HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
I've been reading this book lately (google it and you can get a pdf for free). It's basically a critique of feminism written in the 70's by a woman. It's main thesis is that women are the ones responsible for perpetuating the stereotypes of women as weak, good-for-nothing housewives which they used to swindle men with. Amongst some of the more dated views about females which maybe don't apply as much, the hyperbole and generalizations there are some profound insights in it.
If you read the reviews on amazon there are men who have read it and said it changed them. Drastically. I can see why. I've seen the same sentiment expressed on forums about the book.
Although I haven't really accepted a lot of the ideas in there (probably because of a lack of understanding more than anything) there are a few ideas in there that have kind of hit me like a freight train once I let them stew in my brain over the space of a few days.
The main one being that women basically don't like men.
They don't care what they think of them, they don't like them physically and they are emotionless towards them. The reasons they get excited about a 'good looking' guy are not the same reasons men get excited about a hot girl (the desire to shag them). The reason they get turned on by a 'hot' guy, so the author contends is because it provides them an opportunity to make other women jealous. They don't care what guys think but they care deeply what other women think.
At first I thought that might be a tad cynical but then I just imagined a women eying up a guy and being consumed with thinking about how she would look in front of her friends with her on his arm. It seemed pretty hard to dismiss as mere cynicism when I thought about that.
Another reason the author says women like a guy with a 'good body' is because it says to them that he'd make a good workhorse (he can lift stuff for me around the house and if my safety is threatened by another male he could probably win in a fight).
Again, I thought this was mere cynicism but I fear the authors views are correct and most women are simply venal and heartless users who see men as nothing more than a utility to make their lives easier or an accessory to make other women envious. She makes a really good case for women being quite horrible creatures who manipulate men through a combination of sex and feigned emotion.
When I think about to some of the women I've been with I can definitely see some of these qualities in them and others mentioned in the book such as the sense of entitlement women have. Some examples include a girl telling me the guy 'should pay for everything', excepting to be picked up and carted around and be given little jobs to do (which I did because I was 'in love' with her), her crying before announcing something quite serious she assumed I'd be very angry at (I wasn't anyway though but now wonder if the waterworks were just an attempt to garner sympathy for the anger she was expecting, not because she was scared of me breaking up with her over it).
I now have the uncomfortable suspicion that this and other displays of emotion from her were totally fake and used purely for manipulative purposes.
How do you tell if it's real or not? How? Are we total fools who have just been played our whole lives? I know what you are thinking- that women are the more sensitive types and more emotional etc and could never use men like that- only men do such things. I believe this could be part of the propaganda. Just think back to some of the relationships you've had- did she trivialize your relationship in anyway? (cheating, hooking up with someone soon after, going out and having fun after telling you how cut up she was over it) did she expect you to do things all the time? did she take advantage of your kindness and let you spend money on her?
Men simply are not users of women like women are of men. It's bullshit when you think about it. A man might shag a bird and string her along so he can keep bonking her but would he allow her to pay for everything? to drive him places? to buy him nice clothes? you NEVER see that sh*t!
Tell me I'm wrong. Please. Because if I'm not then women are just more nasty then any of us could have imagined and they should definitely not be entertained beyond sex or friendship. That would be a very sad thing to realize.
I've also thought about the look on woman's face when she gets married. Am I wrong or is the same look on a marathon runners face when he wins at the olympics? I think it is, and it's very telling.
If you read the reviews on amazon there are men who have read it and said it changed them. Drastically. I can see why. I've seen the same sentiment expressed on forums about the book.
Although I haven't really accepted a lot of the ideas in there (probably because of a lack of understanding more than anything) there are a few ideas in there that have kind of hit me like a freight train once I let them stew in my brain over the space of a few days.
The main one being that women basically don't like men.
They don't care what they think of them, they don't like them physically and they are emotionless towards them. The reasons they get excited about a 'good looking' guy are not the same reasons men get excited about a hot girl (the desire to shag them). The reason they get turned on by a 'hot' guy, so the author contends is because it provides them an opportunity to make other women jealous. They don't care what guys think but they care deeply what other women think.
At first I thought that might be a tad cynical but then I just imagined a women eying up a guy and being consumed with thinking about how she would look in front of her friends with her on his arm. It seemed pretty hard to dismiss as mere cynicism when I thought about that.
Another reason the author says women like a guy with a 'good body' is because it says to them that he'd make a good workhorse (he can lift stuff for me around the house and if my safety is threatened by another male he could probably win in a fight).
Again, I thought this was mere cynicism but I fear the authors views are correct and most women are simply venal and heartless users who see men as nothing more than a utility to make their lives easier or an accessory to make other women envious. She makes a really good case for women being quite horrible creatures who manipulate men through a combination of sex and feigned emotion.
When I think about to some of the women I've been with I can definitely see some of these qualities in them and others mentioned in the book such as the sense of entitlement women have. Some examples include a girl telling me the guy 'should pay for everything', excepting to be picked up and carted around and be given little jobs to do (which I did because I was 'in love' with her), her crying before announcing something quite serious she assumed I'd be very angry at (I wasn't anyway though but now wonder if the waterworks were just an attempt to garner sympathy for the anger she was expecting, not because she was scared of me breaking up with her over it).
I now have the uncomfortable suspicion that this and other displays of emotion from her were totally fake and used purely for manipulative purposes.
How do you tell if it's real or not? How? Are we total fools who have just been played our whole lives? I know what you are thinking- that women are the more sensitive types and more emotional etc and could never use men like that- only men do such things. I believe this could be part of the propaganda. Just think back to some of the relationships you've had- did she trivialize your relationship in anyway? (cheating, hooking up with someone soon after, going out and having fun after telling you how cut up she was over it) did she expect you to do things all the time? did she take advantage of your kindness and let you spend money on her?
Men simply are not users of women like women are of men. It's bullshit when you think about it. A man might shag a bird and string her along so he can keep bonking her but would he allow her to pay for everything? to drive him places? to buy him nice clothes? you NEVER see that sh*t!
Tell me I'm wrong. Please. Because if I'm not then women are just more nasty then any of us could have imagined and they should definitely not be entertained beyond sex or friendship. That would be a very sad thing to realize.
I've also thought about the look on woman's face when she gets married. Am I wrong or is the same look on a marathon runners face when he wins at the olympics? I think it is, and it's very telling.
She-devils a nice way to put it