Ask Amy: My daughter won't speak to me. Should I cut off the college money? ...She will not even talk to him and she expects him to pay for her college?
DEAR SAD: Unethical parents who engage in a campaign of alienation set it up as a power play and they place their children in untenable circumstances.
I'm asking you to see this from your daughter's point of view. She is behaving as if she is afraid of having a relationship, and imagine how high-stakes this is for her -- if she is close to you, she risks losing her mother.
If you withdraw funds, you will be punishing your daughter for her mother's choices and confirming her lack of trust in you.
It's hero time. Rise to this difficult challenge not to give up on your daughter.
She is in college, and she is a legal adult. She should understand that this is wrong. He is a chump to keep writing those checks.
Unfortunately, depending on the state, he may not have the right to cut off the money.
This "hero" advice is similar to what the manosphere calls white knight. The idea is that a man should do whatever he can to save/defend/rescue a damsel in distress, no matter how irresponsible her behavior is. I am coming around to the view that this is not such an admirable quality. By paying the money, he is turning his daughter into a spoiled brat.
One blog says, "Perhaps no archetype within the Manosphere is more reviled than the White Knight."
A left-wing site complains about some advice on Fox News:
‘Listen up ladies’: Fox News kicks off New Year with absurdly sexist advice for ‘catering to your man’Watch the video. The advice comes from a guest, not the host Doocy, and no one says anything unreasonable.
The hosts of Fox & Friends started the New Year on Thursday by telling women that they should “cater” to their man by stroking his ego, cooking him meals, and massaging his feet. ...
“Well, how about this one?” Doocy continued. “When he gets his ego stroked, he’ll be more inclined to love you more.”
“That’s true!” Earhardt exclaimed.
Okay, this is a little sexist, but I am going to give some advice. If a woman wants to have a happy marriage, it is pretty simple. Most men are easy to please. All she has to do is to figure out what he really likes, and then be sure to do it the way he likes it. Maybe he likes his ego stroked. Maybe he likes his favorite sandwich. If she is not sure, she can just ask him, and he will say. If she does it right, it might take only a few minutes a day, and she will be hugely rewarded.
Women are not so easy to please. They rarely say (correctly) what they want, and sometimes they become whiny and bitchy and ungrateful no matter what you do for them.
But how is it that we have gotten to the point where such simple advice gets attacked as "absurdly sexist"? There is set of views, sometimes called liberal political correctness and various other names, that wants to deny human nature and practical ways of dealing with human differences.
The same site has a nasty feminist rant by Amanda Marcotte. It attacks an article by MIT professor. There is more explanation here and here.
The kerfuffle started when MIT's best teaching professor, an 80yo retired physicist with millions of YouTube hits, exchanged some emails with some allegedly inappropriately flirtatious remarks. The girl was watching his online videos, and complained about a tweet saying "queefing is yours". I don't even know what that means. The Obama administration put pressure on MIT to respond to complaints with zero tolerance. Since he was retired and not teaching on campus anymore, they revoked his "professor emeritus" title, banned him from the campus, and took down his physics teaching videos.
A young computer science professor Scott Aaronson posted some comments on his blog that taking down the videos only hurts the millions of future physics students, including girls, who want to learn physics for free. The videos are great, and have no offensive remarks. He explained that he had typical Jewish liberal Democrat views, and supported feminists 97%, but this was going too far. Most commenters agreed, until a Jewish feminist Amy started posting scatter-brained comments about how she was sexually harassed a few times and Aaronson was supporting the patriarchal rape culture by defending the physics videos.
Aaronson reiterated his feminist credentials. He read the feminist literature, supported abortion rights, and abhors sexism so much that he would be okay with jailing those with sexist views and giving life sentences for rape. But he was a shy nerdy guy who went to college at age 15 and was afraid to ask a girl out on a date until he was 25. By the time he overcame his shyness, MIT had sent him to sexual harassment seminars where he was intimidated to never make a forward comment. His frustration sent him to psychiatrists and others, none of whom offered him any help. He is now happily married to a fellow academic he met in Israel and has a baby, but no thanks to our anti-male-nerd culture.
Aaronson probably thought that baring his soul would earn him some sympathy, but he was wrong. The more he said, the more he was attacked by feminists. For example, Amy attacked him for wanting life sentences for rapists. She explained that she has had a lot of sexual experiences with different men, and some qualify as rape according to modern feminist definitions. However sometimes the sex was good, so she would not want those guys to be imprisoned.
Most of all, he was attacked for beta male entitlement. Several feminists explained, altho not exactly in these words, that they like being sexually harassed by alpha males, but not by beta males. They are disgusted by Aaronson's attitude that social mores should have allowed him to think that he should have been able to ask a girl for a date. That is for alpha males, and not for shy nerdy losers in the sexual marketplace like him.
I guess Aaronson was lucky to somehow find a wife who was not infected with American feminism. Good for him.
You probably think that I am exaggerating or making this up. Just read the pages at the above links. In many ways it is worse.
Our society is FUBAR. I cannot rationally deal with crap anymore, and I am going to quit posting it. If you cannot see that this is wrong, I cannot explain it to you.
Aaronson thinks he is a feminist, but that has several definitions. CH defines:
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.That does seem to describe the feminists who attack Aaronson.
When Aaronson was a 16yo in college, a brother or mentor or counselor or frat buddy or someone should have taken him aside and explained the red pill to him. And then demonstrated it, because he would not have believed it. He still does not believe it. His only problem here is that our society has lied to him about male-female relations all of his life. And that feminists despise him for what he is.
Update: Vox Day responds:
What Scott Aaronson said got discovered by feminists, and they tarred and feathered him for it. Despite his clear language to the contrary, he’s accused of everything from being a MRA to being a misogynist just because of his Jewish faith. Despite his attempts to explain himself over and over again, people on Twitter are saying that female MIT students should be afraid to take his classes.
Never give feminists an inch. Don't agree with them, don't tolerate them, show them no mercy whatsoever. Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.
The problem isn't merely that feminists are ugly and hateful, or that their ideology is incoherent and deluded, but that by mere toleration of them, through mere intellectual contact with it, you are permitting your life to be infected and degraded. We've seen this in the Christian churches, which in their attempts to tame the feminist cancer and turn it into a pet, have been mortally stricken.
Reject all of it. Reject their appeals to equality. Reject their pretense to intellectual standing. And most of all, personally reject all of those who subscribe to it in any way, shape, or form. Any man who calls himself a feminist is ideologically transgender and mentally unstable.