Read "The Manipulated Man" for the first time.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

To be honest, for all the hype I was let down a little bit.  I read most of it except the last 10-15 pages.  It wasn’t a bad book, just an average one.

The positives:

1) Gave a fresh perspective to the female mind.

2) Came from a writer with influence in academia.

3) Pointed to a lot of the abuses by against men by women.

The negatives:

1)  Should be considered a philosophical book, lacked enough statistics for a theory to real world transfer.

2) Too much emotional and shaming language.  “Men’s lives are hell”  The word “stupid” being used a lot.  Can tell book was written by women.

3) A lot of philosophical/observational contradictions.  3 very basic examples:

1)  Author says the whole male human anatomy is beautiful and under appreciated (beginning of book).  Later points out that women are repulsed by certain aspects of it (middle book).  Against points out the shapes of bodies of both genders look the same. (close to end of book)

2) Author states that men’s lives are a living hell when manipulated to serve women.  She also states that we do so because it makes us happy.

3)  Religion is invented by a matriarchy to oppress man sexual desire and that religion complement female sexual desire.  Feminists say religion is invented by Patriarchy to oppress women and that is enables man’s sexual desire.

4)  Nymphomaniacs (women who chase after sex) are rare.

5) States how stupid women are,  but points out the complex process by which women manipulate men.

4) Had good points but used poor arguments.

5)  Book had a strong propaganda streak.  Sounded like a feminist who was bashing the patriarchy, but instead of using the “patriarchy”, bashed the matriarchy instead.

Overall I think the book was average.  It did point out many of the abuses perpetrated by women against men.  However the interpretation behind the abuses was poorly argued. It was too one sided and lacked statistical and philosophical evidence.  The author kept pointing to how stupid women are.  After reading this book, which was written by a woman, I would have to agree.

 

This is a weakly argued opinion thread because it is a Saturday and I am lazy.  Anyone who makes any further in depth agreements or disagreements, I will respond to accordingly.

 

[KeymasterKeymaster]

To be honest

No need to start with that. That’s a necessary opener on places like Facebook to prepare the intellectually dishonest for some truth telling – for a CHANGE. Those people need to be warned in advance that honesty is about to hit the page, and they should brace themselves. But we wouldn’t have it any other way. So glad you bring in on.

It wasn’t a bad book, just an average one.

True. The DaVinci Code was “good book”. The Bible is also called “THE good book”.
But The Manipulated Man doesn’t try to be a “good book”.
It’s an essential read. Like car stereo instructions. Or a menu.

We don’t even pump it as a “good book”. We recommended at as essential book.
If I wanted to read a good book, I would recommend Angels and Demons.
Aside from the Manipulated Man , it’s the only other book I read twice.

Too much emotional and shaming language. “Men’s lives are hell” The word “stupid” being used a lot. Can tell book was written by women.

On http://mgtow.com/books we are clear (and I would reiterate now) it does men no favors. It’s not kind to you. It kicks you in the f~~~ing sack, and punches you in the face. No doubt about it. It’s a f~~~ing insult. But that’s the point. If you have ever seen the film “Wanted” (Total MGTOW theme with Angeline Jolie and James McAvoy) it’s just like that. A requirement…. in order for him to learn that the reader doesn’t know who he is. Exactly the same message. And the woman does all the ass-kicking.

—

That’s what Esther Vilar did to me while I was reading. In doing you no favors, she does you a huge favor of telling the common male reader exactly who he is in the eyes of the world. At first that scene bugged the s~~~ out of me too. It p~~~ed me off like the point p~~~es you off. But it was SUPPOSED to.

Author states that men’s lives are a living hell when manipulated to serve women. She also states that we do so because it makes us happy.

Now you’re getting warmer. This was the BEST part. It hurt the most and broke my nose. How many men do we all know who appear to quite happy to be enslaved , and even when they are released from Prison, they will intentionally commit a crime again to return to prison. Men marry again for the same reason too. Even when they were totally destroyed by the first one. You didn’t like it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

States how stupid women are, but points out the complex process by which women manipulate men.

Key in understanding women and how they operate.

Gold Digger

Which one is “smarter” here??
/audio/3-million-dollar-bitch/

The Man is. She loses and hangs up in a hurry. But he was also stupid because he married and divorced 4 times. Just because a woman successfully manipulates a man, doesn’t mean she is “smarter”. She is counting on the stupidity of men and says so out loud. She’s not smarter. She’s only THINKS she’s smarter because her husband was a fool. A gold digger (audio above) also thinks she is “smarter”, but she’s not. Thinking she is smarter is exactly how she is taken advantage of.

Had good points but used poor arguments.

Doesn’t matter. The good points are what are important. She lets’ you argue it. Or not. You will either fight back (blue -pill included who refuses to accept her good points)…. or you will take the punches and swallow those red pills with a smile. That’s what makes them “good points” (punches).

Book had a strong propaganda streak. Sounded like a feminist who was bashing the patriarchy

Exactly how I first perceived the movie scene above. She was bashing the patriarchy all right.. because there is no such thing. She tells you “the patriarchy” is a fabrication and men are little willing puppets in a MATRIARCHY who are lead to believe they are strong, and in control. Based on your review points, I am confident real impact missed you.

But that’s exactly why I needed read it twice too – to really GET it.
Bumped for others to chime in. Thanks for dropping this.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Keymaster, I understand what you are saying in that the “brutal truth” is necessary if one is too move past an illusion.  No disagreement there, I was expecting it going in.  Actually I was hoping for it in one respect and not in another.  Brutality is necessary in certain situations but not in all.  She need both but lacked either.

 

To make my argument even simpler:  I just think a man could have wrote the book better, assuming the same premise.

I think because a woman wrote it, a lot of guys think “oh she is a woman she must have some special insight men don’t.”  When the truth is most of what I read elsewhere and on these forums is expressed better.  I don’t think a woman has much of a right to an opinion simply because of her inability to express it well.

 

And when I mean “good” I am not talking about entertainment value, as much as ability to convince me.  Her arguments were average, although I agree with the premises.  Her presentation was similar to the “patriarchal feminist shaming” that I have observed in college.  It was a similar argument structure.

The only reason I would fight against her book is because I believe I and most men could be more “red-pill” than her.  It isn’t an argument about whether she was right or wrong but whether her argument was weak or strong.  Although women destroy men better than a man can, men have a better “killer instinct” when it is required.  When a man seeks to destroy something literally or metaphorically he can do better job.  The book was just too emotional for me and bordered on a pseudopsychology/philosophy at times.

As a previous philosophy major, she seemed to contradict much of her philosophies and observations a lot which hurt her cause more than helped it.  It is like she heard a lot of men’s grievances against women, copied them, but used a woman’s rationale to argue them.

Ironically, although the book was “meant” for men, it seem better written for women.  During my reading, the thought that popped up in the back of my mind, was maybe that is was “more to p~~~ off women than to help men.”  After all if the book was “banned” in many places, it was by men trying to please their wives.  And the wives would have to have read it first to hate it.  Being hated can bring popularity just like being loved.

Is the book worth reading?  yes because it offers a different point of view.  Is it essential?  I would have to disagree with you keymaster and put a “maybe”. Can it be argued better?  The experience of the men on these forums proves a definitive yes.   Argumentation is important.

She tells you “the patriarchy” is a fabrication and men are little willing puppets in a MATRIARCHY who are lead to BELIEVE they are strong, and in control.

That is where I disagree with her.  Esthar and the feminists both say that the other is a fabrication, when reality is more close to a power struggle.  Both exist, either one must subdued or both must gain equal but complementary amounts of power.

My strict personal opinion is that is was average overall.  It shouldn’t be required but it doesn’t hurt either.  I will look over it again and reconstruct my criticisms where necessary.  It just reminded of the feminist doctrine of my college years.  Same eggs rescrambled.

 

 

 

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Ironically, although the book was “meant” for men, it seem better written for women.

Well in that case, I won’t need to disagree with you, because women (and men) already have.
The author received death threats from women (and feminists), and gratitude from men can be read under the Amazon reviews.

In fact, the tagline for the republishing read: “Men might love her, but women will HATE her.”
It was intended in the best interests of men.

But then again, opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.

Cheers. And happy holidays to you.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

In fact, the tagline for the republishing read: <span style=”font-family: Thread-00003b20-Id-00000128;”>“Men might love her, but women will HATE her.”
</span>

 

My point exactly.  It is all about the women once again.   We republished it focus more on the women’s reactions buy emphasizing their “HATE” but the man’s “love” means nothing.  Who is Amazon really selling too?

-Women like gossip about eachother.  This is just a macro version of it.

– Women praise men the whole time they are with them, in order to get something from them.  The Author clearly did this.

– The author basically stated that a women’s role is worthless, and if they are to gain value then she implies they should enter the industrialized workforce.  Feminists say the same thing.

–  The author’s definition of man/women was based on the ability to produce product.  A human being’s value is only in what is produces.  The author is a woman, of course she would think this way.

– The author uses forms of  doublespeak  similar to:   “To be sentenced to life-long freedom is a worse fate than life-long slavery.”  Then later she will state about important it is for man to obtain freedom.   Feminist/socialist doctrine uses this often in government propaganda.

–  The author keeps talking about “freedom” but gives no actual definition to the word.  She will define “man” and “woman” but gives an ambiguous definition to what her goal is.  She throws emotional words out, similar to a politician, in an effort to excite the crowd.

– The author always tries to suck up to men by emphasizing their positive attributes., no different than a potential gold digger.  example:

He really loves his wife and wants her happiness more than anything in the world. Therefore he produces non-smear lipstick, waterproof mascara, home permanents, no-iron frilly blouses and throwaway underwear – always with the same aim in view.

In reality women are just vain and are easy to market to because they are vain and selfish.

–  The author is offering her reasoning without enough evidence to back it up.  Anyone can make a judgement about someone elses intentions.

–  The author clearly states that a women will attract another woman’s husband simply to get under her skin.  How is the process of writing and selling of this book not a macro version of this observation?

–But in our time women are no longer subject to the will of men. Quite the contrary.  The author implies that at one point men were in charge.  However, her whole argument implies men were never in charge.  But for sake of argument let us say she is right. Then states on pg 18: all intended for the creation of new worlds, he opts instead for the preservation and improvement of the old.  She now condemns men for their actions.

-pg 12 –Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world. 

The author is a woman.  She is talking about her intentions.  If her intentions are not this, then NAWALT.  If NAWALT then the author is wrong.  If the author is wrong, why should I listen to her?

–  Hint to subtle praise author is giving to women: Women make ideal living companions for each other. Their feelings and instincts are retarded at the same primitive level and there are almost no individualistic or eccentric women. It isn’t difficult to imagine the paradise they would create together and how exciting their existence would be, even if the intellectual level was appallingly low.

Similar to feminist doctrine?

– A man needs a woman because, as we shall see, he needs something to which he may subject himself.  Then religion is unnecessary to control men.  However author points out later in book that religious is a necessary force of women to control men.

–  Another example of author “buttering up” men:  And as for the delicacy of his nipples or the pleasing shape of his scrotum and his testicles  

Later she states how women are repulsed by these features of a man.  The author is a woman.

–  More examples of opinion meant to sway audience’s emotions : There is no female gourmet; women are good for almost nothing.   Apparently the phrase “Grandma’s Apple Pie” means nothing to most men, assuming the author is right.

–We have grown so accustomed to the blunted mechanism of one-sided exploitation of one group of human beings by a parasitic clique that all our moral values have become completely perverted. 

Author gives no definition as to what moral values should be.  Author has ambiguous vision, just like most women.

–he has come into the world to learn, to work and to father children: his sons, in their turn, will learn to work, and produce children, and so it will continue forever; it has become almost impossible to think why else men should be here.

Demeans reproduction process. Another similarity to feminist doctrine.

–New worlds could he discovered, worlds one hardly dares even to dream of could be opened by the minds, strength, and intelligence of men. Things to make life fuller and richer – their own life, that is, of which women are ignorant – and more worthwhile could be developed: all these things could be done by men

Similar vision to progressive elites.  Same people who financially back feminism in most modern institutions.

 

I reread to page 26 then said to my self “F~~~ it,  her argument is only getting worse with time”.  These criticisms are only to pg 18 and are a very basic rough-rough draft of an argument.  If their is any further agreement or disagreement I can/will continue with a counter argument.  However with it being close to a third through the book, I do not want to waste mine or anyone else’s time.

 

There is no wise woman  out there

 

 

 

 

 

still editing……

 

 

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I can’t continue editing for some reason so I will continue with this next post.

I believe this book is a subtle back hand slap to all men’s intelligence.

I have a lot of respect for what you are doing here Keymaster, God knows I couldn’t do what you are doing with these forums.  But I have to call out this book.  I cannot over emphasize that this disagreement is not-personal, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

I reread up to page 26 again to see if I missed anything.  I just hated the book more and stopped reading altogether.  If I was too vague or seemed contradictory, in my argument, I will give clarity where necessary.

Happy Holidays.

[RoyDalParticipant]

@john Doe, Here’s one written by a man. Let me recommend:

The Myth of Male Power by Dr. Warren Farrell

Dr. Farrell updated his original 1993 edition and reissued it as a Kindle book in 2014. Here’s the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B00IDHV5EM
He almost lost his professor job back in 1993 because he published this heresy. I missed the whole thing at the time and am just now catching up. I found the 1993 edition in the local library.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I’ll look into it.

I am assuming that his argument and presentation is stronger than Villar’s.    Is it available on a PDF somewhere?

[Author]

Posts