Are you a writer or an academic feeling stuck? See how I can help you as an editor or as a writing coach.
Every once in a while, I encounter someone posting away in the Men’s Rights subreddit who stands out in some way. It’s usually not a good way. Sometimes, the misogyny is over the top, even by Men’s Rights standards. Sometimes the commenter’s writing is overflowing with buzzwords that will only make sense to the initiated insofar as they make any sense at all.
Well, I’ve run across someone that fits that latter category; indeed, they almost transcend it, spewing out paragraph after paragraph of word salad that I’m not sure even they understand. So I thought I would share some recent quotes from this would-be Men’s Rights philosopher and see if any of you can make any sense of them, insofar as there is any sense there to begin with.
Feel free to give up at any point because this stts the brain if y,ou try to process too much of it at once.
Here’s Pilotlet tryiexplain that patriarchy is actually a tool of female supremacy. At least I think that’s what he’s saying.
Patriarchy is ultimately a further extension of monogamy as an economic entity, but one that can ultimately only be understood by understanding women as the ultimate benefactors of the manipulation and taming of man.
The reality is stubborn and with very varied nuances, however, under an analysis of contemporary and Western societies, we can only speak of gynocentrism, misandry as an entity based on the natural hypergamy of considering the majority of men as disposable and therefore an object of hatred if men at the top of the Pareto distribution cannot be reached and the enslavement of man, ultimately, as maintainer of the world and giver of everything masculine: that is, what is useful to a woman.
If you’re not feeling too dizzy yet, here’s another quote, this one on the subject of “feminine infantilism.”
The trend in feminine infantilism has always obeyed the redundant: the potentiality of the feminine. The woman, through her search for permanent youth, seeks to appeal to the most naive masculine paternity and seeks eternal tutelage as if she were a defenseless little girl. Not only does the woman seek to create an image that she is stupid, but in her behavior of seeking constant childishness, she becomes a person who is a victim of her own subjection. The woman always finds protection from her stupidity because she will always rely on moral and physical protectors in favor of her interests. It is a perpetual and constant manipulation.
Here’s one suggesting that men do all the real work in a relationship. At least I think that’s what he’s going on about.
It is absurd to think that a woman can take the active role in a relationship when indeed, every relationship revolves around passively receiving everything that builds a relationship: the understanding of the masculine as useful and the feminine as useless by definition. Both can have an economic equilibrium character, but it is not possible to expect the enslaving submission of a man to the feminine behavior. The woman, ultimately, is useful as a conscious being, not femininity: the antithesis of the masculine, that is, the useful, the active and the objectively valuable.
If I were gay, then I would be with men, but the concept of marriage lacks foundation in these modern times and it is clear that it always benefits the party that appears weakest.
I’ve read this last sentence at least ten times, and I still don’t understand how the gay bit fits with the part about marriage benefiting those who pretend to be weak.
Here’s what looks like a swipe against online dating. And marriage, I guess.
Most men won’t reproduce, most men actually have a hard time even having a partner, either because he is ugly, or short, or because he does not have money to be exploited or because absolutely no woman is interested in him while a woman writes a message and already has a penis waiting his turn.
The majority of women is shared by a statistical minority of men while the majority of men will hopefully pay for a prostitute to lose their virginity and may, if they are stupid enough, to lose their dignity and their lives for a woman who neither loves them nor is interested in creating a family, but living as a parasite at the expense of another.
This next one suggests that Pilotlet may be dating a dead woman.
The man in his masculinity (that is, understanding himself masculine for what is useful for a woman as an object of exploitation) it is replaceable and this is understood as natural, while the woman is treated as an object of idolatry to which to enslave: an entity that passively receives orgasms and resources. On the subject of the heterosexual couple, one cannot speak of other dynamics except the eternal passivity of the woman, because that is what is expected of her and she is what she expects of herself. There can be no equal treatment at the couple level because biological interests and strategies are radically opposed.
I thought I understood the first half of this one, but then it got weird.
Marriage has a connotation that is never considered enough and it is the entire superstructure that surrounds the entire marriage is based on a tacit covenant in the inherent slavery of a man in this institution that today lacks foundation because everything that structures it is based on a deception that does not sustain itself.
I guess it sucks for Chads, too, huh?
Inceldom cannot be solved because apart from the fact that there will always be more women than men in the fertile age ranges, the willfulness of a woman in her nature will cause many rank and file men to be shunned and rejected. The same with men who do have access to the sexual market and are used as replaceable material: as objects of sexual and economic exploitation.
This next one may hurt your head a little:
[T]he masculine attitude and the models of masculinity turn, inevitably, to idolatry, to a hierarchy with respect to the value that other men achieve, which, although adjusting to a biological definition, It would imply that no matter how much some men do, their masculinity will do less than that of others from points of reference that they themselves do not control.
Oof. One more.
It is the same wheel that turns and turns and turns and does not stop turning: traditionalism is not going to return unless there is a population collapse that will hardly take effect because the big company has immigrants to import en masse, and masculinity, like femininity, if they fit, will be sold like who sells stock in an abstract and silent investment market.
All that turning and turning and turning has made me too dizzy to continue.
Thank you, Pilotlet, for your service.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.