Russell Dropping Truth Bombs

The Case Against Matt Forney

This is a response to Matt Forney's article The Case Against Female Self-Esteem.

Full article http://mattforney.com/2013/09/16/the-case-against-female-self-esteem/

I've integrated guyz! I realise the formatting is totally fucked but whatever it's postmodern deal with it.

This is Matt Forney's writing

This is my writing.

I’m just gonna come out and say it: I love insecure women.

Whenever a girl I’m talking to brags about how she’s “confident” and “strong,” I can feel my dick deflating like a punctured tire. I’d still bang her, of course; a repellent personality doesn’t negate the fact that she has a slammin’ body. But a crucial part of the attraction is lost.

OK, a couple of problems to start off.

1.    His penis and its behavioural issues dictate the way all men and women should think, act and value themselves.

2.    There seems to be a lack of analysis about why he is not attracted to women who value themselves and their abilities. Because he has mother issues, or is sadistic in his joy at degrading others and watching others degrade themselves, or because he enjoys manipulating those conveniently weaker than him, he assumes strong women to be at fault. It isn’t Forney’s problem that he wants to be the domineering party in the relationship. It is other women who should change. In other words, instead of recognising he’s fucked and changing, he insists that others change to conform to accommodate the fact that he’s fucked.

3.    This leads us to the third and maybe most fatal assumption, that women exist to please him. Women do not exist to enjoy their lives, or appreciate themselves and their own abilities, or advance their careers and achievements. It’s not possible that women could enjoy being strong or confident more than the achievement of inflating this particular misogynist’s penis. Women exist to turn men on, and while that may not be their sole function, it is, in Forney’s eyes, the primary function.

The idea that women should have self-esteem or need it, beyond a low baseline to ensure they don’t commit suicide or become psycho stalkers, is one of the most disastrous social 

engineering experiments of the modern era. A woman with excessive confidence is like a man with a vagina. It’s an attribute that is at best superfluous and at worst prevents women from fulfilling their natural biological and social functions.

1.    There is no acknowledgement of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, women’s oppression was socially engineered by patriarchal power structures. Crazy talk, I must be a woman.

2.    A ‘man with a vagina’…it’s impressive how close he comes to realising he’s an assclown, and then just backs away at the last second. How bizarre,  the concept that women want to have the same opportunity to be have independent happiness, rather than superficial happiness contingent on the whims of a male partner.

3.    Lastly, and quite obviously, it’s problematic that he has claimed strength and confidence as innately masculine characteristics. By dichotomy women receive weakness and insecurity as innate to their being; this is the cornerstone of sexism, and it is clear from this that Forney is a lost cause at this point.

4.    I do love his philosophy of logic. It’s not true because of science. It’s true BECAUSE IT’S TRUE, NOW GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN BEFORE MY DICK DEFLATES. Vom.

In order for America to right itself, there needs to be a massive and concerted war on female self-esteem.

1.    If we're honest with ourselves... in order for America to 'right itself' it needs gender essentialist Republicans to grow the fuck up and let the government run.

2.    Oh, you’re an irrationally angry man who enjoy declaring war on the underprivileged for digging themselves out of oppression?  Points for originality.

From the moment they’re old enough to speak, girls in America are bombarded with propaganda that artificially boosts their self-esteem. They’re told that they’re shpecialand you-nique because they have an extra X chromosome. They’re told that they’re smart, that they can do anything, that they deserve respect merely for existing. They’re encouraged to derive self-worth not from their inherent feminine nature but from their college degree, their job or the other illusory trappings of achievement in a man’s world.

Combine this with the white-knighting tendencies of fathers and the sexual attention that attractive girls already get from puberty forward and you have a complete social meltdown in the making.

1.    I’m confused how social conditioning is a thing when women are told to be dangerously confident and to attempt to derive some kind of empirical self-worth, other than the billboards, fashion, and feminine trappings most commonly designed by men, but social conditioning is NOT a thing when it teaches them to be feminine.

2.    I like how instead of Forney insisting that girls and boys getting equal encouragement, he’s mostly arguing for support for female children to disappear. ‘Daddy, I want to be an astronaut!’ ‘Oh honey. Those suits are so unflattering. But one day, you CAN have the honour of inflating the dick of a misogynistic blogger who gets sexual gratification out of smelling your desperation.’

Here are my reasons why girls should be discouraged from being confident.

1. Most girls have done nothing to deserve self-esteem.

In the world of men, respect—and by extension self-esteem—is based on actually achieving something of worth or having some kind of skill or talent. Are you a bodybuilder or jacked? Men and women will respect you because the effort to mold your body like that requires an enormous amount of work and dedication. Being a talented musician, an experienced world traveler, a high-earning tradesman; these and more engender respect from your fellow man and self-esteem along with it. No one respects a fat video game-playing kid who lives in his parents’ basement, and why should they?

There’s absolutely no skill or work involved in pissing away your life eating Doritos and jacking off into a tube sock.

1.    Actually, what we do in society is we afford to respect to everyone automatically, unless they have done something legitimately horrible to lose it. This is why we respect people who are disabled, people who are ill, why we respect the rights of children and the homeless. Otherwise we would be what’s known as a bully, or in your case, an asshole.

Women claim they want equal rights as men, but they don’t want equal responsibilities. As such, they demand respect not based on their merit as people, but for merely continuing to breathe. Most girls’ so-called achievements, the ones they take pride in, are complete jokes. Wow, you have a master’s degree in puppetry? In a world where everyone and their mother has a college degree—and where college curriculums have been dumbed down to the point of inanity—being able to squeak through an institution of higher learning is no great achievement.

1.    The author has notably failed to earn a college degree.

If anything, having a college degree is a strike against a girl—unless it’s in something real like a STEM discipline—as it shows that she’s a conformist who thinks that credentials are a substitute for knowledge and experience.

1.    Or she just liked meeting male feminists on campus and having dynamite equal rights equal orgasms sex with them.

The same goes for having a job. The vast majority of girls work useless fluff jobs: government bureaucrats, human resources and various other makework positions that exist to give them the illusion of independence. The jobs that keep the country running—tradesmen, miners, farmers, policemen, the military—are still overwhelmingly dominated by men. If every girl was fired from her job tomorrow, elementary schools would have to shut down for a couple days, but otherwise life would go on as usual.

1.    Excellent observation Matt, education is unimportant. Excellent observation Matt, women are too lazy to be miners. Especially because those industries you’ve listed are so welcoming to women.

If every man lost his job tomorrow, the country would collapse.

Feminists can screech as loud as they want, but they will never change this fundamental reality; men accord respect based on merit, and if girls want to play in our world, they’ll have to obey our rules. Otherwise, they know where the kitchen is.

1.    The fact that you blame women for not entering male dominated professions but then want the fact that men control access to ‘their world’ to work for your case and expect it not to be a total contradiction KILL YOURSELF.

2.    Women and the kitchen. Ooh, burn.

I have more respect for the starving artist couple busking down the street from my house than I do for all the career-driven, Strong, Independent Women™ in the world. Being able to sing and play guitar well is no small achievement, and the buskers are actually providing a useful service to the world.

1.    Lesson to be learned: there are no female buskers.

2. Insecurity is integral to femininity.

I was thinking about a couple of my past relationships when I had this epiphany; the girls I’ve loved the most were the ones who were the most insecure, the most emotionally vulnerable. When I first went on a date with the only girl I would have ever married, her hands were trembling in nervousness. She later admitted that she was openly intimidated by me and the idea that I found her attractive. She had been an ugly duckling in high school, forty pounds overweight and used to being ignored and mocked; I had met her shortly after she’d lost the weight, when she still viewed the world through a fat girl’s eyes.

·         That’s sweet. What I can tell you as an objective bystander is that you like this woman because she makes you feel better about yourself. What I dispute about this is that you take that, and you assume that the purpose of making you feel better about yourself should be the purpose of all women, and any benefits they may gain from independence are of a lesser importance.

•      I have no idea where your insatiable emotional insecurities come from; I don’t know why you assume women to be the sole answer to them. However, I do know that they have no right to determine what kind of environment the nation’s female children should be raised in.

Insecurity is the natural state of woman. How could it be anything else? Given their lack of physical strength, a woman on her own should be frightened as hell without men to protect her. If society were to collapse, all the Strong, Independent Women™ who read Jezebeland xoJane would last about five minutes before they either found a man to cling onto or got raped and killed. In the bellum omnium contra omnes that is mankind’s default existence, a woman who is alone is a woman who is already dead.

·         My favourite part about this is, ‘People today should act the same way as if we were in prehistoric times of utter necessitated barbarism.’ Women would be raped and killed? So would disabled people, children, the old, the sick, and physically weak men. Shall we insist they also have low self-esteem?

·         I’m sorry, that’s stupid. Old disabled people aren’t going to inflate your dick.

One of the most commonly repeated tropes of feminists and manboobs goes something like this:

“You should be happy that women nowadays are independent, because it means that they’re with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they’re dependent on you.”

This is a fundamental violation of the relationship between men and women. Part of our identity as men based in women needing us, if not necessarily in a material sense, then in an emotional one, though material and emotional vulnerability often go hand in hand. That female insecurity is a crucial ingredient for unlocking our inner masculine instincts. If a 

girl needs me, feels that her life would end if she were to lose me, I’m doubly inspired to be there for her, to shield her from the cruelty of the world. Frankly, it’s pretty hot. If she just wants me, could take me or leave me, my gut response is one of apathy. “Yeah, whatever babe."

   It’s probably helpful to remember that you can actually need a person because they fulfil a part of you emotionally and you connect with them, not because you are physically vulnerable or need their money.

Confidence doesn’t give men erections; vulnerability does.

In order to love someone else, you need to be emotionally vulnerable, more so women than men (as girls are attracted to confident men).

REMEMBER GUYS, women are the irrational ones who find confident people attractive. As a dude, Forney has no idea why they would do that. Silly bitches.

If I’m not the center of a girl’s world, I’m not going to be in her world period.

I can already see the Jizzabellers angrily pounding away at their Macbooks: “You just can’t handle a Strong, Independent Woman™!” We men can handle you just fine; the problem is that we don’t want to. So-called confident women are as threatening as a pile of dog turds. Sure, you can scrape them off your boots when you get home, but it’s better to not step in dog shit to begin with.

 Damn Matt, I love it when you talk dirty.

...Seriously though, kill yourself.

3. Women don’t want to have high self-esteem.

This is the kicker; in their bones, girls know that their toxic, feminist you-go-grrl ideology is a lie. Why do you think the average urban slut machine is downing enough Prozac to poison the water supply?

      ‘Urban slut machine’ – this delicate turn of phrase expresses what some might call a distaste for females who are sexually active. I tentatively suggest that women should probably be able to do with their bodies what they wish without being termed ‘machine’?

Pharmacological assistance is the only way she can make it through her day without slitting her wrists, or alternately realizing that her life is a complete lie. Every day, women show through their actions that they despise their strong, independent lives.

They want nothing more than for a man to throw them over his knee, shatter the Berlin Wall around their hearts, and expose the lovestruck, bashful little girl within.

‘Little girl’? You want a little girl to inflate your dick? You want to 'throw' a little girl over your knee?

Just no.

Hell, I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

  I have no joke to make here, only that any decent person reading this would be shocked at such a cavalier treatment of the worst thing one in three women will ever experience, ever have to try to recover from.

·   Judging from Forney’s comment section there are a lot of indecent people in the world.

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for “equality”; they’re a cry for help. Girls don’t want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master’s degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to becollectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

Once again, we are told by a man to want what he wants us to want, which is to be servile, to be domesticated, and to enjoy sexual mistreatment. Forney does not know women well, but he knows his own needs well and he can hold pretensions about the former to serve the latter. Even if that means shaming rape victims, arbitrarily limiting females from birth, and denigrating the hard-fought achievements of women who have refused to be defined by their sex.

Never let a prick on the internet tell you what you should be.

YAY, KILLING MACHINES, YAY, NATIONALISM

This is a review of the international fleet review. #meta.

In no way am I against the people who have made a brave and difficult choice to join the army, navy, air force, or serve in any other way in the military. You guard us while we sleep, and for that, we can never be grateful enough.

There is a difference, however, in expressing that kind of gratitude, and expressing gratitude in extravagant displays of military glorification. Not only was the Fleet Review spectacularly costly, but it also simplified the realities of serving in and deploying the armed forces in conflict, and glorified weapons that should never be seen as anything other than a last resort.

It was amusing to see the strong support from the conservative government of the display, with Tony Abbott triumphantly rolling out his daughters for the umpteenth time, once again usually wearing white. (Any other colour makes them look impure, you see, like their persistently black-wearing mother). Precious gifts aside, one would think that a government elected on the basis of their ‘WE HAVE NO MONEY DEBT DEBT DEBT OMGZ[1]’ platform would be a little less impressed with millions of dollars literally going up in smoke, whether in the form of fireworks or exhaust.

There are no actual costings that I could find of the event, leading me to believe that the public purse was drained so hard they couldn’t afford paper to print the costings on.

The fact of the matter is, I’m not resenting either characterisations of how our funds are doing. I’m fine with the idea that we have enough cash to throw at moving lots of boats around to do things on a body of water, and clustering every single Sydney sider around the harbour so it’s like New Years Eve twice a year. Furthermore, the government can also act like we’re entering a fiscal apocalypse and we need to dig as much gas, uranium, coal and iron ore out of the ground and reject as many incoming welfare parasites on boats as possible.

The thing is, you can’t have both. Because then the message is that, we know, we know, the fleet review is expensive. But these fireworks and arbitrary displays of guns and blades and wings and engines are worth more than the lives of people living in Nauru or wherever we shove them nowadays. Machinery is more important!

And you know why it’s especially great to celebrate navy ships? Because they’ll be doing the great work of turning boats around and shunting them back into the cold ocean where they came from. It’s OK though, we don’t have to feel bad about that, because it’s a ‘sensitive military operation’ it won’t be printed in the newspaper anyway. And everything in the world will be right again – see no evil, eh?

Despite the fact that the cost has not come up at all in the last weekend, I don’t believe it to be the most insidious harm of the display. No one seems to really care that these machines are designed to kill people.

Why are we glorifying machines designed to kill people? Why are we celebrating the fact that we ever have to use them? We should be lamenting the tragedy of humanity that such things exist. I’ve listened to people of older generations discuss successful torpedo-ing of German and Japanese ships – why is that worth celebration? It is worthy of discussion, yes, but not the simplistic discussion we saw this weekend, consisting of ‘warships are good’, ‘nationalism good’, ‘machines doing cool things, good.’

By all means, express gratitude for what servicewomen and men do. It is not necessary for that gratitude to come in the form of a celebration of the military itself, as the military’s existence is a tragic but unavoidable reality. The mere fact that countries like ours retain power not through diplomacy, not through benevolence of international policy, but by flaunting our own killing machines and flaunting our relationship with American killing machines, which are far more expensive and impressive, is not a cause for celebration. It is a cause for mourning.

It seemed ironic that just as America flaunted a slice of its spectacular fleet in our harbour, its government was shut down over a fiscal squabble. Part of the problem was perhaps the (conservative estimate) of one trillion dollars spent on the American military every year. And for what? To maintain power through fear, not benevolence or cooperation.

Such was the message sent on the weekend. The military may be a necessity, but seeing demonstrations of its fearsome power should give you chills, should be a spectacle, should disturb you, and knowing that it inspires the same fear in our enemies, you should derive great national pride from it.

In broaching these thoughts to my mother yesterday, she rebuffed me quite brutally. She spoke of the nostalgia felt by older generations who had lived through the war and depended so strongly on the navy for their survival.

In no way do I mean to cheapen that nostalgia. But while they relied on the navy, surely they would hope never to return to such a state of affairs, such international insecurity and violence, ever again? Surely they would see relying upon the military as a base last resort? Surely, having lived through the horrors of war, having suffered the losses of family members and friends who were killed by the same kinds of war machines we were celebrating on the weekend, they, more than anyone, would warn against this kind of glorification?

---

[1] Jokes aside debt is indeed bad.