A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything

Post image for A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything

by Keoni Galt on November 4, 2009

Welcome to our Brave New World Order folks, because it’s certainly a very different world for everyone than it was just one generation ago. James Brown once soulfully wailed “This is a MAAAAN’S WORLD….but it wouldn’t be nuthin’ without a woman to care!”

My how the times have changed.

We now have Maria Shriver exultantly declaring “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

Isn’t that special, dear.

The Center for American Progress (Put a CAP in the country, she’s done for!) just released The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.

Jack Donovan has already taken an in depth look at Oprah Winfrey’s epilogue to this piece of femi-nazi propaganda, I’m going to focus on the forward by John Podesta and the first Chapter by Maria Shriver.

Now, the first thing one must notice, is that the tone of this report is one for which many people have been trying to point out for years now – that this is in fact a nation that has certainly become a society that promotes Matriarchal values and denigrates Patriarchal ones.

That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness. And one of the memes that has been relentlessly promoted is this idea that women are oppressed, inequal and downtrodden, which is what necessitates all of the laws, tax-funded programs, divorce court industries and welfare programs…to “fix” all of the problems of a “Male” nation.

On the face of it, it sure seems like they’re declaring victory now, doesn’t it?

But of course not. This is in fact a literal cultural revolution, and this is merely a momentary pause for the social engineers to reflect on their past successes in overthrowing the old world order of Patriarchy, on their ever increasing march towards “equality”

Let’s have a look at what this report is citing as turning points in their campaign to win this gender war…

First, from the Preface, mangina feminist lackey and former Clinton White House member, John Podesta, writes:

Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress decided to closely examine the consequences of what we thought was a major tipping point in our nation’s social and economic history: the emergence of working women as primary breadwinners for millions of families at the same time that their presence on America’s payrolls grew to comprise fully half the nation’s workforce. In addition, we were watching the Great Recession amplify and accelerate these trends. We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of the way America works and lives.

Indeed, change is what this is all about. From a Patriarchal focused society in which men worked and women raised the next generation, we now live in a nation for which men and women work…and the afterschool program , the minimum wage day care worker, the retired grandparent, or as in many cases, the television and the computer are raising the next generation.

Is this really a change for the better?

When we look back over the 20th century and try to understand what’s happened to workers and their families and the challenges they now face, the movement of women out of the home and into paid employment stands out as a unique and powerful transformation.

Unique? Hardly. Matriarchal cultures are as old as humanity itself. What we really seeing is a decline in civilization, since Patriarchal culture is what built civilization in the first place.

Women becoming primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners changed everything. But, even though we were all witness to this phenomenon’s slow emergence over many years, these changes seem somehow to have snuck up on us. As a result, our policy landscape remains stuck in an idealized past, where the typical family was composed of a married-for-life couple with a full-time breadwinner and full-time homemaker who raised the children herself.

Well that seems to be certainly true. Even though this report celebrates women now comprising 50% of the workforce, 60% of college attendees, and a huge increase in the number of women now serving as the primary breadwinners of their family…divorce laws, child custody and alimony awards are still based on the assumptions that women are economically disadvantaged by their full time homemaker roles…even when they are not full time homemakers!

Of course, I hardly think Podesta is arguing for true “equality” when it comes to Family law…

No, what his argument consists of is to basically make a case for more Government programs to support the continued dismantling of Patriarchal family structures to promote the new ideal “Woman’s Nation.”

  • Updating our basic labor standards to include family-friendly employee benefits
  • Reforming our anti-discrimination laws so that employers cannot discriminate against or disproportionately exclude women when offering workplace benefits
  • Updating our social insurance system to the reality of varied families and new family responsibilities, including the need for paid family leave and social security retirement benefits that take into account time spent out of the workforce caring for children and other relatives
  • Increasing support to families for child care, early education, and elder care to help working parents cope with their dual responsibilities

Updating these government policies so that they account for the reality of the overwhelming majority of today’s workers and families is the challenge we address in the pages that follow.

See, what women are really finding out is that entering the world of work did not make life better or easier. Instead, it gave them a whole new means of stress and responsibilities in their lives, so now we must use the government to ease the burdens of responsibilities that pursuing “empowerment” through careers has given them.

As one goes beyond Podesta’s preface and into the first chapter of the report, penned by Shriver herself, that it becomes glaringly obvious that while Shriver and many other women are celebrating the so-called advancement of women’s “equality,” they are also documenting the ways in which the new reality is negatively impacting both men and women.

Not once does she or any of the other progressives (who are really nothing more than cultural revolutionaries and social engineers) ever stop to consider that the problems they are highlighting are caused directly by the cultural expectations that gear women towards careers rather than homemaking?

No, we must implement MORE government programs to make it easier on women to “Have it all.”

Here’s what Shriver writes:

Together, the results of these efforts provide a fascinating window into the changing American landscape. What we heard loud and clear is that the Battle Between the Sexes is over. It was a draw. Now we’re engaged in Negotiation Between the Sexes.

It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be “A Nation?”

Doesn’t sound like a draw to me. Oh, and what is this “negotiating between the sexes?” You mean where career mom tells her husband if he doesn’t toe the line, she’ll take him to divorce court, enslave him into peonage and take him away from his children? That kind of reality certainly doesn’t look like a “draw” to me.

Virtually all married couples told the pollsters they’re negotiating the rules of their relationships, work, and family. An overwhelming majority of both men and women said they’re sitting down at their kitchen tables to coordinate their family’s schedules, duties, and responsibilities, including child care and elder care, at least two to three times a week. Men said it was more like every day!

Indeed, during my conversation with powerful businesswomen on the West Coast, one told me she and her husband “are constantly renegotiating our agreement about what gets done, who does it — or do we hire somebody as opposed to doing it ourselves.” And a man in Seattle told me he and his wife have to work out “who’s gonna take care of the light bill? Who’s gonna pay for the mortgage? It doesn’t matter who’s bringing the money in. The money is coming in, but decisions have to be made about how the money is going out.”

Isn’t wonderful to see all of this “PROGRESS?” See how a “Woman’s Nation” promotes marital harmony? What a wonderful, Brave New World!

In the Rockefeller/Time poll, more than three-quarters of both men and women agreed that the increased participation of women in the workforce is a positive change for society.

Pay attention folks! The very foundation that is the largest funder of Women’s studies programs and population control policies, the very foundation that is the primary mover in socially engineering this “woman’s nation” has conducted a poll that supports their goals? You don’t say?

Both sexes also agreed that men are becoming more financially dependent on women. And both women and men said they’re still adjusting their lives, their expectations, and their assumptions to the change.

The findings matched what I heard in the street. Everywhere I went, people talked to me about how overstressed and in crisis they feel, especially when it comes to financial security. Women said that never before has so much been asked of them, and never have they delivered so much. Divorced mothers talked to me about trying to make do without child support. One single mother who had just lost her job told me she was utterly dependent on her family and friends just to stay afloat.

This folks is what this report refers to as PROGRESS…but it’s not done yet, we need more of it!

Now, note that one of the themes Shriver and the author’s of this report repeatedly make is the need for the Government to ensure that women get “equal pay for equal work.” Yet the entire premise of that argument rests on the unfounded assumption that the reason for unequal pay is based on “inequality.”

Yet…Shriver reports the following:

And women often define that power differently from men. One woman who had made it to CEO chose to give up the corner office and downgrade to a lower-rung position. She told me, “I will admit, it was fun, it was power, and I was dealing with a bunch of top dogs. But now I get to hang out with my kids when they come home from school. For me the definition of success is not being a CEO and not being the biggest dog and frankly not making the most money. It’s living a balanced life.”

This is the very reason WHY we have the so-called “gender wage gap.” But this is not acknowledged at all. In fact, while the authors of the report are calling for “equal pay for equal work” what they are actually arguing for is MORE pay for women for doing LESS work!

One female corporate executive told me, “Women don’t need equal pay. They actually need to be paid more, because the fact of the matter is that we typically are responsible for more within our families, and we have to pay to outsource more. Most of the men I have competed with for positions have had a stay-home wife at some point and many have had a wife throughout their entire marriage.”

Here we have a female corporate executive, whining about having to compete with a man who has a stay-at-home wife, making it unfair for her to compete with him for positions?

Sorry lady, nothing is stopping you from finding a kitchen bitch husband who would give you the same advantages a full time man has with a stay at home wife!

Nothing that is, except for your own hypergamous instincts which cause you to shudder with revulsion at the thought of being married to a househusband who you’d have to support financially!

Yes Maria…all that you and the elite activists and social engineers that have promoted this cultural revolution, you can see all of the changes that have wrought havoc and confusion amongst so many people…yet you think that all that is being done is a good thing? That we need more of the same?

This report is full of inconsistencies. Women are now more equal than ever…but so much more work needs to be done…sexism is still rampant…but women have succeeded and we are a Women’s Nation now…the cognitive dissonance is readily apparent to the objective reader that understands the full ramifications of the cultural and social upheaval we have all experienced in transforming our society into a “Woman’s Nation.” Just look at Shriver’s conclusion:

As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table — at the head of the table.

Wait…in the name of “equality,” women now have a seat at the head of the table? This is a case in point for what Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm: “Some animals are more equal than other animals.”  Look at the logical inconsistency of this argument! This is proof positive that the idea of “equality” is nothing but a lie! In the name of pursuing “equality” a Woman’s Nation is about woman becoming MORE EQUAL than men.

Back in 1960, President Kennedy talked about the torch being passed to “a new generation.” Well, five decades later, the torch is being passed . . . to a new gender. There’s no doubt in my mind that we women will lift that torch. We will carry it. And we will light a new way forward.

A NEW Gender?

President Kennedy talked about the torch passed to a new generation…a term which includes both men and women.

But now, Shriver and the elite social engineers that have created this “woman’s nation” have disenfranchised men and they call it progress!

Note the celebrations that women now comprise almost 50% of the breadwinner role…through Men losing their jobs in record numbers thanks to the current recession!

This is progress?

Translation: Woman are “advancing” because men are suffering!

It is indeed a Woman’s Nation…and we are worse off for it – both women, men and especially children.

{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }

Puma November 4, 2009 at 13:30

Gang,
Marc Rudov is under attack for his “Maria Shriver : The Alimony Terminator” article which was ridiculing “A Woman’s Nation”. The attack on his article seems to be occuring here:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911030018

There are more than a few manginas on the thread. I would kindly ask that some of us help Marc on that thread.

Puma

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Kimski November 4, 2009 at 13:51

So..What are we supposed to call you now?
United States of America or Girlie Nation ?
Americans or Girls ?
:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed November 4, 2009 at 13:59

Femerica.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
21Guns November 4, 2009 at 14:00

Yugogirl.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 4, 2009 at 14:03

How about Communal States of America? That doesn’t have any other implications at all… :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 4, 2009 at 14:03

LOL !!!
Awww!! -You guys !!!
:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 4, 2009 at 14:12

Yugogirl

Wouldn’t that be Yugogrrl? ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam November 4, 2009 at 14:18

@ Puma

There may also be some manginas/feminists on staff there. I put in a lengthy but civil comment yesterday. It is a no show in the thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
E. Steven Berkimer November 4, 2009 at 14:20

Looks like the help has already started. All I can say, is “GAME ON”!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dat_Truth_Hurts November 4, 2009 at 14:21

The nation is yours girls, have fun driving a sinking ship that no sane man wants to repair. We are grabbing life rafts and jumping deck for new shores.

See you fellow expats down south. First cervesa on me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Puma November 4, 2009 at 14:22

Paul –
Good to know. It’s great that you caught it even earlier, yesterday. Then I say we don’t need to expend any more effort on that site.

(Sorry HL for distracting the comments thread).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Talleyrand November 4, 2009 at 14:34

It would be enjoyable to see what would become of the woman’s nation if all the men did in fact expat. All of them.

The war continues

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 14:56

It would be enjoyable to see what would become of the woman’s nation if all the men did in fact expat. All of them.

If even 10% of them expat, women are screwed. Remember what I said : each man Expating cuts off THREE parasites : the state, the woman, and the industries the woman stimulates (weddings, housing, divorce lawyers, etc.).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 14:58

The full, factually correct sentence is :

Women earn 75% of what men earn, for generating 70% of the productivity that men generate.

Feminists like to leave off the second half of the sentence, and parrot only the first half.

Of course, this makes women’s jobs more vulnerable to outsourcing, given the higher costs per unit of productivity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 15:00

All this does is decrease the competitiveness of the US economy, which leads to men Expating, women’s jobs being outsourced, and a shrinking of the tax base that women depend on.

No ‘woman’s nation’ will be economically competitive in a globalized economy. Hence, it is sort of self-correcting, except for the strife in between.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 4, 2009 at 15:06

Oh yeah Tood. Note how Shriver is declaring this “it’s a Woman’s Nation” in triumph…yet the substance of her content reflects nothing but conflict, struggle and turmoil in everyone’s lives as a result of the push to turn this into their vision of utopia.

Furthermore, it’s all well and good for Shriver to talk about her mother as a serious role model…and about her own success as a career woman and as a mother.

Yet the average mother has nowhere near the struggles or problems associated with a career mom, as she’s married to the Governator, one of the wealthiest actors of our generation, and comes from a family of immense wealth and political connections.

Her and her mother get the best of these social changes they are celebrating, with none of the struggle, conflict or turmoil all of the masses are experiencing.

Limousine liberalism at it’s finest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 15:19

A niece of a President and two Senators, who marries Arnold Schwarznegger, has just about the easiest life around. Cushy gigs like her anchor position did not arrive her way due to merit.

And I dare say she is the one preventing her husband from making the tough reforms needed to save a state that contains what was once the most dynamic private sector in the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kirt33 November 4, 2009 at 16:22

Her and her mother get the best of these social changes they are celebrating, with none of the struggle, conflict or turmoil all of the masses are experiencing.

Limousine liberalism at it’s finest.

Exactly right, HL. To paraphrase a comment I saw on another blog: ‘working women’ is often touted as meaning more women in medicine, law, high-powered careers, etc. In reality, it usually means middle- and working-class moms have to take crappy jobs at Wal-Mart instead of staying home with their kids. Only a relatively few women benefit; most get screwed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 4, 2009 at 16:29

**Are you kidding me? I was born in California. I am a proud graduate of its University system and you couldn’t PAY me to live there again.

If even 10% of Men expatriate, you can rest assured that there would be a Testosterone Curtain up so fast it would make your head spin. I don’t give a damn. My goal is exactly that–to help the best, brightest and most astute Men tiptoe quietly from the Matrix so when they come looking for us– **POOF** –we’ll be looooong goooone. Disappearing just like ghosts.

They demand equalitee–we’ll ram it down their throats until they choke on it. Let this “Woman’s Nation” fend for itself. I’m DONE.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo November 4, 2009 at 16:42

The men who are most likely to expatriate are the men who happen to produce the most and therefore pay the most in taxes.

I have never seen a breakdown of taxes paid *by gender* in the USA or in any state, county, city, town, borough, or township.

The data must be available with a few keystrokes. Social Security numbers are required for even one year old kids who are claimed as deductions on federal income tax forms, and they must know the gender of the taxpayers.

I wonder why the government doesn’t want men to realize that they pay at least 70% of all income tax …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 4, 2009 at 16:53

Nemo

In Denmark every man pay 800.000 during his lifetime, besides larger taxes, to the state,- and every women receive 2.4M during theirs!
-I promise you,-it was not taken too well by the “strong and independent” women, when men threw those numbers on the table…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 4, 2009 at 17:00

@Fiercely Independent John Nada
Ditto JN, I could not be paid enough money to move back to Australia. No f***ing way. I will quietly go about my business shielded by my strawman, collecting my money together, and then when I am done head off to some quite place with a few ‘pet women’ to keep me company.

That Shriver publishes such drivel and women lap it up shows you how brain dead these women are. Feminism has brought them nothing but misery and heartache so far and it’s going to get much worse as the economy collapses under the weight of all these do nothing jobs these bitches have. It’s going to be really, really bad. We are going to see scenes worse than the depression.

And in case you missed it. They are running road blocks in France looking for people with weapons they are so worried about the backlash from the swine flu jab. Give all these ‘entitlement princesses’ their swine flu jabs and lets be done with them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta November 4, 2009 at 17:03

The government is just a wealth transfer mechanism from men to women. And yet losers like Shriver want us to believe all these women, with their preferential treatment in education, grants, employment, marriage, custody, divorce, alimony, child support… female sentencing discount, on and on – all of this was inconsequential and they got their on their own because they’re “strong”, independent women.

Sorry. It’s to the point where the only people I know have earned their way are the straight white guys. They don’t have any allies or discrimination in their favor; in fact, it’s exactly the logic of these systems favoring women that make the (evil) straight white guy the sucker in this picture. If more females had a brain they might realize the implications of all this preferential treatment; the few women who actually do achieve on their own will be lumped in with the rest who, actively or passively, accept the female-first benefits in this “Woman’s Nation”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 4, 2009 at 17:07

Nemo November 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“I have never seen a breakdown of taxes paid *by gender* in the USA or in any state, county, city, town, borough, or township.”
The figures I saw on a US web site was that by gender women were net beneficiaries of the tax system. That is, they took out more than was put into it by all the working women and men got zippo of their taxes. The site has recently gone down. In most western countries men pay the vast majority of taxes as pretty much all tax breaks are related to kids.

I just tell men to rescind their agreement to pay income tax. Why would any man WANT to pay income tax any more. It’s just given to single mothers by choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko November 4, 2009 at 17:43

Great Post.
Someone once said to me, “One hundred men have to go to jail for one female to become a CEO.”
If energy extracted per square meter of soil is relatively fixed at x and annually grows incrementally due to efficiencies (only exponentially if there is a technological breakthrough) then any changes in the division of that energy must advantage some and disadvantage others (the pie is only so big).

Its a zero sum game, if women win then men must lose. Funny thing is if men win, women are the beneficiaries, if women win men loose doubly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 18:55

Western Feminism has done more to boost the economies of India and China than anything those countries’ own governments have done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 4, 2009 at 19:02

Western Feminism has done more to boost the economies of India and China than anything those countries’ own governments have done.

-TFH

I know exactly what you mean, but a lot of people won’t interpret that statement correctly. Elaboration would be helpful for the confused masses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate November 4, 2009 at 19:16

The problem is not so much women or feminists but we men ourselves. Basically a vast majority of western men are brainwashed chivalrous idiots sweating blood to support the parasitical states that in turn take a crap on us daily. Look at all those men who went to Iraq to fight some phony “war on terror” in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s while getting killed themselves to enrich the people who run the fembot state known as the US. That right there is a shining example of the idiocy of a good number of western men, how many of the US casualties in Iraq were women (1%?), compare that to the fact that they makeup over half of the US population, what it basically means is that US men serve as cannon fodder for US women & their gov’t.

As long as men don’t get out of the Victorian worship of women & chivalrous garbage we will always be slaves to western women & their governments. I feel no obligation to defend this so called “civilization” when it tells me everyday that as a man I am worthless & asks me to bow down to worship the vagina.

Those men who are smart will leave a sinking ship like the West & move to countries less hostile to men, most of Latin America is still not overrun with fembots, same with eastern countries like India, Philippines, Thailand etc. Costa Rica has a Libertarian Party which has been gaining influence & got 10% of the vote last elections, a libertarian state is a mans best friend which is why the fembots will always try to oppose it. I am considering expatriating there so that I can contribute in building a free society (real freedom not just phony “free” like the US) by supporting the Libertarian Party & educating the men there about the dangers of feminism. Many men who are aware of the situation still want kids & a wife (MGTOW not withstanding) but not with western women, for those guys its best to expatriate to peaceful places like Costa Rica where the chances of you building a family life are much better while supporting Libertarians there who want to get the gov’t out of the peoples lives.

I have no intention of spending much longer in this matriarchal hellhole called the West & plan to put my skills to better use in a place where men are not crapped on daily. In fact everytime you pay taxes you are giving your money to western governments so that they can spread the filth of feminism to the rest of the world (like Iraq under the guise of “democracy”) & destroy any society that does not put women on a pedestal, i have no intention of contributing my money to such disgusting schemes & hence my expatriation soon enough.

Western women can defend themselves & their “womens nations”, I want no part of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 19:39

Elaboration would be helpful for the confused masses.

Step by step :

1) Women, due to their litigious nature, earn more per unit of productivity than men, contrary to the lies that they tell themselves.
2) Feminists also lobby to get taxpayer money (mostly paid by men) to create more public-sector jobs of no economic value, to maintain women.
3) No-fault alimony and child support=alimony=slavery have confined 10-20% of the male workforce to a situation where they have no incentive to strive for wealth, since 70% of it would be taken away from them. Thus, they have no reason to invent new technologies or start new enterprises. To have 10-20% of men disincentivized this way, cannot be good for the economy.
4) More females voting, and brainwashed by feminists, leads to more taxes and an anti-business climate.
5) All the above 4 points combined lead to the US economy becoming less competitive in an era where capital and labor are mobile.
6) Hence, countries that have done nothing other than be less accomodating to feminism, receive a windfall of wealth that is fleeing the US.
7) Hence, the US tax base shrinks, and jobs that overpay women relative to their output get outsourced. Feminists try to sue, which only hastens this process.
8) Feminism implodes upon itself, leaving many women poor, unsafe, and with no prospects for marriage either. As soon as 2020.

This is Horseman #3, of the Four.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt November 4, 2009 at 21:31

Paradoxically, this situation also makes it harder for women to get married.

Why?

Men in the situation I find myself in (educated, wealthy, and with at least some game) are hip deep in women; they are all competing to “date up”, and when, through success, there is less “up”, I essentially have my pick of most people, don’t put up with shit, and have no reason to commit to someone long-term. Why put my assets at risk, give someone else control over my life, and lock myself in with a depreciating asset when I can always trade in for a new one instead?

In the end, this will turn out badly for everyone, but I intend to be long gone from the U.S. by then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo November 4, 2009 at 22:00

Actually, EVERY man is disinclined to break his a$$ “getting ahead” when he KNOWS that women will use the taxman to extract wealth from him.

It reminds me of Alexis de Tocquville’s observation of the US before the Civil War. The north bank of the Ohio River was free of slavery and was busy and productive. The south bank had slavery and was listless and less productive. Modern analogs would be the Berlin Wall or the DMZ in Korea.

Why should an indentured servant work overtime to keep his mistress happy? WHY?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 22:02

Actually, EVERY man is disinclined to break his a$$ “getting ahead” when he KNOWS that women will use the taxman to extract wealth from him.

That is why men have to pull back only 20% to topple the whole thing. 20% of their labor and innovation, 20% of them have to avoid marriage, etc.

Men still hold the power to halt this immediately. They just have been brainwashed into not realizing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 4, 2009 at 23:38

So much of what modern women are doing reminds me of how modern Zimbabwe was brought to its knees.

Only 30 years ago, it was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, and its prosperity was a direct consequence of its strong and well managed agricultural sector – unfortunately though, it was white farmers at the helm, and compared to the black population, they were very much a minority. Over its more than a century of European immigration, white settlers developed a complete lack of confidence in Africans being able to govern themselves, and no matter how much wealth they brought, no matter how much better life in Rhodesia may have been for the average African compared to life in, say, Zaire or the Central African Republic, the superior attitude of the whites was their undoing – and the locals didn’t give a damn what it cost them to be rid of them.

For those amongst us who haven’t noticed, Western women have developed a hatred of men that runs every bit as deep as the hatred black Zimbabweans developed for white farmers. As soon as they get a strong sense of their complete dominance over men politically, they will probably do exactly what Zimbabweans did: they will quite happily see the law of the land suspended for the hated group. They will cheer on any politician who promises them the proceeds of confiscation of their assets. They will make emigration possible only if they leave with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing. They will be deaf to any argument that the economy will suffer and that they will end up starving – it will be something too abstract and too far off to counter the more immediate pleasure of seeing the enemy take a beating.

And then one day they will realize they live in a police state presided over by a dictator, their currency will be worthless, nearly everyone will be living in abject poverty, and public health pandemics will be routine. Everyone will have long forgotten their hatred, and will privately wish for the old days back again, but no-one dare say it. Instead, they will try to re-create it by quietly leaving and going to another country where the wealth and comfort can be found, and they won’t care who rules, or be too concerned that they will be accepted only into the lowest social caste. They will be that grateful simply to be fed.

Western men are in a similar position as the white farmers of Zimbabwe in the late 70s. Although still politically in charge, and still influential in the country’s economy, the end of that power is very near. As soon as it is lost, their wealth will be stripped from them, special laws will be enacted specifically aimed at restricting them, and the power that replaces them will have a popular mandate to do whatever it pleases to them.

The only two major differences are that we are not the same significant minority as the white farmers were, and we are not as disconnected in terms of family relationships. Whether that’s enough to avoid the same fate remains to be seen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 00:07

piercedhead,

I don’t think it will go that far. This is America.

As I wrote earlier, if even 20% of men wake up and take real action, all this ends rather quickly. We just have to get to that 20%.

It will be a one-decade process, with 2020 being better for US men than 2010.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Indomitable Thoughts November 5, 2009 at 00:09

Excellent article, HL. The Fifth Horseman, your note about how women create a litigious society intrigued me. People always wondered why US society is so litigious…and this is explanation makes too much sense, really. Women create litigious societies. I’m thinking of making this a blog topic.

Our country is drowning not only in corporatism but also enormous legal costs. This has to be the result of, or at least highly exacerbated by, women and women lawyers in the workforce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 00:12

They will make emigration possible only if they leave with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing.

Again, the only countries in the world like this today are Cuba, North Korea, Burma, etc.

The US is nowhere near a level of not allowing men to leave (which would also require keeping tourists out).

Let’s not get carried away here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 5, 2009 at 00:32

The US is nowhere near a level of not allowing men to leave (which would also require keeping tourists out).

-TFH

Ehh, you know what they do to guys who fall behind on child support, don’t you?

State Dept. revokes your passport.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 5, 2009 at 02:23

“They will make emigration possible only if they leave with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing.”

Again, the only countries in the world like this today are Cuba, North Korea, Burma, etc.

As far as I know, Cuba, North Korea and Burma don’t allow their citizens to leave at all. They represent the extreme end of countries restricting freedom of movement.

Restrictions on emigration on Zimbabweans were introduced relatively innocuously, with strong assurances initially being made that the white farmers’ contribution to the economy was recognized and valued. At the time, the assurances seemed genuine, and may well have been. Imposts and restrictions on capital flight were introduced when it became clear that a significant number of the white population feared for their futures and were leaving regardless. Limits on how much currency could be taken out of the country were increased until it got to the point that if you wanted to leave, you left everything you owned behind.

I don’t bring this up because I fervently believe the future for men in the West will play out exactly the same – I raise it because I think we should consider actual history of events that we have knowledge of, and make an effort to compare.

Small but real changes are occurring right now, and the most worrying aspect is their ratchet action – they all work in one direction. IMBRA restricts men’s freedom of association with foreign women. Recent IRS changes relating to emigration have introduced liability to significant wealth taxes. Reciprocal agreements are being drawn up between Western countries effectively preventing men with any perceived obligation to women or children from passing out of their national borders.

Each of these changes is minor in themselves, but in aggregate they begin to represent a more serious potential.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 04:06

””””’ The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 12:07 am
piercedhead,

I don’t think it will go that far. This is America.
”””””””’

Yea just a word if not backed up by action.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 04:08

You don’t think anything can be enacted when guys continuously bend over to be fucked in the ass for child support/allimony. Even welmer didn’t crack and kill everyone. Just shows how much america can get away with before shit really hits the fan if it ever does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 04:11

””’Let’s not get carried away here.”””’
Laws pervade and intrude upon every area of life in us. From spanking your kids to every facet of how to raise them to how you treat each other in home to where you can smoke to when you can drink to what you can do. What drugs you can take and who you can fuck. Cradel to grave already. You think its not already carried away? You think it won’t get worse?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 04:14

Then they intentionally bring in people to take jobs from people who where born and educated in the us for same job. Then you have an ad for intel with a picture of their employees and it is completely diverse along with pictures of workers from every other company except whites still make up 70 percent of population but only represent 20 to 33 percent or 0 in what is supposed to be the picture perfect hiring practices of major corporations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 04:43

I mean shit they tell you how much money you can give away.

How in the fuck can people seriously call that a free country in any way shape or form?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate November 5, 2009 at 05:33

Gunslingerregi is right, the whole notion of being “free” in the US is just a facade, it may have been true 150 years ago & even then only for certain groups of the population, its definitely not true today.

The US gov’t regulates almost every aspect of your life from the size of your toilet bowl to your marriage arrangement. Jefferson already foresaw the future of US when he said that the nature of government is to grow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 07:09

Ehh, you know what they do to guys who fall behind on child support, don’t you?

What if your job requires you to take business trips?

In practice, they couldn’t do this to more than a tiny percentage of men, because such men could not work, and thus fill up the jails (thus not earning enough to pay for child support). Even the ruthless state would rather keep such enslaved men earning to sustain the state, rather than fill up the prisons with more and more of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 07:11

””””””””””In practice, they couldn’t do this to more than a tiny percentage of men””””””

Why not?
How many died in russia?
There are plenty of people from other countries to replace every single person working in the us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 07:30

Questions :

1) What if a man’s income is by nature volatile (like he is in Sales, or a small business owner), and if the wife divorces him in a ‘high’ year?
2) Most ex-wives, no mater how evil, would prefer that the man be working and forking money over, rather than in jail and forking nothing. So is it the state that jails a man against the ex-wife’s will?
3) When did the laws get so extreme? Only in the 90s, or before that?
4) What is the typical percentage of child support, if there are 2 kids? 20%? 40%?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
rebel November 5, 2009 at 09:16

“The US is nowhere near a level of not allowing men to leave (which would also require keeping tourists out). ”

I wish I had your optimism. Isn’t the U.S. the country that has the highest male incarceration rate in the world?
Now, what makes you think that your passport will not be taken away from you?
How do you know that a man who wants to leave the country will not be put in jail, as in N.Korea?
Feel happy if the sentense for trying to escape the matriarchy is not death.

America no longer exists already, don’t kid yourselves..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 5, 2009 at 09:30

The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 7:30 am

Questions :

1) What if a man’s income is by nature volatile (like he is in Sales, or a small business owner), and if the wife divorces him in a ‘high’ year?
2) Most ex-wives, no mater how evil, would prefer that the man be working and forking money over, rather than in jail and forking nothing. So is it the state that jails a man against the ex-wife’s will?
3) When did the laws get so extreme? Only in the 90s, or before that?
4) What is the typical percentage of child support, if there are 2 kids? 20%? 40%?

The laws vary from state to state so perhaps others can clarify. But this is the general gist of it:

1) Doesn’t matter. Child support/vagimony is calculated based on imputed income–what you could earn as opposed to what you actually earn.

2) Correct. It’s an offense against the almighty State. Once she gets the ball rolling, it’s out of her hands.

3) My guess is 1986–the Bradley Amendment. It was $5k and your passport was confiscated, but they just lowered the bar to $2,500. You’ll get it back when you come out of arrears but not one penny before.

The Amendment was passed in 1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.

* The law overrides any state’s statute of limitations.
* The law disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
* The law requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification.

4) Varies from state to state. NV has a c/s cap at $850 but alimony can be through the roof. Darren Mack, a high net worth Nevadan flipped out, stabbed his estranged wife to death and shot the judge who awarded her $10,000+ a month alimony. The judge survived.
Nevada soon looked into changing the alimony laws.

Can you see now why Men have but 3 choices when dealing with Entitlement Materialist Feminism? IMO, you really have only one: GTHO. The rest involve placing your head in the croc’s snout, then snatching it back out in the nick of time.

But we all think our way is best, no? ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 5, 2009 at 09:42

rebel November 5, 2009 at 9:16 am

“The US is nowhere near a level of not allowing men to leave (which would also require keeping tourists out). ”

I wish I had your optimism. Isn’t the U.S. the country that has the highest male incarceration rate in the world?
Now, what makes you think that your passport will not be taken away from you?
How do you know that a man who wants to leave the country will not be put in jail, as in N.Korea?
Feel happy if the sentense for trying to escape the matriarchy is not death.

America no longer exists already, don’t kid yourselves..

**Quoted For Muthafuckin’ Truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta November 5, 2009 at 09:58

The Amendment was passed in 1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.

* The law overrides any state’s statute of limitations.
* The law disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
* The law requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification.

Is it me, or does that sound a lot like slavery? Certainly debt slavery (also known as indentured servitude) – the whole point of the Constitution was kind of to make things like that impossible. Ah well, just another day in the “patriarchy”, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 5, 2009 at 10:23

Zeta November 5, 2009 at 9:58 am
Is it me, or does that sound a lot like slavery? Certainly debt slavery (also known as indentured servitude) – the whole point of the Constitution was kind of to make things like that impossible. Ah well, just another day in the “patriarchy”, eh?

***
these are the very real dangers Men face in the Anglosphere. that’s why i shake my head about “Game”. the only game they play is Russian Roulette
when it comes to interaction with these females.

but yeah, legalized indentured servitude/debtors’ prison/slavery.
remember, slavery is still legal under the 13th Amendment–as punishment for a crime.

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray November 5, 2009 at 11:19

another good piece, i’ve already nipped the lead image for other uses

” . . . they will quite happily see the law of the land suspended for the hated group. They will cheer on any politician who promises them the proceeds of confiscation of their assets. They will make emigration possible only if they leave with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing. They will be deaf to any argument that the economy will suffer and that they will end up starving – it will be something too abstract and too far off to counter the more immediate pleasure of seeing the enemy take a beating”

the analogy w/ s. africa is loose, but the conclusions are still valid

this isn’t the America about which we were educated forty years ago, this is Femamerica, shit the entire western world is gynocratic . . . we all live under a matriarchy whose power grows daily, both domestically and internationally

their stooges now feel confident enough that their current and future agendas are assured, they’re willing to stand in front of the nation and declare that it belongs to Women

and they’re right

the (pseudo) elite “men” who arrange and implement the matriarchy will happily do *anything* to maintain their unearned status and wealth, and women will back them with bloc-voting

so much for democracy

closing emigration to mere males, quadrupling the already massive (male) prison industry, further rigging employment and education to essentially exclude all but a token number of males — all this and much much more is already on the near-horizon

obie’s new hate-crime legislation was written and passed specifically to lay the “legal” groundwork for just such measures — to destroy any male who objects to the New Woman Order, under the orwellian crime of practising “hate” (=any thought, speech, or behavior that Woman doesn’t approve)

twenty years ago, if i’d argued that feminism would essentially exclude guys from college, annihilate fatherhood, or turn govt. offices into henfests, i’d have been laughed out of the discussion

don’t hear quite so much laughing now

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 5, 2009 at 12:30

A woman nation cannot hope to survive in the competition of global, civilized world.

The great powers and civilizations emerged through men realizing that suppressing their (and women’s, mostly) urges was vital to creating a harmonious society which could concentrate on development and technological as well as cultural progress, by giving the meek “beta males” a de facto social insurance (be productive and sexual reproduction, ie a wife, will be guaranteed to you) to channel their productive qualities and discouraging “alpha males” from their selfish agenda (if you are a scoundrel, pursue a woman and their father/brother/cousin will chase you down with a club/sword/shotgun) and channeling their leadership abilities. Thus men achieved societies which were productive and well-guided.

Discouraging women from having a say was (and is) imperative here because a vast majority of women seem to be emotion-bound rather than reason-bound, so they will pursue what personally feels good to them rather than what is good for society, as is the case right now. And would you know it, more and more beta males seem to be dropping out of society (so to speak) through alternative pursuits, leaving us in dire straits in regard to manufacturing, science and engineering (a vast majority of newcomers to US engineering and science schools are foreigners, and US manufacturing has taken horrendous hits).

If the US does not reverse its current social course, it is only a matter of time until we exhaust the last reserves of generations past (who understood or at least adhered to this dynamic) and shatter against the well-organized beta masses of China, India, or any nation which has absorbed this ancient notion into its very cultural fabric.

To put it in the words of the great Napoleon (in this case mameluk = alpha male and French soldier = beta male, as was the case back then):

“One Mameluk is stronger than two French soldiers; 100 Mameluks are equal to 150 French soldiers; 300 Frenchmen will defeat 300 Mameluks, and 1500 Mameluks will always lose to 1000 Frenchmen”

If all we are left with is a nation of whores and, by extension, mameluks, woe is the west when the powers abroad mobilize their “French soldiers.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 15:57

and shatter against the well-organized beta masses of China, India, or any nation which has absorbed this ancient notion into its very cultural fabric.

So we can go there. Who cares?

People used to work for one employer their whole lives, and got a pension. Now, people switch employers, careers, and cities, all the time, particularly if a particular employer or career path is no longer compelling.

A country is no different. When it becomes bad, it makes perfect sense to leave. ‘Patriotism’ has no more merit than being a ‘company man’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 16:07

Oh, I have no doubt that women are irresponsible and cruel enough to enslave men who themselves were inflicted to divorce against their will.

I am saying that the effects cannot go as far as some of the others say, as the whole system will collapse long before that.

The feminist state has already exceeded the maximum size of the tax base. That is why I say their power is peaking. Also, why are there so few Sodinis? We would see one every week if actual enslavement of men were more prevalent.

That is why I am more optimistic than others – there are MANY signs that feminist power is peaking, and things cannot be pushed much further than they presently are. There are multiple forces that would be triggered in such an event.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 5, 2009 at 16:31

“So we can go there. Who cares?”

Any of the aforementioned nations would. Multiculturalism, with all the effortless cross-border movement it implies, is mainly present in the west.

The Chinese or Indians still put up hell of a fight if you ever wanted to become a citizen of their country. They will, of course, demand effortless attainment of US citizenship for their own subjects, but turn the tables on them and they will present you with innumerable demands (as should be the case for any sane immigration policy).

As for a wholesale evacuation of sane western males and females, that would be a no-go from the beginning. The only option is a country within the country or a reclamation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 5, 2009 at 16:50

The Chinese or Indians still put up hell of a fight if you ever wanted to become a citizen of their country.

Anyone from the US can live in India very easily. So you are not correct about that.

They will, of course, demand effortless attainment of US citizenship for their own subjects

No country wants its own citizens renouncing their citizenship (and hence being freed of tax or military obligations).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate November 5, 2009 at 17:05

<<>>

Why do you assume there needs to be a wholesale “evacuation”?

Most individual unmarried men can still escape the wretched matriarchy & move to societies where men are not reduced to a walking wallet for women.

It’s not very hard for any unmarried childless western man to move to Latin America, Eastern Europe, South & South East Asia, several men have already done it to escape the hellhole called US. Freed Reed who lives in Mexico is a good example.

You can stay & keep fighting the system getting nowhere or opt out of “mainstream” misandrist society like the Amish do or move to a society that fits your needs better.

I have no intention of becoming a lifelong tax slave to the US gov’t to finance WW skankhood & needless imperialist wars abroad by both parties (Republicons gave us Afghanistan & Iraq whereas Democrats gave us the bombing of Serbia & sanctions against Iraq in the 90s).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO November 5, 2009 at 23:16

I wonder what the history books 100 years from now will look like when documenting this “advancement” of women in American society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Connie November 5, 2009 at 23:29

Dat_Truth_Hurts — The nation is yours girls, have fun driving a sinking ship that no sane man wants to repair. We are grabbing life rafts and jumping deck for new shores. See you fellow expats down south. First cervesa on me.

Please don’t leave normal women behind to have to live in Shriver’s America. Take us with you, or tell us where you’re going so we can follow.

Tallyrand — It would be enjoyable to see what would become of the woman’s nation if all the men did in fact expat. All of them.

Indeed. Is it mean to confess that I would enjoy seeing a feminist-led culture fall flat on its face?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 6, 2009 at 00:31

Please don’t leave normal women behind to have to live in Shriver’s America. Take us with you, or tell us where you’re going so we can follow.

Connie,

That is the right way to approach it. The challenge you will face is distancing yourself from the feminists who have lost all touch with their humanity, and the blind masses of women who ae so lacking of a moral compass, that they blindly follow the propaganda.

Make your preparations wisely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 00:35

“Anyone from the US can live in India very easily. So you are not correct about that.”

Living and becoming a citizen are different, I imagine.

Expat-

Yes, sure, but if men leaving becomes a trend the government will surely intervene, just as they did in the case of foreign brides being brought into the US.

Freedom is all nice and swell, but the second the feminists see their gig threatened, they will guard it jealously.

Oh and don’t forget that the democrats may yet give us Pakistan and Iran.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate November 6, 2009 at 06:21

Expatriate becoming a citizen is not that hard in these countries as they appreciate what you bring with you including more tax revenue & skills as an immigrant which are important in developing countries.

I agree with you that feminists & the US gov’t will try to put men on lockdown if a good number of men start leaving but I am talking about the current situation which is still favorable for any unmarried childless man who wants to leave the matriarchal hellhole called US because the feminists have not caught onto that yet.

When they do, expect some unconstitutional law like IMBRA to prevent men from leaving. WW are very jealous of foreign women & hate them because they know they cannot compete with what foreign women have to offer, so they make up laws like IMBRA which are nothing but protectionism in the dating market.

Yeah the warmongers are probably planning on another failed adventure into Iran or Pakistan, this is what happens in a democracy, the nation becomes progressively less civilized & imperialist with a collapse at the end. Funny to see neocons, liberals & rest of the warmongers talking about US spreading “democracy” in ME, its like these retards have never read anything the founders said where its made clear that they intended US to be a representative republic not a democracy which they loathed as mob rule.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 6, 2009 at 06:57

Is it mean to confess that I would enjoy seeing a feminist-led culture fall flat on its face?

Yes, but it makes you look very appealing to a lot of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Prime November 6, 2009 at 07:28

Schriver’s A Woman’s Nation Misses the Mark

Here, Mona Charen, authoress of the bestsellers “Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (2003),” and “Do-Gooders: How Liberals Harm Those They Claim to Help — and the Rest of Us (2005)” knocks Maria Schriver down a peg or two.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 6, 2009 at 09:09

”””””Please don’t leave normal women behind to have to live in Shriver’s America. Take us with you, or tell us where you’re going so we can follow.””””””””””

The only problem with that is it would be bringing a virsu to the new place which bringing ourselves is already a problem. The only answer is extermination of the disease.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 6, 2009 at 09:12

And remember that having money is what it takes not just wishes to do thing. Money is what makes those dreams reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Marquis November 6, 2009 at 10:51

more examples of women wanting the power without the responsibility. spider-man said it best….rather his mantra says it best. with great power, comes great responsibility. women just can’t be bothered to handle the 2nd part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 6, 2009 at 15:14

Gunslingergregi November 6, 2009 at 9:09 am

”””””Please don’t leave normal women behind to have to live in Shriver’s America. Take us with you, or tell us where you’re going so we can follow.””””””””””

The only problem with that is it would be bringing a virsu to the new place which bringing ourselves is already a problem. The only answer is extermination of the disease.

***
EXACTLY.
Let me put it this way: I’m about to cross the Year 2 mark and
I was asked by my team what the biggest benefit was that I received by expatriating here to South America. For the life of me I couldn’t quantify it until only about 6 months ago, then it hit me like a bolt of lightning. Among the many benefits I’ve experienced including increased wealth and personal freedom, I can honestly say that
since beginning my life overseas, I have neither seen, spoken to, nor interacted with a single 1st World Female
.
.
.
and my life is all the more enriched and enjoyable because of it.

By far, the biggest benefit I’ve received from having ZERO contact with them has been PEACE OF MIND.
Unfortunately that is something that if 1wF were to give to a Man it would be like pulling a wisdom tooth with no anesthesia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 6, 2009 at 21:44

JohnnyBravo,

The great powers and civilizations emerged through men realizing that suppressing their (and women’s, mostly) urges was vital to creating a harmonious society which could concentrate on development and technological as well as cultural progress, by giving the meek “beta males” a de facto social insurance (be productive and sexual reproduction, ie a wife, will be guaranteed to you) to channel their productive qualities and discouraging “alpha males” from their selfish agenda

I’m sorry, but I still am not getting this whole thing of mostly suppressing women’s urges compared to men. Is it really because beta males couldn’t compete with the alphas, not because of women themselves? If the problem is the alphas, wouldn’t it make sense to equally suppress urges on both sides so the they will be socially unacceptable, unless women did and do have more urges than men that need to be controlled, whatever they might be if it’s true.

Discouraging women from having a say was (and is) imperative here because a vast majority of women seem to be emotion-bound rather than reason-bound, so they will pursue what personally feels good to them rather than what is good for society, as is the case right now.

When you say “discouraging women from having a say” do you mean in politics or in general? I’ll paraphrase something that I found online. It’s one thing for emotions to get in the way of reasoning and dialog, but it’s another to show signs of emotion if the issue you’re arguing about has personal significance or emotional resonance. There’s nothing wrong with combining intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity. My issue is that in intellectual debate, it seems that the only way to go about it is in the “masculine” way, and that once again showing any “feminine” traits is seen as a negative and a weakness. I’m not saying women don’t get emotional, but to consider discouraging women from having a say as imperative is really….well….wrong. REALLY wrong. Do you really think that everyone would benefit if everything was seen in a male point of view and mindset?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 6, 2009 at 22:00

That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness.

“Masculinity in women”? What do you mean exactly? I ask this because for a while I’ve been thinking that some traits that were considered traditionally “masculine” weren’t really “masculine” at all but could be found in both sexes.

It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be “A Nation?”

That’s true. Ideally, or at least to me, this wouldn’t be a “Man’s World or Nation” (however you want to call it) or a “Woman’s Nation”. Just “the Nation or “the World”. My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall. I have an idea, I just want to be sure ;) .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 7, 2009 at 09:21

“I’m sorry, but I still am not getting this whole thing of mostly suppressing women’s urges compared to men. Is it really because beta males couldn’t compete with the alphas, not because of women themselves? If the problem is the alphas, wouldn’t it make sense to equally suppress urges on both sides so the they will be socially unacceptable, unless women did and do have more urges than men that need to be controlled, whatever they might be if it’s true.”

The secret lies in raw numbers, and the fact that women are the sexual gatekeepers.

How many women do, by nature and before any of the aforementioned indoctrination (ie suppression of urges) occurs, feel attracted to alpha males? Close to 100%.

How many men, though, are alpha males? Around 10%? 20%? Either way, a small number compared to those who are not.

So if you have limited resources to concentrate on indoctrination, the choice between having to constantly punish 50% of the population (women) or 10% of the population (alpha males) becomes an obvious one.

And consider that the size of the population was (and is) one of the most valuable assets a nation has, and women are the limiting factor. You can let a guy rot in the dungeon for not being able to keep it in his pants and it is basically no big deal. But for every woman who is thrown in jail or killed for the same transgression, you will eventually have fewer workers, farmers and soldiers to compete against others, and that is unsustainable on a large scale.

“When you say “discouraging women from having a say” do you mean in politics or in general? I’ll paraphrase something that I found online. It’s one thing for emotions to get in the way of reasoning and dialog, but it’s another to show signs of emotion if the issue you’re arguing about has personal significance or emotional resonance. There’s nothing wrong with combining intellectual rigor with emotional authenticity. My issue is that in intellectual debate, it seems that the only way to go about it is in the “masculine” way, and that once again showing any “feminine” traits is seen as a negative and a weakness. I’m not saying women don’t get emotional, but to consider discouraging women from having a say as imperative is really….well….wrong. REALLY wrong. Do you really think that everyone would benefit if everything was seen in a male point of view and mindset?”

Wrong in what way? Seems to be an emotional argument made from western sensibilities.

There is no place for emotions in democratic political discourse. The decision-making progress is dependent on the ability of those who make arguments to convince others, on the basis of pure rational arguments, to be able to bring them around to their point of view, or abandon theirs and come around to someone else’s point of view. Emotional attachment to issues and points of view can only harm that process.

Also, if everything was seen that way? Everything? Is that what politics is? Because the female point of view, which is more emotional, has its areas of application, but politics is not one of them.

Emotional attachments are, for example, vital in intra-family relationships (I can still only marvel at “rational” explanations by libertarians as to why parents have absolutely no obligations to their children).

In the past, it was also relevant that someone be invested in the well-being their country for them to have a political say, ie only landowners being allowed to vote in ancient Athens and Rome. On that matter, Robert Heinlein suggested that one should have served in the armed services to be allowed to vote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Connie November 7, 2009 at 19:42

The Fifth Horseman: Connie, That is the right way to approach it. The challenge you will face is distancing yourself from the feminists who have lost all touch with their humanity, and the blind masses of women who ae so lacking of a moral compass, that they blindly follow the propaganda. Make your preparations wisely.

I’ve always been distanced from feminists, unless I had to work with them in some job, but I’ve been fortunate to have male bosses and male co-workers for most of my working life.

I was really speaking more for younger normal women. My husband is not going anywhere, and I’ll stay with him wherever he is. It just seems to me that innocent women are going to be crushed when our culture, a largely feminist-built house of cards, collapses, if all the good men are gone.

If men and women are to be saved, men must do it. Women can help, but men are the saviors. Sorry, fellas, that’s just how it is.

Not to diminish Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s bravery and expertise in bringing down the Ft. Hood shooter — but she wasn’t born knowing how to police and shoot, and ten to one a lot of her training was done by men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 7, 2009 at 20:04

…It just seems to me that innocent women are going to be crushed when our culture, a largely feminist-built house of cards, collapses, if all the good men are gone.
If men and women are to be saved, men must do it. Women can help, but men are the saviors. Sorry, fellas, that’s just how it is.

***
Correction: “…that’s just how it is was.
Tough. Titty. The women of 1WS are on their own now. In order to have real, genuine respect in future generations (and I’m of the belief that men and women COMPLEMENT each other) we cannot allow the gangrene infection to spread. And right now, Entitlement Materialist Feminism is as deadly on the societal level as the Ebola Virus.
No, it’s best we take a page from the feminist playbook in order to have peace of mind on both sides:

“Minimize the con-TACT, and you minimize the con-FLICT.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Connie November 7, 2009 at 20:27

connie: Is it mean to confess that I would enjoy seeing a feminist-led culture fall flat on its face?
zed: Yes, but it makes you look very appealing to a lot of men.

I think it’s the same thing a lot of people feel when the bully/villain get his/her comeuppance.

Who mourned when all the statues of Lenin started coming down in the former Soviet Republics in 1990 and 1991? The toppling of Saddam’s monument in 2003? Or Stalin’s in Hungary in 1956?

But what would happen if anyone tried to topple the statues to George Washington in the USA? Rioting in the streets. The difference, of course, is that Washington was a leader, the others bullies and totalitarians.

Far as I know, there are no statues to feminist leaders in the US (female ones, anyway). But they’ve created the culture we now live in by bullying, both insidious and conspicuous. What’s truly dumbfounding is that they think they’ve been successful and the result is good.

Try to point out the damage feminism has caused and get a smug, “Oh, it’s always been like that,” and “Boys are not shortchanged in education, you’re just annoyed that girls are finally getting an chance” and “The social pathologies of fatherlessness exist because father’s won’t take responsibility!” And so forth.

It’s like they’re looking a beautiful house with a gleaming new paint job, never suspecting that it’s riddled with termite damage, the structural timbers have the tensile strength of macaroni salad and the first puff of wind is gonna level it.

I’ve watched them tear down, in my lifetime, what took men generations to build in this country and centuries in the west as a whole. Oh, yes. I will thoroughly enjoy seeing their failure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
телефоны аксессуары November 8, 2009 at 16:26

Why money factor is given much important in Indian elections?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 9, 2009 at 11:42

JohnnyBravo,
I think I’m starting to understand your first points, but I’m still a little confused about a few things.

How many women do, by nature and before any of the aforementioned indoctrination (ie suppression of urges) occurs, feel attracted to alpha males? Close to 100%.

Hey, I guess I’m going to have to take your word for it lol.

How many men, though, are alpha males? Around 10%? 20%? Either way, a small number compared to those who are not.
So if you have limited resources to concentrate on indoctrination, the choice between having to constantly punish 50% of the population (women) or 10% of the population (alpha males) becomes an obvious one.

So is this really about giving betas more of a chance, not about women themselves? Another thing. Are the “urges” here attraction to the alphas or just sexual urges? If it was the sexual urges, do you really think that 50% of the female population would’ve had to be punished for their sexual urges while 90% of the male population was innocent? If the “urges” were the attraction to the alphas, were women “punished” for simply being attracted to them and/or having sex with them? It’s like I kind of get and I kind of don’t. I guess the problem is when I think of female sexuality, I just don’t think of sex or promiscuity as being the only examples.

Wrong in what way? Seems to be an emotional argument made from western sensibilities.

Wrong in that you think that it’s ok to disregard the opinions of half of the country’s population. Perhaps my argument was made from western sensibilities, but not emotion. I’m just standing back and looking at it from a wide view.

There is no place for emotions in democratic political discourse. The decision-making progress is dependent on the ability of those who make arguments to convince others, on the basis of pure rational arguments, to be able to bring them around to their point of view, or abandon theirs and come around to someone else’s point of view. Emotional attachment to issues and points of view can only harm that process.

I agree in general when it comes to politics. But not the generalizing of women. Women are capable of putting aside emotions during political discourse just as men are capable of having and expressing emotions. What about Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian November 9, 2009 at 13:42

“Masculinity in women”? What do you mean exactly? I ask this because for a while I’ve been thinking that some traits that were considered traditionally “masculine” weren’t really “masculine” at all but could be found in both sexes.”

The promotion of masculinity for women has been an ongoing, gradual process that has been pushed on a wide variety of fronts. From gender neutral clothing, to the portrayal of masculine behavior by celebrity women in the mainstream media…behavior for which no “LADY” in the past when social shaming was the norm, would never engage in cursing, spitting, and openly and proudly sexually aggressive.

“My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall.”

One of the things I believe is that “A Man’s World” of the past was really no such thing. The idea that in the past all of society was structured to benefit men and that women where oppressed and downtrodden and treated as second-class citizens is nothing more than a big lie fostered by the cultural marxist/social engineers to foment the gender war and promote feminism.

When it was a “man’s world” it was really a well ordered world of social expectations and behavorial mores that most people were raised to ascribe to. The feminist movement made it’s gains in shifting the culture by pushing propaganda that focused on all of the benefits men attained in fulfilling there gender role expectations, and ignoring all of the responsibilities…and conversely focusing on the responsibilities and negative aspects of the female gender role and ignoring the benefits accorded women in their expected gender roles.

It was never a “man’s world.” It was simply a world with clearly defined gender roles that were encouraged and enforced by social pressure and a culture that had a clear moral grounding.

It was just as much a woman’s world back then as it was man’s. Whereas now, “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 9, 2009 at 18:09

Thanks HL, I get it now :)

From gender neutral clothing, to the portrayal of masculine behavior by celebrity women in the mainstream media…behavior for which no “LADY” in the past when social shaming was the norm, would never engage in cursing, spitting, and openly and proudly sexually aggressive.

Are you saying that it’s ok for men to do these things though? Personally I have no problem with cursing (I really don’t have a problem with women doing it either – I don’t really see how that’s a masculine trait), but I don’t think that spitting and being sexually “aggressive” (depending on what you define as “aggressive”) should be condoned in men either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
miles November 10, 2009 at 01:12

HL,

You are right about the Rockefeller Foundation. That group is both funding population-control advocacy groups and feminism. It becomes obvious the latter was cultivated as a arm of the former when seen in this light. Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.

Would it have not been more logical to just -ask- people to limit themselves to two children per family on the basis of reason rather than to underwrite a ideology (feminism) that has caused so much unhappiness and unmet expectation instead? I think it would have been. Funny how its only working in the West, and not where population control was truly out-of-hand anyway. The best-laid plans of mice and men, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 10, 2009 at 19:41

JohnnyBravo,

There is no place for emotions in democratic political discourse. The decision-making progress is dependent on the ability of those who make arguments to convince others, on the basis of pure rational arguments, to be able to bring them around to their point of view, or abandon theirs and come around to someone else’s point of view. Emotional attachment to issues and points of view can only harm that process.

I’ve given this some more thought. Is it really not possible to present a rational arguement while having emotional ties to that issue? What better person to drive a point home and to get people to a point of view than a person who taps into their emotions/emotional ties to that arguement and use that as a sort of “fuel”? Like I said, emotions are a hinderance when they get in the way of reasoning and rationality, but I still think that they can be used as a source of strength, to someone’s benefit. But hey, this could be my western sensibilities talking…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kamal S. November 17, 2009 at 15:37

“Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.”

Does this actually shock anyone?
Do serious research in the SOCIAL history of Progressivism, the Liberal Left, Fabian Socialist, Eugenics, and Social Biology.
A good bit of research into the history of the Rockefeller Funds and Foundation is also relevant..

All too often we inherit ideas without an inquiry into their historical development and origins.

Fascinating indeed, is the history of ideas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red0660 March 21, 2010 at 03:17

Watch the workhorses of the matriarchy in action….. Men have got to get out of the country quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: