I hate women

April 4, 2008 at 11:34 am (Fróðleikr) (, , , , , )

I was born in a year that I now think of as the beginning of the end. After my birth year a new generation of women was spawned.


My childhood is so close to the core of me that I can’t dissect it objectively. I can’t ever hope to conclude anything about the beginning, because my oldest memories are not dry, but perfectly intact, complete with smells, the mouthfeel of foods I ate fifteen years ago, music, snapshots of desert through an open car window. They’re hubs through which everything else connects.

Cosmopolitan tells us, “Next time your guy’s mouth is agape because some chick with her cups running over saunters by, slap his butt and say, “Nice tits, huh, babe?” ”

A girl for the Harvard Crimson confesses, “Cosmo is not the glamour puss monthly I had previously thought, but a magazine for tragic women.” She goes on to write,  “In Cosmo girl world, a woman’s existence revolves around fear that her man is going to leave her and anxiety over how to keep him. Such a state could not possibly make a woman happy,” that “(t)his is part of the irony of Cosmo: It’s exactly the sort of publication the conservative matriarchs of my family shun, and yet the magazine itself reinforces some of those old-fashioned values.”

She is wrong. She fails to see what women fail to see.

A young man, who had never known women of an earlier era closely enough to have hope, flew into a rage upon stumbling across a Facebook group named, “WANTED: Knight, White Horse, Shining Armor a MUST.

He exclaimed that women think they deserve love and that they have intrinsic worth. I replied that there is a culture of self-worth. Everyone is intelligent, worthy and righteous. It is their right to be considered as such. They will be deeply offended if that right is denied. Pedophiles have discussions about the moral righteousness of pederasty.

In the shallows, it is as the Harvard girl says. Women cannot be empowered if they spend their time manhunting.

Women are told to be strong and confident and better than everyone else. They are told that men are weaker than they, that men will always philander, and that women are responsible for keeping their men. They are told to accept their man’s natural inclination to wander, but not to accept wandering. They are told that the man they are dating is “their man”.

It is their fault for believing this.

Most modern feminists, like our girl from Harvard, don’t realise that they are assuming the same flawed premise as the girls who read Cosmo. The results are only different because Cosmo girls have deep doubts, and are searching for a soothing balm, perhaps a solution.

This is my answer: it is not a basic human right to be loved in a romantic relationship. It is not a basic human right to be considered intelligent, or moral, or sexy.

Women dress like whores to be certain of their marketability, but they become unkind, petty, hard-hearted, because things must go their way, otherwise they are being oppressed.

I am reminded of a post-vaccination rash when I consider the mind of a woman. We were inoculated against the cruelty of the stronger sex. Now, every man is an object of both their desire and their hatred.

Pause. Consider your assumptions.

Men have their own dreams. Princes on white horses are not objects that every woman has a right to obtain. Only the rarest, only the best of women, said the young man to me, find princes on white horses.



  1. Mr. Roach said,

    In public schools, feminized churches, and our popular culture, a uniform standard of good behavior has emerged: just be nice. This is not enough. It ignores te unique excellence and distinct roles to be played by men and women in a healthy social life. But this is no matter to advocates; for them, sex differences are merely a social construct designed to subordinate women. Differences must be hammered out.

    Boys who show energy and initiative are labeled as sufferers from attention deficit disorder and quickly put on Ritalin. Worse, older masculine ideals are put down as archaic, oppressive, “sexist,” and barbaric. This has led to a degradation of both sexes. Men are increasingly predatory or useless, fathering kids they quickly abandon, leaving their older wives with children, and retreating from responsibility with a cynical demand for equal treatment. If they are less anti-social, they are wimpy, insecure, and superfluous figures. Women, in the name of equal rights, find themselves barren and unattractive after investing their prime years in a career that does not live up to billing in terms of fulfillment. Even if they manage to settle down, masculine virtues like emotional self control and bearing are in short supply among their mates.

    The power of women is in their purity and feminity. But both are being destroyed by our culture of entitlement, self-absorption, and androgyny.

  2. ataxas said,

    It’s rather odd that you chose to repost an edited version of one of your own blog posts here as a comment. Should I be flattered, or consider it spam?

    However, a few observations:

    1. A woman’s purpose is not childbearing, however
    2. You are correct in that if not a blending, then at least a borrowing of societal traits is encouraged.
    3. While I agree that female personalities are undergoing ugly shifts,
    4. I hardly endorse the idea that asking my boyfriend to clean up his own fucking empty soda cans is indicative of “entitlement” or “self-absorption”.
    5. No-one is entitled to anything not endorsed by an official piece of paper.

  3. Mr. Roach said,

    Not every woman’s purpose is childbearing, but most women find this the most important and rewarding thing they accomplish in life. Women can’t all be spinster failures with sinecure gigs like Condy Rice.

    No, demands for decency in the household are not “self-absorption.” Demands, however, for men to be more feminine whlie also castigating them for their failure to perform older masculine roles is indeed a grotesquerie of the worst kind and leads to mutual resentment.

    Men figure out what it takes to get in women’s pants. In the past it meant a good job, a home, and a ring. Today it means some charm, a nice dinner and a bottle of wine, and a good smile. 45 year old mothers meanwhile find their men abandoning them in pursuit of youth. This is normal enough: men value youth and beauty but in the past were unable to obtain them so easily after paring off. Chastity is a collective action thing; if enough women jump ship the whole enterprise breaks down.

  4. ataxas said,

    I am not a prescriptive conservative by any means; as far as I’m concerned, people can do as they please. I’m privately quite conservative and societally very liberal.
    I simply dislike most modern women. My mother’s generation, the first women to take steps into freshly gained ground, are marvellous: intellectuals, explorers, determined to keep their pride. The problem as I see it is the overextension of the rights movement to mean something it was never originally intended to mean. Not, “gender does not change the worth of a person,” as it used to be, but “all women are entitled to what all men have,” which is a horribly flawed and badly conceived premise.

    “Demands, however, for men to be more feminine whlie also castigating them for their failure to perform older masculine roles is indeed a grotesquerie of the worst kind and leads to mutual resentment.” – I am poised to completely agree, but to which roles do you refer?

    Am I a flawed woman because analytic philosophy and my intellectual development as a philosopher and writer are vastly more important to me than childbearing? I find your “either spinster or mother” dichotomy a bit disturbing.

  5. Mr. Roach said,

    In any normal society, there will be exceptional people who are best disposed to devote themselves to art, music, learning, etc. Feminism took a wrong turn by falsely declaring all careers are valuable and make people more valuable, even though best use of time for 90% or more of women is rearing a child. instead, vast armies of pink collar workers make $10-15/hour doing things like labeling files, stuffing envelopes, making copies, and generally doing menial tasks away from their children.

    I think feminism wants its cake and to eat it too. I also think it is strongly materialistic. So, men are asked to be equal partners, but really they are asked to do all the things men in the past did–buying big engagement rings, earning more, being strong in social situations, paying bills, paying for dinner–with none of the honor that used to be the reward for that sort of thing. Worse, in married life, tired career women even deny sex, which is kind of the one thing you’re only supposed to be able to get from your wife.

    We live in a lame age with ladies and gentleman but just uniform “guys.” Tom Wolfe’s Charlotte Simmons captures this perfectly. So do most episodes of Friends.

  6. ataxas said,

    Ninety percent of people are best suited to menial jobs (blue, white collar, child rearing). It doesn’t matter which of the sexes does which job, only that those who are suited to such jobs know that they are so suited and are happy in their work. Modern society has taught them not to be.

  7. rbl said,

    Personally, I don’t see child rearing as a menial job. I have enormous respect for people who can produce happy, competent, well prepared offspring, in fact I have at least as much respect for nurturing parents as I do for traditionally successful professionals. Reducing the whole equation to feeding one end of the child and wiping the other is what produces some of the more damaged members of society.

    There’s no need for women to exclusively fill the role of primary caregiver, however.

  8. rbl said,

    I should have checked the year there…

  9. ataxas said,

    Whilst successfully raising a child is horribly difficult, it should not be elevated to the status of an art simply because of this.

    I am inclined to believe that producing a happy, competent and well-prepared offspring is nearly impossible.

    However, why should it be the case that it is more important to produce a perfect offspring and less important to produce a perfect self? I know parents care deeply for their children, and so it is only natural that they should want their children to have the best life can offer.

    However, is there any artistic or moral superiority associated with raising a perfect child rather than striving to *be* perfect? I think not.

    Child rearing is a menial job not because it is easy, but because it is something that a lot of people must do, and be quite good at, for the human race to continue forward. It is not a particular or unique skill, by any means, unless one considers their child to be a work of art.

    Furthermore, a parent who does consider his child to be a work of art will have failed to produce a successful child, unless he manages to completely conceal his opinion from his child, both of which states are indicative of some psychosis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: