Post: #1

Some people who are consistently wrong, agitating and all-round problematic deserve their own thread. I'd nominate Hanna Rosin for such a thread. A quick google search through RVF validates that view.

This week she's interviewing some weirdo, Esther Perel, on cheating/marriage, who of course see no harm in cheating -- as long as you lie. (That's what women's logic is like in a nut shell: it didn't happen if you lie, twist or omit, because no feelings got hurt. I'll remember that one.) I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence here by dissecting the drivel involved, so let's skip all the analysis. Per usual, if there's hope, it lies in the proles -- so skip to the comment section for some common sense injection.

"Don't take marriage advice from someone who has been married 4 times."

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/d...z2xWjdY13j

In another interview she writes: "There is no dependence without anger, hatred, jealousy and revenge. Passion provides the space, language and opportunity to experience the complex elements of love. Because of that, the egalitarian model does not suit passion."

So, basicly, passion dies when things (=hubby) get boring. Big surprise. How not to be boring? Be a man, again. For those who are married, you better have some marriage game.

Post: #2

Rosin has been using politics for some some time to justify her desire to cheat on her beta husband.

From the article:

Quote:What’s changed is, we expect a lot more from our relationships. We expect to be happy. We brought happiness down from the afterlife, first to be an option and then a mandate. So we don’t divorce—or have affairs—because we are unhappy but because we could be happier. And all that is part of the feminist deliberation. I deserve this, I am entitled to this, I can have this! It allows people to finally pursue a desire to feel alive.

I'll just say it: this is all a bunch of fucking narcissism.

Shitty, self-absorbed article. As expected.

Post: #3

I actually don't give a shit what grownups do. So, Rosin et al can slut it up all they want. If a guy married a malcontent like Rosin, I feel he deserves whatever he gets.

OTOH, books and ideas like this, when not confronted, have a way of spreading, i.e. influencing larger audiences. Regular people who needlessly get themselves in trouble for following bad advice from the frustrated, bored, angry or jealous.

This is how idiocy like Freudianism or deconstructionism spread also.

Post: #4

Hanna Rosin’s credentials as a feminist leader are unquestionable. She penned ‘The End of Men’ and was the first to tell college girls that hooking up with strangers is ‘empowerment’.

I still remember an article she did for The Atlantic on the Craigslist murders of 2011 – an asshole put ‘help wanted’ ads on CL and then murdered the guys he hired, stealing their stuff

Sidenote: game recognized to Rosin, it is actually an excellent article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch..._page=true

True to form for The Atlantic, the first 2/3 is good reporting and the last 1/3 is preachy. But the preaching starts off like this:

Quote:
I was initially drawn to the story of the Beasley murders because I thought it would illuminate the isolation and vulnerability of so many working-class men, who have been pushed by the faltering economy from one way of life—a nine-to-five job, a wife, children—into another, far more precarious one: unemployed or underemployed, single or divorced, crashing on relatives’ spare beds or in the backseats of cars. At what other moment in history would it have been plausible for a serial killer to identify middle-aged white men as his most vulnerable targets?

But what I discovered in the course of my reporting was something quite different. As traditional family structures are falling apart for working-class men, many of them are forging new kinds of relationships: two old high-school friends who chat so many times a day that they need to buy themselves walkie-talkies; a father who texts his almost-grown sons as he goes to bed at night and as he wakes up in the morning.

Christians often talk about a “God-shaped hole,” a need inside us that can be filled only by faith. But perhaps we share a “family-shaped hole.” When the old structures recede for men, they find ways to replace them with alternative attachments, bonds with one or two people that offer the warmth and intimacy typically provided by a wife or significant other. If anything, these improvised families can prove more intense because they are formed under duress and, lacking a conventional domestic routine or a recognized status, they must be constantly tended and reinforced.

Observations, not necessarily rebuttals:

1) How satisfying is it to hear a feminist associate male unemployment with divorce? There it is, in black & white – she lays out in juxtaposing lists what she thinks of men:

Job
Wife
Children

-or-

Unemployed/underemployed
Single/Divorced
Freeloaders


2) How long before she discovers ‘hey wait! It’s not just white working-class men passing on marriage; it is men from ALL socio-economic strata?’

3) That last paragraph is basically MGTOW as seen by a feminist not trying to be snarky for once.

Post: #5

Here's an article where she defends genital mutilation of children:

http://nymag.com/health/features/60146/

It's amazing how she laments about the possible health effects of circumcision but never once addresses the more important topic of consent.

This woman is totally nuts. On the one hand she thinks abortion is legitimate (I agree, btw) because the government should have no say in what women do with their bodies. Nonetheless, when it comes to little boys the rights to self-determination and to physical integrity suddenly play no role to her anymore. The lad gets circumcized because she wants him to and justifies it with her backward and pre-modern religious beliefs. He is not getting asked if he is okay that a part of his penis is going to be irreversibly removed from him.

I'm not saying circumcision on boys is inherently wrong. But it should be restricted to adoloscents or young adults who are able to give consent to the operation and to boys for whom it's medically necessary because of phimosis or other illnesses.

Post: #6

If it weren't for that awful "End of Men" book and the related anti-male propaganda in the news at the time, I wouldn't have frantically searched the interest for data proving her wrong, which in turn led me to this forum and the red pill.

Post: #7

Welcome good sir, enjoy your stay. Quite a cast of characters here, and lots of useful information and entertaining reads.

Post: #8

Hannah Nosin



Eek, what a beak!

Wald

Post: #9

Here are some quotes by Hanna, admittedly not all on the uselessness of men.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...rosin.html

My favorites:

"If my own current husband was suddenly a stay-at-home dad, it would be emasculating. That would be hard for me." Emphasis on current. We all marry 10 times, right?

"Evolutionary psychology tells us that men, especially powerful men, feel invincible and entitled to spread their seed, and that women can't resist the scent of masculine power. Women, by contrast, are said to be more altruistic and collaborative, seeking power so that they can share it with others." No, women are not collaborative. They are absolutely not more collaborative than men - ever.

Here's her lucky other half, David Plotz.


He works at Slate. I have a hard time understanding why any normal man would work at Slate, Salon, or some of these other prog limbs of agitation directed against normal people, but some men manage to make a career out of it.

So, congrats Dave! Both love and career, you've got it all.

Post: #10

(03-31-2014 05:02 AM)Nolecbo Wrote:  Hanna Rosin’s credentials as a feminist leader are unquestionable. She penned ‘The End of Men’ and was the first to tell college girls that hooking up with strangers is ‘empowerment’.

I'm not sure she's a feminist leader, or aspires to be. She seems mostly focused on the $$$$. Her books and articles and deliberately provocative, and she markets herself in way that will get needy women (and angry men) to pay attention to her work (and hopefully buy it). But I've never seen her advocate for a political candidate or a feminist issue -- because those don't have marketing tie-ins.

I think she's just another ugly, jewish, run-of-the-mill feminist sympathizer (not leader) who desperately wants to cash in on her hobby. THAT'S the primary motivation, in my view.

By the way - why are so many prominent feminists jewish women? No offense to jewish friends, but seriously - get your women under control!!