Do you think Esther Villar’s The Manipulated Man reveals hidden truths about gender roles, or is it just outdated and unfair?

[SolitarySolace]

Her book (1971) argues that men, not women, are actually the ones oppressed through courtship, marriage, and cultural expectations. She compares marriage to slavery, saying men give up independence to provide for women and children in exchange for affection. It’s been called misogynistic, but also brutally honest and thought-provoking.
What do you think—truth or outdated generalization?

📚 The Manipulated Man by Esther Villar (1971) (title changed to “The Tamed Man” for modern audience) remains one of the most controversial books on gender roles.

Villar argues men are not oppressors but the opposite: women use courtship, marriage, and social expectations to make men providers and protectors. Men give up freedom, risk their lives, and work for women and children in exchange for brief affection.

She compares marriage to slavery — the wedding as the day a man loses independence, entering a Sisyphean struggle enforced by culture and government. She also describes “female rivalry,” where women compete to control men, using sex and pressure to keep them loyal.

Other writers, like Chinweizu (The Anatomy of Female Power) and Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power), echo the claim that society is more matriarchal than acknowledged.

Condemned as misogynistic but praised as brutally honest, the book challenges us to rethink who truly holds power in relationships.

- https://a.co/d/3N9xcFt

Truth

Outdated

Updates

9 mo

When men get down on one knee to propose, they’re really kneeling to a life of servitude.

Updates

9 mo

Other suggested…

Chinweizu – The Anatomy of Female Power (1990)
Argues that women hold covert power through sexuality, motherhood, and social manipulation, while men’s supposed dominance is actually a façade. Very much in line with Vilar’s claims, but framed as a cultural critique.

[Kaneki05]

Sounds like a backwards privileged view. Bet if she was married off in much more traditional senses, she'd been underage and bought by the dude or their parents and she'd understand the true fact is marriage is weighed to oppress women not man. Into a marriage by the way that would even condemn her for being able to write and speak.

So yeah sounds like she never had an actual experience of how marriage used to be but what she got more privileged view from in a more European country in the 19th century when things were changing. I'd love how her view would 180 if she was in India

[SolitarySolace]

That’s an interesting point—you’re right that contexts differ a lot. Do you think Villar’s point about men today giving up independence in exchange for approval/affection could still hold true in modern Western societies, even if historically marriage was harsher on women?

[Kaneki05]

To some extent yes, marriages on a whole in the progressive society's now I think trap both and oppress both though at the same time nobody is forced to get married. So you're trapping yourself and so are they.

Marriage can be used as a weapon from either side that is clear, though we've still yet to see a world which women really have pushed it into forcing men unlike men to women so I don't see much merit to it. The obvious women using it for their bad acting is marrying a rich dude to take his money.
But at the same time it wasn't forced. Manipulated yes.

Marriage overall is a bad thing since it can be used in such ways but that's what she failed to make a point on and see both sides to it.

[SolitarySolace]

Interesting take. I think what Villar was getting at is a bit different though—she wasn’t saying marriage can trap both sides depending on how it’s used, but that the institution itself is structured to make men the providers/protectors while women benefit from that arrangement. In her view, marriage doesn’t just ‘go both ways’—it’s almost designed to turn men into servants of their wives and children, with culture and law enforcing it. That’s why she compared it to slavery rather than just manipulation or mutual entrapment.

[Kaneki05]

Yes which is why she's wrong. Who's the slave? The woman bought at underage to a King? Or the King? The answer is simple. To pretend that was to make him a slave to her is absurd so no I don't see that point at all.
And even today the best it does is mutual trap each other. It's never had women forcing men in the same way to be their slaves, and don't seem like it ever will since forced marriage is illegal at least in progressive countries meanwhile the others still have women being forced not men.

[Kaneki05]

Also it's not even true that it's designed to protect her because as we've seen King Henry 8th he decided to kill them to marry the next. That's an extreme example but we go more to the common law that did used to exist where abusing your wife would be deem just as a domestic issue not to be dealt with or talked about.

To warp into women did this on purpose somehow and made them slaves unknowingly is really just a Incel delusional take really.

[SolitarySolace]

I think what Villar was getting at is that men are conditioned to force themselves into servitude. It’s not about women physically enslaving men, but about culture shaping men to willingly sacrifice their freedom. Phrases like ‘happy wife, happy life’ or the idea that you’re ‘not a real man’ unless you provide and sacrifice both your mental and physical health are ways society reinforces that expectation. Men internalize it and end up policing themselves — almost like the inverse of forced marriage in the modern era.

That doesn’t mean women haven’t historically been oppressed — clearly they have. But Villar’s argument isn’t about denying that, it’s about showing how in modern times men are socially conditioned to embrace servitude in relationships as if it’s natural or virtuous. That’s the part people tend to overlook.

[SolitarySolace]

And honestly, how is it an incel take is a woman wrote the book? Does that make her an incel?

[Kaneki05]

Hmm That would be toxic masculinity which guys did to themselves, which that is mostly brought upon by other men not women. Though there is some ways women have encouraged it for sure.
Though I'd argue toxic masculinity is natural it 100% is what we were made to act like as cavemen.
We are similar to Lions.

That's not me saying I like that though, in fact the opposite humans strives away from primitive actions for a reason. But it is the natural inclination we have, it's not brought by women it's brought by us still being animals.

Umm Incels can be women...

[SolitarySolace]

Interesting point, but the term toxic masculinity itself actually came out of feminist discourse — which already shows it’s a cultural construct, not just a natural lion/caveman instinct. Villar’s point wasn’t that women secretly enslave men, but that men are socially conditioned (by both men and women) to see servitude as ‘real masculinity.’ Phrases like ‘happy wife, happy life’ or the idea that you’re not a real man unless you sacrifice your health to provide don’t come from biology, they come from culture. Cavemen and animals don’t act to oppress each other — they act to reproduce and survive. What men do in modern society goes beyond instinct: they’re pressured to embrace servitude as if it’s a virtue. That’s why Villar framed it as conditioning, not nature.

[Kaneki05]

What are you on about? Animals are literally designed to oppress each other, eat or get eaten, fight or die, rape or be raped.
The one who takes charge gets their priority to breed over the others. Their whole design is to prove which is Alpha male. Humans are the same and Toxic Masculinity is just the name it was given after being observed and recognized.
Animals will fight and die to breed it's their whole goal in life, so yes this is 100% natural.

Only way you could argue it's not is if you think Men were better somehow like us as Cavemen didn't act primitively and had diplomatic relations... Which isn't reality. Reality was back then guy who could clobber the others got do what he wanted with the women he wanted.

[SolitarySolace]

Animals and cavemen act to survive and reproduce, not to uphold social expectations. Humans are different—we create culture, laws, and values that have pushed men into servitude under the guise of being ‘real men.’ That’s what Villar was pointing at: it’s not nature, it’s conditioning.

So I have to ask—why defend the idea that men should just accept this societal servitude as normal?

[Kaneki05]

You don't think that culture isn't directly linked to how we naturally psychologically are? Because it is. One can say it's becoming less so in ways but it is, and the idea of real men for sure is, again animals having the Alpha which are equivalent that saying.
If a woman lion could speak she'd say the Alpha lion is the Real Lion. And he's what the others in the pack aspire to be.

You mistake my point? I'm not defending anything just telling you this is a natural thing.
I don't think natural equates to ideal, because obviously in a natural sense we'd all be going around killing each other and worse it's good we don't do that but it is natural.

Many animals it's typically the male in the role he's in being the provider and protector. Though it varies. But the pattern of what we stem from ourselves was Males are the hunters, protectors while women were gathers and... well simply breeders.
Again not saying it should be that way but that's how we were designed.

[SolitarySolace]

I get what you’re saying about biology shaping culture — but Villar’s point is that we’ve gone way past biology. Cavemen weren’t dealing with alimony, divorce courts, or the stigma of not being a ‘real man’ if they didn’t provide. Those are modern constructs that force men into servitude in ways lions or cavemen never faced. So even if our instincts lean toward providing, it’s society and government that turned it into an obligation backed by shame and punishment. That’s what she was calling slavery — not instincts, but conditioning.

And honestly, I personally don’t even feel any instinctual ‘need’ to reproduce at all. That alone shows how humans can override biology with culture and choice.

[Kaneki05]

Your an outlier like myself, which makes me understand why you don't see it. But humans really haven't surpassed their instincts like that. That's hard to accept if you've thought yourself has, much like myself I don't want kids either.
But... your missing the bigger picture here in two ways, first is there is still 8B people out there which most want kids based on that primal desire, second is ever thought that not wanting kids is a natural instinct response?
Maybe it's a natural chance to not want it, maybe it's we are aware there is too many of us, maybe we understand somewhere our genes aren't good enough. Any reason really but it could be a natural reason that you only think you've overcome, when in reality you followed your exact instincts.

I don't think humans are anyway close from their bounds to instinctual ideas sadly. Majority of us still are and those who think they are above that maybe so far in it they don't even know.
A lot of it is us actually trying to push away from biology but... ever stopped to think that is biology? Or that we just lie to ourselves? Or that most humans still tilt right back into old ways if not kept in check?

[SolitarySolace]

I think we’re talking past each other now. My poll wasn’t about biology or your obsession with cavemen and lions. It was about Villar’s argument that men have been manipulated into servitude through cultural and social systems, not primal instincts. Unless you remain on topic, I’m going to move on.

[Kaneki05]

Well keep thinking she's right when she's wrong shrugs I explained why, I tried but it's not me who ain't getting this. I totally get her point and why she's wrong.

[WonderingManII]

I think her points are true often enough to cause damage to many men.

[Dongie]

I like the word manipulated best. The female learns very early about getting things she wants from her opposite gender. But we all know this. I believe, because I've seen it, in cases of true love or whatever you choose to call it as reason for marrying. There is also those who settle before time runs out. Then you have the true to form gold digger. I've witnessed this with a friend of mine. He married a very pretty girl who had a very little boy. She became pregnant with his son and divorced him in under two years. He paid over 6 bills a month to her for child support while she did not work. She collected for the first boy and got married and divorced with son number 3 before my friends son turned 5 years old and lived pretty well with three checks a month. This was 25 years ago.

[SolitarySolace]

Thanks for sharing that example—it really illustrates how Villar’s argument plays out in real life. Do you think this kind of manipulation is still common today, or was it more of a 90s/early 2000s phenomenon when divorce and child support systems really kicked in?

[Dongie]

I'm not sure about today. But it was around as early as the 60s anyway so why would it not be going on today?

[Ariesman81]

It is an accurate take. Though I wouldn't go as far as to say manipulators. Leverage may be a more accurate term. But the book does outline the responsibility each has within a marriage.

[SolitarySolace]

What are a woman’s responsibilities? Do women adhere to these responsibilities the same as men do?

[Ariesman81]

To be affectionate and fuck the war out of their husbands. But like men, they only do it for the one's they deem worthy.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s kind of the point though, isn’t it? Men’s ‘responsibilities’ usually cost them their health, freedom, or even lives. Women’s so-called responsibilities are tied to affection and intimacy — which they can withhold or give as leverage. If men and women both only ‘do it for those they deem worthy,’ doesn’t that mean men’s sacrifices carry a much steeper price than women’s?

[Ariesman81]

Steeper price? Not necessarily. Both men and women have leverage within a marriage. Sure, a woman could choose to leverage intimacy, but a man can leverage his responsibility also. And if a woman leverages her responsibility to many times, with to many men, she is often deemed unworthy by those she deems worthy. So, there are consequences on both sides.

[SolitarySolace]

The difference is that men see providing and protecting as obligations — if they don’t, they’re shamed or abandoned by not just the woman but by other men and society itself. Women don’t see affection, sex and intimacy as obligations; they can withhold and still expect provision without any backlash. That’s not equal leverage. One side carries duties, the other wields choices.

[Ariesman81]

True, which is why society needs to hold women responsible for their part of the collapse. Which up until recently has not been happening.

This is why MGTOW is such an effective tool. And I can assure you, the man who fulfills his responsibility for a woman who does not fulfill hers is the man neither gender respects. The shame and guilt given is nothing more than saying, I don't like it but I respect it.

[SolitarySolace]

Do you think society will ever truly hold women responsible for their part in this collapse? Or will it just keep enabling them to push it further?

The way I see it, neither political side has any real incentive to hold women accountable. Family-values conservatives — the camp I personally align with — still put women on a pedestal as mothers and caregivers. But that pedestal works like a shield: it means women are praised and protected, while men are still expected to sacrifice themselves as providers and protectors. On the other hand, the progressive feminist left — which I oppose wholeheartedly — has gone even further, actively shielding women from consequences no matter what they do, by framing accountability as “oppression.”

So in both cases, men are locked into servitude while women escape responsibility. One side worships them as saints, the other shields them as victims. Either way, society bends over backwards to protect women — and men are the ones expected to carry the weight.

[Ariesman81]

Not until men realize that being respected is far better than being liked.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s exactly the problem — this comes down to whether men prefer respect or servitude. Unfortunately, most men are pressured into servitude, because that’s what’s expected of them or else they’re not considered “real men.” Respect gets defined as sacrifice, provision, and obedience to cultural expectations — not as being valued in their own right.

[Ariesman81]

Which is precisely where the respect comes from... not succumbing to the pressure.

Which ultimately is where women get fucked up. On the one side, they want a guy who they can respect but the guy they respect doesn't let them get away with their bullshit (leveraging tactics).

So keep doing what you're doing. Eventually you'll find a woman who will rise to the occasion. And when she offers what it is you want, it'll be on you to decide if it's worth your responsibility.

[SolitarySolace]

You’re assuming the end goal is to “find a woman.” That’s not my aim at all — in fact, I avoid the circumstances where that would happen, for the very reasons laid out in this poll. Women don’t “respect men,” they want something from men — typically resources. What women want is respect without having to earn it, while men are expected to bring everything to the table (provision, protection, sacrifice) in exchange for access to the one thing women hold back and use as leverage. That’s not respect — it’s dependency disguised as virtue.

[Ariesman81]

Correct. Which is why a good woman understands interdependency.

Another reason why a man asking a woman, "What do you bring to the table?", is such a telling question. It is a qualifying question. Is she a hoe or is she a wife?

[SolitarySolace]

Interdependency would mean men actually gain something from women equal in weight to what they are forced to give — provision, protection, sacrifice. But that’s not reality. Women don’t bring anything to the table except their bodies, which they gatekeep as leverage. So in saying that, no woman is wife material. Meanwhile, men are forced into servitude, or else lose everything and face societal antagonism by both men and women for choosing instead to be alone. Calling that ‘interdependency’ is just dressing up one-sided obligation. Why should any man accept that? Short answer, they shouldn’t. So why defend the system you are also calling out in the same breath?

[Ariesman81]

Who is saying no woman is wife material? Could be you just haven't met her yet.
I defend the system, because for the right woman, it won't feel like an obligation, it will feel like an honor. And it will be appreciated.

[SolitarySolace]

Calling servitude an ‘honor’ doesn’t make it anything other than servitude. The system survives because men like you cope by romanticizing your own chains, telling yourselves you just need to find the ‘right woman.’ But there is no magical woman who erases one-sided, court-enforced obligations. Obligation doesn’t become freedom just because you call it noble — it’s still servitude dressed up as love. You are delusional and deserve to live a life of servitude. I feel sorry for you.

[Ariesman81]

Maybe. But I can you're angry and you've stopped listening.