Female Submission and its Enemies & A Response to Jungle Jain

Female Submission and its Enemies & A Response to Jungle Jain

Mannerbund: This is What a Feminist Looks At got a positive response from men, and a negative response from feminists. Blogger JungleJain was so inspired by my comments on reddit she wrote an article about me: Masculinity, Privilege, and Boxes. My response is below. Her article, along with a long exchange with feminists on reddit, got me thinking about one of my favorite subjects. Some commenter mentioned that the whole “game” phenomenon may have helped get some men laid, but hasn’t helped them attain something they want even more: to become a husband and a father. Which got me thinking about feminism.

We called it “women’s liberation.” The question is, who were they liberated from? Women must obey and submit to their employers, women must obey and submit to the officers of the state (police, judges). The only men that women were liberated from was their husbands. Feminism was always about denigrating the role of wife, a role that more specifically can be termed “wife of this man and mother of his children.”

What’s fascinating is that an article and a discussion that was really narrowly focused on “the dating game” and the sexual marketplace turned into something bigger; the role of women in society, masculinity and femininity as abstract concepts, and gender roles.

"Sex must not put women in a subordinate position" (Choices of positions limited for safety reasons.)
“Sex must not put women in a subordinate position” (Choices of positions limited for safety reasons.)

The “marriage problem” has been discussed in the manosphere forever. Men’s complains seem to boil down to, they have no power in marriage anymore. Anytime a wife decides she wants to leave, she can, and will get presumptive custody of the children, child support and/or alimony (“cash and prizes” and Dalrock would say). Dalrock talks about a “threat point” which is where a woman can simply threaten divorce as a tactic to get her way in the relationship, sort of a domestic version of the Sampson Option. The men’s response to this lack of power in a relationship is straightforward: they aren’t getting married. This has caused unhappiness among both men and women, and it’s such a major social issue the elite press such as the NYT and WSJ have written extensively about it.

But men and women are not “social constructs” and their natures do not change because leftists wish them to. I’ve had conversations with three women recently that all said the exact same thing: they want a man to “take care” of them. One said she wanted to be “owned” by a man – a woman that proudly called herself a feminist (until she met me, that is.) Another admitted to very mixed feelings; she wanted to be “independent” but at the same time, she constantly fantasized about having a man to take care of her.

Don't Shame My Sub
Don’t Shame My Sub

While I still haven’t read it (I’ve heard it’s awful) the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon of last year continues to fascinate me. Feminists hated it, one said it “set women back 50 years,” one was so outraged at the idea the woman was just a “decoration” for the man in the book. But of course, women bought the book in record numbers; millions of women around the world spent money to fantasize about being the property of a rich, wealthy businessman and submitting to his every whim, up to and including … butt plugs.

BDSM is not about whips and chains, it’s about power. Many, I suspect most, women have a submissive streak a mile wide; sexuality is more central to a woman’s identity than to a man’s, literally, a great deal of her physical body is devoted to sexuality and fertility. So the submissive streak comes out not just in the bedroom, but in many aspects of a relationship.

What has happened is that middle class men have lost power in relation to women, which thwarts their ability to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy. If you’re a handome, fabulously wealthy businessman, it’s easy to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy and keep her loyalty, but for the average man, between women’s increasing economic power and the divorce and custody laws, he has no “hand” in the relationship anymore. So, they don’t get married. People are still having sex, and plenty of it, just no longer in the context of a traditional marriage.

One of the eradica commenters said that BDSM was a manifestation of the lack of proper social roles and hierarchy, but what if part of it is simply the lack of men powerful enough, high enough in social status, to trigger a woman’s hypergamy and her submissive instinct? When most men had a higher status than most women, it was easy for a woman to find a man more powerful than her.

Since they cannot find those men in real life, it comes out in increasingly hardcore D/s themes in erotica.

Feminist's Nightmare; Normal Women's Daydream.
Feminist’s Nightmare; Normal Women’s Daydream.

Feminists try to demonize men who want a woman that has less power than them, supposedly, the men are “afraid” of women with advanced degrees, or who make more money. That’s simply part of feminist’s typical demonization of men, most men really just don’t care if a woman has a PhD in women’s studies, it’s just irrelevant to the sexual attractiveness of a woman. Feminists will say that men are “afraid” of a woman that makes more money, without ever speaking to the obvious power dynamic.

Let's Play Master and Servant
Let’s Play Master and Servant

Feminists want women to be dominant, but most women are submissive. It’s the feminists that are the outliers, just like the submissive men. It also might explain the recent outbreaks of feminist tirades, screaming at various protests. You’re seeing a specific outlier in action; verbally aggressive, domineering women who like to make men submit.

But no matter how much feminist indoctrination women are subjected to, no matter how much “sub-shaming” (an absolutely real phenomenon), they still fantasize about powerful Mr. Grey. I can imagine the frustration feminists must feel at this constant reminder that they are the exception, not the rule.

My Reply to JungleJain:

He recognizes that gender roles are (at least partially) constructed, and explicitly puts all men not conforming to his idea of masculine into the feminine gender. This, of course, made my ears perk way up, because this is how the man box shrinks.

Let’s not confuse sex and gender. I assume TheBluePillers are of the female sex – not gender – because at least some of them claim they are, and from my original read, it seemed like most of them.

Sex, not gender.

Keep the context here; TheRedPill is about sex, specifically, men attempting to make themselves more successful getting sex from women. If TheBluePillers are actually men, it’s their behavior and agenda, not their characteristics, that would lead me to put them on the “female side” of the Red/Blue duo, and only because of their behavior in the context of the two forums, which are about the sexual marketplace. They are advocating, in the context of the sexual marketplace, for women.

When you define masculinity by the absence of anything deemed feminine by anybody, you can’t help but have a dwindling supply of it, in a world where women are everywhere, and none of us are okay with invisible.

But I don’t. Biologically, male and female are not polar opposites. They are different. That’s why you want to abstract sex to gender. Instead of your straight line, why not draw a “V” – the bottom of the triangle is “genderless” or “androgynous” and the top left is “feminine” and the top right is “masculine.”

“Male space” is a place where males are. Even if the men engage in stereotypically feminine behavior, it’s still “male space.” “Female space” is a place where females are. A space where men and women are together is integrated space; neither men’s nor women’s space.

If there was a forum devoted to, say, nursing, I might assume most posters are women, because nursing is a female dominated field. But there is nothing really specifically “feminine” about nursing. I wouldn’t think a man that is a nurse is somehow “feminine” or “not a real man.” On the other hand, “soldier” tends to be a male profession, because men tend to be physically stronger and more aggressive than women. Gender roles are only partially “socially constructed.”

So, you’re confusing sex with gender, and you’re confusing “space” in the sense of physical space, or virtual space (like an online forum) with “gender space,” your abstract notions of “masculine” and “feminine” and your boxes.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

As far as not being ok with invisibility, you don’t have a claim to my attention; no woman does. I do not owe you “visibility.” Men are under no obligation to do anything for you. That’s another typical leftist tactic, in order to expropriate wealth and power from others, you de-individualize (especially) men into “society.” So, if “society” grants men unearned privileges, therefore “society” – i.e., individual men, owes you something.

Characterizing me as a “misogynist” is just slander, it’s just name calling. I do not hate women, nor do I hate stereotypically feminine roles or behaviors. I’ll cop to sexism and racism, but not “misogyny.”

For the record, I dropped out because, first, it had gone on long enough and I was getting bored, and second, one of the moderators starting threatening to ban me for unapproved thoughts.

I also, if you will recall, started engaging in domineering and “flirtatious” behavior, calling presumably female posters “sweetheart” and the like, and mocking women’s studies degrees. This, again, is in the context of the sexual marketplace. You have the women (or proxy women) of TheBluePill/SRS using stereotypical shaming language, calling men “fedoras,” calling them “homoerotic,” deriding their masculinity, heckling them. I characterized that, as well as the women’s behavior in the protest video, as “topping from the bottom,” an aggressive, sexualized form of verbal dominance/submission play. I countered that with my own style of aggressive, sexualized talk, mocking the femininity of feminists, their value in the sexual marketplace, etc.

23 thoughts on “Female Submission and its Enemies & A Response to Jungle Jain

  1. “Gender roles are only partially “socially constructed.””

    “Socially reinforced” is a better alternative imo. This acknowledges that minority outliers like feminists have an individual case without acknowledging any of their other nonsense.

    Like

  2. You pretty clearly fail to understand dominance and submission. These are desires, lusts, and loves which start off from a relationship. Disgust and contempt are not the basis of a relationship, they are the death of it.

    As far as d/s and feminism, cool story bro. I have found feminists both friendly and hostile to BDSM in the same proportion as the general populace. Given a medium-size group of “lesbian feminists” the notion that some would not be D and S types seems silly. This is especially true if you know more than a few lesbians.

    Like

      1. Nope, never gonna be your sub, for many reasons. You seem to have trouble knowing who a sub is and whether or not someone is your sub. You apparently can’t or won’t even argue you understand D/S. Your sort of bull does tend to create the Domly Doms who think they can enforce their BDSM on any woman through the force of their personality.

        Like

    1. LOL, I’m sorry if you misunderstood, that wasn’t an offer. For the record, sub women in the “BDSM scene” tend to be unattractive both physically and personality wise. I am not a member of the “BDSM scene.” I actually find it quite repulsive. D/s behavior, sexual and not-so-sexual, is hardly limited to the weirdos that like to throw “scenes.”

      Plus, I’m into smart girls.

      You apparently can’t or won’t even argue you understand D/S. Your sort of bull does tend to create the Domly Doms who think they can enforce their BDSM on any woman through the force of their personality.

      That’s an amazing amount of projection there. Why do you think I would want to prove I understand D/s to you? As for thinking that I can “enforce [my] BDSM on any woman through the force of [my] personality” – wow, just wow. That’s imputing power to me that I surely don’t have.

      This relationship goes one way sweetheart, you’re reading my stuff and getting a lady outrage boner. Now run back off to manboobz and you keep fighting all those mean nasty misogynists who just don’t know how to dominate you the right way.

      You. Go, girl!

      Like

      1. I definitely didn’t suggest you can enforce your BDSM on others, merely that people who buy your bull think they can enforce it. Kinksters who talk to other kinksters are quickly disabused of these notions. Maybe that’s the problem, you only run into sub women and don’t know enough people to be proven wrong in your assumptions.

        Your reading comprehension and ability to reach valid conclusions is really in question here.

        1. I’m not a sub.
        2. I’m not a woman.

        This is not the first time you have said you would totally not have a boner for your female opponent, only to be talking to a male, You are projecting your worldview onto other people so much that you can’t see the diversity of people who disagree with you.

        Like

    2. 1. I’m not a sub.
      2. I’m not a woman.

      Which just makes it all the more hilarious doesn’t it?

      Let’s be clear, you are nothing but words on a screen to me. I know nothing about you. Nor have you said anything that would make me curious to know more.

      merely that people who buy your bull think they can enforce it.

      Cool generalization and projection, bro!

      Maybe that’s the problem

      I don’t have a problem. It’s you that has the problem.

      This is not the first time you have said you would totally not have a boner for your female opponent, only to be talking to a male, You are projecting your worldview onto other people so much that you can’t see the diversity of people who disagree with you.

      I’m not projecting a “world view” onto others, I’m making generalizations about internet trolls based on limited information. I think the key thing you are missing here is that I don’t seek your approval for my opinions and don’t subscribe to your fucked up morality.

      As for “diversity of people” – lol. You all may be diverse in your sex and race and “orientations”, but you all subscribe to the same group think. Not very diverse opinion wise.

      You. Go, girl!

      Like

  3. Only white men take feminism seriously. I literally would take Code Pink to a Arab muslim village and sell each for two AKs apiece.

    Billions of people on Earth, very few take their crap ideology seriously, and even here witness head black bitch telling who is S and who is D we can see its not long for the world.

    Like

    1. I was enlightened when I was told that each woman defines “feminism” for herself. There isn’t one “feminism” there are infinite “feminisms.”

      So, any disagreement with any woman is “anti-feminist” if she chooses it to be.

      I’m thinking “misogyny” is the same thing. The left loves to label opposing opinions as “hate” and often wants them declared as speech or hate crimes, “hate speech” and the like.

      So, there really is no ideology here, it’s a purely empty label. Anything can be described as “feminism” and anything can be defined as “sexism” or “misogyny.”

      Even more interesting, any objective description of female behavior is “objectification.”

      Like

    2. So that article was linked by a site “manboobz” dedicated to “mocking” “misogyny.” In that famous protest video, you have this guy ignoring this female protester, wouldn’t talk to her, wouldn’t make eye contact with her, totally giving a cold shoulder.

      She’s approaching this guy, looking at his, stalking him, and out of her mouth comes this long stream of sexualized, demeaning, hostile “dirty talk.” “Fucking scum, rape apologist,” etc.

      The manboobz tried to turn this around and claim that I was claiming that she “wanted him.” At least one of the commenters took this very seriously and complained that this is some sort of common behavior.

      But the context of this is really clear, she didn’t know this guy, didn’t know anything about this guy, this guy was not in any way engaging her. The attention went strictly one way.

      Yet somehow he’s the aggressor.

      Like

  4. Here’s another example. Let’s say there is a group of women going into some conference, and you have a group of male (and some female) protesters heckling the women trying to go inside.

    Now I approach some women, who is completely ignoring me, and I start with this sort of dirty talk: “you fucking bitch, you cunt, why do you hate men so much? Misandrist apologist!”

    Is that not sexualized talk? Does that imply that I “want” her? Is that “flirting?”

    No, but it’s a type of sexualized verbal abuse, isn’t it?

    Like

  5. Another: they are trying to control the boundaries of “what BDSM is” and what it isn’t. Someone on the thread actually pulled out statistics, based on people who had put ads in some BDSM paper.

    The “BDSM scene” – typically submissive men paying dominatrixes, or parties where people engage in these activities in public – well, that’s a highly self-selected group.

    As if the only people who engage in dominant and submissive behavior, sexual or not, are submissive men and public exhibitionists.

    Notice how they are trying to draw boundaries around these behaviors, and trying to claim the right to define what it “is” and what it “isn’t.”

    “No true BDSM.” All BDSM-people do this, therefore someone who does something different is not “true BDSM.”

    Logic is not these people’s strength.

    Like

  6. Allright, just checking.

    “So you have this girl who is all riled up talking dirty to a handsome looking guy, the sexual tension between the two is just plain obvious, it couldn’t be more obvious. She’s aroused, she now has a focus for her arousal, but it’s not nice and sweet, it’s not not flowers and romance, it’s raw, dirty, in the context of rape, force, violence and power.”

    “The manboobz tried to turn this around and claim that I was claiming that she “wanted him.” At least one of the commenters took this very seriously and complained that this is some sort of common behavior.”

    Anyway, yeah. I can see how some manboob would get what you were saying confused. It sure is subtle q:

    Like

    1. It’s not subtle at all, it’s plain as day. The idea that sexual tension between humans is more complex than “she wants him” is probably lost on the manboobz site, if the comments in that thread are anything to judge by.

      If your job is “mocking misogyny” you have to find it somewhere, so you can “mock” it.

      Like

  7. “She wanted his attention.”

    Yes. Provoke a reaction.

    Important factor in college feminism imo is i think theres a class correlation with onset of puberty. I think bluecollar people tend to have it earlier and whitecollar later so bluecollar go through peak insanity around age 15-17 and the more educated around 18-20 while they’re at college.

    Like

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