THE REJECTION and BITTERNESS THEOREM


Tell me if you've ever heard this before... "You hate women because you're bitter about being rejected."

Chances are if you're MGTOW or an MRA you're going to run across a lot of feminists and many women who respond to any critique of some women's faults and flaws with what I call the rejection and bitterness theorem. What is interesting is, how completely dismissive they are of men who have been rejected and they treat men's bitterness as something that's never justified. Sure, the feminist keeps saying, men need to express emotions and break the bonds of toxic masculinity so long as some of those emotions isn't anger, bitterness or resentment towards women. Now, when I say this, I'm not speaking of resentment towards women as a gender or a collective, but legitimate resentment at specific attitudes and behavior from women within the context of social relationships that is obviously problematic.

On a wider scale of internal emotional practice, contrary to feminist mystification appointing masculinity as the "toxic' pathology hurting men by subduing male emotion, men who prefer masculine qualities within their lives actually have no trouble expressing a wide range of varying emotions. One doesn't have to look far to see any man eagerly expressing emotion. just go to a ball game and watch the men's expressions when their team scores. Apparently, feminists seem to believe that the only emotion men express that counts is if he's perpetually shedding tears.

I mean, isn't that the near exclusive example of what they say men should be allowed to do to define what they believe is men expressing emotion? I mean, that  --- and weakness, vulnerability and and self loathing etc... I've pointed out in the past that feminist believe with absolute conviction that they and only they believe they are qualified to define and determine the lived experiences of men more than the men who actually live them. So it's no surprise that they feel qualified to define and determine for men the accepted range of what we feel think and believe. And that brings me  once more to the bitterness and rejection theorem.

When men discuss a bad breakup or divorce or hypocritical flaws within the ideology of feminism or the double standards within contemporary western relationships that critiques women's behavior and attitudes within the context of female fault and flaw, it doesn't take long before a feminist or women rationalizes that the reason behind such criticism stems specifically over bitterness at being rejected, as though rejection is so unbearable for men that we are predisposed to irrational psychic trauma leading invariably to misogyny.

It never occurs to them that an assessment of some women's treatment of men has nothing to do with bitterness or resentment but a statement of observable and experiential fact. however one reason why so many feminists and western women in general default to the theorem is to avoid facing some extremely uncomfortable truths about themselves. saying a man is bitter and resentful basically trivializes and dismisses any perspective he has that indicates unfavorable verdicts on western women in the context of relationships social or intimate.

Think about it. when you see a movie or TV show that features a female character screwing up, what's the first thing she hears more than anything else regardless of the depth of the screw up.

"It's not your fault."

Over and over and over again, women in life and media, cinema or otherwise is told like an incessant mantra "it's not your fault."  they hear this from blue pill men, feminists and social institutions.

You got unexpectedly pregnant because of a bad choice in the man you decided to lay down for...

... it's not your fault.

You falsely accuse a man of rape or sexual assault and the truth comes out...

... its not your fault.

You  underperform at an appointed job task...

...it's not your fault.

You make occasional bad decisions and choices resulting in problems for other people...

...its not your fault.

30 plus years of a steady diet of nothing ever being the fault of women has logically generated a conviction in most western women that they are somehow without fault or flaw and any error of personal judgement can simply be externalized towards men.

 A woman murders her boyfriend or husband in his sleep. The patriarchy made her do it by oppressing her and making her lash out in desperation.

A woman didn't get a promotion over a better qualified man. The misogynist sexist patriarchy impeded her with a glass ceiling.

A man breaks up with her  or files for divorce because she cheated on him. Its his fault for not meeting her sexual and emotional demands, conditions and ultimatums.

So while men have spent centuries developing the ability to self reflect and practice introspection of himself and other men, modern western women have not. Feminism  taught them it's easier to blame men for THEIR insecurities, THEIR emotional issues, THEIR bad habits, choices and decisions. However as much as most western women are eager to assign men blame for everything, you will never hear any feminist within the mainstream give men credit for anything.

If a man runs into a burning building risking his life to save several trapped women and their children , he's not appreciated because under the feminist entitlement mentality, he's SUPPOSED to risk his life as part of a societal obligation. So he get's no credit for his efforts.

In other words western women take western men for granted generally speaking and this is part and parcel of the whole male disposibility system from which even many men have so little value or their own lives they think their existence is for the purpose of throwing it away to appease women who nonetheless expect them to happily sacrifice themselves for their sake as a matter of course.

So what happens when enough women take men for granted and treat them badly and with so much entitlement that they eventually become wholly unappealing? Do they self-reflect on what  they contributed to some men finding them unappealing regardless of physical appearance and intelligence? apparently not. Instead they run for cover behind the nothing is ever a woman's fault paradigm and chalk up the reason some guys want nothing to do with them as bitterness and resentment at past rejection.

 

MEN ARE GOOD, FATHERS ARE GREAT

                                         MEN ARE GREAT, FATHERS ARE GOOD


MEN ARE GOOD! How often do you hear that these days? How about FATHERS ARE GOOD. How often do you hear that these days? Probably not a lot, if we're honest. And when we do hear it, its usually spoken in an unconvincing patronizing manner and often in a tone suggesting "yeah, right."

In today's society women as a gender are repeatedly told over and over and over and over again that they're great, strong, brave, powerful, beautiful and indispensable. The media push to empower women isn't a recent thing. it's the continuation of a thing that has many decades behind it. Female self esteem must, in terms of contemporary thought, be constantly bolstered, apparently from birth to death. In feminist terms, absolutely no criticism of women is tolerated. Any criticism is strictly and immediately viewed as misogyny and sexism. The feelings and emotions of western women is considered sacrosanct, so much so that in all expression, western women can only feel empowered if they are firmly perched on that metaphorical pedestal. The gynocentric role of men, as feminist would have it, is that he must exist in exclusive deference to women by becoming and maintaining a metaphorical foundation, base and pillar of the metaphorical pedestal I've mentioned. His existence, as many of us have experienced, is not as an autonomous individual living for his own sake and benefit, but instead as a resource to be exploited by western women (and other elements of contemporary society.)  Practically from birth, a man is socialized to accept a type of psychological obligation towards women in which what defines his virtue is his collective participation as a support system for the pedestal on which western women are perched.

This dynamic extends to mothers, daughters, and any woman in general. And not only are men socialized to provide the living material for the multitude of pedestals on which entitled western women reside, in feminist terms, men must LIKE our role as support material. Any deviation from these obligations is thus described by feminists as the source of all societal problems. And they describe these societal problems with a selection of terminology that invariably genders problematic social issues wholly as that which is the fault of men. All solutions advocated by feminist, literally advocated, involves only men who have to change. But the change is always in one direction --- and the direction is always in the form of, yes, you guessed it, accepting deference to women  through further acceptance of a psychological obligation to become the material, which shapes the pedestal supporting western women.


The compulsory, "LIKING " part is essentially to keep western women's self esteem afloat. They must be constantly complimented, rewarded, and their vanity satisfied no matter what she does or doesn't do. If she's a mother, it must be assumed she's a great mother, and if she uncharacteristically feels one day that she may not be, it is the responsibility of men to furnish her with assurances that she's not only a GOOD mother but the BEST mother, even if clearly she's not. Whatever obvious faults and flaws western woman has, is to be downplayed, or rationalized completely out of existence. Any deviation suggests too much diminshment reducing the pedestal on which entitled western women demand they remain permanently perched.

Yet can contemporary western  man expect equal repricosity?

Any honest observation reveals the answer is no For decades western man has been fed a steady feminist diet of himself as the sum total of all that is wrong, evil, bad and unnecessary in the world. In fact we're so used to hearing  about how we're bad fathers, and evil men many men truly believe it and live in a cocoon of self loathing. When western contemporary man sees images of fathers on TV and in movies, any example of a GOOD father or GOOD husband or GOOD man is mostly the exception rather than the rule. How do we kn ow this, because when a positive image of a father is exhibited in media, most of us are genuinely surprised to see it. And you can only be surprised by something if you're not used to experiencing/seeing a particular thing that consistently exhibited in one format that appears predictably normal.

Take for instance several decades in which TV sitcoms featured almost without variation, the dumb, incompetent bumbling dad. It's bad enough that sitcoms are filled with immature, brain-dead manchildren, who are supposedly reflections of men and fathers in real life. but to compound matters, we now have many men who truly believe the worse about themselves and sometimes will  regurgitate to the mainstream media these aspects of male identity as though no other positive aspect is manifest. One incarnation of self-loathing men is in the form of male sitcom writers. Over and over again they fuel the feminist predisposition that men are innately childish, sexually confused, intellectually void, emotionally stunted and barely cognitive enough to figure out how to cross a street intersection without the saving grace of brilliant flawless, intellectually superior women whose saving grace is how much they tolerate our infantile nature.

Some feminist will say, they are opposed to the bumbling man  incompetent father trope that is frequently a feature of male gender in TV and movies. Yet I find it difficult to believe them. They externalize the negative portrayals to "patriarchy." (Another way of blaming men as a collective.) Despite the fact that it was feminists in academia and society that pushed the bad man, bad father paradigm into modern social consciousness. Well, it's not as if you see groups of mainstream feminists openly protesting against TV shows and movies on behalf of men with the same passion as they exhibit when seeking to destroy the careers and livelihoods of men who depict women as less than appealing in anything including motherhood. Want to test it? Give it some thought. How many feminist openly protested  the daytime talk show called "The Talk" which had a five minute segment praising Catherine Kieu and mocking the man whose penis she destroyed the same way they protested Don Imus for making an insensitive comment about an all female basketball team. Did the feminist openly call for the hosts to lose their jobs? Did the feminist take to mainstream media to spotlight the intolerable sexism practiced by the "feminist" hosts of "The Talk" Did they wage a sustained campaign to destroy the reputation and define the hosts, and its creators as misandrists for life?

No.

In fact, when it comes to sexism against men that hurts men, feminist default into the "Sexism doesn't harm men because the oppressor (men) cannot suffer the same as the oppressed (women).

So when you hear  or read about feminist who claim to disparage negative images of father in mainstream media, consider how they never seem to want the creators of those negative images to
suffer sustained public censure.

There should not be a sense that good fathers are the surprising exception to the rule when the inverse is true. Men and fathers should take the lead and declare over and over and over again our virtues as a gender. We should not be afraid of openly claiming our accomplishments and achievements in terms of what exemplifies the qualities of masculinity and male identity. We need to tell out boys they are special and as boys part of something unique and magnificent. Fathers need to be consistently praised, respected and vigorously defended. At every opportunity modern man need to say MEN ARE GOOD, FATHERS ARE GREAT! Especially to feminists. We should shout it defiantly and mean it with a level of sincerity that tolerates none of the feminist narratives expressing otherwise.