The White Elephant

Post image for The White Elephant

by W.F. Price on November 27, 2009

One thing I’ve noticed as I read the complaints, case studies and various bits of advice in the manosphere is that it appears that, for the majority of men, having a wife or long-term female partner is rarely if ever described as making life easier. In fact, almost every warning or technique suggests that the success of a marriage is dependent on hard work and diligence on the part of the husband. Maintaining a marriage is described as a sacrifice that requires going above and beyond the call of duty. It was even the same in the semi-traditional sitcoms from the 1980s, where the woman “is always right,” and the husband has to frequently go to great lengths to please his wife and keep her happy.

Quite frankly, an American wife is generally known in our culture to be a gigantic liability; a white elephant that must be maintained at crippling expense. In fact, an elephant might even be easier – and certainly safer – than an American wife, because if it goes on a rampage the police will shoot the beast rather than you.

Is this a universal constant, or is it only an aberration that has arisen in the modern west? In civilized societies of ancient origin, such as China and India, it is well-known that sons are favored over daughters. Why is this is the case? In all likelihood, it is because daughters do not contribute to the well-being of the family, but rather cause trouble and expense beyond what they bring to the table. Furthermore, they leave the family when they come of age and marry, so all the expense that went into raising them comes to naught. These are cultures in which girls are taught to work from a young age, and who are expected to contribute not only children but valuable labor. Even today, Chinese girls who leave the family farm to work in factories prior to marriage send all but the minimum needed to survive back to their parents as a gesture of compensation, and in hopes that their parents will make a good match for them in marriage.

Such considerations are lost on American women, for whom every dollar earned is an opportunity for her to enjoy herself. The fruit of her labor is squandered on eating out, going to a spa, getting her hair done, working out at a gym, dancing or gambling. She goes into marriage without any sense of responsibility or duty to anyone but herself, and our society, based as it is on consumerism, celebrates and encourages this attitude. It is as though the American economy relies upon the production of lousy daughters and wives, good for nothing but selfish expenditures and entirely unable and unwilling to see any purpose to life beyond self-indulgence.

Even the wedding itself has been turned into nothing more than an excuse for women to indulge themselves. Ostentatious weddings with huge cakes, expensive dresses, exquisite hairstyles and perfectly choreographed routines are a far cry from the modest affairs of only a few decades in the past, where the solemnity of the sermon was the defining moment of union between a man and woman. Today, the vows are an afterthought; the flowers, gifts, dresses and cake overwhelm all else, so symbols of decadence and frivolity mark the occasion rather than any sense of sacred matrimony.

This shift in attitudes has taken its toll not only on the weight wives assign to their wedding vows, but to the very concept of matrimony itself. Marriage is supposed to be a big party, with gifts and affirmation at every stage (e.g. baby showers, anniversaries, etc.). There is absolutely no remaining sense of duty, so at the first sign of hardship on the horizon the typical wife grows weary of the married state and destroys the union, and then is rewarded by divorce, and again by yet another wedding.

Culturally speaking, it is clear that the deck is stacked against marriage, and that a man will face great hurdles to happiness in the state of matrimony. This is probably not sustainable, but what process will turn things around? I am growing more and more convinced that the very economics that created this system will destroy it, and already are destroying it. Someone must pay for women’s indulgence at every step of the way, and men, squeezed as they are today, will be less and less able to afford to indulge their daughters, wives and ex-wives, even if ordered to do so by the court. Eventually, as women become the majority owners of wealth in America and those who earn the most money, which is already happening in blue cities in the under-35 demographic, they will have to pay for all this extravagance themselves. Men will concurrently expect them to do so, as men realize that there is nothing at all to be gained from indulging thankless women.

Therefore, just as in the ancient civilizations, women will again be expected to pay their own way, and they will increasingly be valued above all for that ability rather than the simple fact that they are women. As always, entitlement inexorably creates obligations, and women will find that their heaviest burdens are their own expectations and desires.

{ 140 comments… read them below or add one }

Nemo November 27, 2009 at 13:15

If women spent half as much time, effort, and money on keeping their husbands happy as they spend on planning their wedding day, then the divorce rate would asymptotically approach zero.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
Omega Man November 27, 2009 at 13:31

I would caution against reading too much of the yuppie culture of the big cities into society as a whole. It’s not as bad in the hinterlands. I suspect this tracks well with Steve Sailer’s theory of affordable family formation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Angry Harry November 27, 2009 at 13:44

@Welmer

These extracts from Eric Dingwall about American women written in 1956 might interest you, …

http://www.angryharry.com/reTheAmericanWoman.htm

Here is a taste, …

” The conflict in the American soul, is an economic and a sexual conflict, and the American woman is, I think, at the heart of that conflict. It is women who set the stage and largely control the players in important sections of American life. America is a woman’s world, a world in which, as a Chinese woman, Helena Kuo, remarked, women have succeeded in everything except in the art of being truly feminine. In this lies the tragedy and the danger. It is the purpose of this book to try to see how the American woman has attained her position and how the whole of American culture is permeated by her influence”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Paul November 27, 2009 at 13:57

Welmer in your insightful piece ‘ The Long Train Wreck’ you argued how circumstances where leading to economic collapse. You return to this theme in the above piece. There is an integrity and a wholeness to your reasoning, made all the more convincing because you do not aver from statistics and numbers but from the deeper reality of how we think and behave.

From my experience I would say that it is true that women are addicted to consumption, and often trivial consumption at that. They also seek to endlessly celebrate themselves and want other to celebrate then as well.

The deeper symptom of this is that consumption has become the same as production. We seem to measure wealth not in terms on what is made but in how much is consumed. Is this sustainable? Well may be for sometime to come it will be. As a star collapses it shrink and gives off its remaining energy. So it could be as men deflate all that they are worth will be sucked out in order to sustain women in one bright final moment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Justin November 27, 2009 at 14:11

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18
Expatriate November 27, 2009 at 14:25

Most independent my ass.

If they were so independent then they wouldn’t need all these state sponsored welfare schemes now would they Justin?

Justin is the same guy who suggested that “private marriage contracts” will solve mens problems when courts don’t even enforce pre nups in many cases.

You can be a good mangina & kiss their ass but there are white MEN who still have their balls intact that refuse to do so.

I don’t care whether white women as a whole are submissive or not, all I want is for them & their enablers like you is to stop stealing from men using the threat of gov’t force our children & money.

And I don’t care if someone is my mom or sis, if they act like skanks then they are skanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Puma November 27, 2009 at 14:29

Justin,
Here is a strong independent woman from North Carolina:

http://forum.freeadvice.com/alimony-spousal-support-35/enforcing-spousal-support-order-494402.html

She’s so strong and independent that she both needs her ex-husband’s money as well as any lawyer mangina chumps’ in the form of pro-bono contempt filing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Puma November 27, 2009 at 14:31

… ok it looks like she is from Pennsylvania. She’s calling the bloodhounds to North Carolina.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma November 27, 2009 at 14:35

.. and let’s not mix our terms. These women are some other guy’s daughter, sister, mother, etc. They are of no relation to the man that they are actually killing via divorce theft, alimony, paternity fraud, etc.

Just because she is some other guy’s relative, I am not going to trust her with Marriage 2.0. She may be somewhat nice to brother, father, etc, but it is no guarantee that she will be nice in the long run to me, a genetic stranger.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 27, 2009 at 14:35

And they sure as hell aren’t the most beautiful.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
rebel November 27, 2009 at 14:41

But the most vocal and strident: that, they are!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
D'Mas November 27, 2009 at 14:45

They weren’t always this way. I have photographic, written and in some cases living proof.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 27, 2009 at 15:44

@Paul
“They also seek to endlessly celebrate themselves and want others to celebrate them as well.”

In a recent British survey, where a 1000 women between 35-69 were given a “click-counter” to press, every time they had negative thoughts about their looks or themselves, showed that the average woman thought bad about herself, -in one way or another, -252 times a week!! If the average woman feels that bad about herself, the need to be “celebrated” must be equally high, and may therefore explain this compulsive need for acknowledgement in everything they say or do.

Thinking in his way is basic selfsuggestion taken to the extreme, and basically means, that no matter how many times you tell them, that they´re beautiful, lovely and everything you want, you still have to do it more than 252 times a week, before it has any impact. Preferably a lot more times, if she´s eventually going to believe it herself. The big winner was a woman who thought bad about herself 1440 times a week!!!

-Now, let´s do a little math on this:
252 times a week X 56 weeks X 40 years=540.480 times that they need to hear the opposite of what they are thinking about themselves. And that was only 252 times as the starting numbers…

Now I would rather polish The Great Wall of China with a toothbrush, than I would polish anyones ego that many times, without making any difference.

-Just don´t marry, that´s all I can say! -It´s a never ending battle against the odds, to make a creature that selfloathing eventually like itself !!

Great piece, Welmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman November 27, 2009 at 15:48

Justin clearly has virtually no direct experience with women. Ferdinand Bardamu has taken him to the woodshed a number of times.

US women are no more ‘independent’ than a 10 year old who screams until the child gets what she wants, but would be in serious trouble if she was suddenly orphaned and had to fend for herself. Adult women are merely using the state to extend childhood bliss and avoid adult responsibility, at the expense of men.

Now, I have repeated often that there is absolutely no reason for a man to pay for any dates before having sex. It is simply not necessary, and actually counterproductive to the importance of demonstrating higher value to her. Spending money on her is the earliest major ‘test’ that most men fail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Kimski November 27, 2009 at 15:56

Oops..thinking in this way..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon November 27, 2009 at 16:13

I don’t think that women have as much power as people think in the workplace. They talk a lot but I’ve crossed a number of them in various situations and none of them have been able to get to me over several years. I regularly argue against feminist nonsense and I say things that people think is outrageous. I don’t pick fights, though, and I don’t let this interfere with my work but every office has a few feminist factoid spouting bullies who give me opportunities to refute bullshit. They make up stuff about me. When I left my last company and moved to another one in the industry they made a concerted effort to damage my reputation and were successful to some extent but nothing came of it. In the long run I got to refute most of it and in the cases where there was some truth to the much exaggerated criticism I had the opportunity to improve.

A few years later I went on the company’s message board and started making fun of them and all the stupid stuff that went on there. Stupid and immature but not unsatisfying. I’m sure they could guess who it is but apparently they can’t do anything about it, it’s been a long time. I think if more guys actually had the balls to stand up for themselves they’d find that as long as you play by the rules you can actually flush out some of the truly vicious cunts and put them on display for everyone to see. It may very well be a risk worth taking if you’re getting taken advantage of.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
julie November 27, 2009 at 17:05

I have liked the last couple of posts you have written. You are very down to earth Welmer. I is very special IMO.

You should hear the elder women in NZ. They can’t stand young women. They say they expect far too much from men and they expect it all from the day they marry. Where’s my house, where’s all my appliances, where’s all my, my, my, my?

Most of them (say elder women) have nothing to offer back. They can’t cook and they don’t know how to raise children”. They think they should have a life of house cleaners, nannies, the red carpet and a man who will treat them like a princess and be there all the time. The expectations are impossible for any man no matter if he is the richest man on earth.

I think all young women should be sent to Africa and other countries less fortunate as volunteers before they have careers and a family. I think men who join the army are awesome. I had noticed the difference as a 16 year old. Women should have to do something similar. IMO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
julie November 27, 2009 at 17:37

Ooops. Just want to clarify that I am not happy with men going to war. I just think the army and navy and air force offers something in their training that makes men into something neat. I am pro discipline for males. :D

In the same way, I am pro discipline for women also. That was the point I was trying to make.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Renee November 27, 2009 at 17:40

Great post.

I just hate how the marriage ceremony has become so superficial (I mean, look at bridezillas) and the state of marriage itself today.

A few thoughts:

Do single American men have the same gesture of compensation as those Chinese and India women?

Such considerations are lost on American women, for whom every dollar earned is an opportunity for her to enjoy herself. The fruit of her labor is squandered on eating out, going to a spa, getting her hair done, working out at a gym, dancing or gambling.

The image I’m getting here and in this post in general is of those spoiled, rich, well-to-do women, not your average middle-class one. Then again, I try to see the bright side in things. You don’t have to be rich to be spoiled.

Of course women spend money on themselves, everyone does when they’re single. But while being single, they have to support themselves as well, which I think most of their finances go to unless they’re just stupid. If they’re stay-at-home-moms (which many of you favor), of course she won’t be able to compensate that much to her parents since she isn’t working. But I assume that this is besides the point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 27, 2009 at 17:47

Eventually, as women become the majority owners of wealth in America and those who earn the most money, which is already happening in blue cities in the under-35 demographic, they will have to pay for all this extravagance themselves. Men will concurrently expect them to do so….

Hasn’t this happened already and is it a bad thing if they’re really that self-indulgent?

Therefore, just as in the ancient civilizations, women will again be expected to pay their own way, and they will increasingly be valued above all for that ability rather than the simple fact that they are women.

Well today, one of the qualities that some men like in a woman is that she has a job and can support herself. I don’t think that’s bad in and of itself, but I agree that if things go on like this, then that will be the main quality that’s valued.

Do you think that it’s ok for women to be valued simply because they are women and nothing else…..or maybe I’m missing something.

After reading this post, I wonder why there are people who are against women in the workplace.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Eumaios November 27, 2009 at 17:55

Do you think that it’s ok for women to be valued simply because they are women and nothing else?

What horrors our society has wrought, that a woman’s mind should be filled with such garbage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Renee November 27, 2009 at 19:22

Well I just think that a person’s value shouldn’t have to do with what sex you are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster November 27, 2009 at 21:04

@Jon: “I think if more guys actually had the balls to stand up for themselves they’d find that as long as you play by the rules you can actually flush out some of the truly vicious cunts and put them on display for everyone to see.”

I agree 100%. I’ve taken on my employer. Sure, I finished up having to leave, but it’s been worth it, for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons relate to my comments on the thread “When rebellion is the only option”. That is, how your personality evolves depends on the choices you make, and the fights you take up. But there is another important observation. It was the “males” in the establishment that were my worst enemy and, while the feminists knew to keep well away from me, it was the women who were my strongest supporters, even though I made no secret of my anti-feminism! Go figure. There is a important lesson here for MRAs, not all men are our friends just because they’re male.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 27, 2009 at 21:08

A couple of points :

and then is rewarded by divorce, and again by yet another wedding.

I would argue that it is extremely rare for a woman to be able to re-marry if she has kids. Even if she doesn’t women assume that the prospects she had the last time she was single will still be there upon re-entry when she is several years older. To the surprise of no one but themselves, this is not the case.

Eventually, as women become the majority owners of wealth in America and those who earn the most money,

Women will never become majority owners of wealth in any society (unless you subjectively count the wife of a wealthy man as spending most of what he makes). Why? Because wealth first has to be *created*, and the only people who create it is men. Men will lose the incentive to create it slightly before women control 50% of it, and only single men will create it, possibly moving to a place of lower taxes too.

So the whole shaky edifice that female entitlement rests on will correct far before they ever control half.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 27, 2009 at 21:25

I would argue that it is extremely rare for a woman to be able to re-marry if she has kids.

-TFH

Hardly. You underestimate the incentive some bottom feeder has to live in her ex’s house and leech off child support and alimony.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
SoonToBeBanned November 27, 2009 at 22:16

‘ It is in their race, in their blood. They are the most beautiful women on the planet, and the most independent. They have always been this way, and probably always will. We are free, intelligent, and creative, and so are they. ‘

Pro-white sentiments count as race-baiting, Justin. For your penance, go and memorize the complete works of Elie Wiesel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 27, 2009 at 22:19

Hardly. You underestimate the incentive some bottom feeder has to live in her ex’s house and leech off child support and alimony.

But how will she remarry to a man who has any options to speak of? We are talking about a woman getting a second husband, after cheating the first one.

A divorced single mom of 33, who used to be hot at 27, has experienced just about the fastest plunge in her prospects around.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
sabril November 28, 2009 at 00:15

I think part of the problem is that many men marry the prettiest girl they can find without much regards to her personality.

It’s roughly analagous to the woman who rejects “nice guys” in favor of “bad boys” Then when the guy pisses all over her, she comes to resent men in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
julie November 28, 2009 at 00:38

I would argue that it is extremely rare for a woman to be able to re-marry if she has kids.

Really? It amazes me how single men and women with no children think parents are the same as them. Mothers remarry just as fathers remarry. Welcome to the 21st century. (happened last century and all throughout history BTW)

I prefer men and women who have kids being around me. I find they are less selfish for the obvious reason they have had to share themselves and give unconditionally to someone else who gives no financial rate of return what-so-ever. :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
sabril November 28, 2009 at 02:16

The fact is that a woman’s romantic market value takes a big hit if she has a child or children, more so than does a man’s.

It’s amazing to me how many people (mostly women it seems) are in denial about double standards in sexual attractiveness. But only when those double standards work against women.

Nobody seems to deny that childless women in their late teens and early 20s command a huge amount of extra sexual attention compared to men of the same age and status.

The thing is, women are not competing with men for sexual attention — they are competing with other women. (The same is true for men of course.) So the extra attention received by childless young women comes at the expense of women who are older and/or mothers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Paul November 28, 2009 at 02:17

A commenter above says that women have bad thought about their appearance which is why the require reassurance. I think the real point is that a woman would rather change your mind than change herself.
I see this all the time. Women who have no discernible sexual shape at all put all their energy into forcing a man to see as attractive that which quite frankly he can not.

So yes a woman would rather change a man’s mind that her own shape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud November 28, 2009 at 02:36

Justin is a fag.

His variety of racism has to be the stupidest thing going. “Anything white is good and to be celebrated.”

Bullshit.

And despite Justin’s faux celebration, there is a sense in his tone of burden. I can’t put my finger on exactly what it is. It is something like the exhaling sigh sound a man makes, spitting into his hands, before he picks up a heavy load and throws it over his shoulder.

“Anything white is to be endured and celebrated”.

BULLSHIT. Problem-people are and problem-culture is t0 be _cull backed_ through any means necessary and replaced with _better_ more acceptable creatures and culture. If it is in the white genome then those genes are to be purged, you git.

Any belief to the contrary is the belief of the slave.

========
How bout this justin you fag and git….

It is our white culture way to be accepting of other races and let them on our land and eat from our orchards and hunt our game. It is something to be celebrated and supported as a great white achievement…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman November 28, 2009 at 02:40

Julie,

You are wrong. A woman with kids has dramatically lower prospects of marriage than a woman with no kids of the same age, which in turn is lower than a younger woman.

Being in denial about basic realities is why women will suffer greatly when the extreme privelege they currently enjoy corrects back to natural levels.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
sabril November 28, 2009 at 02:52

Anyway, it’s easy enough to check. Just go to a free dating web site and set up two identical profiles, one for a 25-year-old woman who is childless + never married; and one for a 25-year-old divorced woman with children. In both cases, make it clear that you are interested in a serious long-term relationship with a man who is emotionally and financially secure.

I’m pretty confident that the first profile will receive a lot more serious replies than the second.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 28, 2009 at 05:04

There is a important lesson here for MRAs, not all men are our friends just because they’re male.

If you seriously think most MRAs think all men are our friends, you seriously haven’t read enough material written by MRAs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
POIUYT November 28, 2009 at 05:17

The key thing to remember is that we now owe far too many billions of trillions in debt, intrest repayments and debt re-financing, aquired to support our femaleised states and feminist state services.

In femalised states, culturally, only half the adult poppulation by gender are required to actually earn their bread and rank, with the other half, able and entitled to sue husbands and boyfriends for theirs. Hence our bankruptcy.

And at the last Bilderberg conference, Paris-club representatives agreed with our middle and far eastern debt and stake holders, to increase international economic confidence, in order that their huge debt holdings aren’t erroded in value. That is, by increasing western economic activity and demand by increasing existing economic yeilds from male and husband slavery.

Existing economic yeilds from male and husband slavery are only increasable by further denigrating the status of males, fathers and husbands by gearing up the official hallucination and misandric hysteria concerning mens behaviours. Behaviours for which males can then be further taxed, exploited, extorted, stolen-from and legally plundered.

In this regard, the indebted western nations, signaled their unanimity of economic and social purpose to Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern debtors, around this weeks International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Husbands, fathers and boyfriends beware.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
codebuster November 28, 2009 at 06:29

@Novaseeker

Of course I’m aware that MRAs realize this. But there seems to be this ongoing undercurrent, this unspoken assumption that we’ve somehow got to form into a men’s collective, and that this will somehow provide an antidote to feminism as the supposed female collective. It won’t, because it does not address the fact that men will always remain competitive with other men. It is men in power who are happy to implement affirmative action in favor of women because it keeps the men who might otherwise challenge them, out of the picture. These goons are on a gravy-train.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker November 28, 2009 at 07:07

Of course, which is why I do not advocate any “movement”. As men, it’s our nature to throw one another under the bus when it comes to women — mating for men is very zero sum. So, what I advocate is individual men pursuing individual solutions. A movement of any sort is pointless and futile.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Paul November 28, 2009 at 07:51

With respect Novaseeker I don’t think it is in my nature to throw other men under a bus. If it ever was my nature it certainly is not now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Paul November 28, 2009 at 07:53

With respect Novaseeker I don’t think it is my nature to throw other men under a bus. If it ever was my nature then it certainly is not now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 28, 2009 at 08:18

I wrote about something similar here.

Women receive the greatest satisfaction and joy when helping others. It is programmed into our very beings. That is why, even when we accomplish something at work, we feel no joy unless we receive praise for it. The accomplishment itself is usually enough for most men, but for the woman it is largely irrelevant. I know many deeply unhappy women and the recurring theme seems to be: I feel useless.

It used to be that women had a sex-specific assigned role that they could take pride in fulfilling. Simply trying to out-men men just seems to lead to further unhappiness. So they self-medicate with shopping, makeup, fashion, promiscuous sex, alcohol, etc.

But there is a return to the old ways underway. In this an article they state that stay at home motherhood has risen from 19.8% in 1994 to 23.7% in 2009, and the trend is strongest among young women. In other words, there is a slow but steady return to traditional marriage among those who do marry.

So, I think the result will be a split between those in traditional marriages and those who don’t marry at all. In the first, the women will prove useful as help-meets, and in the other they can prove their worth by their economic productivity. Eventually the second group will just die out, due to their low birth rate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Black&German November 28, 2009 at 08:34

Here’s another interesting link about women’s marital happiness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns November 28, 2009 at 09:15

Eventually the second group will just die out, due to their low birth rate.

I was agreeing with everything you wrote up until this. Genetics just don’t work that way. If they did, homosexuals would have died out thousands of years ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 28, 2009 at 09:38

The Fifth Horseman :

You are wrong. A woman with kids has dramatically lower prospects of marriage than a woman with no kids of the same age, which in turn is lower than a younger woman.

Being in denial about basic realities is why women will suffer greatly when the extreme privelege they currently enjoy corrects back to natural levels.

Nothing wrong with being wrong. I’ll take your word for it since you’re male and know your sex better than I do. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
jon November 28, 2009 at 09:39

Novaseeker:

“Of course, which is why I do not advocate any “movement”. As men, it’s our nature to throw one another under the bus when it comes to women — mating for men is very zero sum. So, what I advocate is individual men pursuing individual solutions. A movement of any sort is pointless and futile.”

What do you base this on?

There is no reason to believe that men cannot work together and deal with women as a group. Many men will lose interest in competing with other men for women when they are in long term relationships or when they get older and sex becomes less important. We may also realize that by cooperating we are improving our chances to do well with women at some point or contributing to the greater good. You repeat this same thing over and over but I’m not buying it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 28, 2009 at 09:50

Fine, Jon, believe as you wish. You may want to ask older MRA types like zed and Paul Elam about how men have behaved with each other around these issues for the past several decades before you draw your own conclusions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 28, 2009 at 10:38

21Guns,

Homosexuality hasn’t died out because it affords a genetic advantage to homosexual men’s siblings. Although homosexuals are generally reproductive dead-ends, their (male, if I remember correctly) siblings are above-average reproductively successful.

But cultural tendencies are not necessarily genetic, they are usually cultural. And people raised in traditional marriages are more likely to have traditional marriages themselves, and subsequently a higher birth rate. Sure, some will abscond, but their birth rate will then drop accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JerkDogg November 28, 2009 at 10:45

We’ll have to monitor the Tiger Woods case as a Men’s Rights issue. It’s pretty clear that she attacked him with both her hands and a golf club. The airbags didn’t deploy so it’s likely that the golf club caused his concussion. However the police do not have her in custody yet and are letting her talk to the police while the victim she attacked is sleeping at home with her.

If this were the other way around, wouldn’t the police be handling this a little differently. There’s obvious evidence that she assulted him.

Why isn’t she in a jail in Orlando facing charges of aggravated assault with personal use of a deadly weapon?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Great stuff November 28, 2009 at 11:29

This is one of the best articles I’ve seen on here. Author does an exceptional job of critiquing women and then offers excellent selections for improvement.
Also- whoever said AW are independant must be smoking some mad rock because I’ve known 85 year-olds in wheelchairs with more independance than about 50 American women put together.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 28, 2009 at 12:41

Novaseeker

I am one of the older MRA types (been a single dad, marriages, helping other men as a FRA back in the eighties–and remember quite well the ‘it’ll never happen to me just prior to it happening to them’). I am sorry to say that I have observed the behavior you describe many times. I’ve seen best friends, etc. going behind backs to screw their ‘friends’ over just to get pussy. I have ha pussy thrown at me since I was a kid, and learned from an early age how valuable it isn’t. While I agree with you because of my experience, I am cautiously optimistic at some of the younger guys who are seeing the truth and acting on it. The precipitous drop in marriage is evidence of it, and while it is not a conscious and coordinated effort, it seems to be having the same effect. The reduction of men who are not pussy beggars and/or realize that men are the prize, not women and act accordingly..and the men who are GTFO are creating change. Civilization to the extent that we know it cannot be built nor maintained without men. If it must crash and burn in the anglosphere to get the point across, so be it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Wilbur Simonson November 28, 2009 at 16:52

If marriage is such a bad deal for men, then why do far more men than women have a favorable opinion of marriage?

Percentages of the following categories who agree/strongly agree with the statement, “It is better to get married than to go through life being single.”

Male, age 15-44: 66%
Male, age 15-44, currently married: 73%
Male, age 15-44, currently cohabitating: 53.9%
Male, age 15-44, never married, not cohabitating: 61.9%
Male, age 15-44, formerly married, not cohabitating: 63.9%

Female, age 15-44: 50.6%
Female, age 15-44, currently married: 55.7%
Female, age 15-44, currently cohabitating: 45%
Female, age 15-44, never married, not cohabitating: 48.4%
Female, age 15-44, formerly married, not cohabitating: 40.3%

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_026.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
finsalscollons November 28, 2009 at 18:39

@Jon: “I think if more guys actually had the balls to stand up for themselves they’d find that as long as you play by the rules you can actually flush out some of the truly vicious cunts and put them on display for everyone to see.”

It’s amazing how much you can express your opinion about women and MRA without bad consequences. It’s amazing how few men try to.

Of course, there are a lot of sexual harassment laws, but there are not as enforced as some people think. Besides, outside the workplace, there are a lot of opportunities to talk to women and tell them what you think. As far as you are polite, you can say a lot of things that are commented here in The Spearhead.

I talked to American women about these topics for years. Some of them engaged in a respectful conversation. Some of them bitch and moan. But I didn’t let them intimidate me. I deffended my point firmly. They are paper tigers. Women are barking dogs that seldom bite. When they see that their childish tantrums don’t intimidate you and that you call on their bad behavior, they lose ground and you win with your supperior logic. Maybe they don’t agree but the rest of the group see clearly that you are right.

If only more men tried… I was often the only man in the group that spoke on behalf of men. All other man kept quiet, smiled with discomfort or sided with the women. It was not because of sexual harassment laws, because it was not in the workplace. It was not to get laid because most times those men have no sexual interest in those fatties. It was because American men are losers and pussies and they don’t want to upset mommy, as Jung said. This is why they have lost all power in a few decades. I guess most of the people who are writing here don’t dare to confront the woman in real life. Everybody feels brave behind a keyboard.

It is men who are the problem. Women could do no harm with the assistance of men. They are not strong enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 28, 2009 at 20:40

@Wilbur
This CDC study conflicts with another one that shows the rate of marriages rapidly diminishing, also from the CDC. Magazines for women and girls has a great deal of commitment/marriage related material, however I never see this for men. The study is at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Marriage%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf

@finsalscollons
A lot of us stand up to the absolute BS, and it is countered with shaming tactics. Perhaps you may want to read http://www.the-spearhead.com/author/female-masculinist/ which was written by a woman. Those of us with more experience than you are turning our backs and walking away. You want to level some criticism? Do it at those who create and enforce misandrist laws. Otherwise you come across as a typical mangina or a white knight. There is a reason they are reviled by so many men. While I admire Jung and much of his work, you are simply running interference for the poor defenseless dearies. Really original…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Denis November 28, 2009 at 20:55

Just a few poignant words:

FUCK AMERICAN WOMEN.

I’d feel sorry for you poor dumb bastards for marrying one but one has to be just plain stupid for doing so-so it’s hard to feel sorry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Angry Harry November 28, 2009 at 21:03

@finsalcollons

” I guess most of the people who are writing here don’t dare to confront the woman in real life.”

Well, I certainly confront them in real life – and i also confront men too. And my experience is different from yours in that I get quite a bit of agreement – possibly because I am nowadays fairly skilled at undermining their positions.

However, a major problem in getting through to ordinary men is, quite simply, because they have been heavily indoctrinated to see things differently.

But, MOST IMPORTANTLY, they do not appreciate WHY anybody in officialdom would lie to us about things like domestic violence etc etc.

And one needs to explain to them how it is that officials BENEFIT from promoting feminism.

I quote my good self, …..

…..

And, while on the subject of government, I think that it is particularly important for me to point out that demonstrating to the public just how it is that governments (and others) actually profit from ‘disharmony’ (and, hence, by demonising men, by promoting fatherlessness etc etc) is one of the most effective ways to wake up people to what is going on.

Of all the arguments that I have ever used in the course of my activism, nothing carries as much weight as pointing out to men how it is that various groups – such as governments, government workers, feminists, the abuse industry etc – actually profit from all the hatred towards men that they encourage.

And so, for example, simply claiming that men are being unfairly treated does not seem to have much impact on the average man. Bemoaning the fact that the justice system is biased against men does not seem to arouse much in the way of sympathy. And so on.

But demonstrating to men exactly how it is that a bunch of scumbags are actually profiting themselves by disadvantaging them not only seems to anger them, but it also seems to turn on a light in their brains; i.e. they begin see why certain things are happening.

For example, when I tell the uninitiated that the official ‘rape’ figures are baloney, they often exhibit incredulity. “Why on Earth would the police lie about the rape figures?” But when I point out that the lies are designed to buttress various empires, jobs and pensions, the penny begins to drop – and a small light comes on.

And so my current advice to all serious MRAs is that they should FOREVER be seeking to demonstrate to other men how it is that certain groups of people profit from all the misandry that they promote.

…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Factory November 28, 2009 at 23:39

Mind if I use this article in the magazine?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
finsalscollons November 29, 2009 at 04:44

Otherwise you come across as a typical mangina or a white knight.

A mangina? A white knight? If you see my posts, you’ll know that I am far from being that. My criticism of modern women, feminism and misandrist laws is thorough. But I don’t limit myself to writing. I confront women in the real life, telling about how full of crap they are. Manginas and white knights are the guys who are unable to do that: the kind of guys I was attacking.

It is sad that, when you speak of these topics with women, 90% of men side with women, so you don’t only have to deffend your point of view from the attack of women but from the attack of men. Then men, when they are alone with you, agree with you but they didn’t have the balls to say it in front of a woman. With pussies like that, it is not difficult to see how things have gone so badly the last decades in the United States.

A lot of us stand up to the absolute BS, and it is countered with shaming tactics.

So what? Some shaming language is the only reason why American men shut their mouths? Women tell you that you have a short dick and you become silent? Are men so delicate flowers that cannot stand shaming language and counter-attack from a woman calling on her bullshit? Can’t American men, who have built the most thriving nation of our times, endure been told that they are “gay” by a woman?

In reality, it is (the vast majority of) American men who are the manginas and this is exactly the problem. American women are crap, no doubt about it, but they couldn’t do anything if American men didn’t let them.

The trend comes from the nineteenth century:

A. d’Almbert, in his Flanerie Parisienne aux EtatsUnis, said that the women in the United States realized their power to such an extent that they abused it like tyrants who are aware that there is no limit to their despotism. On the other hand, the men showed a boundless patience and a deference to the women that could scarcely be imagined.

Perhaps you may want to read http://www.the-spearhead.com/author/female-masculinist/ which was written by a woman.

It’s one of my favorite blogs and I follow it daily for the last year and a half.

Those of us with more experience than you are turning our backs and walking away.

Well, I am an expat so my walking away is probably farther than yours. I am talking about the time I was living in America. But I am a foreigner so I don’t have to deffend American men. It is amazing how American men are unable to express their real thoughts when they are in front of a woman. As I said, they don’t want to upset mommy.

You want to level some criticism? Do it at those who create and enforce misandrist laws. There is a reason they are reviled by so many men

.

I have done it over and over again.

So how do you plan these misandrist laws to change if you are not able to deffend your position against ordinary women in a casual conversation? If you walk away, don’t complain if our enemies keep stacking misandrist law after misandrist law.

While I admire Jung and much of his work, you are simply running interference for the poor defenseless dearies. Really original…

What is not original is whining and whining about how bad is feminism, women and misandrist laws behind a keyboard and then refusing to say this things (which are true) once a woman is present.

When I lived in America, I was fed up with the pussyfication of American men, I called women on their bullshit and men diverted their eyes as if I was telling Nazi propaganda (only to tell me that that I was right afterwards when mommy was not watching). With men so afraid and defferent of women, it is not hard to see why things have gone so awry for the last decades.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
finsalscollons November 29, 2009 at 04:49

Perhaps you may want to read http://www.the-spearhead.com/author/female-masculinist/ which was written by a woman.

It’s one of my favorite blogs and I follow it daily for the last year and a half.

I meant the blog of the author of this post, that is, http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/

About shaming tactics the best resource is

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
arthur November 29, 2009 at 09:35

finsalscollons and Novaseeker have hit the nail on the head as to why there will never be an organized mens movement. American men are pussies and will stab another man in the back for pussy. I have been invloved in various forums since 2003 and it takes very little effort for women to come in and completely fuck up a given forum. And the white knights will be right there to support her. Zed has witnessed this first hand.

Anybody who wants to come at me with the “what are you doing about it?” card can save it. The extreme level of myopia that both sides possess will do more than any organized movement could ever hope to achieve. The “it can’t happen to me” guys will be grist for the machine, and once ground to bits, will be bitter and unwilling to marry/date, or broke and unable to buy an american whore, er, I mean unable to marry or date. The women, in their constant hunger to have it all will realize too late that it’s not possible. They will take all of the degrees and the high paying jobs and STILL want to marry up. The rest will keep divorcing men and taking them to the cleaners.
these groups of women will then begin to wonder where all the men are who have enough money to support their lifestyles.

Duh.

Wile E Coyote has fallen off the cliff. We are just waiting for him to hit.
Someone pass me a beer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lethargio November 29, 2009 at 10:08

@Justin

‘Feminism, as some already know, was not a product of our women.’

Maybe, but then where have most women come today? If we’re going to say that feminsim is ‘something out there’, of the past, even, then what are we experiencing now? Materialism, narcissism, entitlement-culture, aggressiveness and so on.

It’s like a trajectory from a slingshot of feminism then, and it doesn’t look pretty. I don’t see much promise.

And marriage?

I’m more than marriage, why marry when I can prove my love and commitment without getting married? That’s the goal, to prove yourself worthy without constraint, it’s about longevity and all its adventures, the ultimate test, to prove you can stay together without having to have it officialised. Would it be a greater achievement to say ‘Oh, we’ve been together for 20 years but we’re not married’? Heck, to whom does it matter anyway?

And why have this ’1 day’? It’s more than that, isn’t it?

I don’t need this ’1 day’ of declaration for inspiration, or this ’1 day’ to preach to me as if I was some untrustworthy playa. I don’t need to lay down anything to lawdy or any authority to prove I can commit, religious or not. Anyone is committed if it really is a good thing. Why introduce all this administration, instruments of companionship? I understand there are historic reasons and grand ideas around marriage for the benefit of society but the model needs rethinking or as becoming more evident, it does not work for an increasingly individualistic mindset. Ban it! (joke…)

Marriage is a strange concept. Personally I just hate the big onus that this one day of marriage entails and yep, a lot of it boils down to money. The amount people spend is ridiculous, just for 1 day and a few weeks honeymoon, if that.

Wouldn’t a better, more fulfilling marriage be just a small office or gathering (bit like in ‘Love Story’?) and then all that money be used on a long world trip, travel, discovery? All those great moments of exploration to cherish, isn’t that something that would bond people together even more? Things to talk about, things to do, experiences, memories to look back on and inspire? With some people’s (or should I say women’s) marriage budgets, you could take a year out, backpacking, whatever!

That’s the flaw, commercialised, all that build up for the grand 1-day moment and money is just burned away, might as well just throw money on a bonfire. That money should be used for a different type of long-term nourishment of the relationship or for more secure purposes, not just pissing it away. But as the article says to the same effect, women want it their way, it’s ‘their’ day.

’1 day’, you keep it.

If I met a woman and she started buying wedding dress mags… (IF I was somehow coaxed into marrying… Never say never fellas, haha…)

But that would be my argument, why spend all that money for 1 day when people can do much greater things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon November 29, 2009 at 11:13

The idea that there can never be a men’s movement is ridiculous. The vast majority of men are indoctrinated by feminists to be afraid to disagree with them. This ends when after college, though, and after that many men will gradually see through the nonsense. This isn’t something that will change overnight. The bullshit will need to be argued against a bunch of times before people get used to there being a dissenting opinion. This takes time. If you keep arguing and making sense people will start to listen.

I’m sure the reason there hasn’t been an organized men’s movement in the past is that it wasn’t needed. Women haven’t been behaving like a tribe forever, at least not to near the degree they have been the last several decades. Many of them started to at some point and after a while they ended up getting a disproportionate amount of power. There is, of course, a lag before men start catching on to what has happened and enough who have seen and understand the situation become adults. That has happened and the older generation of men who don’t understand the current situation are retiring. The world has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. Anyone who thinks that there can’t be a men’s movement ever because there wasn’t one in the eighties or nineties is a silly person and should not be taken very seriously.

I argue with guys all the time over this stuff. A guy at work, for example, who has a massively domineering wife wants to buy something but she won’t let him. It isn’t something they can’t afford by a long shot. Her reasoning is that it is just for him, and she only buys stuff that the whole family can enjoy. The truth in this case as in many others is that if it weren’t for the wife needing to keep up appearances they’d have a much smaller mortgage. They’d also have cheaper (and more reliable) cars. The big expensive house especially is something that is driven by women. Most men would be just as happy in a house that was big enough to be comfortable in but didn’t require tons of time and money for show and maintenance of the show. Another thing that women are frequently big on is expensive vacations. The key to the differences between how men spend money and how women do is social. Women spend to keep up appearences. Whether it’s clothes, the big house in the prestigious suburb, or the vacation to exotic places that are so fun to tell people about, the key is that it’s all driven by maintaining a spot in the pecking order. When guys start to realize this and how they’ve been manipulated they begin seeing things in a different light.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 29, 2009 at 11:31

Mind if I use this article in the magazine?

Hey, factory, good to see you here. Send an email to Welmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt November 29, 2009 at 15:42

finsalscollons

I’ve been at this since the 80′s, so I’m one of the old-timers ( I was born in the 50′s, so I’ve seen and experienced much). My apologies for the misunderstanding–it appears we were referring to the same thing, and my deepest contempt is for manginas and white knights (which seemed to also be the point you were making). I consider them traitorous scum. When the shit affects them directly, they’re looking for a helping hand and sympathy, but when they see it being done to others, they don’t seem to give a damn. I give a damn much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
finsalscollons November 29, 2009 at 18:32

Hey, David.

Of course, we are talking about the same thing and I agree with you about the despicable white knights and manginas. I admire you for having been in this fight for so long. I’m not that young: I was born in the early 70s, but I discovered MRA five years ago, after having been lied all my life.

It’s been a pleasure to talk to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie November 29, 2009 at 19:40

There IS a men’s movement. It IS very big.

I think it is all good to suggest women be silent and read what men write but I think it is more important women get off the net and talk to men involved and get to know what they are about.

But by the looks of things men themselves who have only been involved in this for a decade or less need to do the same thing.

1. Men do work together. A few guys in New Zealand suggested the problem with the MRM is that they didn’t play rugby for if they had they would know how to work together. Men who are in sports, the army, navy, air force, builders, boardrooms, management etc, all know how to work together. Gosh, even gangsters, prisoners and drug dealers know how to work together.

2. Some men complain that MRM men who are not feminists (no such thing as a male feminist, he is a socialist) and moderate are gatekeepers to the mainstream through media etc. They are speaking the truth. There is a whole lot of men who are balanced, being sensible, caring for more than their own egos who make up the men’s movement. The men who are being shut out are being shut out for a number of good reasons.

3. There was a semi strong voice for men by men that women shouldn’t own anything or have any status and that everything they need must come through men. They were the ones that made feminism as strong as it is because extreme caused extreme. Not every man can be a king in the man’s world but every man can be a king if he has people lower than himself and some men considered women and children a means of being a king. These men still exist and these men still protest. The majority of the human race do not agree with these men even though they agree that fatherhood has been destroyed to fight this attitude. These same men sit and watch and wait, ready to pounce on the MRM as soon as they see an opportunity to take over the work the moderates do. And each and every time the doors shut for an opportunity to work something out for the men that suffer.

4. Very few people will give a man justification to wrong a woman as a right because he is a man. They haven’t done it since the beginning of humankind and they are not going to do it now. With very few people willing to give the radical men any space to have a movement (especially in western countries) the MRM has stayed flat and society has looked down on it. Only new generations can solve this issue. And they are.

5. Society needs to know that while they shun out the extreme men and play God with society, they are also giving their power away to another sort of extreme man. The man that makes himself a king in the man’s world and wants to ensure he stays there.

6. Feminists deliberately worked the way they did politically in the hope that the laws and society changes they made will last a few hundred years and they expect men will have a different attitude towards women as the norm. It is not wrong for them to do this but they have become too bitter and their hate has turned the moderate of society against them also.

7. It IS men’s day. Men will be the major focus for the 21st century.

8. Men and women need to work together to keep freedom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie November 29, 2009 at 20:03

Sorry for my rave all (consequences welcome) but the reality is that those in charge of the mainstream media have told men, “Play the game, not the man”. It is no different with politicians or any interest group. You won’t have competition within the MRM if you don’t play the man but choose to play the game instead.

If men can figure out new game strategies for sex, they are more than capable to figure out new strategies for playing politics and gender issues. IMHO

The only problem for men is that they don’t have the luxury of being played only by women. Oh, no! Life is not that easy for them. They have to play against other men also.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 06:19

I don’t think the men’s movement is going to go anywhere. Men are just too apathetic about the issues, or they see them as isolated incidents and not a connected whole. Or they just enjoy the fem-state too much. My own husband is generally oblivious to the social changes around him. I told him what the German divorce rate was a few weeks ago and he thought I was making it up. It wasn’t until he actually started counting couples he knew that he realized it could be true.
I never hear guys talking about this stuff IRL. At the most, they’ll make a lame joke about it. They just don’t take it seriously.

I think change will come the only place I really see any IRL: among educated young women. Most of us are grateful to the women’s movement for certain things: suffrage or the chance at higher education, for example. But we just can’t get very excited about feminism itself. We see it as something outdated and a bit cheesy, or a realm occupied by ugly, angry women who nobody wants. And we chafe against many of the things unchecked feminism wrought: promiscuity, abortion, STDs, divorce, child delinquency, overuse of Ritalin, useless schools, sexual objectification, etc. We’d like to keep the nice stuff and dump the rest.

But I predict that the society will basically split in two over this. The culture war is not only not over, I think it’s going to get more extreme. I think the conservatives are going to get even more conservative and the liberals are going to go hog-wild. After all, as their world starts to fall apart, they will need to enact more and more, stricter and stricter laws to protect themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 30, 2009 at 07:02

I agree on the men’s non-movement. As I wrote on the other thread, I think men just, for the most part, are content and not “aggrieved” — at least not until they get into an aggrieved group — and when they do, what they say is automatically discounted by most other men as being loserish.

I think that the culture wars are probably mostly over, though, actually. The younger generation is not very culture-war oriented — it seems like the reset of the culture that happened after the cultural revolution of the 70s is more or less accepted by the younger set as the new normal. Of course there will be changes — in the form of tweaks or evolving behaviors and so on. But I don’t think you’re going to see the younger generation really get torqued into a war with itself about classic culture war issues like abortion, sexuality, gay marriage, and so on. I do think we’re going to see one of these younger generations swing back towards a more “normal” life — but that new normal will not at all look like the old normal.

In the end, for men, I’m not convinced that this is a bad time for us. It *is* a bad time if you are looking for a traditional marriage and the white picket fence and all of that — that’s very hard to obtain. But I think most men are going with the flow and are quite pleased with the current circumstances. People go on and on endlessly about man-boys and so on — but has anyone asked these man-boys if they are unhappy? I don’t think they’re unhappy at all, really — I think they’re having fun with ESPN and Warcraft and what have you — more fun with their lives in their 20s than men have probably ever had. And that’s not a recipe for a men’s movement at all, really.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 08:01

I think that they’re unhappy but that they’re having too much fun to notice. Just like their female counterparts. That is, if you mean unhappy in the old-fashioned way.

Regarding the new normal: I think you’re right in a way. But I think the “new normal” is swinging waaay back. Instead of reverting to 1950s house-wife/wage-slavedom, I think we’re going to skip back even farther and go back to marriage’s truly natural state: spouses as partners in business and home life with the man at the head and the woman as his companion, assistant, and back-up.

Women are taking more interest in the monetary provision of their family and men are taking a bigger interest in the active raising of their children. Men aren’t content to just bring home the bacon and work themselves to death, they also want to have a bigger influence on their children’s lives. And if they have to send their women out to work to make up the difference in income, they are content to do that; they’d rather stay home with the kids than take on an extra job.

On the one hand, men are spending more time with their kids and showing more interest in their education, and on the other women are helping their husbands with the yardwork, helping them install the new windows, bringing home some extra cash, etc. The “women can’t hold a rake” and “men are incompetent caretakers” days are over. We’ve all seen too much to hold on to that anymore. But that wasn’t the original state, that was something that post-war prosperity brought about.

For instance, baker’s wives would often take over the family business after her husband’s death. After all, she’d been helping him run it the whole time. And he’d consider himself just as much the “parent” as she was. He probably took a very active role in raising his children, especially after infancy, and would often bring them into the family business at a young age. Their roles had a different emphasis, but they overlapped quite a bit in the middle.

Farmer’s wives would keep things running while their husbands were away at war. And if she was off to market, she’d usually strap the littlest one on her back in a shawl, and leave the rest at home with father. Back then, the shit had to get done and people just did it. They saw each other more as a team. That’s something that seems to be missing nowadays, even married people think of themselves autonomously.

But I see that changing around me. I know couples that are starting businesses together, running farms, or homeschooling their children. Even in my own family, it seems very “traditional” but I actual do many tasks that were considered “man’s work” back in the 1950s. I do the taxes, I manage the finances, I deal with the contractors, I rake the leaves, if he’s on a business trip then I mow the lawn and take out the trash, if the sink leaks I fix it, etc. My husband tries to do what he can and whatever’s left, I do. And if I’m out of service, he jumps in and keeps things going. That sort of teamwork is the future, I think. But it’s nothing new. It’s actually really, really old. LOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 30, 2009 at 08:15

I think for marriages that succeed in the years ahead, you’re probably right — the teamwork approach seems the way of the future. The broader trend away from marriage, though, will also be a pretty big headline in the middle and lower economic tiers. In a sense, that is *also* a back to the future type of thing, because a long time ago marriage was also primarily for the elites — often the proles did not marry in anything like the same numbers as the elites (pre-Christian days, here). Perhaps that’s also the social model for the future in terms of having a stable married elite and an underclass that is much less stable relationally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 08:23

Yeah, that seems to be where it’s going. Which is why, if you do want to be married, it will become ever more important to strictly vet any potential spouse. You will have to rely heavily on them and you need someone reliable who you can trust. Someone flaky or self-centered just doesn’t cut it anymore. Perhaps that’s one reason for the high divorce rate.

I think marriage will become yet another elitist advantage. And it’s true that marriage was less common before. At the most, there was common-law marriage but that didn’t offer as much protection. There’s a large group of Bavarians in Texas that left Germany in order to marry. It used to be a privilege that their masters could bestow on them. But, like many things (education, health, nutritious food, etc.) once it becomes cheap and easy to acquire, it loses it’s worth. That’s why I’m for further marriages restrictions, rather than less.

That’s what I worry about: the growing underclass. They will negatively impact the elites’ safety and security.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 08:33

I am an optimist when it comes to the “Men’s Movement”. Will it be a collectivist special interest group, or will it be made up of individuals gaining enlightenment through our efforts and thereby allowing men to make individual decisions about how to deal with the gender war. I believe it will be a bit of both. I’m a bit shamed that one thing we seem to lack as MRAs is a bit of patience. I see stuff moving in the right direction. I have two young friends, a 19 and 23 year old. Both were “Nice Guys” when I met them. Both get laid now on a regular basis, are aware of the bullshit family law racket, and both refuse to marry on principle (or so they say). I didn’t sit them down and lecture them about MRA philosophies, they just absorbed the knowledge through my occasional rants, and now spout that shit back to me. You don’t have to pull the curtain all the way back for people to see the wizard, you just have to show them how you peek. Human nature and curiousity will do much of the rest. We are 1st wave MRA’s. We are the seed. Stop worrying about what the tree will look like, just focus on making sure our sprout isn’t lawn mowered over. Time will do the rest as long as we don’t give up. We are setting the ground rules, the precedent. It is slow moving, but as long as I see momentum, which I do, I am optimistic. The faster this snowball gets moving, the harder it will be to stop. Don’t make me give everyone a pep talk every day. Are we pussies? Or men? I shame us. I shame our doubts and insecurities. We should have a choice to “man up” or not to “man up”, just like women have a choice in how they live their life, but right now we don’t have that choice (at least not culturally sanctioned) and until then, I am sorry, that means it is time once again, hopefully for the last time, that we have to man up. I want to hear solutions. I want MRA’s to be problem solvers. I want MRA’s to be one man propaganda machines, one man Feminist website hacker teams, one man guerilla warfare activist. Print out articles from your favorite MRA sites and go to kinkos. Drop those mother fucking thought bombs in every mail box in your neighborhood. You want a cohecive organization? Make a phone list, and start calling. Make contact, make connections, and unify us. I’m personally ready to meet in person.

Look, I’ve successfully spread ideas of the MRA movement to at least a dozen people in the past decade (emphasis on successfully). That sounds pretty pathetic, doesn’t it? Now think exponentially.

All I ask is patience. I think once this shit goes mainstream, the war may be easier then you even think, and probably a lot of fun if you’ve got the balls for it. They’re just girls after all. The only way we can faulter is if we start to feel bad for them before we’re done, and comprimise before we have guaranteed the complete rights and respect owed to us as men. The only thing standing in our way is our own doubts and fear. I have no doubt we will win. I have no fear of the repurcussions. I’m the fucking shit. I’m fucking unstoppable. Everyone of my male ancestors not only kicked ass and survived, not only did they kill wooly mammoths, survive wars, live through plagues, cross oceans, and conquer lands, they got laid on top of it. And you’re worried about a bunch of little girls and manginas. I’m a man. I’m actually proud of that. You?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 09:53

Another thing I wonder about is alimony. It seems like the modern version of a dowry. Rather than bringing a set-sum into a marriage, which the woman is then allowed to take with her if she leaves the marriage or bequeath to someone upon her death, she enters empty-handed and leaves with a court-appointed sum. Instead of bringing a dowry, she’d bring connections to her family’s wealth and influence and her own income-generating abilities.

I think that worked relatively well for a while. The problem arises in inter-class marriages (where one partner’s worth and power greatly outstrips the others) and in short marriages, where she hasn’t stayed around long enough to have made a significant contribution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 10:03

I find all this talk about a men’s marriage strike very interesting. My personal experience is that it is a woman’s marriage strike. They are marrying less and divorcing more because they don’t see marriage as advantageous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 10:14

“Black&German November 30, 2009 at 10:03 am

I find all this talk about a men’s marriage strike very interesting. My personal experience is that it is a woman’s marriage strike. They are marrying less and divorcing more because they don’t see marriage as advantageous.”

I’m fine with it either way. All I know is that I’ll encourage as many men as possible not to marry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 30, 2009 at 10:28

””””” Jabherwochie,
I want to hear solutions. I want MRA’s to be problem solvers. I want MRA’s to be one man propaganda machines, one man Feminist website hacker teams, one man guerilla warfare activist. Print out articles from your favorite MRA sites and go to kinkos. Drop those mother fucking thought bombs in every mail box in your neighborhood. You want a cohecive organization? Make a phone list, and start calling. Make contact, make connections, and unify us. I’m personally ready to meet in person.
””””””””’

”””””””’Black&German November 30, 2009 at 10:03 am
I find all this talk about a men’s marriage strike very interesting. My personal experience is that it is a woman’s marriage strike. They are marrying less and divorcing more because they don’t see marriage as advantageous.
””””””””’

Not believing it at all. Woman want marriage and they want it bad. The solution is to make them work for it. Chick I am with now was dreaming of winning lottery to keep me. She is like if I win lottery would you leave your wife for me. I am like no. She was shocked. Guys need to start demanding that the teamwork happens before marriage. Save a nice chunk of loot before you tie not if that is what your gonna do. This chick knows the shit she has with me is temporary and that I have a wife but yet she is working her ass off to try to earn a spot on my team. Just need to switch up the paradigm and woman will more than likely rise to the challenge of becoming free with you. Then ya don’t really have to worry bout divorce you actually have something you both worked for that you can split.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 30, 2009 at 11:14

“My personal experience is that it is a woman’s marriage strike. They are marrying less and divorcing more because they don’t see marriage as advantageous.”

That must be why there are dozens of magazines for “Grooms”. ;)

And, divorce certainly is more advantageous for women – look at the recent article about the woman who “waived all current and future claims to alimony” who went back on her husband after 27 years and got alimony. Marriage is a lifetime annuity for women if they choose well enough to snag a man with assets.

It’s fine with me if the women want to go on a marriage strike. The fewer fools trapped by the divorce industry, the better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 30, 2009 at 11:16

””””’ zed November 30, 2009 at 11:14 am
My personal experience is that it is a woman’s marriage strike. They are marrying less and divorcing more because they don’t see marriage as advantageous.

That must be why there are dozens of magazines for “Grooms”.
”””””””

Word and the problem with chicks who make real money is that there is only one top guy but a shitload of chicks below him so yea some gonna get left out of the hypergamy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros November 30, 2009 at 11:34

Nice discussion there!

Something productive, practical and down to earth for a change, instead of endless bickering or doom-mongering about women/feminism/society in general.

One of the things preventing the success of men’s rights might just be the general attitude of the Great Believers and Advocates: aggressive us versus them rhetoric, blaming feminism for all of societies ills, etc. One of the things I like about Warren Farrell (book on the sidebar) is his writing style and attitude, which is relatively moderate.

There may be a need for MRAs with an aggressive style, too, but it’s easy to alienate the great masses of people if they start to see you as a whacko.

Just my 2 euro cents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 30, 2009 at 11:44

Feminism got nowhere by being moderate — they got what they wanted by being lead by radicals. But in any case, as I don’t think there is a “movement” worth much, I’m not sure that it matters much. Individual men’s decisions matter more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 30, 2009 at 11:50

Gunslingergregi,

Chick I am with now was dreaming of winning lottery to keep me.

This is sad. She must have issues to think you are going to be there for her. I hope she comes to her senses and thinks more sensibly for both your sakes.

They have made laws to protect women who are on the side for married men. I don’t think your wife will appreciate half her stuff going to your other woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 30, 2009 at 11:53

I disagree with your sentiments 125%, Icaros.

Extremism will create more moderates than Warren Farrell ever will by writing 10,000 “polite” books.

All the “polite letter writing” in the world will not change one bloody thing.

Being “reasonable” is probably the worst thing that the MRM has ever done.

If there were no extremists, such as myself, then Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell would be the most extreme. And, if they were the most extreme, then it would be human nature to choose someone more moderate than them, and so on.

Humans tend to choose “the middle of the road.”

Therefore, it is the extremists that dictate where that middle is, not the moderates who try to please everyone.

Gloria Steinem was much, much, MUCH more moderate than the Great Walrus, Andrea Dworkin… and thus compared to Dworkin, the vast majority of the population, when looking at the issue, chose Steinam over Dworkin to affilliate themselves with. However, Steinem’s own views are radical in their own right… without Dworkin, Steinem would have been regarded as far more radical for saying the ***exact*** same things. Dworkin’s extreme radicalism did more to make Steinem’s radicalism more pallatable to the public than any amount of politeness or dazzling white smiles could ever have done.

The Suffragettes, as well, were extremists. They smashed in windows, got themselves jailed, destroyed the links of golf courses, threatened to assassinate the Prime Minister and so on.

In the early 1970′s, the homosexual movement became radically extreme in regard to the American Psychological Association’s notion of homosexuality as a deviation… they got violent, threw rocks, sent death threats, and so on… very soon, the APA changed their views on homosexuality.

We will always associate with “the middle of the road,” but, the extremists are the ones who control where that middle is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros November 30, 2009 at 11:54

Feminism got nowhere by being moderate

That’s true but the two situations are quite different. When (first wave) feminism started, women really didn’t have equal rights when compared to men; they started from a much lower level.

Men, on the other hand, can vote, can own property, etc., and are still seen as the gender in charge. There’s not that much to change in comparison. I don’t think most would by into revolutionary thinking or think that it’s necessary in any way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros November 30, 2009 at 12:03

fedrz: Actually, I don’t disagree with your thoughts.

There’s certainly a need for variety in thinking about men’s rights, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to say what are the most effective ways to cause change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 12:11

@Icaros-

Remain a moderate. We need moderates. I’m a moderate, but I’m a moderate who supports extremism because I know that is what is needed to have my moderate views taken seriously. Does that make me a hypocrite? If it helps us win this idealogical war, I don’t care if it makes me a hippopotamus. Thats why we like people like Globalman around here. He makes waves. People notice. (What happened with him. Has anyone talked to him sense his legal battle came to a head?) It is a philosophy of Angry Harry to stir shit up. You don’t do that with moderate voices. We are not even on the cultural radar, why would we moderate our selves now. Do we want to be less visable? You and me, and whatever moderates are around when we win, can pull back on the extremism when the Feminist are begging for mercy. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with the extremist at that time will be to use extremism against them themselves. Quite the catch 22, but I don’t want this pendulum to swing back and forth forever. Conquering a nation is easier than occupying it. Focus now on how to conquer it. I’ll fill you in on how to allow the MRA to permanently occupy our culture when we achieve victory, and yes, to successfully do that, it would be best to be moderate. Until then, no quarter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 30, 2009 at 12:11

”””””Icaros November 30, 2009 at 12:03 pm
fedrz: Actually, I don’t disagree with your thoughts.

There’s certainly a need for variety in thinking about men’s rights, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to say what are the most effective ways to cause change.””””””

Obvisously the most effective way to cause change is terrorism. Look how much changed after 9/11.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 30, 2009 at 12:15

There’s not that much to change in comparison. I don’t think most would by into revolutionary thinking or think that it’s necessary in any way.

There really isn’t anything necessary, other than for men to make different choices in their lives. That’s the only thing needed. The laws won’t change until women begin to suffer under them (which will happen as they are outpacing men economically now), so it’s a waste of time to try to change the laws. The important thing is the radical concept of male freedom of choice — a reality men can and should embrace today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 12:17

“That’s true but the two situations are quite different. When (first wave) feminism started, women really didn’t have equal rights when compared to men; they started from a much lower level. ”

They started off better than us, as they were at that time (and are today) seen as morally superior, where as we carry the undeserved burden of original sin. Womens views are immediately seen as more pure than ours. Its always best to appear to fight from the moral highground. We won’t have that luxury at first. We will have to prove it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 12:19

”””””Icaros November 30, 2009 at 12:03 pm
fedrz: Actually, I don’t disagree with your thoughts.

“There’s certainly a need for variety in thinking about men’s rights, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to say what are the most effective ways to cause change.””””””

Obvisously the most effective way to cause change is terrorism. Look how much changed after 9/11.”

Gunslinger isn’t advocating violence. He’s talking metaphorically. We will use psychological and cultural terrorism. It will have the appropriate shock and awe value to awaken the masses to our plight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 30, 2009 at 12:20

”””””julie November 30, 2009 at 11:50 am
Gunslingergregi,

Chick I am with now was dreaming of winning lottery to keep me.

This is sad. She must have issues to think you are going to be there for her. I hope she comes to her senses and thinks more sensibly for both your sakes.

They have made laws to protect women who are on the side for married men. I don’t think your wife will appreciate half her stuff going to your other woman.
”””””””””””

It is probably because by the time I leave she will be well on her way to being financially free by herself so she doesn’t need half my shit to be ok. February she should be at 0 bills to live in a house that she will own after internalizing my philosophy on life. Let me clarify for you that before we did shit she knew I was married. She knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere. Just saying that she is dreaming of ways to be with me not about how she can take my shit.

”””They have made laws to protect women who are on the side for married men.””””””’

Your true side has come out. You probably also think those laws empower woman too right?
Empowered through making them only able to take take take not create for themselves. Not to actually be free but always just looking for that next free lunch or the next handout.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada November 30, 2009 at 12:22

julie November 29, 2009 at 7:40 pm

There IS a men’s movement. It IS very big.

I think it is all good to suggest women be silent and read what men write but I think it is more important women get off the net and talk to men involved and get to know what they are about.

***
I think it is more important for women who sincerely want to make a change to step out of the comfort zone and go take the battle to other women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous November 30, 2009 at 12:23

Icaros – Dude, are you sure you’re not a chick?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 30, 2009 at 12:29

This is such nonsense, Icaros, that women were once oppressed, and therefore the Suffragette movement is pretty much above reproach.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who actually reads articles and books on the subject from the era itself will soon realize.

Two pieces by Belfort Bax in 1908 and 1913, titled “The Legal Subjection of Men” and “The Fraud of Feminism,” illustrate beyond doubt that this whole notion about women’s past oppression, less legal rights, and so on is complete BS. Women have always had more legal privilege than men, and it has always been feminism itself pulling the same tricks as today: Only focusing on the negatives for females while ignoring the positives, and only focusing on the positives for men, while ignoring the negatives. It is amazing how the basic arguments over feminism have not really changed one stinking bit in 100 years. It is basically still the same argument. Things were the same back then too in regard to things like court rulings favouring females, media (ie Theatre) always playing to female victims of male cruelty, and, in fact, Bax even refers to identical things as Parental Alienation Syndrome and goes through a whole section of how when women murdered their husbands, (in identical ways as they do today), the court system bent over backwards to find an excuse to find them innocent… just like today.

(I’d link the books, but the Men’s Tribune is down! WTF?)

If you believe that historically women actually were oppressed, then the whole works is already lost, because the feminist argument is solidified in your own mind. Yes, the disease of moderate thinking.

The fact is, since the beginning of time, man has always tried to elevate woman above himself. In fact, this is the way of nature, and to claim it otherwise is to deny the nature of every other living that reproduces sexually.

PS. In our last National Election here in Canada, 41% of people who were eligible to vote did not bother to vote. How is it that “the right to vote” is considered so much of an affront to “equality” when close to half the population couldn’t give two shits about having this “right” nor exercising it… and yet, they don’t find that their lives are worse off for not voting?

“The Vote” is BS propaganda.

Also, I have read that the way “the vote” was originally entered into the argument was because of property owning women – widows and spinsters, owners of rooming houses etc. were still liable to pay taxes on these properties, and so, throughout much of the British Empire, when such cases were present, women were afforded the right to vote – although, often they had to vote by proxy. It was men that rallied hard for women to have this right, as they thought it unfair to have the responsibilities, without the rights that go with it.

Men are not part of some grand conspiracy, since the beginning of time, to keep women down.

Anyone with even primary observation skills, ought to be able to see that this is not the natural inclination of males when it comes to females.

And, if one can show that women were not actually “oppressed”, it lends to the question, “why were men and women treated differently, then?”, and… well… then we get down to it that back then, they did not believe in the fairy tale that “Gender is a Social Construct” – and we can’t have that now, can we? It would put a wrench into social engineering!

Women were oppressed by men in about the same way that children are oppressed by their parents. (Go Hillary Go!)

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

”””””””Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm
”””””Icaros November 30, 2009 at 12:03 pm
fedrz: Actually, I don’t disagree with your thoughts.

“There’s certainly a need for variety in thinking about men’s rights, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to say what are the most effective ways to cause change.””””””

Obvisously the most effective way to cause change is terrorism. Look how much changed after 9/11.”

Gunslinger isn’t advocating violence. He’s talking metaphorically. We will use psychological and cultural terrorism. It will have the appropriate shock and awe value to awaken the masses to our plight.

”””””””””’

Well if you actualy make woman earn there keep instead of being a net drain on the family and letting them come up with excuses why it is ok it won’t come to that. Just make them create something with you to be with you. Then you can weed out the chicks like julie or chicks looking for a free lunch pretty quick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi November 30, 2009 at 12:32

Chick I am with has kids and works and cooks and cleans and takes care of me and is learning how to be free. Most men are just not expecting enough out of woman is the problem. They are bored just getting away with not doing much of shit. Got to put them through their paces.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros November 30, 2009 at 12:37

“Dude, are you sure you’re not a chick?”

Pretty much, physically anyway.

I do find find it kinda strange that I’m thought to be a woman. Perhaps it’s just because I’m not really deeply psychologically invested in men’s rights (yet?) or share the same mindset as most here do. My approach is pretty analytical and even somewhat skeptical regarding some claims.

I dunno.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 12:48

“Icaros November 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“Dude, are you sure you’re not a chick?”

Pretty much, physically anyway.

I do find find it kinda strange that I’m thought to be a woman. Perhaps it’s just because I’m not really deeply psychologically invested in men’s rights (yet?) or share the same mindset as most here do. My approach is pretty analytical and even somewhat skeptical regarding some claims.

I dunno.”

Rule #1: Develop thick skin. It can get brutal around here. But if you can’t stand up against the ego smashing attacks that happen around here, many of them just for sport, you won’t stand a second against Feminist shaming tactics. Its good practice. We all win some debates, we all loose some debates, but we all end up the wiser for having the debate in the first place, so with the right mind frame, you never loose. You either teach or learn. Try not to allow yourself to have hurt feelings when exchanging ideas. Insults are meant to throw you off your game. Don’t let them and learn to use them. Also admit when you’re wrong. It will go a long way in validating when you take a stand in future arguments, ones of more importance to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 30, 2009 at 12:50

Here’s a copy of “The Fraud of Feminism”

http://www.archive.org/texts/flipbook/flippy.php?id=fraudoffeminism00baxerich

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 12:54

Icaros-

How old are you and what does your name mean? Just curious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul November 30, 2009 at 13:01

Fedrz there is also a copy available via Wikipedia which is perhaps a bit clearer to read. There is also a copy of another of Bax’s works call @The Legal Subjugation of Men’. This second work from 1908 is very illuminating especially for those who thought marriage has only become a trap in recent years.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros November 30, 2009 at 13:03

“But if you can’t stand up against the ego smashing attacks that happen around here, many of them just for sport, you won’t stand a second against Feminist shaming tactics.”

Yeah, actually my personal problem is that I don’t take much of anything personally, and most discussions aren’t all that interesting to me. Also, writing in English takes much more effort than just reading.

These things called emotions and the opinions of most other people are pretty irrelevant to me, even face to face. This has caused some trouble in the past.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 30, 2009 at 13:12

Gunslingergregi

It is probably because by the time I leave she will be well on her way to being financially free by herself so she doesn’t need half my shit to be ok. February she should be at 0 bills to live in a house that she will own after internalizing my philosophy on life. Let me clarify for you that before we did shit she knew I was married. She knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere. Just saying that she is dreaming of ways to be with me not about how she can take my shit.

I figured she knew you were married. I also know a couple of guys who helped women make themselves financially free while they were married to another. I remember the discussions about the benefits they received. Personally, I think it is fine when 2 people have a relationship where both win. Good on you!

Your true side has come out. You probably also think those laws empower woman too right?
Empowered through making them only able to take take take not create for themselves. Not to actually be free but always just looking for that next free lunch or the next handout.

I don’t think those laws empower women at all. I am pleased it won’t affect your relationship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros November 30, 2009 at 13:12

Jabherwochie:

How old are you and what does your name mean? Just curious.

About a quarter century old. My handle is a typoed version of Icarus (no real reason, and not my real name, btw).

Fedrz: Well, “oppression” is a rather politically loaded term. And no, I don’t believe that women were absolutely worse or better off than men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 13:14

@Icaros-

No problem. Dispassion is very useful. So is passion. We take all types here.
Read all the older articles and stick around. We’ve got to be more interesting than most of the drivel out there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 30, 2009 at 13:18

I was thinking Icarus. Has your ambition jepordized your safety as of late. If you like to get close to the sun (truth), you might like it here. We like intellectual risk takers. We are avant garde to say the least. Have you been lurking or posting long?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 30, 2009 at 13:23

Fiercely Independent John Nada November:

I think it is more important for women who sincerely want to make a change to step out of the comfort zone and go take the battle to other women.

I agree!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 13:55

Gunslinger,

Sounds like you’re basically advocating a return to dowry instead of alimony. It would be more fair but it would often preclude the ability to marry for romantic love. And people would marry even later which could add to the already considerable fertility woes.

I brought a considerable chunk of change to the marriage (I used to be an engineer) and, more importantly, I brought my wealthy parents. They paid for a lavish wedding, coughed up the money for our house down-payment, have set aside our children’s college funds (in case they decide to go to Harvard after all — let the Gramps dream), and are now financing our house’s renovation and furbishing. Replacing the windows and doors alone cost more than $20,000. And we’re just getting started on the kitchen, bathroom, and basement.

Grandparents aren’t always that wealthy (although there is a generally high transfer of funds from grandparents to parents — I know a few cases where Gramps bought the house outright, or coughed up the down payment on a car, or contributes to private school fees) but they usually offer a safety-net and often serve as free child care or emergency services. Other extended family serve a similar role. Remember that traditional wives often come from intact families and that can mean real $$$$ over time. And don’t forget that our parents probably won’t forget us in their wills. My uncle netted so much money from his frugal mother-in-law, that he went into early retirement and bought a nice condo.

A wife that is financially savvy and frugal can pay her own way simply by saving you money and investing prudently. Many “working women” are essentially working for free because the cost of working is higher than the income they bring in. That’s why part-time or at-home work is so popular among moms; they can spare themselves the child-care, transportation, prepared food, and other associated costs of working. We actually sat down and did the math and realized that we’d barely break even if I went to work full-time. Part-time work will be worthwhile once both kids are in school (the co-op) 2 full days a week. But first I’m going to go get that degree I never finished before. And guess who’s already agreed to pay for that? Gramps. And guess who’s going to be banking my income? My husband, and if I leave him he’ll get half of it.

See how that works?

Also don’t forget that a woman’s education makes her more valuable to her husband, even if she’s at home, because of income redundancy. If both spouses are working and one gets laid off or sick or whatever, their income immediately drops and they are threatened with financial insolvency. If one is at home, they can just switch places. It takes a while to ramp up, but the change can happen immediately and is the reason why single-income earner couples have a lower risk of bankruptcy.

Last winter my cousin’s husband had a heart-attack (at the age of 38!) and is now home on disability. She’s gone back to work and her father watches the kids during the day. Just a gratuitous example.

Just wanted to point out that the “SAHM is a parasite” argument doesn’t usually apply.

Zed,

I never said they don’t want to have a wedding, just that they aren’t interested in being real wives. You notice that the emphasis is on being a BRIDE. Even among those that marry they usually get back out as fast as they can. The day-to-day grind of commitment isn’t what they were looking for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 30, 2009 at 14:02

SAHMs may not always be parasites, but any man with a significant income is a fool to have a SAHM as a wife, imo. The law dramatically punishes men for that mistake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 30, 2009 at 14:15

B&G – you said (quote)
My personal experience is that it is a woman’s marriage strike. They are marrying less and divorcing more because they don’t see marriage as advantageous.

If they are anxious to get married, but not stay married, that is not a “woman’s marriage strike” – it is a “woman’s marriage scam.”

For those women with wealthy parents the mariage outlook is probably ok. But the other 90+% may have a bit of trouble coming up with the dowry to connvince a man to stick his head in the noose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 14:27

Yeah, it’s a scam. They go in sort of half-invested. But most just don’t want to marry at all.

A woman’s dowry could be her income potential. If she has a degree in chemistry from Duke then she’s definitely bringing something worthwhile. And she’s probably got wealthy parents, too.

Now you see why marriage is becoming an elite activity; something for the top 25%. In elite marriages, both partners bring the equivalent of a dowry, their wealth multiplies that much faster, their safety net is that much more generous, and their biggest investments are the things they build together. They know that getting a divorce would rob them of a lot of their wealth.

I think divorce makes sense for those with high incomes but not necessarily for those with a large lump sum of wealth (essentially, cross-class marriages). The divorce rate at the top is very low so you just have to watch out for gold-diggers of either sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 14:29

I meant “I think marriage makes sense”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German November 30, 2009 at 14:39

My bigger point is that the modern divorce and welfare laws have basically robbed lower-income people of the chance to take part in the greatest and most efficient income-generator ever created. Subsequently, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. There’s a big class-divide and it is growing steadily.
It’s basically a marriage divide, but no politician wants to say that so they dance around and talk about fatherhood, saving for retirement, yada, yada, yada.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian December 1, 2009 at 01:35

B&G,
I hear all that you’re saying, but really you’re only buttressing me and Nova’s point, that Marriage is fast becoming an exercise in status mongering for the elite; for the vast majority in America, it is fast becoming irrelevant.

And what you said about Women engaging in a “marriage strike” is actually correct-with the State playing the role of daddy/hubbie, there’s really no realworld, hard currency reason why a Woman should get married now. The wedding ceremony, as you rightly noted, is an end unto itself, and, completely divorced from the actual day to day grind of marriage itself.

So yea, for people like you, marriage still matters. But for the vast majority of Americans, it’s becoming, at best, moot.

The Obsidian

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist December 1, 2009 at 07:56

Thank you for saying what you said about extremists and moderates, Angry Harry, I wrote a similar piece a couple of months ago, but it’s good to have confirmation. I know from personal experience that successful companies can pay millions to research things they already know just for “key confirmation.”

linking my post for relevence, but don’t expect a large archive to read:

http://amateurstrategist.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-importance-of-firebrands.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 1, 2009 at 11:01

Obsidian,

Yeah, I know. But it’s depressing to see it happen. I think people are giving up a valuable institution because they don’t understand it’s value, and they’ll miss it when it’s gone.

But Advent is here so I won’t be able to post so much anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug1 December 1, 2009 at 21:37

Welmer–

One thing I’ve noticed as I read the complaints, case studies and various bits of advice in the manosphere is that it appears that, for the majority of men, having a wife or long-term female partner is rarely if ever described as making life easier.

No I don’t agree with this. Though it depends on what you mean by long term. I love being mutually in love with a woman. I’ve had oodles of just sex too but the best is really falling in love – though her more than you is essential. Only after an extensive “search period” between relationships though.

Thing is, I really question how often long term really lasts more than 2 to 6 years. Really more like 2 to 4 of real intense sexual desire and intimacy, and that only when it’s a real success. Well I think it’s 4 declining in 5 to getting through 6 out of belief and hope, when it’s a great match initially. Usually. My experience. Actually I’m talking the woman’s devotion mostly here because frankly, I want to go promiscuous dog at least I want to somewhat usually after 6 months and certainly after a couple of years in even the most pinning it intense love/sex relationships. Yes guys are promiscuous (if we can swing it) and women are (serially) and hypergamously monogamous, and they can swing it these days cause of feminist laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie December 1, 2009 at 21:49

Fedrz,

In the early 1970’s, the homosexual movement became radically extreme in regard to the American Psychological Association’s notion of homosexuality as a deviation… they got violent, threw rocks, sent death threats, and so on… very soon, the APA changed their views on homosexuality.

From what I have read APA didn’t change its views because of gay protest. They were forced from within. Also..

Personally, I don’t think the gays that protested violently in the 70s were radicals because many young people were protesting the same way back then. The radical gays from my research were NAMBLA and NZ equivalent AMBLA. These radicals wanted sex with boys under-age of legal consent. The moderates had to keep them out of the spotlight to move forward and the radicals held the movement back for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 1, 2009 at 21:56

No I don’t agree with this. Though it depends on what you mean by long term. I love being mutually in love with a woman. I’ve had oodles of just sex too but the best is really falling in love – though her more than you is essential. Only after an extensive “search period” between relationships though.

Thing is, I really question how often long term really lasts more than 2 to 6 years. Really more like 2 to 4 of real intense sexual desire and intimacy, and that only when it’s a real success.

-Doug1

Maybe part of the problem is that most people who get married have already been together for a few years. So they get married just when things are starting to wane, then the kids come, and then that special feeling is gone. I don’t think there’s much that can be done. People who aren’t committed to the idea of marriage just aren’t going to last, or they’re going to be miserable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 4, 2009 at 23:44

@ Jon

There is no reason to believe that men cannot work together and deal with women as a group.

With all respect, Nova has it straight, IMO. And the main reason that we can believe men cannot work together on these issues is because after forty plus years of efforts they never have.

We are plagued by infighting, power struggles and at times, sabotage. Sometimes I am not so sure that it’s all about women, though. I think men are wired to work together fantastically, as long as it is in keeping with programmed disposability. We do wonders for others in teams, and go instantly suicidal when trying to organize on our own behalf. It sucks, but I have seen it happen a hundred times.

For my money, if you want the model of activism that will work best, read Jabherwochie’s post from above. If enough men did what he said, to the letter, then some day there may be some effective organization. And even then, I don’t think they would work well in a democratic environment. More like a military junta to get the job done, with a lot more privates than generals.

But is isn’t a requirement. Enough one man wrecking crews out there can take the bitch down anyway. And it inevitably will.

I think you are in the battlefield right now. And I think we are poised to make radical changes over the next few years. Consider the following. While feminist hegemony is intact in the circles of real power, actual feminist organizations like NOW are bleeding by attrition. Fewer and fewer women identify as feminist, and more women are refusing to take the label.

At the same time, the ranks of MRA’s, even unorganized, are growing rapidly. More and more individuals are finding their own personal niches for activism and getting the word out. Most of that on the internet.

And then consider the slow demise of the MSM as internet activity explodes. In fact, for all practical purposes, the internet is the MSM of the future. It is the perfect recipe for what I would call the “First Great Wave” of masculism.

I am not just optimistic, I am giddy over it. And I think I have good reasons to be. As long as they don’t figure out how to control the internet effectively, hegemony in the gender dialogue will wind up in the hands of the MRM.

As some support for this consider that right now a google search on women’s rights returns just over 48 million hits. Searching men’s rights returns just under 70 million hits. In December 2007 the returns were 4,270,000 for women, 511,000 for men. So in two years we have gone from lagging behind on those searches by over 400% to leading in them substantially.

And it is not coincidental that in those years we have seen positive actions like the court decisions in California and West Virginia, and more recently a landmark decision for single fathers in Germany.

Sure, they are small steps in a big assed gender clusterfuck, but the point is that all this dissemination of information alters the collective consciousness. It changes the trajectory of social movement and does so effectively. All done with very little organization in most cases, none in others.

I plan on being here to watch Rome burn, as one many men and women with a book of matches in one hand and an empty can of gas in the other. I don’t have to work with any of them to get the job done. I just have to know we are torching the same condemned building.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Angry Harry December 5, 2009 at 00:23

@Paul Elam

“the main reason that we can believe men cannot work together on these issues is because after forty plus years of efforts they never have.”

Indeed, but as Fifth Horseman will surely tell you, there are eleven most excellent points concerning WHY men have not mustered up an army to resist the feminists to be found in my fabulous piece concerning why there are No Large Men’s Groups.

LOL!

Have you read this, …

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgTheVirtuesofaDisorganizedResistance.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 5, 2009 at 01:06

Paul Elam:

“We are plagued by infighting, power struggles and at times, sabotage.”

yep, too much pushing of failed ideopolitical agendas, too much self-promotion, selfish egoism, and cliques

plus a few well-placed govt ops

“I think you are in the battlefield right now.”

believe it

“As some support for this consider that right now a google search on women’s rights returns just over 48 million hits. Searching men’s rights returns just under 70 million hits. In December 2007 the returns were 4,270,000 for women, 511,000 for men. So in two years we have gone from lagging behind on those searches by over 400% to leading in them substantially.”

and if youd looked in, say, 2002, when we chiseled together sites from geocities after trudging ten miles through snow, youd have found a tremendous disparity, mebbe a million for women’s rights and fifty for men

“Sure, they are small steps in a big assed gender clusterfuck, but the point is that all this dissemination of information alters the collective consciousness”

yes it does, and that collective consciousness is still very young and developing, relatively

for those new to MRM activities, be assured that you are still in on the GROUND FLOOR of merely the greatest challenge and opportunity of all time

the opponent has all the tools of wealth and power at its disposal, and is supranational in scope and influence

but the MRM, not feminism and global matriarchy, is going to endure — not just as some paltry, passing poli-cultural revolution, but as the foundation of all civilizations that will follow its example

jump on this train, folks, jump on it now with all your might and influence, because this train and this train only knows where it’s going

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 5, 2009 at 01:23

@ Harry

Man, where were you hiding that one? Great article! And I just went in search of your No Large Men’s Groups article to no avail. Can you link it as well? Or better yet, do you have an index page of your pieces? Your site is harder to navigate than my ex wifes moods, lol!

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 5, 2009 at 10:02

To add to Harry’s article, two other good things to read, in regard to the MRM, are William S. Lind’s articles on the Fourth Generation of War:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html

Lind puts forth that all of the US Military’s might is for naught. All of the billions of dollars spent flying “smart planes” with “smart bombs” that can fly in through the window and wipe your ass before blowing you to bits, still cannot find an effective way to counter the incredibly low-tech car bomb. All the planes in the world don’t really help when the enemy does not engage you with planes. All the strategy in the world does not help if your enemy does not play by the convential strategies of warfare. The “low-tech” Middle East is certainly giving the “high-tech” US Military one helluva run for its money, isn’t it?

And, of course, the other good read is Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.”

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

There is much relevance for the MRM found in both sites.

Also, I think that the problem of the MRM being inneffective is that we think we have to be like feminism to be successful.

I think this is 100% dead wrong. Feminism was successful because it played to female strengths and male weakness. Women are herd creatures who are led by socialization. This worked wonderfully for feminism.

However.

Gender is NOT a social construct.

So, screw what worked for feminism. Bras and panties work for women. Men, however, ought to have their tighty whiteys with the little fly in them.

For every strength or weakness that women have, men have a corresponding strength or weakness.

Their strength is in the power of the herd. In their socialization of right and wrong. This works for women because of how their brains work.

Our brains work differently. We work on principles. We seek to discover that which makes things work. We embrace the negatives in order to discover the mechanics, and then we manipulate those mechanics until we make something that works. This is what men do. This is our strength.

Think about putting a man on the moon. The biggest problem was escaping the earth’s gravity. Now, should NASA have been run by females, they likely would have insisted that no-one make too big of an issue about this nuissance of a thing called gravity… it is a problem and it brings everyone down that we can’t solve it, so, let’s keep up our morale and positive attitude… this is not what men do. Men look at this “problem” and after properly identifying it, they often use the problem itself to, in fact, solve the problem – like how man used the features of gravity in the end, to propel travel to the moon.

I don’t think the MRM has to be huge.

I think the MRM has to be smart.

That is what men do. 1,000 Men united in purpose on the internet could do much more than we give credit for.

If 1,000 men decided to make themselves familiar with the ways of the Frankfurt School… studied the mass manipulation techniques of the Tavistock Institute and the Rand Corporation… learned the Dialectic, and how to “turn it on it’s head” like Marx did, and started attacking the base arguments of feminism like a surgeon with a scalpel, rather than as a frothing, incoherent mob with clubs and torches…

Hey, the Cultural Marxists pulled it off with amazingly small numbers. They played for the battle of position, rather than the position of mass popularity… and it worked… it can for us too.

It doesn’t always take a mass uprising to change things.

We have our own example, right within the MRM, of how a small group of men can unite, devise a plan, put that plan into action, and affect a far larger group.

Who am I talking about? Why, MGTOW, of course!

Originally, this was a small group of guys… very small. You probably had more people over at your last Superbowl Party.

And yet, this small group of men got together, looked at the facts fearlessly and honestly, took the knowledge what they had, devised a male oriented plan that would circumvent, or directly use, men’s unique characteristics, and then this small group of men devised a plan, and committed themselves to putting that plan into action.

Yes, the MRM originally opposed MGTOW – some quite viciously. But, after only a few short years, MGTOW “broke something” in the MRM. It broke the Political Correctness of the MRM. It engaged men’s brains to start thinking outside the box. It made a very lean and mean element to the MRM that had never previously existed – except for some wildball nut called “Angry Harry.” The MRM before MGTOW was freakin’ pathetic. The MRM after MGTOW is wayyyy smarter, meaner, and more effective.

And that all came from a few guys, who affected change upon a much larger population.

The MRM has to look for male strengths, and become a male movement.

Let the ladies have their own model for a movement like feminism. It is tailored for them.

Women also pee sitting down.

We men need to build urinals, so we can piss on the world like men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 5, 2009 at 11:43

“Yes, the MRM originally opposed MGTOW – some quite viciously.”

it did?

theres never been any monolithic MRM that i know of, to oppose anything except feminism

what aspect of the MRM opposed MGTOW viciously? who exactly did this?

i was around for the whole thing and i sure dont remember any of this

“But, after only a few short years, MGTOW “broke something” in the MRM. It broke the Political Correctness of the MRM.”

love to hear more about this, i was completely unaware of any such development

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 5, 2009 at 13:56

Ray,

Well, I certainly am aware of it. I am certainly aware of members of the MRM showing up at MGTOW blogs and trying to shut us down “for the good of the movement.” Certain people involved in NCFM showed up – in particular angry with Fred X and Eternal Bachelor, and so on.

Also, I left the entire MRM because I was fed up and furious with it. After being involved for a while, and discussing certain things over and over and over and over and OVER again, one begins to ask “why.” And as soon as one delved into that, the bannings soon followed.

In fact, only a few months ago, I got into a bit of a row with Glenn Sacks himself over at Dr. Helen’s, where he was still running around chastising men for their blatant misogyny (which is mostly just calling fembots out). Glenn claimed that he must do so, because if he doesn’t no one else will, and the MRM will turn into a misogyny chamber. Nothing like your own comrades shaming you with calls of misogyny, eh? Glenn, btw, often blocks my most highly intelligent comments from his site. Sacks, in fact, wrote articles about us “woman bashers” and tried to discredit us.

It was MGTOW that brought the hardline shit into the MRM. Gender differences have never been a part of the Main Stream MRM, as far as I have seen. Hearing people run around in the MRM claiming that “we are equalists” and we only believe in “Equity Feminism” made me want to puke. And nobody, save for guys like AH who had their own sites and could not be banned from it could even present an argument against something as damaging as “equality” without getting the PC baton shoved up their ass. In fact, if it weren’t for Angry Harry, I would not be here at all, as I had already concluded that the MRM was a joke – a pussy cat – that was only upset because it had been promised a piece of pie that never materialized. As far as I could see, four or five years ago, only 5% of people even had an incling of the depth of the ideology, and of those 5%, only about half could type in a paragraph before being banned for their misogyny. AH suggested to me to start blogging myself… and here I am. It was my blog that kept me involved, and only my blog – the MGTOW “way.”

Another thing that was just simply ridiculous about the MRM was its insistence on “peer reviewed research.” A dumber thing I have never witnessed in my life. No generalizations, remember, without peer reviewed research. What poppycock. It was like asking a Jew to defend himself in a Nazi court, with only using information provided by Nazi Universities – maddening! The MRM did this to themselves.

In fact, I seen someone from NCFM leave a comment here the other day… I swallowed the bile that came up when I read it, and remembered how I used to feel. Blah blah blah… we have been here since 1977 (Nevermind the Declaration of Feminism was only written in 1971)… blah blah blah… we are writing letters here and there… blah blah blah… we have won two victories in the past 4 years (the feminists have won 48 victories in the meantime)… blah blah blah… these things take time – decades even!… but in the meantime, play nice, and don’t say anything controversial because that will hurt our cause.

Well, yeah, OK. Mr Chamberlain.

MGTOW means Men Going Their Own Way… and not just from women, but from the MRM. In that, start your own website, and become your own army of one. This was the success of MGTOW. And, some of the stuff that appeared was not very powerful, but some amazing brainpower surfaced from men in the MRM – many of whom had a previous history of continually being run off from MRM sites and forums. In fact, the MGTOW guys, as far as I know, got together because they had been run off of yet another MRM forum, and they decided enough was enough.

The linking of “Game” or, evolutionary psych, to the MRM, is far more attributable to MGTOW than it is to the Main Stream MRM, who, in my opinion are more linked to marriage savers and SoCons.

Btw, feminists used to attack us like the dickens when MGTOW’rs started blogging… and it was MGTOW that kicked them right in the kunt and told them to shut the fuck up. The rest of the MRM figured they had to be respected and ought to have their views aired fairly – even though they would not return the favour in any manner. The fembots hardly dare step foot near the “hardcore” MRM (MGTOW), because they know we wouldn’t think twice to whip it out and piss in their face.

The features of MGTOW taught me pretty much all what learned online about the MRM & Feminism, although I had been aware of the issues for easily 20 years now – since Marc Lepine.

MGTOW is slowly fading away, but it served its purpose. The MRM is smarter than before, and it has some teeth. I would not be here if it weren’t for MGTOW, and I suspect that a good many more men would not be here without it either.

Less Chamberlain and more Churchill, please.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 5, 2009 at 17:16

…………../´¯/)……..….. (\¯`\
…………/….//……….. …\\….\ A Tribute to Fred X
………../….//………… ….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….).)…)
.\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\……………..,,./
….\…………..(………. ..)……………/
……\………….\……… ../…………./

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada December 5, 2009 at 17:30

**as the MGTOW brothers from BMVwould say…”logic bombs are being dropped on this piece!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 5, 2009 at 20:52

ok fedrz thanks for your view

cant argue with much of it, and i’ve also shared many of these frustrations with the MRM — or people representing themselves as such anyway

eventually the good stuff surfaces and the fakers and lightweights blow away

thats how guys do it

MGTOW seems to me an intentionally nebulous and inclusive concept, an idea, not an organization (not to disparage any sincere MRM org)

the general tolerance and intelligence levels around people who might self-identify as or with MGTOW is definitely a couple cuts above the average MRM supporter found on the net a few years ago

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaclyn December 6, 2009 at 22:24

finsalscollons,

I agree with you first post. Women will generally shut up when put in their place by a man. If they don’t shut up they usually take the other route, which is name calling and whining rather than bringing up any rational intelligent argument.
However, you completely lost me when you started to spout your self reighteous bullshit, and spewing the condescending phrase “American men” as if you are somehow superior to them. There are plenty of good strong American men who will put a woman in her place the second she steps out of line. Probably the reason men won’t side with you on this issue is because you come across as cocky and immature. You seem to say things before you think. Much like feminists Nazis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ghost of Rihanna December 6, 2009 at 23:19

Men who expect women to look good should not complain that women are spending money on hair, makeup and gym! And these women, if they are single, and most of the time if they are married, are spending their own money, not any man’s, on all that.

So if you don’t want women to spend money on facilities and products that will make her look good, and you are OK with women who run about with hairy armpits and legs…… then from here on out no more posts or comments about the way women look – good or bad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 8, 2009 at 02:10

then from here on out no more posts or comments about the way women look – good or bad.

I am sure everyone here will follow your edict to the letter. Now, post some pics so we can judge what you look like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 8, 2009 at 02:12

@ Ray

this train and this train only knows where it’s going

As a courtesy, I am letting you know this line is so good I am stealing it and using it in my next piece. I won’t take credit for it personally though. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sean Payne December 26, 2009 at 19:07

Great article. God hates feminism. Unfortunately this article speaks true even of Christian women. Thanks for sharing this truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
newly divorced January 17, 2010 at 20:11

Speaking of the marriage strike. None of my single friends (35+) want to ever get married. Most of them think it’s an insane idea. Most of my friends that have gotten married in the last few years regret it. They won’t admit but you can see the joy in life draining out of them as they become dead men walking.

I think we should all do everything in our power to warn younger men of the risks of marriage. We should use some shaming of our own – make fun of these guys like the fools they are. We should also insist on prenups and make them a cultural standard for the few men who do marry. I would also think men should revive the custom of a dowry. Since a wife is basically an expensive parasite, men should be compensated up front for the risk of marrying one. I know if I was stupid enough to marry again, I would want a prenup and a dowry of several million dollars to compensate me the financial risk I am taking. If marriage is a “partnership” then women have to put in an equal share.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Quotidian January 19, 2010 at 13:46

@ newly divorced,

“Speaking of the marriage strike. None of my single friends (35+) want to ever get married. Most of them think it’s an insane idea. Most of my friends that have gotten married in the last few years regret it. They won’t admit but you can see the joy in life draining out of them as they become dead men walking.”

I suppose you and your friends had a lifetime of experience with USA/Europe customs and their dealings with marriage; and their perspective of a wife is ‘a woman who likes to earn and support herself and not depend on her husband for anything valuable’. Well yeah, hooking up with women like that when your own ambitions are something else (which I believe is, as is the general view of other men) will surely place marriage closer to hell.
But why go against marriage? Find women who do not swing that way. And USA is not the only place to look for matches you know.

“I think we should all do everything in our power to warn younger men of the risks of marriage. We should use some shaming of our own – make fun of these guys like the fools they are. We should also insist on prenups and make them a cultural standard for the few men who do marry.”

How about this alternative: Inspire younger men to change the corrupt marriage system and use your examples to show the areas they need to target. I’m sure prenups won’t be necessary, the behaviors are sure to change once the current marriage system is taken care of. However, This task will have colossal hazards so be prepared.
But then again, if you try and find the woman that suits you, I don’t think this should matter.

“I would also think men should revive the custom of a dowry. Since a wife is basically an expensive parasite, men should be compensated up front for the risk of marrying one. I know if I was stupid enough to marry again, I would want a prenup and a dowry of several million dollars to compensate me the financial risk I am taking. If marriage is a “partnership” then women have to put in an equal share.”

My previous two comments is also the answer to this argument of yours.
And yeah, with all the backups you’re making for yourself, it sounds like you’re not looking for a lovable and trustworthy partner or a joyous future that marriage is supposed to bring; rather a battleground on which you and your wife are ready to slit each other at a moments show of dishonor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amalowze February 22, 2010 at 06:36
Amalowze February 22, 2010 at 10:47
JFinn February 19, 2012 at 14:55

@Justin “It is in their race, in their blood. They are the most beautiful women on the planet .. Feminism, as some already know, was not a product of our women.”

Oh let me guess – zeh Jews did it?

Modern women are not independent. They choose to “burn out” at 30 and downgrade their career, then lean on a man who doesn’t have “burn out” privilege. Then they claim that their oppressed because they chose not to shatter the glass ceiling because feminism taught them that killing yourself at work is a privilege. Then, of course, there are all the taxes funneling money from our beloved fathers, brothers, and sons into women’s pockets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn February 19, 2012 at 15:04

^^ Alright, 2 spelling errors: ‘They’re oppressed’ and ‘womens’ expectations ‘

And just to clarify, women have a false expectation of “the rat race” and drop out. This is why many of these misandric “the end of men” articles, taking great pleasure in our demise, are delusional. What the feminized schools are doing, however, is chopping at mens’ potential. They should re-title: “The end of the West.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Sixth Horseman September 10, 2012 at 02:26

Ok, interesting replies here.

Here’s what I really think about what women should do IF they plan on being in a marriage and have a serious, long-term marriage.

1) Stop caring about looks.
2) Start seeing your partner as someone to achieve success and economic goals with
3) Understand that if you have children, you and the husband need to work for your well being and the children’s.
4) Marriage is an economic relationship. If it’s not, then plan on being broke and learn to love being broke and poor and in love with the person you’re with; and don’t assume you’ll get much but love and company of your husband in return.
5) Love can fade away with time. It takes two to stay happy. Don’t assume someone is suppose to make you happy. It’s about equality. So it’s up to you two to stay in love.

I think if women can get those things down, then fucking awesome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: