Guest Post: Saving Women From Themselves

by Frost on October 15, 2012

(This is a guest post from Matt Forney. Check his steez out here.)

I’ve commented in the past that I’m more or less ambivalent about women: I don’t love ‘em, I don’t hate ‘em. After a bit of soul-searching, I’ve realized that I do in fact love women as a group. Before you immediately write me off as a mangina, hear me out.

I love women because I want to save them from their bad decisions.

The religious right is frequently accused of being “hateful” because of their stance against homosexuality. By condemning gayness, according to the left, Christians are “persecuting” gays and being homophobic. But that’s not how the Christians see it.

Most peoples’ conception of love is this sort of nicey-nice, Sesame Street-type saccharinity in which you never say anything bad about the object of your affection and accept them for who they are. But is this really love? If your best friend is, say, an alcoholic or a heroin addict or a compulsive gambler or about to do something really stupid, you’re going to want to stop them. If you intervene to save your friend, you’re going to have to condemn their behavior, probably hurting their feelings and making them angry in the process. But you’re doing so with the aim of saving them from destroying themselves. If you just stand idly by and watch your friend drink himself into an early death or gamble himself into the gutter, are you really his friend?

If you truly love someone, you’re going to work to safeguard them from unnecessary pain and suffering, even if—especially if—they don’t see anything wrong with their behavior.

According to the religious right’s conception of Christianity, homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal damnation. From that perspective, Christians who preach against homosexuality and promote reparative therapy are doing it out of love, not hate, because they don’t want gays to burn forever in a lake of fire. You don’t have to agree with this viewpoint (I don’t) to understand the logic behind it.

The manosphere is frequently accused of being misogynistic because we mock fat girlsdisdain sluts and criticize the behavior of modern women. By this logic, feminists are pro-woman because they don’t judge women or criticize them for their mistakes. But scientific studies and common sense both show that women are generally happiest when they’re physically fit, chaste and focused on their families instead of their careers. Women who are virgins are exponentially less likely to divorce; women with BMIs in the normal range are more likely to have fulfilling relationships instead of being pumped and dumped; women who throw their lives into their jobs are less happy than those who become wives and mothers.

Basically, for women, the modern feminist consumerist lifestyle is a path to misery and loneliness.

In light of that knowledge, ask yourself this: who are the real misogynists? The ones who are guiding women back onto the path to happiness, or the ones encouraging them to destroy themselves through poor life choices?

The fact is if you defend and excuse away womens’ bad behavior, fully aware that they’re harming themselves, you don’t truly love them. If you want to avert someone from traveling down the path towards death and destitution, you’re going to have to get in their face and risk hurting their feeeelings. In that sense, not only do we in the manosphere love women, we perhaps love them more than any other men in the world.

The manosphere is a space for men, but it also doubles as a mass intervention for the female of the species. Stop crying about your hurt feeeeelings and listen up, ladies. You might learn something.

{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }

Man At Liberty February 24, 2013 at 10:43 pm

I feel sorry for my generation of women (Y). They’ve been sold a lie. Made to believe that a career will make them more happy than a strong husband and some kids. They’re in for a rude awakening.

Alex February 21, 2013 at 2:52 am

Matt Forney I’ve read a lot of your articles. You are quite simply a disgusting excuse for a human being and leading impressionable fools in to your way of thinking just makes the world such a worse place. You’re a disgusting woman-hating judgemental bastard and I hope you can realise what a terrible person you are before you hurt someone or get somebody raped.

anon December 30, 2012 at 4:38 pm

i wonder if the women posting in this blog were respoding with their brain or their emotions.
most likely their emotions and when you are led by your emotions you tend to say A LOT of stupid S#!T, no kidding.

now, it’s obvious that when there’s a lack of leadership you get disorder, and in this nation (US),
when “womens rights” were passed, women wanted to be leaders, and since women are led by their emotions….we’ll you get it.

lots of laws were passed to apease women who were offended ‘emotionally butt-hurt’ by something, not thinking of the consequences. By men who didn’t care about the consequenses so long as they kept their seat of power.

let’s look at the shooting in colorado.
20+ children & teachers were shot and killed.
most “liberated” womens and their male lapdogs reaction were
“oooh how horrible, ‘OUTLAW GUNZZ’, and kill all of dem at the NRA, cuz they support gunz”

most Conservative men and womens reaction “damn! what kind of monster would kill so many innocent people. We should place people with obvious mental problems on medication and put armed security at schools to protect our children”

as you can tell. wominz being minipulated by their emotions, jump the gun *so to speak* without thinking of the consequence. they blame the weapon instead of the crimminal and try and pass laws that will affect everyone not just the crimminals.

while most men keep their head cool and rational. they put the blame on the one responsible, ‘the shooter’, and they try to keep the law regarding guns because they know that we as a people still need a way to defend ourselves. we think “now wait a minute, haven’t we learned from our past, hitler took the guns of the citizens pre WWI, then nazi camps happened, then stalin and lennin, and they commited genocide there too, s#!t, we’ve got to protect our citizens rights,”

most men make of their decisions with their brain not their “~HEART~”
because they can be fooled or manipulated that way.
but if they don’t act on their emotions they are cold and heartless men *sarcasm*

Lexie Lord December 28, 2012 at 6:15 am

I asked my husband of 52 years to comment on this, because of the way it could be interpreted that I replied to an earlier post. His reply was “what a load of codswallop. Men who think like that are sick in the head and don’t really know their Saviour either”. He asked me could I delete all this crap, as he is computer illiterate and relies on me to do many things for him. He was angry that men would clump all women together and tar them with the same brush.

I’m out of here. Better things to do in life than to waste time on, and humanity wants and needs help. They’re the people I’ll spend time with, as Christ did.

Father Marker December 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm

Hey Lisa, is shaming the best argument you have. You’d better keep reading if you want to protect your own interests. You can go back and stick your head in the sand but the manosphere is going to bite you in the bum and it will hurt.

Lisa Johansen December 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm

You must be single, and no wonder. This is the biggest load of shit I have ever read.
I’ve just stopped reading your blog, permanently.

traummaschine November 11, 2012 at 3:15 am

I could never understand feminists. You want respect for being a woman while you work your ass off to be like a man? From this i can only understand that men are superior to women, that’s why you try to be like them, that’s why you demand your femininity like it is something inferior. Yeah, you’re doing it, not men.
So, what’s so wrong about a woman being a woman? As far as i know men always had to work and and fight, to sweat, to die in battle, while women were protected. Well, i dunno about you, but i’d rather stay in a cosy warm place, in safety and not having to do much.
Also, you argue that women were considered inferior, unimportant or worthless? I must say you’re either stupid or massively brain washed. Women have always been protected, well, do you protect something that’s worthless or inferior? No, you don’t. Since the beginning of time, women were seen as more important to the specie and so they needed more protection. Men, on the other hand, are disposable. As one man is enough to impregnate, say, 1000 women, while a woman can only be impregnated once a year and for aprox. 20-25years until she is unable to produce any more children, then you can see how women are biologically more important. That’s why men had to come up with a different role in society, so they would gain their own importance, and that’s how they began taking care of women and social problems, so women wouldn’t be bothered.
In cases of emergency, like a fire, a bomb, any sort of attack, etc it’s always, ALWAYS, women and children first to be evacuated/saved.
Mhm, the traditional society treats women so badly, yeah. Boo-hoo-hoo. Oh yeah, you better stand up for yourself gurl! Go be a slave in a corporation and work 12 hours a day for 20 years, have random sex and have no time for real relationships or children. If you have children, have them raised by a nanny and when the kid says “mom, i wanna play with you” just go and buy him the newest videogame or stupid toy. Struggle alone, pay for your meal when having a date, open your own door, anything just to show that you’re no slave to those disgusting pigs that men are. Go on, be empowered! I think you’re doing a great favor to men all over the world, as they sex easier than saying “Condom”. You’ve got the power!
Signed: a girl.

Jennifer T November 10, 2012 at 6:43 pm

This fits nicely with my thesis that the so-called “war on women” is actually a fem on fem war. As an example, worldwide there are 165M missing baby girls due to abortion on demand. Questions:

1. Where are the American feminists on this issue? **crickets**
2. Who are the people who choose to abort their girls? The mothers.

So yea I get what you’re saying.

Bradley October 19, 2012 at 9:02 pm


as has been noted above, Matt’s primary and only consern appears to be female sexuality and mating habits. He is focused on getting sex, not fighting evil and preventing violence against men. The article isn’t about helping women or helping men. It’s about helping the little Matt in big Matt’s pants. That’s all.

ScareCrow October 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm

The only thing I care about, is how much a woman “hates” men.

Jessica Valenti and Andrea Marcotte are neither fat – nor do they dress like sluts.

The panel of hostesses of “The Talk” are not fat.

Lorena Bobbit was not fat.

Seriously, how is what you describe going to get women to “stop hating” men?

Vachette October 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm

…Did you seriously just use Yahoo Answers to try and back up your claims?

asdf October 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm

My last relationship was with a girl that had three kids and a provider beta and lied about it for months while I was fucking her constantly in the most depraved ways. When I found out I told her to fucking go back to the guy and raise her children right and that what she was doing was disgusting. You’d think between that and treating her like a pimp she would have left, but remember THE TINGLE IS EVERYTHING. She would destroy everything and everyone in her life for a tingle. That is the nature of women.

I think a better question then whether women need to be saved (obviously) is whether they deserve it.

Tornadino October 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm

What’s in it for you, Matt? You are very unlikely to ever win a young woman’s trust, love or respect. Suppose the majority of them would decide to slim down, pick family over career and marry instead of slutting around, what would that change for you? A bunch of young girls would be competing over Mr. Rights- able providers, men with genes they want for their sons, good forever compagnions, potential caring fathers and husbands, men on whom to stake their lives. Wouldn’t your mating prospects be even worse in that scenario?
Of course, a bunch of teaching, nursing, HR and glorified secretarial work would open up in a few years. Only, the extra nursing jobs would be filled with immigrants on visas just like it’s done right now and half of the secretarial work would disappear via electronic outsourcing. Are you hoping for a chanse to teach violent inner city kids how to read? You could probably get a useless master’s and do that now.

Matt Forney October 17, 2012 at 11:17 pm

Per usual, another hater cunt projects his failures onto me. I notice how you didn’t even bother addressing the article’s content.

Hint: truth is truth, no matter who speaks it.

Tornadino October 18, 2012 at 5:59 pm

Truth is truth no matter who speaks it, but some people, due to lack of experience, are more likely to confuse truth with a fairy tale repeated on PUA blogs.

Some people don’t want to be in a relationship, but sinse human beings are social creatures, the vast majority of us do. We spend our lives looking to connect, and those of us who reach a certain age without having made this connection tend to be a lot less happy than thoise who managed it. That’s true. However, ending up alone isn’t a choise that people make in their 20s. Both men and women usually aquire their numbers of sexual partners while they are looking for that one connection. Those women who are wives and mothers and thus happiuer than the single and childless didn’t make a decision to snap their fingers and get married. And the single ones didn’t decide to not snap their fingers to make a suitable husband appear magically. It’s just that some people find what they are looking for and some don’t. People who find what they are looking for tend to be happier than those who don’t. Duh. Marriage in and of itself doesn’t make a woman happier. Being married to the right guy does. Setlttling for something one doesn’t really want isn’t a good strategy for a fulfilling life. Consider this: 1. It’s well knoiwn that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. 2. Median age of women at first divorce is just over 30. Average age of women at second divorse is around 40. Almost 2/3 of all marriages end in divorce, and yet only just 10% has “divorced” as their civil status because most of the divorcees manage to remarry. Nearly all heterosexual people are married or had been married at some point by the age of 55. So if only 10% overall is currently “divorced” and almost no one is “single” by their fifties, that means that the rest are either “married” or “widowed”. Here is a webcite with some stats, but you can google a bunch of others that state pretty consistent numbers:

So, you see, the whole story about the majority of women in thneir 20s riding the cock theme ride and then settling for a man they don’t want contradicts logic, facts and casual observation. The notion that nobody wants women after they are 30 or 40 also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and factual examination. On average, men are just about 3-4 years older than their spouses. The number of never married men is only slightly higher than the number of the never married women and it becomes much closer with age. It probably means that men simply settle down a bit later. So, you see, the myth that 80% of the women only sleep with 20% of the men is also just a myth.

You also seem to think that people who are dedicated to their families and love their children can’t also have careers and other accomplishments. Or maybe you don’t consider women to be people. But the statistics show that white women with a bachelor’s degree are the least likely to get divorced among the womenfolk. The types of people who plan for the future and have the ability to complete a long term project are also more successful in marriage. Who wouldda thunk? In fact, there are numerous sources, studies and articles that show failed marriages, abortions and out of wedlock kids to be very much a class issue- that is that all these issues are a lot less common among the educated women, especially white educated women and even more so among the Asian educated women. Here is one post with a chart and a source, but, really, if you google it a bunch of things pop up aright away:

Truth is that, again, young women don’t make a decision to become careerist sluts or virginal home makers. Life doesn’t work that way. Functional people look for a way to earn a living and support themselves while looking for a love partner. Sometimes they find themselves successful in only one of these endeavors. And while any job is better than none as far as feeding oneself and staying alive goes, no relationship is better than a bad one as far as happiness is concerned. Also, many young married mothers wish to stay home with the baby, but they can’t afford it. Life is about making compromises you can live with and doing the best you can. Having a successful career doesn’t mean that the family doesn’t come first. You know the old earning disparity between men and women is caused by women being more likely to leave work early in order to pick up the child on time, or to stay home with a sick child or be away on maternity leave, right? I’ll dig up a study iuf yiu want, but you probably already seen it.

Look… if you are frustrated because you are looking for a suitable wife and mother for your kids and all you seem to come across are rude skanky sluts that the PUA like to talk about, you must be hanging out in wrong places. Seriously. Most young women don’t even frequent bars and most don’t sleep around. The average lifetime number of sexual partners for women is reported to be 4. In my experience, after attending a huge flagship party school at that, I’d say that’s about correct. There were plenty of skanks at bars and frat parties, but even more girls never went to either bars or frat parties. I find that people who see low class behavior all around them are either low class themselves or they are stuck in that environment for some reason. The bigger picture doesn’t resamble Jersey Shore, a rave or a sorrority party.

Repeating fairy tales made up by the more bitter parts of the manosphere over and over again doesn’t make them true, and supporting them with bad science (do any of thise guys actually know what the terms “alpha”, “beta” or evolutionary psychology actually mean? Most of those obsessed with these concepts seem to have neither a solid scientific background nor a solid understanding of basic statistics) doesn’t make them true. Echo chambers rarely lead one to truth.

Matt Forney October 19, 2012 at 12:31 am

There were plenty of skanks at bars and frat parties, but even more girls never went to either bars or frat parties.

That’s it. You’re an irredeemable moron, and probably a virgin, if you actually believe this. The fact that you could actually believe a claim like this, let alone repeat it, implies that you barely even leave the house. Nothing you say is worth taking seriously.

Everyone goes to bars, except the exceptionally religious or the militant teetotalers. In most small towns, the bar is the only place where neighbors can hang out. The “bar skank” is a myth invented by nerds to justify their failure to get laid. I’m living in a town with a lot of believing Christians, and those same girls who go to church on Sunday mornings are at the dives the night before.

Who should I believe: you, or my own eyes?

And you have the temerity to claim I “lack experience” with women? GTFO.

GentlemanSlut October 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm

And, dare I say it, the thrust of Matts article is probably open for a decent debate. Love as acceptance vs. Love as nurture. Looking at psychological research into the differing natures of love, love as a concept is quite multifacted. Also, with every single one of my female friends and relatives having entered into relationships not because of who the other person IS, but who they COULD BE (girls love a project), is Matts concept of love as written here any different?

Ah well, rather than a debate, let’s have a Circle Of Judgement. That’s fun as well…

Tornadino October 17, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Well, that depends… Women who take a man on as a project banking on what he COULD be are either:

1. Trying to inspire and push him to be the best, most successful and most fulfilled man he can be. In that case, it’s love.


2. Trying to turn him into someone a lot more suitable for filling all their needs. In that case, it’s not love.

Having taken a look at Matt’s blog, specifically at the list of requirements and conditional clauses he has for a potential partner in long term relationship, Matt isn’t looking to nurture a woman or lead her towards fulfillment. He is looking for a tool for meeting his many needs. It’s hard to imagine how Matt’s girlfriend would be any less lonely than a spinster cat lady.

GentlemanSlut October 17, 2012 at 6:38 pm

I looked for said list on matts blog, couldn’t find, gave up.

Whilst I don’t want to defend anything along those lines, I would say this is a behaviour I see in both men and women – a listing of arbitrary criteria which gets thrown out of the window as soon as someone you have a spark with comes along. Truth be told, I see it slightly more in women (“he’s GOT to be six foot, be outdoorsy, work with his hands, must be liberal, own his own home”)

Said lists are also used by both genders as a defence mechanism – think of the friend with impossibly high standards.

Not having seen Matts list, I can’t really comment on it though…

Tornadino October 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm

Here you go- what Matt is looking for in a girlfriend. Funny enough, when a commenter asked what the young lady would get in return for doing and being so much, Matt answered, “love”. If you read the post, you’ll know exactly why it’s impossible to imagine the writer of that post is capable of loving the object he describes.

Yes, both men and women do this. Members of both sexes often project their failures onto the opposite sex. Both men and women are liable to use such false bravado as a defense mechanism against major feelings of insecurity and understanding that they don’t have any options, let alone those that they list as their wants. And there are members of both genders who are nothing but entitled users. I’m merely pointing out that Matt seems to be one such a person.

Matt Forney October 17, 2012 at 11:12 pm

That article was tongue-in-cheek, you Aspie retard.

Jim November 18, 2012 at 1:34 pm

To Matt below, if he is an aspie retard, then isn’t he part of the great and powerful neandrathal thal bloodline and should rightfully be our masters?

GentlemanSlut October 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm


I disagree with a lot of what Matt writes. It’s not for me. Yet the criticism of his ideas here is some really petty, illogical, hysteria-driven shit.

OTOH, my first thought when discussing divorce rates of virgins is:

More virgins in societies where divorce is frowned on, ergo less divorce

Virgins have no other frames of reference regarding what being in a committed r’ship can be apart from their marriage – they have no basis for comparison, so are more likely to ‘stick with it’

Virgin = more likely religious = more likely not to divorce.

Etc, etc. It’s not a very rigorous argument. Yet rather than debate points like these, it turns into some highschool shitfight.

If you find Matt repulsive, fine. But don’t use his repulsiveness as an excuse not to debate his points.

I’m happy to read his stuff, even though I don’t see eye-to-eye with it.

Practical Junk – I am unaware of Matt ‘bullying’ any girl from Indiana. Can you provide a link?

Just sayin October 17, 2012 at 11:04 am

Matt, the problem is, like with any addict, you cannot help someone until they reach rock bottom and by then it’s usually too late. So whatever you are attempting is doomed from the beginning. Recognizing this, the best course of action is to get in on the action and encourage women to hit rock-bottom sooner, enjoying every second of the things they wake up regretting.

So pump and dump them, enjoying every second of it. Anything else is just a waste of your time. Besides, the “pay-off” is pretty quick – the only problem is getting rid of them when you’re done. :)

Tornadino October 17, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Well, that seems to be Matt’s problem. He isn’t enjoying an average share of the spoils. The frustration felt in this article mirrors that of a future cat lady who wants men to “grow up” and “man up”. The desperation of those being left out in the cold.

Bill October 17, 2012 at 9:36 am

Matt seems to be a pretty damaged guy. I hadn’t heard of him before but this post and the current posting at his site tells me everything I need to know. He is the perfect feminist strawman for people trying to embarrass the manosphere.

Apollo October 17, 2012 at 6:48 am

Interesting perspective. This won’t be overly effective in convincing women that the Manosphere is really looking after their best interests – they will bristle at the Schopenhauer esque suggestion that they are basically like children who need to be properly led by much wiser men in order for them to make good life decisions. Also glossing over the considerable self interest that men have in promoting patriarchy will also come off as a little disingenuous. I’m guessing that building bridges with the wimminz wasn’t really the point here though, was it?

practical junk October 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm

Cupcake, I love your blog, your video and your articles.
You are my equivalent of a circus freak show. I used to follow a 40+ woman who defeated 3 weightloss surgeries with compulsive overeating while whining about it all being other people’s fault and making plans to become red carper famous and someone’s trophy wife. Her entitled delusional rants coupled with posts about men turning her down and begging parents for money were awesome. But then she turned 50 and stopped being so awesomely funny. Started talking about accepting things for what they are and taking care of elderly parents. Meh. Booooooring. Oh, but now I got you, Mattie! You are my new morbidly obese bearded lady with butchered insides who hopes to marry a prince charming and to become rich and famous. Never change! You have so many fans, and I’m your biggest one! XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
Oh internet! Just when i think you are out of daaahling freaks to put on your altar of lulz, there comes another one! Mattie! You are like a sea creature that has a fetish for human women. Oh the agony! oh the loneliness! Oh the deep down knowledge that you’ll never ever actually touch a live human with that aching pimple between your hammy legs unless you pay a crack whore! What makes this delicious is the hope that maybe, oh maybe, there is one chanse in hell… Because you’re working on it, aren’t you, my ham muffin? Nobody has the right to judge you for who you are because you’re WORKING ON becoming something better… by blogging and, eh, other stuff. The triple gut bypass lady also worked on becoming healthy, building a writing career and finding love by blogging. Instead of all that she found Jesus. Don’t you dare go the Jesus rout, matt! Jesus ain’t funny. Instead, do your fanbase a favor and videotape yourself trying to approach a chick, any chick. I’ll send you $10 for each video of you attempting to let a girl know you’re interested. In fact, a bunch of us here will. That’s your new career, Mattie! Twenty bucks if you attempt to explain your list of requirements to any woman under 50 years old and under 300 pounds. Also, she can’t be oficially diagnosed as retarded and can’t have vissible burns on more than 50% of her body. Deal?

Hugh G. Rection October 16, 2012 at 6:27 pm

Here is what I find interesting to see. Whenever one member of a definable group criticizes a member of another distinct definable group, the debate goes completely off board because the involved just discuss about how either side ought to fix their defects first. The converse of this is the attitude that you don’t need to improve yourself if others don’t do so.

How is this helpful? It’s just a race to the bottom. Matt, I think, is making an effort to improve. He has changed the things about his live that he deemed to be insufficient.

I see it all the time. Blaming others for your faults, from a position of consensus, is easier than overcoming them.

practical junk October 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Oh, come on, now.

Matt didn’t critisize a specific member of a group. He critisized the whole group which is lulzy because many things he is trying to save that group from don’t apply to the majority of that group. But they apply to Matt himself! That’s why he’s so fun to read always!

Also, Mattie boy changed only a couple of things about himself and he is far, far away from goal still. But he uses those couple of positive steps as some sort of an entitlement shield from critisizm while attacking random people on his blog. Nothing better than a fat guy (who’s working on it, I know, I know, lol) bagging on fat chicks. Also, a bald guy making fun of a girl with half of her head shaved. Oooh, ooh, and a guy with his face calling people facially ugly. He helped bully some girl from Indianna with an ugly face and huge tits and then whined about haters.

In short, Matt’s the best! I can’t wait for him to get to Portland and start telling people that he’s a writer/musician. His fantasies about becoming a singer or a writer (or possibly an underwear model and a racecar driver?) are as hilarious as his fantasies about ever getting to sleep with a young, pretty women without shelling out much mullah. :)

Hey Matt! you should stand outside with a sign about going on strike as potential husband, lover, writer and rock star. People will be devastated! Girls will totally change and become what you want them to be just to get a shot with you. Seriously, do it!!!

The Private Man October 16, 2012 at 11:48 am

Point of clarification regarding white knighting – a white knight rushes in AFTER her behavior caused a negative consequence. Red Pill guys want to stop her stupid behavior BEFORE the negative consequences. The only way to stop it is by telling some uncomfortable and politically incorrect truths.

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 10:40 am


Judging from all the butthurt feminists, it looks like I touched a nerve. Reality sucks, doesn’t it? Don’t forget your Midol!

HighJump October 16, 2012 at 3:31 am


So, an obese virgin who’s only employable as unskilled labor presumes he knows how 50% of the population should lead their lives? You know that over half of the women are not obese, more than half are married and millions were able to find fulfilling employment, with hundreds of thousands in STEM related fields, right? And the tens of millions whose employment isn’t particularly fulfilling are still working instead of leeching, as you have done until recently.

Next thing ya know a vegetarian is gonna come tell us how to fry up a good steak and a nun is gonna teach a class on the art of blow jobs.

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 11:02 am

My, you don’t sound upset or bitter at all. Feel free to spread lies about me if it helps you forget what a failure you’ve been in life.

Shaenon October 18, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Why the hurt reaction, Matt? I see only words of love here. This sensitive soul wishes simply to save you from yourself and your own harmful choices. That’s what real love is all about, isn’t it?

Don’t you want to be helped? Don’t you want to be loved, truly loved, my darling?

Also, lose some weight, ugly, and get a real job.

A Loving Carer

G Morrow October 16, 2012 at 2:45 am

If I said you’re an ignorant schmuck, would you hold it against me, because I don’t hate you, I only want you to be a better person?

But yeah, this is so unbelievably insulting and condescending toward women you have to be coming at it from either never having known or spoken to a women your entire life, or are just an awful person.

Have a good day.
G Morrow

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 11:30 am

Butt status: hurt!

Lexie October 15, 2012 at 9:53 pm

A couple of things, Matt.

1. Healthy adults are responsible for themselves. If one group presumes to take it upon itself to save another group from itself, that first group better have its shit together to near perfection. Otherwise, it’s better to allow people to create their own misery rather than take a large risk of creating misery for them. You seem like a nice young man, Matt, but you still have a lot to figure out in order to make yourself happy and settled in this world. You still haven’t achieved a successful career, financial independence, a fulfilling relationship or a healthy body. What makes you think that you know how to help others achieve those things? Your wisdom is theoretical, and it always seems like other people’s lives would be easier to manage than your own. And, btw, interventions are not about telling the wayward family member/friend what he or she should do, but about letting that person know what his/her loved ones are going to do. And they often involve an expert. Additionally, it’s the loved ones, people close and well known to the afflicted, who stage interventions. On the other hand, your relationship with women seems to be mostly one sided and, again, theoretical- like that of a music fan. You obsess over them while they don’t even know you. As a long time fanboy, it might seem as though you know everything about the object of your interest, but is it really your place to dictate to people with whom you are not intimately familiar?

If anything, women need less help of the “saving from self” variety, not more. If it were up to me, I’d end affirmative action, disparate impact law suits and long term alimony. I’d also require all women on public assistance to be on birth control. All healthy human beings have the right to succeed on their own merit and the responsibility to be held accountable for their own failures. I don’t appreciate limits being put on my personal and professional fulfillment, just so some dumbasses could be saved from passing out drunk near the highway. Such limitations would be neither noble nor fair.

2. I’m not certain that your wish to “save women from themselves” stems from pure charitable heart, and not from selfish motives. It seems to me that you are frustrated with modern women and our culture in general due to your poor luck in finding love, especially finding love on your own terms. It’s normal to long for a mate, and wishing that the world would change to accomodate you is common. But life doesn’t work that way, and it’s we that must change to accomodate the world if we want something of that world badly enough. Have you considered that chips fall where they do for a reason and patterns in human behavior are responses to tangible forces? For example, you say that women tend to be happier in good relationships than in good careers. Have you considered that the women who choose careers haven’t had the option of the kind of a relationship that would make them happy? That settling for a different type of a relationship would grant them even less fulfillment than their careers? Also, did you know that men who marry as virgins are also less likely to divorse? I’d suggest that this is a bad way to judge personal happiness sinse a lot of those virgin boys and girls come either from very oppressively traditional cultural environments that forbid both premarital sex and divorse. I’d also suggest that many of the people who marry as virgins without religion/culture being a factor have major flaws that make them generally unattractive to the opposite sex, so they marry the first person who’ll have them and hold on for dear life. In both cases, marital success would come from a lack of options, not happiness. In South Korea, the majority of married couples live as roommates, with no intimacy involved, but the divorse rates are low. To me, that’s not success.
As far as the fat, lazzy and the pathetic, I think they are well aware of the harm they are doing to themselves and their marital/career prospects. The fact is that, most of the time they can’t help themselves, and you can’t help them either.
So, to incrfease your own chanses of getting a fulfilling career and a woman who could make you happy, don’t attempt to change the world. You will fail because the world is too complex for you to even begin to understand it. Things aren’t as simple as they sem and other people’s motivations aren’t what you think they should be. The only things that you could do is change yourself to become more appealing to the right sort of an employer and the right sort of a woman. Unless you are one of those people who simply can’t help themselves. In that case, all there’s left to do is to rationalize your own lack of control over yourself by placing blame on other people and proclaining your negatives to be positives. Usually, that involves joining a group and raging against some other group. I sincerely hope that you have enough strength and agency to avoid this sorry fate. It only makes people feel better for a second at a time.

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 11:28 am

Lexie, you’re a passive-aggressive anklebiter who is trying to insult me under the guise of an honest debate, but I’ll humor you.

If one group presumes to take it upon itself to save another group from itself, that first group better have its shit together to near perfection.

I was making a philosophical point with this post. I don’t care about “saving” women as a group. Like most morons, you confuse description with prescription.

You still haven’t achieved a successful career, financial independence, a fulfilling relationship or a healthy body.

You don’t know me in real life, so you have zero basis on which to claim this (hint: I blog only a tiny percentage of what I’m doing). You’re not entitled to have an opinion if you don’t know anything about the subject at hand.

On the other hand, your relationship with women seems to be mostly one sided and, again, theoretical- like that of a music fan.

Again, you have no basis on which to claim this; you’re just throwing it out there because it makes you feel better about my arguments, which have clearly cut you deep.

Also, did you know that men who marry as virgins are also less likely to divorse?

This and your bit about careers isn’t grounded in any kind of factual basis, your hamster is just trying to rationalize away the truth. I provided scientific studies to back up my claims. Either do the same for yours or shut up.

The only things that you could do is change yourself to become more appealing to the right sort of an employer and the right sort of a woman.

This is the prime evidence that you’re arguing in bad faith; namely, you bring up that I’m unhappy with my station in life, yet you don’t bring up that I started blogging specifically to chronicle my climb out of the hole I dug myself into, even when I explicitly stated it in the intro to my website. I’ve spent the past year “chang[ing] myself”; it’s the primary reason I’m here right now. I never claimed to be perfect.

You’re not interested in debating honestly or exploring ideas, you just want to assuage your wounded ego.

Dave Whitlock October 15, 2012 at 9:01 pm

If the “help” and “advice” wasn’t so self-serving, and wasn’t based on deep and visceral hatred of the objects of their hatred, there might be some beneficence to it.

The “advice” isn’t based on love, it is based on hate. The Religious Right doesn’t love gay people, they hate gay people. If they loved gay people they wouldn’t spread false lies about gays, that gay men are pedophiles.

People who are bigots are incapable of understanding the objects of their bigotry from their perspective. Homophobes are incapable of imagining gay people are human beings, so homophobes are incapable of imagining that gay people have the capacity to love or to be loved. That is why homophobes feel it is a bad idea to allow gay people to be parents because they can’t imagine that a gay person could love their child, or that a child could love a gay parent. This lack of understanding of gay people by homophobes is typical of the inability of any bigot to understand the objects of their bigotry.

If bigots could understand, then they would understand that the object of their bigotry is a human being and the fantasy they use to justify their feelings of hatred would be understood to be a fantasy.

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 10:53 am

Pure projection. The fact that you use insults like “bigot” and “homophobe” shows that you’re the one who can’t view Christians/conservatives as human beings. You use those words and others like “racist” and “misogynist” to psychologically out-group your opponents and avoid thinking about the issues. “Bigotry’s bad, mmmkay? Homophobia’s bad, mmmkay?”

Martin Shineberg October 18, 2012 at 10:37 pm

but gay men are paedophiles. over 95% of them.

Red Kate October 15, 2012 at 8:33 pm

Maybe I don’t want help? Maybe the men who don’t know me personally and keep trying to ‘help’ me are actually doing me a disservice? Maybe I’m a woman who has a brain and common sense and feels completely patronized by any ‘help’ she might be offered by men? Maybe I’m a woman is doing the best she can with the circumstances given her, and the ‘help’ from men actually makes her self-esteem crumble a bit? Perhaps I’m a woman who has done very well for herself for the last 39 years *all by herself*?

And why is it that it’s okay for men to ‘help’ women, but it’s absolutely silly for women to ‘help’ men?

Hugh G. Rection October 16, 2012 at 7:09 am

If your self-esteem crumbles with every bit of criticism, you don’t actually have self-esteem.

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 10:43 am

Your pissy reaction to this post shows that you’re lying when you say you’ve “done very well” for yourself. If you were, the opinion of some stranger on the Internet wouldn’t bother you. Not that it matters, because if you’re pushing 40, you’re already past the point of no return.

korezaan October 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm

There is a nonzero possibility, yes, “Maybe”. You give no convincing reason that this is true, though. So what are we supposed to do? Just give you the benefit of the doubt, because doubt can always exist?

Do you not understand why *generalizations* are used, or something? Do you really think that all *hypotheses* and *understandings* of the world are out to get you because you’re… whatever kind of special? Do statements and observations of biology and physics no longer hold any truth value because someone is “offended”?

This kind of exceptionalism is not special to you. Just look at all the other comments and people who call out Matt Forney & Co. “mysoginists”. THAT’s the reason these kinds of posts are made.

MAYBE just because you think something, reality doesn’t have to follow through?

dejour October 17, 2012 at 8:33 pm

“but it’s absolutely silly for women to ‘help’ men”

Um, no it’s not silly for women to help men. As long as it is genuine help, men will appreciate it.

Bill October 15, 2012 at 11:50 am

Dangerous mangina nonsense. It is this same subrational impulse to help women that has created a society where resources are squandered to preserve the illusion of female equality. Your post is inherently self-contradicting since you rely on women exercising their own judgment to arrive at the conclusion that they should be fit and family-focused while the rest of your post makes clear that they generally lack the intellectual capacity for such judgment. In fact, the society you describe could only exist if it were patriarchical and authority was placed primarily in the hands of those with superior judgment (i.e. men). And it would come about not because limp-wristed manginas wanted to “help” women but because men recognized women’s limitations and organized society in a way that maximized productivity and stability and limited the extent to which women were parasitic and disruptive.

Dirt Man October 15, 2012 at 1:44 pm

It seems to me that what Matt suggesting is patriarchy. He’s just saying it in a nice way. I have no problems with that.

Bill October 16, 2012 at 10:15 am

I don’t disagree. I’m all for patriarchy. I just think you need to look at women as burdensome, inferior creatures whose sole justification is reproduction and organize society accordingly. This is the premise around which Western societies were traditionally organized. If you take Matt’s approach and argue that it is men’s responsibility to help women reach their full potential, you end up with the white knight society we have now where women are coddled, given affirmative action, allowed to vote and hold positions of responsibility, given favorable treatment by courts, etc.

Red Kate October 15, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Thank you, Bill. Well said. Very well said.

Bill October 16, 2012 at 11:45 am

Glad a woman agrees. Please do your part to promote patriarchy.

Matt Forney October 16, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Given that neither of you actually seem to have read each others’ posts, I can only conclude that you are incredible dumbasses.

Bill October 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm

I was being sarcastic, slick. Should have been obvious.

Dirt Man October 15, 2012 at 11:34 am

Well said Matt, well said. Much wisdom here.

endwatcher October 15, 2012 at 8:58 am

1 Corinthians 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Charity is another word for love. I decided to look up kind as that came to mind for this post. In Strong’s concordance it is to treat someone as one’s own family. So there you go. Would you allow one of your own family members to do something wrong without trying to correct them?

Under charity it states that love can only be known by the actions it prompts one to take. Do we allow others to walk off a bridge or do we by any means possible try to stop them? Most people are under the spell of their own desires, and see them as good, so those who try to stop them are demonized.

My only beef with the manosphere is do they criticize with the intent of charitable correction, or do they seek to justify doing their own bad behavior by pointing out the errors of women?

Jacob Ian Stalk October 15, 2012 at 8:02 am

This is the first wise post I’ve seen Forney write. A man wrote this.

{ 11 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: