Since so many people, most of them women, claim a lot of men to be misogynists, I figured it might be a good idea to try giving that subject some rational treatment here.
At first, I meant to claim being a proud misogynist towards certain women, but now that I learned the correct definition of that term for the first time, I retract and say it differently: I am proud to despise a certain category of women. Those women, who deserve it. And there are plenty of those around, as I found out by experience.
Fortunately I am not alone with my assessment; on one of my earliest threads here, at least one woman vehemently agreed with me, regarding the sheer exploitation some women here practice. And I have come to know quite a few women, who cannot stand feminists either. Nor most of the baloney associated with that #MeToo movement.
I wrote this several times earlier already, and I don't mind writing it again: IMHO what started out in the 1960s as a highly positive idea and concept, called "women's liberation" then (a bit of a misnomer, unfortunately), has morphed into feminism with time; an attitude I find most contemptible.
The only thing I saw wrong with "women's liberation" then was limiting the liberalization aim to women only. IMHO, men deserved to be liberated just as well, from role models that made no sense, and which were counter-productive to love and meaningful and satisfying relationships.
I still believe today that – had men and women fully embraced gender liberation – the silliness of feminism would never have developed.
One rational book I know deals with many aberrations with feminism; it was written by a woman, in fact a medical doctor. Who drew a lot of flak for writing it starting in 1971. The author is Esther Vilar, and the full text of the book can be found here (of the 1998 edition): http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vilar,Esther/The_manipulated_man.pdf
Esther's claim is the opposite of what feminists claim: in modern "civilized" societies, women call the shots and dominate men, up to enslaving them, in those relationships where domination plays a role. She also has an explanation for why so many men support feminism: because it is the only ideology on earth, which believes in male roles that macho men would like to think they are able to occupy.
Vilar's book explains many of the phenomena we can observe here on Lit. All examples for instance, of women assuming privileges for themselves, which go well beyond what men can rely on. In my experience, the women here, who do not rely on feminine privileges, are very rare. I was fortunate to meet some of them, and I appreciate my luck wholeheartedly.
In my experience the main difference between women, who are at heart "Esther Vilar-type" women, and what I call real women, is the amount of sex drive the two different kind possess. Real women need sex as much as men, so the idea of monetizing their pussies never enters their minds.
That is the heart of the problem, I find. Whether a woman grew up thinking of sex as a pleasure and desirable, or whether she listened to mom's advice, or her parents' advice, to use and deploy her sexuality for gainful returns.
At first, I meant to claim being a proud misogynist towards certain women, but now that I learned the correct definition of that term for the first time, I retract and say it differently: I am proud to despise a certain category of women. Those women, who deserve it. And there are plenty of those around, as I found out by experience.
Fortunately I am not alone with my assessment; on one of my earliest threads here, at least one woman vehemently agreed with me, regarding the sheer exploitation some women here practice. And I have come to know quite a few women, who cannot stand feminists either. Nor most of the baloney associated with that #MeToo movement.
I wrote this several times earlier already, and I don't mind writing it again: IMHO what started out in the 1960s as a highly positive idea and concept, called "women's liberation" then (a bit of a misnomer, unfortunately), has morphed into feminism with time; an attitude I find most contemptible.
The only thing I saw wrong with "women's liberation" then was limiting the liberalization aim to women only. IMHO, men deserved to be liberated just as well, from role models that made no sense, and which were counter-productive to love and meaningful and satisfying relationships.
I still believe today that – had men and women fully embraced gender liberation – the silliness of feminism would never have developed.
One rational book I know deals with many aberrations with feminism; it was written by a woman, in fact a medical doctor. Who drew a lot of flak for writing it starting in 1971. The author is Esther Vilar, and the full text of the book can be found here (of the 1998 edition): http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vilar,Esther/The_manipulated_man.pdf
Esther's claim is the opposite of what feminists claim: in modern "civilized" societies, women call the shots and dominate men, up to enslaving them, in those relationships where domination plays a role. She also has an explanation for why so many men support feminism: because it is the only ideology on earth, which believes in male roles that macho men would like to think they are able to occupy.
Vilar's book explains many of the phenomena we can observe here on Lit. All examples for instance, of women assuming privileges for themselves, which go well beyond what men can rely on. In my experience, the women here, who do not rely on feminine privileges, are very rare. I was fortunate to meet some of them, and I appreciate my luck wholeheartedly.
In my experience the main difference between women, who are at heart "Esther Vilar-type" women, and what I call real women, is the amount of sex drive the two different kind possess. Real women need sex as much as men, so the idea of monetizing their pussies never enters their minds.
That is the heart of the problem, I find. Whether a woman grew up thinking of sex as a pleasure and desirable, or whether she listened to mom's advice, or her parents' advice, to use and deploy her sexuality for gainful returns.
You could just say 'heterosexual', instead of 'inter-gender sex', which is one of the clumsiest phrasings I've seen in a while (and that's saying something).
