Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned (MGTOW Video)
|Another Abandoned Husband|
This is Canadian MGTOW. Having fun, and not giving a shit...
Today's video is called, "Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned." and features a better pronunciation of Manginas.
I recently stumbled across an article on Huffington Post, a feminist rag otherwise known as the 'Muffington Boast', entitled
you guessed it
Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned.
The article starts off with the usual feminist version of history in which men used to be the breadwinners and distributed their resources however they wished. It's written in a way that implies that these resources were not distributed in the way women wanted, but that's another topic altogether. It rambles on how women are now wage earners, and that they no longer accept this automatic hierarchy. Or is it patriarchy? I get those feminist catchphrases confused all the time.
The author goes on to describe the current millennial men are free thinkers, probably as long as their thoughts mirror their wives' thoughts, and that they are responding in kind to these new relationships. Supposedly they want their women strong, and feisty, which is code speak for bossy and bitchy in my humble opinion. The Millennial men accept responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way; probably blissfully unaware how this will bite them in the end when they get handed a divorce. The author says these men simply "get it." That it's considered sexy to make a meal, take the kids away on Sunday morning so their wife can sleep in on her pedestal. The description further adds, " They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become." Any self respecting man would refer to these effeminate males as Manginas.
The article continues with, " You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings." Uncharacteristically, this Huff Post article actually allowed this article to say, " In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they're dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted." The author asks why would these women not be satisfied with the female dream, and why would they leave these ideal men?
It may be a cliché, but clichés are often true, because they stand the test of time. The reason in my opinion is simply.
WOMEN ARE NEVER SATISFIED.
Let me repeat it, for those of you out there, that might be mentally slow.
WOMEN ARE NEVER SATISFIED.
The author, who happens to be a marriage counsellor, ironically has several of these great husbands as patients. Just imagine, throwing your identity away to become an obedient Mangina, and finding out that even that was not enough to satisfy your wife. The patients she described as quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These men all make a living, love their kids, help with housework, support aging parents, and support their wives desires and interests. Now, doesn't this sound awful for the women? How did these princesses put up with this? Their struggle is oh so real! The author has 40 years under her belt as a counsellor, so it's a valid observation when she mentions that these dumped men, resemble the women of decades ago, that were abandoned by men, who "just wanted something new."
So just when you think that this article might start casting these women in a bad light, the gynocentric filter is turned on. She states, " You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know, are far from that." She describes these women as still loving their husbands as much as they ever did, that they still respect them, and still describe them as wonderful. What the hell? What planet are they on? With not even a hint of abuse mentioned, these women are tearing their family unit apart simply due to some vague dissatisfaction? I totally disagree that these women still respect their husbands. They obviously did not respect their wedding vows, so how could they possibly respect their husband?
The article goes on to say they no longer want to be yoked to anyone. So, scratch commitment from their list of potential qualities. It blathers on about being free in their new found "right" to create a different way of feeling in relationships. Then the astonishing quote of, "In short, they want to live their lives with the privileges men once had." What does this even mean? Was there some sort of epidemic of men leaving their wives in the 1950s that I missed? I very much doubt the few that did leave, had reasons as lame as the ones listed. Could you imagine a 1950s TV Dad, like Ward Cleaver, from "Leave it to Beaver", telling his sons, "Your mother is a high quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive wife. She loves you kids, supports my aging parents, and supported my interest and desires. Although I still love, and respect her, I'm leaving for a different kind of woman... Daddy is leaving you, and your mother, for some exciting Asian poontang! I'm leaving for... beaver!"
in the last twenty years, as women have demanded more equality in their relationships, they supposedly were ready to take charge and be independent. On the flipside they wanted their men to be nurturing and vulnerable. All this was to create some equally blended mess, than they claimed would not be, a "he" and "she", but an idealized "we". The article further goes on to describe that these Manginas were now seen by women as their best friend. They were also described as "wonderfully malleable", which mean that women could take their man anywhere, and their man would "fit in". If all of this sounds one-sided, you are right!
As expected, things started to go awry! There were a lot of 'maybes' and 'perhaps' in the article, never taking any accountability, but I think it's fair to say that these androgynous couples put too much value on being clones of each other, namely a clone of the woman. Men became too nice, or in other words pushovers, while the women became too challenging. What was a poor Mangina to do? In the end he was no longer able to get respect from her. A man simply cannot be a warrior and vulnerable nurturer at the same time.
Not surprisingly, the author said these women left these Manginas for more masculine men who they thought would both excite and nurture them, and in the end this sadly did not happen for these spoiled princesses. Several of these women were rethinking their decision, some wondered if they left too soon, or, gasp, for the wrong reasons. Some wanted to reconcile with their husbands after going for their wild ride, while their Mangina husband was torn between growing the balls to reject them, and wanting them back like some masochistic idiot. And yet, some did take their wives back but the author's reason for this is astounding. She states that these men were able to forgive in a way few men have been able to do in the past, because these Manginas have nurtured their feminine side! If there is one sex who I've observed as have a lower capacity to forgive, and let go of past harms it is women! I must heard the line, "If he cheated once, he'll cheat again.", hundreds of times on TV and movies. I have never, in my 46 years, ever, heard the line "If she cheated once, she'll cheat again."
Near the end of the article she sums up that the re-united couples, "intensely want to create a new kind of connection that blends the beauty of traditional roles with the freedom to move between them." Sounds like some muddled middle that's hard to define, and would require two things that I can't see happening. 1) The Mangina would have to start growing a pair of balls, but how could he if he was raised from birth by a feminist mother? And 2), This article very mildly hints, that the woman would have to change too!! But how does a "strong independent woman, that needs no man..."
After all, she's been raised to think that everything in the world is men's fault, women are oppressed, and that women can do no wrong. So why should she change? If she is a feminist, how does she go against her ideology? Does she wilfully take on a more traditional female role, while clenching her teeth the whole time and feeling oppressed even while performing the simple task of cooking dinner? As for the Mangina, how long does he walk on eggshells while searching for that muddled middle? She was a flake and left the family before, will she do it again? Does he start challenging her? Will the simple act of man-spreading, sitting down with his legs apart, set her off? Will growing facial hair, be considered a micro-aggression? Does he let her challenge him today, because he didn't allow it yesterday? If she cheated once, she'll cheat again.
If your head hurts, don't reach for aspirin. Reach for MGTOW! Relationships should not be this hard. A simple cost-benefit analysis, would quickly show quite a few costs, with very few benefits. And sorry ladies, but your vagina is NOT a multiple point benefit. It is especially hard when the game is rigged from the outset. You have women who don't know what they want, and even when they supposedly find what they want, they realize they don't want that either! Men often complain that they are not a mind reader. Even if you could read minds, how could you read a mind that one day changes direction with the flip of a switch? Everywhere you go, there are articles like the one this video is based on, where the predominant theme is YOU, as a MAN, MUST CHANGE. And if that is not good enough, then you MUST CHANGE AGAIN! Screw your identity. Screw your self-respect. Conform to your woman's wishes. After all, she is the true prize in this gynocentric mad society. She doesn't have to change. She doesn't have to grow up.
This concludes this article... If you enjoyed this video, please comment, rate and subscribe. Thank you. This is Canadian MGTOW, signing off! Save yourself! Go MGTOW...