Calling U S dopers . " The misandry bubble"

Strongly worded article from the futurist.

I say that the further inflation and subsequent precipitous deflation of the misandry bubble will define the next American decade.

Long article,with plenty of links. Sure to provoke some feminists .

Comments ?

Reads like it was written by a slightly drunk new divorcee.

I stopped reading at “fatocalypse.”
I also agree with Grey.

Oh, wait, couldn’t help reading the next bullet!

I’m enjoying how the lack of poverty and victimhood among current widows is a bad thing. I will say it is a point of view that I had not previously considered.
I think the misandry is assuming that women have to need men for financial support and protection from harm in order to want them around. This whole article seems to imply that there are alarmingly few men that women will want and be faithful to on their own merits.

That says a far worse thing about men than I’ve heard from any feminist I know.

socialism “malignant”? The “Venusian arts”? As an anti-feminist I agree with his basic premise, but this is terrible stuff.

What’s an anti-feminist?

As for the article, ridiculous, self-congratulatory and puerile. “Histrionics,” “hypergamous utopia,” “gladly send innocent men to concentration camps,” yeah, he makes himself easily enough dismissed. It fails to make a single cogent point that I could find. It’s boring enough that as what the article calls a proponent of the leftist feminist agenda, I’m not provoked a bit. This could have been written by any number of people who I went to college with.

I have to admit, I had a hard time reading past where (s)he said (s)he had the ANSWER to EVERYTHING, like in the first paragraph.

No one thing is the answer to everything, much as human beans like to simplify.

But then, I didn’t read much beyond that, either.

Can someone re-write that for me so it’s actually readable? I made it through the first paragraph - this is a writer who thought Charles Dickens was a little too straight-forward and brusque.

Ironically, “hysterical” seems to be the right word here.

If you don’t read the whole thing you don’t get to find out how many different ways the author can use scare quotes to insult hundreds of millions of people, and a rewrite would totally destroy all his brilliant euphemisms. If you really want to get to the heart of the matter I suggest the following passage:

Additional bonus translation key: you have to substitute “woman” for ‘feminist’ most of the time.

Lefto - the forgotten Marx Brother…

Kind of reminds me of Ray Kurzweil. He’s got some interesting ideas and makes some good points, but then he spills crazy on it.

I don’t even understand what the author is trying to say. Must be because I’m a woman. :slight_smile:

Typically, it’s a person (they need not be male - Camille Paglia’s often been called one) who builds a strawwoman out of radical/separatist/antimale feminist positions, labels it to represent the basic tenets of all those concerned with the cause of women, pummels the living shit out of it, and considers his (or her) point well and thoroughly proven.

There are frank and above-board antifeminists, but they’re more appropriately called misogynists.

I started :rolleyes:'ing at the mention of “The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment” - a common tenet of white male soc-con wharrgarbl - and dropped the thesis into the notional shithole as soon as he cited “The Primal Nature of Men and Women.”

I believe the phrase you are looking for is “Get off my side!”

The author hints at a few relevant social issues facing the modern world, but in general that whole article is a load of garbage, his numbers are suspect and/or flat-out incorrect, and his anecdotes are far from representative of what occurs in mainstream society.

For those who don’t want to read the article, I can sum it up thusly:

  1. The world was better back when men were in positions of power and women were dependent on men for everything. Which was back in the 1950s before the liberals and feminists took over. Or maybe actually it was back in the days before monogamous relationships, when strong alpha human males all over the globe got to have multiple wives.

  2. Things only started to fall apart when marriage and gender roles started to FALL APART OH NOES! Even though I guess things were good when men could have multiple wives (see above), our problems now are actually because of the fact that “Traditional Marriage” has fallen apart.

Women are slutty and have multiple sexual partners before getting married. When they do get married they’re all in their late 30s and 40s and ugly. They will never have children and our population will dwindle. Except for an army of rural Sarah Palins that will become the ONLY SIGNIFICANT WHITE POPULATION LEFT IN A SEA OF COLOR!!! And their men won’t want them because they’re old. And fat. And, women are being allowed to divorce willy-nilly, without proper societal disincentive. In places like India, the parents of the bride pay a fee in jewels to the parents of the groom, to insure that the bitch won’t leave her man.

  1. All of the poor men who are divorced by their feminist-empowered women are also now paying a hefty tax of 70% of all their income to ‘child support’ and so are never going to want to be part of a productive society. This is somewhere approaching 30% of all men!!!111 This is why Detroit failed.

  2. All this, of course, only applies to Urban lefto-feminists. Those city women don’t know their place. Rural conservatives however, get married at the right time, have the right number of children, and presumably obey the patriarchy, to the benefit of all.

  3. And, don’t forget, that men are victims of physical abuse too. We’re the victims, but all anyone wants to do is talk about how men hit and abuse women. If women stayed in their place and let men dominate society, then we wouldn’t have this confusion, and . . . women would stop beating men? Or something.

I didn’t bother to read the article. I got as far as the pictures, and I’m sorry, but Mr. T and the Fonz are not fit to lick Jean Luc’s (probably immaculately groomed) balls.

Thanks, Eonwe. That saves my poor little brain a whole lot of uninteresting work.

I liked how a woman is always responsible for a divorce if she files, but a large percentage of men who file for divorce were forced to it by the woman’s abusing him.

You read that slash too?

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.