We Are All Misogynists Now

by Keoni Galt on October 14, 2009

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s article about the feminization of Science Fiction television brought to The Spearhead a horde of blue pill-taking, politically correct, indoctrinated and brainwashed commenters only too eager to spit out their Pavlovian-conditioned, pre-programmed responses to any conveyed idea that runs counter to the mainstream, Gyno-centric cultural values of our BraveNewWorldOrder.

Most simply logged their emotional upset by using the old tried and true tactic of the feminists to shut down debate with shaming language. Any men that would dare to question the cultural assumptions socially engineered into mainstream consciousness must either be a total failures in the mating game of attracting women…or are raging neanderthal brutes that are MISOGYNISTS…therefore,  the equivalent to Ku Klux Klansmen or Nazi sympathizers. And since EVERYONE KNOWS that KKK members or Nazi’s are extremists whose ideas are not worthy of serious consideration, thus anyone branded a misogynist can simply be ignored.

That used to be a very effective tactic in situations that relied on groupthink and peer pressure to ensure conformity of thought. But what you are finding out now is that the internet has given people a forum to free themselves from the constraints of social dynamics that used to enforce such thought conformity.

You can call us MISOGYNIST all you want, but it will not shut us up.

What some of you have found out is that to men such as those that write, read and comment here, we are well aware of the standard tactics of such shaming language…and unlike many of the men that you interact with — men who accept the values imparted by mainstream society — such shaming language is ineffective and merely highlights your particular lack of logical reasoning and cognitive capabilities to refute an argument in a reasonable and intelligent manner.

What many of you people fail to understand is that people who read and contribute to this site are coming from an entirely different perspective. We do not share the same presumptions and rationales that you do. You who have registered your knee-jerk reactions and poured out your emotional-based outrage…you are merely the manifestation of bleating sheeple, following the herd of mainstream society, conforming to politically correct thought.

When you say “That’s Misogynistic” we are not silenced into embarrassment for being identified as a heretic to the modern sensibilities.

Instead, we look to you and say, if we are Misogynists…SO WHAT?! If we are MISOGYNISTS, it is NOT because we can’t get laid or that we have small penises, or that we have issues with mommy, or that we’re afraid of strong women or any of the other bullshit. You see, all of these examples of shaming language? They are nothing more than expressions of cognitive dissonance. You who accept political correctness simply cannot logically comprehend the possibility that a sane, normal, sexually attractive man would DARE to question the feminist cultural zeitgeist that is the true undercurrent of today’s society.

No, all you empowered women and mangina lackeys that have come here to register your outrage at PMAFT’s thought crime…if there’s one thing you need to understand is this: If we are what you call “Misogynist,” it is only so because we are reacting to a society and culture that has embraced Misandry as an acceptable cultural value.

You who are so quick to label any thought expressed that does not adhere to the politically correct nostrums of modern society simply are unaware of all the issues and experiences that have forged our attitudes and convictions.

In the name of “equality” an entire cultural movement and legal environment has been promoted, pushed and indoctrinated into almost every facet of society…one that degrades masculinity and celebrates femininity. One that highlights all negative manifestations of masculinity and all positive manifestations of femininity, while downplaying, ignoring, and whitewashing all negative manifestations of femininity and positive manifestations of masculinity.

Does that idea sound crazy or impossible to you? People like Glenn Sacks have literally written thousands of words to point out and highlight the existence of the many of examplesillustrating this very phenomenon!

So let’s get some things straight, before any more of you feel like logging on and casting aspersions on anyone else here as being “sad, pathetic, whiny” and sexually frustrated:

We men who are AWARE of our current reality, understand quite perfectly that as of right now, our culture and our society has been shaped by lies, memes and shibboleths…all based on a subversive and destructive lie….

…the lie that:

Women have been and continue to be victims of oppression, and that men have been the beneficiaries of all this evil oppression.

WE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS PREMISE AS VALID.

Women were not “opressed” by society purposefully and willfully simply because men were bigoted misogynists at heart.

Men are currently being oppressed in society, all under the false premise that women are the oppressed class.

If you would take even a moment to stop and think, rather than spew your attitudes that have been shaped by a lifetime of television programming, institutional indoctrination and mainstream, mass media reinforcement, you WILL be able to see many of the phenomena and results of our modern day society and at least begin to start to see just why it is there are a whole lot of men who have become angry, disenfranchised, dispossessed and apathetic.

The reason why we are so vehement, so insistent and forceful in exploring the issues and topics that we do on this site is because most of us recognize and believe that the vast changes in mainstream society’s values and widely accepted beliefs are not only false remedies, but are also the harbinger of the death of the civilization that our forefathers built.

{ 825 comments… read them below or add one }

Mr.M October 14, 2009 at 17:06

I think a storm is a brewin’… !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Dave October 14, 2009 at 17:44

I personally don’t give a rat’s ass what label they choose to pin on me. I’ll be damned if I sit idly by while these assholes make this world a place that I would be ashamed to bring my son or daughter into.

A world where a little boy is a “potential rapist” before he can talk, and where little girls are being dressed up in hooker outfits from the time they’re in preschool.

A world where feminist masturbatory fantasies of power and “oppression” shape social policy and define the discourse on gender issues.

A world where people are born into imaginary “oppressor” or “victim” castes.

Hell fucking NO.

Shove your feminist lies right back into the vile,festering,putrid orifice they came from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
zed October 14, 2009 at 17:58

Yeah, that is what I was talking about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Pons Seclorum October 14, 2009 at 18:00

Speaking of feminism, Zed, would you ever consider devoting a post about the ideology of cultural Marxism and its influences on feminist theory? In light of the anti-socialist drift permeating the right, it would be indispensable for this site to delineate the link between socialism/Marxism and feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Tupac Chopra October 14, 2009 at 18:08

Men are currently being oppressed in society, all under the false premise that women are the oppressed class.

A qualification: most men are currently oppressed in society.

But the feminists aren’t interested in those men. No. They are busy looking upward to the small cadre of elites who actually BENEFIT from the current arrangement. It doesn’t matter to the feminists that the current arrangement has disenfranchised 80-90 percent of men. The feminists focus on that upper 10-20 percent and pound their fists on the table. This is why the feminists can see injustice “everywhere” — all they are looking at is a tiny sliver of society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
zed October 14, 2009 at 18:11

I’m working on such a post in my head now, Pons. Actually, I’m treating it within a larger picture as one of several large cultural trends which culimated in a sort of “Perfect Demographic Storm” when the baby bomb went off.

Rob Fedders has already done a lot of this work, so there is no point in re-doing his fine work. Go to http://menforjustice.net/library/ and read the sections on “Totalitarianism, NWO & the U.N.” and “Feminist Propaganda.”

Rob, chime in here – did you cover Gramsci and his Long March Through the Culture (I can’t believe you didn’t). Give Pons a list of the first-read parts of the libarary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pons Seclorum October 14, 2009 at 18:17

“I’m working on such a post in my head now, Pons. Actually, I’m treating it within a larger picture as one of several large cultural trends which culminated in a sort of “Perfect Demographic Storm” when the baby bomb went off.”

Thanks for the resources and looking forward to your piece. This connection between cultural Marxism and feminism is the preeminent topic that needs to be discussed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dave From Hawaii October 14, 2009 at 18:22

Rob’s great blog, No Ma’am, is still avaialible online. Here are two of his postings on the topic:

A Great Historical Outline of Cultural Marxism

Marxism and the Emancipation of Women

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epiclolz October 14, 2009 at 18:27

I am amazed on a daily basis how much more offended men are today than women on issues concerning women. AKA the ladies might laugh at something when the white knights jump up and say its rude. Chalk it up to blank slate post modernism =p

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Niko October 14, 2009 at 18:30

‘Group think’ hmmm kind of makes sense of the group attack. Its interesting how certain controversial posts on certain blogs manage to hit responses in the thousands.
Lucky the structure of this site and the savvy founders and contributors won’t allow fifth columns to wreck a great endeavor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 14, 2009 at 18:33

Ooooh, Pathethic! Thanks Sarah…I forgot to include that particular shaming attack!

We will all now wilt away in humiliation in the face of female scorn and derision!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 October 14, 2009 at 18:34

Feminist not only think in the 10-20% of the elite, they also think on their abusive, alcoholic gheeto guys, becuase, unlike an honest worker, they make them horny.

And really, I cannot sit down in a world when High School clique BS is accepted as a good thing, when a lot of decent men are blatantly ignored, a world when a woman can totally screw the life of a man and an asshole can get another woman stupidely fast.

We are not going to go away. We aren’t going to become women or gays and like hell we are going to be conquered by Muslims. And if the feminists, manginas, assholes and gays don’t like that, well is simply too bad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
abe October 14, 2009 at 18:42

Someone should do a piece on “Twilight” and how the popularity of that series is due to Meyer’s rejection of feminism and her embrace of traditional femininity/gender roles and why feminists hate her for this.
Traffic will flow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Sarah October 14, 2009 at 18:46

So I just found this on your site’s “about” page: What sets our movement apart is that many men, because of the real injustices so many of us have faced first-hand, have come to a common awareness that there are serious political, legal and cultural problems that plague men in our society.

Can someone, any one of you, give me a concrete example of a “real injustice” that you have suffered as a direct result of your sex? And I’m not talking about hypothetical situations, I want a concrete thing that has happened specifically to you.

I am very curious to see what most of you would count as an injustice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Tupac Chopra October 14, 2009 at 18:47

Someone should do a piece on “Twilight” and how the popularity of that series is due to Meyer’s rejection of feminism and her embrace of traditional femininity/gender roles and why feminists hate her for this.
Traffic will flow.

Interesting. So an author eschews the traditional patriarchal conception of marriage in order to venerate bad-boy chasing.

Yes, I can see how that would create friction between old-wave feminists and the newer slutty Jezebeler feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
djc October 14, 2009 at 18:51

Having the slightest concern what ANY woman thinks is the first mistake any man makes. Who cares? OK, I am a Misogynist. So now what?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Faolán October 14, 2009 at 18:55

My personal favourite line is “You’re upset because you got a job, and that hot girl in high school still won’t sleep with you”. Or variants thereof.

I second (third?) the request for an article on links between Marxist and Feminist theory.

@epiclolz – Agreed. I’m having a good laugh thinking about the “manginas” arguing with “evil misogynists”, and getting nothing for their pains. Or is it wrong for them to expect attention, because women aren’t obligated to give any man anything?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
zed October 14, 2009 at 18:56

I calls it like I sees it.

Being blind makes it real simple, doesn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 14, 2009 at 19:05

Just for the record, Sarah, I didn’t delete your comments, that was the site admin.

I don’t agree with the policy, but I understand it’s purpose. You did not contribute anything, you simply resorted to simplistic, ad hominem attacks with your shaming language.

If you or any other person disagrees with anything posted on this website, than keep your criticisms based on logical assertions and fact based opinions. You don’t like something I or someone else wrote? Than quote it and state explicitly WHY you disagree with it.

Resorting to shaming language is just going to waste everyone’s time as the site admin is going to just delete it anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
scramby October 14, 2009 at 19:15

“… Nazi’s are extremists whose ideas are not worthy of serious consideration.”

Somebody needs to read The Culture of Critique especially with all the complaining about Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory and Feminism.

Suggestion: From now on use Bolsheviks instead of Nazis. What they did was much, much worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
D'mas October 14, 2009 at 19:25

The funny thing is that not so long ago I would have supported those women complaining about that Sci-Fi post, and totally. Things started to change when I realized that all the insults they used (loser, can’t get a date, blah blah blah) described me and my friends- the very same guys who stood up for them. In fact, I knew even back then that a lot of the guys saying things like Tech, or Roissy said, were getting the girls, and lots of them. That hurt me a lot- much more than I was willing to admit at the time.

I don’t think I’m mysoginistic, and I don’t agree with everything I read here, but I do think I’m being more realistic about life nowadays.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
mjaybee October 14, 2009 at 19:33

@Sarah:

“Can someone, any one of you, give me a concrete example of a “real injustice” that you have suffered as a direct result of your sex? And I’m not talking about hypothetical situations, I want a concrete thing that has happened specifically to you.

I am very curious to see what most of you would count as an injustice.”

Loss of my children after divorce.

Why this, among other injustices, should not be obvious to you is beyond me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Hestia October 14, 2009 at 19:35

such shaming language is ineffective and merely highlights your particular lack of logical reasoning and cognitive capabilities to refute an argument in a reasonable and intelligent manner.
Or, may I add, a complete lack of compassion towards men and an ability to treat men like human beings who have thoughts, feelings, and opinions that are worthy of hearing out and understanding. Is it really so difficult to stop and pause for a moment, to consider that men also have experiences in their lives that should be shared, discussed and learned from? Is is the reality that the world does not revolve around women and our needs exclusively so difficult to grasp?

“Misogynist” might be an irksome term to have thrown your way, but in today’s world the term almost seems to be a compliment, as it means a person doesn’t sit back and take all the garbage the world wants to throw their way but looks around and comes to conclusions based on reality, however un-PC these conclusions might be. To be a misogynist nowadays is to value liberty and justice rather than the unearned special privileges and power to be a slaveowner that comes with the territory of being a misandrist. If a person must be one or the other, it seems clear to me which one is the bigger insult. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Hawaiian Libertarian October 14, 2009 at 19:38

I don’t think I’m misogynistic.

See D’mas, that’s the difference between a guy like you and a lot of women out there today.

Most women revel in Misandry…and they don’t even realize they are the mirror image of the misogyny they claim to be so offended by.

Hell, Misandry is not even an official word, and still registers as an error in spellcheck on websites, blogger softward and word processors…as if the word doesn’t exist.

It is in fact the very essence of misandry for women to resort to shaming language. To insult men on the basis of their attractiveness to women is every bit as demeaning and objectifying as they claim to detest when it’s women being insulted regarding sexual attractiveness.

Think about it.

This is the very purpose for my article.

“Misogyny” has literally become the definition for anything a man says or does regarding females that does not adhere to the Feminist/Liberal politically correct ideology.

Which is why we are all misogynists now.

I don’t “hate” women.

But neither do I put them on a pedestal or think they are morally superior to men based simply on their gender, and I have no problem pointing out their faults and flaws. In today’s feminized world, that certainly makes me a “misogynist.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
zed October 14, 2009 at 19:39

@Hestia – wow! Major thumbs up!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Tupac Chopra October 14, 2009 at 19:40

D’mas:

The funny thing is that not so long ago I would have supported those women complaining about that Sci-Fi post, and totally. Things started to change when I realized that all the insults they used (loser, can’t get a date, blah blah blah) described me and my friends- the very same guys who stood up for them. In fact, I knew even back then that a lot of the guys saying things like Tech, or Roissy said, were getting the girls, and lots of them. That hurt me a lot- much more than I was willing to admit at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PreAABChTyQ

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eumaios October 14, 2009 at 19:43

As a rule, the application of terms such as misogynist, sexist, and racist means only that the recipient has failed to confess that he is less valuable than the person applying the term.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
D'mas October 14, 2009 at 19:45

Hawaiian Libertarian,

You make some very important points, especially about that pedestal. I think I’ve been very guilty of thinking that, and it’s a hard habit to break, even when I see responses like on that Sci-Fi thread.

Having read your response, I better understand what you were getting at in this article. It is a sad state of affairs when it’s considered hate to simply treat everyone equally.

And I’ve also noticed that I can’t spell misogyny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman October 14, 2009 at 19:45

For those who want to read some comments our our lady friend who forgot to have a baby…..just click on this link…

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/about10792.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
D'mas October 14, 2009 at 19:56

Tupac Chopra,

Yeah, I’m slowly coming around. That recognition that the worst insult a girl could think of was basically a description of me was a wake-up call. The recognition that I don’t have to cringe for being a man has helped a lot, too. I’m not looking to be some super player or anything like that- I just want to be the best I can be in life, and that means ignoring some really bad programming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 14, 2009 at 19:56

Funny thing is, while a lot of folks have called the widespread reaction to PMAFT’s scyfy thread a “feminist” invasion, it goes much deeper than that. In fact, the avowed, activist feminists like “jezebellers” were pretty late to the party.

No, all of that shaming language and insults on male sexual appeal…that is pretty much the culturally accepted norm nowadays.

It is the default state of mainstream consciousness today.

“All men are pigs.”
“Boys suck, throw rocks at them.”
“There’s too much testosterone here!”

The average western female has been culturally indoctrinated and conditioned to embrace misandry as normal and acceptable…while brainwashed into believing that “sexism” and “misogyny” are some of the worst things that could ever happen.

Yet they never make the connection.

Anyone care to guess how well a comment over at Jezebel or Pandagon would go over if you responded to one of their articles with “This is pathetic! None of you ugly, fat, hairy women could ever get laid from a good looking guy!”

That would be quickly identified as misogyny.

But when the genders are reversed….and it’s women insinuating that men are sexually unattractive?

Of course that’s not prejudiced bigotry! What’s MISANDRY? That word doesn’t even exist!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
globalman October 14, 2009 at 20:15

“If you would take even a moment to stop and think”
HL, they are wimmin…they can’t think….and the mangina lackey boys are such fuckwitts that they think bowing and scraping to ‘princess’ might just get them a blow job or the holy grail…LAID. Pathetic.

As for ‘misogynist’. I told my fav#1 that I am a ‘woman-hater’ and she laughed her arse off. She is doing her damndest to get me to say ‘yes’ to babies.

After having had sex with only 3 women to the age of 44 (and one of them only once) because I was a good christian mangina boy who wanted to marry just once and be with one woman all my life…and having been faithful for the 23 years with my ex and the sole provider for a family of 6 then 4 over a period of 16 years out of an 18 year marriage….did I get ‘rewarded’? Sure I did!! Right up the arse by the corrupt FC! Her 26 year old son said “I will never get married because I might get a wife like my mother”…ouch! Take that sweetie. Your own son thinks you are a crap wife and has no respect for you. He said to me with gritted teeth. “I hate what mum is doing to you but I have to love her because she is my mother”. How do you like THAT one ladies. He doesn’t love his mother because she is a great person, he ‘has’ to love her because he came out her vagina. It does NOT get any more damning than that…except maybe for her father saying “I have pretty much lost all respect for her”…double ouch!!

I still haven’t seen a cent from my 27 years of labour after 23 months of court cases……EUR300K of the families assets later it is still all in dispute. I have more than enough reason to hate women from how they treated me…but it’s useless..they are too stupid to even bother hating them. Hating a woman for being stupid is like hating a dog for barking. It’s in the nature of the animal.

Now? I’ve had wonderful sex from about 15-20 beautiful women these last 18 months. And four of them have even moved onto very intimate and passionate lovemaking that is better anything my ex managed in 23 years. At the moment I am occasionaly able to spend whole weekends with one of my three favs that I have on rotation. I get more hot sex and lovemaking in a weekend now than I did as a 21 year old with my now ex when she was running the demo model for all she was worth!!! That’s not bad for a slightly overweight 45 year old guy in IT!

Woman-hater? Nope. I’m a lover, not a hater…all the hate is being generated by western wimmin and the pathetic mangina lackey boys because they are pissed guys like me won’t touch a western woman any more.

They are particularly pissed that those of us who have been through the mill share our stories with the younger guys. I’ve had about 30 guys thank me for sharing my story with them. Some have even said my story was the one that was ‘the final straw’. I’ve posted over 3,500 posts on http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums covering hundreds of hours over the last year. The language is a bit more ‘manly’ over there but anyone who wants to know more of my story can whip on over. Oh, by the way…NO wimmin are allowed on Dicks site!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 14, 2009 at 20:19

Can someone, any one of you, give me a concrete example of a “real injustice” that you have suffered as a direct result of your sex? And I’m not talking about hypothetical situations, I want a concrete thing that has happened specifically to you.

I am not a man, so perhaps my response will not be valid to you but there exist numerous injustices against men in our society today, far too many to name, but a few examples are highlighted below:

*circumcision- In the United States, it is rightfully illegal to mutilate the genitals of a girl but not a boy. Every year millions of precious newborn boys are strapped down in a device known as a circumstraint and then have a procedure performed on them that removes their foreskin, an important part of their penis, both to protect the most sensitize part of their penis, as well as to provide pleasure for both them and their partner in the future. A number of babies suffer permanently from mistakes during the procedure or resulting complications and nearly all men who have been circumcised lose some of the sensitivity they would have had otherwise. We rightfully protect our daughters against such abuse, yet do this to our sons. If this is not injustice and absolute hatred of healthy male sexuality, I don’t know what could be.

*false rape allegations- Men are falsely accused of rape, child molestation, and other sexual crimes. Surely you can recall the young men from the Duke Lacrosse team who had their faces plastered all over the media and were paraded around for all of us to see as guilty until proven innocent sex offenders. Even when a false rape allegation is not so public, a man has his reputation forever marred and suffers real consequences as a result. we protector their identity of the accuser yet not the accused, resulting in grave harm if lies are being told. If you google “False Rape Society” you will come across a blog that discusses this issue in-depth.

Additionally, those who falsely accuse men of crimes are typically not punished, not only resulting in a gross injustice but the risk of others being harmed with more lies and false accusations. Their lies hurt real rape victims as the resources needed to investigate actual crimes are sidetracked to investigate the tall tales of a liar.

*conscription- In the United States, men and women both have the right to vote but only men must carry the dangerous responsibility of being drafted. This is grossly unjust and if feminists truly care about equality they should be screaming on the streets of DC about their being denied the responsibility of defending freedom should this important ideal come under attack. If men do not register for the draft, they can face fines and time in prison.

Should a draft ever be necessary, men are going to be sent off to war where they will be killed and witness people being killed. They might have to shoot others and live with this reality forever. Many will come back gravely injured, with limbs lost, eyesight gone, traumatic brain injuries (these are *the* injury of the ongoing wars in the Middle East), and PTSD. All men who serve will miss out on time with their loved ones, likely missing the birth of their children and other important milestones and will give up time just goofing off, playing video games, drinking beer, and, well, being guys.

These are just three issues, among many many more than show the misandric and unjust streak in our society today. If you even turn on your television right now to a prime time sitcom, there will likely be a dopey dad paired with a superwoman mom and maybe even some violenece against men in the form of a “funny” kick to the crotch. These stereotypes of men are unkind and hateful, as is finding humor in sexual violence against men, which is precisely what a kick to the groin is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
globalman October 14, 2009 at 20:33

Dave October 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“Shove your feminist lies right back into the vile,festering,putrid orifice they came from.”
Now that’s a bit more fucking like it than all this PC shit other sites throw around about how you ‘cant upset the wimmin’, you ‘need to engage them in discussion’, you ‘need to come to a meeting of the minds’….HELL NO!!! They don’t have MINDS to MEET! They are brainwashed drones.

Three cheers to DAVE for leading the way guys!

Sarah October 14, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“Can someone, any one of you, give me a concrete example of a real injustice that you have suffered as a direct result of your sex? ”
Try googling suicide stats for divorcees. In my case my children were kidnapped, my bank accounts frozen, I was cast into poverty and driven from the country I was living in. I was forced to beg family and friends for about EUR50K in cash to pay liars to defend myself. I have not seen one cent from my 27 years of labour. My ex made three false allegations, 4 counts of perjury were proven. Oh yeah, I have also been assaulted and arrested unlawfully when standing in my own living room.

About 100M+ men have been similarly abused. Now fuck off and do your own research you stupid brain dead woman before asking stupid brain dead questions. Men have suffered extremely severe injustice up to and including being murdered at the hands of wimmin. Indeed one woman in the UK who set her husband alight as he slept was given an award by no less than Cheri Blair as ‘an example to all women’. Yes, murdering your husband is now ‘an example to all women’. And harriet nazi harman who is deputy prime minister int the UK tried to introduce a law that if a woman made an accusation of ‘abuse’ against her now dead husband she could not be tried for murder. Is that unjust enough for you yet or do you want some more you stupid brain dead woman?

mjaybee October 14, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“Why this, among other injustices, should not be obvious to you is beyond me.”

Because she is a brain dead entitlement princess stupid woman who thinks children belong to the woman only. Why that is not obvious to you is not obvious to me.. ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Puma October 14, 2009 at 20:34

Read the first comment in this Barbara Ehrenreich article from today below:

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/143260/now_they're_peddling_the_bs_that_'feminism_is_making_women_miserable

Posted by a US Army officer dubbed “The Antichrist” (he *is* one to the feminists, whose party that he just crashed). Some karma for yesterday’s action perhaps? Made me laugh out aloud. A classic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MikeeUSA October 14, 2009 at 20:35

Those worthless bitches posting were from geekfeminism.org

Just today they got my opensource programs and my 40 opensource 3d nexuiz videogame maps (which took 3 years to make) deleted from the free-software hosting site sourceforge (I wrote it up on http://mikeeusa.pressword.com ).

They themselves don’t produce anything but they are successfully taking over the “free software” movement by deleting and banning anything made by anti-feminist men.

So, there it is, yet another “industry” taken over.
I posted the links to them gloating on that page too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Marisa October 14, 2009 at 20:55

Zoinks. With the kind of derisive language abundant here, I find it hard to believe that some of you guys don’t proudly self-identify as misogynists. (And ladies who are verging toward misandry with the commentary: I can understand the indignation, but you’re just giving ‘em more to fight with — most men aren’t like these dudes, so we can relax.)

You may as well admit your impotent misogynistic rage and revel in it; I’d respect you for that. But don’t masquerade it as “campaigning for equality.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Renee October 14, 2009 at 20:56

Honestly, I agree with kis from the original post about women and SciFi in that there’s shaming language from BOTH sides. So basically everyone that it applies to need to get their act together.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
globalman October 14, 2009 at 20:58
globalman October 14, 2009 at 21:00

Renee October 14, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“So basically everyone that it applies to need to get their act together.”
Fuck off Renee, women don’t get to tell men what they ‘need’ to do. Thank you for proving how dumb one more woman is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 14, 2009 at 21:06

Fuck off Renee, women don’t get to tell men what they ‘need’ to do. Thank you for proving how dumb one more woman is.

Actually, she didn’t single out men, which is a step in the right direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 14, 2009 at 21:09

You may as well admit your impotent misogynistic rage

They just never learn, do they?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Renee October 14, 2009 at 21:09

GM,

Fuck off Renee, women don’t get to tell men what they ‘need’ to do. Thank you for proving how dumb one more woman is.

And stop getting all worked up and defensive. I said EVERYONE that it applies to. And anyway, what….is it ok for men to tell what women “need” to do? Thanks for proving how dumb you are. Notice how I didn’t group all men together like you do women. You hate how men are generalized negatively, yet you do the same to women based mainly from your own personal experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Puma October 14, 2009 at 21:10

Marisa … Don’t you know smoking is bad for you? You want to look 45 when you are 30?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 14, 2009 at 21:10

Thank you Welmer :) Seriously, I think he has selective reading or lack of reading comprehension.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 14, 2009 at 21:13

You can’t blame him for that — I’d do (and have done) the same if I assumed it was a feminist writing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 14, 2009 at 21:18

That was a great piece Hawaiian.

I especially liked this bit.

….

“We men who are AWARE of our current reality, understand quite perfectly that as of right now, our culture and our society has been shaped by lies, memes and shibboleths…all based on a subversive and destructive lie….

…the lie that:

Women have been and continue to be victims of oppression, and that men have been the beneficiaries of all this evil oppression.”

….

I might have to pinch that for my site when I know that you’re not looking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
indeed October 14, 2009 at 21:20

“If we who are what you call ‘Misogynist,’ it is only so because we are reacting to a society and culture that has embraced Misandry as an acceptable cultural value.”

I do not kiss ass but this is a good sentence. The reason why this is a good sentence is because it pierces to what its intended audience would consider a startling truth and then thrusts like a rapier to the heart.

This site is alright.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 14, 2009 at 21:28

“You may as well admit your impotent misogynistic rage”

zed: “They just never learn, do they?”

I was thinking the same. Just so many squawking parrots. After a while you jdon’t even hear them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Poester October 14, 2009 at 21:30

“And ladies who are verging toward misandry with the commentary: I can understand the indignation, but you’re just giving ‘em more to fight with — most men aren’t like these dudes, so we can relax”

Marisa:

Yeah, “most” men just shut their mouths, agree with everything you say (right or wrong) to get some, and then march off to the daily meat grinder, to get used up in a job they probably hate, so that they can, provide for, and try to prove themselves to an “impossible” audience (a women) who will never truly respect them.

We’d settle for true equality, instead of the female supremacy that is masquerading as equal rights for women/feminism.

As for the “giving them more to fight with”. You and your sisters are being treated equally to any man who would have come over here and spewed that sort of venom. It’s obvious most of you are not used to someone disagreeing with you.

FYI, it’s the younger men that are the most alienated, I wonder what kind a future that will be?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
zed October 14, 2009 at 21:33

You hate how men are generalized negatively, yet you do the same to women based mainly from your own personal experience.

Yes, it is called “fighting fire with fire.” By getting a woman to admit that “generalization is bad”, then we can move on to the next step of pointing out the ways that women generalize about us. If it is bad when we do it, and the woman in question is not a complete hypocrite, then she will have to admit that it is equally bad when women do it.

From there, it is pretty simple to wash out the residual hypocrisy by pointing out that if is wrong when either sex does it, but the woman in question only fights it when men do it and condones by her silence or inaction when women do it, then she is indirectly supporting the women who do do it, so is not really any different in any way that makes a difference.

You will have no credibility with men on this issue until we see evidence of you making the same sorts of points to women that you want us to accept you making to us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Poester October 14, 2009 at 21:34

Poester:

“that sort of venom. It’s obvious most of you are not used to someone disagreeing with you.”

More accurately, most of you are not used to A *MAN* disagreeing with you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
epiclolz October 14, 2009 at 21:39

The comments on that ReproductiveJustice site are hilarious, especially Anti-Christs comments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dagezhu October 14, 2009 at 21:41

‘This connection between cultural Marxism and feminism is the preeminent topic that needs to be discussed.’

Paging William S. Lind, Professor Lind to the podium please:

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

In response to Scramby’s comment, of all the commenters here, I bet only Scramby and myself have read The Culture of Critique.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dagezhu October 14, 2009 at 21:44

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Has a long quote from the original essay, which is not presently available at my previous link. Do a websearch on “The Origins of Political Correctness” by William S. Lind. I don’t have it saved to hard disk or I would post it here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 14, 2009 at 21:52

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

“Oops, we can’t find that page.

We apologize for the inconvenience. We’re launching the new site right now and some things aren’t where they used to be.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 14, 2009 at 21:54

“Can someone, any one of you, give me a concrete example of a “real injustice” that you have suffered as a direct result of your sex? And I’m not talking about hypothetical situations, I want a concrete thing that has happened specifically to you.”

About sixteen years ago I was working for a large company and was accused of sexual harrassment by someone who worked on the other side of the floor and whom I hardly knew. My crime was not that I had touched her or spoken to her in any way, but simply that she felt “uncomfortable” in my presence (which wasn’t even that frequent!) An investigation was begun, she confronted me in the presence of an HR rep and both our bosses with the charge that I was interested in her, she rebuffed by advances, and assorted other lies. I stedfastly refused to apologize, because I had done nothing wrong.

The whole thing blew over soon enough, and she left the company shortly afterward (as I did about four years later myself), but the record still shows that I came that close to losing my job at the whim of a spiteful vicious cunt with law and public policy to back her up. Is that concrete enough for you, Sarah?

After she left, I heard (not confirmable, however) that she had pulled that stunt on a colleague with a prior employer, and for all I know she did it afterward as well.

The day is coming when a cunt like this will pull it on the wrong guy who will cut her open. I hope I live to see that day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Reinholt October 14, 2009 at 21:57

For those who are interested in the other side of Lind, his work on the military side of things often crops up here:

http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/

Enjoy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 14, 2009 at 22:06

@sestamibi

We understand the rage, but comments suggesting violence do not help our cause or our arguments. Please give some thought in the future to how you can keep the intensity of what you want to say, without giving fodder to those who are fair minded and might listen to what we have to say but are put off by over the top statements like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Poester October 14, 2009 at 22:13

Oppression of men/boys:
Why is there a VAWA act instead of a something like a VAPA act (Violence Against PEOPLE Act)?
Women are only about 20% of the victims of violence, the other 80% are men, and are not protected by this act, even when that violence is by a woman. Isn’t there a law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Marisa October 14, 2009 at 22:19

Puma:

Yes, yes, smoking is bad; I’m addicted. And considering I’m 21 and still get carded for cigarettes, I’d say I have the genetics to pull off the habit until I finish school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Reinholt October 14, 2009 at 22:21

Quit now.

Trust me on this one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Marisa October 14, 2009 at 22:26

Man, my leg is broken, I’m confined to my apartment, and as soon as I can walk again, it’s exam time.

I think I can afford myself a couple a day, just to cut down on the stress. Cabin fever gets to you.

(But I’ll think about it.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 14, 2009 at 22:34

““Can someone, any one of you, give me a concrete example of a “real injustice” that you have suffered as a direct result of your sex? And I’m not talking about hypothetical situations, I want a concrete thing that has happened specifically to you.”

Sorry, stacking the deck is not allowed. We have to listen to crap every day about how women couldn’t vote 100 years ago. I would love to be able to invoke your rule “you can’t talk about it unless it happened to you specifically.” That means any woman has never been raped can’t talk about rape, or one who has never been sexually harassed can never talk about being sexually harassed, or one who is less than 110 years old cannot talk about being denied the vote.

Here is a case of “real injustice” which happened to a man simply because he was a man in this rape-hysteria culture.

http://bendobserver.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Pons Seclorum October 14, 2009 at 22:43

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Lind is proving to be a very good start but anyone know of others who go into more depth than he?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El-ahrairah October 14, 2009 at 22:50

Marisa October 14, 2009 at 8:55 pm

“You may as well admit your impotent misogynistic rage and revel in it; I’d respect you for that.”

Intriguing offer, but how much respect are we talking about? 5 Marisa Respect Points? 10 Marisa Respect Points? 100? Because 100 Marisa Respect Points are currently redeemable at Best Buy for a 55″ Samsung LED TV(!), and for that I will not only admit to being filled with impotent misogynistic rage ( and revel in it like there’s no freaking tomorrow ), but I will also throw in a small penis, body odor, basement living quarters, and full blame for the Detroit Lions 0-16 season. Deal?

“But don’t masquerade it as “campaigning for equality.”

Fine by me, sister, but it’ll cost you another 50 Marisa Respect Points.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Dave October 14, 2009 at 22:55

“Intriguing offer, but how much respect are we talking about? 5 Marisa Respect Points? 10 Marisa Respect Points? 100? Because 100 Marisa Respect Points are currently redeemable at Best Buy for a 55″ Samsung LED TV(!), and for that I will not only admit to being filled with impotent misogynistic rage ( and revel in it like there’s no freaking tomorrow ), but I will also throw in a small penis, body odor, basement living quarters, and full blame for the Detroit Lions 0-16 season. Deal?”

Lol.

:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 00:15

I remind everyone that both the Nazis and the KKK were left-wing/Democrats.

Nazi Germany was left wing. Students of history know this.

The KKK was (and still is) heavily Democrat. Robert Byrd and George Wallace are modern Democrats with heavy KKK ties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 00:18

Feminists are so dumb that they don’t even know how to spell the most important word in their vocabulary.

They say :

Mysoginist
Masoganist
Misoginist

I mean, when they don’t even know how to spell the word that is the very essence of their existence, what else can one say?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 00:22

Men are currently being oppressed in society, all under the false premise that women are the oppressed class.

This is the sentence that Marisa, a 21-year-old with no real-world exposure, has to come to accept.

Women earn more than men for the same unit of productivity. Women have insurmountable advantages against men in the unconstitutional divorce process, which is a violation of human rights unfit for any first-world democracy.
Women have to power to destroy an innocent man’s life on a whim.

What is for sure is that future historians will come to the conclusion on how the most powerful civilization ever created, once it gave too much power to women, went downhill very quickly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
K. D. B. October 15, 2009 at 00:24

I thought about typing out a response that went into detail about how both men and women have suffered greatly in the course of human history. I thought about linking to the news report about honor killings, the ratio of men vs. women who get raped, the number of battered women shelters in the United States. Sadly, I realized that none of these facts or figures would matter to any of you, given that you’ve made it very clear that you approach this argument from the viewpoint of the victimized. You will only give lip service to any voice that attempts to reasonably suggest that both men and women suffer when we refuse to admit inequality exists.

The sad truth is that you’ve just chosen someone to blame for anything and everything that is wrong in your life. You joke about comparisons to the KKK but really, I don’t see anything different between your complaints and theirs that the black man steals their jobs and their women. You scream at imagined slights and skew facts to justify your viewpoints.

I don’t hate you. I pity you.

You can only feel strong by being threatened by, condemning and demonizing half of the human race every single day of your lives. That’s not being a strong man. That’s being a coward.

Men and women are both people. Just that, nothing more and nothing less. We cannot survive without each other. I will pray for you all. I will pray that you find enough love in your hearts to overcome the hatred that leaves you feeling so unempowered and sick inside. As the song says, only love can conquer hate.

May God bless and guide you to a healthier way to live.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 00:27

You can only feel strong by being threatened by, condemning and demonizing half of the human race every single day of your lives.

Since you agree that feminists are evil for doing this, what are you doing to combat feminism?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Clarence October 15, 2009 at 00:27

K.D.B.

Read this link and come back with perhaps a legitimate argument. One doesn’t have to hate women to hate modern feminism and to think men get the short end of the stick.

http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
Quite frankly I’m sick of people who think that antimale prejudices in law and government are all in our heads. Unlike the feminists mostly imaginary patriarchy and rape culture memes our grieviences are often codified into law and a verifiable part of the real world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 00:43

What a lot of women utterly fail to realize (as usual) is :

The physical safety of women is entirely dependent on the ratio of ‘protector’ men to ‘aggressor’ men staying a above a certain level.

As more men get the short end of the stick in a society where women have it better than men, this ratio could reduce, and women would lose the safety they take for granted.

And while white-collar professional men will never resort to violence, they can certainly stop being ‘protectors’. This clears the way for aggressor men to attack women without resistance.

Women have a lot to lose from even the polite professional men not really caring about defending women from danger.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 00:47

Hestia,

I want to applaud you for having the fair views that you do. It is quite refreshing to see this from a woman, and I want to encourage you to speak up more, and join in the fight for fairness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
sage October 15, 2009 at 00:49

“””I thought about typing out a response that went into detail about how both men and women have suffered greatly in the course of human history.”””””

Oh yeah?

“”””I thought about linking to the news report about honor killings, the ratio of men vs. women who get raped, the number of battered women shelters in the United States.””””

Uh huh.
So the suffering of both men and women over the course of our human history amounts to, in your opinion, a write up on honor killings, sex rape ratios and battered womens shelters?

It makes me feel sick that there a human beings like you in this world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
JokersWild October 15, 2009 at 01:15

Is it misogynist to believe that we need to have a national lottery that all women must be a part of starting at age 18 in which those women who are picked out of this lottery will be euthanized in order to help bridge the “death gap” that currently exists between men and women?

Since women live longer and men work more dangerous jobs it’s the obvious solution since we’re working on the “wage gap” and in order to be a equalitarian society we must absolutely bridge this gap as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Obsidian October 15, 2009 at 02:49

As per usual, TFH makes a powerful point, and one can already see it occuring right now in society. What some call a “coarsening of the culture” is in many ways, simply what he’s talking about, writ large.

Not long ago, Men no matter what their station in life, willingly allowed ladies to get on the bus or train before themselves, and also willingly gave up their seats to Women, especially elderly and pregnant Women. I live in Philly and spend a great deal of time in the NJ/NYC area, and I can tell you for a fact that that era is gone, never to return.

Why?

Because of the changed social “ecosphere”-Women wanted to be seen as equals, and they are. Now pregnant Women have to stand up for an hour or more, elderly Women get jostled about, and having a Big Butt & A Smile no longer gave you the same cache’ it did even a decade ago.

The more Men see themselves as losers in a rigged game, the more they simply won’t give a you know what-and that is downright dangerous to something like 99% of Women out there. All the legislation, police protection and Tae-Bo classes in the world won’t protect the average workaday Woman out on the street, because these are at their best abstractions that represent our society in their best light. It was always the average guy who was the “first responder” to a Women being mugged, raped or worse. Nowadays, those Women will have to fend for themselves, and trust me when I tell you, the vast majority can and will lose.

So, yes, as blogger Whiskey has said, and I agree, there has and will continue to be, among the Polite Classes that TFH described above, a kind of low-level Misogyny-but you have to ask WHY it came about to begin with.

When you go looking for the truth, be prepared to find it.
- Africa Proverb

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma October 15, 2009 at 04:01

Terra is adding real value to the conversation. How very typical.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 15, 2009 at 04:45

Welmer October 14, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“Actually, she didn’t single out men, which is a step in the right direction.”

Welmer, she said “BOTH sides” which would include men which would include me and she said ‘need’. So she can fuck off. I am extremely accurate in my reading of the english language and extremely accurate in my responses. So you can forget about adding to the little ‘selective’ reading jibe she tried.. ;-) If I do not address a question from a woman it’s because they are stupid and childish and it is a waste of time to address questions. Indeed, they ask questions which are stupid and childish only to draw ignorant men into discussion and then dominate and control them by their ‘questions’ to ‘help me understand’. I did that shit for 32 years. They can fuck off and do their own research or STFU.

And NO. It’s not a step in the right direction. I don’t ‘need’ to do anything, certainly nothing a woman tells me to do. Neither does ANY man.

The FIRST and ONLY acceptable ‘step in the right direction’ is for all those women who have committed crimes to be tried and incarcerated for their crimes exactly like men would be. Period. ANYTHING else in UNACCEPTABLE to me and it should be unacceptabl to you too. When every woman who has committed perjury in court, committed paternity fraud, kidnapped children etc is behind bars for the same length of time a man would serve for that crime…..THEN I might actually listen to what a western woman has to say. Until then? The responsibility for taking the ‘first step’ rests entirely with women. THEY need to clean up THEIR act because THEY are disgraceful in that they will not hold female criminals accountable for their crimes therefore denigrating themselves to the level of accomplices to serious crimes and abusers of half the adult population.

I would encourage other men to take the position “Millions upon millions of women have committed serious crime. If they want a seat at our table to even talk they they must pay for those crimes. No amnesty is on offer. Period. No responsibility. No seat at the mens table. They can play in the kiddies section of life.”

Let’s see how ‘grown up’ these women are when the price of a seat at the mens table is to take responsibility for the crimes they have committed. Everyone knows perjury, paternity fraud, kidnapping is a crime. These things are in the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neigbour. It is not like these things are ‘new’. They have been around for 5,000 years nearly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Women committed these crimes knowing it was wrong. They did it knowing they would not be held accountable like children. So THEY agreed THEY are CHILDREN by THEIR actions and they KNOW the do not deserve a seat at the table with men. We should not let them back to the adults table until they are adults. I know a LOT of men who agree with this position. There was a reason the bible said ‘Wives, love, honour and OBEY your husbands.’ Because the Illuminati wrote the bible and they KNOW women are children.

Renee October 14, 2009 at 9:09 pm
“And stop getting all worked up and defensive. I said EVERYONE that it applies to. And anyway, what.is it ok for men to tell what women need to do?”
Thanks again for proving how stupid you women are.
1. I am not defensive. I said ‘fuck off’. That is about as not-defensive as you can get.
2. ‘EVERYONE’ would include men and you don’t get to tell men what they ‘need’ to do.
3. Women have committed crimes. My position is that if women wish to be treated as adults then they must take responsibility for their crimes. The so called ‘good women’ are required to address this issue if they want a seat at the mens table. Men take responsibility for incarcerating men who commit crimes. About time for women to act like adults in this respect. So, no, you wimmin don’t ‘need’ to take responsibility for your actions. You will see I use the phrase ‘IF women’ leaving the action up to you. Unlike you. I am a master of the english language and logic. Women can be the children you are if you choose to be. No problem. Then you will just have to accept that we will treat you like the children you are. Now, will you fuck off or are you going to continue to demonstrate your childishness? Thank you for being here and giving me a chance to demonstrate to more young men just how childish and unwilling to take responsibility for themselves women are… ;-)

Renee October 14, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“Seriously, I think he has selective reading or lack of reading comprehension.”
Ha, I think you will find that I interpreted your words exactly correctly. Go re-read what I wrote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 05:38

You can only feel strong by being threatened by, condemning and demonizing half of the human race every single day of your lives.

Sounds like a feminist to me. Pretty classic case of projection here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 October 15, 2009 at 05:46

Ok, want some examples:

I saw how an uncle of mine has to pay an apartment and give money to a vicious cunt that tried to get him arrested, and she would have succed if it wasn’t because:

a)He is a cop. He got wind of not getting close to the station that day.

b)He had a divorce judge that was fed up with all the female BS that gets thown on her way. Yeah, she was a woman. Proves that BS isn’t tolerable for nobody, given enough.

c)She was a dumb whore that tried to record the private meetings and got caught and, when my uncle said that he was going to cut the monthly fees she said, and I quote: “What is going to happen to my nails, What is going to happen to my hair?!!” (Note that this is how the fucking monthly fees are expended) and she got their children to say for the phone that he was a bad dad.

From that he only got an even division of the goods and, of course, he still doesn’t have custody. He still pays the apartment. And I’m pretty sure that if she wasn’t stupid he would be in jail. Oh, almost forgot, he is one of the “lucky” guys.

That example killed my desire for marriage, at least in this society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 07:29

GM,

The FIRST and ONLY acceptable ’step in the right direction’ is for all those women who have committed crimes to be tried and incarcerated for their crimes exactly like men would be……

And that solely the fault of women and not the court system which is, *gasp*, prodominantly male? I know full well that there’s a bias against male criminals, but attacking only women for it isn’t going to get you anywhere.

Until then? The responsibility for taking the ‘first step’ rests entirely with women. THEY need to clean up THEIR act because THEY are disgraceful in that they will not hold female criminals accountable for their crimes therefore denigrating themselves to the level of accomplices to serious crimes and abusers of half the adult population.

And men don’t? Look at the Polanski case. Even if he didn’t rape a 13 yr. old girl, his supporters don’t seem to be bothered that he had sex with a child. Besides if you talking about women with a severe form of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis who murder/harm their children and are released or aquitted, how is that any different than a male muderer/attacker with pychological problems and delustions being found not guilty on grounds of insanity?

I would encourage other men to take the position “Millions upon millions of women have committed serious crime. If they want a seat at our table to even talk they they must pay for those crimes.

Well since paying for their crimes involve the courts (which is male dominated), you’re going to have to focus your vitrol on them when it comes to sentencing.

Let’s see how ‘grown up’ these women are when the price of a seat at the mens table is to take responsibility for the crimes they have committed. Everyone knows perjury, paternity fraud, kidnapping is a crime. These things are in the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neigbour. It is not like these things are ‘new’. They have been around for 5,000 years nearly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Women committed these crimes knowing it was wrong. They did it knowing they would not be held accountable like children. So THEY agreed THEY are CHILDREN by THEIR actions and they KNOW the do not deserve a seat at the table with men.

You’re bascially focusing on female criminals. And female criminals don’t represent all women. But since you seem to be grouping the entire gender together, are male criminals able to have a seat at the mens table, especially those who thought they could get away with it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 07:42

Renee, the point that you’re missing, which has been pointed out numerous times on this site, is that the current system is an alliance between (1) men-in-power and (2) women. (1) plus (2) equals feminism. Most men are not men-in-power, however. And yes, we do criticize roundly the men-in-power who behave in misandrist ways, either through criminal sentencing or the overwhelming female bias in family courts and current legislation. They don’t get left out of the critique because they are XYs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 08:03

if you talking about women with a severe form of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis who murder/harm their children and are released or aquitted, how is that any different than a male muderer/attacker with pychological problems and delustions being found not guilty on grounds of insanity?

Could you give a few examples of this? I haven’t heard of any cases of men being found not guilty on grounds of insanity. Mentally ill men are found guilty all the time, and are frequently exectuted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 08:06

Well since paying for their crimes involve the courts (which is male dominated), you’re going to have to focus your vitrol on them when it comes to sentencing.

Actually, no we don’t because women in general, and feminists in particular, always seem to pressure judges for leniency for women. If feminists were as serious about true “equality” as they claim to be, they wouldn’t be constantly making excuses for women and would instead by demanding that they be held accountable for their actions – just like adults.

We have perfect example in the recent Hofstra rape-hoax. The number of women I saw excusing Danmell Ndonye outnumbered the number I saw advocating that she be held responsibile by 100:1.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 08:07

GM,

Thanks again for proving how stupid you women are.

And thanks for proving how stupid and delusional you are. Oh and you’re not going to catch me stooping to your level and generalizing an entire gender lol.

1. I am not defensive. I said ‘fuck off’. That is about as not-defensive as you can get.

This has nothing to do with you saying “fuck off”. You said this:

women don’t get to tell men what they ‘need’ to do.

I believed that you jumped to the conclusion and thought that I meant only men, which is a sign of defensiveness.

2. ‘EVERYONE’ would include men and you don’t get to tell men what they ‘need’ to do.

Oh ok LOL! It’s ok for me to direct this to only women, but if I include men then that’s bad because I “don’t get to tell men what they need to do”. But at the same time you “get” to tell women what they ‘need’ to do to. How hilarious! And pitiful.

3. Women have committed crimes. My position is that if women wish to be treated as adults then they must take responsibility for their crimes.

Not all women commit crimes so women being treated as adults should have nothing to do with the criminal segment of the population. And not all male criminals take responsibility for their crimes either.

The so called ‘good women’ are required to address this issue if they want a seat at the mens table.

All criminals should take responsibility for their crimes whether you’re male or female. That’s obvious. It doesn’t need any special addressing. Now as for sentencing, crimes committed by women being reported and taken seriously, that’s something you’re going to have to take up towards the courts, society in general, and the media. I mean, look how OTHER MEN respond to cases in which a young male student was having sex with an older female teacher. They give high-fives for crying out loud.

Men take responsibility for incarcerating men who commit crimes.

No, that’s the court system. The same court system who sentences and incarcerates women.

Unlike you. I am a master of the english language and logic.

HA!!! Well the saying goes, ignorance is bliss, so I’ll won’t pop your bubble. Not yet anyway.

Women can be the children you are if you choose to be. No problem. Then you will just have to accept that we will treat you like the children you are.

And if a man acts childish, I will treat him like a child.

Now, will you fuck off or are you going to continue to demonstrate your childishness?

No I will not “fuck off” and if anyone demonstrating childishness, it’s you.

Thank you for being here and giving me a chance to demonstrate to more young men just how childish and unwilling to take responsibility for themselves women are…

And thank you for being here and giving me the chance to demonstrate to everyone here how childish, irrational, delusional, and illogical you are. Once again I won’t stoop to your level and generalize an entire gender.

And anyway, with every instance you talk about taking responsibility you focused on criminals. Like I said, they don’t represent all women. That’s how all over the place your post is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
zed October 15, 2009 at 08:11

And anyway, with every instance you talk about taking responsibility you focused on criminals. Like I said, they don’t represent all women.

Please point to a case of a woman criminal where there were a significant number of women calling for her to be held accountable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Reinholt October 15, 2009 at 08:31

Am I the only one noticing a trend where certain individuals in the comments section (I am looking at you, Renee) consistently avoid the tough questions and cherry pick the low hanging fruit?

Perhaps, if this continues ad naseum, it should eventually result in some form of moderation? I am all for letting people have their say, but if their say is “I’m IGNORING YOU” over and over and over, is that really necessary?

So let me be a bit more blunt:

1 – Renee, explain to me why a women who falsely accuses a man of rape, which is either a felony or a pretty serious misdemeanor, depending on circumstances, not get prison time and often not even be charged?

2 – Explain to me why, if this is happening, the court system is “male dominated” and “male rigged” if this is the case?

3 – Or why the prison population is almost entirely male?

As a side note, I have a friend who is fond of amusing and offensive shirts who had one printed that said “Don’t mess with Texas (if you are black or mentally retarded)”, on the topic of male criminals suffering the brunt of “justice” in our country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 08:32

Good Lord my last post was long lol! :P

Fifth Horsemen,

When you say “protector men”, what do you mean exactly. If a woman is in trouble and attacked, that a random guy will come a rescue her; that is a rapist invades her home or tries to rape her at a party, that a guy will come and get her out of there or even beat the rapist up? Because in our society, there aren’t whole a lot of people in general willing to help out anyone being attacked. That’s what I think anyway.

As more men get the short end of the stick in a society where women have it better than men, this ratio could reduce, and women would lose the safety they take for granted.

So how would you have it? Would it be more equal, or would men be the one at the top like it used to be.

zed,

Yes, it is called “fighting fire with fire.” By getting a woman to admit that “generalization is bad”, then we can move on to the next step of pointing out the ways that women generalize about us.

But this tit-for-tat isn’t going to get us nowhere. Someone has to be the bigger person whether it is the women or the men. Some women probably just think that they were generalized first in regards to false beliefs, misogynistic views, and myths about women. I personally try not to generalize even if someone I’m discussing or arguing with is doing so. It’s like the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

Novaseeker,

the current system is an alliance between (1) men-in-power and (2) women. (1) plus (2) equals feminism.

Is (2) women in general?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 08:54

Is (2) women in general?

The overwhelming majority of women who support feminism, whether they care for the label or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 09:14

But this tit-for-tat isn’t going to get us nowhere. Someone has to be the bigger person whether it is the women or the men.

No, Renee. Part of the problem is that you are young and missed the first few years of the war. Men were “the bigger person” for years and years – most college age men supported feminism, supported and liked women, and truly wanted equality. It was only when the wholesale man-bashing started, and we woke up to the push to criminalize everything about maleness – particularly our sexuality – that men started to resist and fight back.

Even today, men are the “bigger” person in things like the female sentencing discount, almost automatic presumption of child custody in divorce. presumptive credibility for rape lies (although this is rapidly changing), affirmative action in employment, and numerous other issues.

Now that men are beginning to resist , any slowing of women’s relentless progress toward stripping men of all their rights and gaining endless privileges for women is dismissed as “misogyny” – or “having a small penis, having mommy issues, living in our parents basement, having anger issues or being bitter” or any other assortment of the few dozen cliches that women use to dismiss, deny, or minimize our perspective and dehumanize it.

From here on it really is “quid pro quo” and there are many of us from whom women will not get one more damn thing – not concern, not consideration, not help, not even caring – until they start to give back a little bit of what they have stolen and extorted from us for the past 40 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 15, 2009 at 09:29

Reinholt October 15, 2009 at 8:31 am
“Am I the only one noticing a trend where certain individuals in the comments section (I am looking at you, Renee)”
Reinholt/All. Renee is stupid, severely lacking in intelligence and a child. You would be best served by ignoring her because as you can clearly see from her answers she continues to attempt to decieve people as to what was said and how it should be spun in order to keep people in conversation with her. All she wants to do is be an attention whore. What works is to deny her that make attention that she so craves.

If she was a 10 year old boy (which is the maxiumum intelligence and maturity level she is at) you would tell her to sit down, shut up, listen, learn and respect her elders. Since she is a woman she will not be polite she will not shut up and she does not have the intellect to produce an argument. She is, in short, a troll. She is exactly what Harry and I are warning you about. You would do best to ban her and delete all her posts and send her to feministing to talk in the echo chamber over there. Ditto for any woman who asks any stupid question. They should be immediately banned. We have about 10,000 useless posts by women on MABTW and they have destroyed the place. There is no end to the attention whoring of women. Just my opinion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 15, 2009 at 09:30

Hestia October 14, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Hestia and other women? IF you want my respect this is what you will do.

Large areas of the world are common law lands. UK, Ireland, Canada, India, USA, Australia just to name a few. Women have a common law right to form a dejour jury and try any person (by which I mean women because men are already tried appropriately) who stands accused of a common law crime by way of affidavit and an unanswered Notice of Intent and Proposed Remedy.

I issue this challenge to ALL women in common law countries. Take an oath to serve on dejour juries where you will hear matters of fact presented by affidavit presented by men against women for crimes committed violating common law. On that jury you will take an oath to judge the woman based on the bible and your own insight into how you wish women to behave in YOUR society. YOU WOMEN can DECIDE what punishment will be accorded to women that YOU FIND GUILTY of crimes. Remember, the bar is very high for a guilty verdict. There can be no reasonable doubt the crime was committed by the woman by all 12 jury members. The punishment must also be agreed by all 12 jury members. The jury members can make the punishment anything they like. That is common law. From a public apology backed by affidavit to incarceration. The jury IS the LAW. NOT the judge.

In ‘common law’ the jury has the right to waive punishment (usually with an explanation) even for someone they find guilty. The JURY has the ultimate power and ultimate descretion NOT the judge.

By WOMEN judging other WOMEN and deciding punishment entirely devoid of MEN participating WOMEN can decide FOR THEMSELVES how it is they will present themselves to men. If women on juries say ‘false allegations are ok’ then us men will act accordingly. If women on juries say ‘a false alleagtion proven beyond reasonable doubt is punishable by 12 months incarceration’ then men will also act accordingly. You can take that right through the lexicon of female crimes against men.

I doubt many men would make the case that a man should not be jailed for such crimes as murder, rape or bashing a woman or kidnapping a womans children. Yet many women commonly say women should not be punished for these crimes and we disrespect you for doing so.

So…ladies. There you have it…pass it along. I will fly to any common law country to instruct an all female jury on how to judge a woman who has been accused of a common law crime in the proper fashion.

And ladies. In case you do not understand. A dejour jury can issue an order for punishment against the accused. Since the guvement is the servant of the people government functionaries are obliged to carry out those punishments or they are committing the crime of obstructing the course of justice. I wonder how many of you women realised that you have the power to fix the problem of how you are percieved by men in your own hands. You don’t need a mass movement. You need 13 good women. One judge, 12 jurors. In common law there are no ‘liars/lawyers’ or solicitors. Each party presents themselves on addivits and answers the juries questions under oath. That is all there is to it.

I would welcome an article and detailed discussion of common law and how women have the power in their own hands to transform the opinion of men about western women in a very, very short period. Anything short of women forming dejour juries is not going to fly with me.

So Hestia. Are you willing to take an oath and serve on a jury to fairly and justly judge a woman accused of a common law crime by a man? If the answer is no I have no respect for you. Ditto any other woman.

Men, what are your opinions about asking women to serve on juries to judge women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 15, 2009 at 09:37

zed–

OK, I won’t say it. Suffice it to say that I’m not the only one posting here who’s had such thoughts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 09:49

zed–

OK, I won’t say it. Suffice it to say that I’m not the only one posting here who’s had such thoughts.

I understand the animosity, sestamibi, really I do. But, I think there are ways to say it which communicate the intensity without falling into the trap which the femnasties laid for us that “men are all violent.”

For example – the same level of animosity, which should be even more chilling to women, could be communicated by saying that if I were to walk by a woman on fire, I would not spit on her to put her out. That indicates not taking any positive action to either harm or help women.

They have wanted us completely out of their lives for years, I say we give them what they have been asking for – no more, no less.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 09:56

zed,

Please point to a case of a woman criminal where there were a significant number of women calling for her to be held accountable.

I can’t think of her name, and perhaps I’m wrong since I was either not born or quite young. The one who killed Polanski’s pregnant wife, the one who was with Charles Mason. And then I recently read a case about a women who set fire to her home with two of her children inside while fleeing with the third. I highly doubt she would get any support.

If a female criminal gets any support from other women it’s usual in cases of self defense in regards to domestic abuse, and cases of post partum psychosis and severe post partum depression. Now if it was proved that they didn’t come into play during the crime, then I can’t imagine women continuing to support them, unless they still believed in them.

Now I’m aware of the support when it came to Lorena Bobbett (I’m basing this on what I was told by other men online since I was young then and didn’t pay attention to news about the crime or any support that she had). And yes I think she should’ve been held accountable (was she?). But I think that in the end, they wouldn’t have wanted her to get off scott free.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Reinholt October 15, 2009 at 09:59

“If a female criminal gets any support from other women it’s usual in cases of self defense in regards to domestic abuse, and cases of post partum psychosis and severe post partum depression. Now if it was proved that they didn’t come into play during the crime, then I can’t imagine women continuing to support them, unless they still believed in them.”

Reality disagrees with your viewpoint, to be blunt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 15, 2009 at 10:15

Renee October 15, 2009 at 9:56 am
“If a female criminal gets any support from other women it’s usual in cases of self defense in regards to domestic abuse, and cases of post partum psychosis and severe post partum depression.”

Gents, stop talking to her….she is just making blatantly false statements to goad you into responding to derail the conversation and be an attention whore. One name. Mary Winkler. Shot her husband in the back and all the women got behind her. It is common. Does the name Steve McNair ring a bell. ‘Self-defense’? He was asleep when she shot him. There was not a single news outlet that called it ‘Domestic Violence’. Cary Robers wrote a whole column about it.

Renee has been told ‘do your research’ and she won’t because she is an attention whore and a child. So if you men have any intelligence, and I believe you do, you will ignore her.

Women wish to be able to everything up to and including kill a man with impunity. Any man who allows them a seat at the mens table without paying for their crimes will get no respect from me. In my opinion we cut them off until they deal with their crimes or we treat them like the children they have proven themselves to be. It’s really that simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 10:19

But I think that in the end, they wouldn’t have wanted her to get off scott free.

What you “think” about “what they wanted” could not possibly be more irrelevant. With every post you prove that you, like most other women, are going to continue to play for “Team Woman” no matter what happens.

That is why we generalize you – because despite your lame lip service to understanding that men may have some legitimate points, your every effort goes to refute them. It is such a deeply ingrained habitual reaction in women that many men have come to expect nothing else. When a woman like Hestia or Julie shows up who does something other than argue against men, she gets a very warm reception.

In the “bad old days” of decades or centuries past, to which you often refer to prove that woman were “oppressed” and feminism was and is necessary, there were systematic advantages and disadvantages for both sexes based on their reproductive roles. Feminism and feminists have seized on the female disadvantages and called them “oppression” and the male advantages and called them “privilege” and flatly refused to acknowledge the offsetting female advantages and male disadvantages.

This makes women appear to men to be users and takers.

Since it does to some extent require men’s cooperation to allow women to use us and take from us, all we have to do is withdraw that cooperation and strand women in Aloneville all on their own.

I am what a lot of men your age will look like in 30-35 more years. There is an old saying about being kind to the people you meet on the way up because you will meet them again on the way back down. After a lifetime of dealing with women like you who show no real regard, concern, or understanding for the male side of the issues, do not be surprised when men no longer show any for your side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 10:23

Gents, stop talking to her….she is just making blatantly false statements to goad you into responding to derail the conversation and be an attention whore.

Remember that there are potentially a lot of other people reading this thread than her. The key to internet argument is –
ALWAYS PLAY TO THE LURKERS!!!!!

Use the person as foil to give you openings to make points you want to make. Of course, we are never going to convince her, but some less pig-headed woman may be reading this and go “hmm”, or some guy look at what is said and go “YES! That has been my experience exactly, I just didn’t know how to put it into words.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 15, 2009 at 10:32

Sighs.

I’m very grateful that the Warriors dedicate themselves to dealing with the 1WF. Truth be told, me and my kind have had our patience taxed more than our wallets with the overused and shopworn arguments they present. They are headaches a 1000lbs. Tylenol can’t cure.

I lead a small but growing number of astute, educated, and solvent men of the ‘protector’ class that truly have decided to go our own way. You see, we don’t hate women. We realize that men and women (with all our faults and imperfect character traits) COMPLEMENT each other and that families are the bedrock of society.

We are the ones you should be most worried about. We are the ones who would’ve given you a chance but have shaken our heads at the thought that you, your generation and the next 3 are burnt like toast. And most importantly, WE ARE SERIOUS.

Because if you think ‘going Galt’ is a meme on the internets, guess again. We are the Pioneers. We are forming colonies. Above all else, WE TAKE ACTION and there is nothing you can do to stop us.
Now you must deal with those who’ll A) have nothing to do with you or worse B) manipulate your buttons and try you on like new shoes. And there is nothing you can do to stop them.

No, our tribe will not spit on you to put out your fire; not because we have malice toward you. On the contrary, my love. No, a small number of us have moved beyond that stage. Truth be told, our little contingent has even moved beyond indifference. Fire? What fire? We won’t even be around to know that you EXIST.

The bell tolls, my love. And it tolls for thee.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 10:32

<Please point to a case of a woman criminal where there were a significant number of women calling for her to be held accountable.

I highly doubt she would get any support.

I didn’t ask for a case when you “highly doubt that she would get any support” – I told you to back up your BS by point to women actually calling for her to be held accountable. You come up with 2 vague cases in over 40 years, and still can’t fill the women demanding accountability requirement.

A failure that complete would humiliate any normal person.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 15, 2009 at 10:36

zed October 15, 2009 at 10:23 am
“ALWAYS PLAY TO THE LURKERS!!!!!”
Zed, W’ve got about 50,000 useless posts in MABTW and all of feministing to point lurkers to. How about we have ONE public place on the internet sans women? I have already mentioned we have one private one for men only.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 15, 2009 at 10:39

zed October 14, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“A failure that complete would humiliate any normal person.”
Shes not a normal person zed. She is a woman. Women have no shame. They are amoral. Give it up.

“We understand the rage, but comments suggesting violence do not help our cause or our arguments.”
Actually, I disagree. First an important point. There are far too many men here talking about ‘rage’ or ‘anger’. I don’t know what is up with the guys who say this, maybe you’ve had too many women around. But in my experience men rarely, rarely, rarely are turned to rage or anger and they very, very rarely act on it when it happens. Men have a little something called class. What you are seeing is ‘indifference’ or, at worst, a little hope of one day seeing some of these women get their come uppence. Far from anger, far from rage. On the flip side we see endless pure hatred spewed at us. I say fuck the politeness and I have for a long time. Women want to spew venom and hate at me? I am indifferent. They keep doing it I’d be happy to smack them one. One of the reasons I had to be so careful with my temper with my ex abusing me is I could easily kill her with one punch. She traded on her certain knowledge I would not hit her even to the extent of throwing a carving knife at me. But she threw like a girl. My vote is let men say whatever they want. Practice free speech for men. It can’t hurt if women see that there are a few guys who might be the next Sodini.

One of the reasons that women are so abusive of men is that they are supremely confident that we will not hit them or injure them. I have said in many places if women want to be ‘equal’ then they must accept that it is acceptable for a man to strike her and severely injure her for being an arsehole. Otherwise they are just ‘privilege princesses’. I haven’t seen any women agree that they are willing to be hit and injured for being arseholes. All men know that this is a risk they run if they are arseholes.

Women will label men ‘woman-haters’ for disagreeing with them. Let them label us ‘women-haters’ for smacking them in the mouth when they annoy us too much.. ;-) Ladies, which of you volunteer to be smacked in the mouth like we see women smacking men in the mouth on TV every day?

“From here on it really is “quid pro quo” and there are many of us from whom women will not get one more damn thing not concern, not consideration, not help, not even caring until they start to give back a little bit of what they have stolen and extorted from us for the past 40 years.”

Perhaps this will explain something for other men. Other men have told me they feel the same. I had a very scary experience about 6 months ago. I was just on the edge of going to sleep, you know that dreamy place where thoughts flow through your head uncontrolled and unbidden. The thought flowed through my head and the question occured to me “Would I pull a gun and shoot a feminised woman in the head killing her if I knew I would not be punished?” The answer came back “No problem.” I was so shocked I could not sleep all that night realising I had even had that thought.

I knew then the level of abuse I have received had taken a toll higher than I had thought. I have since discussed this experience with many men. Lots of them tell me they feel the same. They say they would kill feminised women in a heartbeat if they knew they would not be punished. Just like me they feel it does not particularly matter which one since we hold the vast majority guilty by lack of protest. Ditto for the judges and lawyers. If social chaos breaks out and police forces can no longer provide law and order I believe there are a LOT of men out there who might well give consideration to ‘level the score’ a bit Sodini style. I can tell you I won’t be one of them. But not all men are of the same character as myself. And I also have a ‘second chance’ because I make so much money and my friends could assist me relocate. Tens of millions of men got no second chance. And many are older than me and do not have the same rosy future I do. I can imagine many men would be more than happy to ‘balance the ledger’ if the chances of getting caught were low. It would bring them great personal satisfaction. I see no reason why such statements should not stand in public.

My suggestion to women is to work their arse off to do what the bible says. Beg forgiveness, make amends, repent, and promise never to do the same again and put the women in jail who have discredited them all. You men here can see how far THAT suggestion flies in the feminist world. They are too drunk on their own ‘power’. They are so stupid that they do not realise they are making enemies of the men who would be their natural protectors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 15, 2009 at 10:56

This whole idea of female criminals and crappy, ridiculous sentences puzzles me, because so often, it is men (in whole or in part) that let them off the hook. It would stand to reason that if men are classified (as one commentor here put it) as protectors or aggressors, the “protectors” would be more likely to be the ones who make decisions like sentencing women for crimes. And wouldn’t those “protectors” be predisposed to help women in distress (whether that distress is self-earned and self-inflicted or otherwise)?

As propagandist and feminist as the movie GI Jane was, I thought it did bring up one interesting point in regard to the issue of women in combat positions. What kind of stress does that put on the men in combat, if they have an artifically applied responsibility to see women soldiers as just soldiers, but an ingrained evolutionary and possibly moral responsibility to see them as women in need of protection? Is it fair to put them in that position?

Same with women competing in contact sports. There is the stated importance of treating her like one of the boys (and dammit, if you want to play hockey with the boys, you’d better be prepared to get slammed against the boards), that conflicts with the natural and social taboos concerning male violence against females.

But when it comes to questions of culpability under the law, the law serves no one when it implies that women are automatically victims, but at the same time, men are often just as eager to place them on that pedestal as women are.

Even look at how my ex–anti-feminist that he was most of the time–thought Andrea Yates ought to be found not guilty and her husband prosecuted for not being a man and protecting her properly–that is, knowing her history of escalating post-partum psychosis, he still kept happily knocking her up. Despite her psychiatrist’s express orders, he left her alone with the kids. WTF did he think was going to happen? (All true, IMO, but not the whole truth, if you will.)

Now me, I’m prepared to spread the culpability in that case between the two of them. He kept knocking her up, even knowing how it was damaging her–but she could have gone on the effing pill or something. Because I know from experience when the post-partum lifts, you do have a window of time where you’re thinking clearly, and she’d been treated successfully several times. The burden of thinking clearly, of protecting her from mental illness and the children from danger, should have fallen on both of them. The burden of not having any more fucking kids should have fallen on both of them.

Far as I’m concerned, they ought to have both gone to jail. As with drunk driving, the precipitating act of that crime isn’t deciding to drive once you’re drunk, but in deciding to drink when you know you’re going to drive. The precipitating act of Andrea (and Russell) Yates’ crime wasn’t her going crazy and drowning her kids, but both of them going out of their way to have more kids when they could both see what was likely to happen. And both of them are responsible for that precipitating act, so they should both be rotting in prison, IMO.

But it’s rather telling to me that the most vigorous “she needs to rot in prison” responses I stumbled across in my daily life were from women (based in part, I think, on a collective maternal horror). The men I talked to were much more willing to see her as a pathetic victim of the men in her life (her husband and her religious leader), who should not have been held accountable at all.

Perhaps, if this continues ad naseum, it should eventually result in some form of moderation? I am all for letting people have their say, but if their say is “I’m IGNORING YOU” over and over and over, is that really necessary?

If a person’s say is “All women are stoopid, women fuck off” over and over and over, what exactly are they bringing to the conversation? And is that really necessary? Does it encourage reasonable debate? Does he think for one second that saying those things will make any reasonable individual take him seriously?

I would welcome an article and detailed discussion of common law and how women have the power in their own hands to transform the opinion of men about western women in a very, very short period. Anything short of women forming dejour juries is not going to fly with me.

So Hestia. Are you willing to take an oath and serve on a jury to fairly and justly judge a woman accused of a common law crime by a man? If the answer is no I have no respect for you. Ditto any other woman.

I’d be interested in that as well. I know my ex’s ex got away with a lot of legally questionable BS when they split–although he left her (while she was pregnant), so I can understand why the courts didn’t have much sympathy for him. On the other hand, based on my own interactions with her, and shit their two sons have told me, I can completely understand why he’d leave her, and her ability to screw us over and over with the full connivance of all the free lawyers she could ever need, probably informs my more male-friendly view of divorce, and the way I’ve set about dealing with my own divorce from him.

But at the same time, I think appointing women to be the sole arbiters of justice for women is a bad idea, and destined to see justice continue to be applied unevenly along gender lines. Because I think men need to start holding women more accountable than they do. Letting women get away with shit is often another aspect of patriarchy–”they’re women, therefore inferior little cuddly soft things, and we can’t hold them to the same standards as men”. The fact that feminism and patriarchy have combined to produce this absurd imbalance in the court system is sad, but you can’t blame only women for that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 11:00

But in my experience men rarely, rarely, rarely are turned to rage or anger and they very, very rarely act on it when it happens. Men have a little something called class. What you are seeing is ‘indifference’ or, at worst, a little hope of one day seeing some of these women get their come uppence.

The thought flowed through my head and the question occured to me “Would I pull a gun and shoot a feminised woman in the head killing her if I knew I would not be punished?” The answer came back “No problem.”

To me, these two comments seem to contradict each other. I could not shoot someone in cold blood, and being able to do so does not sound like the claimed “indifference.”

On the issue of actually directly advocating violence – old habits die hard. I’ve been fighting this battle since before you got married, and watched a lot of anti-male laws get passed because some hothead shot off his mouth and made what appeared to be threats and validated women’s claims of men’s violence to the chivalrous manginas who then passed even more anti-male laws. As recently as 5 years ago, I had 7 forums nuked out from under me in one year because some guy shot off his mouth and violated their “Terms of Service” which almost always include “no advocacy of violence.”

It amazes me that guys are getting away with saying some of the things they do here. To me it is an indication of how much things have changed just in the last 5 years. If women had any sense, I think they would start to get pretty worried that their free ride of the past few decades is about to come to a screeching halt.

I don’t have the same contempt for women in general that you do. I have lots of fine, level-headed, women in my family and among the social circles they overlap. However, almost none of them are under 60.

I pretty much agree with Nada that Entitlement Materialist Feminism (EMF) has ruined at least 2-3 generations of Western women. If I hadn’t already reached the age where I really don’t care any more, I would be signed up for his course and looking at other places in the world to be. But, I’m out of the gauntlet of the mating years and think that it might be a quite enjoyable hobby to make later life as miserable for boomer women as I can. They are really the ones who started all this mess and kept it going. It would be nice if younger women started to hate them for their role in destroying relationships between men and women, but at least I get to watch them squirm as they come to grips with the fact that no man wants to have anything at all to do with them any more, except for the rare case of being a cum-dumpster to relieve a severe fit of horniness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher October 15, 2009 at 11:03

@zed, Globalman

Look, guys, while we agree on a great many things, I gotta say that you’re now so overcome with emotion that you’re no longer advancing your cause, which is a good one. The comments here go back and forth between “we don’t need women/women’s approval” to “help us and join the fight for true equality”. Until you figure out which you think is the better strategy you’ll be all over the map, looking generally incoherent. What you need to do challenge older, mostly conservative, males to fight this battle. That is where the battle will be won or lost.

@Renee

Protector men aren’t just bystander males who will rush in to save a strange female being physically threatened. They are men who pay taxes. Men who support a political system that aggressively pursues rapists. Men who industriously pursue careers and maintain a general level of social civility, which is the stuff from which civil society is made.

Consider the following scenario: a reserved, hard-working, law-abiding male gets rejected by a women to whom he is attracted. The next Friday night that same woman attends a rowdy party, attended by a good number of thuggish-type males, where she gets into a quasi-rape type of situation. Why do I say “quasi” rape? Well, because rape isn’t cut-and-dried like homicide. There are lots of gray areas, such as if both parties have had a few drinks, situations where a woman can seemingly give consent but have reservations.

So, let’s say that this woman wakes up the next day and feels raped, and let’s even grant that she has a semblance of reasonableness to that feeling. Why should the man she rejected care? Why would that man want to support vigorous state pursuit of protecting a woman in that “gray area” situation? Answer: he wouldn’t. And this isn’t to say that the hard-working guy justifies the outcome, but that he simply doesn’t care, as he has no vested interest in the outcome.

What we are facing is the decline, in a general sense, of men who have any vested interest in maintaining social order, of men who have a vested interest in the future of civilization. And that is what we mean by the decline of the Protector-type.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 11:12

But at the same time, I think appointing women to be the sole arbiters of justice for women is a bad idea, and destined to see justice continue to be applied unevenly along gender lines. Because I think men need to start holding women more accountable than they do. Letting women get away with shit is often another aspect of patriarchy–”they’re women, therefore inferior little cuddly soft things, and we can’t hold them to the same standards as men”. The fact that feminism and patriarchy have combined to produce this absurd imbalance in the court system is sad, but you can’t blame only women for that.

5 STARS!!!!!!!!!!!

You will notice that knee-jerk chivalrists, white-knights, manginas, and SoCons take as much heat here as women do.

But when it comes to questions of culpability under the law, the law serves no one when it implies that women are automatically victims, but at the same time, men are often just as eager to place them on that pedestal as women are.

One analogy for this which I think illustrates relative culpability would be a male store clerk who makes a mistake and gives a woman back too much change – say she buys something for $1 and gives him a $5, but he mistakes it for a $20 and gives her back $19.

Both of them have a role in the transaction – he made a mistake, but nothing forced her to take advantage of it.

There are some men who working very hard to get women held accountable, but they have to overcome huge resistance from both men and women.

What is notable to men about this is that while a lot of other men will agree that women do need to be held accountable, despite the fact that a lot of men disagree. However, finding a woman who takes that position seems to be extremely rare.

Major kudos to you, kis, for one of the most-even handed, best thought out, posts I’ve seen here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 15, 2009 at 11:21

@kris

Agree with 5-stars regarding your comment. Keep ‘em coming.

@Renee

Your comments are reasonable and appreciated as well. BTW, has anyone ever told you that your personality comes across as masculine … ;) … that’s a compliment.

(OK, OK, j/k)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 11:21

@Asher

I don’t think you really understand the rhetoric of ridicule.

What you need to do challenge older, mostly conservative, males to fight this battle. That is where the battle will be won or lost.

No, what we need to do is to make it their battle. The last thing in the world that “older conservative males” are going to do is help out another man.

What we need to do is go on strike so that their factories don’t get manned, their products don’t get bought, and their precious princesses don’t get husbands until they decriminalize dealing with women.

“Who is John Galt?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Geoff Sebesta October 15, 2009 at 11:24

Responding to a few posts at once here:

I dislike it when anyone discounts the very real achievements of others because they don’t understand them or choose to ignore them.

That appears to be you and many of your commentators.

If you don’t know about the very real contributions that women and homosexuals have made to my life, fine. However, I do not like it when you pretend they don’t exist. Believe me when I say that I am a straight male and my life is infinitely better because of science and science fiction made by women and homosexuals. This next sentence is gospel truth and you can’t dispute it:

Freeing women and homosexuals has been very, very good for me.

Now, your mileage may vary, and your life may have different lessons to teach you. But I have found, in my own personal experience, that I have never regretted once that I live in a world where women and homosexuals pursue the sciences and science fiction. I could no more list all the ways this has been good for me, then I could list all the great science fiction creators who are not straight men. So no matter what you do, remember that there is one very enthusiastic vote for tolerance over here.

If you don’t see the very real emotional subtext of your beloved classic science fiction, that’s not my problem. If you can’t see how often men use the word “logical” to cover up a level of stubborn emotionality that rivals anything I’ve ever seen from a woman, not my problem. It speaks more to your lack of perception than to my inability to reason.

It is unsurprising that women, and homosexuals, and those who agree with them and enjoy the fruits of their labors, choose to tar you with as wide a brush as you chose to tar them. The language is different but that is meaningless. Each person responds in their own way, and you are saying the same thing they are; “I have no use for you.” You dislike their language, they dislike yours.

Now, the perfect society you seem to imagine looks like a house of horrors to me and I could not be less interested in bringing your vision to life. If putting women and homosexuals in positions of power, authority, and influence keeps you and your ilk at bay…I am all for it.

I don’t really think I’m going to change your mind, but I wanted to go on the record as disagreeing with you, and write this to you in a way that perhaps you will understand. I am a “sane, normal, sexually attractive man” and I stand in complete opposition to you. I am absolutely dedicated to defeating the ideals you espouse here.

And I agree that you’re a misogynist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
mjaybee October 15, 2009 at 11:25

Please calm down, everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher October 15, 2009 at 11:28

@zed

I do understand the language of ridicule, acutely. And I agree with you that the only battle that needs winning is to make this their, the older conservative males, battle. Which is why I don’t understand why you guys are playing footsie with women, because it’s just making your message look incoherent. Social conservatives do their own version of “white-knighting” on the issues of crime, abortion and child-support.

You need to use the language of ridicule, but you need to use it against older conservative males, whose unintentional support for the matriarchy is undercutting their own support for a stable civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 15, 2009 at 11:34

Geoff Sebesta

It is unsurprising that women, and homosexuals, and those who agree with them and enjoy the fruits of their labors, choose to tar you with as wide a brush as you chose to tar them.

What’s with the homosexual strawman? AFPMT’s only problem with homosexuals was that a few nutty ones were injecting their own sexual fetishes into scifi shows, and HD didn’t mention them at all.

I think homosexual men ought to be on our side, and once they start getting shafted by birth mothers of their children a lot more of them will be.

The problem isn’t gay men, per se; it’s that a certain subset of gay men has been elevated out of proportion due to their association with (and popularity with) straight women. There are legions of gay men out there who get nothing worthwhile at all out of this deal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 11:38

No, what we need to do is to make it their battle.

Cosigned. Without socialcons, feminists have no power. Attacking them is the key to breaking the grip of power that is choking the average man.

You need to use the language of ridicule, but you need to use it against older conservative males,

We need WOMEN who care about men’s rights (the tiny number that there are) to use shaming langauage against Socialcons. That is the way to attack their Achilles heel, by an opponent they will not fight back against.

Similarly, we need to recruit articulate and legalese savvy MUSLIMS to say things against feminism that we would not be able to get away with saying. That is attacking the specific Achilles Heel of feminists. So, the Achilles hell strategy is :

1) Use MRA WOMEN (the few that there are) to shame socialcons.
2) Use MUSLIMS to attack feminists.

No strategy is perfect, and no ally is flawless, but this is the best way to make the biggest gains in the shortest time. Neither target will dare to fight back against these particular opponents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 11:41

You need to use the language of ridicule, but you need to use it against older conservative males, whose unintentional support for the matriarchy is undercutting their own support for a stable civilization.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show us how it’s done, Asher.

Every movement needs it’s firebrands. If we were to all take the “moderate” position and huddle on the white line right down the middle of the road, but then still seek a “middle of the road” somewhere between our position and the extremists, we will still end up in the ditch on one side.

Please read the following page in its entirety. It was put together by a woman – and illustrates the difference between a woman men view as trying to do something about the problem and women that men view as contributing to the problem.

http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-and-sex.html

Did you read it all? Now, in order to reach any sort of “middle ground” which will really work, a few firebrands have to go as far afield in the opposite direction so we end up with a final result that is truly balanced, instead of halfway between a moderate viewpoint and complete insanity.

The extremism you see in those quotes does not seem to have hampered feminists in achieving their goals, with the full cooperation and support of conservative men, one bit. I am sure you are aware of what happened to Larry Summers a couple of years ago when he made a very mild comment about there maybe being innate differences between the sexes.

It is a time honored method in all labor conflicts for the workers to go on strike against the owners of the means of (re)production until they get better compensation and working conditions. They also establish picket lines, shout slogans, and generally make nuisances of themselves. But, the bottom line is that the cash flow of the owners get’s disrupted.

So, if conservative males want to keep the cash flowing to their precious princesses, they need to be thinking about a new contract instead of dreaming up ever more creative ways to put men in jail and confiscate their earnings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Asher October 15, 2009 at 11:48

@Geoff Sebesta

Look, I think that the SciFi post was a little overblown, so let’s stick to the issue at hand, which is general shaming language. The concern, at hand, is the general and pervasive double -standards that exist in the way that society treats males and females. Females want all the benefits of patriarchy, male deference, protection and chivalry without any of the constraints, mainly relating to sexual freedom.

You simply lack the context to comprehend what’s being discussed.

Go read the Devlin essays, or anything by Daniel Amneus on how patriarchy is necessary for civilization. Roissy in DC is a perfect example of what happens when all taboo is lifted from female sexuality: women spend their time pursuing 20 percent of the most sexually attractive and socially dominant guys. Men, then, no longer have any incentive to invest themselves in society, and this is because investment in society has become completely divorced from access to sex.

Read feminists like Ehrenriech. They agree with the men here that feminism is solely about completely freeing female sexuality from any and all constraint. And unrestrained female sexuality has the effect of decoupling the interests of the vast majority of individual males from society and its functions.

You say you’ve benefited from the freeing of women? Well, then, you’re probably in the top 20 percent of sexually attractive and dominant males. But what this means is that you are benefiting at the expense of the other 80 percent of males who are doomed to be losers in this emancipated, for women anyways, future. What exactly happens, do you think, in a society where 80 pecent of the males no longer have a vested interest in its continued existence? It implodes.

For what it’s worth, I’m probably in that top 20 percent, having just come to that realization, after years of living in the delusions that being good father and husband material would eventually get you a great wife (and mother). At that point, I cut back on my business, quit making saving and investing a priority, and began making short-term sexual relationships and one-night stands a priority.

Do you reality think it’s good for a society when men like me decide they are no longer responsible for doing the heavy lifting of civilization? But, hey, if you do think that my decision to embark on a life of frivolous sexuality and whimsical abandon is great, then please, let me know. It’d make me feel much better about that choice.

Again, before you respond to these posts I’d suggest getting the context, which is the link between sexual taboos and civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 15, 2009 at 11:48

Zed–

I don’t doubt your empathy. Blogs like this wouldn’t exist without the collective rage of millions of men.

“They have wanted us completely out of their lives for years, I say we give them what they have been asking for – no more, no less.”

They won’t be satisfied with that. Their goal is not to leave us alone. It is to screw around without limit with the handful of top alphas, and slavery or prison for the rest. I don’t think even a lot of your contributors understand this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 12:13

They won’t be satisfied with that. Their goal is not to leave us alone. It is to screw around without limit with the handful of top alphas, and slavery or prison for the rest. I don’t think even a lot of your contributors understand this.

I understand your rage, sestamibi, I really do. Look at all the people here who accuse me of being over the top.

But, for all my inflammatory output, I don’t really believe that the majority of women are out to enslave or imprison us. What I think is happening is both better in some respects and worse in others.

It appears to me that a lot of women, perhaps the majority, simply exist in a world that is so self-centered and self-absorbed that we don’t even register on their radar. They actually see maybe the top 20% of men, whose “superior” genes they want, and maybe the bottom 10% who they actually fear, but the 70% in the middle are simply invisible and irrelevant to them.

The core of the problem is not about sexual access – which is how the issue gets framed by a lot of people – but rather how does a culture get women to care about men at all except in terms of how useful we are or aren’t to them.

The old way was to give economic power to men to offset women’s sexual power and use marriage as a culturally-sanctioned marketplace of exchange. The costs to men in terms of living up to the “provider” role were immense, and in most cases they ended up buying a pig in a poke as their wives became asexual on them as soon as children arrived.

Guys who view themselves as sexually deprived today may have fantasies of returning to “patriarchy”, but that is based on a fantasy of how things used to be which is quite different from the reality. Not paying for sex you don’t get really is better than having to pay for sex you don’t get.

I’m actually more worried about the Alphas, which is the group that I think really does bear malice toward and want to imprison or enslave men. Most women are just going along for the ride.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 12:13

@Asher – great response to Geoff!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 12:14

They won’t be satisfied with that. Their goal is not to leave us alone. It is to screw around without limit with the handful of top alphas, and slavery or prison for the rest. I don’t think even a lot of your contributors understand this.

This I agree with, although as Zed says, I think the main problem is not with most women, but with the men-in-power and feminists. In the dystopia they have created together, the excess men are supposed to be society’s “do-bees”, and suck it up. What isn’t realized is that while men may anesthetize themselves with porn, video games and sports, they will *not* be as productive as they would be if they were invested in society. Not even close. Of course, men are already being blamed for this, which is nothing other than an elaborate exercise in blaming the victim. The men-in-power and feminists collaborated in creating the current sexual dystopia because it benefits the men-in-power and most women — at the expense of most men. The way most of the men are fighting back is by becoming slackers and so on. And that will eventually drag the whole thing down into the muck. Unfortunately that may be what has to happen in order for things to improve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 15, 2009 at 12:17

I’m actually more worried about the Alphas, which is the group that I think really does bear malice toward and want to imprison or enslave men.

I wouldn’t use the term “alpha” there, because in today’s parlance it means only men who are sexually successful. I’ve got friends who fit that definition who are far from being any part of the patriarchy — they just happen to be handsome, confident types.

In fact, the term patriarchy – despite its misuse by feminists – probably does more accurately represent the most problematic men (judges, tycoons, politicians, etc.).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 12:32

@Welmer

Ok, I forgot that this a Game oriented group and terms like “alpha” have become jargonized.

I think probably a better term anyway would be “aristocrats.” There seems to be a consistent subgroup of humanity which seeks power over and control of others, as well as resources. In terms of the strictly biological sense of “alpha” it refers not just to sexual attractiveness, but also who is actually allowed to breed.

What is going to become problematic over the next couple of generations is that war used to be a great mechanism for the aristocracy to dispose of excess males. It was a decently symbiotic arrangement for those without property or position because it gave them a tiny bit of them plus a generally accepted role in society.

However, in our current social system there is no systematized way to get rid of the excess males with lower quality genetics – other than to put them in prison. Unlike war, which had the potential of gaining control of enough resources to offset its costs, prison is a perpetual drain on the treasury.

I wonder if something like sex-selective abortion of boy babies is coming in our future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 15, 2009 at 12:41

I wonder if something like sex-selective abortion of boy babies is coming in our future.

I think parents who go for designer, test tube babies already predominately choose girls.

As for the future, I see more social chaos. Just holding things together in America requires a huge amount of money and effort, and I’m not sure can afford to do so anymore. They’re already finding excuses to let guys out of prison left and right (not that that’s all bad), and next step is probably reducing police forces and social programs. When you get more criminal guys out on the street during high unemployment, things will start to happen.

I foresee America going through something like the USSR following the breakup. I don’t believe this economic recovery for a minute. Until they start hiring people again, it’s just smoke and mirrors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 15, 2009 at 12:43

One analogy for this which I think illustrates relative culpability would be a male store clerk who makes a mistake and gives a woman back too much change – say she buys something for $1 and gives him a $5, but he mistakes it for a $20 and gives her back $19.

Hahaha! You’re talking to someone who once went back into the store to pay for four kaisar buns she forgot to put on the conveyor belt and the cashier didn’t notice. Preaching to the choir on that one, although I’d say men are just as likely to pull that crap (they just don’t get away with it as much), and just as likely to look at me like I’m insane for going back in to pay for $1.29 worth of buns.

Maybe I have an overblown sense of social responsibility. I blame my mother. ;)

What is notable to men about this is that while a lot of other men will agree that women do need to be held accountable, despite the fact that a lot of men disagree. However, finding a woman who takes that position seems to be extremely rare.

Well, I find feminism’s position that “women shouldn’t be held accountable because they’re women, and women are awesomesauce and I’m sure she had her reasons” as condescending as patriarchy’s position that “women shouldn’t be given responsibility (and therefore accountability) because they’re weak and irrational and can’t be trusted to make good decisions”.

The problem I see right now is that these two forces, coming at it from completely different perspectives and motives, have arrived at the same place. A place where men are generally held more accountable for their crap than women are.

Equal rights and opportunities for men and women is a good thing. But the affirmative action policies that have been employed to bring this about are, IMO, one step forward, two steps back. They don’t address the greater issues, which have largely already been addressed by early feminism–reproductive/marital/sexual freedoms, maternal rights (which were non-existent at one point), wage parity (which I think would have evened out on its own over time), the even application of basic human rights, all that stuff.

What drives me bugfuck is the assumption that women have an intrinsic right to a good job, or equal pay for work of “equal value”. No one has a right to a good job. Men and women both have a right to pursue a good job. They have a right to be paid the same for doing the same job to the same standards if they work for the same employer for the same length of time with the same reliability as employees.

Women don’t need to stay at home raising babies. They do need to understand that balancing a career with babies means that they often won’t get promoted as often as men, or be as successful as men (and that they might be less successful as mothers as well).

They have a choice in that, too. My sister, high up in admin in the medical branch of the Canadian military, has seen opportunities pass her by because she wants to keep one foot in the home. She’s cool with that. She’s also cool with seeing men (and some women) promoted ahead of her because they chose to focus on their careers sometimes at the expense of their family life.

Modern feminism perpetuates the idea not that women should be able to make any choice (which is good), but that women should be able to (and are crappy women if they don’t) make every choice, and that there are either no costs (the myth that putting off having kids until you’re 40 is without repercussion being one) for those choices, or that the system should subsidize the cost of those choices.

That is, she wants to a career, but she also wants babies, but she also wants a man as successful (or more) career-wise as she is (i.e., not a house-husband), so hey! Extended paid maternity leave, entrenched in law (reasonable mat-leave, I have no problem with), and universal day care for all!

And women like me–women who realize they can’t have everything, and make choices that are sane, and then pay the cost of them, are marginalized. Why the fuck do I want universal day care? So women like my rich doctor sister can have free child care for her kids, while I–working nights–still have to pay for mine, and hers now too, through my taxes? She made her choices. She’s happy to pay the cost of them, and so should everyone else.

And feminism has also helped devalue any unpaid work–such as child care and housekeeping. A feminist will often sneer at a woman who stays home and looks after her own kids, but if she works at a daycare center, she’s gainfully employed and suddenly a productive member of society. WTF?

Feminism SHOULD be about choice, responsibility, accountability and freedom. But that’s no longer what the movement is about–if it ever was. Sigh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher October 15, 2009 at 12:47

@Geoff

As my friend Chris put it, “ya hit 30, been with the same woman 30 years, she wants marriage, and then you decide you want to f*ck your way through West Seattle”. The guy is an ugly, slovenly rake … with game. He’s a hedonistic, rightwinger and consistently nails “liberated”, liberal types. He’s also loyal, honest and a successful business owner.

Men like us are abandoning the rules of civilization, and living only for our own immediate gratification. Geoff, if you think that bodes well for the future, then I’m sure we’d all be relieved to hear your explanation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 12:54

@kis – you’re great! It would only take a few % of women being like you to make this country worth living in.

When an old curmudgeon like me says something like that, you’ve really made an impression!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 15, 2009 at 13:05

Read feminists like Ehrenriech. They agree with the men here that feminism is solely about completely freeing female sexuality from any and all constraint. And unrestrained female sexuality has the effect of decoupling the interests of the vast majority of individual males from society and its functions.

I find this whole idea…puzzling. Are you saying you believe women should not have the freedom to decide who they should fuck? Or that women who have sexual agency are somehow a danger to society? Not that I’m saying women (or men, for that matter) should be sluts, because sexual agency and sexual freedom doesn’t mean saying yes to everyone. It means being able to say no when you choose to.

Is that what you’re advocating here? That women somehow OWE it to men to have sex with them? Or that men would be motivated to be better if only some woman would just fuck them? Because, quite frankly, I did that for fifteen years, and he got less productive, not more.

And to be honest, I would love to have a decent, average, moderately productive guy. Yes, my eyes light up when I know a man has money–not because I’m a gold-digger, but because, due to my own experiences, I’m attracted to men I figure won’t end up leeching my money, my effort and my will to live. Unfortunately, decent, average, productive single guys (even divorced ones with kids) are not as common as you might think. Women who find them, in my experience, tend to hang onto them, even when they don’t treat them as well as they deserve (which I see a LOT).

But I digress. Personally, I’d screw each and every one of you guys if I thought that would solve anything. But I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 13:05

Reinholt,

1 – Renee, explain to me why a women who falsely accuses a man of rape, which is either a felony or a pretty serious misdemeanor, depending on circumstances, not get prison time and often not even be charged?

Good question. If it was proven that she falsely accused a man of rape (because lack of evidence followed by dropping of a case, and recantation doesn’t always mean that a person falsely accused someone) or she confessed to falsely accusing someone, and she still wasn’t charged or sentenced to prison time, then I really don’t know exactly why. Does feminism have something to do with it, yes. I just not going to lay all the blame on feminism and women. Since as Novaseeker said, there’s a court system alliance, then men would have to shoulder the responsibility. I mean I highly doubt that women’s opinion on a case have that much affect on sentencing. But maybe I’m being to idealic.

2 – Explain to me why, if this is happening, the court system is “male dominated” and “male rigged” if this is the case?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but statistically, isn’t a good portion of the judges or people in that area of expertise male? I think at the time I made that comment, I was thinking of judges.

3 – Or why the prison population is almost entirely male?

Well I guess what we should look at the percentage of men offending/getting arrested compared to women.

With that being said, I am aware that the court system can be biased based on gender.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 13:11

That is, she wants to a career, but she also wants babies, but she also wants a man as successful (or more) career-wise as she is (i.e., not a house-husband), so hey! Extended paid maternity leave, entrenched in law (reasonable mat-leave, I have no problem with), and universal day care for all!

Yep. This is the crux of the matter. The idea is that if choices have different costs associated with them, then the concept of “free choice” is impeded somehow. So the state needs to step in and equalize the costs of all choices, at everyone else’s expense, of course. Basically it’s a request to externalize the cost of certain life choices for women.

It’s as I wrote about in my article here about the glass ceiling. There would be no glass ceiling, really, if women made similar life choices that men do. And that doesn’t mean principally avoiding kids, although that is how feminists like to frame the issue. The main issue isn’t whether or not to have kids, but rather whom you are willing to marry. In effect, when pleading for legislation about the glass ceiling, women are asking for their mate selection choices to be subsidized, so that the “cost” of choosing certain men as mates (i.e., men who are also driven and career-oriented) is passed on to others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 15, 2009 at 13:23

So Hestia. Are you willing to take an oath and serve on a jury to fairly and justly judge a woman accused of a common law crime by a man? If the answer is no I have no respect for you. Ditto any other woman.
I must admit, Globalman, that some of the information you have shared about common law has gone over my head and would take a bit more time for me to understand, but if I had an opportunity to do something more than I am doing now in support of men, I would be more than willing to do so. In fact, I would honestly be thankful for the opportunity, as long as my husband approved of whatever the task/work might be. I don’t think he’d be too keen on me abandoning him, our small daughter, and the baby beginnings to our new homestead-complete with garden & animals-to go fight in a war while losing everything at home. Somebody needs to tend to the gardens, homeschool our child, take care of the chickens and goats, cook the meals, clean the house, and run the baking booth at the farmers market after all, and doubly so during deployment time. ;)

For the time being, I do what I can, calling women out on feminist lies being spread or expressing my disgust at the husband bashing that goes on in social settings. My husband and I both write letters to legislators commending their efforts when a good decision is made and express disgust at anti-male measures being passed. Our daughter is homeschooled and we do not own a television, limiting her exposure to much of the madness in this world. I support my husband in any way I can, whether this be serving on FRG and helping this soldiers’ families, taking care of the work at home, or selling at the market and teaching food preservation classes to help ease the burden of bringing home the money. Perhaps my little efforts don’t earn the respect of you and others, Globalman, but that is hardly my reasons for supporting men’s rights. What’s going on isn’t right and injustice should be fought against in any way possible, both in words and actions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 15, 2009 at 13:25

@Kis

“I find this whole idea…puzzling. Are you saying you believe women should not have the freedom to decide who they should fuck? Or that women who have sexual agency are somehow a danger to society?”

Hey Kis. I just sorta complimented you/asked questions to you backa at the scifi debate thread BTW. But to your point here, do you know about female hyergamey. Women are programmed to choose the best possible genes for their offspring because they have a limited reproductive capacity. Men on the other hand can mass produce, so we have evolved to when we can. Examples; Harems, players, cheaters, polygomy, serial-polygomy for a modern example. Basically, we’d rather have as many babies with as many women as possible and let the single moms deal with the consequences. I know, nature is a bitch. Women on the other hand want, and sadly today expect, “Alpha Male” genes in order to best insure the survival of their offspring. But the nature of Alpha Maleness means there can only be a select few who achieve that level of status. This creates a problem if sexuality is completely freed up from a cultural standpoint. First, a large percentage of men are left out of the mating game, and genetically become deadends, something argubly worse than the suicide of someone who has already procreated. Second, women are forced to share the love and resources of a select few Alphas, which you and I know womens jealous nature (on average, lets not bring outliers into the conversation) would not be able to deal with in a civil manner. For both sides, the situation of women having sex with whoever they want creates a very unstable society filled with conflict and stress. To stop this scenerio from happening, cultures evolved marraige, something so successfull, all cultures, all over the world have adopted it. Those that did not, died out. So yes, female and male sexuality must be controlled, unless you want to go back to having a social structure like chimpanzees, which is known for lots of rape and male on male status battles. Don’t infer I’m a rapist by just mentioning it in socio-evo-bio context please. That grows so tiresome from so many feminist when even talking about rape gets you labeled a rapist. I’m happily married, and my wife lets me rape her in the good way, so my urges are well under control…under the control of wifey. (I dabble in SM for any moron who doesn’t understand what the good way means.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 13:26

I find this whole idea…puzzling. Are you saying you believe women should not have the freedom to decide who they should fuck? Or that women who have sexual agency are somehow a danger to society?

This is a volatile issue which can run off the rails fairly quickly due to distortions caused by all the noise of the past.

I’m probably one of the most libertarian minded among the men here, and I believe that both men and women have the right to decide who they want to have sex with and who they do not. If you think men are the only sex who harasses people they desire to have sex with them, boy are you wrong.

That being said, within many contexts there is a concept called “implied consent.” For example, by driving in my state I have given implied consent to be asked to take a breathalyzer test on demand by a law enforcement officer. Another example is that by accepting and cashing my paycheck, I give implied consent to my employer to demand that I take a drug test any time they want me to take one.

Within marriage, there is an “implied consent” which goes along with what has been euphemisticaly termed “marital relations.” Under the old traditional roles of marriage, both partners were expected to make reasonable accomodation to the other’s sexual needs. Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of wives sexually rejected, too. The structure of the partnership carried “implied consent” to consider the partner’s needs at least on par with one’s own.

From the male perspective, there might be a lot of mornings when the alarm goes off at 05:30 that a man might feel “I don’t feel like going to work right now.” But, due to the nature of the marital contract, he made an agreement to provide for some of his wife’s needs. She, in turn made the same agreement. To determine whether or not to live up to that agreement on a moment to moment basis, does violence to the implied contract of couplehood.

As one marriage advisor put it, both couples sometimes have to something they might not be thrilled about doing at that moment, but do it in the spirit of “this one’s for you.”

It gets even tricker with the issue of extra-marital sex. In an absolute sense, yes a woman can decide not to have sex with her husband and to have sex with another man, but there are the residual portions of the marital agreement which will hold him responsible for any children she conceives. That also creates an “implied obligation” to either not sleep with other men, not conceive children with them, or not hold the man financially accountable for children which are not biologically his.

So, aside from a long term swinging single woman, there are some realistic concessions that women need to make on their own sexual freedom in exchange for concessions a man might make.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 15, 2009 at 13:30

kis said: Modern feminism perpetuates the idea not that women should be able to make any choice (which is good), but that women should be able to (and are crappy women if they don’t) make every choice, and that there are either no costs (the myth that putting off having kids until you’re 40 is without repercussion being one) for those choices, or that the system should subsidize the cost of those choices.

A good friend of mine likes to say that if feminism were pro-woman it would be about teaching women to make mature adult decisions-women’s decisions– rather than the boo hoo hoo the world is big and mean little girl decisions that it does. I agree firmly with my friend. With many choices in life, when one door opens another must close. Maybe this door closes for just a brief season; maybe for longer. The point is there are consequences, trade-offs, and compromises that must be made to live the life of a capable adult, to be a supportive spouse a, have a life long successful marriage, and to give children what they need to be be raised in a warm, loving environment in which they can thrive and one day grow into adults. This is an important lesson to learn as it’s the reality of life, not the sort of “freedom of choice” that feminism preaches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 13:31

For point 3, that’s from googling and me reading a section about the percentage of women offenders. I can post links if you want.
——————–

zed,

I didn’t ask for a case when you “highly doubt that she would get any support” – I told you to back up your BS by point to women actually calling for her to be held accountable. You come up with 2 vague cases in over 40 years, and still can’t fill the women demanding accountability requirement.

You can’t “point to any women” calling for someone to be held accountable any more than you can “point” to some for supporting someone else. Unless you’re talking about a comments section to an article, women in your personal life, or a news report discussing people’s reactions.

And are you asking about cases that made national headlines, or cases in general? Besides, you said “a case”. You didn’t ask me to give more than one example.

No humiliation to be had.
————————————-

Kis,

Your posts absolutely rock :)

If a person’s say is “All women are stoopid, women fuck off” over and over and over, what exactly are they bringing to the conversation? And is that really necessary? Does it encourage reasonable debate? Does he think for one second that saying those things will make any reasonable individual take him seriously?

Seriously, that goes with everyone. If you want someone to listen or read what you have to say, state you piece with insulting an entire group of people and raving like a lunatic. I mean, having a seat at the “men’s table”??? COME ON! If all men at the “table” where GM believes he is sitting act are just as crazy and delusional as he is, then it might as well be called the “kiddy table”. And anyway, God never intended for there to be this one “table” in our society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 15, 2009 at 13:48

Zed–

As I’ve taken great pains to point out elsewhere, this is not merely a question of large numbers of betas not getting laid. If that were merely the outcome of an unfettered sexual marketplace, I would suggest to each and every one of them (and that included myself util about 13 years ago): Tough shit, it’s not an entitlement.

The problem is that the number of such betas is far greater than what would have been expected from a comparable population 50-60 years ago (and Obsidian has explained that too, over and over again) and that this is the result of deliberate public policy and legal precedents (“feminist jurisprudence”). In a nutshell, it is the policy of the United States government to starve large numbers of betas to death by freezing them out of the job market in favor of women who make $75K married to men making $200K.

What these men are saying is that we are not going to die to provide some bitch with a summer house on Martha’s Vineyard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 13:48

Perhaps my little efforts don’t earn the respect of you and others, Globalman, but that is hardly my reasons for supporting men’s rights.

Well, you certainly have my respect, Hestia, but I have not been burned by FC the way a lot of guys here have been. The more burned a guy has gotten, the more of an emotional credit overdraft they tend to have toward women.

Your story sounds somewhat familiar. Why do I have an image of a clothesline pop into my head? ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 13:49

Zed

“The last thing in the world that “older conservative males” are going to do is help out another man.”

Well, I don’t see much help being offered by the young ‘activists’ round here when it comes to helping someone like Kevin Driscoll, as per my comment here, …

http://tinyurl.com/yl2appk

… so, I’m not quite sure why “older conservative males” are being castigated for not doing anything.

No one round here is doing anything, except blowing, are they?

I think that I shall keep reminding you all about this whenever I see people round here complain about ‘other people’ not doing anything to help men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 13:53

And are you asking about cases that made national headlines, or cases in general? Besides, you said “a case”. You didn’t ask me to give more than one example.

No humiliation to be had.

“Point to” is a generally understood English phrase which most people with at least average intelligence will understand to mean “show an example.” It is not a synonym for “describe.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 15, 2009 at 13:53

I’d be happy to do some investigation of the Driscoll case, but I would like to be thorough about it. That will take some time and effort.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 13:56

Asher at October 15, 2009 at 11:03 am,

First of all, thanks (this refers to post October 15, 2009 at 11:21 am)

Anyway…..
About the post at 11:03. That seems like such a specific example. I mean if she rejected him, then of course he wouldn’t care because he’s not a part of her life. I guess the question is, how would that same man respond to other women seeking justice for whatever crime they suffered from and from the situation you described.

Read feminists like Ehrenriech. They agree with the men here that feminism is solely about completely freeing female sexuality from any and all constraint. And unrestrained female sexuality has the effect of decoupling the interests of the vast majority of individual males from society and its functions.

See I don’t get it. Why is female sexuality so ~evil~ but male sexuality is ok? Why is one worse than the other? Is this why people make just a big deal about breasts, and a guy can be shirtless and no one care?

Kis said it best:

Are you saying you believe women should not have the freedom to decide who they should fuck? Or that women who have sexual agency are somehow a danger to society? Not that I’m saying women (or men, for that matter) should be sluts, because sexual agency and sexual freedom doesn’t mean saying yes to everyone. It means being able to say no when you choose to.

Is that what you’re advocating here? That women somehow OWE it to men to have sex with them? Or that men would be motivated to be better if only some woman would just fuck them? Because, quite frankly, I did that for fifteen years, and he got less productive, not more.

Now personally, I believe that abstienceis the best and right way. But hey, you do you, I’m not going to judge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 15, 2009 at 13:59

In a nutshell, it is the policy of the United States government to starve large numbers of betas to death by freezing them out of the job market in favor of women who make $75K married to men making $200K.

Sure looks that way from my perspective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 15, 2009 at 14:04

The more burned a guy has gotten, the more of an emotional credit overdraft they tend to have toward women.
A very understandable reality.

Your story sounds somewhat familiar. Why do I have an image of a clothesline pop into my head?
Because The Coming Night, complete with our goats, a few semi-rural acres, a husband/daddy who has recently deployed home, and apostasy is the next chapter of my family’s life after the Clothesline, of course. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 14:05

See I don’t get it. Why is female sexuality so ~evil~ but male sexuality is ok?

The point is not that female sexuality is evil, while male sexuality is not. The point is, rather, that both male and female sexuality when freed from norms of enforced monogamy tend to run in counterproductive directions. Men tend to focus on the female sexuality aspect because when female sexuality is freed from norms of monogamy, most men go without sex. That is not to say that men are *entitled* to sex, but rather that a system which results in most men going without sex for extended periods of time tends to lead to a few results: (1) lack of male investment in themselves and by extension the broader society (the classic motive for this was either to win a woman’s affection or to maintain a family, and neither is in the cards for a good number of men today) and (2) growing dislike of women among men, ending in indifference in many cases.

Norms of monogamy constrain both men and women, but the sexual part of the feminist revolution was about freeing women from these norms. When that happens, female hypergamy is allowed to run amok, resulting in the current “combat dating” scene where many women are competing for the attentions of the small % of men they all want to snag. Leaving the men of their own “level” out in the cold quite often. That’s the issue people are talking about. When norms of monogamy are relaxed to the point they have been, it’s back to the jungle, with the alpha males monopolizing most of the sexual access. That has an impact on the behaviors of the rest of the males. That’s the point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 14:15

I think that I shall keep reminding you all about this whenever I see people round here complain about ‘other people’ not doing anything to help men.

I’ve fired off my bit of support for Kevin.

You’re missing my point, Harry. If you want a good extended allegory for the gender war, etc. read “Ender’s Game” by Orson Scot Card. Ender is a boy-genius whiz-kid and the book is about how the PTB manipulate him for their purposes. At one point they set up a fight between him and another boy. Ender keeps expecting the authorities to step in and stop it until he is backed against the wall and forced to defend himself or die.

At that moment he comes to the realization “No one will ever help you.”

The reality of men’s lives is that we really are the disposable sex – in society’s view. And, aside from a few charitable organizations like the Salvation Army, there are very few entities that care much at all if a man cracks or goes under. The reality is that if you are a man, then no one really will ever help you. As far as society is concerned, it is still “womenandchildren first (and always will be) and after that, every man for himself.”

Where men have made the mistake is selling their lives and talents on credit. They expected that by contributing to society and the culture they were building up some social capital or credit. Unfortunately, they tend to find out that this is not true when it is too late for them.

That is why some men are moving to a “pay as you go” strategy. They don’t give their contributions unless they receive payment in advance.

In many respects women and conservative men are in the same state as the UK and US economies – they have spent everything they have gotten and more. Now their credit lines are being closed and they aren’t getting any more until they pay up.

I’m not griping about “conservative men” not helping other men, I’m just saying that is the way it is. And, if we want to motivate them to do something, the way we do that it to make it their problem. That will force them to act in their own self-interest – which is all that motivates most people anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 14:32

Men tend to focus on the female sexuality aspect because when female sexuality is freed from norms of monogamy, most men go without sex.

Here is where the conservative tradition and progressive feminism crash into each other with men in the middle.

If men were allowed a sexual outlet, outside the constraints of hypergamy, a lot of the pressure inside the pressure cooker would be relieved. There is no reason to continue to suppress commerce in which women trade sex for money. I think NZ has recently decriminalized prostitution, and I know there are other countries where it is legal at least in some areas.

The suppression of prostitution worked to the benefit of the social order when it was set up to get as many men to marry as possible. It made marriage much more attractive when a reasonable expectation that they would get their sexual needs met went along with it.

But, now that expectation has been completely de-coupled from marriage, and a lot of men are being frozen out of the mating market, it simply produces pressure with no social purpose, and deprives quite a few women of the opportunity to make a decent living without much training required.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gina October 15, 2009 at 14:32

@Globalman –

I’m trying to figure out what you’re talking about when you refer to a “dejour jury” in common-law jurisdictions. I’ve done a few Google searches to no avail – can you point me in the right direction?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 14:34

In a nutshell, it is the policy of the United States government to starve large numbers of betas to death by freezing them out of the job market in favor of women who make $75K married to men making $200K.

That is an astute observation.

But men making $200K are extremely vulnerable to the divorce industry, so they are under the sword of Damocles too. At the same time, remember that it takes only a small number of $200K-earning men to expat and/or avoid marriage to starve the beast pretty severely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 14:36

I am starting to love Hestia. One woman like her is worth her weight in gold (even at $1053/oz) to the men’s rights movement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
21Guns October 15, 2009 at 14:46

@zed

ITA. The criminalization of prostitution has been one of the worst disservices to men and women alike, and for that we have the unholy alliance of social conservatives and feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 15, 2009 at 14:46

to thank.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 15, 2009 at 14:47

I had a long, eloquent post written up and then lost connectivity. I blame the feminists.

No, Jabherwochie, I wasn’t implying you’re a rapist. But I do hate being told who I can and can’t fuck. And since I’ve fucked a fair number of average guys, and almost no social “alphas”, you all should be grateful. Grateful, I say.

Yes, I get the whole concept of differing evolutionary reproductive strategies. Men, sow wide. Women, sow carefully.

And I think any woman should think twice before she fucks an alpha, because dammit, he’s an order of magnitude more likely to dump your ass when your belly gets round than an average guy is.

But the complaints I hear from men here are some of the same complaints I hear from women. That because they don’t live up to the physical standards of attractiveness inherent in the male gaze, they’re expected to just vanish into celibate obscurity and live life as asexual, multiple cat-owning spinsters. Which makes me wonder if Average Joes don’t want much to do with Average Janes (and vice versa). If you’re a 4 (physically, financially, personality-wise), what makes you think you deserve to date or marry an 8?

Female sexual agency can be a good thing for men–even average ones. I might only be a 7 or 8 at age 38 after three kids, but fifteen years ago I was about as close to a 10 as you can get without plastic surgery. I banged my share of 5s, 6s, and 7s (serial monogamist, not a whore, just sayin’). Because when you have sexual agency, you have permission to want sex for SEX, not procreation or what you can get out of it. Frankly, even now, I don’t care what a man looks like (within reason), or how much money he makes (as long as he’s self-supporting), so long as he has a decent personality and can pin me down the way I like.

But how sad is it that a sexy, attractive, outgoing bisexual woman (with baggage, sure, but the kind she doesn’t want to dump on a man), who just wants a decent friend with benefits she can respect, no strings attached, can’t get laid? I just don’t get it.

Only men who hit on me are crazies (too insane to be afraid?), or players (yay! I get to be one of thousands!), or guys who want to set me up with a female friend because “then I get to watch!” The average, decent productive guys out there can’t even look me in the eye.

And dudes, I’m NOT that scary! Sure, I swear like a sailor, and like to hang around the pool table ogling women with the guys, but I’m feminine and funny and attractive and I LIKE MEN! Average men. Short men. Balding men. Rugged men. Men with a paunch and glasses. Just don’t be married (don’t need my tires slashed, thanks), and don’t act like the fact that I’m bisexual entitles you to a front row seat at voyeur central.

Porn’s got a lot to answer for–and not just the fact that a whole generation of men can’t perform oral worth a damn–but for perpetuating the myth that men who look like Ron Jeremy should be able to get women who look like Seka, perpetuating the atrocitious and absurd notion that a giant cock is a good thing (ouch!), and giving men an outlet that makes them unwilling to take what’s right in front of them, begging to be taken.

Where’s my average, decent, productive, single guy? Where? Watching porn and rubbing one off, I guess. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Renee October 15, 2009 at 14:47

zed,

“And are you asking about cases that made national headlines, or cases in general? Besides, you said “a case”. You didn’t ask me to give more than one example.”

“Point to” is a generally understood English phrase which most people with at least average intelligence will understand to mean “show an example.” It is not a synonym for “describe.”

Of course. I know that. I was just asking whether you mean cases in general or cases that made headlines. I get the feeling that you based you belief on most women supporting females criminals on crimes that made the headlines.

Anyway, I agree with what you said about marriage and the other things you said in your post. But in the end, do you agree that female sexuality should be constrained? I just believe that most women do make concessions on their sexual freedom and are careful. I’m just bothered how traditional and today still all the negative focus is always on female sexuality in regards to society.

It’s almost as if you guys believe that it’s not possible for female sexuality to not be out of control. It’s like either it’s constrained or it’s uncontrollable, no in between. Kind of like the “virgin or whore” thing. And no, virgin isn’t synonymous to constrain.
——————–

Hestia,

A little bit of background. There are things about feminists that I agree with, some I don’t. I give them credit for discussing and questioning sociological issues/mindsets, aspects of our society, and media BS. On the other hand, they’re not perfect. Like I said, there are things I disagree with.

A good friend of mine likes to say that if feminism were pro-woman it would be about teaching women to make mature adult decisions-women’s decisions– rather than the boo hoo hoo the world is big and mean little girl decisions that it does.

I really curious. This is most likely a really loaded question so…yeah. Why should it be up to feminism to teach women to make mature adult decisions. Shouldn’t that be up to the parents? Or are you referring to false rape allegations, abortion, affirmative action, overexagerrating when it comes to accusing a guy of sexual harrasment (how often does that happen really)…..? And what makes something a “woman’s decision”? Is it something like being a career woman and deciding whether you want kids/a family or not? I’m sure that if I step away from the computer and think about it more, it’ll come to me lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Harry October 15, 2009 at 14:48

@Novaseeker

One solution that men will adopt in the future is the production of more females than males – as per some of my pontifications.

This is where we are heading, in my view, rather than back to marriage and monogamy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 15, 2009 at 14:56

Renee…you have to realize the following: constraining female sexuality is not simply oppressing females unfairly while giving males carte blanche to indulge.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex (unless you live in a society where rape is acceptable).

Therefore, constraining female sex ALSO constrains male sexuality.

The epidemic of promiscuity, single mother households and a Matriarchal structure in society are all based on removing all stigma from female sexual behavior…which in turn removes all stigma from male sexual behavior.

The point is not to unfairly oppress women…the point is to “oppress” everyone so that the sexual marketplace does not become the socially destructive force that it is today.

It’s one thing to say women should have the right to decide if they want to fuck someone…they have every right to do with their body as they please.

The real problem has been the society-wide change in values and the loss of social stigma.

It used to be considered a tragedy that a mother had a child without a father in his life. Now she is celebrated as a saint and a martyr. Single Motherhood used to be considered a societal tragedy. Now it is a class of distinction.

Adultery and frivolous divorce used to carry heavy social consequences…so men and women would often think twice about engaging in behavior that could and would lead to this social disaster.

Now, divorce is normalized.

It’s REALLY NOT about “CONSTRAINING WOMEN’S SEXUALITY.”

It’s about restoring the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

It’s about restoring the integrity to the unit that IS the basic building block of civilized society…the Patriarchal nuclear family.

Freeing female sexuality from all stigma is the purposely designed social engineering action to deliberately destroy the nuclear family structure as the foundation of society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 15:00

But in the end, do you agree that female sexuality should be constrained? I just believe that most women do make concessions on their sexual freedom and are careful. I’m just bothered how traditional and today still all the negative focus is always on female sexuality in regards to society.

It’s almost as if you guys believe that it’s not possible for female sexuality to not be out of control.

Well, we’re living through the first “free female sexuality” era in a long time, probably ever. Not going too well, is it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 15:01

Thanks Novaseeker :)
——————-

Zed,

With every post you prove that you, like most other women, are going to continue to play for “Team Woman” no matter what happens.

Even if that’s true, how is that any different than men playing for “Team Men”?

That is why we generalize you – because despite your lame lip service to understanding that men may have some legitimate points, your every effort goes to refute them. It is such a deeply ingrained habitual reaction in women that many men have come to expect nothing else. When a woman like Hestia or Julie shows up who does something other than argue against men, she gets a very warm reception.

So what, even though I believe that your complaints are valid, that doesn’t matter because I dare to disagree with you on some points. No effort is involved. If I disagreed you, it’s just that….

In the “bad old days” of decades or centuries past, to which you often refer to prove that woman were “oppressed” and feminism was and is necessary, there were systematic advantages and disadvantages for both sexes based on their reproductive roles. Feminism and feminists have seized on the female disadvantages and called them “oppression” and the male advantages and called them “privilege” and flatly refused to acknowledge the offsetting female advantages and male disadvantages.

Have I myself ever said that women were oppressed? While I admit that feminism did and does have merit in some of their concerns, I agree with you for the most part. Like I said, feminism isn’t all that perfect.

After a lifetime of dealing with women like you who show no real regard, concern, or understanding for the male side of the issues, do not be surprised when men no longer show any for your side.

Believe it or not, I really am concerned and do understand the male sides of issues. In fact, I look at everything objectively, which does involve ONLY bashing women and feminism.

There are things from each side that I agree with and some I disagree with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed October 15, 2009 at 15:03

Only men who hit on me are crazies

Ah, now we are getting down to the crux of the biscuit, as Frank Zappa would put it.

The mating dance requires the male to be the one to “hit on” the female. This produces a structural asymmetry of power in two directions.

First, men have the choice and the power of who they hit on. There is a direct relationship to how socially desirable a woman appears to be and the amount of internal resistance a man will overcome in order to “make the hit.”

Women have the choice from among those men who hit on her of which ones, if any, she chooses to have sex with. Women are limited to men who approach them, men are limited to women who say “yes.”

Having sexual agency goes beyond the “right to want” sex, and includes the right to go after what you want.

All this would not be so problematic were it not for the way that feminists have driven the criminalization of men who don’t meet women’s hypergamous requirements. SNL did a skit on “how to avoid sexual harassment charges” which boiled down to “don’t be ugly.”

There are plenty of 3s, 4s, etc among women who could get all the action they could ever want if
1) they would be the ones to make the approach, and
2) they don’t give the impression of giving out free samples in order to secure an engagement ring.

Of course, this means they will have to learn to deal with a bit of the same rejection that men have to deal with because not every man will say yes. But, it takes them out of the completely passive role and does give them whatever power goes along with active agency.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 15:12

Even if that’s true, how is that any different than men playing for “Team Men”?

Men are far more oriented towards the greater good than women are.

Men also have a much stronger moral compass than women. Whenever there is genuine injustice towards women (Afghanistan under the Taliban), there is no shortage of men who sign up to do something about it. But when there is genuine injustice against men (modern America), I can count on one hand the number of women who even care, let alone act.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
zed October 15, 2009 at 15:19

But in the end, do you agree that female sexuality should be constrained?

Ok, after much banging up against each other, we seem to be getting somewhere.

In fact, no, I, personally, do not believe that it “should” be. Unfortunately, I’m hanging out with a lot of guys who do seem to believe that.

We’ve talked before about generalizations, Renee, but it often takes a long time to sort through a lot of cultural noise to get to what people really believe. Until then, all we have to go on is generalizations about clusters of attitudes – “in the past, people who have expressed opinion X also held belief Y.”

I fully participated in the sexual revolution, and believe that anyone not in a committed relationship “should” have the freedom to sleep with anyone they damn well choose – as long as that person wants to sleep with her/him. There is such a crime as rape, which I obviously oppose, but I do not support the way that the definition of rape has been greatly expanded and intentionally made vague.

I realize that there are lot of problems and difficulties which go with sexual liberation, however. These have created a huge number of serious social pathologies. This has caused me to rethink just how much I favor it, and to realize that so far the aftermath has been pretty much of a disaster.

The point to keep in mind is that it is not possible to constrain female sexuality without constraining male sexuality at the same time. And no one could be blind enough to not see that there were some benefits to it all the way around – both to the individuals involved and the culture at large.

I don’t think it is possible to “go back”, and I don’t think that the social and individual adjustments necessary to go ahead and “finish the job” are practical. In my younger, more idealistic, naive days, I did. But, no longer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 15, 2009 at 15:21

I don’t think it is possible to “go back”, and I don’t think that the social and individual adjustments necessary to go ahead and “finish the job” are practical. In my younger, more idealistic, naive days, I did. But, no longer.

So, hypothetically, what do you think the solution is? I’m not being argumentative here, I’m just curious. There seems to be a lot of talk about what the problem is, but nothing about what to do about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 15, 2009 at 15:22

The Fifth Horseman- Thank you for your kind words. :)

Renee- I have just a few more minutes online before I need to get my daughter’s after nap snack ready, so please forgive me if these answers aren’t as deep as you might like.

Why should it be up to feminism to teach women to make mature adult decisions. Shouldn’t that be up to the parents?
In my mind such skills should absolutely be part of proper child training and the territory of the parents. But since feminism declares to be a movement about “empowering women” as a cover for the Marxist movement that it really was. The point my friend was making, and the one to which I agree, is if feminism were about empowering women as it claims, rather than telling women they are victims, feminists would tell the truth about life-balance, compromises, and the hows and whys of proper decision making. They wouldn’t tell women they can have it all or that they are being held back by a fictional entity like “the patriarchy”. To empower somebody is to force them to acknowledge that there are indeed limits in life, whether these be twenty four hours in a day, a few years of peak fertility, or a certain way you need to act towards others if you want to be a kind considerate human being. By doing so you give them the maturity to make wise decisions for themselves and others, rather than allowing them to live with their head in the clouds in fairy tale land where they wind up causing hurt and harm.

And what makes something a “woman’s decision”? Is it something like being a career woman and deciding whether you want kids/a family or not?
I am referring to decisions that greatly impact your life and the lives of others, the “big choices” that both men and women must make. Do I go to college or not? Do I major in this or that? Do I drink/do drugs/ring up my credit cards and possibly ruin my future? Do I sleep with half of the city and get an STD or do I opt against adding sexual activity to my life at this point in time? Do I invest in my career before seeking a mate and risk forgoging marriage and parenthood? Do I bring a child into the world with a loving partner when I am young and most fertile & energetic or do I wait until time is ticking and it might be too late? Do I work (or work more, in the case of many men)to provide a higher standard of living or do I pinch pennies and enjoy more time with the ones I love? On and on and on.

When these decisions are made, one must take responsibility for the outcomes and live with the choices they have made. There might be regrets at times, lessons learned, but the outcome of a decision needs to be owned and accepted, not blamed on others and considered the happenings in an unfair world where one is a victim.

For every choice in life, there is likely something a person chooses against, the door that closes as I said before. Nobody can “have it all” and it’s damaging to even attempt such a thing. Men must make such choices just as much, if not more so than women, but women are the ones our culture claims have no limits or “deserves” everything. This is not true and believing such a lie keeps somebody from enjoying true adulthood and being mature enough to accept responsibilities for their actions and their direction in life.

To put this in more “real life” terms than a general idea, I left college to marry my husband at eighteen and follow him far away from my family to his next duty station. I could have put off marriage to get my degree and stay by my parents for a few more years, but I decided committing myself to my husband for life and beginning to invest in our life together while very young was a better choice. Both would have required sacrifices and both would have given rewards (though one was markedly more rewarding, meaning my husband, of course :) , but only one could be chosen, thus closing a door to my at that point in time.

Had I made the other choice, my life would likely be more like yours than what mind is today. (I am one year younger than you are, per the age on your blog, and have been married for five years and have a small child about to turn three.) This isn’t to say my decision was better than yours, just different. And this is largely what I mean by a door closing and why people must think about their decisions carefully, for big decisions in life can take us on very different paths. To be “empowered” and mature is to understand this reality; that one cannot have everything.

I hope this answers your question, Renee. I’m off to put together a fruit and cheese plate for my little one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 15:24

Zed,

“The reality of men’s lives is that we really are the disposable sex – in society’s view. And, aside from a few charitable organizations like the Salvation Army, there are very few entities that care much at all if a man cracks or goes under. The reality is that if you are a man, then no one really will ever help you. ”

Yes, yes, I know all that, Zed. You’re talking to your grandmother!

But this does not answer my question.

Why blame “older conservative males” for not helping men when NOBODY else does – including most of those round here it would seem?

Indeed, Driscoll provides a perfect opportunity to make a fuss about the way an unconvicted man is treated, to target the media who are not helping him, to complain about the rape shield laws, and to advertise Spearhead to media men out there who might well sympathise with our views.

Just a few emails could do that.

As for youngsters round here blaming older guys in general, this is ludicrous. And it arises from the fact they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to understanding those huge forces that have prevented men from ‘speaking out’ and/or that have prevented them from even knowing about what has been going on – e.g. all the lies that they have been told.

They TRUSTED their governments. They TRUSTED their media. They TRUSTED their justice systems.

But they were fooled for most of their lives.

These ‘youngsters’ know better thanks to MRAs, and they also have the internet. Something that we could barely access until a few years ago.

And they can’t even move their arses to write one email in support of ‘helping a man’ – a fellow American.

One f####ing email.

And yet you get them blaming older men for not risking their livelihoods, their pensions and so on to ‘speak out’ – when most of them did not even know what was happening until it was too late for them.

The phrase ‘hot air’ comes to mind.

So, let’s not have any more BS about these young men round here being better activists than the older men; because they’re not.

What you’ve got are a bunch of good writers who are, indeed, good activists – but even some of these are not so ‘young’.

The ‘young followers’ of these writers; good activists?

Nah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 15, 2009 at 15:31

Anyway, I agree with what you said about marriage and the other things you said in your post. But in the end, do you agree that female sexuality should be constrained? I just believe that most women do make concessions on their sexual freedom and are careful. I’m just bothered how traditional and today still all the negative focus is always on female sexuality in regards to society.

I’d like to answer that.

No, I don’t think (adult) female sexuality should be constrained. However, women should live up to contractual obligations, including the sexual exclusivity of marriage. Should my movement and freedom to do what I like with my time be constrained? No, but if I don’t live up to the terms of a contract I won’t get paid for a job. There should be penalties for violating contracts — not incentives. Women violate the marriage contract in droves today because they have incentives to do so.

So if a woman wants to fool around on her husband, that is her choice, but she should not be rewarded for it with a monthly check, a house and the services of various government agencies designed to bludgeon her poor husband. In this case she should leave with no more than her personal property, and keep custody of the children only if the husband consents (many would). In the reverse situation it should be the same. Alimony, child support and attorney’s fees should only be paid by the spouse who broke up the marriage, and only if they can afford them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 15, 2009 at 15:31

Having sexual agency goes beyond the “right to want” sex, and includes the right to go after what you want.

True, but I hesitate to go the entire distance on my own. I should not have to go up to a man and say “Wanna fuck?” for him to get over his fear of rejection long enough to take my hand and lead me into a back alley (and man, did that guy ever get a ride).

I get that men fear rejection. I fear it too. And I get that a woman who is comfortable in her sexuality, and attractive, and just wants to get some no strings attached action might be frightening in and of itself. Kind of a, “She is way to good to be true, she must have a bear trap in her vagina” thing.

But dudes. It’s still sad.

Yes, women are the gatekeepers of sex. And yes, that’s what marriage is for. But I’m not interested in getting married. I don’t think I’m even ready for a casual relationship because my ex has only been gone just over a year and my kids aren’t ready to see their mom dating (though my 7 y/o says he wants me to get remarried, though has never really expressed a desire to have me and his dad get back together, which is…sad).

I’d hate to have to end up settling for some skeezy “alpha” male who thinks he’s god’s gift to everyone because he’s the only one with the guts to offer up a cheesy pick-up line…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker October 15, 2009 at 15:32

So, hypothetically, what do you think the solution is? I’m not being argumentative here, I’m just curious. There seems to be a lot of talk about what the problem is, but nothing about what to do about it.

There’s no going back, in my view. Time flows in one direction.

The “solution” is probably to finish the job and destroy marriage as a legal institution once and for all. Create something new called “partnerships” and purge the sexism from the law that currently favors women in marital courts and so on. Marriage, as long as it continues to exist, will be a lodestone for men — it implies huge obligations for men, while the obligations that used to exist for women have been obliterated from it. It is a disastrously one-sided institution that needs to be scrapped.

What can men do to progress this? Obviously, avoid getting married. As a Christian, this is difficult for me to advise, but under the current cultural circumstances I can’t find another answer. Marriage is a trap and a slave camp for men which continues long beyond the dissolution of the bond, typically by the female spouse. In no good conscience can I advise young men to marry. But more programmatically, as more men avoid marriage (not avoid women, mind you … just do not marry them), the institution weakens and we can get closer to replacing it with something else that is more equal and balanced.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 15:33

Even if that’s true, how is that any different than men playing for “Team Men”?

It isn’t. The problem lies in the fact that it is only recently that a lot of men have started to take this position, and it has been a reaction to the sense that women will put sisterhood before anything else.

If I get the sense that a woman I am talking to is ALWAYS going to be playing for “Team Woman” and take any woman’s side, no matter what the issue, against any and all men, there is no point in even trying to have a discussion about principles with her. I know that in those cases where I might agree with her position, everything is fine. But, in every case where my position disagrees with that of some woman, she will be my opponent.

From my perspective, that puts her in the position of using me when it is to her benefit to get my support, but fighting me when it might be in my benefit to get hers.

Both Hestia and kis get far less resistance from men here than you do, even though they can disagree with some of what we say. The difference in their approach and yours is that they make very clear their agreement on certain issues – and do so in a way that comes across as sincere – before they move on to the parts they disagree on.

The way you present yourself, however, is that your agreement does not come across as sincere, and you seem to immediately jump to reflexive argument and obstructionism. Not everything is worth turning into a federal case, and no man here is seriously advocating confining women to the home and forcing them to wear burqas. You will not die if you do not immediately jump in and challenge everything you do not completely agree with. Building rapport in the beginning would pay off big time as discussions go on.

You have “conceded” on a few points that feminism and women have gone too far in some areas. But, it felt like pulling teeth to get that out of you.

Now, in a progressive sense, given that things are a bit out of balance in favor of females at the moment, do you see any ways that women could be encouraged to make some concessions to bring them back into balance and give the male perspective and male needs a bit more respect than women are currently demonstrating?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 15:38

@Zed

“I realize that there are lot of problems and difficulties which go with sexual liberation, however. These have created a huge number of serious social pathologies. This has caused me to rethink just how much I favor it, ”

I agree. Sexual liberation didn’t quite pan out too well.

But, my Dear Zed, there is an alternative to going back to marriage and monogamy and still allow liberation.

Produce more females!

All we need to do is to change the ratio of men to women.

e.g. my old piece, …

http://tinyurl.com/yfwdle8

Think outside the box!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
piercedhead October 15, 2009 at 15:50

Harry:“Indeed, Driscoll provides a perfect opportunity to make a fuss about the way an unconvicted man is treated, to target the media who are not helping him, to complain about the rape shield laws, and to advertise Spearhead to media men out there who might well sympathise with our views.

Just a few emails could do that.

Harry, could you post a link to this? I expect you already have, but wading through the different threads and the comments is a bit of a rip.

Better still, maybe a short article with details of what exactly has happened and who to email (so many different things compete for my attention at this site, that unless I can evaluate the merits of something quickly, I probably won’t pursue it).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 15:51

Obviously, avoid getting married. As a Christian, this is difficult for me to advise, but under the current cultural circumstances I can’t find another answer.

As an INDIAN, it is similarly difficult for me to advise. But I have to advise it (even though almost no young Indian will listen, given family pressures and all).

The good news is, just 20% of eligible men have to avoid marriage to totally destroy the institution. 100 women competing for 80 men, when the women are aging out of contention faster than the men, puts tremendous stress on ALL women.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in addition to the laws, social shame, etc. that kept women in check in the old days, remember that it was normal for 20% or more of men to die young on the battlefield or in occupational hazards. It was *normal* for there to be more women than men (and quite a few widows), which made women value marriage more, since simply getting a husband was fortunate, and the unmarried women and widows were visible, as was their poverty and low social status.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 15:53

All we need to do is to change the ratio of men to women.

This will happen by 2020 has certain technologies will be sufficiently compelling/addictive for men, that they have no reason to give any real woman below an 8 the time of day. 8s will be treated like 5s in the new world order.

Real 10 > Real 9 > 3-D/VR 10 > Real 7

I repeat this often because people have not grasped how incredibly big of a power shift this will be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 15:56

Given that almost alll women, as well as the large population of socialcons/manginas are ALL on ‘Team Woman’, our team is vastly outnumbered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
21Guns October 15, 2009 at 15:57

The “solution” is probably to finish the job and destroy marriage as a legal institution once and for all. Create something new called “partnerships” and purge the sexism from the law that currently favors women in marital courts and so on.

This makes sense. I can see how an entirely new institution could be of some benefit to same-sex couples as well.

What can men do to progress this? Obviously, avoid getting married. As a Christian, this is difficult for me to advise

There is no reason why traditional, religion-based marriages could not continue to exist, but as a seperate entity from state-based partnerhsips.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 16:02

But this does not answer my question.

Why blame “older conservative males” for not helping men when NOBODY else does – including most of those round here it would seem?

And yet you get them blaming older men for not risking their livelihoods, their pensions and so on to ’speak out’ – when most of them did not even know what was happening until it was too late for them.

The phrase ‘hot air’ comes to mind.

So, let’s not have any more BS about these young men round here being better activists than the older men; because they’re not.

OK, I get where you are coming from now, Harry. I must have missed the part about younger men blaming older MRAs.

It’s as predictable as the sun coming up, however. There’s even a song that has a line “Every generation wants to blame the one before.” In fact, I think the boomers probably deserve that more than most. We were the ones with “Never trust anyone over 30.” You and I are about the same age. You remember the Beatles, the Stones, the Yardbirds,… Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young. Remember all those long-hairs prancing around gonna “Chaaange the world, rearrraaange the world”?

Well, it looks like we did and I, for one, am not terribly proud of the job we did.

The fun thing, though, Harry, is knowing that in 20-30 years, these guys will be on the hot seat – young men will be blaming them. And life and the world go on, and on, and on.

But, at the same time, you have to admit that there is a lot of gloom and doom in the men’s movement. I’ve watched lots of guys just roll over in divorces, take their hosing, and say “well, there is nothing I can do.” On the other hand, I’ve seen guys get pissed off, decide to make it a fight to the bitter end, and walk away owing their ex-wives nothing. One guy I know got assessed alimony of $1/year.

This isn’t a competition. That is one thing which has messed up the MRM so far – guys who set up websites not to really do anything, but to get more hits than some other guy.

I don’t care if some younger guys want to call me the anti-Christ – if it will galvanize them to get off their butts, stop thinking they are defeated before they start, and DO SOMETHING!!!

They might fail, too, no matter what they do. But, they are damn sure going to fail if they keep moping around thinking there is no hope and that they are defeated even before they start.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 16:03

@piercedhead

This takes you where you need to go, …

http://bendobserver.com/

Thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 16:07

What really killed marriage is that pre-nups are often invalidated by the ‘family court’ particularly in child support = alimony = father slavery matters.

Two adults should be able to form a long-term business contract that the state cannot overrule. Period. Let them each make their own arrangements. The divorce rate would actually drop a lot (but that is not what the vested interests want).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 16:08

But, my Dear Zed, there is an alternative to going back to marriage and monogamy and still allow liberation.

Produce more females!

Harry, I’ve said that sometimes you are the Benny Hill of the MRM. ;)

This is the “sex-ratio” argument that I’ve seen on a lot of blogs.

OK, for the sake of argument, let’s say that is the goal. Now, let’s talk about method. Given the current state of the technology, I see basically two possible ways –
1) sex selective abortion,
2) sex selective IVF.

I’m not even sure that the techn0logy is in place for 2) yet. 1) bothers me a lot.

So, do you have any insider knowledge about how this could be accomplished that I am not privy to?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 16:16

Hawaiian Libertarian,

Great post. I made me consider some things.

I have a few thoughts and questions.

The epidemic of promiscuity, single mother households and a Matriarchal structure in society are all based on removing all stigma from female sexual behavior…which in turn removes all stigma from male sexual behavior.

But at times society-wise it seems that stigma is sometimes being placed on female sexual behavior but not on male sexual behavior.

And I’ve always wondered what is meant by women being “gatekeepers of sex”. It’s like saying that men have no control over whatever sexual desires and urges that they have. Why does female sexuality have to be “constrained” in order for male sexuality to be “constrained”? Does it come down to that because just wouldn’t be able to say no?

I hope that made sense. I guess I have such a hard time understanding these points because I don’t believe that one person or gender should be…..I don’t know…..’held responsible’ in a way for the actions or reactions of another person or gender. Not saying that aren’t or shouldn’t be turned on by women or that women don’t have an affect on men.

Yeah, I didn’t really phrase that too well lol. Looking forward towards your answer if you choose to do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 16:27

zed,

Read this :

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/sexbots/

Although I personally think a software solution (3-D/VR/Holograms with tactile interfaces) is far more likely than actual bots, the societal effects that Roissy talks about are quite astute, and will be upon us by 2020-25.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 15, 2009 at 16:32

The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 3:53 pm

All we need to do is to change the ratio of men to women.

This will happen by 2020 has certain technologies will be sufficiently compelling/addictive for men, that they have no reason to give any real woman below an 8 the time of day. 8s will be treated like 5s in the new world order.

Real 10 > Real 9 > 3-D/VR 10 > Real 7

I repeat this often because people have not grasped how incredibly big of a power shift this will be.

***
Concurred. But I’d say may happen sooner than that. In fact, it’s already underway albeit on a smaller scale. The technology involved has been here for some 50 years: it’s called international commercial airfare. Most men once they experience what “normal” women are outside the Anglosphere (those uninfected with EMF) almost NEVER go back to dating the 1WF.

When we wake the Dragon, it will be larger than a paradigm shift. It will be a Global Watershed Moment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 15, 2009 at 16:34

But at times society-wise it seems that stigma is sometimes being placed on female sexual behavior but not on male sexual behavior.

Are you referring to the classic “double standard” often cited by feminists as a reason to justify removing social stigma female promiscuity?

You have to understand that the feminist argument that there should be no double standard via “men who sleep around are studs, women who sleep around are sluts” are pulling a bait and switch.

What is never discussed is that “men who sleep around that are called studs,” are an extraordinarily small percentage of the male population. The 10 – 20% of men that are highly desirable. In essence, the feminist argument boils down to Women should be able to receive the admiration and envy that the average beta and omega male has for the men they see getting all the ladies. Men who can’t or have a hard time getting laid…of COURSE they wish they could be “studs” too.

This is precisely what is meant by the Feminist movement has been all about women teaming up with the elite males of society to disenfranchise the beta and omega males.

And this ties directly into the “gatekeeper” function I referred to.

Unless rape is culturally and legally acceptable, women always have and always will be the person who says YES or NO to any particular man. It doesn’t get any more basic than noting that in the sexual marketplace, men compete for access…women chose the winners of the “competition.”

Therefore, the so-called “double-standard” that feminists hate so much, and have used as the reason for removing societal stigma from female promiscuity is really based on a total misdirection.

Even somewhat ugly women can still find some sex starved male somewhere to have sex with.

It is no big accomplishment for a woman to rack up a large notch count. This is like a fat person bragging about what a huge achievement it is to be able to eat ice cream and french fries every single day.

Meanwhile, women who buy the feminist justification say “Death to the double standards!” and start screwing as many men as they want to, and declare that they should have no moral judgment made of them for their behavior.

The biggest victims of this behavior are the woman who buy into the lies in the first place. Because no matter how much indoctrination or cultural conditioning is used to try and remove the stigma, men and women for the most part recognize on a subconscious level that a promiscuous woman is still a slut and is not desirable as a long term mate….while the men who are highly desired, are still highly sought after by women.

In other words…feminists getting angry with the sexual standards of males and females may as well get angry at the sun for rising in the East every morning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 16:35

Yeah, I didn’t really phrase that too well lol. Looking forward towards your answer if you choose to do so.M

Yeah, you really didn’t. It’s terrific that you are asking such questions, however. I’ll try to figure out what you meant to ask and answer that.

Why does female sexuality have to be “constrained” in order for male sexuality to be “constrained”?

Let me give you an extreme example which hopefully will give some sense of the power differential inherent in the mating dance. Imagine a large dungeon with men chained all around the walls. Into this dungeon walks a naked woman who proceeds to strut her stuff just out of reach of the length of men’s chains.

Now, having admitted that men do react with a sense of attraction to women, this is a case of female sexuality being completely unrestrained and the male sexual response to it being completely restrained.

Now, the problems with this. 1) It’s going to really piss the men off. 2) If one of the guys manages to break loose, the female’s unrestrained sexuality is going to cause her some problems.

Now, let’s take it to a real world scenario – I am sick to absolute death of women wearing revealing tops showing cleavage down to their navels, and then bitching that all men look at are their breasts. If you don’t want men to look at your breasts, then don’t shove them in men’s faces! Wear a turtleneck.

Simple, from the male perspective. If you don’t want my peaches, then don’t shake my damned tree.

Now, back to the dungeon. The way a lot of men perceive the situation today is that women can walk around half naked, and use their sexual power to get all the attention from men that goes with that, but want to play victim when they get it and want to be able to choose the alpha on chain #23 to let loose and get the goodies she is advertising.

Now, if women were more honest about this, and didn’t insist on playing victim, it wouldn’t be so bad. But, if they want to be unrestrained while men are restrained, that kind of violates the whole concept of “equality”, now doesn’t it.

And, add to that the fact that using her sexual power to jerk men around is actually a pretty risky thing for a woman to do. If women were willing to accept and be honest about the risk, and realize that if some guy does break loose from his constraints that she really did kind of “ask for it”, then the conversation could get a lot more honest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 16:49

@The Fifth Horseman

OK, here is where I show my age and my basic conservatism. The first time I heard some young guy say that “men needed reproductive independence from women” I blew through the roof. I went off inside like the entire US nuclear arsenal at once. I was raised with Brave New World as one of the major models of dystopia, and here was a young man talking about raising babies in bottles.

I have the same kind of reaction to the idea of sexbots, or people transferring their personalities to computer chips in order to achieve immortality, and a few other things.

That’s just me. I know I am an old fart, but no thank you, I have no desire at all to live in that “Brave New World.”

If it has gotten this far, TFH, then I’ve already lost everything I was fighting to hold onto – our humanity. Sex with a real live person is an exchange of living energies. It is so much more than strategic friction between two localized body parts that it is like the difference between a grain of sand and the Milky Way. A bigger difference.

The entire purpose of sex is to intimately connect to another human being in the process that creates new life. Take that away, and all that is left is Soylent Green Sex.

If we have gotten to the stage of the gender war where this is the solution, then it is over for all of us.

You guys can do as you want, but the idea of having sex with a dead thing just creeps me completely out.

I’m not coming down on you or any other guy who wants to do that, TFH. I just don’t want any part of it for myself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 15, 2009 at 16:57

I think that I shall keep reminding you all about this whenever I see people round here complain about ‘other people’ not doing anything to help men

And I think you’ve forgotten what your priorities are supposed to be.

I also think that whenever I see you do that, I shall remind you that Kevin is getting less help than he might have as a direct result of your threats to try and shame and guilt-trip people into doing so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 15, 2009 at 16:57

I agree zed…as people have alluded to earlier about discussing the link between communism and feminism, one can only study the roots of feminism and the sexual revolution before you come face to face with the reality that it is most certainly rooted in the power elite deliberately socially engineering society to break up the nuclear family.

What TFH is referring to is actually embracing their agenda and taking it to it’s logical conclusion – the total disaffection and alienation of the genders, and the complete dissolution of the nuclear family as the foundation of society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 17:01

@Zed

“So, do you have any insider knowledge about how this could be accomplished that I am not privy to?”

Not really – but here is how it is done at the moment.

….

What is PGD?

Two days after fertilisation, embryos consist of eight cells and are the size of this full stop. Science is now so advanced, that at this stage is it possible to safely remove a single cell, analyse it for a range of gender-specific chromosomal disorders and ensure only unaffected embryos are implanted in the womb. This specialist technique is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).

A single cell, carrying material used to support the foetus’s development, is removed from the embryo and its chromosome structure is analysed in carefully controlled laboratory conditions, with the X and Y chromosomes clearly distinguishable. The removal of a single cell does not damage the embryo’s development in any way, and each embryo will continue to grow normally.

………….

Before long, some better and easier technique will develop.

“Harry, I’ve said that sometimes you are the Benny Hill of the MRM.”

Maybe. But I’m not sure why.

I have no doubt that men will eventually alter the gender ratio.

Give me one good reason why they would not – or would not want to?

Who’s going to stop it in the long run – and why?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:02

zed,

I wouldn’t buy one either (until it became very mainstream), but it still affects ALL men, including men who would never buy one.

Why?

Because it devalues the entitlement bubble that women have. 8s will be treated like 5s. Even by men who do not buy the technology.

Sure, men would still seek love. That means women will have to learn to provide it (which most of them presently cannot).

A sex technology is no different than a man having a free unlimited pass to the best strip club in town. He may not consciously decide to spend all hit time there, but he will drift into a sort of addiction that will make him immerse himself there and disengage from the hard work and expense of ‘dating’ women who are much less attractive to the strippers.

The entire purpose of sex is to intimately connect to another human being in the process that creates new life.

Ideally. But then, prostitution, strip clubs, and Internet porn are major industries…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 17:03

Acksiom

“! also think that whenever I see you do that, I shall remind you that Kevin is getting less help than he might have as a direct result of your threats to try and shame and guilt-trip people into doing so.”

I’m an activist.

What are you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:03

*much less attractive THAN the strippers

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 17:05

What do you think an activist does Acksiom?

Whinge all day?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 17:07

What TFH is referring to is actually embracing their agenda and taking it to it’s logical conclusion – the total disaffection and alienation of the genders, and the complete dissolution of the nuclear family as the foundation of society.

That’s what I mean about having lost whatever I started out fighting to hold on to 40 years ago, Dave.

The two very last things I will allow anyone to take from me are my life, and my humanity – in that order. Someone will have to kill me before I give up that spark of consciousness that makes me catch my breath watching the sun rise over the Grand Canyon, or made every square inch of my skin tingle when I hugged a woman I was in love with.

If I lose that, I am dead anyway. If the NWO has taken it from people, then it has already killed them – from my perspective.

Not trying to be a downer, but y’gotta have passion about something – having it about life works for me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:10

the total disaffection and alienation of the genders, and the complete dissolution of the nuclear family as the foundation of society.

OR, when women see their market value crater, they might shape up on their own. When what they have to offer a man is far less valuable than before, they will have to work on developing the one remaining thing that technology cannot replace : the ability to make a man feel loved.

They will have to learn this – their own form of Game – when the 98% of women who are not 9s and 10s are simply not beautiful enough to be interesting to most men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
zed October 15, 2009 at 17:13

I have no doubt that men will eventually alter the gender ratio.

Give me one good reason why they would not – or would not want to?

Don’t have a good reason. Just saying that I, personally, wouldn’t want to.

Who’s going to stop it in the long run – and why?

No one. No one can.

I’m just glad that I lived in the world and time that I did and not in that one. Guys born into it won’t have ever seen anything different, so it won’t bother them and they will go on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 15, 2009 at 17:15

Perhaps, TFH.

On the other hand, it just might end the Sodini events.

On the other hand, the Femininsts would probably make any such new technology illegal as well. They already made it illegal to import foreign competition (IMBRA)…you think they wouldn’t make sex robots and such illegal as well?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 15, 2009 at 17:15

Harry:This takes you where you need to go, …
http://bendobserver.com/

Thank you.

Thanks. I’ve emailed Mike Dugan, the county DA, and cc’ed the False Rape Society, so that he won’t just delete it thinking no-one else will know.

For anyone else not knowing what I’m on about, visit the link above. The DA’s office is still prosecuting a man – Kevin Driscoll – for rape, even though there are witnesses, evidence and video-tape that all attest to his innocence, and the fact that his accuser is a serial-accuser whose story is full of holes.

If it doesn’t anger you, then there’s no anger left in you. You’re beaten.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 15, 2009 at 17:20

Hestia–

The technical term for what you describe is “opportunity cost.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:24

On the other hand, the Femininsts would probably make any such new technology illegal as well.

They can’t. They have not been able to shut down strip clubs at all.

They already made it illegal to import foreign competition (IMBRA)…

I am not sure that IMBRA is having much success at preventing US men from marrying foreign women. I see such marriages happening all the time (albeit of the ‘genuine’ and not mail-order type).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:27

even though there are witnesses, evidence and video-tape that all attest to his innocence, and the fact that his accuser is a serial-accuser whose story is full of holes.

Forgive me for asking, but WHY are they prosecuting him if he has videotape AND the person is known to be a serial-accuser?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 15, 2009 at 17:27

The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 5:02 pm

zed,

I wouldn’t buy one either (until it became very mainstream), but it still affects ALL men, including men who would never buy one.

Why?

Because it devalues the entitlement bubble that women have. 8s will be treated like 5s. Even by men who do not buy the technology.

***
Careful! Your usage of the word “ALL” implies ‘all men, in all places and at all times’. That is incorrect.

Because although I am but a 2 hour flight from Houston or Miami, I am 30 YEARS behind Entitlement Materialist Feminism due in no small part to Cultural Lag. There are no pedestals here. A capricious 8 will be left to stew in her own juices just as easily as a capricious 5.

Not nitpicking, it’s just that the context of these discussions effect the content. And when i comes to defeating EMF, there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 15, 2009 at 17:33

What do you think an activist does Acksiom? Whinge all day?

I am at a loss as to how you think this kind of abusive behavior is going to persuade me to do what you want.

Now do you see what I mean about you forgetting what your priorities should be?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:35

John Nada,

True, but even in emerging economies, the already-agreeable women will become even more desperate to land a desirable man, since even there, the topmost men will buy these technologies.

So the market position of a man improves even in emerging countries, despite the women already being superior to Western women. Notably, these technologies are not being developed in America, but rather in Japan…with the intention of exporting to China and America…

All these strategies are complimentary. These are the Four Horsemen of Male Liberation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 17:43

@Piercedhead

“Thanks. I’ve emailed Mike Dugan, the county DA, and cc’ed the False Rape Society, so that he won’t just delete it thinking no-one else will know.”

Thank you.

@Acksiom

If you don’t want to do something about Kevin Driscoll, then don’t.

@Fifth Horseman

“Forgive me for asking, but WHY are they prosecuting him if he has videotape AND the person is known to be a serial-accuser?”

Indeed!

@Zed

“I’m just glad that I lived in the world and time that I did and not in that one. Guys born into it won’t have ever seen anything different, so it won’t bother them and they will go on.”

You’re gonna tell me that living in a world populated by, say, 40% male, 60% female would make you unhappy?

It’s time you were put in a nursing home, I reckon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 17:45

Indeed!

Yes, but why? What did the police and DA say? What is their rationale?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 15, 2009 at 17:47

If you don’t want to do something about Kevin Driscoll, then don’t.

And if you want people like me to do something about Kevin Driscoll, then. . . ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 15, 2009 at 17:49

Misogynist is a scare word, a tactic meant to stifle debate–much like “fascist.” The intended response is a dropped jaw and a tea-party expression of indignation. You’re supposed to look appalled like a lady at a church bazaar that just heard a rumor of adultery.

The funny thing about feminists is that they display all of the negative stereotypes about women without the benefit of any of the positive ones. They’re prissy, gossipy, bitchy, easily offended, over sensitive, school-marmish and completely without honor.

Fuck women who try to manipulate and control men with insults. Fuck ‘em in the face. As another commenter recently said, leave these bitches to “their vibrators and their cats.” They are garbage people, a plague on Western civilization, and we need to stop taking them seriously or giving them credit of any kind.

When someone busts out “misogynist” as an insult, that’s a signal that they are a lost cause, not worth arguing with or even addressing as a peer. Talk to them naughty bad little girls, or ignore them completely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 15, 2009 at 17:58

@5th Horseman

“John Nada,

True, but even in emerging economies, the already-agreeable women will become even more desperate to land a desirable man, since even there, the topmost men will buy these technologies.”

***
Again, you’re ignoring the Cultural Geography. Remember, Latin America is for the most part, Western society. And #1) Roman Catholicism is so ingrained here that it’s difficult enough to get them to use condoms, let alone impersonable VR technology.

Which leads to #2) Latin Americans are very warm, friendly people. Even the personal space in a face-to-face conversation is enough to make most N. Americans uncomfortable. So-called ‘marriage agencies’ have such a stigma attached to them that most women would never admit to enrolling in one, as it is too easy to meet a suitor via family introduction, friends or normal social gatherings.

#3) Latin Americans if anything are textbook examples of European Feudalists where the aritocrats/ landed gentry marry between families and produce offspring to further consolidate the wealth and power bases. I just don’t see the demand for it all here. As zed says, there will be no ‘Soylent Green Sex’ catching fire here.

Women will do what they always have done here in such situations: share a man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 15, 2009 at 17:59

TFH: “Yes, but why? What did the police and DA say? What is their rationale?”

I’m not really able to say – perhaps they DO have a rationale (and that is being kind). All I know is what one investigative journalist has taken the trouble to expose some facts, and it makes law enforcement look, well, like they do as they bloody well like.

These are uncertain times, and nobody wants to lose their job, but if some must, the corrupt and inept should go first. If law enforcement won’t front up with the details, assume the worst and put the fear of unemployment right up them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 18:00

@Fifth Horseman

“Yes, but why? What did the police and DA say? What is their rationale?”

From what I can gather, her accusation was enough.

I’m finding it very difficult to get more info from any media source.

However, it does not actually make much difference from an activist point of view. After all, a fuss is a fuss.

And if people know that we are prepared to make a fuss – and who we are – then we make progress.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 15, 2009 at 18:03

Zed,

Both Hestia and kis get far less resistance from men here than you do, even though they can disagree with some of what we say. The difference in their approach and yours is that they make very clear their agreement on certain issues – and do so in a way that comes across as sincere – before they move on to the parts they disagree on.

The way you present yourself, however, is that your agreement does not come across as sincere, and you seem to immediately jump to reflexive argument and obstructionism.

I’m sorry that it didn’t. I’ll be the first person to tell you that I REALLY don’t have a way with words, unlike Kis and Hestia lol. In fact, you find that I generally agree with them on their posts.

I admit that if I disagree with something, I’m going to get to the point and share my opinion. I didn’t think that I had to always start off saying I agreed with you before moving on and I’m not saying this to be snarky. But I admit when I did, it didn’t come out as well as Kis and Hestia’s.

Not everything is worth turning into a federal case, and no man here is seriously advocating confining women to the home and forcing them to wear burqas.

I know that. I never gave any indication that was true.

You will not die if you do not immediately jump in and challenge everything you do not completely agree with. Building rapport in the beginning would pay off big time as discussions go on.

The thing is all this (as in responses to my post) started when I said that everyone on both sides should refrain from shaming tactics. I was then being insulted by GM and he was making what I felt was outlandish statements. It wasn’t as if I was attacking all the male posters here. It was mainly me, GM, and you (especially with you calling me pigheaded lol). From what I remember, with everyone else to responded to, there weren’t any big disagreements and insults.

You have “conceded” on a few points that feminism and women have gone too far in some areas. But, it felt like pulling teeth to get that out of you.

Well sorry if it seemed that way :P But I really do believe that though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Asher October 15, 2009 at 18:06

@kis, Renee

The general protection of women in society requires that the bulk of males in that society be invested in the well-being and protection of women, in general. The potential rape of a woman half-way across the country needs to be a concern to any man, like myself, because vigorous enforcement of social rules is based on broad and general support. Once that fails, civilization fails, and with it the social order we currently enjoy.

As Ehrenreich, and her ilk, constantly assert, marriage itself, at least as it existed 100 years ago – even 50 – suppresses and constrains female sexuality. It constrains male sexuality but to a lesser extent. And for some men it even bolsters their sexuality and appeal. When female reproduction and the support of offspring are tied to the male genetic contributor by force of law, that is de facto constraint of female sexuality. Yes, on the margins, this sometimes becomes a double standard, but that is the price that women pay for the general concern men pay to the protect of women in society. Not just their immediate family or potential love interests, but to all women in society.

This is what we mean by “protector-types”.

Renee, you ask “Why should it be up to feminism to teach women to make mature adult decisions. Shouldn’t that be up to the parents? “. And the answer is that feminism is actively proclaiming that there are no wrong choices besides that which runs counter to a woman’s most basic, raw, emotion level. Or choices which undercut the advance and advantage of the sisterhood. It teaches women that any ill consequence of a woman’s behaviors is due to the patriarchy.

What if I’m a socially awkward guy bemoaning the unfairness of a world where women reject me and then turn around and ask me to sustain their society when they become single mothers by some fling with a thug? Well, I’m a misogynist. What if I’m some guy who gets his kicks by learning “game” and engaging in a string of short-term flings or one-night-stands? I’m a misogynist, too. What if I’m some guy who manages to attract a more family-oriented woman and thinks that marriage should obligate my wife, and mother of my children, to maintain some commitment to the marriage – barring some serious misbehavior on my part? Yep, I’m a misogynist, too.

When I was in grad school in the philosophy department the chair was a male philosopher of feminist political philosophy. His entire body of work was dedicated to the notion that all men are misogynists, by their very fact of being men. Men’s entire ethical obligation, then, was to rid society of misogyny. And many women have bought into this lie, usually without realizing. That mindset has wormed its way into large areas of our society, much less academia, and has metastasized. And this idea, of the all-encompassing misogynistic patriarchy, is what the males here are confronting head-on.

I’m a decent man. Smart, funny, hard-working, average in some aspects, spectacular in others. I’m the type of man that grandmothers 100 years ago would hope their grand-daughters would meet, marry and have children with. And I’m the type of man who is abandoning the field. I’ll not go the bitter, Sodini-type route, but I’ll just retreat to the sidelines and watch society crumble.

Is that what you really want?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 15, 2009 at 18:12

John Nada,

Time will tell. Unless you can tell me that in Latin America :
a) men do not view Internet porn, and b) there is no market for prostitution and strip clubs, I think technologies will disrupt the power balance even there, in the favor of men.

Women will do what they always have done here in such situations: share a man.

Which itself is what Roissy talked about in the link I provided. Technologies will accelerate the tendencies of attractive women to share a man, and unattractive women will not get a good man to want her as even his 3rd or 4th woman.

Time will tell…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 18:19

You’re gonna tell me that living in a world populated by, say, 40% male, 60% female would make you unhappy?

It’s time you were put in a nursing home, I reckon.

And you’re gonna tell me that it is just fine with you to throw away 1/3rd of male fetuses so that the lucky ones who get to live will have plenty of choices in women?

At least your are being more generous in allowing boys to live than the feminists – they want to make the ratio 90% female and 10% male. You and Mary Daly would make a perfect pair.

If you are into killing some so that others may benefit, why would you even bother with a nursing home for me – one well-placed .357 would simplify your life ever so much. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 15, 2009 at 18:25

I didn’t think that I had to always start off saying I agreed with you before moving on and I’m not saying this to be snarky.

Then you really need to study some basic communication skills, Renee. A refutation is a refutation and is the opening stage of an argument. Wow, and I thought women were supposed to be communication experts!

So, let’s talk a bit about double standards. If you said something, and the first thing someone did was zero in on some part of it to pick at, how woud YOU react? I would expect, just like you have here – start arguing.

Communication requires both sides working at achieving it. None of us are mind readers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 15, 2009 at 18:32

@Fifth Horseman

“I think technologies will disrupt the power balance even there, in the favor of men.”

Hugely.

Mind-boggingly so.

@Zed

We won’t have to abort ANY male babies in the near future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 15, 2009 at 18:55

@5th Horseman:

Of course men here view internet porn and prostitution is perfectly legal. But Japan is not Latin America and the population pyramid is wide here at the bottom for a reason. And until you can tell me where VR technology can serve the rich–producing heirs to continue the monopoly (Feudalism, remember?), or the poor– as social security for the 3rd generation– then hookers and porn will continue to be what they are here now: little more than temporary, base diversions.

But you’re right. Time will tell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 15, 2009 at 23:30

The two very last things I will allow anyone to take from me are my life, and my humanity – in that order. Someone will have to kill me before I give up that spark of consciousness that makes me catch my breath watching the sun rise over the Grand Canyon, or made every square inch of my skin tingle when I hugged a woman I was in love with.

If I lose that, I am dead anyway. If the NWO has taken it from people, then it has already killed them – from my perspective.

Zed, I think I’m in love with you.

I’m a decent man. Smart, funny, hard-working, average in some aspects, spectacular in others.

You too, Asher. Although I’ll restrain myself from asking either of you if you wanna fuck. That’s a line I said upthread that I won’t cross. Although ask me again in a week…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud October 16, 2009 at 00:24

>And you’re gonna tell me that it is just fine with you to throw away 1/3rd of male fetuses so that the lucky ones who get to live will have plenty of choices in women?
>

There is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with females/feminists making the decision.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 16, 2009 at 00:31

“Zed, I think I’m in love with you.”

I’m outta here.

(Best to leave the two lovebirds alone, I reckon.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 00:48

There is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with females/feminists making the decision.

There is something kind of…squicky about the whole idea. I don’t like the selective aborting of female fetuses in places like India, and I absolutely couldn’t get behind the selective aborting of male ones–even if it’s males making the decision to do it.

And remember. I’m bi. In a world with 80% women, I’ve still got plenty of options, arguably more than I do now…

I’m outta here.

(Best to leave the two lovebirds alone, I reckon.)

Don’t worry. No hanky panky going on here. I’m content to love Zed from afar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud October 16, 2009 at 02:27

Testing before voting.

Testing and sterilization.

Abort the dopey (bio chemically diagnosed as such by future tech).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kay October 16, 2009 at 05:12

I wanted to add some of my own views regarding women behaving like children in Western society.

One of my own “buttons” are women who needlessly get pregnant. I have a real issue with this, especially when the man involved has no decision over what happens next. Women need to take a whole lot more responsibility over their decisions as far as conception is concerned. It should not be acceptable to be to “trick” men into having children they don’t want. It should not be up to the rest of society to look after those children when the man involved refuses or can’t pay for them.

If women want to have rights over what happens to their bodies, then they should understand that with those rights comes responsibility. If you get pregnant, then it happens to YOU, not to anyone else and YOU should be the one to deal with the consequences.

So, I support the idea that unless you can behave like an adult, so shouldn’t be treated as one.

Having said all of that, I do support the idea of a partnership when two people decide (together) to have children. In my view, both men and women have a hell of a lot that they can give each other and learn from each other.

However, what depresses me slightly, is the thought that the only thing of interest to men is sex from a woman, which comes across in some of the posts here. Not that I haven’t come across the view before, quite often in fact. But is that the only aspect of male/female relationships that qualifies decision?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 16, 2009 at 05:27

However, what depresses me slightly, is the thought that the only thing of interest to men is sex from a woman, which comes across in some of the posts here. Not that I haven’t come across the view before, quite often in fact. But is that the only aspect of male/female relationships that qualifies decision?

-Kay

Unfortunately, Kay, that’s just about all most of them can/will bring to the table.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kay October 16, 2009 at 05:42

BTW – my last sentense should have been “qualifies discussion”, apologies.

I must be bloody lucky with my world, my close circle of friends consist of both men and women who talk about politics, economics, science and literature. I’ll admit, in my workplace, it is most definately not the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Delphi_Pro October 16, 2009 at 06:47

Included in the shaming tactics of feminists is the constant babbling that men who choose to meet, date and marry women from other countries through international personal ad columns are “purchasing mail-order brides” for their “sexual gratification” and “domestic service”. Try to reason with them, and they continue chanting their coined rants and diatribes, dismissing you as a mysogyist or “loser” who has to “buy a bride”. Apparently, women should be free to choose to do what they want with their bodies (abortion), and don’t want government in their lives dictating to them how to live, but what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. It’s perfectly acceptable for them to preach the gospel of social correctness to us, and tell us that our desire to “meet mail-order brides” is a form of exploitation, abuse, prostitution or whatever they want to call it. In other words, the very people who want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES want it IN OUR FACES!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 16, 2009 at 07:03

@Delphi_Pro October 16, 2009 at 6:47 am

” Included in the shaming tactics of feminists is the constant babbling that men who choose to meet, date and marry women from other countries through international personal ad columns are “purchasing mail-order brides” for their “sexual gratification” and “domestic service”. Try to reason with them, and they continue chanting their coined rants and diatribes, dismissing you as a mysogyist or “loser” who has to “buy a bride”. Apparently, women should be free to choose to do what they want with their bodies (abortion), and don’t want government in their lives dictating to them how to live, but what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. It’s perfectly acceptable for them to preach the gospel of social correctness to us, and tell us that our desire to “meet mail-order brides” is a form of exploitation, abuse, prostitution or whatever they want to call it. In other words, the very people who want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES want it IN OUR FACES!”

***
You forgot to mention ‘human trafficking’.
LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
heavyWeather October 16, 2009 at 07:36

“The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the feminist whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”…and men will look down, and whisper “No.””

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 07:43

However, what depresses me slightly, is the thought that the only thing of interest to men is sex from a woman, which comes across in some of the posts here.

As Welmer has already pointed out, that is really about all most women have to offer any more. You have to look at the cultural messages men are getting, both from the media and from women themselves. The last things in the world a man can expect from a woman these days are respect and sincere affection. The obsession with “equality” in splitting the “housework” means that she will not significantly contribute to the maintenance of the lifestyle – just match the man’s contribution.

You take out love, respect, domestic caretaking, and pleasant companionship – what do women have left?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 16, 2009 at 08:08

@zed October 16, 2009 at 7:43 am

“… You take out love, respect, domestic caretaking, and pleasant companionship – what do women have left?”

***
Exactly.

You get the one thing men seek refuge from when returning home from a hard day’s work: COMPETITORS, instead of COMPANIONS.

Lamentably, 99% of 1WF don’t get it. They accepted Entitlement Materialist Feminism with no critical thought and now, they reap what they’ve sown. Frankly, it will take at least this generation and the next 2 to get back on track–and that’s standing in a virgin growth forest with a four-leaf clover, a rabbit’s foot and a little Irish man coaching you with a funny hat. Riding on a unicorn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 08:42

The last things in the world a man can expect from a woman these days are respect and sincere affection. The obsession with “equality” in splitting the “housework” means that she will not significantly contribute to the maintenance of the lifestyle – just match the man’s contribution.

Excuse me, Zed, but that’s about as far from my reality as you can get. My marriage was a travesty–not only did I, over the entirety of it, earn probably twice as much money as him (working in a part time service job, no less), but it was expected that not only all the “women’s domestic work” and child care was mine to do (even when he was unemployed), but 90% of the grass-cutting, fence-building, house-painting, appliance-repairing, checkbook-balancing, car maintenance and every other job men traditionally take on was mine to do as well. Oh, and I got to make sweet, kinky sex with him 3+ nights a week, or boy did I hear about it.

In return for his “contribution”, he gobbled resources (3/4 of paycheck–when he had one–went to his personal expenses), reserved the right to criticize my parenting and housekeeping, insisted on final say on all the major decisions (until the last two years, at which point he couldn’t even be bothered to log off WoW to do that), and whined that I didn’t fulfill my “wifely duties” often enough to satisfy him. To his credit, he did have three duties that were all his–income tax returns (I pretended I was bad at math), Christmas shopping, and running a load of stuff to the dump every few months. And even he was smart enough not to ask me to “get a better job”.

He wasn’t always that way. Not until I went back to work–at his request. It seemed like the moment I diverged from the strict female role of being totally dependent on him for financial support, he ceased to be a man in any way.

As for our kids, he wanted them. When I told him I was getting my tubes tied, he protested, saying he might want more kids (we have three, he has two more from a previous marriage). Which, considering what a disinterested father he was, stymied me.

If any of you guys figure I should have stuck with him, you’re insane. Everyone I know–including his friends and his brother–are amazed I lasted as long as I did. And if any of you guys figure he shouldn’t have to pay child support (which I haven’t asked from him yet, though it’s been more than a year) because I’m the one who decided to end things, you’ve completely lost what little sanity you might have had left.

At this point, I know I likely won’t ever get a dime from him–but according to the law, I’m supposed to pay him $20 grand from the equity in our house. I’ve suggested we trade that equity against any future child support, because frankly, I don’t need a $300/month higher mortgage payment when I know he’ll never give me one thin dime for his kids. And I can’t keep the house in both our names, because I can’t live under the threat that in a year or two or three, he’ll be so far in debt his creditors will take my kids’ house.

For every instance in my personal experience of a woman “doing her man wrong” and leaving out of boredom or because she liked some other asshole better (and there are plenty, really), there are at least as many amicable, mutual separations between couples that are simply no longer happy with each other as a couple, but are willing to continue to be partners in parenting, and fair with division of assets. I have a friend who signed over the house to her ex in return for slightly higher child support than she might have been granted under guidelines, and he has all the access to his kid any father could want. They hammered out the agreement between them in one afternoon. He’s decided since to hand the house back to her once it’s paid for.

So I don’t think it’s necessarily a man/woman thing. It’s an asshole/decent person thing. The fact that in 50% (maybe more) of the cases, it’s the woman who’s the asshole, and the law aids and abets her in her assholery is the problem. But that’s a problem of legislated feminism, not a problem with “the wimmins”, per se. Because for every heinous bitch out there, there’s someone who’ll give a steady guy a fair shake, in a relationship and out of it. You just don’t hear about us that often, because we’re not running around ruining people’s lives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Puma October 16, 2009 at 09:03

Kis – Your last paragraph has the answer. Marriage, in its modern 2.0 form, alllows asshole-people to exploit decent-people. It’s as simple as that. No marriage = No exploitation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 09:25

Excuse me, Zed, but that’s about as far from my reality as you can get.

Get your hackles down, kis, you missed the most significant part of my statement –
” You have to look at the cultural messages men are getting, both from the media and from women themselves. “

I’ve said this a bunch of times, and I will say it a bunch more –
man-bashing harms women, at least the women who might some day like to have a decent relationship with a man.

This was one of the more subtle points I was getting at in my “Rhetoric of Ridicule” post. Day in and day out men are bombarded with messages about how little women like us, how they don’t want us, don’t need us, don’t have much use for us, and generally find us so annoying that we have to buy our way out of their emotional abuse with jewelry. Eventually those messages take root and start to become how men see women.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

A few years ago I got bumped up against a nondescript SWPL couple in some totally forgettable social setting (I say this because I have totally forgotten the circumstances.) After a short while of filling the empty space with social noise, the female part of the pair felt the compelling need to tell me about her two daughters in their early 20s and how much better they liked gay men than straight men. I just chuckled and said “Well, sounds like you are OK with the idea of not having grandkids.”

What in the world was her point in saying that? I had never met the woman before in my life, had very little chance of ever meeting her again, and even less chance of ever dating oneof her daughters. It only makes any sense at all in terms of Game. Women are constantly negging men, in general, in every social setting, for no immediate personal reason or gain. She did it for no other reason that she wanted to gouge some guy.

Did it work? No. If a woman likes gay men better than straight men, she probably doesn’t have much to offer me in a relationship. I mean, who in the hell wants to have an intimate relationship with someone who doesn’t like them? I mentally added another tick to my mental list of “one more stupid woman”, and went somewhere else.

Another perfect example is the reference I made to Novaseeker’s take down of the “94 reasons the man I’m dating isn’t right for me.” I look at that and the “one more stupid woman list” gets another tick, plus I take away from it the message that Paul referred to earlier – that no matter how good a man is, no matter how much he may do for a woman, no matter now nice, and kind, and helpful he is, any woman can still find at least 94 reasons to pick at him without half trying.

Relationship “experts” say that the ratio of positive to negative message in a relationship are very important in whether that relationship lasts. The suggested ratio is at least 5:1 positive to negative. That means in order to repair the damage to a relationship that her “94 nit picks” did, the same woman would need to come up with “470 reasons why the guy I am dating IS right for me.” I didn’t read much of it, but I didn’t see even one.

Once again – man bashing harms women who might like to have a relationship with a man.

And here is the problem that “Team Woman” is creating for themselves. Man-bashing may seem funny and harmless, but it isn’t. It directly shapes how men perceive women. It doesn’t bother us nearly as much as women seem to want it to – so we keep trying harder to please them. All it does is decrease their value in our eyes. If “the personal is political and the political is personal” then men and women collectively are in an abusive relationship, with women in the role of the abuser in terms of public dialogue.

Now, here is the real rub. You are sort of stuck with choices of men that are limited to the ones who hit on you. By itself that sets up a sexual dynamic that assures you will meet more players than any other kind of man. “Hitting on” a woman is motivated purely by short-term sexual interest. Not one man in the world will “hit on” a woman because he wants to get into an in depth discussion on whether American opera has matured, or is still trying to find its own distinctive voice.

So, what I have been suggesting to women forever is to be some sort of counter-voice to let men know that not all of you consider us complete idiots and hold us in utter contempt. The next time you see some stupid bimbo giggling over gouging men by telling them how much better women like gay men than them, or smugly recounting “94 trivial bits of bullshit I can hold against you”, instead of standing there like an empty bobblehead, shout out “SHUT UP YOU STUPID COW!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 09:39

Kis – Your last paragraph has the answer. Marriage, in its modern 2.0 form, alllows asshole-people to exploit decent-people. It’s as simple as that. No marriage = No exploitation.

Well, I certainly feel like I was exploited. And to be honest, the pendulum here has maybe swung back a little more toward the middle than in the States (which says something, when left-leaning, quasi-socialist, socially liberal Canada is better in that regard). Like I said, under the law I’m supposed to pay him on the equity in our house, but as long as he keeps his income under a certain level ($18000/year IIRC–totally doable for him), his child support will be assessed at $75/month total or less, and you have to be 10 grand in arrears before anyone will do anything about it. If he wins the lottery, and keeps his winnings under the mattress so he’s not earning interest income, and quits his job entirely, he’ll never have to pay me–because a capital gain like lottery winnings is not considered income here.

The law here favors the custodial parent, and in most cases that’s going to be the mother, but more men are getting custody of their kids here than 20 years ago. Considering our incomes during our marriage, if my ex had custody, I’d be forced to pay not only child support but spousal maintenance–but he’ll never have to pay me alimony, even if he lands a 50-grand a year job.

We have joint custody, which means equal access even though the kids live with me. He lives a $6 ferry ride and a five minute walk away from us, and though I pay to send the kids, he still hasn’t agreed to see them in more than three weeks. When he does, it’s typically 5 hours on a Sunday afternoon. In a year, he’s had them overnight maybe five times at my insistence–even though I gave him our sofabed (which I had to replace) so he could have them. He doesn’t call to talk to them, though it’s a local call. Getting a hold of him to arrange for the kids to go see him is like storming the gates of Valhalla. And HE WANTED THEM. He wanted MORE kids.

But under the law here, I can’t force him to see them, and I can’t force him to pay for them. I’m looking around now, and my house is as much a mess as it always was, there are dishes waiting to be done, the grass needs cutting just like it did before because I can’t do everything. I can’t. But at least I don’t have him here making more dishes and more laundry and more mess, criticizing me because I’m not super-human and can’t provide the lion’s share of financial support for a family while being a perfect mother and keeping a perfect house and being a willing sex slave for an ass whose idea of foreplay is *taptaptap* “hey, are you awake?”

So yeah, despite my 7 y/o’s assertion that he really wants me to get married again (I think he sees good dads at his friend’s houses, and wants one), I’ve gotta say it’s going to have to be one hell of a super-humanly decent, impossibly honorable guy who’ll convince me to go down that road again. And it’s kind of sad that men who would have made me happy before all this–average guys with flaws but who are basically hardworking and decent, are going to have to jump through hoops to prove themselves to me.

Of course, I’ve been pondering the idea of a female partner. Be nice to have someone to look after the house and kids and cuddle me on the couch at the end of the day. And same-sex marriage is legal here in Canada, so who knows? But considering my experience with the ex’s ex, I’m going to be just as leery of women as I am of men.

I used to have a “benefit of the doubt” about a million miles deep. Now, I have to assume every man who looks at me twice is just going to fuck me over, because I honestly don’t think my kids and I can survive another cornholing. Which is why no-strings-attached sex is pretty much all I’m out for at this point.

OMG. I just realized. I’ve become a man! LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 09:45

I used to have a “benefit of the doubt” about a million miles deep. Now, I have to assume every man who looks at me twice is just going to fuck me over, because I honestly don’t think my kids and I can survive another cornholing. Which is why no-strings-attached sex is pretty much all I’m out for at this point.

OMG. I just realized. I’ve become a man! LOL

Truth!!! Sounds like you have walked more than few miles in our shoes. :)

Ain’t “equality” great?!!! ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kay October 16, 2009 at 09:55

zed said “You take out love, respect, domestic caretaking, and pleasant companionship – what do women have left?”

I do love my husband, and respect him. I don’t always agree with him, but I still repect him. Whilst it’s really up to someone else to say if I’m “pleasant company”, he does say that I am, not always, but who is? But domestic caretaking? Quite frankly, I’d rather pay someone else! You’re quite right, I have no interest.

I’m assuming that the majority of people posting are American, but currently in the UK it’s pretty impossible not to have both partners in a relationship working due to economics rather than a woman’s desire for a career. In those cases, logic would suggest to me that you split the chores.

I’ve always seen a relationship to be all of those things that you suggest and more besides, zed. My husband and I reguarly discuss ideas, policits, religion and social issues. There’s an intellectual aspect in my relationships, but maybe that comes under your “pleasant company” banner?

Looking at the world from my perspective, I can see that the law is rigged in the woman’s favour in divorce, both in terms of maintenance and in terms of parenting. I belong to families need fathers and receive the Macmillian report. I deplore that women play the victim card in all sorts of different scenarios, but at the same time I don’t associate with them. As kis suggests, it’s not completely one-sided, the bad apples and the rigged system that you see isn’t the only reality. The law really is currently an arse.

However, I’m not sure that what I’ve always bought the table is what some of the men here want from a woman. Some of the comments suggest that women are intellectually inferior to men and can therefore not be part of discussions or problem solving.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 16, 2009 at 09:57

@Kay
However, what depresses me slightly, is the thought that the only thing of interest to men is sex from a woman, which comes across in some of the posts here. Not that I haven’t come across the view before, quite often in fact.

Ah, but you’re missing the other half of the equation, which is that the only thing of interest to women is sex from a man!!! Yes, but it operates in a different fashion than a man wanting sex from a woman. You see, there is a very narrow spectrum of men, say 20 percent, who light the instinctual sexual flame of all women, an instinctual sexuality that been mostly suppressed by civilizations for millenia. Men, on the other hand, have a much broader net which means they will find a much wider variety of women sexually attractive. The problem is reconciling the differences between male and female sexuality, and marriage is quickly diminishing in its role as the means of providing

The thing is that men and women *do* want something more than sex from each other, but it’s the sex part that is the sticking point. So once all social taboos regarding sex are removed, sex becomes the first, often insurmountable, obstacle to getting to all the other good things. It’s not that we, both sexes, only want sex, it’s that we first have to wrestle with the subject of sex before we move on to the other things men and women do, such as raising children.

Without sex, we’re just buddies. I adore all my female buddies, but then, if were just buddies, I’m out looking for sex elsewhere.

@kis

Yep, I’ve got a couple (probably more if I think back far enough) of real solid female acquaintances, good people, who’ve ended up getting screwed by marriage, in your fashion. What we’re mainly focused on here is general mating patterns and how laws and social norms are creating enough havoc so that good men and women aren’t finding each other.

Yeah, I empathize with you. I have three little sisters, and I’d like to move toward a world where the chances of that happening to them decrease. Bringing down the man-bashing feminists would seem to be a great start.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher October 16, 2009 at 09:59

One more thing I gotta say is that I see a glimmer of hope for our civilization when I hear from women like you (*wipes a little tear away*).

I love you guys, yeah you too zed. heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 10:11

I’ve said this a bunch of times, and I will say it a bunch more –
man-bashing harms women, at least the women who might some day like to have a decent relationship with a man.

It does. And as far as man-bashing goes, I reserve mine for specific targets who deserve it.

If “the personal is political and the political is personal” then men and women collectively are in an abusive relationship, with women in the role of the abuser in terms of public dialogue.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thing is, I love the things that IMO make men men. Quiet heroism (the dude who holds your hair out of your face when you’re barfing), emotional support (a man wrapping his arms around you while you’re at the sink doing dishes or drops a kiss on your head when you’re reading–if it’s not simply a prelude to asking for sex), steadfastness (yeah, he hates that job as much as you hate folding laundry, but he does it), desire (make me feel beautiful despite the fact that 51 months of breastfeeding three kids means they’re not so perky anymore), honor (if he says he’s going to do something, he does it).

The problem is that those qualities that make men “real” men are ones you can’t discern in the space of one meeting of glances at a bar. Whereas the qualities of “good genetics” that women subconsciously seek, are.

One of the problems I see, over and over, is that these “real” men are most often married. And a large number of them are married to women who don’t appreciate them, the way my ex didn’t appreciate me. But you know? Those women who are crap wives to their great husbands are…wait for it…almost always hotter than their men. So in a lot of ways, men shoot themselves in the foot, going for looks over personality, feeling lucky that a sex goddess like her wants them. Because most of those men are going to pay a premium for having a hot wife. (Yeah, there are exceptions, like me and my ex, who was no Adonis, though certainly not unattractive, but I think men have the same goal of “marrying up” as women do, it’s just their criteria for “up” are different.)

As for man-bashing, I detest it (though I detest woman-bashing, too). Men don’t get enough credit for the good qualities they often have, but neither do women. As far as I’m concerned, the term “out of your league” is ridiculous and stupid. Because a woman who’s out of a man’s league isn’t there because she’s hot, but because she’ll be an affectionate, loving, honorable partner. Unfortunately most men don’t really see that, either.

And now, I can’t get that song out of my head:

“If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty women your wife
Go for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you”

It’s gonna be tormenting me all day. Thanks a lot, Zed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 16, 2009 at 10:21

Kay- In those cases, logic would suggest to me that you split the chores.

Out of fairness I must admit I might be very biased in such matters though as I am very much a hyper domestic Susie Homemaker type and not mind doing everything and anything in the domestic sphere, including yardwork and the heavy duty gardening and farm type work my family’s lifestyle requires. Cooking and baking are also passions of mine and I love to feed people, so I don’t count either as work. Also, my husband is a soldier, meaning I do everything at home when he is gone and keep up much of the workload when he’s here too as it makes adjustments easier when he leaves.

With that said, isn’t mutual cooperation and accomplishing everything more important than worrying about who is doing what and splitting chores down the middle, though? I’m not saying you or kis or any other woman on this thread does this–not at all, but all too often it seems “equal housework” winds up turning into a competition and contest over who has it worse and who does more, rather than the means to provide a comfortable house and take care of one’s family.

I’ve often seen such competitions turn very ugly, especially when looking at military members and their spouses left behind who want to see who does more during the deployment year. Both have a difficult job but not jobs that compare to each other. If they looked at the big picture of “this is us taking care of our family” rather than “he/she has it so much easier than me!”, they’d likely fare better. This holds true in the civilian world as well. Unless their is some true exploitation going on (as kis’ situation could provide example of) acknowledging the contribution of another person and being happy with what work they are doing is a lot more pleasant than competing and nagging.

Additionally, I must add as somebody who has the experience of living with her husband being gone for a long time, I do believe many women would be absolutely shocked to have their husbands go away for awhile and realize just how much he does do. I knew my husband did A LOT for us at home, but never just how much until I was doing everything in his absence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 10:24

Marriage, in its modern 2.0 form, alllows asshole-people to exploit decent-people.

That’s Marxism – “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

Having ability is handing a blank check to anyone who wants to loot from you what you have. Having need is being given a blank check to loot anything you want from anyone. Can’t blame a victim, y’know. ;)

Now, instead of competing over who can excel in ability, because all that does is give more and more claim to people who want what you produce, everyone is competing over who can excel in need.

It’s a race to the bottom, and the biggest loser wins.

Weird, isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 16, 2009 at 10:52

Despite all the good-feelings, in which this thread is awash, never forget that the solution can only be political. zed makes the point about cultural marxism, and how it precipitates a race to the bottom. What almost no one seems to understand is that marxism is not an ideology that was formed from scratch, no ideology really does that, regardless of its proponents claims. No, marxism harks back to an age of small hunter-gatherer tribes, where equality was a social necessity for group cohesion, so it plays on a natural instinct that is really extant in homo sapiens.

Men, of the civilized, protector-type, can only succeed and flourish within a social context of an assertive, hierarchical political structure that rewards their efforts. The cultural marxists may be our ultimate enemy, but the first obstacle to dealing with cultural marxism is the spectre of social-conservatism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 11:22

That’s Marxism – “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

Marxism does work. If you take human nature out of the picture. But so often “for each according to his ability, to each according to his need” devolves into “how much can I cash in, with as little contribution as possible”.

Which is, when you think about it, one of the tenets of modern capitalism–”work smarter, not harder/let your money work FOR you/get as much as you can with as little investment/risk as you can”. The only difference is one (frequently, but not always) supports the success of the smartest/fittest, and the other (frequently, but not always) supports the success of the dumbest/laziest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 16, 2009 at 11:58

kis October 16, 2009 at 11:22 am

“Marxism does work. If you take human nature out of the picture. ”

***
Kinda like me saying I can fly. I just have to aim for the ground…and miss.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 16, 2009 at 12:16

So yeah, despite my 7 y/o’s assertion that he really wants me to get married again (I think he sees good dads at his friend’s houses, and wants one), I’ve gotta say it’s going to have to be one hell of a super-humanly decent, impossibly honorable guy who’ll convince me to go down that road again. And it’s kind of sad that men who would have made me happy before all this–average guys with flaws but who are basically hardworking and decent, are going to have to jump through hoops to prove themselves to me.

And this is why I can’t be bothered to deal with people like kis.

She knows the kids are better off with two parents who either divide masculine and feminine child-rearing characteristics between them or somehow each manage to balance both individually, but she just won’t compromise enough on her desires to make it happen.

Thus providing yet more evidence (as if it were needed) that feminism is the theory and practice of prioritizing women’s interests ahead of those of men AND CHILDREN, and of institutionalizing that prioritization.

Feminists and feminism are neither egalitarian nor even child-positive. They are female-supremacist.

I’ve pointed this out repeatedly over the years to people of otherwise mostly good conscience who nevertheless insist on defining themselves as feminist. And every single time I’ve finally managed to drag an answer out of them as to why they continue to do so — even though they’ve accepted the reality of its actual female-supremacist meaning — the answer has always been the same thing: they have an emotional attachment to the label which they refuse to release no matter how badly their retention of it may hinder their genuinely egalitarian efforts or thinking otherwise.

It’s possible that kis can provide both the masculine and feminine characteristics of childrearing that her children need. But she’s also made it clear that their best interests are less important to her than her own hypergamous desires.

And that’s why I can’t be bothered to interact with her. Because as Game teaches us, it doesn’t matter what women (or men) say. What matters is what they do. . .and what they don’t do.

Kis, no matter what she says, still hasn’t done what’s best for her children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mr.M October 16, 2009 at 12:23

Kis, no matter what she says, still hasn’t done what’s best for her children.

And most likely (certainly?) never will.

Actually your comment is a great fear/concern of mine that is putting me on the fence about even having kids in the first place. When push comes to shove, will the mother of my children put the interest of the children first, or her own?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 12:29

kis said –

So in a lot of ways, men shoot themselves in the foot, going for looks over personality, feeling lucky that a sex goddess like her wants them.

But, she also said –

The problem is that those qualities that make men “real” men are ones you can’t discern in the space of one meeting of glances at a bar. Whereas the qualities of “good genetics” that women subconsciously seek, are.

So, we are back to the eternal Mexican Standoff. The qualities that make a woman a good wife are not discernable in a quick glance at a bar either (except, perhaps, by not being in a bar in the first place), but her “good genetics” are.

Oh, if only it were as simple as men choosing the ugliest woman they could find, gagging, and moving forward with “hitting on” her. Unfortunately, being ugly is no guarantee that a woman is not a bitch. In the grand scheme of compromises, being stuck with a beautiful bitch probably is preferable to getting stuck with an ugly one. I have several married friends who are, and it doesn’t seem to have any redeeming aspects at all.

A big part of the problem seems to be in allowing people to choose their own mates – which means they will choose them based on pure attraction. That’s probably why marriages used to be arranged. It’s also why most people worth meeting probably aren’t in bars in the first place.

The other problem lies in relying purely on male agression to determine who makes the first move. The most aggressive men will be the ones who do, and they will naturally gravitate toward the most physically attractive women.

The solution is obvious – women should start being the ones to do the asking, and they should ask out the guys who are nerds. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
heavyWeather October 16, 2009 at 12:33

Kis,

I feel your pain. I was in the US Coast Guard for almost 16 years, most of it at small boat station standing duty. Two days on two days off and every other weekend. I would come home after busting my hump, to a filthy house. I would spend a day and some change doing 90% of the house work, while she sat on the couch reading a book.

During that same 16 years she wrote about $30,000 in bad checks, which my parents helped pay off to keep her out of jail. We have had sex roughly 35 to 40 times in 16 years. I would go for months on end where she wouldn’t touch me. I could forget her coming to me to give me any type of attention (hugs and kisses). If we had a argument or she thought I had done something wrong it was broadcast to all her family and to people who she didn’t really know on the internet. All the while leaving out anything she had done to create the situation in the first place (filtering).

During our marriage she has had three affairs. She had one 6 months into the marriage, which she says was only a kiss). Another with a old boyfriend from highschool (over the internet). And one that has been going on since before we got married and still goes on to this day. He is an old boyfriend from highschool too that was cheating with my wife behind his girlfriends back. She manipulated my preception of just what he was to her, by telling me very little other than they were friends. Come to find out, 14 years into my marriage, they had done everything except actual intercourse. Since we got married she has had phone sex with him and wrote him dirty letters and emails. Just recently she had him come down to her place fromVa and paraded him around in front of my childern (holding hands and hugging) like he was some great guy or something. He has been married for 7 or 8 years now and has a child of his own. And get this, his wife wouldn’t have a problem with him and my wife sleeping togather.

Now I’m not completely clean eather I had an affair back in 2000 that lasted 3 months. But prior to that affair my wife and not slept with me for 8 and 1/2 months. Was it wrong of me, yes it was wrong. I should have never done it.

And for all the bullshit I put up with see my post on
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/07/the-corruption-of-federal-funding-grants/.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 16, 2009 at 12:36

Kis:

I know it’s too late now, but was your ex ever tested for Bipolar Disorder? It runs in my family, and your story sounds disturbingly familiar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 16, 2009 at 12:42

except, perhaps, by not being in a bar in the first place
LOL, that was precisely what I was thinking when I read your comment, zed. ;)

A big part of the problem seems to be in allowing people to choose their own mates – which means they will choose them based on pure attraction.
In today’s world, arranged marriages probably wouldn’t work, but allowing those who are older and wiser to have a say about your potential mate is a very wise route to take IMHO. My husband and I met online when he was in Baghdad during his first deployment. In a funny twist of fate, he wound up flying through my city on his way back to the States for R&R so we wound up meeting in person then. We already knew we had a lot in common and cared about one another but would not think about investing further in each other until we had met in person.

After our initial meeting went well, I introduced him to my parents and my aunt & uncle since I knew they had no reason to lead me wrong in any important life decision whereas my friends might have different motivations. Well, sure enough my friends had many stupid thoughts to share about my now-husband while my family loved him. Shortly after he deployed home we decided to get married (there never was an actual marriage proposal or ring; we just got married.) and had a teeny ceremony at my grandparents home not too long after.

It seems many people distrust that older generation, as you were mentioning to another man yesterday, and refuse to listen to parents and older folks who might be seeing something they aren’t. Marriage or even a LTR can’t be formed solely on looks or sex, something more must be there, even if both of these may factor in largely in the initial attraction. My husband admits he would have never emailed me had I not been pretty but he also says he wouldn’t have continued to talk to me if I had been dumb, self-centered, a raging crazy feminist, and so forth.

We both would have ran had we not shared a similar life philosophy and ideas about childrearing and other such important issues. Discussions about these topics seems to be something many people neglect to do, resulting in major issues when it’s too late and life is already in progress.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 12:43

Hey, this thread has really taken off in some interesting directions. :)

And it’s kind of sad that men who would have made me happy before all this–average guys with flaws but who are basically hardworking and decent, are going to have to jump through hoops to prove themselves to me. \

Um, thanks, but no thanks. ;)

This is pretty much the end of the road for a lot of us. Pardon my French, but I don’t have to “prove” jack shit to nobody. I have as much history and reason to demand that a woman prove herself to me before I invest one second in her as any woman has WRT men.

Thus, do the fish swim off to their pools and the bicycles peddle on down the road, never the twain to meet again.

Seriously. It looks like both sides have laid down so much emotional barbed wire that it alone screens out any decent person. Anyone who respects themselves is not going to bother “proving” themselves to anyone who starts out from the position of assuming, or even holding a strong suspicion, that they are scum. Cless’s phrase “combat dating” is a very apt description.

There’s not enough time in this life to spend fishing as it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 12:52

She knows the kids are better off with two parents who either divide masculine and feminine child-rearing characteristics between them or somehow each manage to balance both individually, but she just won’t compromise enough on her desires to make it happen…

It’s possible that kis can provide both the masculine and feminine characteristics of childrearing that her children need. But she’s also made it clear that their best interests are less important to her than her own hypergamous desires.

I resent that quite a lot, considering my entire marriage was one long compromise, for myself and my children. And that even when their dad was in the house, he was no example of masculinity or fatherhood for my kids. I was their mother and their father for over half my married life. None of that has changed–I’d even argue that their interactions with him now that we’re apart are healthier (though less frequent) than they were when we were together. My 15 y/o likes him a lot more now that he doesn’t have to see him as a bum who let his wife carry him, but a single man standing on his own (mostly).

And they’re happier at home now too. Their grades have gone up, they argue less because they aren’t full of stress all the time.

The above situation–a true partnership–is what I want. I want it for my kids, and I want it for me. When I asked my ex to leave, it wasn’t just because he wasn’t good enough for me. It was because I could see my then-14 y/o son becoming him–just another bum who slacks off at school and expects everything handed to him. I saw my daughter becoming me–driving herself insane trying to be all things to all people all the time and feeling like shit because she couldn’t.

But I did not separate from their father just so I could invite another man like him right back in. I’m not interested in “same shit, different pile”.

And I’m not saying I think all men are like my ex–far from it, I’ve found–just that having been burned so spectacularly, the benefit of the doubt is gone and the burden of proof is on the man now. If that means he has to work a little bit harder to convince me he really is the great guy I thought my ex was when I married him, so be it. And it doesn’t mean I’m going to hold him up to some impossible standard, just that I’m going to take my time and base my decision more on rationality than being swept off my feet.

And if you’d been reading my comments, as far as hypergamy goes, I’ve always been the exception to the rule–the 10 who married a 6, the upper-middle class girl who married a blue collar guy because he was decent in the beginning, and the woman who thinks that “alpha” over there surrounded by all those girls is probably a waste of skin. Good for looking at, but probably not much more–even fucking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 16, 2009 at 13:00

If that means he has to work a little bit harder to convince me he really is the great guy I thought my ex was when I married him, so be it. And it doesn’t mean I’m going to hold him up to some impossible standard, just that I’m going to take my time and base my decision more on rationality than being swept off my feet.

The second sentence in this paragraph is a very wise choice, but it seems what might ruffle many feathers and raise questions is the idea you have expressed in the first part. Is it fair to expect a man who has never done wrong to you to jump through hoops to get into your life? Are any of us, flawed and quirky human beings that we are, important and special enough to play as a king/queen on a pedestal worthy of having a subject prove their worth to us? Isn’t founding a relationship solely on what somebody can do for you rather than what you offer somebody else a rather selfish and one sided deal? I am not asking either of these questions to be a jerk, kis, but rather to understand better the words you have shared.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 13:01

A big part of the problem seems to be in allowing people to choose their own mates – which means they will choose them based on pure attraction. That’s probably why marriages used to be arranged. It’s also why most people worth meeting probably aren’t in bars in the first place.

I go to the bar–but that’s to have fun with my friends, and because the only other place in this town with a pool table is the house of the married guy across the street who keeps asking me to come over when his wife’s out of town.

And I don’t necessarily hit on anyone. I talk to them, and if I like them once they’ve opened their mouths, I try to make my interest known. After that, it’s up to them to give me some sign that the interest is mutual.

I know it’s too late now, but was your ex ever tested for Bipolar Disorder? It runs in my family, and your story sounds disturbingly familiar.

Heh, that would mean he’d have to admit he had a problem, wouldn’t it? Because it was always, always everyone else who had the problem–from his family to my family to his bosses and coworkers to me to his kids. Sigh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 13:12

Is it fair to expect a man who has never done wrong to you to jump through hoops to get into your life?

No. But I don’t ask a man to jump through hoops to get into my life. I have plenty of decent men in my life (as friends, coworkers, acquaintances), and I’d happily date any number of them.

But when it comes to getting into my kids’ lives–which is going to happen in any long term, serious relationship with me–I’m going to be more careful. And I’m absolutely not going to go the route my ex’s ex before me did, and parade man after man in and out of her boys’ lives (7 live-in relationships in 17 years). Because I don’t want them growing up thinking men can never be counted on to stick around any more than I want them growing up thinking their father is any example of what a husband and father should be.

How is that not looking out for the best interests of my kids?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 16, 2009 at 13:19

Because I don’t want them growing up thinking men can never be counted on to stick around any more than I want them growing up thinking their father is any example of what a husband and father should be.

-Kis

I hope you never say that last part around them. It will come back to haunt you if you do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 13:22

The cultural marxists may be our ultimate enemy, but the first obstacle to dealing with cultural marxism is the spectre of social-conservatism.

Seconded. Feminism is nothing without the support of socialcons.

Until 60 days ago, I had nothing against socialcons. But the more I saw them condemn Game while refusing to even admit that the divorce laws and media are anti-male, made me ask them some incisive questions. Their answers (or lack thereof) quickly opened my eyes to what socialcons are about (like when they say that a man who requests a pre-nup is immoral), and now I am among their most devastating critics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 13:29

I don’t ask a man to jump through hoops to get into my life. I have plenty of decent men in my life (as friends, coworkers, acquaintances), and I’d happily date any number of them.

But when it comes to getting into my kids’ lives–which is going to happen in any long term, serious relationship with me–I’m going to be more careful.

Maybe you didn’t mean this like it sounds, but this comes across as you are going to make a man jump through hoops to get into your life, which has to include your kids, but not into your panties.

From the male perspective, it looks exactly upside down. As a middle-aged single-mom with 3 kids, you’ve got a lot of what some people would call “baggage.” Setting the bar so low for a date, and so high for someone to share your baggage with you, looks like setting things up so that all you are going to get is a few drive-through boyfriends on the edge of your life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 13:32

I hope you never say that last part around them. It will come back to haunt you if you do.

Hehe, no. I’ve always been careful about not doing that–whether it means not badmouthing my kids’ dad around them, or not badmouthing my stepsons’ mother around them.

Part of what makes me feel better about my decision to separate–because I was conflicted right up until the end–is how much better he is at being a weekend dad than a full-time father. When he was here, they might have interacted with him 10 minutes a day–and often had to seek him out in his computer den and wait for a lull in the action for him to actually, you know, talk to them and stuff. And for the last two years or so, he never did any “dad stuff” with them at all, even on weekends.

But though he doesn’t see them as often as I’d like, when he does see them now, he takes them to the beach, the park, fishing all that kind of stuff. It’s like when couples set aside a “date night” as a specific time to interact as a couple–Sunday afternoons are now “dad time”, and he makes an effort to be one.

And they get to know him outside the context of being a dependent guy who lets his wife do everything. When he was here, all they saw were his failures. Now they can see his good qualities (and he does have some, even I’ll give him that), because all those qualities lie outside the responsibilities of a husband and full-time father.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alice October 16, 2009 at 13:38

Hey, Guys?

I don’t think any of you on this site are misogynists.

Nope, not misogynistic at all…

Just stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 16, 2009 at 13:43

Zed,

Then you really need to study some basic communication skills, Renee. A refutation is a refutation and is the opening stage of an argument. Wow, and I thought women were supposed to be communication experts!
So, let’s talk a bit about double standards. If you said something, and the first thing someone did was zero in on some part of it to pick at, how woud YOU react? I would expect, just like you have here – start arguing.

I have basic communication skills thank you very much. I just thought in forums like this, discussions or as you say arguements were appropiate. While I’ll point out a comment or post that I agree with before stating what particular section that I disagree with (and I did do that under this topic), sometimes I focus in on a certain section if I have a question about it. Whenever I zero in on a certain point in a comment, it’s usually when I feel REAL strongly about it. From what I recall, the comment is one where I don’t really agree with much of it in the first place and accept that it’s that poster’s personal opinion.

If you look at my comments here besides the ones responding to GM, and if I agreed with them for the most part, I mentioned that. By all means correct me if I’m wrong. There’s 223 comments on here, although I did skim through them to look at my comments. Maybe I missed one.

Now, in a progressive sense, given that things are a bit out of balance in favor of females at the moment, do you see any ways that women could be encouraged to make some concessions to bring them back into balance and give the male perspective and male needs a bit more respect than women are currently demonstrating?

Hmmmm, ways that women could be encouraged…..Key word here is encouraged. One thing I can think of is honest dialog. And maybe for guys to point out what they themselves go through to whoever woman is listening without insulting the entire female gender. I mean, isn’t that what it takes to get the other side to listen in any situation? I’m going to think about this more…….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 13:43

Setting the bar so low for a date, and so high for someone to share your baggage with you, looks like setting things up so that all you are going to get is a few drive-through boyfriends on the edge of your life.

Hehe, if you read carefully, I said “decent men”. I have a lot of male friends and acquaintances I would not date, because they are not decent.

If I’m destined to only have drive-through boyfriends, I’d rather have them on the edge of my life, and not in my kids’. And if you recall, my standards aren’t that “high”. A man doesn’t have to be good looking, a certain age, a high wage-earner, socially slick or without his own baggage (whether that’s in the form of kids or whatever). He just has to be a man I can respect–one who’ll stick around, who cares as much about what he contributes as what he can get, is honest, and will hold my hair out of my face when I’m barfing.

The hoops are there, and I’m not going to remove them, but they aren’t unattainable for the average, decent guy, either. If the average, decent guy is unwilling to accept that I come with some baggage, I suppose I’ll have to keep going it alone. But I’m not going to settle for another asshole because he’s all I can find.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 14:06

And maybe for guys to point out what they themselves go through to whoever woman is listening without insulting the entire female gender. I mean, isn’t that what it takes to get the other side to listen in any situation?

I think a necessary step even before that is to agree that there will be some attempt on both sides to actually engage in dialogue. The super-charged nature of the topics makes that difficult.

One seemingly simple, but highly relevant example is the classic exchange –
Man – “women do/say/are …..”
Woman “But NOT ALL women are like that.”

Women may perceive that as an attack on their entire gender, while men perceive the woman’s response as knee-jerk obstructionism.

Here is why – if I were to make a statement like “Egyptians built the pyramids” no would be so stupid as to assume that I was saying –
1) every last Egyptian who lived during the entire time they were being constructed worked on the pyramids, and
2) no one who was not an Egyptian put as much as one piece of gravel into them.

This perpetual some/all/none argument always derails the original point the person was trying to make, ends up with tempers flaring, and strengthens the impression that men already have that women (OH MY GOD, I FORGOT TO SAY SOME WOMEN”) are not interested in communication or resolution, but simply in winning the argument and NOT hearing what men say no matter how they say it.

Unless someone prefaces a statement with the qualifier “ALL” it is completely bogus to jump down their throats for not using “some” if the statement they are making is actually true in SOME cases.

Egyptians really did build the pyramids after all.

So, men tend to turn that back on women and jump down their throats every time they make a similarly intentioned statement.

No one is going to get anywhere until both sides clearly indicate their willingness to listen and discuss in good faith, and to realize that they do some of the very same things they are accusing the other side of doing and using those things to grind communication to a dead standstill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 16, 2009 at 14:06

And maybe for guys to point out what they themselves go through to whoever woman is listening without insulting the entire female gender.

This is understandable, but the issue is that feminism has spent the last several decades making such general statements about men, as a group. I agree that generalizing in response is often not helpful, but the context can’t be ignored. Our culture communicates negative messages about men 24/7 today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 14:07

The hoops are there, and I’m not going to remove them, but they aren’t unattainable for the average, decent guy, either.

But, it does come across that getting into your panties isn’t unattainable, either. And, will take a whole lot less work.

I know what I would bet on most men choosing to go after.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 16, 2009 at 14:12

“The other problem lies in relying purely on male agression to determine who makes the first move. The most aggressive men will be the ones who do, and they will naturally gravitate toward the most physically attractive women.

The solution is obvious – women should start being the ones to do the asking, and they should ask out the guys who are nerds. ”

This somes it up for me.

@Kis-

It sounds to me that you went toward the brutish meathead type most MRAs are not. You say your close to a 10 going for 6′s and stuff, but something ain’t jiben. Too good to be true. And what type of guys did you have sex with in High School and College. Thats when most peoples personalities ands attitudes develop. Thats when many shy, decent guys get burned and develop anger towards women. Nobody wants to be someones last choice, their back up plan.

I don’t think this is possible, but if we could see a picture of your ex-hubby, I’m pretty sure we could spot him as a deuchebag or not pretty quick. I don’t think he fooled you, I think you might have fooled yourself. What was his proffesion? Was he a redneck? How’d he dress? What type of kinky sex did you have with him? Did he have a college degree? What type of kinky sex to you enjoy the most? What was his family like? Did he date a lot of women before you? I’m sure he’s a prick like you said, but I just don’t see how someone as smart as you could have missed it. Are you one of those types who likes to fix men? And don’t forget to elaborate on the kinky sex.

Anyways, great thread, great blog, good times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 16, 2009 at 14:27

But the more I saw them condemn Game while refusing to even admit that the divorce laws and media are anti-male, made me ask them some incisive questions. Their answers (or lack thereof) quickly opened my eyes to what socialcons are about (like when they say that a man who requests a pre-nup is immoral), and now I am among their most devastating critics.
Socialcons are indeed some of the most anti-male folks that exist today, with the most conservatively religious being the worst. With the Victorian “angel in the house” idea of female moral superiority to certain factions of complementarians claiming women can NEVER EVER work outside the home for any reason, and the absolute absence of discussion about who initiates the most divorces, they cover all the bases of misandry. And let’s not forget the praise of motherhood from the pulpits with barely a mention of the important role fathers play in their childrens’ lives…even on Father’s Day!

I’ve said this on my old blog, as well as several MRA blogs, that I firmly believe there are two strains of feminism, one that is the leftist vocal variety that we all know of well and the other being a more sinister quiet conservative feminism that undermines and hates men in a fashion that is far more difficult to recognize than the leftist variety. Here is a bit I wrote about this if anybody might be interested: http://thecomingnight.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservative-misandry.html

I used to author a homemaking/mommy/religious blog that wound up with over six hundred subscribers and eight hundred daily page hits by the end. According to sidebar polls, most of my readers claim to be conservative protestant Christian women who were anti-feminist. During the last few months of that blog, I started to discuss men’s issues more in-depth rather than the merely anti-feminist sentiments I occasionally shared before. My readership turned on me, while discussing some minor issues, in ways I never would have imagined with folks who claimed to be anti-feminist. One of my last posts earned me fifty seven hate emails, which was mindboggling as I had simply wrote something that was about me, my husband, and our marriage, not something to judge and condemn others. It was only then I learned just how much venom can come your way not only for not toeing the feminist line, but daring to question the world of conservative theology and socialcons as well. People can be anti-feminist without being pro-male, a lesson I learned all too well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 14:40

But, it does come across that getting into your panties isn’t unattainable, either. And, will take a whole lot less work.

I know what I would bet on most men choosing to go after.

Well, I did say I’d become a man, right? Sometimes sex is just sex. The men I’ve on two occasions had sex with (discreetly and safely) for fun now that I’m single not the men I want to date. And I don’t think the expectation of more was there for the guy, any more than it was for me.

To me, fucking and dating are two separate things. Sometimes they go together, but they don’t have to. Perhaps part of my troubles in getting into guys’ pants stems from men assuming fucking me = dating me and being a dad to my kids. It can, if a man is looking for a partner who will love, support and appreciate him. If he’s just looking for some no-strings-attached action, there’s nothing wrong with that either as long as both parties are on the same page. And I’m not saying I’ll hump any guy who takes me on, either. I’ve indulged twice in the more than a year since my divorce. I’m human. I like sex. I don’t see why I should go completely without because I have “baggage”.

But yes, it does kind of put me in an unenviable position, where the men I’m really interested in have to be decent and honest and all that over time–and get to know me as well–before they get the “reward” of accepting the burden of my baggage. I’d like to think that what I can give them in return–love, affection, support, partnership, hard work, and a penchant for some kink in the bedroom for more than a single night–might outweight that burden, and be more attractive long term than a shot at a single night of sweaty sex up against a retaining wall in the freezing rain, but maybe I’m deluded.

But I rather thought that was what male/female love was–all the stuff I listed above, plus you get to have sex in a bed instead of the rain.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 16, 2009 at 14:42

Hestia, THANK YOU for listing circumcision first thing in response to a query for examples of gender discrimination against men in the comments to another article here.

Mad props; I praise you with great praise!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 14:44

Great dialogue, kis. Thanks for your openness and honesty. You are truly a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere filled with so much sexual flatulence. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 16, 2009 at 14:49

People can be anti-feminist without being pro-male, a lesson I learned all too well.

Yes, this is a key insight. And one of the main reasons why the current scenario has had some durability — it is supported, in different ways, by *both* the right *and* the left. There is no constituency that is anti-misandry, just two constituencies who are misandrist in different ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 15:20

The desire of many women to brutally take resources from men without any conscience restraints is deep. Whether the religion such women follow is leftism or Christianity, the differences are far smaller than they appear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher October 16, 2009 at 15:29

@Acksiom

Your comment to kis about her not doing the right thing for her kids is solely misplace, and undermines the progress that our society needs to make. Two parent families are highly overrated, at least as to their effects on children. The most important thing? Good genes. The reason why children from single-parent households are vastly disproportionately the source of social pathology is the men who are sexually selected in those environments tend to have heritable IQs and personalities that predispose them toward those behaviors. They pass these tendencies onto their children.

No one should stay with a partner who makes no effort to pull their own weight, my father is an excellent example of just such a man who received far more grace than deserved.

Scolding individual women detracts from the message that should be solely political and about acquiring political power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Asher October 16, 2009 at 15:37

@Acksiom

The problem with disposable relationships is not the effect on children but the effect in the sexual marketplace, which mainly affects ages 15 – 40. What you’re doing is unintentionally taking on both the soc-con and the feminist-earth-goddess memes that children are always the most important component of society because “they are our future”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The most important cohort of any civilization is that of those aged 25-40. Hell, you could exterminate every single individual under the age of 15, not recommending that, of course, and you’d just have to have large-scale, socially-directed efforts at massively increased reproduction. This is why marriage is NOT primarily about children, but about reconciling the disparate functioning of male and female sex drives in the general social context of the mating market.

In a vital, healthy civilization most laws would be aimed at securing the interests of those, say, between 20 and 40. Once you look after those interests, the interests of other age cohorts will naturally flow from that strength.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 15:44

You say your close to a 10 going for 6’s and stuff, but something ain’t jiben. Too good to be true. And what type of guys did you have sex with in High School and College.

I was close to a 10. I’m probably an 8 now, what with stretch marks and all that–but I do look younger than I am. My ex was about six feet tall, but that’s about his only real “alpha” quality. He had glasses and “typical nerd features” like a big nose. He had a wild youth–made his early living as a musician–but was 40 and had long gotten over it. By the time we met, he liked to play John Prine on the guitar in the living room, and would rather play cribbage or scrabble than go to the bar. Kind of 1/2 hippy, 1/2 traditional guy. He wore jeans and t-shirts virtually everywhere, sneakers and a leather jacket.

We met at work–we both were first cooks at a high end hotel. I watched him on the job for several months before we got together, and he was a likeable guy with pretty liberal views–kind of a social liberal/fiscal conservative thing, like me. When I had to quit (over actual, really and for true sexual harassment by my boss), he stood by me and helped me fight a system determined to deny me unemployment insurance because despite what a disgusting pig my boss was, he never actually bent me over the desk and gave it to me.

He was married for fifteen years before I came along–and he left her. I’ve gotten to know her, and can understand why he left. He didn’t have a college degree, but he has a chef’s certificate from a good school. His parents were typical British folk, she’s now a little old lady who keeps a nice tidy house has that quiet, dry British humor, he’s a friendly, polite, outgoing retired school principal–they winter in Florida where they play tennis and bridge. They’re so sweet it makes my teeth hurt. His younger brother is an investment banker (and great guy). His little sister is a civil servant whose husband is an accountant, and they run a fruit orchard together as well.

I’m not one of those people who likes to “fix” others, but I’m guessing the shit his ex-wife was pulling on him when we first met did help him worm his way into my heart. I do have a kind of innate urge to “rescue” others. He was a stand-up guy, and she was a heinous bitch (still is). For the first five years we were together, he was like that–not particularly ambitious (but neither am I), likable and decent and willing to put in the hours and effort as needed.

I’m not really sure what happened. Maybe he is a late-onset bipolar case. Maybe me being willing to do so much just enabled all his less admirable traits to make themselves known. I honestly don’t know.

And don’t forget to elaborate on the kinky sex.

LOL, as you will. My penchant for kinky sex is my own. He was rather vanilla in the bedroom–in fact, he was the kind of guy who’d rather be ridden than ride. I’d sometimes be able to talk him into the odd spanking or dirty talk, and to his credit he did rise to the occasion. Never could convince him to go for the f/f/m three-way action, but I didn’t try hard–I’m a serial monogamist at heart. Mostly it was “normal” sex (which I like as well). He did like porn (so do I), but it was mostly vanilla porn, too, and not just featuring super hot, young, bodaceous women, either. My own tastes in porn content are a little more varied.

The guys I screwed in highschool and college ran the gamut between alpha-hot and kind of dorky, but I found the average-looking guys were generally better in bed than the hot ones. The hot ones don’t have to care if they’re any good, right? And the average guys usually treat you better outside the bedroom as well. I did date a drummer in highschool who was the typical alpha thug. He cheated on me and treated me like shit for five months, and that was the last time I tried to have a relationship with one. Now that I think about it, the average beta dudes probably outnumber the alphas (even the half-decent ones) about 3 to 1 in my sexual history…

Need more detail? ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 15:49

I was close to a 10. I’m probably an 8 now, what with stretch marks and all that–but I do look younger than I am.

A lot more women THINK they are near 10s, than actually are.

Go put 2 pictures of yourself on amihotornot.com. Average the PERCENTILE ratings of the two (not the number score, but the percentiles). Unless the average comes to 98th percentile or better, you are NOT ‘close to a 10′.

Unless the average comes to 80th percentile or better, you do not quality as ‘hot’, and would not draw the attention of Alpha males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 16, 2009 at 16:05

I’ve been reading along this thread for awhile now, and I gotta tell ya, it’s really not helping anyone, guys. With all due respect.

The general tone of the thread sounds like…losers. The very thing that bedevils the MRA movement at present. If the Spearhead is gonna be any different for real, in my humble view it’s gonna have to address the tendency on the part of many Men to cry in their beer.

I’m just sayin. No one, least of all Women, will care how hard guys in general have it, or how dirty you’ve been treated by some Woman in your past. It may not be fair, but that’s the way of the world. Better to spend your time devoted to things that can actually help you live better quality of life.

That’s why Game is so important-not just for the success with Women it brings, but for the self-improvement that is a pre-requisite for that success in the first place. Guys who do well with Women, as a rule, tend to do well in other areas of their lives.

I know they’ll be guys who’ll read this and want to argue me down about this or that point – please, lemme spare you the trouble. I really don’t wanna hear it. Its doing no one any good, not you, not me, not anybody.

The ONLY thing you can change is YOURSELF. The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you’ll see change in your life.

To be sure, I care deeply about a lot of the issues many of you talk about. But I’ve grown to the point that, unless I’m taking an active role in bringing about changes in the things I claim to support, in the end all I’m doing is talking big shit on a small (but growing!) blog. And really, who’s being helped by that?

If the “New Men’s Movement” is to mean anything, it has to start by getting guys to be more pro-active in their lives; first, for stopping the Whinefest, and two, by taking personal responsibility in and for their lives. Anything less is really, a waste of time.

Everyone’s.

I’m just saying, & steppin in the name of love to my Brothers.

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 16:11

Unless the average comes to 80th percentile or better, you do not quality as ‘hot’, and would not draw the attention of Alpha males.

I drew plenty of attention from alpha males, LOL, most of it unwanted. I didn’t put much effort into looking hot or feminine because of that (I was a jeans and baggy t-shirts kind of girl all through school), but when I did put on a little black dress, heels and some make-up, jaws hit the floor. I honestly couldn’t figure out what the fuss was about until I got older and got over the young-woman insecurities. Like a lot of young women, I saw myself as less attractive and more flawed than I really was.

When I was in my 20s, I was 5’8″, 130 lbs, 38-22-36. Straight teeth, clear skin, high cheekbones, big eyes. It was actually pretty funny, because I swear like a sailor and half the time dressed more like a man than a woman, and the guys who knew me would freak when I actually “went girlie” for a wedding or dance or something.

Don’t have any pics of me as a young hottie to scan–my parents have all of those ones. But it would be an interesting experiment. Wonder if I have any of me in clothes that won’t date me. Will have to have my folks send me some…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 16, 2009 at 16:21

@The Obsidian:

I couldn’t agree more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 16, 2009 at 16:30

@Obsidian

Anything that is not concerned with acquiring objective, material, political power *is* loser-ish, in the objective sense of the term. In other words, for most men, if they can’t advance their objective, material class-interests through they political system then they will be losers, no matter what they do for themselves.

BTW, I’d like to point out a contradiction, here, in your thought. Over at OneSDV you’ve been having an argument regarding whether or not NAM social pathology (that’s their argument, not mine) or feminism is more dangerous to society. You are correct that feminism viciously undercuts the institutions of civilization. Basically, the problem is that “working on your game” assumes the continuation of a well-ordered, stable civilization, which is not at a clear future.

If your position over at OneSDV is correct, and it is, then feminism *must* be address on the field of political action. And by that I don’t mean reaching a cease-fire with feminists but by completely triumphing over them. Otherwise, “game” is just another log on the fire of conflagration as civilization burns itself out in an orgy of anti-social behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 16:33

Obsidian is right, and I say that despite the power of the Internet, etc., the MRA movement has to take a page out of the Tea Party playbook and start organizing good old-fashioned public protests.

100 guys each, in major cities.

That still draws attention. That step should not be underrated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 16:36

100 guys each, in major cities.

You’d get more attention if there were a bunch of women there too–and not women who look and dress like Jim-Bob Dugger’s wife, either.

Dang, and here I am stuck in this tiny, isolated town. I never get to do anything fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 16, 2009 at 16:41

Don’t underestimate the chance of a military coup ala Augusto Pinochet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 16:41

You’d get more attention if there were a bunch of women there too–and not women who look and dress like Jim-Bob Dugger’s wife, either.

Of course. I am a huge advocate of recruiting MRA-friendly women into the movement, and using them to shame socialcons. This is an unavoidable step if the MRA movement seeks to mainstream itself and discredit feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 16:43

When I was in my 20s, I was 5′8″, 130 lbs, 38-22-36

Thirty EIGHT?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian October 16, 2009 at 16:45

If the Spearhead is gonna be any different for real, in my humble view it’s gonna have to address the tendency on the part of many Men to cry in their beer.

I’m just sayin. No one, least of all Women, will care how hard guys in general have it, or how dirty you’ve been treated by some Woman in your past. It may not be fair, but that’s the way of the world. Better to spend your time devoted to things that can actually help you live better quality of life.

While I agree with your overall premise, Obs, there is one aspect of your point is a catch-22.

The biggest problem the average man has in todays world is ignorance…ignorance of just how badly the system is set up against their interests. Many, many guys unknowingly step into the various pitfalls and traps todays Brave New World sets for them by getting them to believe pretty lies and ignore ugly truths.

While men certainly need to avoid wallowing in self pity and adopting a victim-mindset (crying in their beer), there does need to be some sort of balance in regards to getting the truth out.

Using anecdotal stories humanizes the injustices our femininst-corrupted system inflicts on men on a daily basis.

Real stories are some of the best arguments for exposing the lies and sophistry used to promote the feminist movements legislative and cultural agenda.

The first step for any man to begin walking on the road of self improvement is to realize there’s a problem in the first place.

I only became aware the current situation of our society because I witnessed first hand the destruction of the family court system on my Uncle when his wife left him and his children for a bad boy motorcycle thug…and won everything she wanted in the divorce.

Oh, and she didn’t want custody, but she’s never given so much as a dime in child support to my uncle…but certainly made sure the court enforced her weekly visitation rights.

These kind of personal experiences are powerful testimonials to help other men even BEGIN to see the problems that they may face in the future.

So, I would say, we shouldn’t be too quick to say there is no place for men to relate their experiences here at the Spearhead. I think we’ll do just fine, as long as it does not become the primary element of the discussions here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 16:54

Thirty EIGHT?

Yes, thirty eight. After I had kids, I put on a bit in the chest–moved up to about a 42 bust measurement, but still had a small waist. It was a total pain in the ass. Do you guys have any idea how much a GG34 bra costs, let alone how hard it is to find one? Or how hard it is to find a regular size jacket that will close over bazooms like that?

Walk a mile in my bra, and you’ll find you like the itty bitty perky boobs I so favored on the few women I’ve been with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 16, 2009 at 16:57

Two parent families are highly overrated, at least as to their effects on children. The most important thing? Good genes. The reason why children from single-parent households are vastly disproportionately the source of social pathology is the men who are sexually selected in those environments tend to have heritable IQs and personalities that predispose them toward those behaviors. They pass these tendencies onto their children.

Normally I’d say “cites or it didn’t happen”, but I happen to know that there aren’t any cites. The nature/nurture argument has not been settled, no matter what baseless unsupportable airy hand-waving assertions you may make.

The issues are still so fundamentally undefined that we don’t even know if we’re asking the right questions. Does mirror neuron development relate to character formation, and if so, how? What are the effects of multilingual versus monolingual environment on the development of executive function? No one knows, and least of all you.

The problem with disposable relationships

No. That’s enough. I wasn’t addressing problems with disposable relationships; I was addressing feminism’s placement of women’s interests into competition with those of children. I can’t be bothered with you until you display at least a minimal competence at reading properly for correct comprehension.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 16, 2009 at 17:21

I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone, somewhere, would trot out the “Save Western Civ!” trope. Like I said before, please.

TFH hits the nail on the head: if you’re really interested in “saving” something, where’s your rallies? In the realworld? Where’s your lobbying efforts in DC? How many Congressmen and Senators have you talked to? What about in your local area-are you politically active? If so, for how long? And, what initiaties have you successfully gotten passed?

You see, I think one reason why the “Save Western Civ!” argument is often used, is because it takes any onus off the individual to make ANY positive, affirming changes in their own lives. So long as everything stays in the abstract realm, that Great Gettin’ Up Morning is due any day now…

So check this out: I’m not a victim. I know full well how things are, and you know what? Superior, Solid, Tight GAME can and will trump all of that. Dave the Hawaiian is living proof. You think his wife’s gonna put him through the meat grinder? Hell naw, and do you know why? Because her loins quiver at the very thought of his name, that’s why.

Ain’t a Man here in a position to do anything to raise Prostate Cancer awareness locally or nationally-but we CAN do something individually about it. How many of us here have talked to our friends about it-the disease, NOT the stats and how unfair it is in relation to Breast Cancer? Hmm? Let he who’s put in his due dilligence step upfront.

See, because I’ve attended a Black Men’s Health Conference many years ago, and educated myself about prostate cancer, I’m armed not only to do something about it in my own life, but I’m also in a position to do something to help other brothas. Just last week while I was in the chair, I told my barber, a youngbuck of 23, NOT to drink, smoke or use drugs-the main risk factors for prostate cancer. I also told him to watch his weight, get his rest, and only fuck high quality Women, because studies have shown that a high quality Woman will add years to a Man’s life.

When my barber asked how old I was and I told him, he was shocked; I look very young for my age, and the main reason for that is clean living.

See, THAT’S what I’m talking about. One brotha at a time, I can reach out and have a real, tangible impact.

You feel me?

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 16, 2009 at 17:23

With all due respect, TFH — and admitting straight out that in comparison to your demonstrated ability, I couldn’t prognosticate my way out of a wet paper bag — it seems to me that by the time that meaningful political improvements for men and boys become possible, they won’t be necessary, because of how the continuation of the traditional sexism against them is the result of the economic constraints remaining from slower technological development in their traditional areas and roles of labor responsibility compared to those of women.

If I’m estimating the development times etc. correctly (big if), we should see steps towards the general liberation of the individual from the collective arriving in close parallel to the steps towards the liberation of men from their traditional gender role constraints and programming. While the ratio of the historical gap in liberty between the aristocracy and peasantry versus that of males versus females has decreased considerably over the past dozen generations or so, it still appears to me to be a large positive integer. From this I conclude that the effects of the relatively gender-neutral liberation of the individual from the collective will be at least multiplicatively and possibly exponentionally more beneficial to men than their liberation from the collective’s particular male gender roles constraints.

The points being made here and elsewhere at The Spearhead recently about male agents of the State collaborating with feminists to limit men’s options and self-value strike me as supportive of this assessment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 16, 2009 at 17:28

Re: Real life city protests, check out the intro video of Fathers 4 Justice UK on their main page:

http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/f4j/

As Paul Elam was saying the MRA elements in the US & Canada will be entering the “radicalization” phase in the next 10 years.

Why did the UK have a headstart in radicalization? The reason is that their “no-fault” reform happened earlier than many of the US states and Canadian provinces. Thus their demographic dam of “screwed-men” collected and burst earlier as they had been accumulating for longer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hesita October 16, 2009 at 17:31

Fifth Horseman- An MRA protest would be great to see, though would the MSM necessarily cover the event, even if it reached Tea Party like proportions? Even in the event they didn’t, bloggers of both MRA and feminist stripes would surely have their say about the event, but this might not have the same power as the MSM coverage.

Regardless of the answer to the questions, if such a protest was organized near us, my husband and I would both be out there in support, as would quite a few other people we know. I can’t help but wonder how many people might be closet MRAs, to scared to rock the boat with their non-pc opinions as they believe they are the only ones who have such thoughts. Speaking out against feminism is not easy, with so many people singing the movement’s praises…

Of course. I am a huge advocate of recruiting MRA-friendly women into the movement, and using them to shame socialcons. This is an unavoidable step if the MRA movement seeks to mainstream itself and discredit feminism.
It’s refreshing to read your opinion on women being involved in the movement. While the MRA is and should stay a movement ‘ran’ by men- if such a term is appropriate, there is a lot that women who support men’s rights can say and get away with that men cannot, along with unique opportunities that being a woman can afford. Women can often speak out in harsher terms with less criticism about feminism, female entitlement behavior, etc. We have more opportunity to call women out of their nasty behavior and husband bashing in social settings, as this is typical behavior at female-only situations and we can also stop the spreading of feminist lies by pointing out the actual facts about paternity fraud, false rape accusations, etc when these inevitably come up as well. Maybe these little things don’t change the world, but they might open one mind at a time.

And there are also ways to educate women in positive, pro-active ways to make a good choice and prevent a wrong from happening to a boy/man in their lives. One example: As a La Leche League peer counselor, I have had the opportunity to educate numerous mothers-to-be about the dangers of circumcision. Many LLL mamas are anti-circ as is, but I have counseled a few women who were going to circ their sons and wound up not doing so after they learned the facts, risks, and sinister history surrounding RIC and shared them with their husbands/boyfriends/the baby’s father. My SIL was among these women and while my husband and I couldn’t convince her to breastfeed her son for any length of time, we were thankfully able to keep her from circumcising our nephew.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 16, 2009 at 17:39

I’d like to reiterate that The Spearhead is NOT an MRA site. This is a men’s issues, interests, opinion and news site.

Of course, we will gladly cover men’s activism, but we aren’t going to organize direct action here.

The reason I have made that decision is because I have been involved in activism firsthand, and it tends to take everything over, leading to recruiting drives, divisions between those who want to go wave signs and those who don’t, bombastic, high-flying calls to action, etc.

Quite frankly, it totally destroys objectivity and reasoned reflection. Therefore, I’m going to say right now that there’s another place for that. And you know what? I hope that other place rallies a lot of people and makes some big news, because we’re going to publish and discuss it right here. But we aren’t going to plan it here, and we aren’t going to recruit here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 16, 2009 at 17:48

As I was saying, I’m sorry fellas, but I gotta call it like I see it-alot of what goes on in the MRAsphere, and to be honest in some corners of the Gamesphere too, just comes off as sour grapes. No one likes a loser, least of all Women. That’s just the plain truth of it.

Now, don’t get me wrong-I’m all for Men getting themselves together into a political force to make public policy changes. But to be brutally honest?-I don’t see anything like that happening anytime soon-not at least for the next decade or so. I think it’ll happen in my lifetime, definitely-just not anytime soon.

So, in the meantime, we’re gonna have to “go small” simply because we ain’t got it like that to “go big”, if you feel me. But the advantage in this is, we can really build up that Band of Brothers, and lemme tell you something else: Women are very attracted to guys who are working hard to improve themselves. Don’t take my word for it, ask the ladies right here.

We gotta seek the small ways we can make a difference, fellas. The first step is in making a difference in your own life.

Then, once that’s straight, you can reach out to other guys. Me, I really don’t wanna spend my time bemoaning the evils of Feminism and so on-in due course of time, that’ll come crashing down under its own weight. Instead, I like to focus on helping guys live a better, richer quality of life.

Oh, and btw, in my “debate” w/OneSTDV, I asked him the exact same questions in my previous post. He’s yet to respond. Just like I thought.

I personally think the Spearhead can be a wonderful resource for us guys. But we have to be clear on what we want it to be: do we want it to act as a catalyst for something bigger in all our lives?

Hmm?

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Hawaiian Libertarian October 16, 2009 at 17:50

I agree Welmer. This site can do more than enough by simply helping individuals become AWARE.

Look at the example of commenter D’Mas upthread:

The funny thing is that not so long ago I would have supported those women complaining about that Sci-Fi post, and totally. Things started to change when I realized that all the insults they used (loser, can’t get a date, blah blah blah) described me and my friends- the very same guys who stood up for them. In fact, I knew even back then that a lot of the guys saying things like Tech, or Roissy said, were getting the girls, and lots of them. That hurt me a lot- much more than I was willing to admit at the time.

I don’t think I’m misogynistic, and I don’t agree with everything I read here, but I do think I’m being more realistic about life nowadays.

THIS is best way the Spearhead can have any kind of impact.

Activism has a place for sure…but the Spearhead need not be involved in that aspect to play an important role.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 18:03

Guys who do well with Women, as a rule, tend to do well in other areas of their lives.

The ONLY thing you can change is YOURSELF. The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you’ll see change in your life.

I agree with part of this, and I disagree with part of it.

The part that I agree with is that you can only change yourself.

The part I disagree with is that every man has to define for himself what “doing well” actually means. I think that Novaseeker is about the only guy here who really groks what kind of freedom men now have the chance to experience, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with getting women.

I’m on the far side of “The Game”, not Game, “The Game”. Fifteen years ago I was in a position where there were 3 people between me and the CEO of one of the mult-nationals. I was making more money than I, as a single man, could spend. I didn’t own a big fancy house, just a decent one, and I didn’t have a trophy wife and a bunch of rugrats to dress up and send to prep school. But, I owned a pickup, an RX-7, two motorcycles, and a boat. That’s 5 “vehicles” for one man. I once added up how much I was paying for insurance, and it was staggering. I went shooting at least once per week, and would burn up as much as $200 worth of ammo.

I had a closet full of suits, and the cheapest one cost over $1,000. I had a stereo system worth at least $20,000, maybe more because I never kept track of how much I spent on anything. I had more than a dozen cameras (up to 4×5), complete darkroom, walls covered with art that some art broker had marked me as a pigeon and conned me into buying as an investment, and a place in the country.

I had no shortage at all of interest from women.

Was I “doing well”? Some might say so, but only if that was defined in terms of materialistic trappings.

Inside, I was a powderkeg of rage, operating at redline all the time, and probably certifiably insane. Every morning I would get into the shower and make the conscious decision of whether to go to work or kill myself. My average work week was over 70 hours, frequently over 80, and sometimes over 100. One morning as I was getting ready for “work”, and turning myself into a “suit”, a woman who had spent the night remarked that I looked like a warrior getting dressed for battle. It was a very astute comment.

Inside, I was most definitely NOT “doing well”. I was on a death-trip headed for either explosion or total meltdown. Know all those stereotypes of 50-ish guys having heart attacks? I was on track to be an early achiever.

One day the proverbial straw broke the camel’s back, and I turned in my resignation.

What does a man profit if he gains all sorts of material goodies but loses his soul? Not a damn thing.

I had lost the ability to feel anything whatsoever – not pleasure, not pain, not joy, not sorrow. I had become a working-earning-spending-consuming machine.

What sucked me into the trap? The tyranny of the provider role – the old thinking that in order to get a high quality woman as a mate that I had to be a high quality provider. That was the way in the 1950s, and that was when I grew up.

The problem was that none of the women who really liked how big my … (paycheck) was, were people that I liked or could even stand for very long – neurotic, self-centered, narcisistic, petty, ungiving, dishonest.

Remember the old quip about “Dying is easy, comedy is hard.” Well, getting laid was easy, but getting loved seemed impossible.

You are only “doing well” if you are feeling well about doing it and while you are doing it. Otherwise, you are trapped on a self-destructive path by social pressure. “Only a fool would swallow it.”

I took a few years off from work to try to find my soul which I had lost while I was trapped on the corporate hamster wheel. During that time I let a long-term (>25 years) buddy of mine harass me into taking a group motorcycle ride that I knew I was too tired to take –
“I’m too tired to take this ride.”
“Nah, c’mon, c’mon, c’mon.”
“No, I mean it. I’m too tired to take this ride.”
“Nah, c’mon, c’mon, c’mon.”
Really, I’m too tired to take this ride! I’m turning around and going back and going to get some sleep.”
“Nah, c’mon, c’mon, c’mon.”

So, because he was my buddy and I didn’t want to have to tell him to go to hell, I went on the ride. And, I low sided and slid into a guard rail which kept me from going down about 600 feet of California mountainside. And, 2 of the bikes behind me were so close that they ran over me.

I got busted up. Real bad. Fortunately I didn’t lose any body parts and the broken bones eventually healed.

And, I learned a real valuable lesson from it – even people who you think are your friends will not necessarily put your well-being ahead of what they want. Today, it is absolutely no problem for me to tell someone to go to hell when they are trying to get me to do something I know is not right for me.

A man has to decide what “doing well” means to him, and then do that. Caring too much about what other people think of you can get you hurt, or killed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Harry October 16, 2009 at 18:16

@Zed

Glad to see you’ve managed to drag yourself away from the little love tryst that you had going earlier; elsewhere.

LOL!

I have nothing to add to your post above at 6.03 pm, but I have to say that I hope that the men round here REALLY take on board your message.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 16, 2009 at 18:21

I think that Novaseeker is about the only guy here who really groks what kind of freedom men now have the chance to experience. . . .

What? Hey!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 16, 2009 at 18:36

The part I disagree with is that every man has to define for himself what “doing well” actually means. I think that Novaseeker is about the only guy here who really groks what kind of freedom men now have the chance to experience, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with getting women.

I agree that it has nothing to do with getting women.

I very much agree with the idea that Obsidian has about self-improvement. It’s always a good thing for men. I don’t, however, agree that getting women is the key to male happiness or an indicator that a man is “doing well” with his life. A good number of guys who are very good at getting women are *not* doing well with their lives, but are low-lifes, jerks, incarcerated, abusive addicts and so on. Many of these guys are not lacking women at all, yet their lives are a disaster and in *no* way indicative of how men should be.

This is where my support of Game begins and ends. It’s fine as a self-improvement technique, and for people to use it as they wish. When it morphs into a worldview, such that judgments are made about whether men are quality or not depending on their success with women, it crosses a pathological line and begins to collaborate with the system it was established to navigate. In other words, the shortcomings of allowing Game to become a worldview, or even a lens through which the quality of the man is evaluated by other men are:

(1) it is way too narrow a perspective on what is important about being a man, and the various qualities that men bring to the table, most of which have zilch to do with success with women

and

(2) it surrenders the criteria for defining manhood to women, because ultimately what Gamers are doing is figuring out how to do what women today want — sure, I get that they are doing it from a perspective of being in control of the situation, but at the end of the day they are in control of altering their behavior to meet the expectations of women.

Using this criterion and then criticizing other men on the basis of how women evaluate them is simply pathological for men. It takes us away from the kind of freedom we have today and instead puts men back into a box — a box designed to cater to women, their desires, their wants, their passions and so on. Again, my criticism is certainly not of guys who learn and use Game — that’s not an issue. What *is* an issue, however, is men picking this up to use as another knightstick to yet again beat on other men, at a time when we should all be endorsing more freedom for men to do what they want with their lives, rather than tying them to women and their expectations if they do not wish to be so tied.

Another way of saying this is that Gamers are certainly one way to lead the life of men today. And that is fine with me. What I take issue with, however, is when Game becomes a kind of fundamentalist worldview — one which places success with women at the center of manhood and even credibility as a male. This is going in completely the wrong direction for men, in my opinion. The freedom we have today as men is broad — our canvas is vast. If some guys want to learn Game and get very successful with women, that’s fine. But arguing that guys who want to focus on other things in life, taking advantage of the freedom that the breakdown in gender roles now permits us as men, are somehow less manly, less legitimate as men, less successful as men and so on is just fundamentally counterproductive to what men should be doing for each other — namely, supporting each other’s choices, rather than denigrating those men who make different choices than we might.

This has been the chronic issue of the men’s movement in the past. Men are “systemizers”, typically. We work hard to find a system that makes sense to us and then we adopt that system. Often, however, men get fundamentalist about their own system. When this happens, men grow into conflict with each other, because they begin to criticize each other for being on the wrong “system”. This kind of thinking and behavior has been sinking the men’s movement since forever, and it needs to end.

The way to end it is for men to embrace … freedom. It really is that simple. Support for the choices other men make, according to their own worked-out “systems”, rather than denigrating men for belonging to the “wrong” system. Our movement should be about male freedom — freedom from old roles and their burdens, freedom from new burdensome laws, and more fundamentally the freedom to choose our own path. Not a one-size-fits-all approach which says “be successful with women or I’m not interested in what you have to say, buddy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 19:05

moved up to about a 42 bust measurement, but still had a small waist. It was a total pain in the ass.

Interesting sentence.

will close over bazooms like that?

That’s it – you have to post a picture. Cover your face to remain anonymous, but show us this alleged body.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 16, 2009 at 19:20

Acksiom wrote :

it seems to me that by the time that meaningful political improvements for men and boys become possible, they won’t be necessary, because of how the continuation of the traditional sexism against them

I don’t know – Al Qaeda went from very powerful in 2006 to a mere shadow of its former strength by 2009.

Novaseeker :

one which places success with women at the center of manhood and even credibility as a male.

Somehow I just don’t see people in the Game community who happent ot be over 25, claiming that. I don’t interpret Obsidian as claiming that either.

Mystery himself, in the front of his book, says that success with women is only one-third of what matters in life, and anyone who lets any one of the three fall away, will eventually lose all three. That sounds pretty balanced to me.

But I will say that the type of man who makes himself excel in Game will often excel elsewhere, as he has overcome a lot of painful steps to improve himself, is an outside the box thinker, and is entrepreneurial.

This is not *because* of Game, but because of traits that corelate with a mastery of Game that can generate other success.

In general, people who are very good with other people (irrespective of age or gender), can often get a lot to come their way in life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Harry October 16, 2009 at 19:22

@Novaseeker

I can’t take this any longer.

Your post is just brilliant – and I am going to have to steal it.

Same for Zed at 6.03pm

I just cannot bear to see this sort of genius disappear into the abyss of ‘past comments’.

@Acksiom

Masturhation Masturhation Masturhation Masturhation

:-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 19:26

will close over bazooms like that?

That’s it – you have to post a picture. Cover your face to remain anonymous, but show us this alleged body.

There goes the neighborhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 16, 2009 at 20:26

Novaseeker:“The way to end it is for men to embrace … freedom. It really is that simple. Support for the choices other men make, according to their own worked-out “systems”, rather than denigrating men for belonging to the “wrong” system. Our movement should be about male freedom — freedom from old roles and their burdens, freedom from new burdensome laws, and more fundamentally the freedom to choose our own path. Not a one-size-fits-all approach which says “be successful with women or I’m not interested in what you have to say, buddy”.”

Amen to that Novaseeker, and to every other single word in that fine post or yours.

And apart from the motorcycle accident, zed pretty well described my life to a tee, right down to the bust-out of the hamster wheel. In my case I burned the suits, and the fact they were expensive made the bitter pleasure more delicious. No way was I going to ever judge anything again by its market value – it’s my value that reigns supreme now, and what other people value and how much they pay for it is of no interest to me. Same goes for the women they prize. I’m ok with their choices, but only if they’re ok with mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Acksiom October 16, 2009 at 21:06

I don’t know – Al Qaeda went from very powerful in 2006 to a mere shadow of its former strength by 2009.

Ok, I don’t follow how that’s supposed to be relevant to what I was talking about at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 16, 2009 at 21:10

My SIL was among these women and while my husband and I couldn’t convince her to breastfeed her son for any length of time, we were thankfully able to keep her from circumcising our nephew.

This is one area where I feel Canada is miles ahead of you guys. You have to search far and wide to find a doctor willing to circumcize a baby even in the extremely rare event that it’s medically indicated. And a friend who received some prenatal care in the States was scandalized that hospitals give out formula samples to new mothers. Here, they give out diapers and wipes, and pamphlets on breastfeeding. And they will not give (and advise mothers not to give) a healthy newborn a bottle during the first 24 hours after birth. A Canadian mother who doesn’t breastfeed for the first six months at least is pretty damn rare, and out of the many guys I’ve seen naked in my life, maybe 10% were circumcized.

Women are very attracted to guys who are working hard to improve themselves. Don’t take my word for it, ask the ladies right here.

Holy hell, yeah. Improving yourself doesn’t necessarily mean earning huge money or having status.

What sucked me into the trap? The tyranny of the provider role – the old thinking that in order to get a high quality woman as a mate that I had to be a high quality provider. That was the way in the 1950s, and that was when I grew up.

The problem was that none of the women who really liked how big my … (paycheck) was, were people that I liked or could even stand for very long – neurotic, self-centered, narcisistic, petty, ungiving, dishonest.

Oh, Zed. No woman worth having needs a man to be that.

That’s it – you have to post a picture. Cover your face to remain anonymous, but show us this alleged body.

I don’t know that I have pictures that would showcase it, really. I had a lot of shame issues about my body, mostly centered around the male attention it got, so I didn’t put it on display very often. I spent most of my youth dressing myself in an asexual way and acting as if men largely didn’t exist–and still managing to get plenty of action from mostly beta guys.

Alphas? There’s something…skeezy about a guy who won’t even pay attention to what you’re saying because he’s already planning in his head the things he wants to do to you. I had a few people tell me I should get into modeling, but there was no way I was going to put myself out there like that. I had no sexual agency then, and didn’t feel the “power” my body had over men was empowering at all.

Since I had my last kid, I’ve lost most of the weight and my bazooms have shrunk back to a much more sane DD34. My waist and ass are still pretty good, too. Haven’t measured myself in a while, but I’d guess I’m about 38-25-38 now, and that’s fine with me. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 16, 2009 at 21:14

There’s so many awesome comments and thoughtful posts, I don’t know where to start lol, including the answers to my questions. It’s alot to take in.

zed at October 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm,
That post under the timestamp really help me understand about more about male/female sexuality and constraints. I have a few more questions though.

And, add to that the fact that using her sexual power to jerk men around is actually a pretty risky thing for a woman to do. If women were willing to accept and be honest about the risk, and realize that if some guy does break loose from his constraints that she really did kind of “ask for it”, then the conversation could get a lot more honest.

The guy who “breaks away” from his constraints. So are you saying that he was just an everyday guy who got so turned on and enticed that he couldn’t take it anymore, broke free and attacked her? Or was he just the wrong guy that broke free? If not, this seems to follow the mindset that all men can be capable of rape if pushed too far, which of course isn’t true.

I think it’s interesting how you imply that the attack in this situation or possibly rape was sex based. As you can see, I’ve been taught that rape was about power and all that, and that the victim shouldn’t be held responsible or partly responsible on what the rapist did to her. Or that no one “asks” to be rape. Eventually though, I began to consider that perhaps sexual desires/urges/what have you, does in some way come into play.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed October 16, 2009 at 21:22

No woman worth having needs a man to be that.

You and I grew up in different eras, kis, not to mention different countries.

It has not been all that long since I had a woman my age (who was actually unbelievably repulsive) haughtily announce “Well, jewelry is always an appropriate way to communicate with a woman.”

Nearing 60, never married. There aren’t all that many women in the US worth having – as the fact that barely half of them are married attests.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 21:40

As you can see, I’ve been taught that rape was about power and all that, and that the victim shouldn’t be held responsible or partly responsible on what the rapist did to her.

Rape is a crime and all crimes are about power at some level. A thug who burglarizes my home is using his crime for the “power” to acquire something with far less effort than I had to put into acquiring it.

The entire rape dialogue is so politicized and distorted that it is nearly impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it. I am sure that you will disagree that women do use their sexual appeal to men as a sort of power over them, but that will be a perpetual point of disagreement between you and most men. Almost no man would buy a strange man a drink in a bar, for example. I am sure that you will argue that the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with the girls enjoying the attention they receive from showing off their sexuality, and that girls behave exactly the same way when there are no men around. But, no man in the world will believe that.

The male perception of women’s power games is that they showcase their sexuality in order to draw attention from as many males as they can in order to have the widest possible variety of choices. Most men are socialized well enough to take a brush off without going nuts over it, even if it is done very brutally and obnoxiously, but in any random crowd of people there are going to be a few criminals mixed in but not obvious.

So, let’s go back to that dungeon. The chains on most men are their socialization and their restraint. A woman can walk around flaunting her sexuality and they will approach her in the socially sanctioned manner and attempt to gain her “consent.” However, just as there might be a burglar, or writer of bad checks, or embezzler in any crowd, there might be man whose “chain” of socialization is weaker than that of other men.

These are the ones who are dangerous. These are the ones women need to be worried about. And, these are the ones that men resent like hell having women say are no different from all the rest of us.

Now, it doesn’t even have to be the same bitch that he asked to dance who gave off the vibes of HOW DARE a lowlife like him approach her royal self. Some times there is a “kick the dog” displacement, and a Soldini-like guy on the way home pissed-off at womanhood in general sees an easy target. It is her unlucky day.

So, no, it is not always the woman who did jerk a man around playing sexual games and got hurt. But to say that “rape is about power not sex” is the same as saying “burglary is about power, not money” – complete and utter nonsense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Renee October 16, 2009 at 21:55

Zed,

Gotcha :) That pretty much sums up my response to your post :P

So, no, it is not always the woman who did jerk a man around playing sexual games and got hurt. But to say that “rape is about power not sex” is the same as saying “burglary is about power, not money” – complete and utter nonsense.

That has to be the most simplest yet enlightening way of putting it. I got to be honest and say that it was like a lightbulb just lit up in my head lol.

I am sure that you will disagree that women do use their sexual appeal to men as a sort of power over them, but that will be a perpetual point of disagreement between you and most men.

Actually I agree.

I am sure that you will argue that the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with the girls enjoying the attention they receive from showing off their sexuality, and that girls behave exactly the same way when there are no men around.

And actually I wouldn’t because again I agree with you. This has always confused me. Feminists say that women should be free to express their sexuality yet they complain about objectification. While I agree that there is objectification, when is it that and when is it sexual expression? Is it about how she’s being viewed, percieved? Does it depend on how it’s presented?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 16, 2009 at 22:03

Feminists say that women should be free to express their sexuality yet they complain about objectification. While I agree that there is objectification, when is it that and when is it sexual expression?

And that is why some men hate feminists. “Sexual expression” requires an audience to express it to. The gratification women get from it comes from the attention they receive from men for doing it. You sure as hell don’t hear of many women “sexually expressing themselves” in their own kitchens. Without the male audience, they get nothing from it.

Now, imagine that you were hungry – starving, in fact. And, that your “friend” decided to engage in some “culinary expression” and invited you into her kitchen while she cooked a great meal, let you smell the wonderful aromas, and then set a plate full of delicious looking food in front of you.

Then, as you reached for your fork, whisked it away, got huffy as hell, and started screaming at you about turning her into a “culinary object.”

I imagine that your reaction would include shock, anger, and some thoughts of “crazy bitch.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 16, 2009 at 22:06

Now, imagine that you were hungry – starving, in fact. And, that your “friend” decided to engage in some “culinary expression” and invited you into her kitchen while she cooked a great meal, let you smell the wonderful aromas, and then set a plate full of delicious looking food in front of you.

Wow, that really puts Petruchio’s ruse in context. I didn’t even think of that!

I think I’ll try that trick sometime. I am a good cook, after all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 16, 2009 at 22:19

kis-This is one area where I feel Canada is miles ahead of you guys.
Along with Europe too…or so I have been told and came across in research. It’s a sad state of affairs and I can’t help but wonder if it’s due largely to the puritan past of America and our odd cultural attitude towards sex. Studying up on the research of circumcision in the US proves the procedure became routine for some rather sinister reasons, including the idea that circumcision would prevent masturbation.

“Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery” by David Gollagher is a disturbing yet interesting book on circ and the issues surrounding the practice, if you might be interested in such information. My husband and I keep several copies of this book around, along with a few other books on “gateway MRA topics” as my husband would call them, to pass along to people who are interested or need to know this info, especially the parents-to-be of sons.

And a friend who received some prenatal care in the States was scandalized that hospitals give out formula samples to new mothers.
They don’t just merely hand out formula samples, kis, they even have special bags with the ready-made liquid formula that are especially for breastfeeding mothers. At La Leche League we call these bags “breastfeeding sabotage bags” and I was sure to leave mine at the hospital before we left with our daughter. The formula companies have aggressive campaigns that send the best coupons to the homes of those mothers who left the hospital breastfeeding and send oodles of samples during those first few months, in hopes that you’ll give up in a moment of weakness. This aggressive marketing coupled with the poor lactation support in the States can explain our poor breastfeeding rate. A majority of mothers initiate nursing but very few are still nursing at six months. I’m one of those crazies that nursed exclusively until my daughter was nine months old and then continued on with supplemental nursing until she self-weaned at twenty six months. Even nursing to six months here makes you a weirdo, so you can likely imagine what people thought of me for doing what I did. LOL. And to think I cloth diapered and practiced babywearing on top of that! ;)

There is a huge sum of money to be made by formula feeding and also a good deal of money to be made in selling foreskins here in the States. Sick but true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 16, 2009 at 22:31

Renee- Feminists say that women should be free to express their sexuality yet they complain about objectification. While I agree that there is objectification, when is it that and when is it sexual expression? Is it about how she’s being viewed, percieved? Does it depend on how it’s presented?
I would absolutely agree that women should be free to express and explore their sexuality in the proper time and place, but this is her bedroom or other private place, not the public world where everybody must be assaulted by too much skin showing or inappropriate behavior. zed’s culinary analogy was excellent when it comes to this issue.

IMHO women typically choose to objectify themselves, with the clothing they wear or don’t wear, whatever the case may be, as well as the way they present themselves to others. You can be genuinely warm and friendly without crossing the line into inappropriate flirtations, contrary to many of the actions that happen in the world at large.

When women choose to flaunt their sexuality, they aren’t only a nuisance to men but disrespectful to themselves and husbands/boyfriends/whatever if they have them. When you show yourself to the world and share something as private as your sexuality, you cheapen this special gift you have to share with a special man in your life. You let the world feast their eyes on you rather than keeping what should be private private. And you also turn yourself into your beauty and body, closing the door to your mind, talents, character, and other attributes that could be highlighted. There is more to a woman than her beauty but she needs to recognize this fact and respect herself before she can expect others to respect her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 17, 2009 at 00:41

You know, I have a lot of respect for Nova, but I gotta address some of the things he said.

Look, unless you’re basically given up on Women entirely, there’s really no point in trying to do a rhetorical reacharound here. They matter to a Man’s life, and precious little is gonna change that. This line of reason that says that a Man can be complete and whole w/o Women in any way, reminds me of the Fool’s Errand of a “mission” David Alexander claims to be on when he goes into Game forums in the name of “saving” Beta Males from being used up by Women. To date, he’s got no takers to his program.

Let me take this thing a step further: its really easy to be alone. Especially for Men. Takes no effort, no risk. Yet we’ve seen over and over how guys who spend huge amounts of time alone, invariably wind up with problems in some way. Like it or not, Women help Men grow in ways that we simply cannot do alone. That’s just the way human beings are wired, and there’s not a heck of a lot we can do about that.

Now before anyone gets what I’m saying here twisted, let me be clear. In no way am I saying that your every waking thought be focused on Women. It shouldn’t. As TFH has said above, Mystery himself, among a great many others, has said loud and long that a Man’s life should be balanced. But let’s not fool ourselves: Women play an important part of our lives.

So important that it can literally make us or break us, and if the overall tone here, as well as throughout the “Mansphere”, be it PUA or MRA is any indication, I’d say things are in the latter catergory than the former. It takes sheer guts to rise above the pain, hurt, and rage that some other Woman done put you through, on the path to happiness in this world.

Which, is possible-but you gotta change your mindset in order to make that happen, for real. As far as I’m concerned, we spend far too much time pointing fingers and whining than actually discussing practical, simple things that just about any guy can do t make real change in his life, not just with Women but accross the board.

Take for example two very recent articles that have appeared at the Spearhead: the SciFi piece, and the More Than Looks essay.

Both say some important things, but at the end of the day, NONE of us can actually DO anything to change it. For example, none of us have a line to the Syfy chain of command, nor do any of us have same wrt publishing houses. That’s where changes are made, for real insofar as what we see and read are concerned.

Same deal wrt Women’s attitudes-sure, the author makes some great points, but unless we’re in a position to change the culture, all we’re doing for real, is spinnin our wheels.

Now, note how I responded to the SciFi article-it was proactive, which was why, if you read carefully, none of the Feminists really took me to task. I simply said, hey, I’m for the Free Market-if what Syfy’s doing works, it’ll last; if not, it won’t. I further went on to say that I had no desire or intention to give Syfy etc my time or money-in a Free Market Democracy, I can and will vote with my feet, dollars and clicker.

See how that works? I didn’t lament the “death” of SciFi-if anything, I said the opposite, by pointing out that Hollywood’s lifeblood is in the Summer Blockbuster flick-something that is undeniably Male, still. That’s where the guys are, and that’s where the guys will be-NOT Syfy.

And the same can be said for the More Than Looks thing. For me, the thought of going outside the country never occured to me, but if it did, I’d simply DO IT. Problem. Solved. No need to razz on the American Ladies-like I said, let the Market sort it out. Sooner or later, the light will come on that what they’re doing ain’t working. But for me, I have a completely different view, which I’ll post up over on that thread in a few.

Now, I’m down with Nova’s points about redefining what being a Man is in the 21st Century. Believe me, I can relate in more ways than many of you here realize. But seriously, for real, this whining mentality’s gotta stop. We can rationalize and windowdress it all we want, in the end, that’s all it is if we don’t take active steps towards real change. This is a trend I’ve seen accross the Internet, and it needs to be addressed. There are things YOU can do to change your life, period.

I’m just sayin’.

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis October 17, 2009 at 00:59

But to say that “rape is about power not sex” is the same as saying “burglary is about power, not money” – complete and utter nonsense.

Rape is about power, anger and sex. Depending on the rapist and the chain of events that may have led him to the act, the degree of each component may be different, but I’m pretty sure they’re almost always all there. I think the misperception that it’s not about sex comes from people conflating sex and pleasure. The man who rapes may actually get very little sexual pleasure (or any pleasure) out of it, but it is still about sex.

I am sure that you will argue that the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with the girls enjoying the attention they receive from showing off their sexuality, and that girls behave exactly the same way when there are no men around. But, no man in the world will believe that.

The girls gone wild phenomenon is particularly irksome to me, since I have a vested interest in a world where women who act sexually fluid are, in reality, sexually fluid. I’ve been gently let down a time or two by a giggling woman informing me that she was just messing around to get her boyfriend hot. Which pisses me right the fuck off–and could have something to do with why I empathize with men, and why I’m not a cock-tease. And it’s why my quest for a same-sex partner is kind of on hold–tiny isolated town with no regional GLBT organization means I have NO CLUE whether a woman I show interest in will respond the way I want, react with tactful rejection or let fly with some homophobic outrage. It ain’t worth the risk–not in a small town.

I’d probably guess that 3/4 of the women who grind against each other on a typical night club dance floor aren’t doing it as an exploration of their own sexuality. It has nothing to do with sexual agency (which is the right of any woman to feel like a sexual being, even if she doesn’t conform to minimum standards for the mating game), and everything to do with measuring your sexuality against the hetero male gaze.

I might have gone that way, been one of those girls, had my emotional sexual maturity coincided with my physical maturity. Having the tatas I had at the age I did, the attention I got from certain boys was more than I was prepared to deal with, and I found ways to deflect that attention. It made me feel uncomfortable and imperiled instead of empowered.

While I agree that there is objectification, when is it that and when is it sexual expression? Is it about how she’s being viewed, percieved? Does it depend on how it’s presented?

If the only reason you’re humping my leg on the damn dance floor is so your boyfriend can think about it later while he fucks you, that’s when it’s objectification. And I don’t like to be included in it, thanks. And quite frankly, women do a fine job of objectifying themselves, so I always get pissy when a super hot chick in a skin-tight top who gyrates all over the place whines that men don’t want her for anything more than sex. What the fuck did you think was going to happen?

Yeah, sometimes I draw attention to my assets (I feel so much more comfortable in my own skin now than I did when I was young), but only after I’ve chosen my “target”. Send a buttload of signals directly to him, and then close the deal fast so I don’t have rumors flying for the next month about “OMG, did you SEE how Kis was behaving the other night?” I don’t need every man in the bar to want me–just the guy I’m after.

But then, perhaps I’m doing it wrong…

Studying up on the research of circumcision in the US proves the procedure became routine for some rather sinister reasons, including the idea that circumcision would prevent masturbation.

Given that my friend’s three-year old views his foreskin as a super-fun toy he can take anywhere, I see how the procedure might be successful. To paraphrase Cecil Adams, it cures masturbation the way decapitation cures acne.

My friend is a Canadian. She’s due in January. The father is American. She’s planning on having a clause put in their custody agreement that he is under no circumstances to have their kid circumcised, because she’s terrified that if he’s allowed to take the kid down south for visitation he’ll have it done. He says he’s circumcised and wants his kid to look the way he does. She thinks it’s barbaric.

I’m one of those crazies that nursed exclusively until my daughter was nine months old and then continued on with supplemental nursing until she self-weaned at twenty six months.

I nursed my first for ten months, then had to stop because I was pregnant with the second and down to 115 lbs. Nursed my second for fourteen months, and by the time I was done, I was a stick. The part of me that stuck out most in the back was my tailbone. And my third? I finally pried my boob out of his kung fu grip at 27 months. Didn’t manage to lose all the weight from him, but dammit, he was 11 freaking pounds. What do you want?

I wonder if LLL in the States would have more success with convincing mothers to breastfeed if they appealed to their vanity more than their common sense. After nursing my first for three months, my belly was as flat as before I got pregnant, and after my second, I was down to 105 lbs. I didn’t exercise or diet–in fact, my favorite snack was theater style popcorn with extra butter on it, sometimes twice a day, lol–all I had to do to drop all that weight was breastfeed.

When you show yourself to the world and share something as private as your sexuality, you cheapen this special gift you have to share with a special man in your life.

I don’t think sex needs to be reserved for a special man (or woman) in your life. It does need to be something you think about–why are you doing it, what are you getting out of it? Not in the monetary or mating sense, but in the “am I only having sex so that I can feel desirable?” sense. I have sex because I like to have sex. I don’t need it for self-validation. I have it because I’m horny and sometimes (not always) it’s better when it’s not solo.

I’m also pretty open about sex (don’t know if you all noticed, hehe), and I flirt with everyone–and I mean EVERYONE. It’s kind of the natural consequence of being a dirty book writer that I’m always at least thinking about sex, even when I’m not interested in having it.

But there’s a difference between being openly sexual, and inviting sex, and I don’t know if many women get that. I push the line a bit–and have in this thread–but I don’t think I’ve had a man look at me as an object in a long time (TFH’s “thirty EIGHT?!” notwithstanding). There is a world of difference between being a sexual being or feeling sexy, and broadcasting signals of availability all over the place for your own gratification.

That difference is where true female sexual agency lies, because in order to have agency, a woman has to kind of divorce it from the “desirous gaze”, whether that gaze is a man’s or a woman’s. She has to be able to feel sexy without relying on the male gaze to evoke those feelings. Until she does that, she doesn’t own her sexuality, she only borrows it from those who desire her.

And that’s a lesson a lot of the beta women out there, the ones who are not so attractive to men, can benefit from. You don’t have to be asexual just because there’s no one to have sex with. You don’t have to feel unsexy just because the gaze isn’t there to tell you you are sexy.

Might be something some beta men might think about too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker October 17, 2009 at 05:25

Obsidian –

Nowhere did I say men should avoid women if they do not wish to do so. My point is rather that men should NOT be evaluating other men on the basis of their success with women. If they want to do that to themselves, fair play — while I don’t think that’s a great idea in general, if guys want to do that, it’s fine. Just don’t project it onto other men.

A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate and counterproductive. It is divisive, and it uses shaming language to get other men “with” the one-size-fits-all program. It’s very detrimental to men in general and it needs to end.

As I said, I’m all for people doing things to improve themselves. But suggesting that women *need* to be a part of that, or even a large part of it, is counterproductive. Men have been defined around women, our interaction with women, the expectations of women and so on for far too long. We need to get beyond that and get to a place where we can be the men we wish to be, regardless of whether women care for that or not. That’s the freedom we have today, and in my view it is the way forward for men — or rather, the many ways forward as individual men may choose. Does that exclude women? No, for most men it doesn’t. But it also means that the lives of men are not defined by their interactions with women, that their relative worth is not measured in this way, and that women are a part of life, not the sine qua non of it. And above all, men need to quit pigeon-holing other men into their own pet “system”. Look, it’s fine if you want to define a large part of your worth around success with women, as it is important to you — that’s fine. What’s not fine is when that gets used as a tool to evaluate *other* men — then it becomes a divider and is very counterproductive, in my view.

This is a problem I have been seeing over the past month or so with many Game proponents. They seem to assume that because THEY are obsessed with success with women and place a great deal of their OWN self-worth around their degree of success with women, that this is “just the way all men are wired”. That’s false. Men are different, and have different interests and needs, and some will value women much more than others, as it has ever been. This does not mean that the Gamers are “wrong”, but rather that there is a creeping Game fundamentalism that is being expressed on the internet which expresses disdain for men with different priorities. This, again, is counterproductive. At a time when men have great freedom to define their lives as they wish, it’s very silly, in my opinion, to be corralling men into yet another female-centric modus operandi. If men wish to do this themselves, that is, again, fine. But if men do not wish to do it, that is also fine. The key here is options, freedom and support from other men for life choices … rather than one-size-fits-all, judgementalism and shaming of men who make other choices, and so on. That behavior has to stop, it is toxic for men to continue treating each other that way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 17, 2009 at 06:18

Nova,
First of all, as TFH has said repeatedly, there are many applications of Game that don’t have anything to do w/the commonly held perception of PUAs. The two are NOT the same. Dave The Hawaiian is an excellent cadse in point. He’s a married Man who used game to save his marriage, and he writes on issues important to Men. To me, he’s doing something practical that has a realworld impact for the vast majority of Men concerned.

I think the “fundamentalism” you perceive from some in the Game community may be better thought of as a kind of disdain on the part of those in the Mansphere, who talk a mean “game”, pardon the pun, about this or that, but in the end. Do. Nothing. I mean hey, that’s OK, and it ain’t against the law. It’s just that, as a rule, Game tends to attract a certain type of guy in the main, guys who are action oriented, have a Can Do attitude, and so on. I know that’s the case for me. I’m all for discussing Men’s Issues, but at the end of the day, the question for me becomes, “Now What?”.

Nova, I’m simply speaking in practical terms here. Sure, there’ll be a few guys who’ve given up on Women for whatever reason, but for the vast majority of us, that simply ain’t gonna happen. I’m simply saying that we have to have practical ways to move forward in this area for the vast majority of Men out there, and Game is perhaps the single best way to do that.

Is it the end all be all of life? No. Nor will anyone, myself included, will argue for such. But what I and others lik me will say, is that it is an important area of a Man’s life, and if he doesn’t get a handle on it it can and will break him. Haven’t we learned anything from the George Sodini tragedy, for starters?

I also take issue with your notion about Men being defined by Women-the exact same thing can be said the other way around. And for my part I see no good purpose railing against something that is so entrenched in the Human Psyche. We define and are defined, by each other, Male and Female, Nova. That’s just the way it is, and I see no practical way around that.

I also maintain what I said earlier-Men who spend inordinate amounts of time away from Women, tend to be on sme othr ish. Again: look at Sodini. Or Muhammad Atta. Or the Taliban-ran madrassas and so on. I have an upcoming piece that takes this issue on in greater depth and with much closer relevance here at home, but the point is, that its very easy for Men to be alone-which leads to being antisocial, and which runs the risk to leading to a lot worse things.

We’re not talking about just sex here, Nova. We’re talking about the importance of socialization, which Men and boys basically don’t get, and which sets them up for deep unhappiness later in life. One of the biggest problems a lot of guys have, is their inability to be social, and that’s why Game is so important, because it forces a guy to be that. Its a much needed skill for just about any Man.

Again: I’m all for taking advantage of the times and redefining ourselves, I’m doing that and endorse it for
others. I’m just simply saying that we need to spend some time dealing in practical pursuits that actually raise the quality of life for ourselves.

Just sayin.

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Tupac Chopra October 17, 2009 at 06:41

One wonders:

If women — being the gatekeepers to sex — were to collectively decide to take the natural advantage they have, and really run with it in a fit of power-tripping, by say, demanding that men must hop on one leg while clapping and barking like seal, before they allow access to their vaginas…

Would Obsidian do it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 17, 2009 at 06:52

First of all, as TFH has said repeatedly, there are many applications of Game that don’t have anything to do w/the commonly held perception of PUAs. The two are NOT the same. Dave The Hawaiian is an excellent cadse in point. He’s a married Man who used game to save his marriage, and he writes on issues important to Men. To me, he’s doing something practical that has a realworld impact for the vast majority of Men concerned.

Yes, which is why I am not against Game for men who wish to use it or find it useful for securing their life goals. What I am against is the idea that Game is necessary for all men, or that the goals of all men are basically the same, therefore Game is needed by all. That, to me, is a projection. Men will make different life choices – and those choices are not invalid because they do not seem to make sense to you.

We’re talking about the importance of socialization, which Men and boys basically don’t get, and which sets them up for deep unhappiness later in life. One of the biggest problems a lot of guys have, is their inability to be social, and that’s why Game is so important, because it forces a guy to be that. Its a much needed skill for just about any Man.

Again, I do not agree. Game is useful for those who wish to use it – I do not debate that. What I fundamentally disagree with is the insistence that it is key for ALL men. That is silly. Men are a diverse bunch. We do not all need to be highly successful with women (sexually or otherwise) to be well-adjusted, successful men. Men have different needs in this area, and those differences should be respected, rather than insisting that there is ONE way for ALL men. It’s that narrow insistence that I am taking issue with, not Game itself. For men who want to use Game, that’s fine, and I can understand the appeal. But it should NOT be pushed on ALL men as a universally needed thing. That is divisive and counterproductive and presumptuous.

It’s divisive for obvious reasons – it divides men against each other on the basis of a dubious ideology, rather than building up solidarity and support for different life choices. It’s the same old/same old crap that men always seem to pull on each other – “my way is the best way, and if you disagree you’re wrong”. That is exactly what has messed up the men’s movement in the past, and it’s a modus operandi that belongs in the past. It’s very unfortunate to see it being resurrected by the Game community, to be honest.

It’s counterproductive because, as I just said, it doesn’t build up the kind of mutual support for differences in approach that is so needed among men today. Instead, it follows the old pathway of elevating one system, and one approach to life, above all others. I think men are intrinsically attracted to this kind of thinking because of our logical natures – we like to envision systems, and so on. When that becomes hardened into a perspective which says “this system is necessary for all men”, then it becomes counterproductive because it perpetuates the same problems of men dividing against each other.

And finally, it’s presumptuous. You say again and again and again and again that all men need women to the same degree. This is just not true, Obsidian. You’re projecting. Some men need the company of women for their own sense of self-validation a lot more than others. Other men are open to relationships with women, but live their lives fine either way. What you are saying is that the latter are dysfunctional. That is presumptuous nonsense. All men who are not in relationships with women are not Sodini, Obsidian. If anything, it was Sodini’s inability to not be obsessed with his lack of success with women that did him in. It’s precisely the mindset that success with women defines a man’s self worth that led Sodini to the terrible point that he reached. It is not an attitude that should be encouraged. And certainly for men who do not have it, it is not to be denigrated as being dysfunctional.

I agree that it is a good thing for men to work on themselves and improve their quality of life. Game can be one tool for men to do that. But there are many other ways to work to improve oneself, as well. Men are not monolithic. If anything, in this particular era men would do well to be far LESS obsessed with women than many seem to be, given the current environment, and find other ways both to express themselves as men, to find their self-worth, and to improve themselves in various ways.

I think this is just going to be a point of fundamental disagreement between us. I’m never going to be convinced that one approach is the right one for ALL men. Men are way too diverse and different for that to be the case. For men who want to follow Game, fine – more power to them. I understand its effectiveness in securing the life goals that are important to them. However, it is counterproductive, divisive and presumptuous to project these same goals onto all other men. Instead men should be supporting each other in whatever “systems” they are following to manage their lives in the current environment. Any other approach is going to scuttle the men’s community yet again, in a way very similar to what has happened in the past.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 17, 2009 at 07:28

Good debate and I see some great points on both sides, particularly when Novaseeker says:

A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate and counterproductive. It is divisive, and it uses shaming language to get other men “with” the one-size-fits-all program. It’s very detrimental to men in general and it needs to end.

I concur 100%. There is more than one way to skin a cat and we have to realize that we’re on the same team but the tactics and strategies will vary according to one’s own personal idiosyncrasies. Mutual respect is in order.

I also agree with Obsidian in his point here where he says:

We’re not talking about just sex here, Nova. We’re talking about the importance of socialization, which Men and boys basically don’t get, and which sets them up for deep unhappiness later in life.

I personally am NOT an advocate of “Game”. However, I agree (and have stated earlier in a different post here) that men and women COMPLEMENT each other. Humans are social creatures and my particular path is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid and would apply the ‘Love and Belonging’ component in this instance.
In order to become complete, self-actualized Human Beings we need INTIMACY–but above and beyond the base sexual conquests and emotional manipulation. As a Man, I pride myself on having intimate relationships with all of the members of my family–the men AND the women. I think that balance is of paramount importance to our personal development.

But the “Game” proponents’ projection of it is as a benchmark for other men as Novaseeker says, is divisive and counterproductive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 17, 2009 at 07:37

**In retrospect, I should NOT have used the phrase “emotional manipulation” (and please refrain from the notion of painting me with the “white knight” brush).

Each individual has the ability to make up their own minds. I should have said, “emotional persuasion” or something with far less negative connotation. You get my drift, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 17, 2009 at 08:17

A few responses:

First, Tupac, NO, I would not do as you suggested in order to get sex from a Woman. Remember, we Men have *some* power in the sexual marketplace, too: we can say NO. The problem is, far too many guys are too desperate for sex to say “no”. As you know, Game empowers Men to either navigate the “shit tests” Women run down, or, refuse to play the game outright. So, NO, I wouldn’t do something like that, and in fact I’ve dismissed quite a few ladies in the past who tried to play me like that…much to their great chagrin and astonishment.

Now, for Nova’s points…

Yea, I can completely accept that we can agree to disagree. But here’s the thing:

1. I suppose you would accept David Alexander’s life choice as he’s widely described it, to be as legitimate as mine or yours. If you do, then this would be yet another area on which we greatly disagree. Why?

Because, what I see the Man is doing as deeply DYSFUNCTIONAL, and cannot in any way be helpful to ANY Man, least of all himself. Now, does he have the right to do it? Yes. Do I support his right to do it? Yes.

But to suggest in any way, that his choice to work it out with Skeletor’s Left Hand for all Eternity to the tune and visage of some FIVE TERABYTES OF PORN is just as legit as my or your life choices is to me, quite frankly, insane. I don’t see anything good from such a scenario, and as we’ve both agreed elsewhere, its a recipe for major dysfunction, not just in his own life, but in the lives of others.

2. No, Game isn’t a pancea, nor did I or anyone else suggest it was. But here’s my thing Nova:

Name me ONE major article or essay, here or anywhere else in the Mansphere, that actually lays out practical, useful advice for Men living more fuller, richer lives? Are such articles to be found on your site? Are any such pieces to be found here? I mean, where are they? All I’ve seen thus far, is how pissed off we Menfolk are, and don’t get me wrong, there’s something to be said for anger. But at some point Man, we gotta get past that. That’s where I am, and I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to this theme over the past few months, and hope to flesh it out both on my upcoming blog and here at the Spearhead. At some point we’re gonna have to get to solutions that don’t require that Great Gettin’ Up Mornin’ or Womn suddenly coming to their senses, or whatever happening. For me, it’s about taking personal responsibility for my life an the way it turns out.

Period.

OK, Holla back

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
fedrz October 17, 2009 at 08:30

ZED SAID: “I’m working on such a post in my head now, Pons. Actually, I’m treating it within a larger picture as one of several large cultural trends which culimated in a sort of “Perfect Demographic Storm” when the baby bomb went off.

Rob Fedders has already done a lot of this work, so there is no point in re-doing his fine work. Go to http://menforjustice.net/library/ and read the sections on “Totalitarianism, NWO & the U.N.” and “Feminist Propaganda.”

Rob, chime in here – did you cover Gramsci and his Long March Through the Culture (I can’t believe you didn’t). Give Pons a list of the first-read parts of the libarary.”

After 320 comments, I suppose I am fashionably late to the party…

The best over-all article – the one I use to intro people to these ideas, which has good validity because it was directed to the Committee on Ways and Means, is the Statement of Bill Woods, found here:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

(Btw, I have gleaned an enormous amount of information over the years by simply following the links used in the footnotes of pieces such as this, or googling the titles/authors.)

A good “intro to Cultural Marxism” reading list is as follows (and can be found on the sidebar of my blog, at the top, on the right hand side:

“PC Marxist Roots Uneartherd” – William Lind
http://www.blueagle.com/editorials/Lind_982.htm

“The Frankfurt School – Conspiracy to Corrupt” – by Timothy Matthews (Catholic Viewpoint – btw, Catholics are about the only organization I can see that is battling this – except for the organization Bill Lind is involved with)
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml

“A Nation of Frogs” – By William A. Borst
http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf

“Marriage and the Traditional Family – A World Turned Upside Down” – by Steven Montgomery
http://www.geocities.com/graymada/CB/awtud.html
(This fellow has been talking about Marxism since the 80′s, and I learned a lot from reading his stuff, including how Marxism was foisted upon the Russian people – Don’t forget, Lenin enacted many of these policies which we have, and had them enshrined in law in four years, by 1921. Stalin abolished all of this nonsense by 1942, during the war, because of the damage they did to the Russian populace, plus the war… well… even Gorbachev attributes the collapse of the USSR 50 years later to being unable to reverse these policies in his book “Glasnost”). Other good Montgomery articles about “how” it works can be found here (more links at bottom of page, follow them to learn): http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4516/gp/mlhw.html

“Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?” – by Heretical Sex
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-did-feminists-attack-family.html

“Political Correctness – The Revenge of Marxism” – by Baron Bodissey (This is not directly about feminism/family – but, is a smoking good essay on related matters).
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

I have not done all too much in direct regard to the individual Marxists themselves – more on the theory itself… however, the individuals themselves are something that I have often pondered as a personal project: doing in-depth research on individual Cultural Marxists such Gramsci, Lukacs, Adorno etc. (Marcuse too, but, there has already been much said about Marcuse, but relatively little is written about those who came before him). It might make a good blog project. I have links and articles up the wazoo for this never-happening project. Sigh.

You can find Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks” at the Marxist Internet Archives, but, be forewarned… it is quite a volume of writing… the put you to sleep kind… I find reading the geneology lists from the King James Bible has about the same page-turning appeal.

http://www.marxists.org/

“The Prison Notebooks”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm

Who was Gramsci? Here is an article about the fella:
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz October 17, 2009 at 08:37

Hmmm… I submitted, and it didn’t go through, thus why I have taken to the habit of typing my comments on Word first. Let’s try this again.

ZED SAID: “I’m working on such a post in my head now, Pons. Actually, I’m treating it within a larger picture as one of several large cultural trends which culimated in a sort of “Perfect Demographic Storm” when the baby bomb went off.

Rob Fedders has already done a lot of this work, so there is no point in re-doing his fine work. Go to http://menforjustice.net/library/ and read the sections on “Totalitarianism, NWO & the U.N.” and “Feminist Propaganda.”

Rob, chime in here – did you cover Gramsci and his Long March Through the Culture (I can’t believe you didn’t). Give Pons a list of the first-read parts of the libarary.”

After 320 comments, I suppose I am fashionably late to the party…

The best over-all article – the one I use to intro people to these ideas, which has good validity because it was directed to the Committee on Ways and Means, is the Statement of Bill Woods, found here:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

(Btw, I have gleaned an enormous amount of information over the years by simply following the links used in the footnotes of pieces such as this, or googling the titles/authors.)

A good “intro to Cultural Marxism” reading list is as follows (and can be found on the sidebar of my blog, at the top, on the right hand side:

“PC Marxist Roots Uneartherd” – William Lind
http://www.blueagle.com/editorials/Lind_982.htm

“The Frankfurt School – Conspiracy to Corrupt” – by Timothy Matthews (Catholic Viewpoint – btw, Catholics are about the only organization I can see that is battling this – except for the organization Bill Lind is involved with)
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml

“A Nation of Frogs” – By William A. Borst
http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf

“Marriage and the Traditional Family – A World Turned Upside Down” – by Steven Montgomery
http://www.geocities.com/graymada/CB/awtud.html
(This fellow has been talking about Marxism since the 80′s, and I learned a lot from reading his stuff, including how Marxism was foisted upon the Russian people – Don’t forget, Lenin enacted many of these policies which we have, and had them enshrined in law in four years, by 1921. Stalin abolished all of this nonsense by 1942, during the war, because of the damage they did to the Russian populace, plus the war… well… even Gorbachev attributes the collapse of the USSR 50 years later to being unable to reverse these policies in his book “Glasnost”). Other good Montgomery articles about “how” it works can be found here (more links at bottom of page, follow them to learn): http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4516/gp/mlhw.html

“Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?” – by Heretical Sex
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-did-feminists-attack-family.html

“Political Correctness – The Revenge of Marxism” – by Baron Bodissey (This is not directly about feminism/family – but, is a smoking good essay on related matters).
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

I have not done all too much in direct regard to the individual Marxists themselves – more on the theory itself… however, the individuals themselves are something that I have often pondered as a personal project: doing in-depth research on individual Cultural Marxists such Gramsci, Lukacs, Adorno etc. (Marcuse too, but, there has already been much said about Marcuse, but relatively little is written about those who came before him). It might make a good blog project. I have links and articles up the wazoo for this never-happening project. Sigh.

You can find Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks” at the Marxist Internet Archives, but, be forewarned… it is quite a volume of writing… the put you to sleep kind… I find reading the geneology lists from the King James Bible has about the same page-turning appeal.

http://www.marxists.org/

“The Prison Notebooks”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm

Who was Gramsci? Here is an article about the fella:
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 17, 2009 at 09:03

@Obsidian

Name me ONE major article or essay, here or anywhere else in the Mansphere, that actually lays out practical, useful advice for Men living more fuller, richer lives?

http://GoingGhost.com –Life Hacks For The Fiercely Independent Man.

This course is the ground level of Maslow’s Pyramid. I simply postulate that Men should expatriate as we can no longer further our development under the stifling and suffocating paradigm of Entitlement Materialist Feminism.

No, it is not a charity.
Yes, it is for profit.
No it does not involve women (although it can if you so choose).

Every Man must make a choice. And when the downward percussion of life under EMF becomes to great to bear; when they become fed up with the blanket transfers of wealth; when the frustration of misandric legislation rolls to a boil; when they’re tired of living life as just another Human D-cell battery; when that pain finally shifts from chronic to acute and they look for a solution to the problem, I’m here to help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2009 at 09:15

At some point we’re gonna have to get to solutions that don’t require that Great Gettin’ Up Mornin’ or Womn suddenly coming to their senses, or whatever happening. For me, it’s about taking personal responsibility for my life an the way it turns out.

And it is that, not women, which makes men grow up.

I’m all for taking a more positive approach to men’s lives than the gloom and doom “woe is us” that I see from so many men. That is what I mean when I talk about how much freedom men have today.

But, at the same time, cultural pressures and men’s own sexual and emotional needs are going to present some challenges in getting past the feeling that they are being deprived of something in order to move forward to seize some of the things which men were typically deprived of in the past.

It is important to realistically assess both what women are actually likely to bring into a man’s life versus the costs that are associated with gaining that. There are a great many women out there who have been driven quite crazy by the contradictory demands of post-feminist culture, and who can’t even quite manage their own lives much less contribute anything to a man’s life. Harping on the need for all men to compete in trying to find and secure one of the few remaining women who will be a net gain rather than a net loss is pointless. The men who have decided for their own personal valid reasons not to do so are not going to pay any attention to pretentious pontification on the subject. And, the only means of coercion left to try to force men to do it is social pressure which has lost all its power due to fragmentation of social consensus on “acceptable lifestyles.”

Criticism of what has appeared on the Spearhead in its first few steps is incredibly typical of the Game men run on each other. We have a few volunteer writers who write about what is on their minds. Whether you like or approve of what is important to them or not is completely irrelevant.

You are more than welcome to take keyboard in hand and shovel some gravel.

I am looking forward to reading what you have to say that follows your own dictum and states things in a positive, pro-active, manner rather than criticizing the way things are or what someone else has done.

If you don’t like the way the gravel is being shoveled – by all means, show us how to do it “right.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 17, 2009 at 09:48

Name me ONE major article or essay, here or anywhere else in the Mansphere, that actually lays out practical, useful advice for Men living more fuller, richer lives? Are such articles to be found on your site? Are any such pieces to be found here? I mean, where are they?

There’s plenty out there, Obsidian. And it isn’t necessarily limited to the men’s interest area of the internet. The key insights here are to be free and choose what you want to do and pursue it. Being programmatical beyond that is not, in my mind, productive, again because men are different. Some men like motorcycles, other guys like painting, some guys pursue their careers — all with or without women. The key is embracing your freedom and moving forward — beyond that, it’s up to you.

As I’ve written already here before, there is a time and a place for anger, and then there is a time for channeling that energy into productive pursuits. I completely agree about that. But I don’t think each of those potential avenues has to be mapped out like Mystery Method. Men need to do their own soul searching and then decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. The key is realizing that they aren’t constrained — by gender roles, by the need for the approval of women, and so on. Only by their own goals, their own drive and focus, and their own energy.

I suppose you would accept David Alexander’s life choice as he’s widely described it, to be as legitimate as mine or yours. If you do, then this would be yet another area on which we greatly disagree. Why?

Because, what I see the Man is doing as deeply DYSFUNCTIONAL, and cannot in any way be helpful to ANY Man, least of all himself. Now, does he have the right to do it? Yes. Do I support his right to do it? Yes.

But to suggest in any way, that his choice to work it out with Skeletor’s Left Hand for all Eternity to the tune and visage of some FIVE TERABYTES OF PORN is just as legit as my or your life choices is to me, quite frankly, insane. I don’t see anything good from such a scenario, and as we’ve both agreed elsewhere, its a recipe for major dysfunction, not just in his own life, but in the lives of others.

This is a straw man. It isn’t the case of being either (1) Dave Alex or (2) Obsidian. There’s a lot of real estate out there between the two. You know what I’ve written about the abuse of pornography engaged in by many men. In my mind, that *is* dysfunctional behavior, just as overdrinking would be, or using drugs. There are functional ways to live and dysfunctional ways, for certain. But not every man who isn’t obsessed with his success with women is holed up in a basement somewhere obsessing over porn and considering himself a sub-human. In fact, the key problem for Dave is that if he isn’t interested in women, he needs to find other ways to keep his life moving forward — and he hasn’t done that. That is an issue, but it is certainly not the case that all men who aren’t running Game or evaluating themselves and other men on the basis of their success with women are basically living lives like Dave Alex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 17, 2009 at 10:50

Men have been defined around women, our interaction with women, the expectations of women and so on for far too long. We need to get beyond that and get to a place where we can be the men we wish to be, regardless of whether women care for that or not.

I think the that can be said for women as well. They’ve been defined by their interaction with men, the expectations of men, their nature of their value to men, etc, etc, for too long, as well. And if feminism has done one decent thing, it’s been in trying to free women from that. The suggestion that a woman can still be a woman without the definition of her existence being rendered down to how she is valued by men–being a either a madonna (good wife, mother, all that crap) or a whore (of value to men for her body). Because there are just as many women who don’t measure up to the standards of men as vice versa. In the days of polygamy, those women used to still have options as far as marriage, child-rearing, etc, because of the lopsided nature of availability between men and women. Now their only option at times is just to try to live a good life outside the mating game.

I’m simply saying that we have to have practical ways to move forward in this area for the vast majority of Men out there, and Game is perhaps the single best way to do that.

Okay, call me naive and woefully uninformed, but could someone explain, in basic terms, what “Game” is?

One of the biggest problems a lot of guys have, is their inability to be social, and that’s why Game is so important, because it forces a guy to be that. Its a much needed skill for just about any Man.///

///Again, I do not agree. Game is useful for those who wish to use it – I do not debate that. What I fundamentally disagree with is the insistence that it is key for ALL men.

Socialization doesn’t simply mean being able to score chicks–or even being able to interact with them. Socialization means being a functional member of society at large, being comfortable and confident when dealing with other people. And if this “Game” of which you speak helps men with that, I can see the value of it. I’m an introvert–many people express disbelief when I say that, because I’m very outgoing, but I do “recharge” by being alone. I have meaningful, intimate interactions in my life beyond marriage and family. I work in the service industry, and my boss is not only an introvert, he’s anti-social–unsocialized in the purest sense. His inability to have meaningful interactions with ANYONE will always stymie his success–both with women (he’s 48, and has never had a girlfriend despite the fact that he wants one), and with people in general (I can’t even keep track of the number of people in this town who will not bring him their patronage because of his social awkwardness, which expresses itself in antagonism and anger). If Game, whatever it is, would help him be more successful in life in general (as well as getting him laid once in a while) that would be a good thing.

There are a great many women out there who have been driven quite crazy by the contradictory demands of post-feminist culture, and who can’t even quite manage their own lives much less contribute anything to a man’s life.

In so many ways, feminism has removed burdens from men–the ones that IMO, should be there–and placed them on women. The notion that a woman can and should be both mother and father (which in my case is reality, at huge personal cost, and not what I want), means that more and more men don’t feel they have to live up to their practical and financial responsibilities as fathers. It devalues the roles men have always played, and who can blame men for therefore not wanting to play them anymore? The idea that women can and should make every choice means that there are, by default, fewer good choices available to men. Expectations placed on women now–by feminism–removes expectations, or more specifically, the perceived rewards that accompany those expectations, that were once placed on men. We still expect men to conform to a standard, but at the end of the day, if that standard gets them nothing of value (other than empty sex and empty money), why would they bother?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2009 at 11:23

@kis

Email me. Use the contact tab above. I think you have a whole lot to contribute to this dialogue and have suggested to Welmer to get you on the stable of authors. It’s gonna take a lot of work to keep a steady stream of good content flowing. We need as many good hands shoveling gravel as we can get.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian October 17, 2009 at 12:34

Nova,
Good debate thus far. And my point in bringing up Dave Alx was to mirror the rather extreme way you and a few others here have (mis)characterized Game. But that’s neither here nor there.

The thing for me is this…

Several sites, Chuck Ross’ Gucci Little Piggies, and Dave The Hawaiian’s site, has spoken a bit about the sin and shame of the NFL giving full support to Breast Cancer Awareness Month, while giving Prostate Cancer short shrift.

Now, we all know the deal on that score-one gets far and away more funding and research than the other. And I actually agree with the position Dave and Chuck, among a great many others, have taken on the issue.

The problem I have with both guys, and the Mansphere in general, is that while there’s never a shortage of angry or even passionate guys out there to bemoan how guys are getting the shaft, yet again, there’s NO ONE actually discussing Prostate Cancer itself, and how Men may avoid it. Now, if there are such articles in the Mansphere, or at your site Nova, running at the same time as Dave and Chuck’s dressing down of the NFL, I’d be very interested in seeing it.

You see, once again, the general tone is one of “what they done/did to me/us”, rather than one of empowerment. Those guys, or you, or Welmer, or any of the umpteen guys up in arms about the issue could have written simple, practical pieces about a very serious issue-as we know and agree, Prostate Cancer takes more lives than most of the other forms of cancer *combined*.

As a Black Man, there’s not a heck of a lot I can do to make the NFL give Prostate Cancer some love, or force the WNBA to do same. But I CAN educate myself about the disease; change my lifestyle accordingly; and discuss it with other Men, Black or otherwise, that I meet on my path. Last night I talked about how I discussed the issue with my barber, and it gave him omething to think about. He thanked me for that-AND THAT’S WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE. I could have easily gone on a rant about the NFL, but in the end, it would not have changed anything. Me, sharing with my barber what I’d learned, and how to protect himself, did.

That’s what I’m talking about, Nova. I don’t see anywhere near enough of that kind of focus out in the Mansphere, and to be honest in the Game one, either. It seems that most guys just want to vent, which soon turns into complaints, and then bitterness. I completely understand this-but ultimately in the end, it’s not helping anyone. We simply have to stop making excuses as to why we can’t and won’t get our act together, Man.

That’s all I’m saying.

Holla back

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Sean_MacCloud October 17, 2009 at 12:46

Well I can tell by the last few post, this site is gonna go down hill fast…


Sterilize the dopey.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 17, 2009 at 12:54

The problem I have with both guys, and the Mansphere in general, is that while there’s never a shortage of angry or even passionate guys out there to bemoan how guys are getting the shaft, yet again, there’s NO ONE actually discussing Prostate Cancer itself, and how Men may avoid it.

Good point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 17, 2009 at 13:03

Those guys, or you, or Welmer, or any of the umpteen guys up in arms about the issue could have written simple, practical pieces about a very serious issue-as we know and agree, Prostate Cancer takes more lives than most of the other forms of cancer *combined*.

This is a fair point — such articles would be a good idea. As I wrote over at Chuck’s place on that specific issue, we don’t get much political leverage from the prostate issue, because it tends to hit men who are much older than the women who get breast cancer. And it also tends to have comorbidities, so quite often it is one of several reasons for why the person died. Not that we shouldn’t have more of a focus on prostate health — we should. But comparing it to breast cancer often results in a bad framing of the overall health issues. Nevertheless an article or two about prostate health would not be a bad idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud October 17, 2009 at 13:05

>Okay, call me naive and woefully uninformed, but could someone explain, in basic terms, what “Game” is?
>>

You are naive and woefully uninformed; especially since you have devoted many a hours a day specializing in pontificating about the thing you are woefully ill informed about.

‘Game’ simply means, you (like all people) are an automaton: when a stick is thrown you WILL CHASE IT.

The Christians and the liberals hate this, for it exposes their polite fictions which hold together this caste structure of runts as absurdity.

It is very similar to the girl culture of gossip and legion ‘wimmins magazines’ (girl culture feigning literacy?), where in females share with and teach each other how to exploit men’s most vulnerable needs for fun and profit.

That is why female et al outrage over ‘game’ is so… typical (hypocrisy). It is similar to the hypocritical outrage over “rock star and groupie culture”: …An arrogant-peacock man having that kind of leverage over someone who is gaga needy and using them for fun is heinous, heinous, heinous and not very nice… unless you’re an average or better teenage girl doing it to her suitors and then it is a solemn right…

‘Game’ is “science”/Darwinism/anthropology/sociology/”socio-biology/evolutionary psychology/”HBD” put into living practice –ignoring, _conspicuously,_ the sophistry based debates(looped in circles) that demand those subjects remain relegated to just theoretica.

You my dear are the subject.

Fetch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 17, 2009 at 13:19

kis,

Okay, call me naive and woefully uninformed, but could someone explain, in basic terms, what “Game” is?

Simple. What makes men attractive to women to a large degree is learnable. A man who is a smooth charmer with women might be a man without wealth or good looks, but he still does very well with women. Game is the body of knowledge that enables a man to learn exactly the process of making himself attractive and irresistable to women. Start to finish.

You claim you were one almost a 10. Did you ever get with a guy who was neither wealthy nor handsome? Yet you were attracted to him in some way? He ran Game on you. A few guys have this natural talent, but most don’t, which is why there exist avenues through which any man can learn what the few naturals do naturally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 17, 2009 at 13:22

@Obsidian

The end result of your reasoning is that society and politics don’t matter at all, and that we are all just isolated islands of humanity. The problem is that the species homo sapien is a political animal, and anyone who dedicates their life to game is living their life by consuming the social capital accumulated by others. There is no way around that fact.

And your self-help analogy between getting healthy and being good with women is specious. Why? Sexuality is, by and large, a zero-sum game, what you take is, generally, unavailable to others and the more you take the less there is left. Health? Are you serious? Are you trying to tell me that if I get healthy this necessitates that someone else must get sicker as a direct consequence?

One thing is clear from your comments and posts: you clearly abjure any notion of social duties, at all. You can deny it, but it’s clearly there.

Look, one refreshing thing about Roissy and his ilk are that they are blatantly explicit in the knowledge that what they are doing is undermining the bases of civilization. Have you missed that in his posts? His entire oeuvre is “get yours while you can because society is collapsing”. BTW, I’m almost there. I’ve started paying people under the table, helping them avoid as much taxation as possible, although I just give them the opportunity and a little *wink*. Additionally, I have cut back on my business and have quit saving and investing anything, which has been the focal point of my life for the last five years.

That’s where this is all going.

Game = I have absolutely no social obligations, whatsoever
Game = Dog eat dog
Game = Every man for himself

As the eldest sibling of seven, with five nieces and nephews, I’d hate to really come to the belief that this is what we’ve come to. Game would necessarily entail giving up my relationship with my family. Why? Because they would never accept a revolving door of short-term sexual relationships in family life.

BTW, I’m almost there. Just a couple months ago I told one of my married brothers that I had come to the realization that “I live in a society that has decided it has no obligations to me, and, in that case, I have no obligations to it”. Fine, I’m almost there, and the more people like you tell me that I have no obligations not to fuck other people over to get whatever the hell I want it’ll make me feel better about the route I feel myself headed down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 17, 2009 at 13:25

@Obsidian

When I read your posts it seems to me that you are mostly talking about what individual men can do to ‘improve’ themselves and their chances of ‘success’ in life.

Fair enough.

But what a lot of other men round here (esp MRAs) are talking about is changing society, the law, the misandry, etc.

Some, like Zed and Fifth Horseman, talk about both of these things.

Now, to improve yourself requires a lot of self-reflection, and learning where you want to go, and the best way to do this – for yourself.

But, to change society, the law, etc, MRAs have to make a fuss, and they have to generate heat. They have to try to goad other men into political action, and to get inside their heads to make them realise that they are being suckered, cheated, demonised, disadavantaged, and so on.

I think that you should just accept that the two camps have just got different aims, rather than keep complaining about this.

According to Welmer, this site is primarily a magazine which looks at men’s issues, and so both camps should be OK round here – because both camps are dealing with men’s issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud October 17, 2009 at 13:41

BTW I wasn’t just talking about obsidian ruining the board.

I was specifically talking about soemthing kis said about how [females have been hurt by males shirking responsiblity in modern times].

Standard conservative and pouty princess horseshit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 17, 2009 at 13:49

Game would necessarily entail giving up my relationship with my family.

Not at all.

ANY romantic relationship with women, including a marriage of 50 years, can be greatly improved with Game. Those who don’t know this tend to be those who refuse to admit that they don’t know what Game is.

Because they would never accept a revolving door of short-term sexual relationships in family life.

They can be long term too. Where did you get the idea that short-term is mandatory?

Too many people refuse to grasp what Game really is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 17, 2009 at 14:05

Thanks for the explanation, I think. Heh.

That is why female et al outrage over ‘game’ is so… typical (hypocrisy). It is similar to the hypocritical outrage over “rock star and groupie culture”: …An arrogant-peacock man having that kind of leverage over someone who is gaga needy and using them for fun is heinous, heinous, heinous and not very nice… unless you’re an average or better teenage girl doing it to her suitors and then it is a solemn right…

Huh. So that’s my problem. I never read teen-girl or women’s magazines, so I had no Game as a young woman.

I often see myself in the world as a bit of an outsider circulating among aliens. Being non-manipulative by nature, I don’t really recognize the manipulations of men and women except in the theoretical sense. That is, I understand the basic premises of “science”/Darwinism/anthropology/sociology/”socio-biology/evolutionary psychology/”HBD, and am aware of the ways they’ve affected me (attractions to men and women with signs of health and symmetrical features, for instance), but they haven’t really had the power to affect my decisions. Rock stars and athletes are fun to look at and might be good for a quick lay (although more likely not), but they don’t have anything else to offer me. And I was always just as likely to fuck the geeky dude with strabismus and a good personality as I was the hot jock with an equally good personality.

I remember when I was about 16 leaving a party with the guy everyone was drooling over, messing around a little, and then telling him “Well, it’s been fun, but it’s curfew and I need to get home.” He looked me in the eye and smiled and told me, “I don’t think you can walk away.” He was…flabbergasted that I left, and had no idea how to interact with me the next day. He wasn’t even angry. He was just…perplexed that a girl who found him physically hot would turn him down–not with rancor or scorn, but just because she didn’t find the thought of his attentions worth breaking curfew. I thought about giving him another shot at it, because he did push my buttons that night, but in the end, I decided I didn’t want to fuck someone who viewed women and sex as he obviously did–not as a transaction of pleasure for pleasure, but as a transaction of the needy, desperate woman who’s just happy to get it from a man who doesn’t respect her.

Money is a means to put food on the table and a roof over your head and give you a little freedom to do things you enjoy, but as for the status it supposedly applies, I’ve never bought into it. Financial security is a laudable goal, but the drive to acquire more wealth than a person needs has always puzzled me. And a man with more wealth than he needs is more likely to seem unattractive to me–having stuff for the sake of having it is something we as humans need less of, not more, and seems dysfunctional in itself.

So yeah, I ain’t got Game. Or rather, I largely exist outside of it. It seems to me that the mating race has become the American Kennel Club. That is, it’s not enough to be good, one has to take good to the nth degree. If a pushed-in face is desirable on a Persian cat, it must logically follow that the most pushed-in face is the most desirable, which leads to a whole breed of cats who can barely breathe. If money is attractive (and it is–having spent most of my adult life enduring a chronic shortage of it even living a frugal lifestyle, I find money attractive), then more money is even more attractive and so on. If a fertile figure is considered hot in a woman, then enormous bazooms are freakin’ awesome! I don’t get it. I don’t get how so many people let these ingrained responses get carried to the nth degree, until we’re stuck in a society with cats that can’t breathe, rock stars getting laid and regular guys going without, perfectly attractive women getting major surgery to feel attractive, lottery corporations raking it in, and men like Zed who once thought the best and only way to get a woman was to have more more more more more more.

Game is…I suppose it’s useful in its way, but it’s a shame it’s needed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 17, 2009 at 14:05

Sean_MacCloud:

I didn’t read it that way at all. What she said was:
In so many ways, feminism has removed burdens from men–the ones that IMO, should be there–and placed them on women.

Expectations placed on women now–by feminism–removes expectations, or more specifically, the perceived rewards that accompany those expectations, that were once placed on men. We still expect men to conform to a standard, but at the end of the day, if that standard gets them nothing of value (other than empty sex and empty money), why would they bother?

Nothing in there about men shirking their responsibilities. But lots of stuff about how women have been screwed over by feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2009 at 14:16

So yeah, I ain’t got Game. Or rather, I largely exist outside of it.

Not so. I’ve been interacting with Hestia far longer than I have with you, and I know a great deal more about the size of your chest and your sex life than I do hers.

If you really are as sexually open as you have claimed to be here, I think that is great. But, keeping the topic on sex, and continually talking about it, is female game at its finest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry October 17, 2009 at 14:31

@Kis

“I had no Game as a young woman.”

You didn’t wear make-up then?

You didn’t learn from other women how to become more attractive to men?

You never thought about such an issue?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher October 17, 2009 at 14:32

@ Fifth horseman

Every advocate of game I know is pretty clear that game is learned through lots of practice, which means you’ll need to practice on a lot of short-termers if you want to properly game and manage a long-termer. Game also involves males expending large amounts of resources to practice and hone their game, and these resources are not, then, available for other things such as starting a family and raising children.

You people really aren’t reading Roissy very closely. You really should.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 17, 2009 at 14:34

You claim you were one almost a 10. Did you ever get with a guy who was neither wealthy nor handsome? Yet you were attracted to him in some way? He ran Game on you.

Actually, most of the guys I’ve been with were friends first, and remained friends after. Nothing really changed in their personalities either before or after–in other words, I don’t think I was “Gamed” per se. Just that I knew them and liked them as people, and figured, hey, let’s give it a shot. But that maybe has more to do with the fact that though I could be hot when I tried, I usually tried to actively NOT be hot. I always wanted guys to like me first, before they decided they wanted to fuck me, because the guys who wanted to fuck me first were usually not worth liking.

I was specifically talking about soemthing kis said about how [females have been hurt by males shirking responsiblity in modern times].

Standard conservative and pouty princess horseshit.

Hah! If you were reading, I said that females have been hurt by feminism fucking with traditional gender roles. The traditional male role is, perforce, going to be part of that. But I’m willing to concede that things culturally in the States are different than in Canada.

Thing is, I hope we’re in a transition stage. A transition between a place where women are expected to play more masculine roles–and get respect for it–but men are derided for playing more traditionally feminine roles. That is, if a couple wants a partnership where the woman is the main breadwinner and the man is Mr. Mom (and I’ve seen some men excell in this role by their own choice), it doesn’t do any of us any good to say “go her, girl power, death to the glass ceiling” while calling her partner a pussy for not being a traditional man. But what feminism has done thus far is take away from many men those aspects of being a man everyone can get behind–providor, protector, father, husband–and not given them any viable options to fill those empty spaces. It’s made men feel devalued–as if they’re superfluous and unnecessary. And some of them respond by saying, “If women want to do it all, then let them. Buh-bye.” Or, “My baby momma doesn’t want me for anything more than money, so let the state take care of the kid instead. He’s not mine in any meaningful sense of the word, why should he be mine in the financial sense?”

My opinions are of course informed by the fact I’m Canadian, and our pendulum is swinging back from a female-centric view of parenthood, divorce and custody. And by my basic belief that human beings should be responsible for their own shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 17, 2009 at 14:40

@Zed, Fifth Horseman

Is it possible that at least *part* of the reason why men need to learn something like Game is because they are not culturally allowed to wear make-up and ‘sexy’ clothing?

Putting it very simply: If men could present themselves in a greater variety of ways than is currently the case, would this not enhance their appeal to women?

I think that in some olden cultures, men pay greater attention to their ‘costumery’ than do women!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kevin K October 17, 2009 at 14:48

Obsidian – “The problem I have with both guys, and the Mansphere in general, is that while there’s never a shortage of angry or even passionate guys out there to bemoan how guys are getting the shaft, yet again, there’s NO ONE actually discussing Prostate Cancer itself, and how Men may avoid it.”

I missed the discussion on this topic which is unfortunate because I work in this field and actually know something about it. I would agree with Nova’s assessment and add that prostate cancer is the one of the rare cancers that can be detected by a blood test. Other cancers (like breast cancer) can only be detected by feeling lumps or by imaging (mammograms, CT, etc.) . Because if this its usually caught early in a slow growing stage and has a very high cure rate (like 97% chance that you will die of something else).

Doctors usually start testing for it routinely when you are in your 50s. I’ve never seen super-convincing evidence that there is really “something you can do” to avoid it. The best thing is to go to your doctor (which a lot of men don’t do enough of) and generally lead a healthy life (excercise, don’t smoke, eat your veggies, etc.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 17, 2009 at 14:57

Is it possible that at least *part* of the reason why men need to learn something like Game is because they are not culturally allowed to wear make-up and ’sexy’ clothing?

Makeup, I don’t know about. I tend to go along with the currently accepted thinking that women just are not as visual as men, and the signs of fertility and sexual receptivity that women can simulate through makeup just aren’t the same for men.

The way I see Game is that it is a way for men to get away with being the aggressors without appearing to be the aggressors. If you don’t make sales calls, you never make any sales.

Many years ago I had a woman I’d met a couple of times offer to give me a ride to pick up a motorcycle I’d just bought. When I opened the door, I felt like I’d just gotten whacked up side the head with a 2×4 – she was wearing the barest little top showing her perky boobs looking very nipply, a pair of jeans that looked like they had been sprayed on, and had one of the most masterfully done makeup jobs I’d ever seen.

What had I done to give her ‘gina tingle? Well, after we had been involved for a while she said that the first time we met the way I had looked at her made her feel like her clothes had just been ripped off. She was my fetish – a tall woman, just a shade over 6′. She really got my motor running, and after one particularly vigorous workout she said, “Now I know how it feels to have your brains fucked out.”

The reason bad boys get so much tail is because they haven’t had it socialized out of them to let women know when they are attracted to them. Some recent research has shown that what turns women on most is being desired by a man they want to desire them.

Guys need Game because everything women have been telling them for the past 40 years about what women want has been crap. No guy ever got laid for cleaning the house. It is the typical “implying sex as reward for doing what women want” Game that women have been running on men forever. Men who listen to them turn into AFCs, guys who don’t, and the ones who rip their clothes off with their eyes, get laid.

The problem is that looking to get laid and looking for a wife are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 17, 2009 at 15:00

You didn’t wear make-up then?

Nope–at least, not regularly. For weddings or grad pictures or whatever, yeah, but not everyday, or even when I went out. I do now most days, but didn’t start until I went to work waitressing when I was about 26. I also had (and still have) very short hair, and often covered it with a bandana. Wore baggy jeans, baggy t-shirts. I didn’t even wear a skirt to my own wedding–which cost me and my husband about $180, including dinner.

You didn’t learn from other women how to become more attractive to men?

Sure I did. It’s just that after junior high, I didn’t care. I’ll revise my above answer, because I did spend a lot of time and effort on my appearance when I was 12-14. But the first time I had a guy “accidentally in passing” touch my breast a few times, I cut that out and just insulated myself.

You never thought about such an issue?

I thought about it. I used to sometimes put on make-up–even when I was in my early 20s, style my hair, put on hot clothes–and look at myself in the mirror. But even at that point, I felt like it made me someone I didn’t like. I mean, I looked hot and knew it, but I wasn’t ready for men to see me that way. So then I’d wash it all off and show up at the bar in baggy, holey jeans and a wife-beater and have my friends say stuff like “OMG, you’re wearing that?”

Although being bi and a bit of a gender-switch (being masculine/dominant with women and feminine/submissive with men), the way I presented myself might have had something to do with that. I know I always longed to have a strong body rather than a curvy one, and worked out for years before I realized I would never look like Yelena Shushunova.

If you really are as sexually open as you have claimed to be here, I think that is great. But, keeping the topic on sex, and continually talking about it, is female game at its finest.

I’ll have to think about that a bit. You could be right, but normally when I’m actually interested in getting sex from someone, it’s the last thing I talk about, which now that I think of it is…weird. And maybe counterproductive. If it is Game, I run it on everyone, male/female, young/old, fat/skinny, gay/lesbian/straight whatever. Or maybe I’ve just been hanging out on erotica writers’ forums for too long, and I’ve forgotten how normal people behave?

I’ll think about that…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 17, 2009 at 15:00

But what feminism has done thus far is take away from many men those aspects of being a man everyone can get behind–providor, protector, father, husband–and not given them any vi