How To Deal With “Not All Women Are Like That”

Post image for How To Deal With “Not All Women Are Like That”

by Featured Guest on November 15, 2009

This article was submitted by ARMARaptor.

Talking about the current sad state of dating and marriage in the USA will often elicit “Not All Women Are Like That” or NAWALT.

The first thing is not to contradict whoever makes that claim. Why? Because it is true. Not all women are skanks, attention whores or predators. The MRA cause is not helped by attacking people who speak truthfully. Better to examine the assumptions behind “Not all women are like that” and then reply. This article does that.

There are three unrealistic assumptions behind NAWLT. They are:

1. Perfect Detection (Zero Error)

Not every woman is a suitable partner. Some women are sociopaths
and exploiters. A great date may not be a great wife. So a man has to
choose. If her errs, it costs. Because of anti-male laws, this cost is high.
Choose the wrong wife and half your assets vanish. If you have children,
it is unlikely you will see them. Plus the threat of false accusations.

As the cost of selecting the wrong woman increases, the error rate has
to go down. Lowering the error rate takes more time and resources.
Eventually cost of finding a partner exceeds the benefit of finding a
partner. At that point, looking for a partner becomes pointless.

2. Zero or Low Cost Of Error

The cost of error (selecting the wrong woman) also influences the risk of
selecting the wrong woman. That is because the risk associated with an
error is a function of both cost of error and the chances of the error
occurring (Risk of Error = Cost of Error * probability of error).

A low cost of error can mitigate a high probability of error. But a low
cost of error for spouse selection is not a valid assumption, especially
for today.

3. Infinite Time And Resources Available For Search

It is generally agreed that one should be slow to marry. This is because
compatibility is a complex matter and takes time to correctly assess. If
it takes 100 years to find a suitable mate, what is the point? Most
people do not live that long.

Furthermore, only so much time and resources can be devoted to a mate
search. Could the energy be better directed elsewhere?

There is another aspect to mate searching. When a man considers a woman for a wife, he is testing two hypotheses. The first one is “Is she suitable?”. The second hypothesis is “Is she not suitable?”.

When you do hypothesis testing, the hypothesis you assume to be true by default is important. This is called the null hypothesis. It is what you assume true in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is designated Ho or H1.

The remaining hypothesis is called the research or alternative hypothesis. It is the hypothesis you adopt only when there is evidence for it. It is designated Ha or H2.

You decide which hypothesis to reject or not reject based on evidence. If the evidence is in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Ha or H2), you accept it and reject the null hypothesis (Ho or H1). If the evidence does not support the alternative hypothesis (Ha or H2), you retain the the null hypothesis (Ho or H1).

Now set up a hypothesis test for the mate selection problem assuming what NAWLT advocates say is true. Since not all women are like that, it logically follows that the null hypothesis is Ho: She is suitable. The alternative hypothesis is Ha: She is not suitable.

The hypothesis test is now:

Ho: She is suitable
vs.
Ha: She is not suitable

There are four outcomes to this test
a. She is suitable when she really is – Correct decision
b. She is not suitable when she really is not suitable – Correct decision
c. She is suitable when she really is not – Error. This is called a false positive or Type I error
d. She is not suitable when she really is suitable – Error. This is called a false negative or Type II error

Which is outcome has the most potential for damage? Outcomes a and b are correct decisions, so they incur zero or low cost. Outcome d, the false negative, is unfortunate, but not that costly.

The most costly outcome is c, the false positive. That means our man is now married to a skank, sociopath or gold digger. Thus our man wants to minimize the false positive rate.

But if our man reduces the false positive rate, the false negative rate increases. He winds up rejecting suitable women to keep from selecting non-suitable ones.

This is what men face today. The cost of bad wife selection is so high that he is forced to turn away good women for fear of mistakenly choosing a bad one.

{ 110 comments… read them below or add one }

Talleyrand November 15, 2009 at 06:50

Bingo! Very good.

It isn’t a 50/50 proposition, you’re looking for diamonds, among the quartz and their is a lot of quartz.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul November 15, 2009 at 06:59

Even if a marriage does not end up in the divorce courts a man still ends up as the looser. The real answer to NAWALT is to say yes that’s true most women are much worse. In fact they all are – lets not give any of them the benefit of the doubt.

Self deceive as much as you like but you will never change female nature, which at its essence has no use for a man what-so-ever other than to provide and support children. The woman who rips a man off through the legal system is only taking a short cut on the same road that all women travel. In fact the divorced man is the more fortunate as he is spared the agony of living with his own private torturer. For that is what a wife is – a live in torturer.

It takes time to understand this. I think Globalman has understood but most of the rest of us just bumble on , ever optimistic and never even remotely understanding the hopelessness of having any belief in women at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 07:33

you will never change female nature, which at its essence has no use for a man what-so-ever other than to provide and support children

Its a mutual relationship of providing and supporting for each other as well as children, which is critical to any functioning herd. The functioning unit starts at the functioning couple, who look after each other’s interests. A man is needed for her sexual needs, to assuage loneliness, her needs to not have to completely depend on herself. While the evolutionary goal may have been reproduction in the end, this has resulted in many different drives in a woman as to why she needs and wants a man in her life. You might not have been a position to see it but even the strongest of females who herself alienates men from her life goes ‘God, I wish someone else could take over.’ That’s her desire for a man talking and the more social propaganda there is, the less she’s aware of what she herself is longing for.

Aside from the interference of the state, you are only tortured by who you allow to do so.

It isn’t a 50/50 proposition, you’re looking for diamonds, among the quartz and their is a lot of quartz.

The stricter you are with your criteria, the more you reduce your risk and even your cost. This is by a considerable amount but reducing it to zero is always impossible.

The risk factors for a woman divorcing you are there if you look for them and evaluate — both in your behaviour towards her and her personality & background — just as the risk factors for a man being a thug are readily detectable through analysing his family, friends and work habits.

There’s always been an element of risk in gender relations and losing faith in them completely because of a tip in the scales of power seems to me pathological.

Certainly a man who doesn’t particularly want children shouldn’t marry and be aware of any cohabitation laws in his state. Actually, the arguments for legal marriage even with children are currently very weak and cohabitation laws shouldn’t exist to force you into that.

This development is outrageous:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1226178/Husband-ended-20-year-affair-ordered-pay-55-000-compensation–MISTRESS.html

Hopefully it doesn’t carry over into the States.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 07:52

Actually, the arguments for legal marriage even with children are currently very weak and cohabitation laws shouldn’t exist to force you into that.

-Bhetti

That’s what I tell guys. It’s better to pay child support than to pay child support + alimony + one half of all assets. Also, married or formerly married men have no advantage in custody disputes, so what’s the point? If it’s a religious thing, by all means, go get married at a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. Just don’t sign the state contract.

This development is outrageous:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1226178/Husband-ended-20-year-affair-ordered-pay-55-000-compensation–MISTRESS.html

Hopefully it doesn’t carry over into the States.

I have a feeling a lot of wives will be very angry about this. “How dare that bitch take money that’s rightfully mine!” lol.

I think they used to have something like this in CA. It was called “palimony,” and girlfriends, etc., could sue for it. But I believe it has been tossed by the wayside, and was never a formal part of family law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 15, 2009 at 07:59

New Jersey recently opened the door to this by holding that cohabitation was not required for alimony to be ordered: http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2008/06/24/nj-supreme-court-opens-door-for-alimony-for-the-mistress/

It’s happening. The more that men avoid cohabitation and marriage and so on the more creative the state will be in imposing marriage-type obligations on whatever kinds of relationships the men *do* end up having. Sum and substance: it’s a sex tax on men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 08:21

New Jersey recently opened the door to this by holding that cohabitation was not required for alimony to be ordered: http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2008/06/24/nj-supreme-court-opens-door-for-alimony-for-the-mistress/

It’s happening. The more that men avoid cohabitation and marriage and so on the more creative the state will be in imposing marriage-type obligations on whatever kinds of relationships the men *do* end up having. Sum and substance: it’s a sex tax on men.

Arguments for palimony would have to include de facto support, though, wouldn’t they?

Essentially, this is simply an argument for Game — i.e. using tactics that would attract women without resorting to the old pay as you go model.

Hell, this even suggests that paying for a girlfriend’s dinner, flowers vacation and the like is a bad idea, because support could be proven by such expenditures.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
rebel November 15, 2009 at 08:44

Wouldn’t most of these problems be solved if men bypassed marriage altogether and chose to simply cohabit? (and short term relationships of, say, less than 6 months)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
djc November 15, 2009 at 09:00

I get it Paul. And most men think I’m crazy. All the married guys at work rib me because “I’m not getting any”. I try to tell them that in my opinion ten minutes of pleasure two or three times (if you’re lucky) a week just isn’t worth the huge price that you pay in money, and misery. They don’t listen. I understand though, because I was there once myself. I now have more money, peace of mind, and much more freedom to do what I want, when I want. Why would I want to screw that up by getting involved with another overbearing harpy? Fugetaboutit!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Athol November 15, 2009 at 09:06

If the woman is working though, I don’t see how divorce equals the man losing half his assets. Wouldn’t she have contributed half the assets herself over the marriage?

This post is a logic punnet square leading you to the outcome of its better to not be married, than risk a bad marriage. The bad marriage negatives are fairly obvious, but I’m not sure the negatives for never marrying are so clearly considered.

Running game in bars looking for a wife, is like fishing in storm drains for dinner. You may catch something, but you won’t like the taste.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 09:20

If the woman is working though, I don’t see how divorce equals the man losing half his assets. Wouldn’t she have contributed half the assets herself over the marriage?

-Athol

No, because women spend differently. Men tend to put money into houses, cars, appliances and other assets with longer-term value, whereas women are more likely to spend money eating out, buying clothes, going to the spa, getting their hair done, gym memberships, etc. These expenses can add up to thousands of dollars per month. In the meanwhile, the husband is paying at least half the mortgage, probably most of the car(s), and buying refrigerators and washing machines.

So even if the wife makes more than the husband, he is still likely to get the short end of the stick, because she gets half of the assets’ retained value.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rum November 15, 2009 at 09:33

So, if a woman wants out of a long-term non marital relationship it might cost her money? If not, why not?
For a guy, the solution is obvious. When the time comes for parting, turn into a complete ass or a pathetic supplicating dweeb – whatever works – but never ever be generous beforehand.
Lessons are going out to all mankind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan November 15, 2009 at 09:47

Welmer –

So even if the wife makes more than the husband, he is still likely to get the short end of the stick.

That statement reminded me of this…

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_estrogen_recession/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt November 15, 2009 at 09:55

Two quick thoughts:

1 – If they manage to basically make any ‘relationship’ with a woman into marriage, you will find the birthrate approaching zero very quickly as most men refuse. Our falling marriage rates already indicate that.

2 – I think the palimony thing is less likely to catch on, given the rising awareness of MRA issues, but if it does, it’s a mixed blessing of sorts, given how obviously unjust it is, as it is no longer encumbered by old ideas about marriage that no longer fit reality.

On the upside, if women have all the college degrees, just refuse to date a chick who doesn’t make more than you, and if you break up, sue her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 09:57

That statement reminded me of this…

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_estrogen_recession/

The video in that article is one of the most realistic depictions of a modern marriage I have seen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow November 15, 2009 at 10:51

welmer: Totally agree…the look on his face throughout reminds me of my nightmare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 15, 2009 at 11:25

I am pleased you are acknowledging “boy power”. Girls don’t choose amongst a parade of men who are competing if men don’t allow it.

Men are just as choosy if not more choosy IMO. Men offer a lot of fine things to a woman and if the woman is fortunate, she gets a very fine man who gives many, many years for her future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul November 15, 2009 at 11:31

djc I am glad you get it. I only post here in the hope helping other men not make the biggest mistake of their lives. As for the married men who think you are crazy just ignore them. When they are sixty they can have the pleasure of having sex with their now sexless wives while you will have the choice of much more interesting propitiations. They will also have nothing as all they own will really be the property of their wives. You on the other hand will be much better off than you think. Whatever people tell you don’t be deceived, marriage impoverishes a man. This is irrespective of whether the woman works or not.

Also the idea that the married men who think you are crazy are to be envied because they supposedly get a couple of screws a week is risible. Firstly it probably untrue and if it is true then it is boring and unimaginative!

Believe me marriage offers a man nothing. It solves no problems and despite what your married friends say it is actually the end of a man’s sex life not the start of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 15, 2009 at 11:43

Great post! Very insightful, especially since I have been one of those who used the NAWALT arguement ;)

Paul,
In fact the divorced man is the more fortunate as he is spared the agony of living with his own private torturer. For that is what a wife is – a live in torturer.

So I guess my father has been tortured for some 27 years then and my mother is a live-in torturer? Never mind that they have 3 children together, including me, and that they love each other dearly.

But hey my case may be in the minority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray November 15, 2009 at 11:51

“There’s always been an element of risk in gender relations and losing faith in them completely because of a tip in the scales of power seems to me pathological.”

far more than a “tip in the scales of power” between female and male has been going on the past century-and-a-half

on the many occasions ive confronted american females over feminism during the past couple decades i either get:

1) charged-at with balled up fists, which stops when they see, unexpectedly, that i’m not going to run from them or their male enablers (the looks on their faces is priceless)

2) the facile blow-off that “the pendulum may have swung slightly in womens’ favor”

america is a matriarchy in which boys and men, unless rich or very powerful, are clearly and irrefutably second-class citizens (fourth-class actually, if counting children and household pets)

cokie roberts just announced nationally that males are “lesser beings” and the terminatress announced (twice! lol) that america is “A Woman’s Nation”

dismissing that and the endless other evidence as a “tip in the scales of power” — like it’s just some marginal, minor blip on humanity’s radar — is a common feminist tactic to minimize the matriarchy’s despicable, and ongoing, treatment of boys and men

nor do i agree that’s it is “pathological” to “lose faith in gender relations” because of this supposedly slight “tip”

it’s healthy, not to mention inevitable

the anglosphere and its various matriarchies are the pathology — not the few sane folk questioning these institutionalized structures of hate and female privilege

i grew up in the fifties, and indeed placing “faith in gender relations” was the widespread norm

we put our faith in females, we put our faith in our government, and both of them stabbed us in the back, individually and collectively

man putting his faith in woman … now that’s truly pathological … romanticism has a very dark side that’s quite apparent throughout what’s left of american culture

when men stop putting their faith in woman — or in woman’s extension, government — and start putting their faith where it always belonged, we will see an end to the matriarchies and the mass gloating disenfranchisement and denigration of maleness

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 15, 2009 at 12:06

Arguments for palimony would have to include de facto support, though, wouldn’t they?

Hell, this even suggests that paying for a girlfriend’s dinner, flowers vacation and the like is a bad idea, because support could be proven by such expenditures.

That’s exactly the point. Or even innocuous things like saying “Honey, you know I know how to take care of you” or something like that being parleyed into a commitment to support. But in any case, it’s insane for support obligations to be found where there is no cohabitation at the very least — it makes a mockery of the system and turns it into a sex tax.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 15, 2009 at 12:16

But hey my case may be in the minority.

If you knew anything about the statistics, you would know what a distinct minority your case represents.

I have been one of those who used the NAWALT arguement

And, because not absolutely 100% of women are “like that”, does that mean it should be prohibited to talk about the ones who are? “Not all” the cylinders in a gun are loaded in the game of Russian Roulette – does that mean it’s a great idea to play it? Not everyone who jumps off a bridge or a high building dies – does that mean it’s not ok to talk about the ones who do?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta November 15, 2009 at 12:24

If palimony catches on (which is indeed, as Novaseeker says, a sex tax), I wonder if prostitutes would be able to sue for it as well? I suppose this could only happen in areas where prostitution is legal, though. Perhaps if this catches on in the areas where prostitution is legal, we’ll see an urge to legalize prostitution in other areas, so the prostitutes can get their hands on some palimony mullah? I think this could definitely happen; some prostitutes demand “tributes” and some of the more… well, pathetic men become quite attached to them. Obviously, this could be interpreted as “support” by a clever liar-lawyer.

Yes, it sounds a little silly. But so have most of the things that have come true in this gender war – including palimony!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 12:29

zed’s statistical reference: about 50% of marriages don’t last. In relationships that do last for a considerable time, 10% are proven by fMRI to be in the same levels of love as they started out. That’s a total minority of 5%.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 15, 2009 at 12:34

zed’s statistical reference: about 50% of marriages don’t last. In relationships that do last for a considerable time, 10% are proven by fMRI to be in the same levels of love as they started out. That’s a total minority of 5%.

Which is not surprising, no?

I mean the institution was not created for the maximization of personal happiness. It just wasn’t. Social stability, raising the next generation, building and inheritance of wealth, spiritual development and discipline and so on — but not maximization of personal happiness. I’ve often thought that so much of the contemporary discontent with marriage is that we have freighted it up with cargo that it, as an institution, was never intended to bear — a 70 year long white hot romance? Um. Nice if you can get it, but that’s not going to happen very often, and it isn’t the reason marriage was designed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Talleyrand November 15, 2009 at 12:49

Reinholt November 15, 2009 at 9:55 am

” On the upside, if women have all the college degrees, just refuse to date a chick who doesn’t make more than you, and if you break up, sue her.”

With the mancession going it, it should be easy to game chicks that make more money. I am all for it. True equality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow November 15, 2009 at 13:16

Renee..the problem is…is that yours is the minority!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 15, 2009 at 13:33

Novaseeker: “I mean the institution was not created for the maximization of personal happiness. It just wasn’t. Social stability, raising the next generation, building and inheritance of wealth, spiritual development and discipline and so on — but not maximization of personal happiness.”

I think more of it is due to the redefinition of personal happiness than to changes in the institution itself. Those things you mentioned – social stability, having and raising children, building and inheritance of wealth, spiritual development and discipline – used to be seen as the cornerstones to building personal happiness. Anyone who achieved them all, or even some of them, was doing at least as well as anyone else and better than most.

This is something I was trying to get at in my “Art of Loving” series of posts – consumer culture has affected people’s entire view of life and redefined “personal happiness” purely in terms of acquisition of objects or “tokens.” Think of the popular poster/slogan from the 1980s – “He who dies with the most toys, wins.” Ever the contrarian, I got a T-shirt made up which said “He who dies with the most toys… still dies.”

Marriage was a team effort between two people for the purpose of surviving, producing children, becoming as successful and comfortable as they could, and acquring social success and status. If you were lucky enough to get a good teammate who held up his/her end of the bargain, you won. Over time a deep affection and trust would be developed for the person who you could always depend on and who was always there for you.

When the idea of marriage started to get poisoned with the notion of “ROmance” was when things started to head south.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
DT November 15, 2009 at 14:19

That statement reminded me of this…http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_estrogen_recession/

I don’t know who I wanted to slap more in that video: the husband or the wife.

Then again, maybe the Realtor…

Ever since discovering game and really thinking about what it means to be a man, I feel like vomiting when I see a man behave like the one in the video. I know so many men…and I use the term loosely…who behave just like that around their shrew wives. It’s sickening.

When I think about it, those are also the friends and relatives who got into trouble during the housing boom buying junk that ultimately didn’t please their wives any way.

Along the same lines I can’t stand any sitcoms any more. Watching the typical wife character belittle the typical doofus beta husband character makes me want to kick in the TV screen.

And my family and friends wonder why I won’t get married…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 15, 2009 at 14:28

I think more of it is due to the redefinition of personal happiness than to changes in the institution itself.

That’s true enough as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Matt K November 15, 2009 at 14:37

@ DT
“I feel like vomiting when I see a man behave like the one in the video. I know so many men…and I use the term loosely…who behave just like that around their shrew wives. It’s sickening.”

It is indeed sickening, DT, but realistically, what is the guy to do? There’s three parties in any marriage these days and the corrupt, 800lb gorilla is not on his side. In negotiation, one has what is known as a BATNA: Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. Aside from a scorched-earth policy, what is a husband’s? They all but give it up at the altar. From then on it’s just a question of when the wife finds out how much power she has and what limits her decency and emotional state place on her exercise of it. The answer to the latter it seems, in far too many cases, is not much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DT November 15, 2009 at 14:39

Re: the “sex tax”, alimony apart from marriage or even cohabitation…

If you ever need proof that women are not equal to men when it comes to survival just take a long, hard look at all the laws, taxes, state programs, quotas, and social structures which have to be in place for women to survive and claim “equality” in the economy. Equal means you don’t need special help, and yet modern American women have more help than probably any other group in the history of the world.

And that still isn’t enough! So now women are seeking forced wealth transfers from men who didn’t even marry them, live with them, or get them pregnant! Could there be any greater confession from women that they are not actually equal when it comes to survival?

Past civilizations recognized the inequality between the sexes when it came to survivability and the raising of children. Marriage was the answer that gave some dignity to both sexes in seeking what they needed from the opposite sex. Husbands were shamed if they failed to provide for their wives and children, and wives were shamed if they failed to create a peaceful, loving home for the men to return to after a hard day’s work. When it worked, both the man and the woman got what they needed without treating the other like a subhuman object. There was a respect, dignity, and long term love which the children would grow to emulate. Family counted for something as a result.

Fast forward to modern America. Far from lifting women up, feminism has reduced them to little more than greedy whores, demanding more and more money from men to prop up their little fantasy of “equality” in the workplace and in the government. They waste their lives in this fantasy world and then wonder why they feel so empty, why they seem so sad compared to their grandmothers. Their grandmothers built homes and families while they destroy those very things, and yet they can’t piece it together, can’t find a reason for their sadness.

To tell the truth, I have more respect for a whore than I do for modern American women who steal a man’s money through alimony. A whore delivers the goods for the money. She may be little more than an economic “provider”, but at least she earns her keep. The same cannot be said for the majority of American women today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Neil November 15, 2009 at 14:57

Awesome article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DT November 15, 2009 at 15:01

It is indeed sickening, DT, but realistically, what is the guy to do?

It’s funny you ask that Matt. I have a friend who I consider to be something of a mentor on what it means to be a man. He is naturally Alpha in dealing with people, especially his wife and kids. He is the only man I know with a marriage that is worth it. If I knew for certain that I could marry a girl and end up with a family like his, I would do it. But he is the only one. Every other example of marriage I’ve seen looks like hell on Earth.

You would never, ever catch him behaving like the man in that video regardless of the 800lb state gorilla. He is the polar opposite of that loser. He never cowers before his wife.

The result? He is safe as a kitten. There is no chance she would ever divorce him even though she would have all the power if she did. Why? Because you can see the respect, love, and lust on her face. You can practically hear the drip when he puts his foot down. (For the record, he’s not mean to her. But he’s constantly gaming her and he passes her shit tests with ease. Most importantly, he is willing to be firm with her whenever the situation demands. She knows she can’t cry or bitch him into changing his mind, much less threaten him.)

I’m not saying marriage is a good idea or that it’s easy to counter balance the 800lb gorilla. You have to constantly be at the top of your game to do this. But the more laws women pass to push men down, and the more betas they have to deal with as a result of our feminized culture, the more they hunger for real men who won’t take their shit. I’ve seen it in real life.

If you find yourself in the situation portrayed in that video, study game and learn what it means to be a man. Develop and embrace your masculinity. And don’t take her shit. It may be counter intuitive, but it is probably the only thing that will keep the 800lb state gorilla out of your life. Cowering before your wife like a little boy is guaranteed to get you a cheating wife, a divorce, and a life of misery.

And if you don’t think you can keep up the level of game necessary to keep a wife in love and lust with you till death do you part, then don’t even think about walking down that aisle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 15:25

DT my Man, your good friend has shown you what we in Game call “The Matrix”. Feminism and all that flows from it, is really one big Shit Test-and tons of guys FAIL. Your friend shows you just how to deal with the Matrix, and just as Morpheus told Neo when he was first starting out, that some rules can either be bent or broken, your friend is showing you exactly how that’s being done.

This is why I’ve never been personally concerned about divorce court, false rape charges and the like, because Game is my ally; and a powerful ally it is.

*Obsidian does the Matrix dance*

Holla back

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop November 15, 2009 at 16:47

“Aside from the interference of the state, you are only tortured by who you allow to do so.”

I love how you brush over “interference of the state.” The state enables the torture of men through divorce and alimony at the very real threat to their well-being and freedom if they oppose them. You are trying to make it seem like the man still has considerable power, which he doesn’t, and you know that.

“The stricter you are with your criteria, the more you reduce your risk and even your cost. This is by a considerable amount but reducing it to zero is always impossible.”

Yes, reducing risk to zero when other human beings are involved isn’t possible. But we are not talking about Vegas odds here Bhetti. Strict criteria equals celibacy in the USA for most men, if you are looking for a woman who isn’t self-absorbed and has contempt for men.

“The risk factors for a woman divorcing you are there if you look for them and evaluate — both in your behaviour towards her and her personality & background — just as the risk factors for a man being a thug are readily detectable through analysing his family, friends and work habits.”

This analogy doesn’t work. A man is or isn’t a thug. A thug doesn’t pretend to be a nice guy since he is sexually rewarded by women in our society for being a thug. Only a complete moron needs to analyze his family, friends and work habits to figure this out. However, it is very common for the horny and loving girlfriend to become a large and in charge bitch a couple years after the ring is put on her finger.

“There’s always been an element of risk in gender relations and losing faith in them completely because of a tip in the scales of power seems to me pathological.”

Lol, nice bit of spin here. There isn’t an “element of risk.” As a man, the cards are stacked against you. And as ray pointed out, it would be pathological for a man not to lose faith in gender relations considering what has been going on in the last 60+ years. I realize it is easy for you to trivialize all of this since you aren’t the one society is spitting on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 15, 2009 at 17:03

And, because not absolutely 100% of women are “like that”, does that mean it should be prohibited to talk about the ones who are? “Not all” the cylinders in a gun are loaded in the game of Russian Roulette – does that mean it’s a great idea to play it? Not everyone who jumps off a bridge or a high building dies – does that mean it’s not ok to talk about the ones who do?

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t talk about the women who are like that. My comment was based on what Paul said. He seems to think that all wives are torturers based on “female nature”. I mean, he did say this:

In fact they all are – lets not give any of them the benefit of the doubt.

But hey that’s his opinion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 15, 2009 at 17:10

I realize it is easy for you to trivialize all of this since you aren’t the one society is spitting on.

More than that, she is in the group which stands to lose the most if and when men ever do wake up. It is in women’s vested interest to do everything they can to make men’s informed choices seem “pathological.”

The level of denial men have been facing has not been and could not have been either accidental, or due to simple ignorance. It has been too consistent, and too concerted. If men ever do stop putting their heads on the chopping block in large numbers, then women will be left high and dry – and they all damn well know it. That is why you will find almost universal resistance among women to even admitting a problem exists at all, much less how big it has become.

There are a couple of women who hang out here who get it, the rest are simply serving their own interests.

The good news is that men do not need women’s understanding, cooperation, or permission to take individual and unilateral action to minimize their risk.

I think it will be interesting to see what the next counter-move that women come up with will be to try to force men to continue to court and marry them. IMBRA was an attempt in that direction, but I don’t think it has been very effective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 15, 2009 at 17:14

My comment was based on what Paul said. He seems to think that all wives are torturers based on “female nature”.

It seems to be 100% true of the limited sample size with which he has direct experience.

And, while I do know of a few marriages which do not make death look like a preferable alternative, I don’t know of even one that I would trade my current existence for. And, I know of A LOT which appear exactly as he describes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt November 15, 2009 at 18:38

To Bhetti and Renee,

Yes, there are exceptions. No, these exceptions are not the rule. Yes, the bad outcomes have become frequent enough that a better strategy is not playing the marriage game at all. Yes, this problem will get worse, not better.

As a male, you would have to be a fool to get married (my apologies to anyone who is married, but on the face, it’s a bad bet for men on average, even if you got lucky).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sig November 15, 2009 at 19:06

I’m new here and not sure if IMBRA has been mentioned much before, but I’m glad to see it get brought up. It’s yet another brick in the wall of the strengthening testicular prison. Rudov has an article on IMBRA from back in 2007, and searching it online produces some worthwhile articles about how it, like VAWA, is blatantly unconstitutional and targets men.

I will assume that everyone here knows how easy it is for a woman to get an unwarranted restraining order granted against her male partner, and how easy it is to have it made permanent. What becomes apparent, is that like the pieces of a puzzle, all of these oppressive laws are fitting together nicely to create a slave society for males. If you’re one of the many guys who had a bullshit permanent restraining order (thanks to VAWA, one of the other puzzle pieces) established by your ex as a divorce tactic, your prospects of maybe finding a woman overseas just got squashed.

This here NAWALT article goes through a convoluted reasoning of how to assess the risk of choosing a mate, and gives the question of risk, (e.g. how should I choose a woman, should I choose one at all) a lot of undeserved analytical treatment. Why the hell bother with all this nonsense? You probably have better odds of hitting the lottery than of finding a decent female in the U.S., especially among the younger women. You’re playing Russian Roulette with a revolver that holds at least 1,000,000 bullets in the cylinder, and one is empty. No thanks.

I think most men here know: The bigger problem here isn’t with the risk of the relationship/marriage, it is the feminist legislation that has created the “risk” factors in the first place. Debating whether or not to play Russian Roulette (an apt example brought up earlier) is stupid. No, you don’t play – until our degenerate laws are corrected so that there is no bullet or gun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray November 15, 2009 at 20:48

“What becomes apparent, is that like the pieces of a puzzle, all of these oppressive laws are fitting together nicely to create a slave society for males.”

one right after the others, especially over the past decade

we see the pace of fem-supremacist “legislation” increasing markedly under obie, for obvious reasons

the latest but by no means last is the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a kind of addendum(b) to VAWA

http://www.now.org/press/10-09/10-28.html

“This is a true victory, especially for women,” said NOW President Terry O’Neill. “NOW’s activists have worked tirelessly for years to have gender-based and sexual orientation-based hate crimes included in federal law — hate crimes that warrant federal prosecution and federal punishment,” said O’Neill.

“Federal authorities will now have the power to pursue hate crimes when individuals are targeted for sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability — authority the federal government never had before.”

the National Organization of Witches wouldn’t have been gloating so publically without knowing that these malevolent laws would be used to oppress boys and men directly

they’re positively giddy at the suffering of millions of people, simply because they are male . . . yet they adore themselves as watchdogs of justice and “equality”

about the same time, the Terminatress was shoving It’s A Woman’s Nation in our faces

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David November 15, 2009 at 20:56

I am happy as a married man, although I can see how a man can end up in a marital mess. What I think happens is that a man marries a girl and thinks that he has a gem. She is pretty and amenable. One day, after they are married, she is having a bad day, not looking or feeling so good, or she is just in an ornery mood. He gets some verbal abuse. He is shocked. He decides that he has really married a shrew. He starts to become nervous of her. Her respect for him declines, because he has failed to stand up to her. Things go from bad to worse.

Her demands escalate. Again, he does not hold his ground. Pretty soon he has joined the club of disappointed husbands, with their jocular remarks about how “she wears the pants”.

All a man has to do is Stand His Ground. The fury of a woman can be quite surprising, but it is like a summer storm, passing quickly and leaving nothing in its wake.

There was a time when men simply knew about “game” from the culture, or at least their fathers. But this has now to be relearned, at places like this.

Try asserting yourself and ignoring her complaining. You will be surprised. Do it now before it is too late. Refuse to join the club of disappointed husbands.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 21:15

All a man has to do is Stand His Ground. The fury of a woman can be quite surprising, but it is like a summer storm, passing quickly and leaving nothing in its wake.

-David

But what if you don’t want to bother? What if she really is just a lousy wife? Lots of women out there are far more trouble than they’re worth, and it sucks all the vitality out of a man to have to deal with them. In my experience, living without a woman is far easier than living with a needy, whining wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt November 15, 2009 at 21:22

Welmer hits on the fundamental issue there, or as I say it:

“What are you bringing to the party?”

Almost all modern women (certainly an overwhelming majority of <30) fail this test.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David November 15, 2009 at 21:32

DT describes the ideal situation, and I believe I am on my way there now. If you upset a woman you can expect threats of divorce (forgotten seconds later!), screaming, bad language, girl punches (return them, she’ll soon stop), sarcasm, plain refusal … etc. etc.

But then a funny thing happens, if you don’t back down – she obeys you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt November 15, 2009 at 21:36

However, none of that addresses the legal institutions around marriage, or if she was a girl who brought enough to the table to be worth having there in the first place.

That is my issue. I know I have enough game to make it work… but why bother?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop November 15, 2009 at 21:48

“All a man has to do is Stand His Ground. The fury of a woman can be quite surprising, but it is like a summer storm, passing quickly and leaving nothing in its wake.

There was a time when men simply knew about “game” from the culture, or at least their fathers. But this has now to be relearned, at places like this.

Try asserting yourself and ignoring her complaining. You will be surprised. Do it now before it is too late. Refuse to join the club of disappointed husbands.”

David, this issue needs to be dealt with at a legislative level. Once you are married, your rights and power as a man are nonexistent. As Sig mentioned, unwarranted restraining orders are quite common, and you standing your ground to little cupcake won’t keep the police from escorting you from your home. Once she holds your shackles in marriage, game is no longer a satisfactory answer. She owns you, period. Game is a possible answer in the dating scene.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 22:07

DT describes the ideal situation, and I believe I am on my way there now. If you upset a woman you can expect threats of divorce (forgotten seconds later!), screaming, bad language, girl punches (return them, she’ll soon stop), sarcasm, plain refusal … etc. etc.

But then a funny thing happens, if you don’t back down – she obeys you.

-David

Here in America, where men are regularly shot by the police in the course of such incidents, this is called skating on thin ice.

Until you’ve had a surprise visit from guys decked out in goggles and body armor who are carrying automatic rifles, I’m not sure you can really appreciate exactly what’s behind feminism.

A guy was shot and killed from a police helicopter here in Seattle recently following a domestic dispute over furniture being removed from his house. It seems to happen every month or so in the region, always on the back pages of the local news.

The wives always say they “never thought it would come to this”.

Ah well, so it goes. More than a few Iraq War vets have been exterminated this way. This is about what we men are worth here in the good old USA. All it takes is a cryin’ and lyin’ little whore to send the goons to your door.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 15, 2009 at 22:19

Welmer November 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Until you’ve had a surprise visit from guys decked out in goggles and body armor who are carrying automatic rifles, I’m not sure you can really appreciate exactly what’s behind feminism.

**Having intimate knowledge of the situation outlined above, I can say with 100% certainty that Picasso himself could not have painted a better picture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sot November 15, 2009 at 22:51

One problem with discussing men’s issues like this one is that we value the voice of the successful. By stating “marriage is a bad deal” the speaker is immediately understood to be unsuccessful in marriage and his words are not listened to as carefully. When a man says “I have a successful marriage because of this technique,” we pay attention more because he is successful.

We must be careful to differentiate between personal success in marriage, and societal failure to have fair laws with regard to marriage. One can have a good marriage or find a good woman in any situation. However, society right now does not facilitate such things — it makes them quite difficult. Certainly it’s possible to gain respect by doing something difficult, but it’s important for every man to ask whether it’s worth bothering with in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Indomitable Thoughts November 16, 2009 at 02:23

“Not all women are like that” is the biggest of cop-out excuses on earth. Not only is it a spit in the face to the legitimate grievances you’re airing, it’s not saying anything. When I complain that my car is burning oil, does that mean I’m complaining about all cars? It’s so meaningless, but in that sense, meaningful. You see, it explains the “sisterhood” aspect of women. Women tend to be about “me me me me me” and whenever you criticize female behavior, women tend to take it as an affront to their personal selves.

Implicit in such a message is also that there is nothing wrong with women’s behavior, or that it’s confined to such a small number of women that it’s insignificant. In other words, “not all women are like that” is another way of saying “you’re a guy, your words don’t hold water and credibility is zero, shut up already and MAN UP.” The proper response to such tactics is not a reasoned statistical response, but a middle finger and a “fuck you.”

It’s what women are saying to you when they say “not all women are like that” after all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli November 16, 2009 at 03:11

All women are like that.. and men who support them deserve all the crap that these cunts dump on them!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 16, 2009 at 06:57

Here in America, where men are regularly shot by the police in the course of such incidents, this is called skating on thin ice.

That’s the issue. If you take that approach and she doesn’t back down, you go to jail, or die, one way or the other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 16, 2009 at 07:13

Implicit in such a message is also that there is nothing wrong with women’s behavior, or that it’s confined to such a small number of women that it’s insignificant.

And this is how and why “Team Woman” has developed such a bad PR problem for itself.

Both the following examples are probably old enough that a lot of people won’t remember them.

When Firestone tires found that they had a quality problem, how do you think their potential customers would have responded if they had refused to acknowledge the problem and simply said “Well, NOT ALL of our tires will blow up from under your SUV and kill you and your family. You just have to go out and find the ones that don’t. If you die, it’s your fault, not ours.”

Or when someone started putting capsules of poison in bottles of Tylenol, image what would have happened to the brand if they had just said “Well, NOT ALL our bottles have poison in them. You just have to go out and find the ones that don’t. If you die, it’s your fault, not ours.”

Big PR problem, and most women seem dedicated to making it even worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Deborah November 16, 2009 at 08:14

Given that marriage seems to be a large threat for many men nowadays, this brings up another legal agenda MRA should focus on:

The enforcement of Prenuptial agreements. My understanding of the law is relatively weak, but the little I do know – from scavenging the internet – is that Prenuptial agreements are weakly enforced in the United States and the UK. Perhaps when prenuptial laws are actually enforced, then men can get married without fear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 16, 2009 at 08:49

That’s true, Deborah. The problem is that in the US at least, family law courts are courts of “equity”. This means that they have (and take) broad leeway in interpreting laws and applying them with the express purpose of reaching an “equitable (read: “what the courts want”) result, rather than what a reading of the law on its face might require. This is why the courts basically do what they want without any control. In order to get prenups enforced like contracts are normally enforced, the states will need to flip family courts to being courts of law and not courts of equity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 16, 2009 at 10:18

Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 7:33 am
“Its a mutual relationship of providing and supporting for each other as well as children, which is critical to any functioning herd. The functioning unit starts at the functioning couple, who look after each other’s interests.”

For you young men out there…..just read through this again. This is how to spot women lying. Women looking after a mans interests? Really? Like when does that happen? Bhetti is doing her best to lie to you and to decieve you and to present women in a positive light when, in fact, the vast majority of women in the western world are complete crap now. Not all women are like that…just 99.99% of them….

“Never listen to a woman for relationship advice.” Dick Masterson (www.menarebetterthanwomen.com)

Young men..that statement is GOLD. I talked to western women for 32 years. Turned out they are all like Bhetti. They are all liars and deceivers. I talk to eastern women and they are open and honest about what they want and what they are prepared to do.

“Aside from the interference of the state, you are only tortured by who you allow to do so.”

Gents….when the cops came into my house. Arrested me for not even an allegation (must arrest policy) injured me while using massive force as they carried me off my feet out of my own house guess what? I wasn’t being ‘totured by those I allowed to torture me’. These two cops had 2-3 inches on me and a LOT of bench presses. They were gorillas and they were going to arrest me from the time my wife called them to ‘scare me’. You men here listen to what liars like Bhetti tell you about women and you deserve everything you get. I have asked that womens comments be kicked off. Now I am simply going to call them liars and deceivers when they post this crap because that is exactly what they are.

Thanks Bhetti for being an example of how ALL women ARE like this. ;-) We can’t teach the young men how crap you women are unless you turn up to prove it.

DT November 15, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“To tell the truth, I have more respect for a whore than I do for modern American women who steal a man’s money through alimony.”
Yep. I too hold prostitutes in higher regard to women who have divorced their husbands or women who are abusing their husbands…which is most of them. The prostitutes are honest. The wives are liars and thieves. I’d certainly trust a prostitute more than I would trust the ‘false friend’ who calls herself Bhetti.

Reinholt November 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm
“What are you bringing to the party?”

On this blog (http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam/) I posed the question “Name one thing a woman can offer a man like me.” The only response was “I would make your dreams come true.” Really? What does that even mean? The facts are simple. Women bring nothing to the party except the opportunity for a man to have his children. Apart from that, they are worthless. This is why the statutes strip the man of any right to his own children. It is to make women totally worthless by not even respecting a mans right to his own children. As women stand today they are worthless to a man like me. Eastern women are nice company and have that value. But I would never be satisfied with just one woman again. Period.

Deborah November 16, 2009 at 8:14 am
“Perhaps when prenuptial laws are actually enforced, then men can get married without fear.”
Gents, another woman proving women are stupid and ignorant. How many do you need to come to the conclusion ‘all women are like that’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
arthur November 16, 2009 at 10:53

Put me in the camp that thinks the best response is “fuck you, all women are like that”.

When I first happened upon internet forums that would discuss the battle of the sexes, my position was one of “mobilization”, get the guys who were aware of the problem to do something about it. After a while, I began to see the futility in this. I then moved to a position of “just the facts, ma’am” when discussing these issues with women. One problem. Women are not capable or not interested in seeing things from a male perspective, even when presented with the facts.

What’s the problem ladies? Why do you get all butt hurt over what men talk about on the internet? If you are really “not like that” why do you feel the need to defend yourself? You do realize that the more you post and protest, the more you prove yourself to be “like that”, don’t you?

You don’t need to answer because Zed nailed it already. Most guys in this “movement” are where I am now in the process. We quit. We won’t discuss it with you, we won’t mobilize, we won’t recruit (you’re doing that job for us), we will not marry you, we will not have kids, in extreme cases, we won’t even date you or interact with you.

And that’s what bothers you. Fewer and fewer suckers for team vagina to get their hooks into. For the current crop of women, the change won’t be too drastic. Maybe a few less emotional tampons, a few less free dinners, er, “dates”, fewer alpha men to choose from, and probably a decrease in flirting/attention.

But that’s not where the shit is gonna hit the fan. You didn’t forget about your kids, did you? Even with this movement, some of you are still gonna manage to reproduce. How do you plan on explaining the shit landscape that your daughters will inherit? This landscape will include thugs that will use your daughters as cum dumpsters, girly man metrosexuals, and guys that will have absolutely nothing to do with them. And your sons? They get to experience the joys of being drugged in grade school, false accusations and/or jail time, and being marginalized/divorced. All of this will be occurring at a heightened pace, what with another 20-30 years of feminism.
How will you explain this to your kids?

But that’s not all. (order yours before midnight tonite!!)

In addition to explaining to your kids that they live in a messed up world because you were too busy typing “not all women are like that”, or screaming “you go grrlll”, or you did nothing, you will have to fix this mess.
Or your daughters will. And that’s the second part of what bothers you. Women are good at leeching and parasitic activities. Fixing things or building things? Not so much. The men won’t be there to help. They will have quit or been marginalized by you and your laws.

And it won’t matter if you are “like that” or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta November 16, 2009 at 11:05

Thanks for calling out Bhetti, Globalman. She’s a clever little liar, isn’t she?

By the way, I love the indignation in your posts. Keep up the good work; people are listening!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 11:35

Deborah–

My understanding of the law is relatively weak, but the little I do know – from scavenging the internet – is that Prenuptial agreements are weakly enforced in the United States and the UK. Perhaps when prenuptial laws are actually enforced, then men can get married without fear.

Prenups aren’t enforced whatsoever in the UK. The courts can and do ignore them on all issues there.

In the US if they’re negotiated with separate lawyers on both sides and are entered into after full financial disclosures they are enforced with respect to property division and in some states with respect to alimony. They aren’t enforced in any state with respect to child support=alimony, though they may be given some weight on issues of true joint custody and child support levels above a certain threshold. They’ll likely be supported AGAINST a husband but not necessarily for him.

They should of course be enforced for everything except perhaps child support at welfare levels.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 11:43

Deborah–

They’re mostly enforced with respect to alimony, in most states, but there’s an increasing trend to find exceptions where they won’t be. Connecticut won’t enforce “unreasonable” limitations on alimony. (!)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 16, 2009 at 11:59

I came back to this blog and read the statement by Globalman. I had an experience with my first wife in which she sucker-punched me during a normal conversation (yes, she was nuts and hospitalized for it), gave me a fat bloody lip and then called the police. I explained to her that I have the injury, that was stupid. She picked up my son’s cowboy boot, and attempted to hit herself in the face with it (I couldn’t make this stuff up). The police came, and the head officer was a guy I had known for years. He told her “we can take you in for that”, and they both left. I’m writing this simply because I’m more than sure that she and Globalman’s wife are not related, nor do they know each other. This sort of crap happens all the time, and statistics support it. I got custody of the kids and raised them myself, without any help from her (however, she has continued to bother me over the years even after being remarried with “I know you still love me” crap. I don’t like restraining orders since they are misused. I learned they are also pointless, since I was forced to take one out on my first wife. She would simply come over, do a little taunting and take off. Oh yeah, she did ‘help’ with the kids. She called CPS, etc. several times to say that I wasn’t there (untrue). The second time the officer told me who was calling. One time, they pulled my daughter aside to ask her if I hit her. Of course her reply was “No, my daddy’s very nice”. Are all women like that. Do any of them have honor, integrity, etc.? I don’t know, perhaps we need Diogenes to walk with his lantern.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 16, 2009 at 12:09

Perhaps I should not have included that my first wife had mental problems, since actions such as this seem endemic to women. I have nothing to do with my daughter, and I told the reason why on another thread (and I was a damn good dad). My dad passed away, and my mom broke her hip (and had an alzheimer like disorder). She died less than a year later. When she went to the hospital, my daughter stole very expensive jewelry from my parent’s home. I love my daughter, but will never tolerate this type of behavior (she has stolen from my home as well. It’s not in the genes, must be the gender or something. Yes I realize there are many men who are criminals. That’s not what I’m writing about here. There is something endemic to female behavior in which they are restricted by nothing and supported by the system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 12:22

Let’s cut to fundamentals. In an age when women can work and earn as much as men; in an age when women’s promises of sexual exclusivity or ready sexing in or out of marriage aren’t enforced in any way whatsoever, either culturally or certainly legally, why should men be ordered by society to support women after those women have left them? Or after those women have stopped providing things of value that the man still wants? One way obligations much?

Especially how can it possibly be just that men are required to pay support when they never even married nor provably promised to do so, certainly not in writing? How is that possibly just – any of it? The link the beautiful and supportive Bhetti provided for a new law in the most lefty province in Australia, Victoria (home to chilly Melbourne), is appalling. As is Nova’s reference to a palimony type decision in NJ where the man didn’t even live with the woman. Palimony based on oral pillow talk. (I’d have no problem enforcing a written post breakup support agreement.)

The essence of the problem is what’s fair for society or the state to demand from men in their provider role these days. Yes, most alphas also fulfill provider roles in part, particularly as they get older. Most alphas are leader alphas, not biker or thug alphas. Most alphas do get married, or live together, or certainly have LTRs.

There is no difficulty in what a man chooses to freely give his wife, or his mistress, or his live in girlfriend. The issue is should he be obligated by the state to continue to do so when he no longer wants to, and when she’s no longer giving him anything in return, based upon his past patterns, or her hopes, or claimed oral promises even if pillow talk etc.?

Why isn’t it utterly outrageous in this day and age to apply post split up obligations on men, doubly so when minor children aren’t involved, since marriage no longer obligates women whatsoever?

Especially since it’s women rather than men who leave marriages by almost a 2.5 to 1 ratio now, ending 50% of them. Especially since women can earn as much as men, though they often don’t because they can and do get men to do some of their earning for them. Although many women do earn more than many men, for reasons of voluntary hypergamy which both sexes prefer, women still strongly tend to pair up with men who earn more than they do, and that’s even more likely to be the case after a few years, when they feel they can slack more than he feels he can and remain in a decently happy marriage. (Long periods of male unemployment significantly raises the divorce rate; female unemployment has no effect on it.)

The whole core idea of marriage is an exchange. It always has been. The woman doesn’t just get inseminated by a man her society and she, or entirely she, chooses. Nor does she get a tribally enforced right to his support just because she did. Instead she exchanges ready and exclusive sex to him, and homemaking work in return for provisioning. Certainly that was the model in the overwhelming majority of human populations other than in sub Saharan Africa throughout all of history, and it is as well there usually I think. If a wife was caught copulating with another in almost all societies she could and would lose the right to be his wife or get his support. She’d often be ejected without rights to the children.

Why can women now get something for nothing, extracted from ex’s at quite literally the point of guns, when women are free both legally and culturally to leave any realionship whenever they feel like it at will and on a whim?

In our own place and time women who aren’t continuing to provide things of value to men should have absolutely no right to go on receiving male support, unless they’ve managed to secure an agreement, in writing, that they do. Of course it has to be in writing because of course pillow talk doesn’t count. If real estate transactions are sufficiently grave and consequently to need to be in writing, then so too must on going post relationship support agreements. Particularly because it’s so unusual that a man would really wish to be bound by any such thing.

This means that all alimony is outrageous including the alimony hidden within child support=alimony which was jacked way up in the hyper feminist hysteria 1990s in the US. With other places following to some extent. Women who leave a marriage, certainly for anything other than egregious male fault (and most feminist bs “abuse” doesn’t count although serious injury particularly if repeated would) should not receive half of their husbands accumulated wealth, but only their own.

Child custody should be truly joint, but if it isn’t, it should be at low and capped levels, enough to feed and clothe the child but beyond that up to the father. If the mother wants continuing support she should have to stay with him and provide things including good sex to him in return and make the marriage work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 12:33

David Brandt

There is something endemic to female behavior in which they are restricted by nothing and supported by the system.

It’s only endemic in female behavior in the sense that girls have the capacity for evil and selfishness and immoral behavior, just as men do. No they aren’t “sugar and spice and everything nice” or natural paragons of virtue unless they’re corrupted, on a higher moral plane than men, as the Victorians believed. There are differences. They are less violent on average (though by no means entirely non violent) but also perhaps more prone to lying and emotional decision making.

However you are onto something. What you’re onto though is primarily cultural. In feminist America, women are taught to feel empowered, and to trust their emotions rather than to strongly govern or suppress them (as men are taught to do), and that in any dispute with a man she’s almost certainly morally right if she feels that she is. Any primacy they assert over men is progressive and good; any that a man might assert over her, is almost certainly patriarchal and oppressive and wrong, or at least stoggy and Neanderthal and unattractive (unless she’s deeply attracted to it, which is *ahem*, treated as an aide, personal matter, and entirely her choice and her right to feel outraged about at will).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 16, 2009 at 12:34

Yup. The only way to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues is to have hidden cameras follow around women, because to be honest they are hip to the system and a certain % will simply abuse it because they can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 12:35

Zeta–

Thanks for calling out Bhetti, Globalman. She’s a clever little liar, isn’t she?

What did she lie about? How do you know?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 16, 2009 at 12:41

Concerning marriage
Don’t follow Einstein’s description of insanity. I have done so, under the beLIEf that they’re not all like that. Here is my advice for any man living in the anglosphere:
The best strategy any man can make is:
1. An ounce of prevention….just don’t do it in the first place.
2. If you are married, plan for the divorce. Don’t wait for her to declare war, be prepared and end it first. There are ways to protect your assets. If you are not careful about separate money (inheritance, etc.) her attorney will come after them. This is not ‘fair’, but divorce is war. The lawyers can and will bleed you dry, don’t let them, be smart. Your sweet angel with turn into someone you don’t even know, a creature with ice-water for blood. Document anything you can use ‘just in case’, because you do not want to be the deer in headlights. There are always signs, but men don’t want to see them. Two or more red flags and eject.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 16, 2009 at 12:41

Yup. The only way to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues is to have hidden cameras follow around women, because to be honest they are hip to the system and a certain % will simply abuse it because they can.

These days you hardly need cameras. Just listen to young women talk amongst themselves at a restaurant, on the street or wherever, and you will hear some atrocious stuff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 16, 2009 at 12:44

There is one type of man I despise above all others. A white knight/mangina. Perhaps someone here can list the reasons why this type of man is so detestable to so many of us?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Reinholt November 16, 2009 at 12:45

Doug1,

You hit the nail on the head there; if you want freedom, you must also have responsibility. A woman cannot expect a man to support her while she does whatever she wants, regardless of his wishes, with no obligation to him.

Another reason why I will never get married!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 16, 2009 at 12:50

Doug1
“However you are onto something. What you’re onto though is primarily cultural. In feminist America, women are taught to feel empowered, and to trust their emotions rather than to strongly govern or suppress them (as men are taught to do), and that in any dispute with a man she’s almost certainly morally right if she feels that she is.”
This holds true for the entire anglosphere, it’s unnecessary to list the countries. As far as female violence is concerned, the statistics concerning child abuse and spousal abuse (the real stats) would indicate that they are at least equal, and I’m being generous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 12:52

Globalman

@Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 7:33 am
“Its a mutual relationship of providing and supporting for each other as well as children, which is critical to any functioning herd. The functioning unit starts at the functioning couple, who look after each other’s interests.”

For you young men out there…..just read through this again. This is how to spot women lying. Women looking after a mans interests? Really? Like when does that happen? Bhetti is doing her best to lie to you and to decieve you and to present women in a positive light when, in fact, the vast majority of women in the western world are complete crap now. Not all women are like that…just 99.99% of them….

Just how do you know she was lying about what she wants? She’s obviously describing a well functioning human pair bond in a sane society.

Your 99.99% figure is also of course truly absurd. As well Bhetti isn’t a Western raised women. Her culture is different. Actually she bridges cultures in many interesting ways. As old timers at Roissy’s know because she’s said so there, she was born and spent her childhood in the Middle East, is Arab, and now and for some years has lived with her family in London and gone to school there, where she’s now a third year honors medical student. At 20.

The real point Globalman is how distorted Western culture and laws have become, not the inherently evil nature of women, or “western women”. Women aren’t inherently morally superior to men though either. That’s true.

The pendulum of power especially in all matters touching on the domestic sphere has swung way to far in women’s favor. Further it’s power without much of any enforced responsibility. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yes western women have become quite corrupted.

However you sink to what amounts to genuine misogyny, and that does the MRA movement as much harm as good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 16, 2009 at 12:59

”””””””Talking about the current sad state of dating and marriage in the USA will often elicit “Not All Women Are Like That” or NAWALT.””””’

The problem is that the game is over before you start. All woman fall under the same laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 12:59

David Brandt

As far as female violence is concerned, the statistics concerning child abuse and spousal abuse (the real stats) would indicate that they are at least equal, and I’m being generous.

I’m familiar with that in both those areas.

In essence the problem is that female domestic violence is culturally and for the most part legally permitted, whereas that of men is utterly demonized. There’s huge benefit of the doubt on women’s side and they know it; whereas men are guilty of being morally horrendus unless proven pure as the driven snow. And men are increasinly aware of that.

So a girl can punch a man in the stomach, or slap him as hard as she can in the face. Both are almost culturally permitted, but now it a man in anyway retaliated or even threatens to, it’s horrendous according to both feminists and the most chivalrous of conservatives types and he can be and is hauled off to jail for no injury. The time in jail isn’t usually long but he’s guilty until proven innocent and he can be and usually will be throw out of his house etc. because orders of protection are automatic even when she wants the whole thing dropped the next day or two later. It won’t be. Not for months. So he’s out of his home.

It’s an incredible. But look first and most of all to the culture and to that law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 16, 2009 at 13:10

“However you sink to what amounts to genuine misogyny, and that does the MRA movement as much harm as good.”

Globalman is….absolute. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. You need an unbreakable, unshakable battlefield commander. A leader who has no doubts about the necessity for war, and who shows no mercy for the enemy. A leader who will charge head first into battle; “Lead from the front” so to speak. Someone who chooses “scorched earth” over “nation building”, because the risks are too high to allow any possibility of the enemy regrouping, recouping, and retrenching. A leader who doesn’t regret fallen soldiers, but fondly remembers them. A leader who doesn’t dwell on sacrifices that must be made, who keeps his eye on the bigger picture. Are such people a little crazy? Is their empathy maybe lacking? Are they filled with blood-lust for the enemy? You bet. And sometimes, in grave times, that is exactly what you need the most. Sometime to ensure the survival of good over evil, light over dark, peace over war, you must fight fire with fire.

I disagree with Globalman plenty. But the part we agree on far outweighs anything else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 16, 2009 at 13:52

I think it’s almost always true that if societal/legal pressures and expectations aren’t in place, people will almost always consider their own needs first. The problem at this point is the pressures/expectations on men are still in place (and are actually greater than they were in many cases), while those on women are largely gone.

If the pair bond is an exchange–resources/protection/stability in exchange for children/sexual exclusivity and frequency/domestic support, then women now have their cake (total freedom from constraints) and get to eat it too (white knight government), while men are still expected to provide ingredients for the cake and the oven to bake it in (marriage, a providor role for life enforced by the state, traditional masculinity) but don’t get to eat the damn thing.

But I think it’s disingenuous to assume that if men got to have their cake (all the sex they want) and eat it too (keep all their resources for themselves), they wouldn’t. Isn’t that what pump and dump is all about? Getting what you want with little to no investment? Looking after your own needs without considering others?

Neither males nor females are morally superior, IMO. We both start out as animals whose first allegiance is to ourselves, until cultural and moral guidance helps us see how a healthy society benefits everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 16, 2009 at 14:08

Which is why woman need to stop getting treated like little princes before marriage. Use marriage as a reward. When she jumps through some hoops like being a good girl and helping you save a nice fat chunk of money then you can get married. She must be made to prove herself instead of wondering about how the future will be live it before having kids or getting married. No need to guess about winning then. Whatever chick can help you save 200k cash is the right one. Rig the fucking game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 14:23

Jabherwochie

Globalman is….absolute. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. You need an unbreakable, unshakable battlefield commander.

He would make an attrocious battlefield commander. Volunteer for a suicide mission, perhaps. He has no judgment or ability to think strategically. He sounds crazy half the time and maybe is.

A half nuts uber bitter extremist leading a bunch of perceived bitter lesser beta and omega losers is not going to convince anyone of anything, or overtake any government by inspiring a revolution either.

Driving away or deeply alienating women like Bhetti or guys like me is nuts. Insanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
arthur November 16, 2009 at 14:36

Doug1
Driving people like you or Bhetti away won’t make 2 squirts of piss difference in the grand scheme of things. We are not going to convince anyone of anything, nor are we going to engage in some sort of revolution. All that’s happening here is men calling it as they see it. Without the sugar coating.

Don’t like it? I hear ivillage could use some more members.

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 16, 2009 at 14:38

Not really doug you don’t think if judges and lawyers started dieing in droves things wouldn’t change?

Only a couple have died and legislation has already been changing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 16, 2009 at 14:43

The sacrifice of a thousand men out of 180 million would completly change the current system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 16, 2009 at 14:44

Driving away or deeply alienating women like Bhetti or guys like me is nuts. Insanity.

That is only true if women like Bhetti or guys like you end up actually doing anything substantive about the issues.

This has been an issue of heated debate among MRA types for a long time – do radicals actually end up alienating the moderates, and if they do what is really being lost?

People point to guys like Glenn Sacks as a sort of icon of inclusiveness and middle-of-the-road politics, but he got shot at just as badly as Angry Harry in Salon’s recent hit piece on the MRM.

So far, it looks to me that the MRM has done nothing but lose and that a more radical approach could not possibly end up with less real support than the none which we already have. When men like F4J are considered “radicals” when they are fighting tooth and nail for the simple right to be the fathers that our culture demands men be, I can’t see much support to be lost by escalating to the point of becoming a real thorn in a few people’s sides.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta November 16, 2009 at 14:47

Doug1, aren’t you fucking Bhetti? Either way, the knight whiting is transparent (and disappointing).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 16, 2009 at 15:00

Well, one thing I can say about Bhetti is that she can take a licking a lot better than your typical Western female, so I wouldn’t worry too much about her.

This is one of the paradoxes of the typical Western female: They are overprivileged, empowered and in possession of an armory of legal weapons to use on men, but they are also the first to break down in tears and run off with their tails between their legs when challenged on an even field. Women raised in non-Western cultures are far more formidable and can stand their ground much more effectively.

The only problem is that Western culture assimilates women very rapidly, so that effect might be gone by the second generation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia November 16, 2009 at 15:05

That is only true if women like Bhetti or guys like you end up actually doing anything substantive about the issues.

This has been an issue of heated debate among MRA types for a long time – do radicals actually end up alienating the moderates, and if they do what is really being lost?
If somebody truly cares about men’s rights, justice, and gender relations, why would having a few insults aimed at them–on the internet nonetheless– make them abandon a cause they care about?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 16, 2009 at 15:05

Or we can wait for an admissable lie detector test. That would slice through quite a bit of crap in dealing with lying people and seeing the true moivations for peoples action we can just ask them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 16:11

Gunslingergregi–

Only a couple have died and legislation has already been changing.

Where has it started changing? For the better that is?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 16:16

zed–

do radicals actually end up alienating the moderates, and if they do what is really being lost?

You read much of any of what I’ve written about divorce theft and how it should change? Or what’s Bhetti’s said about that and liked about that and related. Or what I’ve said about child support for unwed sluts, now 40% of all births in America? Or the Violence Against Women act?

Mad man Global made an insane accusation that Bhetti was lying when what she was describing was a good pair bond in a sane human society, actually probably rather an early evolving human one of the sort that the Evo Psych people like to reference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 16:18

Zeta

Doug1, aren’t you fucking Bhetti? Either way, the knight whiting is transparent (and disappointing).

You obviously have no concept of what the word “white knighting” in the game community means, tard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 16:20

zed–

That is only true if women like Bhetti or guys like you end up actually doing anything substantive about the issues.

You mean more than you are?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 16, 2009 at 16:26

You read much of any of what I’ve written about divorce theft and how it should change?

There has probably been more “written” in the past 30 years than in all of human history before that. For all that volume of writing, I haven’t seen much in the way of actual positive changes in law.

What I have seen the past 5 years or so since some men started adopting a much harder edge to the way they dealt with women is a significant change in the tone of the dialogue and a dawning awareness that supporting men’s issues could turn out to be in their own long-term best interest.

Given how little women have done for men’s interests so far, losing nothing does not seem like much of a loss to me, particularly when it does seem like the more aggressive approach has finally gotten a bit of positive result.

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

Didn’t the arizona law get changed or up for change after judge got shot in high profile case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 16, 2009 at 16:40

zed–

What I have seen the past 5 years or so since some men started adopting a much harder edge to the way they dealt with women is a significant change in the tone of the dialogue and a dawning awareness that supporting men’s issues could turn out to be in their own long-term best interest.

I agree with that and have for a long time.

However harder edge is different from insane. It’s also different from loserish bitter. Angry can word. Mad as hell can work. Accusing a female ally or at the minimum partial ally of lying because any woman who says that ideally women want to cooperate with their mate in raising children and in mutual psychological support must be lying, is inane. It’s retarded. Hell she yesterday linked and called outrageous a case of extending support rights to mistresses in Victoria province, in Australia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David November 16, 2009 at 17:06

First, I agree about Western feminists when they try to debate. They tend to lie a lot in arguments, particularly when it comes to inconvenient facts. No-one has taught them to argue seriously. They complain a lot about having to deal with your arguments at all, and typically try to get an opponent silenced in some way, frequently by referring to the top male (for example the moderator of a discussion group). A typical tactic seems to be to caucus privately with other “offended” women, drop public hints that they feel that they are not welcome and that their feelings are all hurt. Then they ask to have you banned.

You can tell when a feminist man is arguing with you because he uses real arguments. Feminist females simply emote and try to “shame” you, an emotional approach.

As Camille Paglia wrote, the arguments of Women’s Studies types daily give more evidence for the old belief that women cannot think or write.

On standing up to one’s wife, I should add a couple of things. Of course this only works in a marriage when the woman is basically a good woman. (Moral: even good women need correction.) And of course one uses common sense. If there is real danger of someone getting hurt, and I include children in the home in this, then “safety first”. But, to use my example, if your wife gives you a girl punch on the arm to express her annoyance, a similar punch back should dissuade her, unless she is pyscho.

Where I live, I feel confident that there are no likely repercussions from such behaviour.

I can only report on “game” in my own marriage and say that unconsciously and now consciously applying techniques of this kind has helped my marriage a lot. In the last few days, I have *told* my wife to turn off a fan, to lower her voice, to *not* give me her opinion on something, to go to the supermarket without complaining (“to join the other cunts who are already shopping”). I also told her yesterday morning that next time she wants her bottom spanked (she likes this sometimes), she will have to beg. I could see that this turned her on.

Last night I was in a genuinely bad mood – normally I am very easy-going. Believe me, that woman served me my dinner last night, and cleared away my dirty plates, like a waitress working hard for a tip. She really responds to this stuff.

Not only that, but she is now making a real effort on her weight, and has started seriously going to the gym.

A few more things. Don’t return her calls promptly. She can wait. Don’t call her to “check in”. She knows where the phone is. Don’t chat on the phone – cut the conversation short. Convey the impression all the time that time with you is a premium commodity.

If she rants, ignore her or give her a minimal response. Be laconic. The strong, silent approach is quite good. Don’t gab like a Woody Allen film.

Don’t treat her like a delicate flower. She’s your wife, not your female boss. She doesn’t have “breasts” – “tits” will do.

People try too hard to be perfect. Men and women are not naturally good, and we can only do our best. To me, a mark of a “Beta” is trying too hard to be a nice guy. Women are smart enough to know that all men have a dark side. Trying to be a nice guy all the time is a strain, it’s fake, and a woman will see through it and despise you for pretending. Women rather like the Naughty Boy side of the male sex. Men’s antics are entertaining for women.

My goal as a boss at work and a man at home is to be decent, kind and firm. Occasionally I have to provide correction. My wife is fairly volatile, so I have to be quite tough with her (she is not particularly sensitive). People expect even a decent man to be tough occasionally. In fact, a decent man will probably be taken more seriously than a guy who just rants all the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Deborah November 17, 2009 at 04:50

What do I bring to the party? The best two things at the party: Chips and beer!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 17, 2009 at 08:49

First of all, just in case there is any confusion, any military references I make are metaphorical. The “war” I talk about is always a political one; MRA vs Feminism. I use military metophors a lot because they are easy for me to relate to any other conflict, whether physical, psychological, political, social, or man vs nature. Even if better metophors exist, I happen to use military ones. Its what I know, and it helps me visualize something that is more abstract.

“Jabherwochie

Globalman is….absolute. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. You need an unbreakable, unshakable battlefield commander.

He would make an attrocious battlefield commander. Volunteer for a suicide mission, perhaps. He has no judgment or ability to think strategically. He sounds crazy half the time and maybe is.”

You think there is no strategic use for a full frontal assault, basically a suicide mission, ever? Sometimes you simply have to break the line of defense. That will incur high casualities. Storming the beaches of Normandy, although a fake out was used, was still a full frontal assault, and yes, plenty crazy. Someone had to do it and someone had to lead.

“A half nuts uber bitter extremist leading a bunch of perceived bitter lesser beta and omega losers is not going to convince anyone of anything, or overtake any government by inspiring a revolution either.”

Um, yes it will. That is how it most often happens in fact. You think a sane, complacent moderate can lead a bunch of successful Alphas to overthrow a government. That has never happened.

“Driving away or deeply alienating women like Bhetti or guys like me is nuts. Insanity.”

This shit is going to get real emotionally painful when it goes mainstream. If you break now, you won’t be much good then. Globalman may be hard to deal with, but when people in our cause start to falter, start to comprimise, and start to buckle under the shame of a full Feminazi nuclear propaganda strike against us, I know Globalman will be standing strong behind my back. Where will you be?

With that said, I would like to state that you are obviously intelligent, disciplined, and thoughtful. I value your presence in the movement greatly. Obviously extremism is inherently self destructive in the long term, but in the short term, it makes shit happen. This is a horrible analogy, but Al-Queda isn’t run by the suicide bombers. They don’t make the strategy or deal in tactics. They are still the most important part of their orginization, from both the perspective of being a weapon, and for propaganda. We need every team member we can get, and we need to find a way to get along. The bigger picture is too important for bickering about who cares enough and who cares too much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 17, 2009 at 13:10

David–

First, I agree about Western feminists when they try to debate. They tend to lie a lot in arguments, particularly when it comes to inconvenient facts. No-one has taught them to argue seriously. They complain a lot about having to deal with your arguments at all, and typically try to get an opponent silenced in some way, frequently by referring to the top male (for example the moderator of a discussion group). A typical tactic seems to be to caucus privately with other “offended” women, drop public hints that they feel that they are not welcome and that their feelings are all hurt. Then they ask to have you banned.

It’s amazing how really widespread this is. Lefties in general tend to do this, but feminists as female lefties do it hugely. Pretty nearly universally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti November 17, 2009 at 14:34

Globalman may be hard to deal with, but when people in our cause start to falter, start to comprimise, and start to buckle under the shame of a full Feminazi nuclear propaganda strike against us, I know Globalman will be standing strong behind my back. Where will you be?

You have seen this, haven’t you:

McThree,
“fighting feminists” is a complete waste of time and energy. While men ‘fight feminism’ they are distracted from the real battle at hand, they are victims of the ‘divide and conquer’ technique.

I had hoped that MRAs were a little more intelligent and a little more able to see the bigger picture. It seems they are not. I have been talking around MRAs for a little while now and they steadfastly refuse to do their homework and learn about what is really going on.

Women are the ‘useful idiots’ of the Illuminati and fighting them is pointless.

Time to ‘wake up’.
–Globalman
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37

I’d watch my back if I were you, in that specific instance.

You’re a loyal man to your fellow males, which is great. Be loyal to globalman and love him knowing his nature.

Of course when you say fighting feminism, you may consider when not overcome with passion that the best tactics is Machiavellian rather than scorched Earth — scorched Earth or more relevantly radicalism only works if you’re overwhelmingly in power which you most decidedly are not. Radicals can only survive in a state that is merciful towards them for its own reasons. That there is or would be any mercy for MRAs seems low probability.

I’m quite flattered the best anyone has come up with as defense of globalman’s assertions can be summarised as ‘extremism is justified’. It seems quite clearly that I’m being used as a random symbol of all that is wrong with femalekind.

Even when called somewhat puzzlingly a liar, I was called a ‘clever’ one, which explains why to single me out in this instance [ note: even this is disagreement while trying to show loyalty, contradicting the 'idiots' assertion seen above by globalman]. It seems to me that in this instance wanting to find something to disagree with me is not based by motivation of finding the truth, but on an emotive basis. I don’t think I’m especially intelligent: I just try hard, am curious, like being open to new ideas, like being corrected and attempt intellectual honesty. Yes, there will be holes in what I say and I’d love for them to be pointed out. Which they were not in this instance.

So let us clarify what globalman read in simple language. He is thinking I’m saying women are lovely lovelies who will love you. I was clearly saying that it is not as simple as all that in terms of their natures — which they defy by lacking self-awareness and being socialised to shoot themselves in the foot — and this idea should be considered if you want to understand anything about anything.

The rhetoric witnessed here of oversimplification is for people swayed by simple propaganda and simple ideas, who cannot grasp beyond emotive and personal buzzwords. I don’t see that kind of audience here and it is not surprising that doesn’t work to persuade men of the real risks they face in everyday life, when the person who is warning them insults their comprehension capabilities and doesn’t attempt to frame their rhetoric in terms they can easily get on board with, easily perceive, easily understand.

If you have a low tolerance for risk and indeed also a bad understanding of their natures, you should avoid women.

They were gorillas and they were going to arrest me from the time my wife called them to ’scare me’. You men here listen to what liars like Bhetti tell you about women and you deserve everything you get.

Still, villifying women which may good in some situations for a movement is certainly far from the truth and denial of the role male themselves have played as in the instance above, both by enforcing/encouraging pathological behaviours and the males who have been villains, ruining it for everyone else. That genuinely villainous behaviour towards woman doesn’t engender great problems when up against other men is also a denial of the male nature.

Certainly I eventually saw the error and self-destruction inherent in blaming all men for behaviours of child molesters on one end of the spectrum or even for allowing a mere woman to be an abuser to her children while he stands aside and urges them not to anger her on the other end of the spectrum. That a man somehow thinks his nature is light compared to a female’s darkness is a narcissism that avoids the truth.

You shouldn’t deny the truth. When I study a disease, I don’t call it my enemy especially because it cannot help itself — and gender relations in Western society is diseased, its a system and body that is afflicted — I know it, I know it so well. If I understand it and don’t call it darkness, witchcraft and evil, only then am I truly capable of treating it. All else is stumbling incompetently in ignorance, discovery of what works only by trial and error.

Even while knowing the true nature of the disease, you can still be merciless and take risks that could make things worse rather than better, that sacrifice for a good that is greater. That you need to deceive yourself to do what you have to do should be and is nonsense. How is anything worth doing, if this is so?

I will act on what I see to be the balanced truth — unhappy with people on the Internet or not, because truth is something you cannot ignore once you perceive it — and certainly I will do it within the frame of my profession, its political influences and associated research as well as my own strengths and weaknesses. The truth is that men and women are being cast as enemies to each other, with women ‘winning’ pyrrhic victories.

Its strange that this comment section on this blog derails over me and that it has to become so personal; I don’t recall mentioning details of my private life to anyone here. Future comments focused on attacks on me should be placed — perhaps — in the Forum’s Fight Club? If you want that reassurance, I will read them and perhaps give you the satisfaction of a response you can slice to ribbons for sport.

Should I lack time and energy, forgive me for bowing out at this odd drama centered about precisely nothing. Perhaps another day, sirs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 17, 2009 at 14:39

This is kind of an instinctive thing for women, though. If they are aggrieved by a man, seek out the more dominant man (context) and have him “take care of the situation.” Women have played men against each other like this for millenia, and they’ve become naturals at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 17, 2009 at 14:48

This is kind of an instinctive thing for women, though. If they are aggrieved by a man, seek out the more dominant man (context) and have him “take care of the situation.” Women have played men against each other like this for millenia, and they’ve become naturals at it.

-Nova

This is why I encourage women to stand up for themselves. I think it’s actually considerably worse here in the Anglosphere than in other places, because women never have to stand up for themselves when in a dispute with a man — even when they are clearly in the wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 17, 2009 at 15:09

Yep, there is always a man who will step in and white knight and “take care of the situation”. Always. And he’ll pat himself on the back self-righteously for doing it, too, as he gingerly slides the knife out of the other man’s back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 17, 2009 at 15:18

Yep, there is always a man who will step in and white knight and “take care of the situation”. Always. And he’ll pat himself on the back self-righteously for doing it, too, as he gingerly slides the knife out of the other man’s back.

-Novaseeker

Older men are the absolute worst about this. I had a fat, old mediator nearly give himself a heart attack screaming at me what a piece of shit I was and why I should sign over custody. I almost laughed out loud at him (he looked like Tweedledum), which only made him more angry, because he was trying to provoke me to “prove” that I had anger problems, for the benefit of my “innocent” little ex, of course.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David November 17, 2009 at 17:14

Whenever I am tempted to think nasty thoughts about women, I remind myself that all my life I have had my meals prepared and my clothes washed by women.

Even my mother-in-law has served me dinner, when my wife couldn’t.

Life could be a lot worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
arthur November 18, 2009 at 10:14

So Bhetti, you are “like that” too, huh? You went right to the “victim card”, straight outta the playbook. Well done. Allow me to introduce you to someone…

Bhetti, meet Anoukange; Anoukange, meet Bhetti.

In your haste to gather sympathy, you missed the entire point. The position that Globalman and some of the other posters (myself included) come from is not to marry women ever, and that all women are bad. Globalman speaks from personal experience. And yet you, in a thread with a topic of “not all women are like that” march right in and post how good a marriage can be, totally dismissing what Globlaman has experienced and written. And you are surprised when he bitch splapped you?

You are either incredibly brain dead or incredibly insensitive.

Which is where I come in. Doug1 decided to play the white knight in this situation, and thankfully, the guys here did not let that fly, either. Zed knows my history on these types of forums. I detest white knights and women who repeatedly “don’t get it”. I am not here to negotiate with either of these types. You can’t play the “allies” card wither. My position is there will be no organized movement, and women will only respond when THEY are impacted by the bullshit from the last 40 years, either directly, or through daughters and sons. No need to recruit allies, the machine will do that for us.

Guys like Globalman and myself have exactly nothing to lose by being “extremist” and nothing to gain by being “moderate”. Now I want you to read that sentence a million times over if you have to, then you can understand exactly what it means. The current machine is producing more and more guys like Globalman and myself EVERY DAY. Rather than get all butt hurt over what we think, you might wanna invest some time and energy into impacting change so that your children and grandchildren can live in a society that doesn’t completely suck.

This is not our society to fix. It was created by manginas and women. We will be on the sidelines drinking beer and occassionaly cluebatting white knights and shortbuses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
No Marriage November 18, 2009 at 10:31

I am way less militant than most of the other men on this site, and I assure you I will NEVER get married. If a woman wants to be with me, and I want to be with her, than we’ll be together. If she wants a ring involved, it ain’t gonna happen. I don’t need some fake pretense of vows to stay true and committed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta November 18, 2009 at 11:55

“My position is there will be no organized movement, and women will only respond when THEY are impacted by the bullshit from the last 40 years, either directly, or through daughters and sons. No need to recruit allies, the machine will do that for us.”

Well said, Arthur. Isn’t it interesting when those who equivocate on men’s issues (or are outright against them) try to tell us how we should do things? And like you said, the golden rule is that women will not care on a wide enough basis to effect things until they start to feel the burn themselves. They aren’t going to feel that fire by us playing nice, that’s for sure. Most of it will have to be self-induced, and the few female allies we get from publishing sites like these (and it really is very few) won’t be won over because of how “nice and reasonable” we are. The social movements that tend to succeed are those that initially shock people and seem to “go too far”, not the ones that lick the master’s hand and ask for her to relent with the beatings.

Now, there’s a place for the Glenn Sacks of the world. Think of him as a gateway drug to those of us who understand that feminists can’t be reasoned with and are not our friends. MGTOW/MRA can be a wide tent. But the enemies and equivocators of men’s issues have no right to stick their noses under the tent and dictate what we should do, especially when they as a privileged class have the luxury of not being impacted by those decisions. You could even say they stand to benefit by causing men to splinter and squabble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 18, 2009 at 14:42

“I’d watch my back if I were you, in that specific instance.

You’re a loyal man to your fellow males, which is great. Be loyal to globalman and love him knowing his nature.

Of course when you say fighting feminism, you may consider when not overcome with passion that the best tactics is Machiavellian rather than scorched Earth — scorched Earth or more relevantly radicalism only works if you’re overwhelmingly in power which you most decidedly are not. Radicals can only survive in a state that is merciful towards them for its own reasons. That there is or would be any mercy for MRAs seems low probability.”

Bhetti, dear sweet Bhetti….

“you may consider when not overcome with passion that the best tactics is Machiavellian rather than scorched Earth”

Only an idiot would limit his options, and only an overconfident person would execute only one strategy while not having others ready to execute as a contingency. Do you know how many plans the military lays out, and how many possibilities they take into consideration, and how many fall-back plans they have prepared. I approach this from multiple perspectives. My tactics are more Machiavellian then you can imagine. I am also a student of Sun Tzu and General George S. Patton. I don’t mean to sound condescending, because I understand what you’re saying, but it is a shallow understanding of a complex situation. I know what I’m doing. I didn’t go from a little kid with Asperger’s syndrome, no chin, and a severe speech impediment, all the way to one of the most popular people in my highschool and then fraternity, to someone with a hot wife, easy job, and plenty of free time, by not playing my cards right, and by cards, I often mean allys.

“scorched Earth or more relevantly radicalism only works if you’re overwhelmingly in power which you most decidedly are not.”

That is fundamentally not true. Scorched earth is often used by the army with fewer resources and men. Radicalism is also. You do not understand war. And by the way, I am always overwhelmingly in power. To view yourself as anything less is to admit their is not always a way. There is always a way. That doesn’t mean I am not plagued with doubt and pessimism, just that I plan around them. I prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

“Radicals can only survive in a state that is merciful towards them for its own reasons. That there is or would be any mercy for MRAs seems low probability.”

Again, fundamentaly not true. All radicals exist in states not merciful to them, hence the term radical. Bhetti, try harder. Do you think Bush and Cheney were merciful to Al-Queda. Also, there will be plenty of mercy for MRA’s. There are always merciful people, and there will always be people who sympathize witht the radicals even when they are not radical themselves. They will often be inconsequential however, as we don’t want or need mercy.

“You shouldn’t deny the truth. When I study a disease, I don’t call it my enemy especially because it cannot help itself — and gender relations in Western society is diseased, its a system and body that is afflicted — I know it, I know it so well. If I understand it and don’t call it darkness, witchcraft and evil, only then am I truly capable of treating it. All else is stumbling incompetently in ignorance, discovery of what works only by trial and error. ”

I have no problem viewing a disease as an enemy. An enemy I can fool, or trick into destroying itself, or compromise so that it is too weak to be dangerous, sure, sure, but it is still an enemy. You view my definition of an enemy too literally. I use flowery metaphorical speech because it is a habit I developed for entertaining myself when I had to write boring after boring paper for a feminized education system. The habit stuck. I have friends who are enemies, enemies who are allies, and everything inbetween. My definition of an enemy isn’t as black and white as yours. If I can bribe Al-Queda and make peace with them so that they stop attacking us, and thought it would work, I would.

“The rhetoric witnessed here of oversimplification is for people swayed by simple propaganda and simple ideas, who cannot grasp beyond emotive and personal buzzwords. I don’t see that kind of audience here and it is not surprising that doesn’t work to persuade men of the real risks they face in everyday life, when the person who is warning them insults their comprehension capabilities and doesn’t attempt to frame their rhetoric in terms they can easily get on board with, easily perceive, easily understand.”

You overestimate people in general, yet underestimate us here. Paradox if I’ve ever seen one. Read between the lines sometimes. This is a complex game, and we’re just setting up the peices. The game hasn’t even started yet in earnest, and already you decry or strategy as being overly simplistic by looking at how we set up our side of the board. I now know why women don’t play chess and don’t fight wars.

I could go on deconstructing your words, but I’ve said enough. Men love to compete. We therefore become quite good at it. Leave the strategy and tactics to us.

I use every tool available to me, not just the best ones. You’ll understand eventually. If you watch carefully, it will be quite an entertaining show.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HKJ09 November 23, 2009 at 05:02

I think adding elements of statistical analysis to game is interesting and clever, but c’mon if you are going to use it at least get it right! Your stats teacher would be so disappointed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DT November 23, 2009 at 22:25

I’ve been so busy with work that I wasn’t able to respond after my initial comments.

Obsidian – excellent analogy with The Matrix. And yes, sometimes watching my friend interact with his wife is like watching someone bend or disregard the rules of nature. I’ve stood there thinking to myself: “Did he really just say that? She’s going to…wait…what? That just turned her on?!?”

Welmer – I don’t wish to trivialize the danger of the state. Indeed, I have given up on the idea of ever being married specifically because of the draconian laws imposed by the state on men when it comes to marriage and family. I refuse to subject myself to that. Every man needs to be aware of the truth here, of the reality that in an altercation with their wives they run the risk that their government will gladly shoot them in the back regardless of right or wrong. I despise the violent caricature of a government which passes today for what the founders of our Constitution originally wanted us to have.

Never the less, I honestly believe that the best way to keep the state and its body armored thugs out of one’s family is to practice game. A woman in love and lust with her husband will not divorce him. And so long as she does not pull the trigger of divorce, the state will stay away. (At least on that matter.) Being afraid of a divorce is the very thing that will bring a divorce, and the terror of the state with it.

One of the things I’ve noticed about my friend is that he and his wife never have the kind of screaming, brutal, potential police call fights my other friends have had. By standing his ground early in a potential argument, calm yet firm, he preempts the types of fights which lead to police involvement.

I can’t deny that part of his overall success is due to the fact that he chose wisely. All women need to be managed, but he chose a religious woman with some morals and a belief in traditional family. If you have a psycho on your hands, game may simply not be enough. Still, the majority of men would reduce their chances of divorce or state interference with game.

I’m not advocating marriage. But there is no end to the men who are already married and need help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: