Feminism was founded on blaming all problems on men (specifically white men). That’s why you heard such terms as “patriarchy,” “Dead White Males,” etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
This blaming all problems on other people is the first defense people engage in. Technically it’s called projection, but it can also be called scapegoating. It’s very often based on pulling the other person down out of envy.
Feminism, based on envy, attempted to pull men down. Now it’s the Manosphere’s turn: a lot of it is based on pulling women down out envy. Again I’ll repeat a lot of the Manosphere is a needed corrective, but you have to separate the envy from the legitimate criticism.
I’ve recently been reading articles claiming women are incapable of love in the way men are. This claim is an attempt to reduce the power of women, based on men’s envy of women (and women envy men, too) by claiming they are incapable of doing what men can do.
I've heard women referred to as "Dream Killers"because so many of them cannot appreciate the sacrifices of men. This criticism is true but is the insult "Dream Killers" a useful description? (One blogger wrote "...marriage involves life changing sacrifices for men that no woman will ever fully understand or appreciate").
The same blogger wrote, "I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you won't. You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality"
Such criticisms claim women are mercenary and incapable of love and gratitude, and incapable of any sort of self-awareness. Without gratitude there can be no happiness. And no mercenary is going to have any happiness, either.So the claim is that no woman can be happy, although I doubt that was the writer's contention.
One of the worst things about the Manosphere blogs is that so much of them are based on evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary theory isn’t a science (I can come up with evolutionary explanations by the dozens, and the sillier they are the better people believe them) and psychology itself is barely a science.
So of course some of the Manosphere bloggers use evolutionary explanations (conjured out of thin air) to “explain” why in their view women are incapable of love.
It’s supposedly all about how women only want to have children so they’ll only go after “Alphas” and if they can’t get them they’ll marry the State. “Love” has very little to do with it. These tired explanations go on and on.
These explanations show utter contempt for women, and again, this attempt to pull women down is based on men’s envy of women’s power, just as leftist/lesbian feminism is based on the hatred of men and the power and influence white men have had for the last 500 years.
One word I almost never see in the Manosphere blogs is “chivalry.” Chivalry came from Christianity (now on life support in the West) and was based on the better warrior virtues. It’s not based on denigrating women or envying them. And it’s certainly not based on contempt for women.
Unfortunately chivalry is also on life support since it’s nearly dead due to the influence of feminism. This isn’t good for anybody.
I learned about chivalry and the warrior virtues from, of all people, Edgar Rice Burroughs, whose novel A Fighting Man of Mars, I first read when I was 12. He's a lot better than Harry Potter, who's for girls anyway.
Perhaps someday the Manosphere bloggers will get around to realizing their contempt for and envy of women is getting them nowhere. Actually it is getting them someplace, but that place is not a good place.
And perhaps someday they’ll rediscover the concept of chivalry. If they do, then they’ll give up acting like four-year-olds, just like the feminists they oppose. Four-year-olds hurling mud at each other isn’t exactly mature.
I’d like to think the Manosphere understands human nature better than clueless and destructive leftists. So far, I have't seen it.