cold-hearted monsters who demand that you genuflect at the throne of the Bitch Goddess.
One of the things my father taught me is, “It never hurts to ask. The worst they can tell you is ‘no.’” This advice was offered in the context of salesmanship or seeking employment, but it’s equally applicable to the search for love. If you’ve ever been involved in direct sales — knocking on doors, cold-calling strangers, hustling to make that sale — you know how crucial it is to overcome your own self-consciousness, to learn how to handle rejection without becoming demoralized.
“Just win, baby” — Al Davis had it right. There is no substitute for victory, but you can’t win if you don’t play the game, and it is foolish to hope you’ll be undefeated in every season. What is important is to maintain yourmorale, and not to become so discouraged by a losing streak that you surrender to despair.
Pay attention, guys: Never talk to a feminist.
Do not waste time on sadistic women who hate you.
No matter how “nice” you are to a feminist, she will never respect you. The feminist always mistakes male kindness for weakness, and is incapable of gratitude toward males, so that being “nice” to her will only serve to convince her of how infinitely contemptible you are — a servile lackey, a fawning slave who appeals to her sadistic impulses.
Never talk to a feminist. Never look at a feminist.
If you know that a woman is a feminist, avoid being in her presence, because the feminist has no interest in males except as demonized objects of fear, hate, scorn and ridicule. Wherever the feminist is, make it a point to be somewhere else, and do not associate with anyone within the feminist’s circle of hateful influence.
Feminism is a vortex of negativity so intense as to extinquish all positivity in its vicinity. Anyone who associates with a feminist risks being sucked into her gravitional force-field of soul-killing evil.
Here’s the thing, guys: Never explain to the feminist why you are shunning her. Don’t argue with her. Don’t tell her off. Master the habit of silence in her presence, insofar as you are unable to avoid her presence. If you’re talking with a group of your friends and the feminist interrupts, this is your cue to end the conversation and, if possible, walk away.
We are currently experiencing a resurgence of radical feminism, what might be called a “Fourth Wave.” We can perceive a return to the vehement man-hating tendencies of the “Second Wave” of the early 1970s, a reversal of the postmodernist “Third Wave” that began in the ’90s. The toxic feminism of Daly/Dworkin/MacKinnon has been resuscitated, and wherever this poison spreads, its effect will invariably be lethal to heterosexuality. Young men must therefore enforce a cordon sanitaire around those women infected with the feminist virus until this anti-male pandemic burns itself out in a frenzy of lesbian rage.
Trust me on this, guys. “Hunt where the ducks are.” Feminists don’t like men, and they spread their contempt for males to every woman around them, so wherever feminism is, be somewhere else.
Victoria Brownworth (@vabvox) is a lesbian feminist who hates“mansplaining from men asserting they are feminist allies”:
One night on social media I objected to the use of the word “c–t” by men as a pejorative against women. I wrote that it was one of the worst things a man could say about a woman, reducing her to nothing more than her genitalia. Dozens of men began tweeting at me, explaining to me that “c–t” was just a word and that I should step back from my “extreme” feminism. To a one they mansplained me about the importance of free speech (as if a female journalist wouldn’t know about free speech better than most). And also to a one, they proceeded to call me a “c–t.”
Yet as I went to block each one there were the profiles again: “progressive,” “left-leaning” and so forth. . . .
Permit me to interrupt: I never use the “c-word.”
It is a genuinely foul and offensive thing to say and, let me remark that I have noticed this misogynist slur used most often by gay men. Remember that (a) I majored in drama in college, and (b) for several months in late 1986, I was the only heterosexual man employed in the menswear section of a department store. In my experience, gay men drop the “c-word” much more frequently than do straight men.
Let me further point out the different significance of the “c-word” as an anti-woman insult (one which makes her anatomy the target), as opposed to “bitch” or “slut.” The latter two words pertain to particular traits or behaviors. To call a woman a “bitch” implies she is mean, crabby or spiteful; some women will apply this word to themselves as a boast, to suggesting they are formbidable adversaries when angry. To call a woman a “slut” is to accuse her of promiscuity.
We may object to either word as offensive, but they have specific connotations, referring negatively to certain behaviors or character traits, whereas “c–t” is just an anti-female slur. Now, let’s get back to Victoria Brownsworth’s critique of progressive male “allies”:
If you self-define as a progressive, why are you calling a feminist a “c–t” on social media, since feminist ally is part of every progressive platform? . . .
What progressive man would willingly accept the mantle of oppressor of women? And yet it remains the non-objective reality of women’s lived experience. Just as those of us who are white and actively doing anti-racist work must accept that we still have privilege that accrues to the mere fact of our whiteness, people with penises have to accept that their genitalia granted them a level of privilege at birth that no one born female has ever had.
Or ever will have. . . .
I’m not suggesting there are no pro-feminist men or that men are incapable of being feminist allies. But I do believe we are all inculcated from birth with the notion that men are superior and women are inferior. . . .
I don’t blame every man I meet for the oppression I experience and have experienced throughout my life. I don’t blame every man for the brutality women and girls face worldwide. But what I do expect and what I think is not over-much to expect, is that men who self-define as feminist allies, as pro-feminist, as our friends, not our enemies, not argue with us in public space about our lives. We know our lives better than you. And most importantly, you do not speak for us, you can never speak for us.
Men who wish to be “feminist allies” must realize that this requires them to accept feminism’s anti-male ideology as correct. Feminists believe that no male has any valid knowledge of anything. Nor can a male have any ability or virtue that could qualify him for a feminist’s admiration or respect. No feminist admires or respects men, because no male can ever have any real achievement or accomplishment that would entitle him to respect or admiration. Everything “people with penises” think they have achieved is, according to feminist theory, actually a result of the unjust oppression of women. In the zero-sum game of feminist theory, whatever a male possesses he has stolen from women, cheating women out of what is rightfully theirs because, in the cruel system of male supremacy, “their genitalia granted them a level of privilege at birth.”
Feminism is not about equality. Feminism is about SHUT UP.
Every woman is infinitely superior to all men — this is the fundamental premise of feminist theory, and if any man thinks he has anything to say that a woman needs to hear, he’s wrong. Feminism means all men are always wrong about everything.
You have a penis? SHUT UP. You are stupid and ignorant, and know nothing about anything, because you are male. Feminists do not want to hear anything a male has to say. Feminists are offended by your maleness, which fills them with an emetic revulsion. Feminists are nauseated by the mere thought of men. Feminists curse the fact that they are forced to share the planet with males. Complete silence is therefore the minimum duty of any man who wishes to be an “ally” of feminists. The second-best way for a man to help a feminist is never to speak a word in her presence, whereas the best way for a man to help a feminist is to do what Adrienne Rich’s husband did.
If a progressive male refuses to follow the example of Alfred Conrad — the only way a male can become a truly good man, according to feminist logic — the least he can do is SHUT UP, which is exactly the message the#ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe hashtag is intended to convey. Everything “feminist men” say is wrong, for the simple and obvious reason that they are men:
This is what I mean when I say feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civiliztion as we know it. Feminism’s implacable hostility toward males means feminists can never be satisfied so long as any male exists, because male existence is inherently oppressive to women. Any male who calls himself a “feminist man” insults women by appropriating feminism, and everything a male says to a feminist is offensive.
“Fear and Loathing of the Penis — a paranoid resentment of men, characterized by irrational suspicion — is the underlying mental condition that feminism turns into a political ideology. What disturbs me, after months of studying this phenomenon, is that this madness is both contagious and incurable. Feminism is a sort of cultural virus that, once it takes hold in a woman’s mind, makes it impossible for her to relate to men in a normal manner and, because misery loves company, she feels compelled to share her hateful anti-male attitudes with other women.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature (page 108)
Trust me, guys, you never want to be a progressive “male ally.” Feminists don’t hate progressive men any less than they hate conservative men, they just hate them in a different way. At least, as a conservative, I don’t have to ask feminists for permission to speak. All feminists hate me, because I am a heterosexual male, and I don’t even bother to pretend I care whether they hate me or not. Feminist hatred is expected. In the 21st century, being hated by feminists is increasingly necessary to being heterosexual, whether you are male or female. Feminism Is Queer, to invoke the title of Professor Mimi Marinucci’s 2010 Women’s Studies textbook. As a pioneering feminist explained 40 years ago, “heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.” Lesbianism and feminism have been historically “coterminous,” as Professor Bonnie Zimmerman said. Feminism is a movement to destroy “heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm,” to quote the Oregon State University professors who authored the textbook Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions. The category “heterosexual feminist” is problematic for the same reason that “male feminist” is an oxymoron. No feminist can ever love a man, because the oppressor cannot deserve love from his victim. Feminism is based in the understanding that all males participate in and benefit from the oppression of all women, and there is no way that any male can exempt himself from this feminist condemnation.
Every man is regarded as an enemy by the feminist death cult, which aims to impose on males a final and complete silence.
Alfred Conrad could not be reached for comment.
Feminists believe everything any man does is wrong, simply because (a) he’s a man, and (b) he did it. No man can ever do anything to deserve praise from feminists, who never say anything about any male except to condemn him for his maleness. Tumblr is full of man-hating feminists like this one:
The sum total of her achievements in life are (a) graduating college, (b) hating God, and (c) being a lesbian, and yet, by declaring herself to be a feminist, she thereby automatically qualifies as an expert criticizing everybody else’s life:
I get so annoyed when I observe willfully incompetent fathers. Last night my mom and I went to a restaurant that had a lot of families, and honestly, almost all of the dads I noticed were totally useless in their behavior. They mostly sat around and ate while the moms fed the kids, took the kids to the salad bar, refilled the kids’ drinks, cleaned the kids up, took the kids to the bathroom, entertained the kids, calmed the kids when they got fussy, etc.
So then it bothers me when people act like it’s “cute” or worthy of a sitcom trope when dads are clueless…because the subsequent assumption is that it’s not a big deal because his wife or some other woman will let him off the hook and take over (as she “should” because women are made to be caregivers and assumed to be naturally nurturing)! There’s nothing amusing about a grown man refusing to do simple things for his own children and essentially forcing his wife (and/or other women in his life) to pick up his slack.
I just feel sorry for all of the women out there who do so much work that is not appreciated or valued. Women in general work so hard.
Those 208 eight words of feminist expertise got 12,482 notes on Tumblr in three days, because feminists hate fathers, period.
Fatherhood is patriarchy. Fathers are oppressors. Nothing any father does for his wife and children can ever entitle him to respect or admiration from a feminist, because (a) he’s a man, and (b) everything men do is wrong. Take your wife and kids out to eat at a restaurant, and the feminist (although she is “visually impaired”) will scrutinize your every word and gesture, looking for some reason to hate you. She is “mentally ill” and doesn’t know anything about you, but her Superior Feminist Insight qualifies her to analyze your behavior and see that your wife’s work “is not appreciated or valued.” Dad, on the other hand, is “totally useless” and has never done any work at all, ever. He just sits around oppressing women and collecting the lucrative benefits of his male privilege, which is how he paid for the restaurant meal.
Feminism is the ultimate sour-grapes rationalization, empowering bitter misfits with theoretical analyses that explain away the apparent happiness of successful normal women. Everybody else walks through the restaurant and sees families enjoying a nice meal together, but feminism enables the mentally ill lesbian to see that this alleged “enjoyment” is an illusion. Obviously, they don’t see the patriarchal prejudice — “women are made to be caregivers and assumed to be naturally nurturing” — that is oppressing these married mothers. You need a college education to understand things like that, see.
From the feminist perspective, it is obvious that these women eating dinner with their husbands and children are all stupid and ignorant because (a) educated intelligent women are lesbian feminists and (b) only stupid ignorant women marry men and have babies.
No feminist would consider the possibility that mothers take care of their chldren because they enjoy taking care of their children. Nor would it occur to a feminist that perhaps children benefit from the division of labor wherein women specialize in being nuturing caregivers. Gosh, she carried them in her belly for nine months and probably breastfed them for several months after they were born, so why wouldn’t we expect that she is more involved (and more skilled) in the nurturing caregiver role than her husband? Doesn’t maternal devotion reflect an entirely naturalresponse to the biological reality of a mother’s greater personal investment in her offspring? And isn’t it true that mothers generally receive an emotional reward for their nuturance, in terms of the special affection children have for their mothers? Doesn’t a mother take pride in the success of her children made possible by her nuturing? Are their no tangible rewards for being a good mother? Is all this caregiving stuff just a burden imposed on women by patriarchal oppression?
Here’s a radical idea: Men are not as stupid as feminists think we are.
Do men have to get married? Do men have to become fathers?
No. There are plenty of unmarried guys with no kids who do not envy the lives of men who are married fathers. Bachelors enjoy their independence. There are lots of single guys out there who go to great lengths to avoid marriage, guys who don’t want to take on the commitment of being a husband, guys who have no interest in the responsibilities of fatherhood. Heck, I know a guy who lucked into a relationship with an incredible bombshell blonde — stacked like theZiggurat of Ur — and every time I saw him, I’d congratulate him on his good fortune. “So, when’s the wedding?” I’d ask, giving him my usual aggressive family-values spiel. Always my friend would say he just didn’t think he was ready for marriage. This went on for at least three years, until finally she talked him into getting married, although if you saw them together, you’d almost certainly say, “Wow, how did he get her?”
Anybody who knows anything about actual relationships knows how often it’s the woman pushing for marriage, while the guy’s trying to avoid the yoke of matrimony. Parenthood is also something that women often have to talk men into, and any feminist theorist who sees it the other way around is just crazy. Do they think all men are stupid?
Suppose that this visually impaired, mentally ill lesbian was accurate in her observation that, for the most part, the mothers did nearly all the childcare when these couples went out to eat at a restaurant. Can this be explained by something besides a feminist theory of patriarchal oppression? Yes — selection effects.
These were married women. They had been selected by men, who stuck around long enough to spawn children, and who were able to afford to take the family out for a restaurant meal. Are guys so stupid that they can’t evaluate women’s behavior and attitudes? Are guys unable to tell the difference between (a) a woman with an aptitude for nuturing and caregiving, and (b) a mentally ill lesbian feminist?
What I’m saying is that women who exhibit the traits desireable in a wife and mother are more likely to attract a man who wants to be a husband and father. If a guy is smart, these are key criteria in how he evaluates a potential wife. Sure, looks are nice, but even if she’s stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur, a smart guy knows what Smokey Robinson’s mama told him: “Good looking girls are a dime a dozen. Try to find you one who’s gonna give you good loving.”
That nurturing caregiver stuff is important — it’s a very attractive trait, to a marriage-minded man — and so the women selected as wives and mothers are more apt to exhibit this behavior than are lonely feminists who do sour-grapes blogging on Tumblr.
This is why it doesn’t matter whether gender traits are natural or, as the feminists would have us believe, “socially constructed.” If any particular trait is desireable, that trait will be sought, it will be valued, praised and rewarded. Insofar as what men want from women and what women want from men are different, then the difference in their desires will tend to replicate themselves in a way that seems natural, even if you can explain as a matter of theory how these differences are “socially constructed.” Are guys naturally more competitive and aggressive than women? I think so, but if you disagree, so what? Competitive, aggressive men tend to be more successful in their careers than men who are passive and averse to competition, and (brace yourself for shocking news) women like men who are successful.
The same explanation works for why women with certain personality traits are more likely to become wives and mothers. Guys are not as stupid as feminists think we are. If men want to get married, they’re going to look for women who act like they would make good wives. If men also want to become fathers, they’ll look for wives who act like they would make good mothers. Selection effects — wives and mothers are not chosen randomly, which explains the difference between a married mother who naturally acts as a nuturing caregiver, on the one hand, and an embittered lesbian feminist, on the other hand.
Feminists sit around making sour-grapes rationalizations, pretending like normal women are helpless victims of oppression.
Ladies, if you want a husband and children, think about what is necessary to achieve those goals. You don’t have to be stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur, but you should develop an aptitude as a nurturing caregiver. Also,don’t take advice from mentally ill feminists on Tumblr. Otherwise, you might as well major in Women’s Studies, IYKWIMAITYD.