For those that don't know, John Dolan is the man behind the pseudonym WarNerd (itself the pseudonym of another of his characters, Gary Brecher).

I think he hits upon a great point here: feminism, especially the type that focuses on sexual dynamics with men (as opposed to say the push for voting, or [un]equal pay, where women actually mean it), isn't actually real: it's a label worn by women to serve their own purposes, most of which have nothing to do with, and are usually contradictory to, what feminism actually says. And for the longest time, men were in on it. We knew they "didn't really mean it" when they said stuff like all sex is rape, or all men are potential rapists, or whatever. Because at the end of the day, they'd come home from their Take Back The Night rallies and fuck their boyfriends' brains out.

The truth is, most women don't want to be strong, independent, single and proud, yadda yadda yadda. It's just a nice label that they like to attach to themselves (who doesn't want to call themselves strong and independent?). Especially once they hit the workforce and realize your boss cares less about you than the most checked out husband ever did. Despite 50 years of sloganeering about being strong and independent, or wanting men that can cry, or how horrible heterosexual relationships are, and even how "hot" lesbian sex is (only women really know how to please women!!), as long as everyone (including guys), recognized that this was all an act, and after the megaphones were put down, everyone would happily go back to pairing up as usual (women seeking hot, rich Chads, men seeking hot young Stacy's) there were no real consequences to what they were saying. So they could go on saying whatever they wanted, getting ever more strident, extreme, whatever, without having to face the consequences of actually living in the type of world they purported to want to bring about.

Note, this is generally par for the course with women's communication about most stuff. They say "No means no!" but then wonder why we stop chasing them and move on the first time they say no. "But I just wanted to see if you'd put more effort in, chase me harder!"

They say they're afraid to cleanly reject a nice guy orbiter because, even after years of evidence to the contrary they're still worried he might turn psycho and assault her. Yet they'll have a one night stand with a random Chat off Tinder without the same concern even if he has prison tats and a felony record. You're never supposed to believe what they say, you're supposed to just go along, support their words, then treat them how they really want to be treated, which you're supposed to divine from nonverbal means.

IMHO, this is what made #metoo so fascinating. For a year or two, it looked like #metoo was going to take over the world. Women latched on to it and started declaring that pretty much any type of male/female interaction was oppression, prone to abuse, trauma-inducing, men need to go to re-education camps (i.e. HR mandatory training), etc. etc.

But then a funny thing happened... Men actually took them seriously this time. Rather than just shrugging our shoulders and rolling our eyes and letting them have their fun with no consequence, we started asking ourselves the question "if all of this is true, that just being in the same room alone with a man can cause massive trauma to women, or that a single joke that she doesn't find funny can create an oppressive, hostile workplace, and it can literally be any guy out there, just waiting in the shadows, then how do we solve this?" And we came to the same conclusion that Andrea Dworkin did: separate the sexes. Just like Dworkin accepted feminism's statements at face value and mapped out its inevitable conclusions, men accepted #metoo's statements at face value and came to the same inevitable conclusions.

Of course, that's not what women really wanted. They knew that the worst thing you could do to a woman is put her in a workplace full of women. Most of them will tell you their male superiors are far more helpful and mentoring than their female superiors. And their male peers are far easier to get along with than their catty passive aggressive female peers. Heck, even male underlings are far easier to manage, since they naturally understand hierarchy whereas female underlings are like herding cats. Just ask a female doctor whether she prefers working with male or female nurses.

As men started to withdraw from interacting with women in the workplace, stopped including them in after-work social gatherings, limiting interactions to strictly the bare minimum needed for work requirements, etc. (like they asked us to do) women all of a sudden stopped and did a 180. All of a sudden, it was about how men no longer wanted to mentor women, and that the lack of workplace social interactions was now oppressive and discriminatory, etc. etc. Of course, they couched it in the language of man shaming "what are men so afraid of? if you aren't a creep, you have nothing to worry about!" but at its core, what they were really saying was "please men, don't believe what we're saying. We're not really going to throw you in jail for complimenting our appearance. We're not actually going to get you fired for telling an off-color joke. I actually enjoy working with men. You're not a creep, even though #metoo says every man could be a creep. Please don't make me spend my whole day with the other catty bitches in the office!"

But there were enough examples of this happening -- whether nationwide, like Al Franken and Aziz Ansari, or local in your own company or group of friends -- that men refused to dismiss the rhetoric, and actually believed what women were saying, and took it to its logical conclusions. Andrea Dworkin was a single oddball feminist, and so could easily be dismissed by guys, but that's not so easy when you saw #metoo cases actually happening around you. It's ironic: men now believe in #metoo and #believeallwomen more than women do.

And so now we're left with women complaining about men actually listening to what they're saying. If you believe that the workplace is a hotbed of sexual abuse, harassment, discrimination, leading to lifelong trauma and distress due to the men that women must interact with there, then the logical conclusion is not to assume re-education camps are going to solve this (because they never do). It's to separate the sexes. After all, the whole point of #metoo is that sexual harassment wasn't a rare occurrence by true sickos like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby. That it was far more widespread, and even harmless Bob From Accounting with the pocket protector could actually be a sexual predator in disguise.

If you believe that the personal is political and that heterosexual relationships are really just power struggles, all men are rapists, all women have been raped at some point in their lives, that you would truly choose a bear over a man then the logical thing to do to protect women is to stop having relationships with them. But when MGTOW proposes exactly that everyone shrieks about men not "growing up and taking responsibility". I mean what is the logical conclusion of women saying literally they'd choose the bear over a random man? All men (except family) start out as random and unknown to you. Logically that means you should marry a bear. And when he mauls you to death in gruesome fashion, you can at least take solace in the fact that you stayed true to your stated preference.

So I think we're at a turning point. One that it's clear women didn't actually want us men to reach, which is, we finally believe what they're saying, and taking it at face value. So now half of them are vigorously backtracking, trying to tell men they didn't really mean any of it, and the other half is doubling down, hoping that shaming men further and calling them even bigger rapists and clueless oppressors will somehow work the way it has for decades.

How do you reconcile a group (women) who simultaneously beg men to come back into relationships with them (both sexual and non-sexual e.g. workplace) while also saying they feel safer with a bear than a man? The answer is, you don't. Once you've withdrawn, it's far easier to let them spin their hamsters whichever way they want to and go about our lives far more peacefully. And in the end, even if #metoo eventually goes away, it'll be far harder to get men to go back to interacting with women the old way.

Anyway, hope you enjoy Dolan's article!

goddamn giggity giggity - she is drop dead gorgeous!!!!

The thing that makes me doubt all this red pill stuff is just how hot those feminists are. Maybe they have a point?

The guy says, “Nietzsche was the most profound thinker of the nineteenth century!” The woman replies, “Nietzsche was a chauvinist who was in love with his sister!”

That line irritated me as well, it was defamatory and I didn't understand why it was in the movie. The speaker was not only implying that there was incest, but the reality was that Nietzsche proposed marriage, several times, to some woman other than his sister.

After Nietzsche died, his sister was actually the one who systematically falsified her brother's unpublished works to make them hue more closely to Nazi ideology in the 1930s. So, yeah, "Nietzsche's sister traded on her brother's name to curry favor with Hitler" would've been an appropriate rejoinder.

...anyway... the irritation stuck with me.