Equality Redux

by Novaseeker on December 5, 2009

This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.

gender_equality_in_sweden_f_1

Equality.

We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.

Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?

It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:

  • Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools
  • Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored
  • Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver
  • Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities

And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.

What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?

The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.

In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.

Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.

In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.

Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.

This is hardly equality.

In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.

In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.

{ 79 comments… read them below or add one }

Cloud December 5, 2009 at 14:46

You have to hit women where it hurts….their ability to have children.

#1 – If you’re a man, and you want a child, then just adopt. Yes it’s expensive. But would you prefer losing your house, and only seeing your child once a week? Because that’s pretty much your only alternative.

#2 – Stop donating sperm. Countries like Canada and the UK currently have a shortage of sperm donors. We should follow their lead on this.

If women aren’t married, and they have no kids, then that means they have no choice but to be 100% self reliant. And there’s nothing more disgusting to a woman than having to actually work and take care of herself.

But be careful, NEVER use a condom that a woman gave you. And NEVER take a woman’s word that she’s on the pill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 5, 2009 at 15:13

Great post Nova! Copied for ammo elsewhere!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 5, 2009 at 15:21

Classic article, well worth digging up, Novaseeker. If we had the equivalent of sticky threads around here, this would definitely have to be one of them.

Modern feminism is simply about female special interest and, like you said, female supremacism. Any honestly disinterested party can see this, because it’s so glaringly obvious. The feminists themselves have realized that there is little use left for the pretense that they are fighting for equality. Their success has been so complete, and their infiltration of all institutions (legal, educational, cultural) has been so total that this pretense of “equality” can safely be dropped.

By the way, did you see the UK Parliament has voted (with near universal support from the Tories) to legalize job discrimination against white men who are equally as qualified as competing women and minorities? This was already de facto policy, I’m sure, but this removes any right to legal challenges men may have had in the past. This is as important an event as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, yet even the MRA/MGTOW sphere is more interested about what’s going on with Tiger Woods than the systematic, completely legalized disenfranchisement of all British men. Nice work, guys. I hope you like the future we’re headed towards, because it’s pitch black.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 5, 2009 at 15:40

While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges.

Quite true, and at this point you have the even more neurotic development that feminists, even women in general, deny the pedestal ever existed or that it still exists. Just another part of revised history that now, through stunning denial, has become a revised present.

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, it is also the vital nutrient of modern gender politics.

Good piece, well worth putting up again. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 5, 2009 at 15:54

@Zeta –

Yep. Expect white British men to be relegated soon enough in the City. Just a joke.

Chris December 5, 2009 at 15:54

The thing about women is that most people(including women) don’t understand what they want. Knowing what they want is easy, rationalizing it is the difficult part because what they want is….everything. It seems silly at first, or a joke, but the fact is that it’s true. Women want everything they find desirable, meaning they want things that stand at polar opposites and that are impossible to reconcile. They want to be “equal” but to them that means they want all the things they deem as positives to being equal without any of the negatives they perceive while still maintaing anything they deem as worthy from “chivalry”

They want to be known as capable as men in everything and as strong while being able to use the fact that they are weaker as an advantage. They scoff if a male refuses to wrestle a woman bc that woman is just as capable and just as tough and the male is less for thinking not. If that same woman attacked her husband and he smacked her back the same people would be condemning him for ever raising a hand to a woman.

The problem lies in the facs that due to biological factors men and women will never be identical or completely “equal” as well as the fact that most women are not interested in true equality anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
KL December 5, 2009 at 15:56

While youre absolutely right about the true and real intentions and mindset behind the feminist revolution – it was never about equality – youre way off base about its real world impact.

Men continue to dominate, despite everything, in every field they WISH to dominate.

Its particularly absurd to suggest that women dominate in every field they wish to and poor, weak, defenseless men huddle frightened in those areas left to them by women – puuleeze. This kind of talk is more symptomatic of your state of mind and psychology than reality.

Its a projection of the resentment you feel towards women onto the outside world, not an accurate portrait of that world. Its a figment of your imagination produced by resentment, and as such unworthy of you.

In business, commerce, politics, the military, the arts, literature, the sciences – hard AND soft – and on and on, in practically EVERY serious area of life, men predominate, despite feminist fondest wishes to achieve parity or even dominance in these areas.

Okay, so women dominate in nursing, hom-care, day care centers, and all the less demanding and tough jobs – THIS means what, precisely?

Feminism is bad, even evil – couldnt agree more. Our culture needs nothing more than strong male voices celebrating the male virtues and championing male interests and countering the insidious and poisonous anti-male messages embedded in our culture.

But enough of this male weakness, already. The culture is messed up by feminism, yes, but women are FAR from having us men cornered – portraying ourselves as weak hapless victims of women is deeply, profoundly distasteful to any authentically confident male. Yes there are serious injustices and imbalances that need to be addressed, but we are not hapless little victims.

On this note, thats what I cant STAND about the Game movement as well, which is closely related to this whole *mansphere* business – the portrayal of men as these weak, helpless victims at the mercy of these powerful women who hold all the cards in their hands and can dispense sex to whom they wish when they wish, and who despise most men, etc, etc.

Wow! What a fantasy! And what a pathetic projection of your inner fear and insecurity onto the world at large! Even if TRUE – which it most emphaticaly is NOT – how pathetic for any man to think or talk this way! Women have all the power, sexually or socially? Pulleeeze. Thats the perspective of the rejected male doing some serious projecting. Period. Which on second thought makes perfect sense that that attitude should find so central a place in both the Gamosphere and the Man-*rights* -o-sphere.

Both spheres have some troubling elements of weakness in them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Days of Broken Arrows December 5, 2009 at 16:25

Great article. Well-written and well thought out. I had forgotten about thos female-only hotel floors.

Also, it’s worth noting that some men’s groups on college campuses are getting harrassed by women’s groups for being “exclusive” and shutting out women. The fact that feminists refuse to see the paradox in all this is telling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist December 5, 2009 at 16:26

Nice article, in particularly the part:

“So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.”

It’s something I noticed that I have been struggling to put into words, but this fits it perfectly.

I’m going to repost this on my blog, with credit and linkage of course. But if you decide after this post to deny, I can take it down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate December 5, 2009 at 16:37

“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” — Cato the Elder 234-149 B.C. quoted in Livy’s ‘History of Rome’.

Prophetic words from a wise man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 5, 2009 at 16:52

KL…did you read the same article I read?

One my biggest pet peeves about femi-twits is that they spend as much time shaming men as they do trying to tell men, that what they see and experience, isn’t really there!

KL….my perception is my REALITY….I don’t need to hear or read that it is all a figment of my imagination.

Puuuuleeeeze!????

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Vassago December 5, 2009 at 16:58

Frankly, I’d like to hear more from KL, if only to really understand his/her position. It’s pretty hard to tell, but I’m leaning toward KL being a feminist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Days of Broken Arrows December 5, 2009 at 17:04

Not e to KL: When you decide who gets born, you control the world. Women do this, not men. When you decide who gets to have sex, you control the other sex. Again, women do this, not men.

The above concepts are so self-evident that people can’t really fathom this. Why does no one bring up that women control the world because they control reproduction? If the thug, not the scientist is having ten children, then that is because of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 5, 2009 at 17:19

Whichever way KL swings, (s)he does not seem to be much of an ally. I believe the term “vacillator” would apply here, in the best-case scenario.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko December 5, 2009 at 17:49

One long dialectical march to death and now its our turn to be at the arse end of it.

God, to Paganism, to Pantheism, to Rationalism, to Materialism.

Revealed truth (Christ), to Heterodoxy, to Heresy, to Atheism.

King, to Senate, to Imperialist, to Despots, to Whigs, to Gentry, to proletariat.

Tribe, to Clan, to Family, to Individuals, to Sex, to Gender, to Persons, to Inhumanity, to Death.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 5, 2009 at 18:06

KL,

The divorce laws are extremely rigged in favor of women, and totally bypass the US constitution. A person who cannot admit this is not to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, feminists peddle bogus myths that anyone with an iota of real-world experience knows is false. The myth is that ‘women get paid 75% of what men get paid’.

This is bogus. The second half of the sentence is left off.

The full, factually correct sentence is :

Women get paid 75% of what men do, for doing 70% of the work.

So women are actually paid MORE than men per unit of output.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
KL December 5, 2009 at 18:16

Wow – perception is not reality. Perception needs to be measured against empirical data. Perception, however, might tell us something very important about your state of mind even if it says nothing about objective reality.

Feminist shaming language is retarded because their standards of value are anti-male and ideologically chosen, but the concept of using shame to induce changes in behavior is a very healthy one. The loss of shame in this culture is one of its worst features. The reintroduction of shame into American life would be one of the single best things that could happen to it.

Vassago – what are your questions to me? I am completely anti-feminist. My position is simple. I want to see a genuine – not ersatz – resurgence of strength in men. Im disappointed because I stumbled on to the Gampshpere and mansphere thinking I might finally have found the tip of the arrow of a movement towards reintroducing pride, confidence, and strength into American men, only to discover that many of its foremost exponents are actually whiny, weak men whose image of masculine strength and relations between the sexes is often driven by a sense of personal inferiority, and who stand in awe and fear of women even as they are desperate to portray themselves as bold, fearless subduers of the female mind. Its all a big joke.

Days of Broken Arrows – but thats just it, women DONT control who gets to have sex and or who has kids. Women are at the mercy of their own biological impulses to reproduce just as much as men.

For women, sex and men and relationships is the stuff of their lives, at the very center of it, they are spellbound and held captive by it. While sex is hugely important to men, nearly all men have many other personally meaningful pursuits. Whats typical chic lit or chic flik? Romance novels or films. Whats typical male fiction or male movies? Adventure/action films, where girls play a role, sure, but dont occupy center stage.

So women are dominated and controlled by their need for men far more than men are by their need for sex with women, although obviously men have a powerful drive for sex as well.

This is the reality. This is far closer to the truth than the whiny picture painted by the Game people of hapless men desperate for sex at the mercy of women who decide on what basis to dole it out.

Women need us far more than we need them – heck, men can have their sexual needs met by prostitutes or sex dolls, but women need us for their emotional fulfillment, which can only be gotten through the consent of men.

Yet it is women who have ALL the power?

Just as a woman may refuse or accept a man, a man may refuse or accept a woman. I refuse women all the time, and so do many men I know, so to me the idea that women have all the power and us men are at their mercy rings absolutely hollow to me. It is as clear as day to me that the only man who would think this way, that the world really functions this way, is one who is more accustomed to being refused by women than refusing them. For that guy, women really DO hold all the power – but that isnt *reality*, thats just the personal sense of inferiority of that guy being used as the basis for statements about the world at large.

When guys go on about women controlling access to sex and having all the power it needs to be interpreted symptomatically as revealing about his own state of mind, because it is so false to reality.

In reality, women are absolutely controlled by their sex drive and need for men, and organize their lives around it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
KL December 5, 2009 at 18:21

Fifth Horeseman – I absolutely agree with you there.

I admitted in my first post that there are huge injustices and imbalances that need to be addressed in our culture which is anti-male in many ways, divorce being most prominent amongst them, and youre undoubtedly right about the pay myth.

My larger point is simply to not overportray men as weak and helpless victims, to the point that women dominate in all professions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate December 5, 2009 at 18:28

KL maybe you should give these two guys a call & tell them how their position in society is quite strong:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=1152816

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-83.htm

I bet you will change your tune pretty quick when you are forced to pay for kids that are not even yours for 18 years.

Every man thinks of himself as the exception until he gets burned personally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
codebuster December 5, 2009 at 18:32

@KL

Men continue to dominate, despite everything, in every field they WISH to dominate.

Not quite. Only the men in power (at the top of the food chain) continue to dominate, and in feminism, they are implementing a form of gendercide that is traditionally perpetrated by men in power to disempower the opposition that comes from men. It suites the men at the top to keep troublesome males disempowered. The only reason that this modern gendercide does not require the actual slaughter of men is that men have become a pushover.

Maybe it can be said that men “dominate” in those fields that women are not interested in, such as engineering, but given that it’s the MIP that set the rules, it’s only the MIP that ultimately dominate. Which means that women and manginas are free to dominate in management and administrative levels beneath the MIP, which includes the Human Resource units that recruit engineers.

What about men dominating science? Ever tried getting an article with adverse implications for feminism published in a scientific journal? Then you will realize that somewhere, behind the scenes, the feminist agenda is shaping the landscape, and male scientists are their useful idiots.

Your most recent comments are interesting and principally, I don’t disagree. Are there no other men that hold these sorts of views?

@Zeta:

By the way, did you see the UK Parliament has voted (with near universal support from the Tories) to legalize job discrimination against white men who are equally as qualified as competing women and minorities?

Unbelievable the things that men are letting slide. No uprising, not even a murmur. Can you provide a link? I wasn’t able to google anything on this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Expatriate December 5, 2009 at 18:41
Niko December 5, 2009 at 18:46

Great points KL. Every man that refuses his services diminishes the pool of availability and increases the balance in mans favor.

Shame the world no longer values the venerable institution of the monastic. I think this institution so prevalent in East Asia is what controls feminist behavior in Asia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Omega Man December 5, 2009 at 18:52

The word “Marxist” is used, but never the word “Victorian”, which is much more relevant. The modern world is Victorian. Education, nursing, and social work were all deliberately designed as female professions, where they could use their feminine qualities to help others. Since women are morally superior to men (in the Victorian view) any profession women wish to enter will be enhanced by their presence. Professions already female should stay that way.

Can you think, when women were excluded from things, when it was because they were inferior or unfit? Not in the Victorian (modern era) you can’t. Women were excluded for their own protection! Or to give the men a private place to be naughty, like children would have a treehouse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 5, 2009 at 18:52

KL…that’s a very condescending response, I’m entitled to my perceptions and I am educated enough to deduce what I see and experience. I don’t need some asshole coming along and telling me what I see isn’t what I’ve experienced ….you’re projecting on an epic level here. Nova was simply pointing out the duplicity in feminist ideology and you come along and tell all of us we are whining, and portraying ourselves as weak while this site is simply trying to educate men about injustices faced by men.

There are many articles on here that delve into what it means to be a strong man, etc. This particular article is simply hi-lighting what men are up against.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jugglingbuffoon December 5, 2009 at 18:54

I can find nearly nothing to disagree with in this article. Great job.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 5, 2009 at 19:12

KL is either a woman or a trans. Either way the views of the entity “KL” are useless.

I am an Orthodox Christian, and I know both where I stand and where a demonic deceiver like KL stands. Glory to God for all things.

Zeta December 5, 2009 at 19:14

Unbelievable the things that men are letting slide. No uprising, not even a murmur. Can you provide a link? I wasn’t able to google anything on this.

Sure, codebuster. Why not add in a little self-promotion and link to a post I made on the subject (the link to the article is at the top of it)! You can also see the relative disinterest it garnered.

Link: http://mgtow.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1273

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cloud December 5, 2009 at 19:15

The government uses DNA tests to make men pay for their kids. But the government won’t let men use the same DNA tests to prove that they ARE NOT the father. Why? Because the government doesn’t want to pay for the kid, so they make some poor sap do it.

If we stop impregnating women, they would flood the sperm donor market and to a much lesser degree, adoption agencies (most women wouldn’t meet the strict requirements to adopt). As a result, there will be an even bigger influx of single mothers in this country, which will be putting an even bigger strain on the government to help raise these kids.

The government will raise taxes. But it won’t be enough. They’ll have to attempt to gain some more funds by passing laws allowing kids to find out who their sperm donor fathers are, and force those fathers to pay monthly payments for the kid. Consequently men will stop donating sperm.

Then what are women left with? Nothing (assuming we stop marrying them too). They’ve spent decades taking advantage of men because they felt like they no longer needed men. Mr. Government was always around to give them the house, kids, dog, and alimony payments.

A society made up purely of single mothers absolutely cannot sustain itself. As a result, feminists will have no choice but to realize that they have gone too far.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 5, 2009 at 19:19

KL reminds me of the people behind the “Tough Guise” scam. Or the disruptors whom the old-school MRA irlandes used to talk about. They come in to a pre-established group, thinking they know better, thinking they know what being a “real man” is all about. All they really do is cause dissension. I think it’s best to ignore people like that, and that’s what I’ll do from here on out!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 5, 2009 at 19:25

Pretty insightful post Novaseeker ;)

Chris at December 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Great points. I especially liked this part:

They want to be known as capable as men in everything and as strong while being able to use the fact that they are weaker as an advantage. They scoff if a male refuses to wrestle a woman bc that woman is just as capable and just as tough and the male is less for thinking not. If that same woman attacked her husband and he smacked her back the same people would be condemning him for ever raising a hand to a woman.

Omega Man,

Can you think, when women were excluded from things, when it was because they were inferior or unfit? Not in the Victorian (modern era) you can’t. Women were excluded for their own protection! Or to give the men a private place to be naughty, like children would have a treehouse.

If you don’t mind, can you provide examples? I can understand women being excluded from the military, police force, construction, boys clubs, etc. But other than that I’m drawing a blank. And to be excluded from certain things for your protection, can’t that also mean that you were unfit to participate (hence the protection)?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Demosthenes XXI December 5, 2009 at 19:25

And unfortunately, this will only continue until we find a way to defuse one of the most potent tools in the feminist arsenal; shaming. We have to render that tool impotent before we are able to make any headway.

Whenever somebody who opposes feminism makes a statement against it, the primary feminist response is to belittle and reduce the apparent maturity and morality of anyone who chooses to subscribe to the minority opinion (with feminism being the “majority viewpoint”). Nobility and logic can only do so much against emotive language.

We have to find a way to defuse this mechanism in a debate before we can begin to combat feminism in the court of public appeal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 5, 2009 at 19:38

KL -

Vassago – what are your questions to me? I am completely anti-feminist. My position is simple. I want to see a genuine – not ersatz – resurgence of strength in men. Im disappointed because I stumbled on to the Gampshpere and mansphere thinking I might finally have found the tip of the arrow of a movement towards reintroducing pride, confidence, and strength into American men, only to discover that many of its foremost exponents are actually whiny, weak men whose image of masculine strength and relations between the sexes is often driven by a sense of personal inferiority, and who stand in awe and fear of women even as they are desperate to portray themselves as bold, fearless subduers of the female mind. Its all a big joke.

Your position here, if genuine, is interesting.

I am sympathetic to the idea that it is better to create a positive vision than it is to whine.

However, the trends Novaseeker is talking about are real and verifiable. Women have powerful legal leverage over men, and every man I know from alpha to omega is aware of it. Women hold positions of power in areas where they are able to control the lives of men. Identifying problems and challenges is not whining. Emphatically insisting that men are still just as much in charge as they ever were to look strong is like walking around with a NERF gun pretending you’re keeping the peace.

YOU might be in a good position in your environment/social circle/career, but to say that’s the case for most men simply isn’t true. Of the jobs that were recently lost, over 70% of the people who lost them were men. Women now make up a majority of the workforce–though, yes, many of the people they work at the very top of the ladder are still men.

You have to identify a problem to get men pissed off enough to start looking for a solution.

How would you create a “resurgence of strength in men?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 5, 2009 at 19:41

Solid article, BTW, Novaseeker.

So many of the people who pretend to seek equality are actually seeking primacy, in the Orwellian “more equal than others” sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 5, 2009 at 19:46

Women complain endlessly about making lower wages than men but are strangely silent when it is pointed out that men are 98% of all combat fatalities and 92% of all workers killed on the job. Men live shorter lives than women, so they don’t collect as much money from pensions, Social Security, or Medicare. Women also get *massive* tax breaks (such as the EITC) because they effectively own almost all of the children in the US. They also use health care and family leave much more often than men do, so they claim a much greater share of the benefits that come with employment than men do.

It’s deceitful for women to use gross wages – the one number that happens to favor men – as a rallying cry while they deliberately ignore a dozen other factors that disfavor men or favor women. If the total cost of benefits and tax breaks is added in over the lifetime of a worker, especially including retirement, women *always* cost more than men.

If women really and truly were better and cheaper workers than men, why would the government need to *force* businesses to hire them in the first place?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 5, 2009 at 19:56

I think I understand where KL is coming from. Let me explain where I agree and disagree.

One thing I see over and over again, everywhere in the world, is that when a group that perceives itself as victimized (whether legitimately or not), and they get so accustomed to thinking that ‘the other’ is oppressing them, then they can rationalize ANY evil against a member of the oppressing group. We see this in black-on-white crime, hate speech, etc. We saw that with gay marriage extremists. We see that with Palestinians and other Islamic groups. Of course, the biggest example of this is feminism. They are so obsessed with a belief that men are oppressing them/raping them/being ‘misogynists’ that they condone any and all evil against innocent men.

We, as men, have to fight this, but also be wary that we, someday don’t go down that road ourselves. But at the moment, feminists are the ones using victimhood to justify increasingly outlandish acts of evil.

Now, on the other hand, KL, if you are aware of the pay gap myth, then you must also be aware that the glass ceiling is no more meaningful than the ‘glass floor’. Men are 90% of all prisoners, the majority of all suicides, and stand to lose all their life’s work in a divorce that HE did not want, but was unilaterally inflicted on him. Men are branded as ‘deadbeat dads’, when in fact it is the mother that broke the union and put the child’s needs at a low priority.

The morality being depicted by men and by women today is not even close. Women are increasingly normalizing evil.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 5, 2009 at 19:59

women *always* cost more than men.

Which is why their jobs are more suitable for being outsourced than men. There is no free lunch in the long run.

It’s deceitful for women to use gross wages – the one number that happens to favor men – as a rallying cry while they deliberately ignore a dozen other factors that disfavor men or favor women.

By now, you must know that they are perfectly willing to be deceitful on matters far more egregious than this (i.e. rape, domestic violence, etc.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck December 5, 2009 at 20:03

Nova,

classic article. i especially like the “cafeteria line” line.

i’m reminded of a line i heard in a movie: “a crying woman is a scheming woman”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster December 5, 2009 at 20:17

Thanks Zeta.

Angry Harry should get a hold of this. This appears to be a proposed bill, and it hasn’t become law yet. This is an excellent opportunity for the MRM in the UK to prove its mettle. If they fail to nip this in the bud, then there is no hope. The passage of this nonsense will be an insult to all men and women. Future generations will be laughing at the Anglosphere.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232728/Flagship-inequality-clears-Commons-despite-claim-lead-positive-discrimination.html

These sorts of laws are unconstitutional in many countries (I can’t comment on the constitution of the UK). With a bit of lobbying and publicity, I anticipate that they should actually be very easy to overturn if they are unconstitutional.

The recently introduced “hate crimes” legislation in the US is unconstitutional. How are they getting away with this? I wonder if there is scope for treating those that breach consitutions as criminals, kind of like a war crimes offence. Anyone with legal training have an opinion? These are the very same people that jail holocaust deniers just for exercising their freedom of speech.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli December 5, 2009 at 21:22

Women have power and leverage only because most men believe in the inherent goodness of women (at least ‘their’ women).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 5, 2009 at 21:24

The recently introduced “hate crimes” legislation in the US is unconstitutional. How are they getting away with this?

Federal hate crimes laws go back to 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law

The 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who “willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person’s race, color, religion or national origin” [4] because of the victim’s attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

Persons violating the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.[1] U.S. Courts provide for criminal sanctions, but only victims of gender-motivated hate crimes can “seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief”.[2]
[edit] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.[3]
[edit] Matthew Shepard Act
Main article: Matthew Shepard Act

On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is just an add-on and an edit. Is it unconstitutional? I don’t know. In conflict with traditional core American values? Definitely.

The original looks like it was drafted to stop organized intimidation–as in the KKK boys rounding up black people and hangin ‘em, or beating them up while they were trying to vote, etc. Still thought-policing and un-Amercian, but understandable.

The Shepard addition is clearly aimed at punishing groups of young drunken straight guys. There are no organized groups I know of who try to stop homos or trannies from voting, or who go around killing them or beating them up to send a message. Any organized group that did that would be crushed immediately by existing laws and agencies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 5, 2009 at 21:44

Good point about drawing a parallel to the anti-Klan laws, Jack. Hate crime laws are a relic of Reconstruction, and there is no justification for them today. There is no guerrilla war, and there is no insurgency in the US. Criminal law is more than adequate for the current situation.

Under American law, extraordinary codes such as hate crime laws are only acceptable under martial law, IMO. If we enforce them during peacetime, that says something very negative about the state of relations between the state and the citizens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster December 5, 2009 at 22:10

Jack/Welmer, after a couple of minutes of casual rummaging around in google, I infer the following… Doesn’t the most recent edit of hate crimes legislation require re-examining of a case at the federal level, once tried (unsuccessfully) at the state level? If so, then maybe it represents a breach of the constitutionamendment article VII:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Bottom line, I don’t think trying a case a second time, just because prosecutors failed the first time around, is acceptable practice in western democracies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli December 5, 2009 at 22:24

According to Lawton, Woods is quite the lover. He is “very well endowed” and “knows his way around the bedroom. On a scale of ten I would give him 12,” she tells News of the World. Lawton’s sister, Lynn, adds that Mindy described their sex as “extremely good.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/mindy-lawton-tiger-woods_n_381573.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 5, 2009 at 23:40

I refuse women all the time, and so do many men I know, so to me the idea that women have all the power and us men are at their mercy rings absolutely hollow to me. It is as clear as day to me that the only man who would think this way, that the world really functions this way, is one who is more accustomed to being refused by women than refusing them.

-KL

You have some interesting things to say KL, particularly with regard to how much more men and relationships are central to a woman’s reality than vice-versa, and that women are more often subject to impulses and drives over which they less self-control.

But that you would dismiss all men as losers in the dating game if they notice how seriously over-represented men are in nearly every negative social statistic, and how much more heavily they are put upon by law and law enforcers belies a less than considered view of the matter. Perhaps you aren’t sickened in the guts when you hear reports of men and boys in their thousands being rounded up and murdered in places like Kosovo and Darfur, and not further incensed by the fact that what passes as media routinely focuses only on the hardships women face, and adopts language that hides suffering if the hapless were born male.

Readers of this site are not all cut from the same cloth, and for every commenter who is obviously motivated by a frustration at not being attractive to women, there are many more who quietly let it go, knowing that that particular concern features in any group of people – it is nothing like the central issue of concern for those men who are beginning to look at how how our societies are shaping up and seeing something foul running right through it.

What could you possibly hope to achieve with such an inflammatory and vapid attempt at singular dismissal of issues that are far more involved that getting a date?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 5, 2009 at 23:44

Wow, this is a mangina to surpass all manginas.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Roland3337 December 5, 2009 at 23:49

It seems to me that there is one thing missing from this discussion: Birth control for men.

Think of it brothers:

If we could take a pill, and have the same power as 21st century women: We can decide when we are fathers, or whether or not we will be fathers.

Paternity fraud would be drastically reduced, as well as out of wedlock births.

Right now, we have very few options of controlling our fertility. Beyond a vasectomy, or abstinence, what can we do?

There is heat. Cheap, and it seems to work (see:” http://malecontraceptives.org/myths.php).

But that is not so convenient without a heating pad, or a hot tub, 45 minutes each day for 3 weeks. On our … parts.

But if we had a pill. Something to think about. And lobby for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster December 6, 2009 at 00:43

I thought I’d do a bit more snooping around on google. We have all the laws we need to protect us. But we have to assert them. Whether it’s VAWA, whether it’s being denied due process in court, whether it’s ex-wives committing perjury in court, child support payments, etc, it’s all there, though we are losing it bit by bit. If men are too docile and stupid to fight for their rights, then why should anyone care for men’s rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Given that men have been so hopeless in standing up for their rights, here’s a suggestion for an alternative to a men’s movement… a “revival of old rights” movement. Simply asserting rights under the constitution will protect men from all the unconstitutional laws and practices that have been implemented in the past half-century or so. It’s that easy, but only so long as the will is there. We’ve got to use it or lose it, and there’s no other solution.

Of course if the only thing motivating an MRM is self-interest in relation to court outcomes in divorce and custody disputes, then maybe they do deserve to lose it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
John Dias December 6, 2009 at 02:11

Good article, pointing out the double-standards vis-a-vis equality. But I must admit, we’ve milked to death the meme of “wait a minute, this ain’t equality!” We need to stop thinking that merely pointing out a double-standard is enough. We need to completely change the way we talk about the double standard. Novaseeker, your column touched on the concept of female privilege but only to point out that women retained their privileges while seeking “equality” in the “male spaces.”

We need to go on the offensive; all this talk of “wait a minute, that’s not equality!” is getting old, and it is defensive. We need to accuse women of being the privileged sex. We need to use that word privilege all the time, and stop even invoking the term equality. Just say privilege, privilege privilege all the time to talk about how women are pampered and spoiled. The more you use the term equality the more you undermine the MRM. Just forget it. By attacking female privilege, you will in effect be moving the MRM toward our definition of equality.

The P word is our greatest weapon. It allows us to reclaim a word that we’ve lost. The E word should be abandoned; let’s not even waste time claiming that one because it has so much cross-appeal even beyond gender that there’s no point. Just attack privilege; define privilege; retake the word privilege.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO December 6, 2009 at 02:13

Jesus TFH that was fucking terrifying. The comments section… looooool. Remember this is what people think like outside the mra-sphere, I’m really becoming more convinced the men’s rights movement is going to turn out to be too little, too late. The opposition is just too strongly entrenched and nobody really gives a shit about our rights, they won’t even admit to the obvious unconstitutional legal issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli December 6, 2009 at 02:19

Why do you want to save the world? Let it go to hell..

Seriously, why do you care about the world? What is in it for you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith December 6, 2009 at 03:01

yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions

Already done, at least in the case of dead men. There have been several cases where the girlfriends of dead men have been allowed to get sperm samples. This is no mere violation of a man’s body; her children become his heirs. As their guardian, she gets control of the estate. That’s how a woman can get control of a man’s money without being his wife and without being a beneficiary of his will. The women, naturally, denied that the estate was a motive, and the courts were only too happy to oblige a grieving (we hope) woman over the opposition of the man’s parents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster December 6, 2009 at 05:03

Why do you want to save the world? Let it go to hell..

If you believe that your existence is fully accounted for in your genetic blueprint, if you believe that evolutionary psychology’s interpretation of nature red in tooth and claw fully accounts for your short life in slut culture, then you’re doing just fine. Don’t let anyone take that away from you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
finsalscollons December 6, 2009 at 07:09

PUMA, take note. This essay MUST be in the publication you are composing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma December 6, 2009 at 09:19

finsalscollons – You must be remembering another MRA. I am not currently working on any publication. (Although I am awaiting for one of us to eventually write the super best-seller: “The Case Against Marriage”).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 6, 2009 at 09:30

Wow, this is a mangina to surpass all manginas.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html

Jaysus, what a cesspool!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 6, 2009 at 09:47

Well, it’s a useful reminder of just what we are up against.

Welmer December 6, 2009 at 09:52

A bunch of fat broads and pansies, from the looks of the contributors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
John Dias December 6, 2009 at 10:13

Jeff Fecke no longer writes for Shakesville. In one post, he wrote about the negative impact that false allegations of rape can have on men, and they banned him. His ideology is still intact, though… He now blogs on Amptoons.com and ModerateLeft.com.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 6, 2009 at 11:15

I am very late to this thread and have read great deal of very good stuff. Can I just add this:-

@CODEBUSTER

In the UK we don’t have a written constitution. So there is no test for unconstitutionality.

Those who refer to feminist shaming language are correct. But I would add that this is a universal female characteristic. Think of any argument you have ever had with any woman and I would bet that shaming language was introduced almost immediately.

I really don’t rate women very much at all and think it is a mistake for any man to do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sage99 December 6, 2009 at 11:28

Reply to Roland3337 – I have good news for you!

Another well written and observant and powerful article by Novaseeker. While I agree with it, I believe that it is a waste of time arguing with any feminist woman and the reason why the balance of power has shifted so much to women is not examined. But I think I may have the answer. Please read on.

The male contraceptive pill; and freedom for men –

The male pill is on it’s way, and will be with us in less than 5 years, if not from the US or Britain, then from China and India.

The pill for men will be the biggest step for freedom that men have ever had – freedom from the serfdom imposed by fatherhood. So if the present tyrannical feminist British women want their babies, they will have to offer a far better deal to men than at present.

For example –

The present marriage laws, and the infamous and secret ‘family courts’ will have to go, and quickly, and the dictatorial marriage and ‘common law’ marriage expectations drastically changed.

The constant demeaning of masculinity, particularly on TV in programs such as ‘One Foot in the Grave’, ‘Men Behaving Badly’ and the present ‘soaps’ in general, where men habitually behave in an infantile manner, and are presented in an appalling way, will have to be recognised as highly offensive to men, and dispensed with.

The most powerful of the British feminist weapons – the wild and malicious accusations of ‘rape’ and ‘child sex’ – will have to be brought back under civilized law where the accuser will be required to have hard evidence and be held responsible for their actions, both in the making of the accusation, and their part in the incident. The male sex drive is an extremely powerful force, and a woman who provokes it to the point where a man loses his self-control has only herself to blame. The accused will have to be considered innocent until – and if – proven guilty.

The female contraceptive pill in 1960s Britain gave British women direct power over sex availability for the first time in human history; and she has used this power – unwisely – to assert a position of dominance over men in which she has reduce them to a level of disadvantaged cowed subservience – and infantile behaviour in an attempt to present themselves as children entitled to the protection of their maternal instinct – and to disadvantage them in every way possible.

The ‘Mad Maternal Instinct’ – the all powerful evolutionary force in women that regards masculine Men as simple mating objects when in lust, and when not, as dangerous predators to be avoided or driven off and away from the precious family group.

Once the power of the 1960s female pill is counterbalanced by the male pill this yoke of female dominance will be flung off with surprising speed, and retribution and revenge on the British feminist female – and feminist male – will be wreaked, as some wiser and more sensible women have been aware of for some time.

Sage99

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 6, 2009 at 11:48

I agree that the male pill will be a great thing, but do you think it will really have a huge impact? I’m not so sure. For me, the impact is that men can avoid having children on a “hidden” basis, whereas today male contraception is out in the open. So fewer “gotcha” pregnancies, and also the possibility to avoid disclosing to a woman who expects you to be open to children that you really are not. Other than that, though, I’m not seeing how it would dramatically change things.

Puma December 6, 2009 at 12:16

Here is Jeff Fecke, continuing his noble crusade against his penis, in article he wrote 2 days ago:

http://anonym.to/http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/12/04/know-your-female-feline-metaphors/

Perhaps we should ask him to come over here and explain his 2007 anti-MRA piece in person.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist December 6, 2009 at 13:28

@Nova: I agree, it’ll be a small victory, not the end-all be-all that changes how awful things currently are, but certainly a puzzle piece in the grand scheme of things. Most of the “large” changes I predict will be social/legal, or rather social and THEN legal. Alternatives to sex via VR simulation (see TheFifthHorseman) and “sexbots” would definetly be bigger, being a social change, and likely bringing about eventual legal change.

@Puma: I’m also interested in his take on how he got banned for his anti false allegation article, I’m sure he might’ve reacted SOMEwhere, but… meh. He’s still feminist… you can’t cure a fool I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 6, 2009 at 14:52

Will industrialized nations that are already suffering from a baby bust allow the Male Pill to be used in their countries?

Japan made female birth control pills illegal for many years because they were concerned about their low birth rate. Most nations in the G20 have birth rates that are below replacement value. Some nations are already on the path for a demographic implosion, where they will have many more retirees than children. The powers that be will be eager to prevent men from controlling their own biology because governments make trillions of dollars from child support, taxes on increased earnings by men who are forced into servitude by “oopsie” pregnancies, etc.

Governments need men to become super-producers in order to consume the extra resources that they create (via taxation). If men find a means to avoid this role, then governments will treat this as threat to their existence and will essentially wage war on men who do so.

Smuggling male birth control pills across national borders may be the next big moneymaker for criminal gangs. I can also envision women suing their boyfriends and husbands for fraud if they are caught in possession of a “controlled substance”, i.e. birth control for men, and they haven’t told their girlfriends about it. Of course, if they do, they might be admitting to illegal drug use, and that would gives women leverage over them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zimmy December 6, 2009 at 15:32

The Orwellian “some animals are more equal….” thing has been in play since the mid ’60′s and like some social virus has attached itself in significant measure to the social fabric and laws of western culture. The ‘privileged’ females ‘feel’ themselves to be superior to males and therefore bathe in their matrix of ‘me-isms’.

Among so many other social oddities; I continue to be amazed that there are “women only” and various womens’ professional organizations, etc, even when women dominate and/or a majority in a particular vocation.

“woman was first created from man’s side, but has never been on his side since”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Matt K December 6, 2009 at 17:57

@ Novaseeker
“For me, the impact is that men can avoid having children on a ‘hidden’ basis, whereas today male contraception is out in the open. So fewer , and also the possibility to avoid disclosing to a woman who expects you to be open to children that you really are not. Other than that, though, I’m not seeing how it would dramatically change things.”

But that is the crack in the dam, Novaseeker. Currently, in the short term, the man may be able to claim that he is just being cautious by using a condom, but continuing to do so in a supposedly monogamous relationship, especially coming at the cost–of which women are aware–of greatly reduced physical pleasure, sends a clear signal that either he doesn’t trust the woman or he is playing away from home. i.e. aside from the rather drastic step of a vasectomy, women can be all but 100% sure whether their partner is using contraception and can adjust their behaviour accordingly. However, if a man is able to hide his state of fertiity from his partner, then the only options for a women bent on motherhood are to go elsewhere, which likely carries a similar risk of hidden non-fertility, or to behave in a far more agreeable and pleasant way towards the man she already has INCLUDING pressuring the greater society to offer him a more equitable shake than men currently receive.

To illustrate the difference this would make to relative bargaining positions, think about a man’s position where he has to persuade/plead/beg his partner to remain on the pill and/or have an abortion vs a situation where he has an option to force her to give up the baby for adoption. In such a scenario the woman can no longer elevate her own wants at the expense of her partner’s and she must be genuinely attentive to what he wants as well. Finally, even if kits are later developed to enable women to test the fertility of sperm and most of the gains are lost, the problem of ‘gotcha’ pregnancies remains solved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 6, 2009 at 18:44

It is one thing to be a socialcon who preaches about the sanctity of marriage, which would be fine if not for the massive law changes.

It is one thing to be a mangina who thinks sucking up to women is the way to get laid. The culture is filled with that message, and only a real thinker can break free of it.

But it is RIDICULOUS to be a ‘man’ that parrots typical feministing BS about how ‘men rape their wives’ and ‘false rape accusations are OK’ and ‘all fathers are deadbeat dads’.

A metaphor of a Jewish Nazi if there ever was one.

Fortunately, this is rare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 6, 2009 at 18:53

But it is RIDICULOUS to be a ‘man’ that parrots typical feministing BS about how ‘men rape their wives’ and ‘false rape accusations are OK’ and ‘all fathers are deadbeat dads’.

-TFH

I’ve always assumed it’s a strategy to get laid. I can’t really imagine any other reason a guy might write this stuff, except for money of course.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 6, 2009 at 19:02

Welmer,

It usually is, but not to such a weird degree. Most whiteknight/mangina men are no so ‘punctilious’ in advancing the feminist talking points, which earn favor with ugly women, but are not really of day-to-day interest to attractive women anyway. I have rarely if ever met an attractive woman who can muster a hissy fit about ‘all men are rapists and all fathers are deadbeats’. They may passively agree, but can’t muster *too* much interest in it.

Despite Jack Donovan’s great article, this might actually be a rare man who IS the wrong gender.

Or, more likely, it is a feminist who is posing as a man online, to ttempt to gain legitimacy. Exact repetition of why all husbands are rapists, and how all dads are deadbeats, might just be a giveaway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sage99 December 7, 2009 at 04:02

Reply to Novaseeker Dec 6 11.48

Thank you for the points and feedback which are most helpful.

To reply to the point of – ‘’I agree that the male pill will be a great thing, but do you think it will really have a huge impact?’

I think it will have a huge impact for the following reasons –

As far as I know never before in human history has woman obtained such a dominant position in society, and I have puzzled over this for many years. To reason this out I considered the fact that the dominance must coincide with a recent new event, and the rise of science is the most noticeable over the last 100 years.

The science events most effecting women’s position in society are the invention of domestic labour saving devices – rending the ‘housewife’ redundant – the invention of mechanise work equipment – rending the ‘male upper body’ strength requirement redundant – and most significantly, the invention of the female contraception pill which gave woman political power over men by either withholding sex, which she has always been able to do, or rewarding with sex, which for the fear of unwanted pregnancy, she has never been able to do before. It should be noted that recent social science research has found that giving rewards has far more impact on behaviour than giving punishments, which soon lose their effects altogether.

Thus – the female contraceptive pill in the 1960s Britain gave British women direct power over sex availability without fear of pregnancy for the first time in human history. There was a popular phrase in the 1960s – ‘free love’, but there was nothing ‘free’ about the ‘free love’ of the 1960s. It came at a price, a price controlled and set by women who seized upon this new ‘pillow power’ with vigour; and some have used this power – unwisely – to disadvantage men in every way possible, thus asserting a position of dominance over men in which she has reduce them to a level of disadvantaged cowed subservience – and infantile behaviour in an attempt to present themselves as children entitled to the protection of their maternal instinct.

But – the pill for men will be the biggest step for freedom that men have ever had – freedom from the serfdom imposed by fatherhood. So if the present tyrannical feminist British women want their babies, they will have to offer a far better deal to men than at present, as the power of the female contraceptive pill will be balance – and equalised – by the power of the male contraceptive pill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sage99 December 7, 2009 at 04:12

Reply to Novaseeker Dec 6 11.48

To reply to your point of – ‘For me, the impact is that men can avoid having children on a “hidden” basis, whereas today male contraception is out in the open’.

Today’s male contraception consists of the condom, the timing, and vasectomy. The first two are highly unreliable and open to deliberate prevention by women. i.e. the condom can be pulled off by the vaginal sphincter muscle during intercourse, and neglected altogether in ’spontaneous’ sex; and the timing is open to deception.

The vasectomy consists of surgical mutilation with serious short and long term health implications, and it appears to me that it has been quietly abandoned by a medical profession anxious to avoid litigation. The main health implications consist of inflammation of the scrotum due to decomposition of the deposited semen, and due to this, a restriction in the regular milking of the prostrate, which is necessary because of the constant exposure and stimulation that all men receive from the pheromones of menstruating women. It is highly unlikely that a man can pass a single day without this exposure unless he lives a monk like existence! Thus the prostrate is constantly irritated by inflammation of un-discharged ’male milk’ (there appears to be no medical term for this – an indication of the disregard for male conditions) which increases the likelihood of eventual prostrate cancer.

Thus at present there is no effect and practical male contraceptive.

The use of a male contraceptive pill would not be hidden. The man can make it quite clear that he is not prepared to have children unless he wants to, and is offered a satisfactory position in the family group and society – enforced by law. Hence the counter balancing of the power given to women – ironically by male scientists! – by the 1960s female contraceptive pill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mrs. Pilgrim December 7, 2009 at 16:42

Sage, I want to hit up two points briefly:

1. The “redundancy” of the housewife due to modern technology: Try domesticity some time. A housewife who has loads of spare time is neglecting something, as I can attest by experience.

2. Abstinence is 100% effective birth control. If it’s really about regaining power over conception, why even play the game?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 7, 2009 at 17:03

Try domesticity some time. A housewife who has loads of spare time is neglecting something, as I can attest by experience.

Work expands to fill the time allotted for completion.

I have no difficulty at all cooking, keeping the house reasonably clean and tidy, doing all my own laundry (except for my shirts), and all the outside maintenance, plus working a full time job. The only thing which would significantly alter the picture of how much domesticity is overblown is the addition of children. My paternal grandmother raised five children, and her mother raised nine children, with none of today’s conveniences. I guess women of yester year were just made of sterner stuff than today’s women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 7, 2009 at 17:25

I’ve always done all my own house-work, as well as paint the house, tend the yard, build fences, stain decks, install shelving, water-blast the roof, keep a kitchen garden, cook all my own food from scratch, do all my own shopping, continue with part-time study and hold down a full-time, self-employed job with all the red-tape and office work that entails (as well as the shirt-ironing and all other laundry).

I still had plenty of time to pursue my personal interests as well.

Women kill me with the way they try to make such simple work sound hard. One of the things I consistently notice with them is how they blow their time on so many unnecessary tasks. For example:
- redecorating that which needn’t be
- spending far too much time deliberating over what should be simple buying decisions
- constantly making single excursions for single purposes, such as going to the doctor one day, grocery shopping another, buying clothes on yet another day. The idea of taking care of everything in one less frequent trip seems to not occur to them. They seem horrified at the idea of buying a whole year’s wardrobe in one day.
-making far too much out of gift-buying and giving.
-not throwing out the TV set
-maintaining too many social and family connections

And then blaming we men for having more spare time and leisure because we can get it all done in a fraction of the time. Better managers indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sage99 December 8, 2009 at 11:38

Reply to Mrs. Pilgrim Dec 7 4.42 pm

Thank you for your reply.

Point 1 – you claim the role of a house wife is still a full time occupation and that I have no experience of it.

Since my beloved wife passed on and I retired I have had to do all the domestic chores inc. looking my pet dog. I do all the week’s shopping in one trip per week which take about 2.5 hours. The other chores take a very short time and I know that the role of the housewife is a redundant one as the work is now done by machinery. e.g. open fires have been replaced by central heating.

However if you wish to make the case that the role of ‘home-maker’ is still a vital one I would support you to my utmost ability. My beloved companion pet take considerable time and work every day!

Point 2 – you claim that men have 100% effective contraception available via abstinence.

Unfortunately all normal men have – through evolutionary programming – a very strong sex drive, which can be beyond their control, which attempts to force them to serve a desirous female on demand. This applies to all mammals.

Thus although it is true that abstinence is 100% effective, it is not true that it is always available to men, or women for that matter, especially in un-Christian lewd parts of society.

Thank you for your points which are sensible and nicely put.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sage99 December 8, 2009 at 11:48

piercedhead December 7, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I don’t know if you intended your comment to be droll, but I really enjoyed reading it, and am chuckling as I type this. I think you are rather hard on the average woman, but you describe my beloved wife quite accurately!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
aMenWalkingAway December 9, 2009 at 18:08

The only way out of this diaster is to make this civilisation collapse to complete anhilation.

- Consume AS MUCH resources YOU CAN from it
- NEVER contribute to it (don’t work)
- NEVER help
- REWILD to be ready to enjoy the collapse!

Their is notting else we can do. We are the one wo provide the energy to this death culture, the one who provide ALL material resources. Just a little cutting in this and the total collapse will occure.

my 5 cents

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jslade January 2, 2010 at 20:22

@Demosthenes XXI December 5, 2009 at 19:25

And unfortunately, this will only continue until we find a way to defuse one of the most potent tools in the feminist arsenal; shaming. We have to render that tool impotent before we are able to make any headway.

Whenever somebody who opposes feminism makes a statement against it, the primary feminist response is to belittle and reduce the apparent maturity and morality of anyone who chooses to subscribe to the minority opinion (with feminism being the “majority viewpoint”). Nobility and logic can only do so much against emotive language.

As a great man once said, when men care nothing about women’s approval, their disapproval no longer means anything to them either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster January 20, 2012 at 09:47

You can boil down Novaseeker’s thesis… If the traditional “separate spheres” idea is roughly correct, then feminist “equality” was about things being 50/50 in the private sphere, men’s traditional sphere of power and privilege, while strengthening women’s traditional power and privilege in the private sphere so it’s ~100/0 there.

If the two spheres are weighted equally, then it’s 75/25 net.

One can elaborate substantially on the details, but I think that’s the gist, to first order.

This new arrangement then sets up the incentive for women to try and remake the public sphere so it more nearly resembles the private sphere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: