MetabolicTrash
Member
I had never heard of this book ... Apparently it's a female author (surprising?) who elaborates on how women only are capable of making men in to their slaves AKA women rule over men. Also relevant to some previous threads here since this is about the "battle between the sexes" AKA the battalions of war we keep facing on RPF.
Don't think anyone has posted about this before ... Did a quick search and did not immediately find any matches for these three words/the book's main title. Here's some inside info from:
https://thepowermoves.com/the-manipulated-man/
Not my words ... This is an "excerpt" from the book's main message/tone from author Esther Vilar.
"To this contradiction of sorts, Esther Vilar replies that women enslave men by leveraging their stupidity and looking child-like."
This is interesting as this book is genuinely considered "anti-feminist" or something of that tone, although I think most of us here would disagree with at least some of its assertions. I don't disagree with the main premise behind the book, but I would probably disagree with some of Esther's views on women/females overall ... So maybe she's a bit harsh. It sounds like she's saying that prettier women are the best manipulators, whereas less pretty women must be more "independent" (work, build her life from scratch, support herself, or at least not have presumable privilege that comes with being attractive and female?). I just found it interesting ... Thought I'd share!
According to some incel/blackpill mantra I've read this book does in fact seem to fit that category/subject matter very closely. The blackpill ideal is that women -- especially more attractive ones -- are presumably so high in ego or self-assessment that they ought not lift a finger to do anything AKA entitlement. The same argument comes back full-circle to incels ... That lack of sex is because they feel "entitled to it" in the same way that the author says pretty women in particular are "entitled to do nothing and gain from men still." So I think it's safe to say that some incels or blackpillers who might come across this book might be a fan of her work. Has anyone here heard of this?
The main interest in this is that she supposedly goes against the dogma that men are evil, animalistic, and must "level up" & contribute to others mindlessly. The antiquated idea that men are expected to give plenty even while getting little/nothing, but can be called entitled if they merely want a girl or two to like them.
Don't think anyone has posted about this before ... Did a quick search and did not immediately find any matches for these three words/the book's main title. Here's some inside info from:
https://thepowermoves.com/the-manipulated-man/
In The Manipulated Man (1971), author Esther Vilar makes the case that women contribute nothing to society.
Women learned to manipulate men to provide and feed for them.
At the core, women are stupid and men are the only ones who move society forward
Not my words ... This is an "excerpt" from the book's main message/tone from author Esther Vilar.
Men go to war, women not (or don’t have to)
Men retire later (in spite they have shorter life expectancy)
Men have no say in whether or not to have a child (women decide whether to abort or keep it)
Men support women (the other way around is exceedingly rare)
Men work all their lives (women temporarily)
Men are poorer than women
"To this contradiction of sorts, Esther Vilar replies that women enslave men by leveraging their stupidity and looking child-like."
"She categorized emancipated females as follows:Esther Vilar finally makes an exception to the rule of parasitic women’s style of living.
The exception is the “emancipated” female.
However, the exception is more appearance than reality, as the author proceeds to dismantle the idea of emancipation.
- Has to work because he can’t manage to sustain her
- Cannot have children
- Is ugly
- Is actually emancipated
- Has a particular interest in a certain career"
This is interesting as this book is genuinely considered "anti-feminist" or something of that tone, although I think most of us here would disagree with at least some of its assertions. I don't disagree with the main premise behind the book, but I would probably disagree with some of Esther's views on women/females overall ... So maybe she's a bit harsh. It sounds like she's saying that prettier women are the best manipulators, whereas less pretty women must be more "independent" (work, build her life from scratch, support herself, or at least not have presumable privilege that comes with being attractive and female?). I just found it interesting ... Thought I'd share!
According to some incel/blackpill mantra I've read this book does in fact seem to fit that category/subject matter very closely. The blackpill ideal is that women -- especially more attractive ones -- are presumably so high in ego or self-assessment that they ought not lift a finger to do anything AKA entitlement. The same argument comes back full-circle to incels ... That lack of sex is because they feel "entitled to it" in the same way that the author says pretty women in particular are "entitled to do nothing and gain from men still." So I think it's safe to say that some incels or blackpillers who might come across this book might be a fan of her work. Has anyone here heard of this?
The main interest in this is that she supposedly goes against the dogma that men are evil, animalistic, and must "level up" & contribute to others mindlessly. The antiquated idea that men are expected to give plenty even while getting little/nothing, but can be called entitled if they merely want a girl or two to like them.
Last edited: