Male Shaming Tactics of American Women

[Winston]

http://www.americanwomensuck.com

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.

Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:

*

"You're bitter!"
*

"You need to get over your anger at women."
*

"You are so negative!"

Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)

Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples:

*

"You need to get over your fear."
*

"Step up and take a chance like a man!"
*

"You're afraid of a strong woman!"

Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little"). Examples:

*

"Stop whining!"
*

"Get over it!"
*

"Suck it up like a man!"
*

"You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!"
*

"You're just afraid of losing your male privileges."
*

"Your fragile male ego ..."
*

"Wow! You guys need to get a grip!"

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples:

*

"Grow up!"
*

"You are so immature!"
*

"Do you live with your mother?"
*

"I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."
*

"Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."

Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) - The Elevated Threat Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:

*

"You guys are scary."
*

"You make me feel afraid."

Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) - The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:

*

"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."

Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:

*

"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
*

"You're an extremist"
*

"You sound like the KKK."
*

"... more anti-feminist zaniness"

Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:

*

"Are you gay?"
*

"I need a real man, not a sissy."
*

"You're such a wimp."

Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)

Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples:

*

"I'm not like that!"
*

"Stop generalizing!"
*

"That's a sexist stereotype!"

Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:

*

"You misogynist creep!"
*

"Why do you hate women?"
*

"Do you love your mother?"
*

"You are insensitive to the plight of women."
*

"You are mean-spirited."
*

"You view women as doormats."
*

"You want to roll back the rights of women!!"
*

"You are going to make me cry."

Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

Charge of Instability (Code White) - The White Padded Room Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:

*

"You're unstable."
*

"You have issues."
*

"You need therapy."
*

"Weirdo!"

Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)

Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples:

*

"You are so materialistic."
*

"You are so greedy."

Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"

Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) - The All-That-Glitters Charge

Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples:

*

"If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..."
*

"How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"

Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "high-maintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) - The Ugly Tan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:

*

"I bet you are fat and ugly."
*

"You can't get laid!"
*

"Creep!"
*

"Loser!"
*

"Have you thought about the problem being you?"

Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)

Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation. Examples:

*

"Stop being so negative."
*

"You are so cynical."
*

"If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat."
*

"C'mon! Men are doers, not quitters."

Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) - The Pink Whip

Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples:

*

"No woman will marry you with that attitude."
*

"Creeps like you will never get laid!"

Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).

[momopi]

When girls say "Get over it", what they mean is "I'm already over you". That is, you, in the past tense. Why? A girl has fewer number of years to find a best/suitable mate, so she has to hurry and dump the unqualified dudes so she can move on.

A man has the advantage of having more years to search for a mate, because a man's age is not as sensitive as a women's. But if the man is dumb enough to waste his time bitching about women endlessly, then he'd get exactly what he invested his time into: nada. If you're looking for the truth, she already told you, as she followed her own advice of "get over it and move on".

[polya]

Yes, I've heard these shaming tactics used all the time. Nobody cares & certainly, nobody defends men when feminists use them. However, if men use shaming tactics against women (like women belong in the kitchen, or Eve ate the fruit in the garden of Eden so women cannot be priests) then everyone defends the women - including other men!! Its totally unfair and I just can't be bothered talking to feminists as they have nothing I want...

[Winston]

From Steve Hoca today:

"Hello Winston:

I thought your viewers and members would like to read this. It focuses on shaming tactics, and how woman and their mangina supporters always level these charges against us men that are tired of feminism and the awful, nightmarish American dating scene.

I did a Yahoo search on the term "shaming tactics" and was almost mesmerized beyond belief that all the articles related to this subject revolve around women attacking men that are angry at feminism today. It's as if this very term was custom-tailored for mens' reaction to feminism.

http://cms.mgtow.net/?q=node/23

Anyway, you have my permission to post this. Talk to you soon.

Steve"

[Winston]

Check out Steve Hoca's latest videos about male-shaming tactics in the dating game.



In part 2, he mentions my claims about Americans being anti-social, and the fallacy that everyone is social and that all you have to do is "get out more", and debunks the "you've got to have game" argument.

[jamesbond]

I just listened to them and he is right! In society only men need to improve themselves (women of course can dress like janitors, act rude, be overweight and STILL be able to meet men WTF?)

He is also right about the anti-social behavior of Americans as Winston has talked about many times. Welcome to the dating and social scene in modern day America!

[Winston]

There's something I don't get.

We all know that AW dump guys if they don't like their looks or race, but then they turn around and tell guys that it's not about looks, but about their attitude. Isn't that 100 percent hypocritical? I mean, if women themselves KNOW that they dump men based on looks and race, and not attitude, then why do they always cite attitude as the sole reason for a man's failure with women? It doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't women be the first to know why a guy gets rejected? Why do they lie about it?

I know this for a fact because in the late 90's, 95 percent of AW dumped me on AOL as soon as I told them I was Asian or showed them my picture (which was a very nice picture taken by Don Johnson's photographer in San Francisco). But before my pic, they liked my personality and said I had the ideal personality they wanted. Logically then, that must have had to do with looks, type and race, NOT my attitude. That proves it right there. Yet most AW will blame your attitude if you get rejected. Why?

[Hook]

There's something I don't get.

We all know that AW dump guys if they don't like their looks or race, but then they turn around and tell guys that it's not about looks, but about their attitude. Isn't that 100 percent hypocritical? I mean, if women themselves KNOW that they dump men based on looks and race, and not attitude, then why do they always cite attitude as the sole reason for a man's failure with women? It doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't women be the first to know why a guy gets rejected? Why do they lie about it?

I know this for a fact because in the late 90's, 95 percent of AW dumped me on AOL as soon as I told them I was Asian or showed them my picture (which was a very nice picture taken by Don Johnson's photographer in San Francisco). But before my pic, they liked my personality and said I had the ideal personality they wanted. Logically then, that must have had to do with looks, type and race, NOT my attitude. That proves it right there. Yet most AW will blame your attitude if you get rejected. Why?

Now that you have women loving you for you abroad, why do you care anymore about AW? I mean they are only 5% of the world population. It seems like you will drive yourself to insanity worrying about it.

There is no logical answer.

[jamesbond]

[pandabear]

Here is Andrea Dworkin's lesson on shaming language.

[Winston]

Have any of you noticed this about your ex-girlfriends too? Its very spooky like something from a horror movie.

viewtopic.php?p=344272#p344272

"Furthermore, why do women who dump me after liking me a lot, also need to shame and condemn me? (e.g. Lisa, Danielle) It's as if some evil force is speaking through them, especially when they condemn me and doom me and tell me that I will always be lonely and single, because "I just don't get it" as if I have some problem that they cannot explain or discuss, but they know it somehow, and use it to condemn me, but they will not specify what they mean. They insinuate i have some "curse" that condemns me and dooms me and they know it but cannot explain it, but they use it to shame me and condemn me as if some "dark force" were saying it through them, using them as a medium. Very spooky. Like a horror movie. Why? It's like those horror movies when some old man or woman channels a message from the dark side to the protagonist, which runs chills up your spine, because sometimes that does happen in real life horror stories too."

I don't get that. If someone you are dating wants to break up, why can't they just do it amicably and wish you well? Why do they have to shame you and call you a loser and say spooky cryptic things like "You will always be alone because you will never get it" as if you have some indescribable eternal problem that dooms you which they cannot put into words. WTF do they mean by that?! Especially if you did nothing wrong? Why the need to be vindictive like that? What did I do to deserve that? Clearly, if I did nothing wrong, then I am a victim, despite what New Agers say.

With Lisa and Danielle, they used misunderstandings against me as an excuse to break up and shame me and condemn me and curse me. Why? Were they possessed? It sure seems like it. I mean, why the unnecessary vindictiveness, as if I terribly wronged them? How can a few misunderstandings and mood swings cause such hateful vindictiveness and revenge? That's totally illogical. They act like I murdered their family or something. In the movies, a woman only acts like that if you murdered their family, like in Kung Fu movies. I can't explain it. They must be cursed or possessed. There's no other explanation.

Usually, in a normal couple, a misunderstanding will be put aside, and apologies will be exchanged. In a normal friendship, that's what will happen too. People who are in love, or at least like each other, do not break up over misunderstandings. Logically, that only happens if the other person doesn't like you and is looking for an excuse to break up. However, I can swear that Lisa and Danielle did like me a lot before. So how can they change their mind so fast due to misunderstandings only, which normally get cleared up? That is f***ed up and very spooky and inexplicable.

Not even @hypermak can explain this or call it normal. Because normal women don't do that. Yet me and @GoingAwol experience it all the time. Other men can slap or hit or abuse their women, and they will return to them. Yet with us, one misunderstanding and they become moody and angry and unforgiving and want to break up, even if they seemed to like/love us before. That cannot be explained by women's fickleness or changeability. Something supernatural must be involved, like a curse or possession of some sort. There's no way around it.

Furthermore, why the vindictiveness and shaming tactic? A woman only shames you if she hates you and is angry at you. But in my case, a few misunderstandings cause them to shame me and act vindictive. Why? Can anyone explain?

Have any of you experienced this before? Or only men who are cursed experience it? I don't care what hypermak says, it's definitely NOT normal at all.

[hypermak]

Not even @hypermak can explain this or call it normal. Because normal women don't do that. Yet me and @GoingAwol experience it all the time. Other men can slap or hit or abuse their women, and they will return to them. Yet with us, one misunderstanding and they become moody and angry and unforgiving and want to break up, even if they seemed to like/love us before. That cannot be explained by women's fickleness or changeability. Something supernatural must be involved, like a curse or possession of some sort. There's no way around it.

Furthermore, why the vindictiveness and shaming tactic? A woman only shames you if she hates you and is angry at you. But in my case, a few misunderstandings cause them to shame me and act vindictive. Why? Can anyone explain?

Have any of you experienced this before? Or only men who are cursed experience it? I don't care what hypermak says, it's definitely NOT normal at all.

No offense, but these Lisa and Danielle must have been a pair of right nutcases Again, apologies for the crude metaphor but if you pick up a turd, you don't really spend much time wondering why it stinks like a turd.

[Winston]

Not even @hypermak can explain this or call it normal. Because normal women don't do that. Yet me and @GoingAwol experience it all the time. Other men can slap or hit or abuse their women, and they will return to them. Yet with us, one misunderstanding and they become moody and angry and unforgiving and want to break up, even if they seemed to like/love us before. That cannot be explained by women's fickleness or changeability. Something supernatural must be involved, like a curse or possession of some sort. There's no way around it.

Furthermore, why the vindictiveness and shaming tactic? A woman only shames you if she hates you and is angry at you. But in my case, a few misunderstandings cause them to shame me and act vindictive. Why? Can anyone explain?

Have any of you experienced this before? Or only men who are cursed experience it? I don't care what hypermak says, it's definitely NOT normal at all.

No offense, but these Lisa and Danielle must have been a pair of right nutcases Again, apologies for the crude metaphor but if you pick up a turd, you don't really spend much time wondering why it stinks like a turd.

Yes of course they were nutcases. Normal sane people don't condemn and curse you or shame you over misunderstandings. However, aren't we all nutcases too? I never attract normal people do I? That means most of the women in my life will be nutcases, and most of the posters here will probably be nutcases too, or very eccentric at least, right? lol. No offense to anyone here of course. But who among us here can be called "normal or mainstream"? Normal mainstream people find a wife and job naturally without having to go against the flow or having to try to "make things happen". It's supposed to happen naturally for normal people. It's only outcasts and misfits who are deprived of that and forced to do something drastic like go abroad or having to "make things happen" in the US and going against the grain. Not necessarily our fault of course, it's a mystery why some things happen naturally (without extra effort or rocket science) for some people but not for others. That's the 64k mystery.

[hypermak]

Yes of course they were nutcases. Normal sane people don't condemn and curse you or shame you over misunderstandings. However, aren't we all nutcases too? I never attract normal people do I? That means most of the women in my life will be nutcases, and most of the posters here will probably be nutcases too, or very eccentric at least, right? lol. No offense to anyone here of course. But who among us here can be called "normal or mainstream"? Normal mainstream people find a wife and job naturally without having to go against the flow or having to try to "make things happen". It's supposed to happen naturally for normal people. It's only outcasts and misfits who are deprived of that and forced to do something drastic like go abroad or having to "make things happen" in the US and going against the grain. Not necessarily our fault of course, it's a mystery why some things happen naturally (without extra effort or rocket science) for some people but not for others. That's the 64k mystery.

I guess it depends on the level of "nutcaseness". Plus, most women want to feel that their relationships will be eventful, even in a negative sense, i.e. they don't like to be bored.

[Winston]

Yes of course they were nutcases. Normal sane people don't condemn and curse you or shame you over misunderstandings. However, aren't we all nutcases too? I never attract normal people do I? That means most of the women in my life will be nutcases, and most of the posters here will probably be nutcases too, or very eccentric at least, right? lol. No offense to anyone here of course. But who among us here can be called "normal or mainstream"? Normal mainstream people find a wife and job naturally without having to go against the flow or having to try to "make things happen". It's supposed to happen naturally for normal people. It's only outcasts and misfits who are deprived of that and forced to do something drastic like go abroad or having to "make things happen" in the US and going against the grain. Not necessarily our fault of course, it's a mystery why some things happen naturally (without extra effort or rocket science) for some people but not for others. That's the 64k mystery.

I guess it depends on the level of "nutcaseness". Plus, most women want to feel that their relationships will be eventful, even in a negative sense, i.e. they don't like to be bored.

Yes most women do want drama and conflict, not peace. So if you don't give them drama, they create it or make up reasons to argue. Have you experienced that too? Why do they do that? Isn't unnecessary conflict a bad thing? Like the unnecessary drama between you and Contrarian Expatriate? lol

Btw, I also got another theory that makes sense. I also noticed that if you say or do something to remind a woman of her ex, even something small, if she still has baggage or trauma from that relationship, she will explode and take out all her baggage and issues onto you, as if you are her ex, even though you are not. This is really weird and will leave you thinking "WTF?" All you did was say something normal and innocent, but it triggered a memory she had with her ex, and so she subconsciously thought you were her ex again and blew up on you and got hysterical. Women have admitted this too, so it's true. I'm sure you've all experienced this too. This especially happens with women who have had many relationships.

That may have been the case with Lisa or Danielle too.