Saturday, October 24, 2015

80% Of Women Are Manpleasers

It's an illustration of Pareto's 80/20: rule: 20% of cleaning a house cleans 80% it, 20% of peas produce 80% of a crop. Things like that.

I have found that 80% of women are manpleasers, but with the influence of feminism - even if these women don't call themselves feminists - it's down to about 20% by now.

I first noticed this phenomenon in college.

I've written before I spent my last year and a half living in a studio apartment attached to a house with ten girls in it. I got to know them very well.

Two of them were very much manpleasers and liked me very much. That's 20%. Six of them, in varying degrees, and both liked and hated me (talk about confused!). Two weren't manpleasers, and would never be (guess what they thought of me). The two who weren't were very much leftist, including one midwit who was working on a graduate degree in political science (God know what leftist horrors she believes now).

I believe it is an instinct among women to be manpleasers, but that instinct can be warped by what they're taught. So, then, women actually have two contradictory natures - to be subservient and please men, and to try to control them with their socialist/fascist/envious/hate-filled natures (the last part is in the last part of the story of the Garden of Eden, with the comment about "your desire will be to control your husband but he shall rule you").

Is it any wonder that leftism is feminine, which means feminism is leftist - based on envy and hate?

The six who were in varying degrees manpleasers were very much confused as a result of their feminist indoctrination and therefore showed various degrees of hostility toward men, including me. They were confused, as many women are today - and they had to idea why except to blame it on me.

They wanted to please men but at the same time showed hatred toward them. I remember thinking, what do these goofballs want? Do they even know? Freud wondered the same thing.

Here's a concrete example. I know a woman who admits she is a "people pleaser." She's not. She's a manpleaser.

You think she'd be married and have kids. She's not. And it's too late for either.

Knowing she's a manpleaser, I once asked her to make me a sandwich (this is a good test for women).

She threw a fit. I thought, how odd, she wants to please men but throws a conniption fit when I made a simple request. I'm sure she considered my request "oppressive" and me a patriarchial right-wing sexist pig.

What's funny is that she really liked me and thought I was funny and smart. But that leftist indoctrination had infected her character to the point it ruined her life.

She also told me the men she gets involved with "won't accept my career." I just smiled, because men couldn't care less about a woman's "career." Men, except the leftist manginas, are always going to put her desire to please them over her "career."

This has happened a lot, with older women crying, "My kids! My grandkids! Where are they?" They deluded themselves they didn't need men, marriage and children and thought career would fufill them. They fell for a bunch of lies.

When I owned a taxi I once picked up a woman who told me her life's story (I got this all the time).

She was very much a manpleaser. She said she liked drawing a bath for her husband before he came home from work and having dinner ready. Turned out, for some reason she never told me, it didn't work out and they got divorced.

The Manosphere offers all kinds of advice toward men, a little bit good, a lot terrible. But all of it is about turning women back into they manpleasers they were meant to be.

Women have always been the emotional, the receptive and the dependent. That's their nature. This means they're far more liable than men to believe stupid things. They accept it almost uncritically, and since many women are natural socialists/fascists, they fall right into that trap, and since they are very much prone, in their childish way, to blame their problems on men, their leftist indoctrination feeds right into that.

No woman can be both a fascist/socialist and a manpleaser. I remember reading an article many years ago in which all those '60s feminists admitted the were romantics - but what they wanted a tall, brilliant, rich, handsome man who was a socialist/fascist - in other words, a man who does not exist.

For that matter, Gloria Steinem has been described as a hopeless romantic, one who is dependent on men. She finally got married after spending her life denigrating it and saw fertility clinics in hope of getting pregnant. And Betty Friedan, that hideous monster, got married and had kids. And when younger she was a Stalinist. When older, who knows? Except for being uglier than when younger.

Ultimately men have let this happen. Why? A misguided sense of fairness? Finally they're realizing "fairness" is not what it is, not when whenever men give women what they want, they want more and throw a lot of it back in men's faces.

Whenever men go, women follow. They're 100% dependent on men, since men created everything in the world. Then they want to impose their socialism/fascism on it.

I once had a girlfriend who was originally a socialist/fascist. She was very smart, with an IQ of 143 and an MBA in Accounting and Finance. She got involved with a man whom she followed into being a libertarian. Then later, she got involved with me.

Where men went, even she followed.

I actually remember meeting older women, when I was about 19, who told me that women weren't the equal of men. At that time I was surprised they said that. But now I realize they were right; women really are the weaker vessel.

When I was in middle school the girls were required to take home economics. I'm sure this doesn't happen anymore, with the more radical of feminists throwing a fit until this requirement was dropped.

Again, ultimately it's men's fault for allowing this to happen, because they don't understand that contradictory nature of women. Men in the past did, which is why women have never been allowed to vote.

Of course, none of this will stand, but how long until things straighten up? That, always, in the question.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well Bob you hit you nailed this one. I look at females as infection rates. Some are infected more than others. Imagine being taught the last 50 years to be stingy with pleasing your man, being kind and loving him. Just freaking wonderful. Would like to find one in the 20 percent.

Cecil Henry said...

'He couldn't tolerate my career'

Means he wouldn't put up with my grandstanding and narcissism about my career and using it to manipulate and control others. He wouldn't let me put my ego before the relationship and refused to be my stomping post.

In others words, he was a man who stood up to you.

Anonymous said...


'He couldn't tolerate my career'


I think a large part of womens' attraction (or "love") to men is drawn from respect, adoration, feeling safe and secure with the man. Women want a man that they can look up to. If a woman is a highly educated and/or compensated professional, and is higher social status compared to the man, the woman is not attracted to him, either consciously or unconsciously.

I could be wrong though, and it's just womens' greed.

Cecil Henry said...

Well, I always say:

Nobody believes in male superiority more than women.

In fact, their counting on it!!!!

Earl Thomas said...

Is it because the women who are into fascism/socialism...act like they are dictating control freaks? That's what I've seen and experienced.

Ergeniz said...

This is nothing new to me. Growing up in the black community, this is obviously commonplace, bob. Naturally, I grew up with a single mother who went through various relationships with men. My mom was smarter and more responsible than most - she worked hard, spent little and saved. I have to admit she worked well with what he had.

However, I still admit I hold some resentment against her - like most black women she blamed most things on men. Most of the children of single parents grow up with this - the woman tells the child how useless and irresponsible the father was, looks to the growing son as a surrogate husband in many ways, etc. The times when she attempted to shame me by comparing me to my father are not easily forgotten. There have been plenty of instances where my mother has called me about my younger half-sister's behavior and grades despite her father and my mother being back together! And this is after I have moved out. The kicker was when I finally questioned my mother and learned that she knew my father had problems, knew he was involved in drugs and when she got pregnant knew he would not be around. She could have gotten an abortion. But she choose to have me, despite knowing I would not have a father. She believed she could do it on her own. And I am paying the price for that. At 27 years old and I am still learning the ins and outs of being a man; still playing catch-up to many of my peers that came from intact households.

Bob, I'm trying my best not to outright hate women as a whole but its extremely difficult. My experiences with women outside of the home have not helped, either.

Glen Filthie said...

You yourself are a casualty of fuzzy Manosphere thinking, Bob.

Heed me well, men, for I know of which I speak:

Fact is you SHOUD make your own sammich! Women do not understand the delicious Mystery Meats and are liable to bitch about things like cholesterol while forgetting about condiments, and bark about calories and other unmanly rot! The Art Of The Sammich is an unholy ground upon which to test your relationship. It is, however, an excellent test of your manliness and character.

Ergeniz said...

I love your posts, Glen (and I realize you're joking) but I will say it has shocked me how many women do not know how to cook. There's a 40-something year old Native American female at my workplace and she flat out told me she cannot cook anything. I just don't understand it.

Bob Wallace said...

"Women do not understand the delicious Mystery Meats and are liable to bitch about things like cholesterol while forgetting about condiments, and bark about calories and other unmanly rot! The Art Of The Sammich is an unholy ground upon which to test your relationship. It is, however, an excellent test of your manliness and character."

That's why it should be legal to spank women. Imagine them calling the cops and being told, "Well, it's legal and you did deserve it!"

Rusty Shackleford said...

"She could have gotten an abortion. But she choose to have me, despite knowing I would not have a father. She believed she could do it on her own. And I am paying the price for that. At 27 years old and I am still learning the ins and outs of being a man; still playing catch-up to many of my peers that came from intact households. "

What, so you think your mom should have aborted you? You can't be angry for being born. If you want to take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you might as well just jump in front of a bus. Anyhow, these days, just having a man/provider in the family doesnt really guarantee anything. Unfortunately, there are no shortage of baby boomers and men from my generation who don't know shit about being men or raising boys. I grew up with an Irish mother who could become violently angry for days at a time for any reason or no reason at all. All my dad did was run around trying to make her happy. It was like living in the court of the Red Queen, or maybe like the Quiet Man except without John Wayne and with a lot more Maureen O'Hara.

I'm in my mid 30s, and I'd say I was very "blue pill" at least through my 20s. My solidly middle class friends and I spent our 20s working blue collar jobs or doing low level clerk work, while our sisters graduated from college and got high paying desk jobs. We're the "generation of men that was raised by women" that Fight Club was talking about. I believed what my teachers and tv told me about the sexes, about how women were kinder, more honest, generous, etc. I thought that the women around me meant well, and that we were all playing a fair game under the same rules. I never had anyone take me aside and honestly explain women or the way the world works. I had to learn that in bits and pieces through inference, brutal trial and error or by way of autodidacticism on the internet.


Rusty Shackleford said...


"However, I feel I cannot fully respect the stay-at-mother at this time because of the simple fact we no longer live in times where technology did not make things easier. Taking care of children, cleaning the household, making errands, etc are all made a snap due to modern technology. Even a particularly large house usually takes no more than a hour or two to clean and less than that to maintain day-to-day. "

It's going a long way to say that because washing clothes and the rest of it is easy, that it's an easy thing to raise a kid. It's a sweet job, sure, and the women who bitch about it are idiots, but it takes a lot of time and patience. Ideally, I'd consider it a full time job, and it's worthy of the same respect that any other job is.

"I suppose it boils down to letting women back into being a completely spoiled, privileged class (how else can one describe the relationship of someone who goes out to work while the partner gets to stay at home and do as she pleases - backed by the court system?) or allowing them to continue outside the home where they are still ridiculously privileged, but have some sense of having to take the option to get employment to take care of themselves."

This is a direction of MGTOW reasoning that I have no sympathy for. You might as well be talking about how great it would be if we had an extra set of arms or if we could just eat grass and stones instead of buying food. In the best societies -the ones that have achieved the most and the ones that the rest of the world wants to move to - the men work and the women take care of the kids. When you start fucking around with that, things get messed up pretty quickly.

Ergeniz said...

"What, so you think your mom should have aborted you? You can't be angry for being born. If you want to take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you might as well just jump in front of a bus. Anyhow, these days, just having a man/provider in the family doesnt really guarantee anything. Unfortunately, there are no shortage of baby boomers and men from my generation who don't know shit about being men or raising boys. I grew up with an Irish mother who could become violently angry for days at a time for any reason or no reason at all. All my dad did was run around trying to make her happy. It was like living in the court of the Red Queen, or maybe like the Quiet Man except without John Wayne and with a lot more Maureen O'Hara".

Its not anger at being born. Its anger at women not exercising good judgement in the men they have relationships and children with. And then, later blaming men for their problems after things don't work out.

Do I sometimes wish I was aborted? All I can say is, is that I believe its child abuse for a woman to bear children with the knowledge a man will not be around.

"It's going a long way to say that because washing clothes and the rest of it is easy, that it's an easy thing to raise a kid. It's a sweet job, sure, and the women who bitch about it are idiots, but it takes a lot of time and patience. Ideally, I'd consider it a full time job, and it's worthy of the same respect that any other job is".

https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/the-leisurely-life-of-a-1950s-housewife/

"This is a direction of MGTOW reasoning that I have no sympathy for. You might as well be talking about how great it would be if we had an extra set of arms or if we could just eat grass and stones instead of buying food. In the best societies -the ones that have achieved the most and the ones that the rest of the world wants to move to - the men work and the women take care of the kids. When you start fucking around with that, things get messed up pretty quickly".

It does, but these very same societies always get to a point where the women and men become too comfortable and these same requirement of women to stay home leads to idle hands - which we know doesn't lead to anything good. This is exacerbated by the technological advances that made housekeeping and many other duties much easier.

So obviously, saying "Send the women home and have babies while I go out and work" isn't the solution to the problem. Its just not that simple.

Anonymous said...

"When I was in middle school the girls were required to take home economics. I'm sure this doesn't happen anymore, with the more radical of feminists throwing a fit until this requirement was dropped."

In my school system, at least, their concession to egalitarianism was just to make everyone take Home Ec, guys and gals. Maybe they've dropped it since, I don't know. It's probably for the best, in this environment- a guy who can cook for himself, do his own laundry, and repair his own clothes has less incentive to rush into a possibly ill-advised marriage.

MGTOW'd Out said...

“Bob, I'm trying my best not to outright hate women as a whole but its extremely difficult.”

Well, stop trying so hard and maybe things will be better rather than playing the victim card like whites.

“Unfortunately, there are no shortage of baby boomers and men from my generation who don't know shit about being men or raising boys.”

From your experiences, indeed. From my own point of view, it is the complete opposite.

“I thought that the women around me meant well, and that we were all playing a fair game under the same rules. I never had anyone take me aside and honestly explain women or the way the world works.”

There are some women who are cruel and sadistic, just like there are some men who share those same traits. That is how the way the world works.

“the ones that have achieved the most and the ones that the rest of the world wants to move to - the men work and the women take care of the kids. When you start fucking around with that, things get messed up pretty quickly.”

When men and women have worked together, without the bullshit of the manospherists or feminists, that is when society has achieved the most and how the rest of the world wants to move to.

“Its anger at women not exercising good judgement in the men they have relationships and children with. And then, later blaming men for their problems after things don't work out.”

Actually, the anger is at people, men and women equally, when they make poor decisions in their relationships.

“It's probably for the best, in this environment- a guy who can cook for himself, do his own laundry, and repair his own clothes has less incentive to rush into a possibly ill-advised marriage.”

Ill-advised for yourself, sure. For the rest of the adults in the room, no. You’re not ready to raise a child, you’ve a long ways to go regarding how the world truly works.

Rusty Shackleford said...

https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/the-leisurely-life-of-a-1950s-housewife/

Yeah, being a stay at home wife is a good job. So is being a swimsuit model photographer, an astronaut or an F1 driver. That doesn't mean that these jobs don't need to be done or that we should be resentful of the people who do them.



"It does, but these very same societies always get to a point where the women and men become too comfortable and these same requirement of women to stay home leads to idle hands - which we know doesn't lead to anything good. This is exacerbated by the technological advances that made housekeeping and many other duties much easier."

What disasters ever happened as a result of women staying home and taking care of their families? How was that not good? Because empirically, women going into the workforce en masse has been a total disaster for society. The big job women have at a societal level is having kids so that there is a next generation. They're not doing that. They are now too busy during the years that they can have kids working and doing the uni paper chase. Low birth rates are being used as the big pretext for the current mass migration disaster in Europe. Working women are literally destroying western civilization at a cultural and even a genetic level.

Putting women to work has been the societal equivalent of eating the seed corn. It gluts the labor market and raises corporate profits temporarily at the expense of men's paychecks, children, family and society in general.




"So obviously, saying "Send the women home and have babies while I go out and work" isn't the solution to the problem. Its just not that simple. "

In the real world, that doesn't hold up. Look at Utah. It has the lowest level of mothers participating in the workforce and also the lowest level of income inequality in the country. Because of the Mormon culture, it is socially and economically still the same as 1950s America. It a living breathing refutation of what you're putting forward here. There is no place in America where men, children or society haven't been hurt by the break down of the nuclear family and by women going to work, and it is that simple.

MGTOW'd Out said...

"The big job women have at a societal level is having kids so that there is a next generation."

There has been and will always be a next generation. It just may be other than white. Furthermore, it is up to the individual to choose whether to marry and/or have children.

"Low birth rates are being used as the big pretext for the current mass migration disaster in Europe. Working women are literally destroying western civilization at a cultural and even a genetic level."

Chicken Little has nothing on you.

"Putting women to work has been the societal equivalent of eating the seed corn. It gluts the labor market and raises corporate profits temporarily at the expense of men's paychecks, children, family and society in general."

Companies owned by men have the liberty to do what they want with their property, which includes finding ways to maximize profits and reduce costs.


"Because of the Mormon culture, it is socially and economically still the same as 1950s America. It a living breathing refutation of what you're putting forward here."

Perhaps.

According to the 2012 American Community Survey, 57 percent of Utah’s women (15 years and older) are married—down from 69 percent in 1950. A higher percentage of Utahns are married than in any other state in the nation.

The share of Utah women who are divorced has increased from 2 percent in 1950 to 10 percent in 2012.

Utah’s divorce rate typically runs slightly higher than the U.S. average and has done so for decades. In addition, the method of determining divorce rates understates Utah’s relative rate of divorce. In 2012, there were 3.4 divorces in Utah per 1,000 population. In 2010, (the most recent national comparisons available) Utah’s divorce rate measured 3.7 compared to the U.S. figure of 3.6.

Although Utah’s birth rate remains relatively high, it has declined significantly from the 1950 rate of 30.5.

In 1900, 13 percent of Utah women worked outside the home; in 1940, about a fourth; in 2000, 61 percent.

More than 58 percent of married Utah women work outside the home.

Notable numbers of women have moved into several nontraditional occupations over the past fifty years. For example, in 1960 only 4 percent of Utah physicians and surgeons were women compared to 26 percent today.

Ergeniz said...

"Yeah, being a stay at home wife is a good job. So is being a swimsuit model photographer, an astronaut or an F1 driver. That doesn't mean that these jobs don't need to be done or that we should be resentful of the people who do them".

The point being the ease of it due to technology leads to far too much free time. Free time leads to idle hands.

"What disasters ever happened as a result of women staying home and taking care of their families? How was that not good? Because empirically, women going into the workforce en masse has been a total disaster for society. The big job women have at a societal level is having kids so that there is a next generation. They're not doing that. They are now too busy during the years that they can have kids working and doing the uni paper chase. Low birth rates are being used as the big pretext for the current mass migration disaster in Europe. Working women are literally destroying western civilization at a cultural and even a genetic level".

I'm not in favor of women in make-work jobs, government jobs, bloating the work force, etc. But if the arrangement of men being the only breadwinners and women being stay-at-home mothers is such a stable arrangement then explain the current problems we have today. Are you going to claim its due to conspiracies by the Jews or whatnot? And if this arrangement is so full proof than explain why societies keep running into this same exact problem where women eventually become complacent, demand more power and the society is run into the ground.

It is my opinion this what happens when women become too comfortable. My most recent source for this is "the fate of empires and search of survival". Here are two excerpts from it:

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/965/722/original.jpg
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/965/723/original.jpg

Ergeniz said...

I found a free pdf of the book if anyone's interested.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf

Rusty Shackleford said...

"The point being the ease of it due to technology leads to far too much free time. Free time leads to idle hands."

Technology has made being a swimsuit model photographer a lot easier, too. That doesn't mean we don't need pictures of pretty girls. When women weren't busy doing wage slave work, they formed community organization, charities and benevolent organizations in their free time. They actually did things that helped their family and community. All of that has completely fallen by the wayside.



"I'm not in favor of women in make-work jobs, government jobs, bloating the work force, etc. But if the arrangement of men being the only breadwinners and women being stay-at-home mothers is such a stable arrangement then explain the current problems we have today. "

Look, I don't need to engage in bullshit theorizing or rhetoric here because the real world statistics prove everything that I'm saying. Utah has lowest level of income inequality in the country and also the lowest level of mothers in the workforce, and it is among the fastest growing economies in the US with the lowest levels of unemployment. I mentioned this in my last post, and it's not even something that you tried to address. We can argue about why the rest of the US has moved away from the nuclear family, but arguing that it isn't the best model to follow on a societal level is a complete waste of time. We don't need to become Mormons but we definitely need to do what the Mormons are doing. The current problems we have to today are obviously because we've moved away from it. Can you name one place in the US that has improved social metrics due to increasing the amount of mothers in the workforce?

Here are some articles about working mothers and egalitarianism in Utah:

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/02/inequality-wealth-gap-ogden-utah-375820.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/in-booming-u-s-state-1970s-gender-gaps-have-women-seeking-more


"Are you going to claim its due to conspiracies by the Jews or whatnot? And if this arrangement is so full proof than explain why societies keep running into this same exact problem where women eventually become complacent, demand more power and the society is run into the ground. "


There are a million reasons why anything might fall apart. Good systems take strength, work and "political will" to keep going. It's much easier to let anything decay than it is to maintain it.

Jews? You mean like Steinem, Freidan, Firestone, Abzug, Weisstein, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Eve Ensler , Rosa Luxemburg.. Modern feminism is a creation of Jewish women. Do you disagree? It's not a conspiracy because no one denies it. I asked MGTOW'd Out to name some prominent gentile feminists and all she could come up with were a few names from 2 or 3 centuries ago. It was pathetic.

Rusty Shackleford said...


"Companies owned by men have the liberty to do what they want with their property, which includes finding ways to maximize profits and reduce costs."

Citizens and society have the right to stigmatize women who work and companies that employ them, such as the culture in Utah does.





"Chicken Little has nothing on you."


Point and splutter. Are birth rates not low in Europe? Did I imagine this article?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-09/why-germany-welcomes-refugees

"There's an economic side to this, too, says Kleist: "Germany's economic strength, a demographic decline and the need for labor all contribute to the welcoming of migrants including refugees." Indeed, one reason the refugee influx is fine with German voters is that Merkel insists the country will still balance its budget without new debt, and that taxes won't need to be raised to deal with the refugee crisis."

MGTOW'd Out said...

The 1950's is a bygone era. 'Nuff said.

"I asked MGTOW'd Out to name some prominent gentile feminists and all she could come up with were a few names from 2 or 3 centuries ago. It was pathetic.

Those mentioned, who were gentile, set the groundwork for modern day feminism, which happened to be dominated by women who were Jewish. Your fixation on da Joos is strikingly disturbing.