Nora Samaran (@NoraSamaran on Twitter) runs a blog called “Dating Tips for the Feminist Man,” the idea of which is absurd, an oxymoron.
Feminists are women who do not like men, and the “Feminist Man” is either (a) a man who is too stupid to understand that feminists hate him, (b) a man who hates himself, or perhaps (c) both (a) and (b). My advice to young men is to avoid feminists altogether. Feminism is an ideology that appeals to, and expresses the interests of, women who are mentally ill, emotionally damaged and sexually deviant. There are still plenty of sane, happy, normal women in the world, so why would any man waste time dating angry lunatics? A feminist never wants to hear anything a man has to say and a wise man would say nothing to her, except “good-bye.”
To whom, then, does Ms. Samaran direct her advice?
You’re a straight monogamous cismale who identifies as a leftie. Maybe you’re a Marxist or a socialist; maybe you’re an anarchist. You respect women. You would never act like a player.You fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women. You believe that our movements are stronger if they include everyone. . . .
[I]t’s time to consider the connection between your politics and your personal life. Social justice is intersectional; we can’t just fix our economic relationships without fixing our personal and cultural ones.
You can read the whole thing, but this brief excerpt includes the basic premises of Ms. Samaran’s argument, all of which are false.
Begin with Ms. Samaran’s assumption the man who “identifies as a leftie” — a Marxist, socialist, or anarchist — would be “monogamous” because he “respects women.” Left-wing men do not respect private property or the rule of law; why should we expect them to respect women? Socialism is the ideology of parasitical moochers, Marxism is the ideology of totalitarian dictators, and anarchy is the ideology of criminal psychopaths. Any woman who would voluntarily associate herself with such men should consider seeking psychiatric care.
Why does Ms. Samaran believe the man who “identifies” this way would be interested in monogamy? Surely such a man has read Friedrich Engels’The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which denounces monogamy as a bourgeois prejudice and condemns the marriage-based family as inherently oppressive, an obsolete remnant of primitive tribalism and medieval feudalism.
Every intelligent person who has studied Marxism understands that this ideology is incompatible with the traditional family. Why should anyone imagine that men who have no desire to become husbands or fathers would be monogamous? How could Ms. Samaran assume that the man who subscribes to such a vicious left-wing ideology “respects women”? Has she never read what Ludwig von Mises said on this subject?
Proposals to transform the relations between the sexes have long gone hand in hand with plans for the socialization of the means of production. Marriage is to disappear along with private property . . . Socialism promises not only welfare — wealth for all — but universal happiness in love as well. This part of its programme has been the source of much of its popularity. It is significant that no other German socialist book was more widely read or more effective as propaganda than Bebel’s Woman and Socialism, which is dedicated above all to the message of free love.
Sexual perverts have always been attracted to left-wing ideologies because they hope that a radical change in the social order will create circumstances in which they have access to whatever deviant pleasures their depraved imaginations crave. Men whose desires are abnormal, or who are unable to find happy relationships with attractive partners under the status quo, will align themselves with radical movements that promise to destroy the status quo. Furthermore, such men are apt to make the cynical calculation that women who are involved in these movements are more sexually promiscuous than women who espouse traditional values. When I covered the 2013 D.C. “SlutWalk” protest, I observed that there were several young men participating in the march, either because their girlfriends had dragged them along for the day, or because they hoped that, by showing their solidarity with the feminist movement, they might “score” with some of the protesters.
To think that a left-wing man “respects women” requires a certain kind of naïveté about the psychology of the type of person whom Eric Hoffer called The True Believer. Anyone who has paid close attention to the behavior of men involved in radical politics (e.g., Karl Marx, who fathered a bastard child by his family’s housekeeper) understands that depraved immorality among left-wing men is the rule, rather than the exception. No American ever seriously expects moral virtue from a Democrat politician (e.g., Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, et al.) and what Democrats do routinely is only considered a “scandal” if a Republican does it.
We may therefore surmise that, when Ms. Samaran uses the phrase “respects women” in addressing left-wing men, what she actually means is supports feminism. This is Ms. Samaran’s way of smuggling into her argument the false premise that supporting feminism is synonymous with respecting women, a misguided assumption that cannot withstand even casual scrutiny. I would argue that it is respect for women that motivates opposition to feminism, but no such argument is actually necessary, when all we have to do is ask whether Bill Clinton “respects women” more than did Ronald Reagan. Or, to look at the obverse side of the issue, why did feminists hate Margaret Thatcher but defend Hillary Clinton? Yet feminists have no sense of morality other than the dogmas of their political ideology. Therefore, Ms. Samaran believes, a man who “respects women” is one who supports taxpayer-funded abortion, etc.
“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
— Nina Burleigh, 1998
Knowing that Nina Burleigh is an atheist who hates Christmas (because she hates Jesus, hates the Bible, and hates Christians), her expression of support for Bill Clinton and abortion does not surprise us. All feminists share Nina Burleigh’s sick worldview — The Culture of Death, as it has been called — which is why feminism is rejected by every intelligent person who believes in God and believes that human life has a transcendent meaning and purpose. Feminists endorse the most hideous cruelty, demanding the deliberate slaughter of innocent life. Feminists advocate every manner of sordid sexual perversion, and they oppose everything that is decent, honest and wholesome in human society.
Who is the “Feminist Man” seeking “Dating Tips” from Nora Samaran’s blog? We must suppose that such a man is a desperate and dangerous sort of pervert. Only a man utterly lacking moral scruples and self-respect would ever knowingly date a feminist, but our nation’s public school system has become marvelously successful at destroying the morality and self-respect of children, so we may suppose that most young men nowadays are dangerous perverts — socialists, Marxists, anarchists, etc. — who would turn to Nora Samaran for advice.
When she first posted her “tips” at a left-wing Canadian site three years ago, the comments turned into a firestorm of criticism from men who, quite naturally, objected to Ms. Samaran’s basic assumptions that (a) men are always to blame for everything wrong with heterosexual relationships, and (b) Ms. Samaran is an expert qualified to advise others on how to conduct their romantic lives. These are the implicit premises of all feminist discourse about heterosexuality. Ms. Samaran is one of those women who seem to believe that, merely by calling herself a “feminist,” she gains the authority to tell other people what to do, no matter how young or inexperienced she may be, or whether her own life exemplifies any ideal a responsible person would care to emulate.
Perhaps the perfect example of this phenomenon is Miriam Mogilevsky, a young mentally ill woman who describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . lesbian with exceptions . . . on the asexual spectrum somewhere,” who does not “experience primary sexual attraction,” but nonetheless considers others (including males, toward whom she has never felt any normal erotic interest) to be in need of her expert advice on the subject of sexuality, which she delivers via columns for the Everyday Feminism blog. Any sane man encountering Miriam Mogilevsky in person would likely avoid having anything to do with her.
The more you read what feminists write about sex, the more you realize that “feminist” is just another word for weirdo or loser, and we may assume that the reason feminists constantly complain about male sexual inadequacy is because feminists are such frightening lunatics that no adequate man would ever bother speaking to them.
When Nora Samaran posted her “tips” in 2013, she reacted to criticism of her advice with this revealing comment:
It is stuff I want people who date me to know. . . . And two out of the i dunno maybe ten or fifteen guys I’ve had encounters with in my adult life have been bad at these skills. And I want more of the people I might date in the future to be better at these kinds of skills, so i don’t have to limit my dating pool to only my awesome exes.
Questions: How old is Ms. Samaran? Do most women consider it normal to have had sexual “encounters” with 10 or 15 different partners? Even by the degenerate standards of Canadian feminists, isn’t Ms. Samaran unusually promiscuous? If Ms. Samaran’s “dating pool” included so many “awesome” men, why did none of her previous “encounters” lead to a long-term relationship?
It seems reasonable to assume that Ms. Samaran is what some guys call a “carousel rider,” the type of “pump-and-dump” woman that men are willing to have casual sex with — a quick hookup, or a “friends with benefits” arrangement — but whom no man would ever consider desirable as a lifelong companion. Even a man who is an atheist with no moral objection to fornication would probably hesitate to become seriously involved with a woman who has as many former sex partners as Ms. Samaran does. A woman who has been so often been used and discarded by other men is obviously not a “keeper,” or else some man would have done whatever was necessary to keep her. Does anyone expect a man of quality to choose his wife from among the culls and rejects in the bargain basement discount pile of sexual leftovers?
Think about it this way: A girl who is popular in high school can have her pick of numerous guys who are interested in her. If she chooses wisely among them, it is likely that she will have exactly one serious boyfriend in high school. Well, sometimes things don’t work out, and perhaps she and her high-school sweetheart later break up. She is attractive and popular, however, so she can still be picky as to which guy she dates in college, and expect him to treat her as a serious romantic partner. A woman doesn’t have to be an uptight religious prude to see that casual promiscuity is an activity fraught with heartache and health hazards. Therefore, isn’t it likely that any genuinely attractive woman with good common sense will have had relatively few sexual relationships before she graduates college? And isn’t it likely that such a woman will be married by the time she is 25?
All the feminist activism in the world will never change the fact that young bachelors tend to sort women into two categories:
- Potential wives;
- Everybody else.
Wise young women understand this, and strive to avoid the kind of behavior that will get them assigned to the “everybody else” category.
Exactly what kind of fool is Nora Samaran, that she could run up a number as high as 15 (!!!) partners without realizing that her “awesome exes” were just using her for their own selfish purposes? She is a typical feminist fool, a future member of the Crazy Cat Lady Club.
It is truly astonishing the way feminists seem to assume that other people, men as well as women, are in need of their advice. If all you want to do with your romantic life is to be a carousel rider, bouncing around from one partner to the next, ultimately dying alone and childless, certainly there are many feminists who are qualified to tell you how to do that. One could cite a long list of eminent feminists — including Shulamith Firestone — who never married and never gave birth to a child. However, if a woman aspires to have a husband and children at some point in her life, she must take into consideration factors that feminists habitually ignore, for example, what do men want?
Feminism is hostile to any suggestion that women should care about men. Everything men do is bad and everything men say is wrong, according to feminists who view all men as complicit in the oppression of women.
“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery. . . . We reject marriage both in theory and in practice. . . . Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969
“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969
“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“Sexuality is that social process which creates, organizes, expresses, and directs desire, creating the social beings we know as women and men, as their relations create society. . . . The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)
“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
— Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)
“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)
Because “marriage means rape and lifelong slavery” and all men are “agents of oppression,” according to feminist theory, ultimately heterosexuality is itself a force of “patriarchal domination” that men impose on women through “coercive power,” and it is only an “illusionthat heterosexuality is the norm.” Feminists reject the possibility that men can ever be anything other than rapists and oppressors, and yet here we have Ms. Samaran, arrogantly assuming herself qualified to issue “dating tips” for men under headlines like this:
The Opposite of Rape Culture Is Nurturance Culture
Yes, of course! A radical ideologue who advocates killing babies in the womb is an expert on “nurturance culture.” This makes perfect sense to the kind helpless fools who do not automatically laugh at the phrase “Feminist Man,” and who seek Ms. Samaran’s advice:
The opposite of masculine rape culture is masculine nurturance culture: men increasing their capacity to nurture, and becoming whole. . . .
Compassion for self and compassion for others grow together and are connected; this means that men finding and recuperating the lost parts of themselves will heal everyone. . . .
To heal rape culture, then, men build masculine nurturance skills: nurturance and recuperation of their true selves, and nurturance of the people of all genders around them.
What is this gooey, gushy Hallmark-greeting-card treacle? As a father of six who spends a good bit of his time babysitting his two young grandsons, I suppose that I have more “masculine nurturance skills” than any “Feminist Man” to whom Ms. Samaran addresses her “Dating Tips.” Do Ineed to be lectured on this topic by a promiscuous Canadian radical woman? Well, never mind such doubts, let’s read some more of Ms. Samaran’s profound feminist insights:
I am discovering a secret, slowly: the men I know who are exceptionally nurturing lovers, fathers, coworkers, close friends to their friends, who know how to make people feel safe, have almost no outlets through which to learn or share this hardwon skill with other men. They may have had a role model at home, if they are lucky, in the form of an exceptionally nurturing father, but if they do not have this model they have had to figure everything out through trial and error, alone, or by learning with women rather than men. This knowledge shapes everything: assumptions about the significance of needs, how one ought to respond to them, what closeness feels like, how to love your own soul, and what kind of nurturance is actually meant to happen in intimate space.
Meanwhile, the men I know who are kind, goodhearted people, but who are earlier on in growing into their own models for self-love and learning how to comfort and nurture others, have no men to ask. Growing entails growing pains, certainly, but the way can be smoothed when one does not have to learn everything alone.
Men do not talk to one another about nurturance skills: doing so feels too intimate, or the codes of masculinity make doing so too frightening. If they can’t ask and teach each other — if they can’t even find out which other men in their lives would welcome these conversations — then how do they learn?
Amid the gooey greeting-card stuff here — what does it mean to “love you own soul”? — Ms. Samaran ignores three basic problems:
- Feminists hate all men, but they hate fathers the most.The fundamental goal of radical feminism since its inception in the late 1960s has been to destroy the marriage-based family, thus to deprive fathers of any influence on the lives of women and children. Feminists condemn marriage as a slavery, and specifically denounce the influence of fathers as the basis of “patriarchy,” an oppressive institution they vow to “smash.”
- Feminists are against “nurturing.” The reason feminists insist on abortion as an essential “right” is because feminists hate babies, who require the kind of “nurturing” that feminists lack the emotional capacity to perform. Caring for others — especially someone as helpless as a newborn infant — requires generosity and kindness, whereas feminism is an ideology that justifies and rationalizes selfish cruelty. Feminism negates all moral values for the sake of a fanatical pursuit of the movement’s idée fixe, a political abstraction called “equality.” How can feminists demand that men be “nurturing,” when feminists themselves reject “nurturing” as antithetical to their movement’s goals?
- Feminism is about silencing men. Ms. Samaran implies that some men might have worthwhile things to say about such topics as “how to make people feel safe” and “how to comfort and nurture others,” and yet no one in the feminist movement wants to hear a man speak. Everything men say, feminists mock and deride as “mansplaining,” and so no man with any sense ever talks to feminists. Ms. Samaran laments that men have “no outlets” for sharing their knowledge and skills “with other men,” but why is this? Because feminists have done everything within their power to destroy formerly all-male institutions where such knowledge was formerly transmitted. Feminists demanded that every school, college and university must become coed, and many institutions that were all-male 50 years ago are now majority female. On some of these campuses, feminists demand the abolition of fraternities.
The faculty of public schools are female-dominated, and the policies that prevail in the system are designed to reward girls and punish boys, so as to discourage male academic success. The feminist movement seeks to eradicate male influence in education and culture. Feminists have organized boycotts of male authors, and demand a reduction in the number of films directed by men. Feminists advocate deliberate discrimination against men in order to achieve “equality,” and any man who objects to this discrimination is condemned as a “misogynist.”
In order for a man to be a “nurturing father,” and thus “a role model at home” for his sons, he would have to find a woman who wants to get married and become a mother, but feminist ideology is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood, and therefore few feminists have husbands or children. The man who wants to become a husband and father would be a fool to waste time dating a feminist, who would certainly be obliged to get an abortion if she became pregnant.
“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014
Not content to abort every child that might accidentally be conceived in their own wombs, feminists seek to deprive men of any role in the lives of children born to other women. Feminists encourage women to divorce their husbands, and to prevent fathers from having visitation or custody of their own children. Insofar as any woman has a husband or any child has a father, these marriages and families represent the influence of “patriarchy” that feminists are determined to “smash.”
Here is a headline that feminists everywhere celebrated:
I Aborted My Baby — Because it was a Boy.
. . . I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. . . .
Every boy is a “monster” and all males are “enemies,” according to feminist ideology, and yet Ms. Samaran seems to believe that “masculine nurturing” is something to be encouraged.
Nora Samaran addresses her lectures to men who “fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women,” as if strength and intelligence are synonymous with feminism. My wife is strong and smart, but she is is a Christian, and I thank God for blessing me with such a wonderful wife. On Valentine’s Day, I gave her a dozen roses and a box of candy.
Feminists hate Christian women like my wife. Feminists don’t believe in love, and feminists denounce Valentine’s Day as “heteronormative,” so I guess nobody gave Nora Samaran roses or candy for Valentine’s Day and, as a feminist, she must be glad she got nothing. This is what men should always give feminists — nothing. The best “Dating Tip” I could give a young man is never to give feminists anything, not even an explanation for why you don’t speak to them.