June 2, 2022
I'm going to just leave this here.
Listen well, you people: The Good Men are gone because you don't want them. The Good Men are gone because there's nothing in it for them to be Good.
You don't want Good Men to act. If he acts, he'll probably get injured or killed. Then he'll get arrested for confronting and stopping a nonlethal attack like the hair-pulling crazy fuck on the NYC subway. He's got a job, a mortgage, a wife and a family. He's not putting his ass on the line for some slut who wouldn't otherwise give him the motherfucking time of day.
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to get my ass shot dead just because some woman who I don't know is being brutalized. Women are strong and independent. Let them handle it. The last thing I need is being called "toxic" because I tried to help.
Nice guys finish last. Under the wrong circumstances, they also can end up dead.
Ladies, you told us Good Men we were toxic and you don't want us. Fine. Do it yourselves then. Go all Scarlett Johanson/Black Widow on them. If she can do it, you can too, right? Why do you "strong independent" women need men to step in? Why can't you do it yourselves?
My brother u/lurkerhasarisen put it this way:
young men have seen as older men tried to be half-in and half-out: being expected to switch between bearing the burdens of both egalitarianism and chivalry with none of the benefits of either. Women rejected the constraints of traditionalism, and men are rejecting the double standard that replaced it. The egalitarian law of the jungle it is, then. Feminist? Anti-feminist? There's no way to tell them apart, so now all women get to fight their own battles.
Men now are not going to be half in half out. Men are all the way out - we're all "egalitarian" now. I'll respectfully point out to women that you wanted it this way - you wanted men to leave you alone and never approach you, never talk to you, never acknowledge your presence in public. You have that now. You cannot now come to us and demand that we help you when The Real World (that you yourselves created) encroaches on you.
Have fun, ladies. I'll be protecting me and mine. If you aren't banging me, related to me, or paying me, you're on your own.
deeplydisturbed FDS Dinner Donor 2y ago
A few thoughts here:
Incredible work as usual. Don't stop!
I am here (https://www.forums.red/p/whereallthegoodmenare/275872/men_are_tired_of_helping_ungrateful_women_and_getting_abused) trying to upvote comments and cannot. FFS.
Men will always White knight. It is in our instincts. And it takes experiences like these to wake us up. (AKA. Men don't red pill men, women do)
You say "I personally am tired of helping women at work or out in public and then not getting even so much as a "thanks" in return.
You say "I personally am tired of women thinking they can summon me at their option to move this, lift that, carry this, fix that, or solve the other problem, merely because.."
But again, there are still way to many men who will die for said Damsel in distress.
Well done brother. Well done.
houseoftolstoy Unchivalrous Christian 2y ago
I would argue that all women do want good men, but not in the same way across the board. That is, all women enjoy the benefits that good men provide, but many are absolutely unwilling to provide anything in return for this treatment. They indeed feel entitled to good treatment just because they are women. So when they see men refusing to act, they get confused and afraid.
"You were supposed to protect me! It's your duty as a man!" These women do not contemplate that men would refuse to act. After all, they get all sorts of benefits given to them simply for being women, be it free meals from men sexually interested in them or the government giving them free benefits and preferential laws. So why should that not extend to every situation? The reason it does not is that it turns out nothing is really free. There is always a cost somewhere. In this case, the cost of stripping men any benefits for being the protectors and providers of women is men choosing to stop services. Would it surprise you if the plumber stopped showing up to fix your sink and pipes if you refused to pay him the last 3 times he did his job?
They want the good men to give them the benefits without any expectations in return. You could easily argue that this means that they do not really want these men, and you would be right.
whytehorse2021 Jr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
Kevin Samuels posited this on one of his shows. When men remove protection from women... I guess this is the latest development in this big human experiment.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
Apart from the minor complaint that this should have been redirected to Watgma, this is a well written and timely piece. Women can either be adults or children. Not both.
aldabruzzo No busted Pillsbury biscuit cans 2y ago
Fair enough. I have put an identical post at WATGMA and can delete this one.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
No need to. I've already shared it to Reddit. You can let it stand. Please post articles to Watgma from now. The links will be shared to Reddit and comments will be locked there. We'll use WAATGM for profiles and Watgma for posts.
kevin32 Ambassador for NiceGuys™ 2y ago
Heads up @moorekom, I will be posting both articles to the sub for greater exposure so others can see how the marginalization of men impacts the community when danger arises.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
Agreed. The New York post one is well written and is a must share.
inevitableowl1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
Great points
The points on women wanting to be left alone, never spoken to, never approached etc - women naturally only meant for that to apply to “males” or “male humans” (the minimum 80% who are utterly invisible to them).
They never meant for this to apply to “Men” (you know the “real” kind). The only exception being if they need saving - then they’d take all the help they can get.But probably not 5’1” Ana Kasparian when they are a middle aged Asian lady and their attacker is a 6’3” homeless black man (she actually claimed she would have stepped in had she been there)
“Unfortunately” for women the English language is what it is. So they are forced to use the word “men” when they only mean the 80% of males they consider sub human and beneath their consideration.
It’s very loosely like the unfortunate quirk of the language where a vital macronutrient shares a word with an unattractive body type / feature (fat). Eating fat doesn’t necessarily make you become fat but the language would make you think otherwise. We don’t have the words
When angry women speak about men and boys they are speaking in a code that most men and many women simply do not understand. We don’t really have the words that allow them to safely group the men they want ti refer to / exclude. (Although they might not use them even if they existed due to risk of losing validation sources)
I’ve meandered a bit but I didn’t want to just do a platitude response
Also - the second link doesn’t link to full article (or doesn’t seem to)
Mundane_Worldliness7 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
It’s fascinating that “man” varies in its definition. In a bar, club or at work, a man is guy in the top 20 percent. On the street, when a girl is being harassed, everyone human with XY Chromosomes from age 8 to 98 is man. As it concerns intervening, no good dead goes unpunished. On the subreddit, a guy wrote how he intervened to save a women being harassed on a bus only to have her tell the authorities he started (the harasser was her Boyfriend). The world is twisted.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 2y ago
Regarding men/boys. Consider that "boys" should enjoy protection and empathy in a civilized culture so when women brutally shame a man as a "boy", she's dehumanizing him. He's not in a role where she should, while rejecting him for a relationship, nonetheless feel empathy for him. For example: When an old woman hit on me, I said I wasn't interested because she was too old but I respected her as an elder.
The "boy" code therefore is to insult a man as a slacker, as someone who hasn't lived up to her demands of full adult masculinity including he may be physically disabled (such as short) or because she undermined it with her own masculinity (she "priced" herself out of the market because affirmative action made her more successful so there are fewer "men" who earn more than her.)
They use this shaming language without realizing that it reveals their own anti-male attitudes (granted, society is full of them) but still: if men are treated with such contempt by women in general and society, why should he stick his neck out for it?
In addition, the line that women often give to men is they don't "owe us anything" including basic courtesy and respect. if you hit on the "wrong" woman, she can be rude and hostile. They wanted a libertine, every-woman-for-herself society combined with identity politics and now they've gotten it.
inevitableowl1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
I hadn’t thought about that he point about boys = children and the term should therefore be used with a context of empathy
Another case of there not being the words in the language. Or them deliberately not wanting to come out and say “these hot, rich guys who won’t commit to us”. Because that gives away too much
I guess part of my ramble before was about their not being the words but also that allowing women to disguise what they are really trying to say. In some cases it might helps (boys who think they are men might elicit a “that’s not me” response). But in others such as when men in general are criticised it backfires like in this case
Thinking about it there is a term at least with regards to this boy discussion. By adding “F” or “Fuck” in front. Not really mainstream friendly though. But, that said, that applies to the “hot, successful guy who won’t commit” type. The “hot guy who won’t grow up” is something different
inevitableowl1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
I’m not sure the “boy” slur is aimed at short guys they dismiss. Being in that camp I’m just dismissed / invisible (at least as a sexual prospect) by many.
I’ve always assumed “boys” in the Tomi Lahren rant sense was “men in the top tier who the woman wants but will not commit to her”.
I would have thought that applying it to a slacker is uncommon but could apply to a super attractive slacker / aspiring musician that you seem to hear that lot of women seem to support for years and then get furious when it doesn’t work out (either he never grows up into the alpha bucks or he leaves as soon as he becomes one). So I have talked myself around on that
I basically never thought people like Tomi was referring to guys like me when they talk of “boys” as I would not be on the radar of her or any of her friends
The “don’t owe them anything” seemed to come up a lot in black manosphere videos and KS as it seems like black men don’t even think they owe it to men to smile at them. I appreciate the complaint that some women have with the statement “you should smile more” and “you’d be really pretty if you smiled more”. But this isn’t the same. This is that the never smile and don’t feel that is something that needs to be earned by men
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/e01zyo/on_attraction_and_arousal/
nroo23 2y ago
Turning AF into AB is most definitely every woman’a dream on a weirdly primal level. As Rollo says, they love a project.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
It's not the project itself. It's the ego gratification they get from that project.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 2y ago
Food for thought indeed that "boy" can be dismissive in several ways including hot guys who refuse to commit (as if his masculinity is defined by him being locked down by her even as a woman reserves the right to exercise her options) or in the case of insulting men who don't measure up. Basically, it's their way of insulting men, in general, who disappoint them, as not being "real".
For men, I think an analogue is where if a woman rejects him he calls her a lesbian.
The term 'boy' does make some sense in men who don't want to settle down because being unsettled is a child-like existence where one is responsible for oneself such as brushing our teeth or cleaning our room. Basically, in that regard, all men are "boys" unless they're working with intention to settle down.
That being said, most late 20's women don't "woman up" to work to improve themselves to make themselves desirable as wives either.
Intrepid_Place53900 2y ago
(That being said, most late 20's women don't "woman up" to work to improve themselves to make themselves desirable as wives either).
correct, most are not even minimally aware of it, it doesn't register to them at all because of feminist teachings. She shouldn't have to do anything, he needs to step up his game and be a man.
Women insult men who wont' commit or date them,etc because it makes them feel better. It takes any blame or their deficiency's away from them, it deflects from them and puts it on the guy. Oh, he's just a boy, or a fuckboi or gay or needs to grow up, or insert here.
It "can't" be about her, that would hurt.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
Women judge a man's attraction by the woman he is with (or can get) and how devoted she is to him. Mick Jagger is an ugly fuck, but he is considered hot because of the tail he can pull.
From her point of view, alpha fucks guys have not grown to become men yet.
nroo23 2y ago
Dude, you are right, Mick Jagger is fucking Mick Jagger.
He can pull essentially any and all tail because he is Mick Jagger- at least within a certain demographic. .
That is why celebrity comparisons sometimes drive me crazy.
Celebrity >>>>>>>>>> super high status (rich CEO, hedge fund manager, rich entrepreneur with known brands) >>> Looks/money/game/normal high status (lawyer, doctor, executive) on women’s SMV scale for men.
It’s so not even close between celebrity and everything else it’s ridiculous for us to even use celebrity comparisons or treat them as people. For all intensive purposes Mick Jagger is basically George Clooney even though one’s an ugly old diseased looking incoherent fuck and one is prob the best looking, most charming guy at his age alive.
[deleted] 2y ago
[--removed--]
inevitableowl1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
The article has been cut off but the “perhaps they didn’t deem the threat level high enough” made me chuckle a bit
If you get a blockage in your throat from food that makes you start to (at least appear to) choke medical professionals will not help until you start to go blue. Could well be a similar issue
(I appreciate the comment in the article was being snide but doesn’t stop it being valid - like the others mentioned)
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 2y ago
Since I also mod in a conservative political sub, I ran into a few people who brought up the 2A argument with regard to the subway incident... with some even saying that if they'd been present and armed they would have shot the guy. Obviously that's emotion talking - hair-pulling doesn't justify a lethal response, and only cops get to brandish weapons without being arrested (or possibly shot when the cops finally do show up).
We'll never know what those particular people (men and women) would have done if the crazy dude had escalated his level of violence against the woman whose hair he was pulling, but if recent stories of similar cases are indicative of a trend, the answer is likely to have been, "Not much."
Unfortunately that's the world feminists wanted, and as the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it." I was struck by the comment one woman made when she said that she had raised her son to protect women... and how proud she was of him now that he was an adult. I wonder how she would feel attending his funeral after he gave his life defending some random woman whose mouth resulted in her getting in over her head.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 2y ago
The in-group preference of women is something, isn't it? A mother to shoot her mouth off without putting the well-being of her own son is disgraceful.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 2y ago
Probably the same thing that a plantation owner would feel when losing a particularly well trained slave.
Boar_excrement Jr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
Society has been demanding stronger women and weaker men. Well, it backfired spectacularly. All that was created was mouthier women and indifferent men.
Keep mouthing those slogans laydeez, I am sure it makes the world a safer place.
Impressive-Cricket-8 Founding member of FapGPT 2y ago
Back in 2015 there was a case in São Paulo where a woman was being held at gunpoint in front of a Cathedral, if I'm not mistaken. A homeless man intevened, freed her but died in the process. She didn't go to his burial.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 2y ago
Of course not! Not only was he icky, but there might've been freshly dug-up dirt on the ground. You want her shoes to get muddy?
Loneliness-inc LvL 99 Rogue NiceGuy™ 2y ago
I was thinking of commenting on the "outrage" over the subway incident, but I have been way to busy recently.
Thank you sir for doing this
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 2y ago
I'm in a similar boat. I still haven't read either article in their entirety yet. :(
I figured I'd skim the comments first. Sometimes that's more fun.
DextroShade 2y ago
I would never, ever risk my life for a woman I don't know or care about.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 2y ago
Also making it hard to carry a weapon means that we expect unarmed men to confront another man that clearly doesn’t give a f*** about laws. Who knows what they have on them.
Early 1900’s and it was just standard fare for a man to have a gun and a knife on him. Never know when you’ll need it. Now men walk around with iPhones because women deemed weapons to be “scary”.