Best Retort to "Unmarried men are Cowards"?

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Eric Lauder wrote:

Today I heard a new one, and it’s wonderfully absurd:

“Men who prefer to cook their food, rather than having a woman cooking for them, are childish, they have Peter Pan syndrome”.
It’s from a tradcon woman.

If you let woman cook for you , are you oppressing her?

Choose door #1 Peter Pan Syndrome (cook)
Choose door #2 Oppressor (don’t cook)
I’ll take door #3 MGTOW (Buy myself a gourmet steak at a fancy restaurant and eat it at the bar by myself with a fine scotch and no c~~~splaining to listen to)

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

Unmarried men are cowards

Are you talking to me or chewing a brick? Because both ways you’re gonna lose teeth

[OneTrueMisfitSpectator 2690]

Married men are cowards to be single. Tell them to get a divorce.

Don't care

[AkanbiParticipant 2120]

Eric Lauder wrote:

Today I heard a new one, and it’s wonderfully absurd:

“Men who prefer to cook their food, rather than having a woman cooking for them, are childish, they have Peter Pan syndrome”.

It’s from a tradcon woman.

That is one desperate “tradcon” woman.

My brother make you no follow sheeple o. Look them and Go Your Way.

[markParticipant 451]

FrostByte wrote:

If you let woman cook for you , are you oppressing her?

Let? If she does not cook, she does not get to be with me. It is part of the job description. She can also take a hike. It is part of living in a free country.

Funnily enough, I don’t think I have cooked an entire week by myself since 2008. And I very seldom go to restaurants. And my mum lives thousands of miles away.

I guess cooking must be really liberating for certain women. Namely, the ones who want to see me again.

PS: I can cook just fine. I just choose not to.

[narwhalParticipant]

In order for a man to be considered a coward, he must first be facing danger. So she’s readily admitting that marriage is dangerous for men.

And it’s not that men have a problem with risk, it’s just that taking risk with no reward is stupidity.

In almost every of life, men are as, or more, willing to take risks then women are. So if men are less willing to marry then women are, what does that say about marriage? The obvious conclusion is that marriage is much more dangerous to men with much less reward.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 3]

narwhal wrote:

In order for a man to be considered a coward, he must first be facing danger. So she’s readily admitting that marriage is dangerous for men.

And it’s not that men have a problem with risk, it’s just that taking risk with no reward is stupidity.

In almost every of life, men are as, or more, willing to take risks then women are. So if men are less willing to marry then women are, what does that say about marriage? The obvious conclusion is that marriage is much more dangerous to men with much less reward.

Try to get a young woman to marry, and it’s like you’re trying to kill her, she will do everything she can to avoid marriage. She will scream every excuse in the book, complain that it is oppression and misogyny.

Fast forward 20 years later, and suddenly the man has to marry her, and she will use every shaming tool at her disposal to demand it.

Only the absolute stupidest men could possibly fall for this game. And those men absolutely deserve to get married and destroyed.

If a society can not pressure its young women into marriage, good luck pressuring its aged men into marriage with aged women. It is ridiculous to me. Absolutely absurd. The fact that men even bother acknowledging this garbage and want to discuss it with women is so idiotic to me. These women know exactly what they’ve done and exactly what men would want, and they spitefully do the opposite just because they have so little respect for men, and honestly think men are so stupid they don’t see it.

[kbbroilerParticipant 886]

For me, why even say anything. You can’t argue with crazy feminists.

[Anonymous 2]

I reply to her with:

“It’s really easy to accuse somebody of cowardice when they won’t do something that puts all the risk on them, amd all the rewards on you, isn’t it? You’re just angry because men like me aren’t so stupid as to enter into a deal that only benefits you at our expense. Nice try, but your bulls~~~ shaming tactics don’t work on me.”

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

My new response to all shaming is (in a flippant voice)
“If you say so”.

Works like a charm. I give no argument to argue with. I fully accept that’s how she feels. I don’t give a f~~~. You haven’t effected me.
All in one breath.
It’s like saying, ‘your dismissed’ without being antagonistic.
Best of all is sows seeds of doubt into their minds.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[markParticipant 451]

FrostByte wrote:

My new response to all shaming is (in a flippant voice)
“If you say so”.

This is indeed the best answer.

In fact I used a similar version when a coworker tried to go in bed with me. She told me if I had the b~~~~ to go to her hotel room and I replied “nope I don’t”.

[Author]

Posts