The Cultural Devastation of and By Feminist Women: Tell Your Stories

Post image for The Cultural Devastation of and By Feminist Women:  Tell Your Stories

by zed on December 12, 2009

In 2006, social commentator Nancy Levant came out with a book titled “THE CULTURAL DEVASTATION OF AMERICAN WOMEN: The Strange and Frightening Decline of The American Female (and Her Dreadful Timing).“ In it she said many things that American men had been saying for decades, against very pervasive and systematized resistance to, and denial of, their message. Men’s criticisms had long been dismissed with accusations of “misogyny” or “backlashing” or claims that the men were just “angry” or “bitter” or “threatened by losing their power.”

The social movement of the last half of the 20th Century started out being called “women’s liberation” but eventually came to be termed “2nd Wave Feminism.” While many who call themselves “feminists” will point to a dictionary definition of feminism as being about something like “equal rights for women”, their idea of “equality” always seems rooted in a presumption of victimhood and the pursuit of “equal rights” always translates into actions taken to seek ever expanding special privileges and entitlements for women. With this as justification, any restriction on women’s behavior is seen as coming from their historic “oppression” and any validity it might have in protecting other people and the culture as a whole from unrestrained infantile self-indulgence is simply ignored and refuted.

The result of this has been a couple of generations of women terribly stunted in their emotional development and maturation, and given to the most unbelievable excesses of behavior under the rubric of “empowerment”. Any observation of this has been attacked by women, feminists, and feminist apologists twisting legitimate criticism of socially destructive and pathological behaviors into ridiculous strawmen arguments like “wanting to send all women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.”

This is what makes Levant’s criticism of the same selfish, excessive, and anti-social behaviors so refreshing.

“The Cultural Devastation of American Women is a factual investigation into American women’s misunderstanding and abuse of liberation. Levant burrows into the psyches and habits of American women. She exposes over-spending, over-decorating, obsessions with beauty, weight, social climbing, and the hiring of traditional female functions, demonstrating a rejection of biological instincts and behaviors.

Levant exposes demanding, unreasonable, and incompetent mothers. She delves with brutal frankness into women and marriage, child rearing, divorce, hypochondria, self-absorption, and vanity – challenging the assumption that political feminism liberated women from social bondage.

The “social bondage” she mentions is, of course, simply those restraints on impulsive, thoughtless, selfish, behaviors which are necessary to allow people to live together in a civilized manner without destroying each other’s lives. Since the mid-20th century women, as a group, have indeed been freed from having to show any concern at all for the effects of their own actions, and “choices”, on the lives of others – to the extent that the right to terminate the lives of their unborn children remains the flagship issue for feminists.

Where Levant fails is that she still holds on to the illusion that feminism ever had any other purpose or intent. As a movement and ideology, feminism desperately grasps at the work done by the suffragettes in securing the right to vote for women. Levant dismisses this notion, but puts forth another equally idealistic and unrealistic one given the actual observed behavior of women today.

“Many Westernized women took a wrong turn, and particularly so in the United States. American women allowed for the corruption of feminism – the complete and total corruption of feminism – and the results have devastated our nation.

Feminism was not born in the Suffragette Movement. The Suffragettes were women who fought, and mostly with dignity, for the right to vote and higher education. They were not culture-damaging women. They were mothers and wives. They fought for representation and fairness and nothing more. Feminism, as defined by today’s standards, was born during the Sexual Revolution, which was born from widespread recreational drug use by American teenagers. Why no one ever made the connection is beyond me, but that is the truth of the matter. When youths in high schools and colleges were high, widespread sexual activity was the fallout. It’s the same phenomenon as the bar mentality – get drunk and sleep with anybody who is willing. Once American youth were openly sleeping with all their friends, including ones of the same sex, and at the same time under the influence of a one or two decade-long marijuana, cocaine, LSD, hashish, amphetamine party, a mindset kicked in, which perverted the very essence of feminism.

The resulting politicizing of feminism all but destroyed what it means to be a natural and biological female. In fact, feminism became a movement based upon anger, demands, and a demand that women think and believe in a prescribed and documented agenda. Political feminism actually worked to recapture the free will of women. Try disagreeing with a political feminist and discover what a dumb ass your free will has become. Try disagreeing with anything a political feminist has to say about anything.

Feminism is not brute-force politics. With bated breath, I will tell you what feminism is. Feminism is the result of women who feed and grow their spiritual and biological gifts. That is its sole definition.

(Hm. In my entire life I have never met a “feminist” who fit that definition.)

But, she does go on from there to lay it on the line –

Many, many contemporary American women are emotional messes. They are pathologically vain, materialistic as clearly demonstrated in their overly decorated, sterile home, and landscaped yards; are grossly self-involved, horrible and mean-spirited mothers and wives, and they are constantly, incessantly, angry and neurotic. American women are shallow. They openly accept television, Hollywood, and magazines as role models for their daughters and themselves. They abuse money and spend thousands upon thousands of dollars annually for beauty regimens, diet supplements, day spas, trinkets, and gym memberships. Many are addicted to a whole array of over-the-counter drugs and beauty aids. This is liberation?

Unlike Levant, the vast majority of women in feminist countries remain either unaware or in complete denial of the wholesale breakdown in civilized behavior by women. Even with signs everywhere one looks, any attempt to draw attention to the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem will be met either with the same old denial and personal attacks, or the meaningless dodge “but NOT ALL women are like that.” The net result has been to provide cover, aid, and succor to a group of women that truly is an enemy to the preservation of a functioning civilization.

Every time the subject comes up, the story is always the same – someone, most often a woman, will attempt to “kill the messenger” and silence him. However, as time has gone on, the behavior of women has become so outrageous and destructive that even women are starting to take notice – such as the example of Levant, above, or this piece in the Daily Mail in the UK: “The ego epidemic: How more and more of us women have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness” by Lucy Taylor -

Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.

More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them. We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.

We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves.

One bit of insight on the reason for this strange cooperative denial by women, despite the vast amount of evidence right in front of their faces, is referenced in a recent article on the popular men’s website Men’s News Daily – The Making of a Men’s Rights Activist: A Letter to a Departed Friend

At the conclusion of our discussion, when you finally, and brutally honestly, declared that you didn’t care if women’s advancement meant that men would be treated unequally and unfairly — that they would have to unjustly suffer, even as they would be expected to fully support women’s interests — I was stunned, to say the least. It was a devastating epiphany to realize that you placed the interests of women that you would never know ahead of whatever affection you felt for your own male family and friends – and ahead of any sense of justice. Instead of fairness, justice, and family, you acknowledged that it was all about grabbing power. Perhaps I was naïve, and perhaps I overreacted, but to a significant degree, my general affection for women was shattered by what you told me, and was replaced with a sense of wary distrust. My view of women as men’s “better half” was destroyed. I saw that women were intent on being men’s competitors in a “winner-take-all” competition.

The writer’s friend, about 30 years ago, obviously had the same inability to extend empathy due to being so preoccupied with herself and the concerns of women. And, it was about this same time (being about the same age as Jay Riggs) that I began to notice that same obsession with self and fundamental disregard for all others among women.

Against the backdrop of the pervasive cultural mythology that women are the “relationship experts”, and are “caring and nurturing”, this self-centered willingness to exploit anyone while at the same time demanding support from everyone sounds very much like the observation of women made by Florence Nightingale –

Women have no sympathy . . . And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so.
- Florence Nightingale

Now, recently, we have had a woman here wanting men to write a “manifesto” about what men want, which she will toss from the rooftops in NYC and DC. And, it somewhat baffled her that her initial suggestion to “”wipe the slate clean” and start over on better terms between men and women was rebuffed in a fairly cold, and sometimes hostile, manner.

On the one hand, it is difficult to maintain a hard enough heart to hear someone who gives every impression of being completely sincere and reject her message. But, on the other hand, years of experience with women who have made every bit as compelling a pitch, then the moment they got what they wanted turned around and seemed as if they had promptly forgotten that getting what they wanted was viewed by the other person as the beginning and only part of an exchange that would involve some reciprocity on the woman’s part, have made many men skeptical, wary, and distrustful – just like Jay Riggs above.

My first take at coming up with an answer to what men wanted, and testing the water to see if more women than just her were interested, was titled “Do Western Women Want Gender Peace?”, because after years of one-sided exploitation, and being lied to by women, one non-negotiable demand by men for engaging women again is sincere effort on women’s part to have a relationship based on reciprocity rather than solely on exploitation of the man for her benefit and entertainment.

But, from the responses by men to the thread, maybe I should have also asked the question – do western men want gender peace with western women? Because, it seems like a lot of men who responded to the question “what do you want from women?” answered with “For them to go the hell away and leave me alone.” Sometimes relationships reach a point where they are damaged beyond repair.

It is quite baffling to a lot of men – at least until their positive view of women is completely destroyed by women’s selfish exploitation – that women seem to be so unwilling to give even the tiniest bit of consideration to the man’s point of view and experiences. Men who post on internet boards, blogs, and discussion lists are well aware of an absolute stone wall of resistance which exists any place women are allowed to be present. And in the face of this it becomes very difficult for a man to believe a woman who seems to be asking to make peace because it comes across as “why don’t you just forget about everything bad I have ever done to you and start giving me what I want again so that I can keep using you and jerking you around.”

While “forgiveness” is a wonderful thing, it can also be a foolish thing when that forgiveness is used for nothing more than an opening to repeat the same exploitive and destructive behaviors.

The excessive, neurotic, behaviors discussed by Nancy Levant, and the selfishness and utter comtempt for others discussed by Jay Riggs and Lucy Taylor, have left a trail of wreckage of other people’s lives of unbelievable proportions in its wake. The so-called “liberation” of women has freed them from all legal and social restraints against destroying people’s lives with their selfishness, so men are left on their own to deal with that.

Anoukange suggested that we create a collection of stories of the damage women have done to others, and she has promised to throw them from the rooftops. Whether or not that actually does any good, I think it would be useful to have a compendium for readers of the Spearhead to tell their own particular stories of female destructiveness.

So, use this as an opportunity to tell your story – what sort of trail of destruction have feminist women left in your life?

{ 508 comments… read them below or add one }

Snark December 12, 2009 at 03:56

Great post as always, Zed.

Perhaps she could start with the False Rape Society. Plenty of material on destroyed men there; enough to fill several ring binders, I should imagine. Perhaps from the rooftop, she could throw them specifically at feminists? Not because I think they’ll read them … ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 12, 2009 at 04:00

Awesome, Zed.

One aspect of rampant misandry is coming full circle. The logical steps are as follows :

1) Feminists, under bogus, multi-front campaigns of ‘deadbeat dads’, VAWA, and the notion that women never lie about rape, have put thousands of innocent men in jail for nothing more than being laid-off in this recession, throwing a pillow at his wife, or not being ‘alpha’ enough the next morning.

2) This consumes police, court, and prison resources.

3) The tax base is maxed out in the US. Tax collections in urban areas cannot rise any more than they currently are, so there is no scope for increasing police or prison resources.

4) Feminists lobbied for goverment policies to increase jobs for women (health, education) and not for men, so a lot more men are unemployed than women. Many black men are locked out of employment altogether.

5) Combining points 1) through 4), crime against ‘liberated’ urban single women who go home after dark, and who go out at night, rises. There are not enough police to thwart this, given that police are busy locking up innocent men under the misandry directive. Married women in the suburbs are relatively safer, but they aren’t the ones living in a simulated matrix of urban feminism.

So the costs of feminism are making a perfectly boomeranging round trip. They will never make the connection, of course. Feminism is self-destroying in a way few other ideologies are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Krauser December 12, 2009 at 04:32

I personally had my awakening without too much cost but just a quick list:

1. My mother nearly divorced my father when I was ten. She had that female / feminist “I’m liberated. I’m always right” attitude. They reconciled but I spent about three of my formative years when all she did was pick fights with him. Even afterwards, she became a full time worker and he became the kitchen bitch when he was laid off aged 45. So I grew up with poor gender role models and it probably explains why when I was 13 I became withdrawn and got into video games and metal music. Basically she retarded my social skills for a long time.

2. No fault divorce and the UK cultural “you go girl” led my wife to believe she could just walk out on the marriage because her “feelings” had changed.

3. My company team has three managers. One competent man and two incompetent women who always have catfights. We also hire according to informal gender / ethnic quotas. Needless to say its the men who do all the work while the women are constantly sabotaging.

Mild compared to some stories, I guess

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 12, 2009 at 05:39

Watching how vain and superfilial women can be since High School even if they haven’t done or have anything that justifies it, watching women pressured to get into college and dropping out at the 2nd Semester, watching women that are all nice until you let clear that their grades are their problem completely ignore you and talking shit on your back (did that experiment back in High School).

Watching the divorce of an uncle and barely saving his ass from jail (and only because the woman was proud and had no shame of her vainglory bitchness) was the final point on it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Awesome December 12, 2009 at 06:21

“Feminism comes from developing spiritual and biological gifts…” EXACTLY. Happily I have been talking to all kinds of young women lately who get this. They are the kinds of women who go to Burning Man, sit in sweat lodges, and munch on magic mushrooms but they are out there.
In agreement with post that it not necessary to label this “feminism.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Phoenixism December 12, 2009 at 06:31

Zed, it’s the occasional nugget like this that reaffirms the pure joy and freedom I enjoy in being a single man.

I equate the act of empowering women (who have proven they possess characters entirely incapable of handling anything further than simple submission) to bringing all children into the fold by making 6 the age of majority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
arthur December 12, 2009 at 07:37

No destructiveness was rained on my person, I have arrived at my current viewpoint courtesy of a 2 phase awakening.

The first phase was in the mid to late 90′s when I sexually active with married/taken women. I was stunned at how easily they would cheat on their husbands/boyfriends. Equally stunning was how they could fuck now and justify it later. This was a great deterrent with regards to marriage or LTR.

The second phase was the internet. I started posting on discussion forums in 2003. The anonymous nature of the internet is a wonderful thing. You get the uncensored truth. The utter contempt that women have for men was/is a real eye opener. (Sidenote: Zed, I know that you like to let women post in forums to serve as exhibits A, B, C, etc. my only objection to this has been the potential for women to derail and blow apart forums with help from manginas and white knights.) This contempt that women have is combined with an inability to discuss or address the issues, and an inability to stay on topic.

These phases have brought me to my current viewpoints. Which are as follows:

All women hate all men.

Women only use men for the moment and for what they can get out of them.

Women are the same the world over. The only difference is the constraints placed on them by society.

All women play for team vagina. They will defend another woman first over any male (even relatives).

Women are incapable of long term planning or thought.

That last point brings me to these final parting shots. Feminism and the current state of affairs is no longer something for men to fix. You ladies wanna fix it? Knock yourselves out. The only reason women will get involved in fixing this shit is because it will start to impact them directly. This impact will be in the form of no male suitors (suckers) in their lives, no men for the daughters, or their sons and second husbands getting screwed over, which will result in less $$$ for you women. If you are bothered by the attitudes of men such as myself or Globalman, too bad. There is not a woman alive today that didn’t have a hand in creating men like us. You either were an active participant in the feminist movement, OR YOU STOOD IDLY BY WHILE THIS SHIT GOT ROLLING. The condemned house that you are now living in is one that you created through excess and neglect. It’s now your job to fix it.

If you want, I can ship you a hammer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Kathy Farrelly December 12, 2009 at 07:43

” All women hate all men”

I disagree, Arthur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
arthur December 12, 2009 at 07:54

I don’t give a fuck what you think, Kathy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Kathy Farrelly December 12, 2009 at 07:56

If it were not for man, we women wouldn’t be here ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Cloud December 12, 2009 at 08:07

The biggest traitors are men divorce lawyers.

I find it unbelievable that they can go to divorce court and call another man a bad father and husband, and declare that a woman that they just met deserves that man’s money, house, car, dog, ect.

A friend of mine used to work at a law firm. He told me that if a woman ever came in wanting a divorce, that the female AND male divorce lawyers would try and convince the woman to take everything the man owned (he also told me he never saw a man come in wanting a divorce, which is funny considering women LOVE to say that men are afraid of commitment).

Obviously this doesn’t excuse the woman for actually listening to these money grubbing lawyers.

But it goes to show you that there are traitors among us that see websites like The Spearhead has the enemy.

Remember that guy that you went to High School with that always blamed himself when a relationship went wrong? Remember when you would call your girlfriend a “bitch”, he was always there to defend her even though he doesn’t know her? Remember how he would proudly agree with anything a woman would say in class?

Yeah, he’s now a divorce lawyer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
clarence December 12, 2009 at 08:16

Well, Arther, tell us how you truly feel.

Throwing teen girls and young women under the bus for things that happened when they were children or even before and that they were unaware of is ridiculous.

But hey, if you hate all the “bitches” it’s your life.

Zed: What do I want from women- as a group, that is?
Mostly to be left alone. It’s futile to hope for the few halfway rational feminists to meet with MRA’s and hammer out some sort deal. That’s what should be done, but even if society collapses I’m reasonably certain it’s what won’t be done. Whoever wins will merely impose things on the rest of the survivors, whather that is some sort of patriarchy or matriarchy or as is usual with human societies, a mixture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
anoukange December 12, 2009 at 08:16

Zed, you are calm and wise and I thank you. Communication has a higher chance of success when this is how it is delivered, brilliantly. I will throw a collection of the stories of men from the rooftops of DC and NYC as promised. I will follow it through, as promised. I suspect I will be following it through for several years, if not my lifetime.

I proposed that question coming from the irresponsible and ignorant perpsective of my own particular head space back on that thread. The reason it was irresponsible was due to it being out of complete emotional exasperation on my part regarding the war of the sexes. I was tired of hearing it from guys and girls and I wanted solutions, period. Once I began to read the stories, the vents, and the attacks I pulled back and had to adjust to a wider, more profound looking glass. I hadn’t counted on coming under personal attack, I fired back. And so it goes, and all is ok.

I hope men do write in. There are many great writers that frequent this blog, not to mention the authors themselves. How to “market” such material is difficult. My first instinct was to get it into the hands of teens and young adults to help prevent any furthur digression in the wrong direction. It is a big issue however and it gets much more weighty when you get into some of us who are a bit older. We have lost things, and have been changed by it. I don’t think youth would be able to comprehend the damage that has been done, and it would not be their fault. They are simply ill-equipped. I think the men and women walking the streets of metropolitan areas should be the ones to take it home first and just as we all read in our chairs, and in our beds, on metros, buses, etc., they too will read the words collected. I think that many, many people are affected and do not possess the skills to tell or even identify what is hindering their lives as well. People tend to be more honest with themselves when no one is looking. Let them read it in their homes. Shock marketing, or throwing the printed version of the possible outcome of this from the rooftops of major US cities would be also appropriate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel December 12, 2009 at 08:18

Women hate men. It’s a well known fact. Why don’t men hate women?

The fact that men still love women, somehow, is part of the problem.

With a little bit more time, we can hope that men will return the favor so that everything becomes equal: that is, hate will be equally shared by men and women.

Whatever lies in our future, we will have to include this ever growing element: hatred.

The death of love is not enough.

…. And I say to myself…. what a beautiful world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 08:19

@Arthur

“All women play for team vagina. They will defend another woman first over any male (even relatives).”

The fact that the mothers of sons express no outrage at what their sons must risk (e.g. false allegations, false imprisonment, loss of homes etc) and endure (e.g. poor education, media misandry etc) is, I think, the greatest shock to me when it comes to thinking about the nature of women.

They don’t even care about their sons – so much more important than them must they see themselves to be!

I really am genuinely horrified by what this lack of caring for their own sons seems to imply.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Keating December 12, 2009 at 08:19

I’ve never associated with feminists, and generally speaking, the effeminate things in life has always irritated me to the point that I would never partake in activities that would put me in proximity of the effeminate or the feminist. However…

A female supervisor demoted me from a position I had rightfully, and skillfully, earned and replaced me with another female, “because she had blonde hair and boobs.” I don’t know if she was a feminist, but she was short, flat, short-haired, and a man-hater. She got canned big time a few months later, but I had already quit by that point.

Worse, though, was the fact that her male counterpart, who I raised hell with about this discrimination, did nothing – he, a beta through and through, allowed her to walk all over him (he had 20+ years of seniority, she was a new hire from outside the corporation), and said he had to respect her decisions. It was THIS that made up my mind to leave. (and it was this that landed me on Dick Masterson’s website: I’m pretty sure I was one of the first people to be sent those business cards).

I’ve said this before: I’m beginning to think the bigger threat to men is not the feminists, but the men who enable and silently abide to their behavior and beliefs. Whether they support 3rd Gen Terro-Feminism, ignore the growing plight of men, put women on a pedestal (a.k.a. ‘white-knighting’), passively accept their abuse (Tiger), defend or ignore the ‘winner-take-all’ game that is being played, or abdicate maturation and adulthood for childish, effeminate living (non-stop video gaming, embracing fantasy worlds, and acting like betas in general) they are complicit in making this reality that is our society a worse place for men and women and have helped unhinge all that which keeps our society together by doing so.

Make no mistake, were are here on The Spearhead not just because of our common interests as men to fight the pulsing wave of misandry, but because men who came before us have deeply bowed to our aggressors much like Obama towards the Emperor of Japan. Feminists would otherwise have very little power if men grew spines and made it known that the playtime is over and the gender war has concluded.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Keating December 12, 2009 at 08:38

@ Rebel: why don’t men hate women?

It’s because, to quote Sam Kinison, “they have the pussy.” Heh.

@ Angry Harry: I think they are somewhat dismissive because, as persons from older generations, they’re not attuned to such risks and threats to men today. “Back when I was your age…” they’d say. Their fathers took care of their own affairs, and perhaps they see their sons in the same way: capable. I think fathers have been just as dismissive although I think there is probably more sympathy for their sons. But again, our fathers and grandfathers never really dealt with the twists and turns our society has taken (and I would presume have very little interest in the twilight of their lives).

@ Arthur: interesting that you bring up the 90′s. To me, the 90′s was the turning point in the conflict of masculinity and feminism. It was mass confusions for male identity. The grunge scene grew and male indifference to society arose. The culmination of this was the movie The Big Lebowski, which, while most men love this movie, is nothing but anti-male rhetoric and an illustration of how pathetic men had become (low point of the movie was when Maude tells Lebowski all he is good for is his sperm). And if the 90′s American male wasn’t indifferent to his role has dominator and leader, he was a religious pushover who had no spine and therefore was not sexually appealing to his wife (culminating in the Contract with America), OR, he was finding his inner-nerd with the personal computer. I could type for several more paragraphs for the 90′s and how it was the turning point in this mess and how men waved a white flag.

I agree with some of your points, but don’t miss out on the bigger picture. The best way to fight is with the full truth, not one-sidedness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 08:41

@clarence,
or is it clara?

You can’t be that stupid. I didn’t throw young women and teenage girls under the bus, the feminist did. Point that shit at them, not me.

My position is one of non participation in the current mess. That’s it.
Fuck you if you think that’s somehow “throwing young women and teenagers under the bus”.
Fuck you twice if you think I should participate in the current system.
Fuck you three times if you think I should fix their mess.

Asshat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Keating December 12, 2009 at 08:45

@ my own comment above re: Big Lebowski…

…it now just occurred to me that both Lebowskis represent the emasculation and beta-ness of men in the 90′s. “The Dude” as the uncaring, unkempt, don’t-give-a-damn-about-anything beta, and Jeffery Lebowski as the religious pushover who puts women on pedestals and tries to protect his women by giving them lavish gifts and ignoring their transgressions as whores.

hmmm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 08:49

@Arthur
“You can’t be that stupid. I didn’t throw young women and teenage girls under the bus, the feminist did. Point that shit at them, not me.”
Couldn’t agree more. I’ll state this over and over–I loathe white knights/manginas more than feminists. Their lack of experience and ignorance is no excuse. I am old enough and have seen enough to know better.
Clarence, you’re full of shit, consistently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Hestia December 12, 2009 at 09:14

Several of these aren’t destruction from my own life, but observations of the distress of others around me.

*A huge portion of my male classmates were drugged out of their minds on psychotropic drugs to control normal boyish behavior that shouldn’t have been an issue, and probably wouldn’t have been if we had been allowed more gym class and recess rather than studying for the Almighty Standardized Tests. Several were clearly damaged from their medications, no longer being the lively, creative, and energetic boys they used to be. In high school, one young man had wished to join ROTC and was going to be unable to because of the drugs his single mother had placed him on during his youth.

*The curriculum in my high school, in the “conservative” bible belt no less, were largely feministic and designed in a way to educate girls while leaving boys behind. Several teachers were blatantly anti-male and were allowed to spread their misandric message to a new generation of children, leaving young men ashamed of who they are and recruiting women to the cause of The Sisterhood.

*1/3 of my generation is dead. This fact was always chilling to me, but never as much as when a young man I knew in college shared with me that he had been put up for adoption after his mother had been brave enough to walk out of an abortion clinic where she had been brought by her mother. He learned this when he me his birth mother. He, and all of the rest of us born after Roe v Wade, are only here because somebody didn’t kill us in the place we should have been the most safe.

This poor guy was harassed by many of our pro-choice classmates simply for having a different belief on abortion than they did. Nobody ever cared enough to consider why this might be. Far from being about “misogyny”, it was about a harsh realization and a sincere thankfulness for being alive.

*My crazy MIL harmed her children greatly during their youngest days, stole them away from their father just before she served him with papers, and wound up losing *all* custody of her children because she is, well, crazy. She continued to mistreat her children throughout their teens and twenties, never so much sent a letter to my husband during his first deployment, and only became interested in meddling in his life once I came around. She wound up giving my husband an ultimatum, trying to bully him into feeling like the bad guy and told him he needed to choose between us (my daughter and myself) or her. She’s so out of touch with reality that she cannot understand why my husband wants nothing to do with her and why he won’t allow her to see our daughter.

*I’ve been falsely accused of child abuse by a vindictive woman who wanted to get revenge on me. We had to spend over $12k to clear my name, get my daughter & myself out of the area, and get settled in elsewhere until my husband returned from his deployment. Our daughter completely regressed on her potty training and language acquisition as a result of the trauma, and I will no longer trust others, women especially, as I once did. Already I was weary of other women due to experiences in the past, but nowhere near the level I am now.

But this isn’t even the worst part about this. This same woman has falsely accused a man of rape and I’m terrified not of the if, but the when she inevitably hurts another innocent person when she doesn’t get her way. There is no way to warn others of their impending doom, just feeling helpless and sick knowing that her bad actions are inevitable.

*I’ve heard numerous stories and know several men who have been through the wringer in the family court system, through divorce, absurd child support and alimony laws, and a general lack of support from people who should care. I know one man whose wife cheated on him and committed several acts of DV and she still got the kids and his money. What could be more outrageous than that?!

*My teenage cousin is dealing with a psycho ex-girlfriend right now. She placed a dead cat inside a box and put in on his car one Sunday while he was at church. She then proceeded to come to his house later on, yelling and screaming. My Sisterhood-loving aunt was going to do nothing, clearly not too angry at what had happened to her son, and my uncle didn’t seem any better, forcing my cousin to sneak out and head to my parents since he knew they would help him and hopefully talk sense into his foolish parents. His issues with this girl are on-going and she has began to harass my sister at all (they attend the same college), so hopefully the mounting police reports might force the authorities to address the harassment in the near future.

*My husband is good friends with a man whose wife left him while he was on the amputee ward at Walter Reed because she was “bored” with him. She’s lucky we didn’t live closer, nor did I have her telephone number as this was one of the times in life I wouldn’t have been able to keep my mouth shut and would have gladly offered a heavy dose of shame and disgust to this witch of a woman if given the opportunity.

*My husband once had a female soldier threaten to cry sexual harassment or rape if he counseled her for behavior. Every time my husband had to counsel a female soldier, I’d sit at home *terrified* of what could potentially happen, knowing there would be *no way* I could clear his good name if somebody opted to do something evil.

Being just twenty-three and having grown up when feminism was fully a way of life, this is obviously just a sampling of experiences I have seen, heard about, or been part of myself. I’ve seen enough destruction where I personally believe a good response to the NAWALT argument would be pointing out the fact that not all snakes are like that (aka poisonous) but I wouldn’t pick one up or stick my hand in a place they might lurk to find out. I assume the snake is poisonous and will bite me until proven otherwise, much as I now do with other women due to the damage feminism has brought and the fact that the law is on their side, no matter what twisted lies they might tell. I’d rather align myself with Team My Family and Team Sane Humanity than Team Womanhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
G December 12, 2009 at 09:18

arthur,

“All women hate all men” should read “All women hate betas” and we are in society of 99% betas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 09:21

@Keating

” I think they are somewhat dismissive because, as persons from older generations, they’re not attuned to such risks and threats to men today.”

Well, that’s just another way of saying that they don’t care – which is what I said. LOL!

But, seriously, do you really think that women with sons remain unattuned to what can happen to them?

I don’t believe it.

” To me, the 90’s was the turning point in the conflict of masculinity and feminism. It was mass confusions for male identity. The grunge scene grew and male indifference to society arose. ”

No. It started well before that.

In the 60′s men were wearing bells and long hair – and looking decidedly effeminate. Flower Power.

It was around then that the genders started to cross over – not the 90s.

As for the male indifference to society, this was clearly becoming much more evident around 1976; as evidenced by Punk Rock the ‘laddism’ – i.e. beer drinking, football and hooliganism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Paul December 12, 2009 at 09:25

This article asked how feminist had personally damage men. Feminism does damage men even if there is no direct interaction. For me the damage was done by women. I do not differentiate between feminist and women. Really my story is not of some incident that happened only at some point in time, but rather of a whole life that was waisted and made utterly hateful to me. I am not talking just about a few bad years but over 30 years. This is the entire middle of my life and all I have left now is old age.

Quite frankly I lost my life the day I married. It would have been better that a shot gun was put to my head on that day and the trigger mercifully pulled rather than to have endured what was to come.

I know some will say it’s my fault and that I had the choice. But this is not the way I see it. I never asked my wife to marry me. She asked me. I had no desire to do this at all and had never even considered doing so. Why did I do it then. Well people can be weak and confused. They can be pressurised. They can be immature and foolish. But perhaps most of all I had this idea that marriage is just what people did. This was a sort of unspoken social pressure. I did not answer immediately but said I would think about it for a week.

So I stepped off the cliff. There is little purpose in my trying to explain the utter torment of the years that followed. I constantly wished for death just as a way out and to end the pain. You might ask why I did not leave. Once inside the cage it’s not that easy to find anyway out. But the real reason for this was ironically her dependence on me. I could not leave because she was dependant on me. This might not make any sense to you. It is a state of mind that needs to be experienced in order to be understood.

Some might call me a misogamist. I would say no that’s not so I just hate women. I hate them intrinsically.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
clarence December 12, 2009 at 09:42

David Brandt:

I could lower myself to your level but I doubt you are even intelligent enough to understand the insults. I’ve probably been involved in this stuff far longer than you have.

As for you Arthur:

bothered by the attitudes of men such as myself or Globalman, too bad. There is not a woman alive today that didn’t have a hand in creating men like us. You either were an active participant in the feminist movement, OR YOU STOOD IDLY BY WHILE THIS SHIT GOT ROLLING. The condemned house that you are now living in is one that you created through excess and neglect. It’s now your job to fix it.

The retardation of this statement is beyond repair. Yes, there are 20 year old women alive today who had nothing to do with starting this mess and little or no awareness of it.

So – go fuck yourself. I’m normally sympathetic to ghosts. But not women hating assholes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6
dontfeedthetroll December 12, 2009 at 09:47

My story is common and boring. I know that many of you can relate. Nothing special.

I am 39. I grew up in a feminist society in Europe. My mother was very Catholic and very female-supremacist (I know that this seems contradictory, but still). From relatives, school and mass media, I absorved the typical contradictory lies: “women are men are equal but women are better (because they are nurturers and care for others), you must treat women better than men, you must be a gentleman, listen to them, etc. So if you treat them well, women will love you. You will get a nice woman and you will be happy and other crap like that.

The result: two decades of celibacy, while I treated women like princesses and they were banging the bad boys. I was so retard that I thought that they only wanted love and the boys were mistreating these lovely creatures (It’s the BS you believe when you listen to women and their victimhood tales of self-deception)

After that, I got some confidence and some money, so I began to attract some women and have some relationships. I observed the way women turn every relationship into a self-serving one.

I remember a woman who I loved more than words can express. I was going to marry her, after years of relationship. She dumped me in a callous manner, because she found a bigger better deal. Although I had done nothing bad to her, she insulted me and treated me with rage, contempt and cruelty, only to rationalize her cheating and her lying to me.

This was the last straw, after 25 years of being mistreated by women and realizing they are not reliable. I told myself: “Look, there is something wrong here. It is not possible that you have had so much failure in this area without your cooperation. You are doing something wrong”. It was the time where PUA, MRA, MGTOW were hitting the Internet. I began to read and everything made sense.

In summary, when I was young, I was given a bad map of the relationship with women. A map that didn’t reflect reality. So it wasn’t strange that I stumbled against reality once and again. Nobody can do well in Paris if the map you think is Paris is actually a map of New York. You stumble against walls that the map told they weren’t there.

After applying game and mistreat women, I get more pussy in a year than in the rest of my life. I despise women but this does not stop them. They come and come wanting to receive their masochist does.

Luckily, the younger generations doesn’t have to go through all this. The information about the true nature of women is available. When we were young, there was no chance of getting this information. There was no Internet and the mass media and the school were (and are) completely feminist.

There is a poem in my native language that I used to paraphrase this way: “Do you want to know, my friend, why have the men of my generation lost the best years of their lives in pain, pursuing a chimera? Our parents lied to us, that’s why”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Keating December 12, 2009 at 09:53

@ Angry Harry: Yes, I do think women remain out-of-touch with what their sons are going through. If their sons are going through something which is novel to them, I can’t expect the mother’s to be cued in to such things either. What’s going on is not being broadcast in the MSM; you have to find it online. I didn’t even know there was a false-rape support group until yesterday. Rarely are you going to find any discussion of misandry ANYWHERE but for pockets on the web. Hell, The Spearhead is perhaps the first publication for men’s interests?

IF I am wrong, and I submit that there is that chance, it would be on grounds that mothers understand the whoredom of young females in this country. The sluttiness, the lack of values, the narcissism. But even if they do recognize this, I think the only concern they have is keeping their son from impregnating a skank. I’m still not convinced they know the full spectrum of problems feminism has brought to the foot of their son’s room.

If one can say that mothers don’t care, then we can pretty much say that for pretty much anyone over 50. Hell, most young men today don’t understand what’s going on.

You say they don’t care. I say they’re ignorant. Either way, nothing is being done.

Also, I said the turning point was the 90′s. Not where it ‘all began’. The turning being not when the waves started crashing against the sea wall, but when the crested over it. The genders might have started crossing over in the 70′s, but the power did not shift until the 90′s. Btw, I’m not even sure if that’s true because the 80′s was a backlash against emasculation, at least for a short period of time. Men were still able to be men. Until Dice Clay was arrested by the PC police. I specifically remember as a young kid when that happened.

Something that came to mind while reading your post: perhaps male indifference occurs where there is an ever encroaching and paternalistic government looking down upon them? It would explain the ebb and flow of things…maybe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 12, 2009 at 09:53

OK, I’ll tell my story. I’ve suffered far less than many under feminism but it’s the ending of my story that makes it worth telling.

I grew up in the UK where I attended an all-boys high school. After high school I was admitted to Sandhurst (the British equivalent of West Point) and on graduation became an officer in The Parachute Regiment.

In my early twenties I was casually dating a couple of women that I’d see every couple of weeks. Raised at the tail end of the age of chivalry I remember how this bothered me – how I felt that I was acting in an immoral way. I also remember how both women chased me, which I now understand clearly thanks to Roissy. Due to my ethical discomfort, though, I ended one relationship. The other woman, Kate (not her real name), was uninhibited and very sexual and as I spent more time with her I was drawn strongly to her. After six months I was completely in love with Kate, a euphoric emotion that I clearly remember. The year that followed was the best year of my life. I spent every moment I could with her, spent every paycheck on her, was sure that I had found “the one.” I was willing to pull the plough for her until my heart burst. About two years into my relationship with Kate, odd things began to happen. Always emotional, Kate’s behavior changed. She’d talk about and compare me to old boyfriends, which I understand now – she was shit-testing me – but which totally confused me at the time. Then she introduced me to Andy, an Australian who she reassured me was just a friend. It’s hard to grasp now but I swallowed this completely when in hindsight I think she intentionally introduced me to the guy she was banging during the week while I was sleeping in slit trenches on Salisbury Plain.

What happened next was predictable given what I know now, but when she dumped me it felt like I had been pole-axed. She tells me that our relationship is over but that maybe I could come over for sex once in a while. I am shocked beyond belief. I decline her offer. I cry, a memory that is absolutely the most painful of my entire life. For months afterwards I think of her every waking moment. I dream of her every night. In my dreams I can smell her as she lies down with me. I am suicidally depressed. I try to restart our relationship with the most humiliating results.

In the following years the pain subsides slowly and I leave the UK, building a new life in the USA and becoming a naturalized US citizen.

Fast forward 20+ years, I’m 43 and President of a company with operations in London. On a whim, I do an internet search – Kate has a distinctive last name – and come up with a phone number for her. So I call her, she seems pleased to hear from me, she tells me she’s not married, we talk and after a couple of conversations I decide to go see her. Why? Even twenty years later my relationship with Kate still feels like unfinished business and I wanted to ask her what happened.

I remember the plane ride from London to the Scottish city in which she’s now living. I was ambivalent, looking forward to seeing Kate again but concerned that I was about to reopen a wound that took a very long time to heal. Also wondering why I feel the need to impress her, as I have rented a 7-series BMW and booked a room at a very good hotel. I arrive, we meet at my hotel and I am shocked. Instead of the beautiful, sexual 23 year old that I remember, I see a dumpy, thick-necked middle-aged woman (she’s 44 now) with close-cropped hair. I take her to dinner at a very good restaurant, where she seems ill at ease. She tells me it is a long time since anyone has bought her dinner. Over a couple of glasses of wine, the story of her life emerges. Boyfriends, travel, affairs with older men. Then a serious car accident, when a female driver collides head-on with her car. Then family problems, money problems, as her family’s old money dwindles away.

After dinner, we walk to her apartment, and I am shocked again, as it is a dingy two-room basement flat. We sit and talk. She smokes. I see her clearly for the first time, how shallow and narcissistic she is. She tells me how she dumped me because I had no real money (true but I know now also how I pedestalized her and beta-ized myself). She tells me that she decided she didn’t need a husband, that she would make it by herself (as she says this I visualize the Cosmopolitan magazines she read endlessly as a young woman, and the last book I know she read, The Unmade Bed by Francoise Sagan). She tells me how she regrets not having my children (an attempt at emotional manipulation), how her serious car accident was God’s way of punishing her for what she did to me (WTF?). She tells me that she wants to be my mistress, a total disconnect with her current physical reality. When she sees that I am not falling for any of this she starts to get angry, she tells me how difficult her life is, how she pays the (foreign) owner of the local convenience store for groceries with sex, how she had to pay her electrician with sex, how there is a “massage parlor” in the adjoining basement apartment and how she will be working there soon. She does not say the one thing that might, just might, have influenced me to help her – how she had loved me the way I had loved her.

I get up to leave. She offers me sex. I decline. She then tells me how she has spent money that she could not afford on clothes and lingerie in preparation for this evening. I take 100 pounds sterling from my wallet, drop it on the table and walk out the door. This might seem a stupid and Quixotic act, but every time I think of those five, crisp folded bills, I smile as I am reminded of my total victory in this tiny skirmish in The Gender War.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Tarl December 12, 2009 at 10:03

With this as justification, any restriction on women’s behavior is seen as coming from their historic “oppression” and any validity it might have in protecting other people and the culture as a whole from unrestrained infantile self-indulgence is simply ignored and refuted.

Not refuted (i.e. proven false) but emotionally rejected without logical disproof.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 12, 2009 at 10:05

The only “men” that are victims of Feminism are the ones who were trying to “sleaze by” and get through life the easy way. If Feminism has affected you negatively, then it’s because you tried to get out of child support and are pissed that you have to be responsible, cheated on your wife and are pissed you have to pay for your sins, or are used to relying on your wealth/status to pick up chicks and are made that now you have to be a man of character too.

The only men “affected” by Feminism are the ones that weren’t doing their part as men to start with.

The whole argument is ridiculous in itself, because even if Feminism was COMPLETELY abolished and women were sent back to their homes and only allowed to have kids and take care of “hubbie” (*vomits repeatedly*)…..you men would then be required to be the SOLE provider. You’d HAVE to pay for your wives, children, and family without question. You’d be judged on your wealth and status by the bride’s family like a prize mule (as men are in countries that still have dowries and such) and cast aside as “trash” if you didn’t make enough to “be a husband”.

You men cry constantly about wanting women back in the homes…..but I haven’t heard a single man say “because I want to go back to paying for everything, doing everything, doing all manual labor, making the ONLY income, and being judged solely on my ability to provide for said Bride.”

Is that what you guys want? I don’t believe it for a second. What you REALLY want is not “Pre-Feminism” things. You want to not have to be the providers AND not be responsible, BUT still not be held accountable for anything at all.

Guess what? Men were just as much slaves before Feminism as they are now. The only difference is that now women are with you because they WANT to be. Not because they HAVE to be. It’s really sad that you as a gender would prefer the previous world where you KNEW your wife was with you because she HAD to be married……where you knew your wife didn’t even love you and was just following “tradition”…..knew you were useless as a man if you weren’t a “suitable provider” to the woman and kids that you are in “charge of”.

You talk about how women want to have their cake and eat it too. Well I want to know if all you “Anti-Feminism” supporters want to do all the things FOR women without question if you were to successfully abolish Feminism. That would be your duty as a man to care for any/all women like children if that were to happen. Are any of you prepared to do that? No. You want women to still work, still have babies, and somehow STILL be submissive to men.

Well I want to live in ice cream and unicorn-land too, but none of you are the kind of men (from what I’ve seen and heard here) that would be a “top-pick” as a husband amongst women if you were judged just on your wealth and status. You’d be FAR more screwed than you are now and you know it.

Either you want to pay for women, care for women, and do all the hard stuff……

…..or you don’t (Feminism). You cannot have it both ways, so pick one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 10:16

@Keating

I just do not buy the notion that women do not know what is going on.

They are certainly aware, far more so than men, about relationship situations.

Do you really think, for example, that women remain unaware of the huge alimony payouts currently awarded to women?

Do women really remain unaware of what happens to men if they are merely accused by a woman?

Have you seen how women generally respond when men try to talk about the problems that they face?

They know what is going on all right.

Even girls aged 12 know how easy it is to aggress against a man by making false accusations.

The idea that women do not know about such things is preposterous.

“Also, I said the turning point was the 90’s. Not where it ‘all began’. The turning being not when the waves started crashing against the sea wall, but when the crested over it. ”

Well, it wasn’t a ‘turning point’ then, was it?

”Turning point’ implies turning in a different direction!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 12, 2009 at 10:21

Raine,

These tirades of yours would be much more enjoyable to read if you would provide some sandwiches to munch on during said torture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
dontfeedthetroll December 12, 2009 at 10:23

@Charles Martel.

Men, that was beautiful and breathtaking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 12, 2009 at 10:33

@Charles Martel
Is not Quixotic to be able to show that you are worth more than she is. Pedestalizing is Quixotic, but that woman, despite the fact that you didn’t sleep with her because she’s repugnant, will still take your money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anakin Niceguy December 12, 2009 at 10:44

Lady Raine,

This is what I want. I think it’s pretty to clear understand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Renee December 12, 2009 at 10:46

Arthur,

The first phase was in the mid to late 90’s when I sexually active with married/taken women. I was stunned at how easily they would cheat on their husbands/boyfriends. Equally stunning was how they could fuck now and justify it later. This was a great deterrent with regards to marriage or LTR.

You don’t think that this is exclusive to only women do you? Anyway, did you know that the woman you were involved with was married/taken in the beginning and still continued the “relationship”?

Angry Harry,

The fact that the mothers of sons express no outrage at what their sons must risk (e.g. false allegations, false imprisonment, loss of homes etc) and endure (e.g. poor education, media misandry etc) is, I think, the greatest shock to me when it comes to thinking about the nature of women.

Are you talking about single mother households or homes with both parents?

Keating,

I’ve said this before: I’m beginning to think the bigger threat to men is not the feminists, but the men who enable and silently abide to their behavior and beliefs.

You have a point here. Everyone attacks feminism but sometimes ignore the fact that men either encourage or ignore the misandry in our society. I mean look at how other men think the DV against other males are funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
fedrz December 12, 2009 at 10:53

Re: Lack of Mother’s Concern for Sons

This is something I have pondered on quite a bit, and I think for us men it is another case of falsely believing that women view the world through our (male) eyes, rather than through their own bluntly pragmatic, up is down for today anyways, fuzzy logic brains.

I kind of think that Schopenhauer was correct when he discussed that women have three major identity crises in their lives (whereas men have one major one at mid-life crisis – larger than what a woman faces, but he only faces it once). Schopenhauer discussed that three stages/crises women go through are related to the three most prominent men in her life: 1 – Her Father, 2 – Her Husband, and 3 – Her Son(s).

In early life, a female gets her power through her father, and indeed, she learns how to manipulate men through her father. “Daddy’s Little Princess” has been around for a long time already. Her father is her protector and her provider… and he becomes her “tool” with which to manipulate the world.

When a girl becomes a woman, she leaves her father’s house (care/dominance etc), and transfers her way of manipulating the world from her father to her husband. Also, she goes through further identity crisis upon marriage in that once she marries, she loses much of the power she had to be the “belle of the ball.” As a single woman, eligible for marriage, she had the world eating out of her hand – especially the males. Upon marriage it is no longer (or didn’t used to be) acceptable for men & society to shower excessive attention towards her… plus, she begins having children and her body gets thrown out of wonk and loses its shine… and she is no longer the princess of the house/most important/attention-getting creature in the household for the first time in her life. This is a major life change for a woman. (In the past they used to say that getting married and having children forced a woman to grow up. This no longer happens, obviously, because state laws have permitted women to grown old in a state of arrested development.)

The third phase in a woman’s life is when her husband dies… then her “tool(s)” become her sons.

This is what most men are missing… that sons are also “tools” in almost the same way that a woman’s father and husband have previously been in a woman’s life.

Women are the ultimate pragmatists. Their sons are also tools. They’d use their daughters, but daughters are not manipulated in the same way that sons are. In fact, daughters and mothers compete with eachother vicously – most often for the attention of others.

The mother vs. the son’s wife is based upon the same thing. The mother is able to manipulate enormous amounts of attention and “usefulness” out of a son. A son is much more manipulated by his mother than a daughter is. Daughters are never thought of as “momma’s girls,” are they?

Mother’s & the son’s wife compete with eachother for the use of the son/husband as their tool to manipulate the world, and mothers in old age certainly do gain a fair amount of ability to manipulate the world through the power of their sons – who now hold similar power to what her father, and husband once held. The daughter-in-law resents this because it crowds in on “her turf.” That man is hers to manipulate, and the mother is interloping into the daughter-in-law’s turf when she gets her son to dance like a puppet for her.

I have come to believe that women view all other human beings as “tools” to be used for manipulation, even other women. It’s just that other women make shitty tools, becaue they are too self-centered as a result of their own pragmatism, and also, as Schopenhauer said, women see right through dissimulation in other females, because they practice it so often themselves it is almost instinct for them.

If you look at the way women aggress via Social Aggression, or Relational Aggression, you can see that they do indeed use other women as tools also. Social/Relational Aggression involves attacking people’s self esteem, spreading rumors and gossip, and gathering together other women/people (tools) to aggress against their targeted victim as a group. Distinct in this stereotypically female form of aggression is using third parties to achieve their goals. (ie. Manipulation).

Men are more easily manipulated than females, and sons are more easily manipulated than most other men (along with fathers and husbands).

I think that this is why so many mothers don’t really give two shits about their sons. I believe that in a similar way that men cannot believe the cold heartedness towards men that lurked in their ex-wife’s heart, I suspect that many men would also be uncomfortable to have a good hard look at how mothers also turn their sons into “social tools” in a similar manner to how they manipulated their fathers and husbands earlier in life.

In poorer times, before the rise of big government, the success of your sons would often dictate how well you lived into old age, especially after the husband dies. Father-Husband-Son. All three are manipulated to be social tools for a woman during her lifetime.

I suspect this is why women don’t speak up about the injustices their sons face… they don’t want to share their “life strategy,” and they are gonna be playing that card some day. Women are empty vessels. This is why they desire to be dominated. In each case she manipulates the dominate man – father, husband… and son.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 10:54

@Lady Pain

“You men cry constantly about wanting women back in the homes”

Give us some examples of men saying such things.

Perhaps even one example.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 11:05

@fedrz

Great analysis, Fedrz. Much appreciated.

But I’m still shocked by the fact that mothers seem to have so little concern for their sons’ future well-being.

It seems such a horrible betrayal that I think it must arise from some fundamental aspect of their nature that I find quite chilling.

Still, I suppose their encouragement of them to go to war should have alerted me to this

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Tarl December 12, 2009 at 11:05

Raine is a perfect example of why men should not rely on women having any sense of justice or objectivity. Women simply lack these senses! They define “justice” as “I get what I want”, and “objectivity” as “everyone agrees with me that I should get what I want”.

Note also that she has a son. Apparently she’s OK with him growing up in a society where he’s going to be screwed out of a spot in college or a job in favor of some female, and work twice as hard if he gets a job because women don’t pull their weight, and screwed in a divorce by some scheming slut. All that is no big deal so long as Lady Raine gets what she wants!

I haven’t heard a single man say “because I want to go back to paying for everything, doing everything, doing all manual labor, making the ONLY income, and being judged solely on my ability to provide for said Bride.

Whether I want it or not, I pay for everything and do everything, including all manual labor, and provide the only income.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Snark December 12, 2009 at 11:07

I am constantly amazed at how feminists don’t get the message that we are seeking a NEW gender paradigm, not a return to the OLD!

Apparently, wanting to end false rape accusations is the same as wanting women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant!

Or perhaps they do make the distinction, but intentionally equate the two?

On the issue of opposing all women rather than just feminists (and feminised/femplex women) … believe me when I say I am the furthest thing from a ‘white knight’. But it is nevertheless the case that our female support base is -potentially quite large-. There are plenty of non-feminist women who are very pissed off about feminism. Let’s try bringing them under the wing of the MRM rather than alienating them. I share in the disregard for -most- women, but the fact remains that there are -some- who very much share our goals and vision and if we’re about to turn on our allies then our movement may as well be dead. If saying this makes me a ‘white knight’ then goddamn, I’m just a gigantic mangina! But not a sectarian mangina.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Renee December 12, 2009 at 11:10

Anyway, did you know that the woman you were involved with was married/taken in the beginning and still continued the “relationship”?

Let me elaborate. I’m not trying to get into your business. It’s just that if you knew that she was taken and you still continued to be with her then it kind of weakens you point about your “phase 1″. But that is IF you knew. If you didn’t then, this doesn’t apply.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 11:12

@clarence,
you are and will always be a pussy, white knight, and a mangina.
Go fuck yourself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
arthur December 12, 2009 at 11:15

@Renee
we are not here to judge my actions, so take your question and shove it. This article is about feminist women and their actions.

Don’t be a motard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
David December 12, 2009 at 11:16


G December 12, 2009 at 9:18 am

arthur,

“All women hate all men” should read “All women hate betas” and we are in society of 99% betas.

Yes, the government is the ultimate alpha male now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Expatriate December 12, 2009 at 11:18

You men cry constantly about wanting women back in the homes

Only because a majority of cunts like yourself poison the workplace with your frivolous sexual harassment claims or fuck off on maternity leave whenever you can leaving the men to work harder while your highness is out playing mommy.

When John Stossel did a segment against gov’t mandated maternity leave laws a majority of the comments on the ABC site from cunts were blasting him.

Apparently cunts think that their choices shouldn’t have consequences & the rest of us have to pay for their choice to have a kid.

When cunts (which makes up the majority of WW) take responsibility for their choices then I would be more than happy if they choose to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Renee December 12, 2009 at 11:22

I really don’t see how Clarence’s first comment was that big of a deal. He’s just saying that girls and young women who either weren’t there when “the shit got rollin” or aren’t simply aware/knowledgable of the “shit” in our society shouldn’t be included in Arthur’s first comment. If they weren’t then that’s fine. If young women just don’t care then I understand your anger.

Now I guess the question is, how do you define “young women”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Rebel December 12, 2009 at 11:22

@A Harry,

“But, seriously, do you really think that women with sons remain unattuned to what can happen to them?

I don’t believe it.”

I do. Mothers care only for their daughters. Women don’t like their sons. It’s not that they hate them all that much: rather, it is blissful indifference. Offer them a chance to obliterate the male sex and hear their shrill voices expressing deep contentment.

As far as women spreading the news about the treatment of men, I refuse to believe ANY woman, including my own mother. It women propose to help men, it is only to get a better chance at exterminating them.

Stay clear of white women. Do not even look at them or talk to them. Let them be. Let them die. Refuse to recognize their existence: maybe it will help them die.

Western women can only hate. Stamp them out as obsolete and irrelevant: that’s what they are. The sooner they disappear from the planet, the better. Western women bring only misery into the world: breed them out and the problem will go away.

How could anyone disagree with that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 11:26

@Rebel

I think you misunderstood my statement – because you seem to be endorsing what I said; albeit more forcefully.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 11:29

Snark–
One thing you need to understand is that nothing that any MRA says will recruit women or drive them away. Women act in their own best interests, period. The only reason they jump in now is because they are being impacted by the feminist laws. Women are marrying guys who have been previously divorced, and find that the standard of living isn’t up to snuff due to money being siphoned away by cupcake number 1. Or they see a lack of potential suitors due to the number of guys awakening to the screwed up laws. Or they see a dim future for their daughters. Then they decide to get active. If what comes from my keyboard drives them away then they weren’t all that interested to begin with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 11:33

Clarence
I’m support Globalman’s ideas, and at 55, I doubt you’ve been at this as long as I have. You are what you act like, a fucking white knight. So be it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 11:34

@Snark

My own view about most (not all) those women who support MRAs is that they are about as useful to the cause as are children when it comes to helping you to put up wallpaper.

LOL!

IOW, they get in the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 12, 2009 at 11:38

What I want to know is how Lady Raine made it this far in life without learning how to “cook” some sandwiches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Renee December 12, 2009 at 11:38

Arthur,

we are not here to judge my actions, so take your question and shove it. This article is about feminist women and their actions.

I wasn’t judging you.

Anyway, cheating spouses isn’t exclusive to only women. So why cheating wives is such a surprising/shocking thing I don’t know…people cheat. Perhaps it’s because of that age-old stereotypes of women being morally better than men.

Expatriate,

When John Stossel did a segment against gov’t mandated maternity leave laws….

Was this recent?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Hestia December 12, 2009 at 11:41

Lady raine-The only “men” that are victims of Feminism are the ones who were trying to “sleaze by” and get through life the easy way.
ALL men are victims of the matriarchal system from the time they were born. The cards are stacked against them regardless of what moral choices they make.

In their first few days on this earth, numerous little boys are subject to the brutal procedure known as circumcision without either medical necessity or religious reasoning to go through such a procedure. This surgery is very lucrative and is pushed on new parents for the money that can be made off the bodies of precious baby boys.

After this gruesome welcome to the world, young boys will then be subjected to an educational system that is set up in a fashion to be against their success. The curriculum has features lessons that have been heavily revised by special interest groups on both the left and right, rote memorization of these misleading “facts”, and preparation for standardized testing. To accomplish these educational objectives, behaviors that tend to be the territory of girls (such as being able to “sit nicely”) are what teachers desire, so little boys are frequently drugged up so they will act like “good” students (aka girls). Many schools have now cut back on recess, with a few areas doing away with it entirely, along with gym class, stealing from children, but especially boys, this necessary outlet to expend physical energy during the school day. Without these, more behavioral problems exist since little boys have no way to control their energy when stuck in the classroom all day long. (Read “The War Against Boys” for an in-depth assessment of how the government schools harm boys, including your son if you have entrusted them with his education.)

Once a boy enters high school, he will likely have male teachers for the first time in his school career and may be fortunate enough to receive teaching from them that is a bit more geared towards his male brain. Sadly this positive development will not count for much as the feminist indoctrination typically gets much worse in high school, with literature classes leaning heavily on the works of PC authors rather than great works of literature that were penned by ‘evil white men”. History classes are heavily revised, taking away many of the positive male role models that would otherwise be offered to young men. By the end of his high school years, a young man gets rewarded for his troubles in this system not only with a high school diploma, but with the legal obligation to register with selective services should conscription even be deemed necessary by the powers that be again. Without doing so,he can face legal action. After years of being spit on, he now gets the obligation to defend the right of other males to be treated in the same way! (In other words, women get the right to vote for existing and turning eighteen. Men get the right to vote only if they bear the responsibility of conscription. )

Now a young man gets to enter the realm of higher education where affirmative active and “equality” policies are against his admission to university. If he manages to make it in, he’ll likely get to attend a school that offers all sorts of “empowering” *enter minority group here* studies classes that teach other students to hate men and whites for the scrounge they apparently are on the earth. Most universities will also teach some anti-capitalist, anti-liberty, and anti-American lessons as well, completely shaming young men of the pride they should have in who they are, what their country stands for, and what many brave men have fought for. There is no men’s studies to empower a young man in his masculinity and to allow him to study the great accomplishments of his gender, nor is there a male voice on campus to counter the feminist “take back the night”, date rape campaigns, disgusting “vagina monologue” performances, and feminist male bashing sessions errr I mean “feminist issues discussions”.

Throughout all of this, there is also the real threat that a woman could cry rape about this man, even if they have consensual sex. If she gets angry, she can accuse him of whatever she wants and will likely receive no punishment under the law, even if she is proven to be a liar. His reputation could be tarnished if he happens to sleep with the wrong women and not read her mind and give her what she wants the next morning. False accusations about sexual harassment also exist and they can be made based on such things as poor manners and misunderstanding; hardly criminal actions in the mind of any sane person.

After college comes the risk of a visit to family court if he gets married and his wife decides to divorce him for whatever reason. He could lose role as an active father in the lives of his children, potentially have them poisoned against him, and will get to pay for this privilege. He might even lose his house and get to pay for his wife to leave him.

In addition to all of this, a man also has the opportunity, throughout his entire life, to be exposed to sitcom after sitcom, news story after new story, hateful joke after hateful joke about what a loser he is, how sexual assault of men (ex: a kick in the crotch on a movie) is funny, how women can walk all over him, and on and on and on. Plus the numerous talk shows and matriarchal leaders who cheer on divorce, taking men to the cleaners in divorce, vapid evil behavior on the part of woman–typically called “empowerment”, and the celebration of a host of other narcissistic behaviors and bad deeds.

Your son will face this, just as every other man has for the last half century. Will your son just be a bitter misogynist should a tragic fate befall him in our male hating nation?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Keating December 12, 2009 at 11:41

@ Renee: I’ve never had the chance to read Schopenhauer’s’ writings on women. However, my thoughts have always been that, traditionally speaking, women ‘lived’ through their fathers, their husbands, their sons. Marriage, and then motherhood, had been the ultimate ideals in a woman’s life. Advice often given is the necessity of finding a woman who has a good relationship with her father. This does not imply she sees her father as a tool, but rather that her father has raised her as a feminine woman seeking completion in her life by another man, and not as a daughter who is amoral and capable of misandry and self-destructive acts. A woman with a bad relationship with her father is trouble. She’ll always project her poor relationship with her father onto her husband, and quite possibly her sons. This, of course, is the culmination of my experience as a middle class midwesterner.

That said, there is much shame for a woman who is unable to find a suitor or procreate. This still holds true today Although anecdotal, I have meet 2, maybe 3 dozen women who were never able to find a husband or have kids; one can see how weary and detestable they look. The aura of life has clearly left them. I would bet I am not alone in my experience.

Now, if it has become that women see men as tools, I make no protest on that thought. But feminists today are still getting married to willing betas, and spitting out, one by one, a new generation of psychologically twisted bretheren. Women today may see men as tools, but men are offering themselves up for sacrifice. As I have said before, men have largely enabled their own downfall. Roissy has a monthly post about this for christsakes! I’m sure he’s only hitting on a minute portion of society who deserves the beta-of-the-month award.

Is it likely that a modern feminists father is an alpha male? Is it likely that her father was an assertive leader with strong values and a good head on his shoulders?

You may disagree with me, but for me, this is a two-front war; against radical feminism and against the pussification of the western male. I tend to take the view that men need to shed their shining white knight armor and become remasculated – and that this is the most effective way to curtail what we see as a portent of disaster waiting to happen to our society (and we are well on our way down that road).

Peak gold, peak oil. … Peak-Alpha?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 11:42

Clarence
Much I’ve observed you write has been along the lines of “all women are not like that”. No, they are–unless societal pressures restrict their actions none of which is happening other than men waking up (except for white knights like you of course). I was out doing this in the 80′s. How long have you been at it? Didn’t fucking think so. Like I said, the thing I loathe more than feminists is manginas /white knights. If you post like one, hey, what the fuck can I say, huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 11:50

For the record, there are some women posters I do think contribute much. I enjoy what I read from Hestia for example. I also understand Globalman’s position, and support John Nada’s ideas–both of them are finding answers and sharing them. I have assisted men gong through divorces for years, and was a single dad. Tell me Clarence, have you done all that. If not, please clarity your statement of being involved in this longer than I have.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keating December 12, 2009 at 11:51

@ Arthur

WHAT? You call women a bunch of whores, and in the same breath, you admit that you have helped them cheat on their husbands? And that’s not up for debate?

That’s like saying, ” women are idiots for supporting VAWA. Yes I signed for the passage of this bill in the affirmative, but that’s not up for debate!!!”

I’m of the opinion that a man who sleeps with a married woman is committing a crime against the brotherhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 12:01

Keating
“I’m of the opinion that a man who sleeps with a married woman is committing a crime against the brotherhood.”

I missed that part, and I must agree, with one caveat–it takes two to tango. I have strong conviction against hurting my brothers. I will having nothing to do with a man who does this as well. On the other hand, what does this say about women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed December 12, 2009 at 12:02

I am constantly amazed at how feminists don’t get the message that we are seeking a NEW gender paradigm, not a return to the OLD!

Apparently, wanting to end false rape accusations is the same as wanting women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant!

Or perhaps they do make the distinction, but intentionally equate the two?

Yes, it is intentional. I don’t know how long you have observed the dynamic going on between the sexes at the political level, but mostly men are fighting a vast army of strawmen constructed purely for the purpose of making sure men’s message is not heard. It is due to neither accident nor ignorance – it is a very intentional strategy pursued simply because it is so effective.

Here is how it works –
Assume 3 possible mental, emotional, attitudinal positions – we will just call them A, B, and C. Graphically they could look like this –
A—————B————–C.

A is where the woman wants the man to be, as in the example above of the woman who demands that men support women getting ahead even while the men themselves suffer as a result. B is where the man actually stands, and C is an extremist position which is unacceptable to almost anyone.

In order to avoid ever dealing with position B, women will always accuse men of C hoping to hook an emotional reaction to the insult and put the man on the defensive. In order to prove that C is not true (“you just hate women, you misogynsist(s)”, “you are just bitter and angry”, “you can’t get laid”, “you must live in your mother’s basement”, “you have a small penis”) Trying to distance himself from the sense that the person really believes what is is saying and that she really believes he is at position C, he will move away from that position in the direction of A.

But it is nevertheless the case that our female support base is -potentially quite large-. There are plenty of non-feminist women who are very pissed off about feminism.

That sounds like a compelling assertion, but I have yet to see much evidence of it. There are a couple of problems I see with that line of thought.

First, men have to understand that feminism is very literally FEMININE-ism – it is the political movement to establish the feminine viewpoint as the standard and to elevate women’s political position and control to primacy over men and the masculine viewpoint. Thus, almost every woman experiences the same tension at the political level that she does in her personal relationships with men and will have some degree of sympathy for the FEMININE-ist approach no matter what it is.

Second, “support” is meaningless unless it translates into action. The simplest form of action for a huge number of women is to simply start checking other women in their interpersonal relationships when those other women’s behavior becomes excessive or destructive. You just don’t see that happening. Women don’t seem to have much problem confronting and attacking other women when they really do disagree with them, so it really looks like the majority of women don’t disagree with feminism enough to actually do anything to stop it.

So, an “ally” who never actually does anything is pretty much worthless.

Third, and this is where years in the trenches creates quite a divide between younger and older MRAs, is that some of us will be long dead before anything which women do or have done will have any impact on our lives. Old school MRAs like Glenn Sacks believes very strongly in not alienating women and cultivating them as allies, but others have lost patience after more than 40 years of waiting for women to wake up and get their act together and have decided to proceed without them.

And, fourth, and perhaps most significantly, men have to learn how to survive destructive women until the point in time women ever begin to do anything, if they ever do. At the present time, any real substantive reforms in family law are probably so far in the future that it will have no impact on a man who decides to get married today. He either goes ahead and gets married knowing all the risks, or he decides that it is just too risky and decides to become an eternal bachelor. However, just by deciding to follow the 2nd strategy he is obliquely “insulting” all women by saying that there just aren’t any of them worth taking the risk for.

One of the most fundamental problems men are facing now, and have been facing for the past few decades, is the way that men’s character has been collectively assassinated while the the Cult of the Moral Woman has grown like a cancer. The Cult of the Moral Woman has to be smashed in order to get people to even admit that women are capable of great evil, which is going to have some effect on these women who aren’t so bad but have stood by passively doing and saying nothing while the characters of their fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, and male friends have been collectively assassinated.

It is a bit like those armies who use innocent citizens as human shields. By mixing themselves in with our “potential allies” the feminists have made themselves almost impossible to confront.

The strategy for this is to put women on the spot for feminism, and make them pay the price for it, and get them to bolt and run and stop acting as cover for the feminists and clearly and visibly come over to men’s side.

It’s a real world implementation of the old saying “either shit, or get off the pot.”

Snark December 12, 2009 at 12:11

Yes, it is intentional. I don’t know how long you have observed the dynamic going on between the sexes at the political level, but mostly men are fighting a vast army of strawmen constructed purely for the purpose of making sure men’s message is not heard. It is due to neither accident nor ignorance – it is a very intentional strategy pursued simply because it is so effective.

I know that, Zed. ;)

The question was rhetorical – designed to force Lady Raine to actually reflect on what she’s doing!

If that is at all possible.

On the other point … note I said ‘potential’ support base. I get the feeling that once the movement grows, we will find ourselves with more than a few ‘hangers on’, and well, women speaking up for men against feminism shouldn’t be discouraged in my view. I’m going to have to -respectfully- disagree and side with Glenn Sacks on this one (although I do not share in his delusion that MRAs and feminists can someday “work together”!)

Maybe it is, as you say, the fact of my being younger. The last few years has involved a profound SHATTERING of my previous conception of women as everything has come to light thanks to the MRM. Having said this, I have experienced little personal horror myself (relatively speaking, compared to some MRA’s stories I have read) so perhaps my view of women is still more favourable than a lot of MRAs (which is, honestly, hard to imagine from where I’m sitting – I fluctuate between total indifference and abject disgust, but apparently is the case).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 12, 2009 at 12:11

The strategy for this is to put women on the spot for feminism, and make them pay the price for it, and get them to bolt and run and stop acting as cover for the feminists and clearly and visibly come over to men’s side.

Oh, and I agree with this entirely … this is kind of what I was referring to. I can see a future where this happens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Patr December 12, 2009 at 12:17

Clarence, you say some women are to young to be responsible but I have to disagree. A woman in her twenties can see the world around her and if she doesn’t agree with the treatment she sees men receiving, she can behave differently. Most young women don’t question the current system because they benefit from it.

You might be underestimating the situation by thinking that a woman has to be a “card-carrying” feminist to do any damage. These days, the ideology is so pervasive they don’t need the cards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keating December 12, 2009 at 12:23

@ David Brandt

Women cheat. There’s no debate about that. It does take two to tango.

I have yet to see anyone hold the women who slept with Tiger …accountable for doing so despite clear knowledge that he had a wife and kids.

Prime example
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/tiger-woods-dateline-jami_n_389606.html
“Asked if she owed Woods’ wife an apology, Jungers declined. “No,” she said, “I don’t. I feel like that’s his business. I was younger, and I’m not saying that what I did then was right, but I’m certainly not going to say that it was wrong.”

She’s a feckin’ knowing and willful homewrecker. And yet so far as I can tell (and to the extent my internet browsing has permitted), there has been no woman, no media outlet who has held these woman accountable for partaking in the Tiger’s sexual escapades.

There is no such thing as Sisterhood. Most (but not all) Western females are in competition to be the Chosen One. (This is where I think I agree with Schopenhauer).

But there is such a thing called Brotherhood. And I am of the opinion that we have a choice: either level with women and act just as indiscriminately as they do, or hold ourselves to higher standards.

You ask, “What does that make women?” It makes them our equals if we hold ourselves to the same standards of conduct.

I intend to hold myself to a higher standard and though it assuredly will piss off other men here, intend to hold other men to the same standard of conduct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 12, 2009 at 12:24

Here’s a talking point to discuss: around what year did our older members notice feminist attitudes seeping into mainstream women? We had a discussion about this on the old Don’t Get Married forum and a lot of guys concluded that the average woman really started to go to hell by the mid-80s. Guys commented on women starting to snarl at them for holding open doors, for example. They started noticing the feminization of colleges (and PC came along the same time). Man-hating become common and acceptable.

I was born in the mid-80s myself, so by the time I was aware of much of anything, the post-feminist, PC dictatorship had already been quite firmly established in all the important institutions. Growing up to hate the male sex was just normal for someone my age. I didn’t get to see the destruction of traditional institutions, as some of you older guys did. So I never saw the contrast. That’s the key to waking people up, by the way… understand that however screwed up something is (like our society), if someone is accustomed to it, he’ll tend to defend it. So think of ways to rattle the cage and make them think differently.

Obviously this doesn’t work on 99% of women, though, but who cares? They aren’t our allies anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 12:25

Let me see if I have this right, Zed.

You let women post here so guys can see exactly what women think. After all, seein’ is believin’…

Where some guys might get frustrated is the “round and round” of it all, ie, the constant rehashing of issues.

I also think you are smart enough to realize that neither side is going to change the other sides point of view.

At one time you mentioned playing to the lurkers, with the assumption that these lurkers were male. But you knew all along that some of these lurkers…..

were female.

And they were actually capable of reading without engaging. These are the women who get to see exactly what men think of them.

Years ago in another forum you would point to me as the, at that time, current standard of angry. (Sorry about stepping on your name, Harry). You often stated that the wave of future MRA’s would make me look tame by comparison. Then came Mr. Huh and MikeeUSA. Askmen has guys that, if left unmoderated would at least reach my level of “bluntness”. We all remember the Forbes war. And here we have guys like Globalman and Rebel, who are in essence calling for the death of all white western women.

You ladies just don’t get it. Do you really think that you can argue, dissect, or outverbiage us into changing our minds?

YOU
VERY
STUPID.

Do you think that we are a bunch of fringe lunatics? Then don’t waste your time arguing with us. If you think that we are small in number, remember, you ladies and the machine are creating misogynists just as fast and bitter as you can. I used to rank high on the “hate o meter” because I refer to women as cunts. Now you have guys calling for your death. And there’s more where they came from.

The jig is up. You hate us. We hate you.
Hate is a bouncin’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Keating December 12, 2009 at 12:25

To add: my recommendation is that if a married woman tries to seduce you, or is willing to sleep with you, I would, at least, tell her husband.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
21Guns December 12, 2009 at 12:28

Great article, zed.

So, use this as an opportunity to tell your story –what sort of trail of destruction have feminist women left in
your life?

This is a tricky question to answer, because the destruction that has affected me directly can’t be attrributed to ‘feminism’ per se. I could cite how my mother damaged her marriage and alienated her children, but that was due to a horrible confluence of her own mental illness and the whole post-modern mindset in which feminism is but a piece of the puzzle.

Indirectly, I’ve seen female friends throw away one good relationship after another for no good reason, and male friends having their lives ruined in divorce courts. I’ve seen young women engaging in monumentally stupid behavior, and young men blindly
going enabling them.

But the worst thing about feminism, for me personally, has been living through the past twenty years KNOWING that the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later, but never quite knowing how or when. I could see the storm gathering, in much the same way that I’m able to spot stock market bubbles forming. I’ve tried to warn people, and as always, nobody listenes to me.

Now it looks like it’s finally coming to a head, and as always, the innocent are going to suffer along with the guilty. That’s the worst thing of all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Snark December 12, 2009 at 12:31

my recommendation is that if a married woman tries to seduce you, or is willing to sleep with you, I would, at least, tell her husband.

This could leave you open to a false rape accusation as her way of absolving herself of all responsibility.

Husband is upset with her.

“He tried to rape me!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Expatriate December 12, 2009 at 12:31

Was this recent?

Yes it was this year, check:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5PEz8atQyw

The comments at his ABC site were criticizing him because women don’t like to take responsibity for their choices.

If you are pregnant don’t tell the fucking gov’t to force your employer to grant you leave. Either have a private arrangement with your employer like the woman in the video did or quit the fucking job, apparently this is a hard concept to grasp for most “independent” western women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Keating December 12, 2009 at 12:47

@ Snark.

eh…maybe.

My guess is that if you do notify the husband, he won’t believe you. (For reasons I won’t go into grand detail here).

If he does believe you, I would think he has the forethought to wrap up loose ends with his marriage and start the ball rolling towards divorce.

As for her crying false rape

1. I would willingly testify that she was in a long-term relationship with me (or whatever
2. taht she told me her husband lost sexual interest in her so she had to seek it elsewhere
3. the guy is married to her
4. why did she wait to cry rape?

as for the last point, it’s important for the guy to sort out his affairs and quietly and secretly put a down payment on a new apartment. Plus, seek a restraining order or a PFA against her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 12, 2009 at 12:48

A couple of thoughts based on what I have read so far:

1 – The argument that certain people don’t have “experience” in the gender wars and should be disregarded is fucking moronic; I could equally say that anyone over the age of 50 should step aside. Your time has passed, and you are part of a generation that has already failed spectacularly to do anything to halt these issues, so the best thing you can do is shut up and die so we can fix the shit you fucked up in peace.

I don’t think it would be fair to say that; people on all sides have a lot to contribute, but that’s the reverse of the “you haven’t been there” argument. There are legitimate issues with some of what Clarence says (Clarence, you are enabling the behavior of narcissists when they need a firm slap), but playing the age card is probably counterproductive in the eyes of many here, myself included.

The issue is that he doesn’t get it, not what age he doesn’t get it at.

2 – I think Charles Martel’s story is a perfect illustration of what happens through much of the world, now, with women. Just as easily the serial divorce carousel some women ride to leech off of husbands. I think this is why the marriage strike and refusing to support women is so important. You have to hold people accountable for their actions; this is the one fate that hypocrites, liars, and children cannot withstand – having to face the consequences of what they have done.

3 – Renee, shut it. Your attempts at steering the discussion away from the key points are unwelcome, intellectually dishonest, and foolish. NAWALT is stupid; to echo Hestia, not all snakes are poisonous, but I’m not picking one up to find out. Likewise, nowhere in this post did it say all men are saints who do no wrong; suggesting that men should be the focus of this post just tells me you are either a moron or an intellectually dishonest snake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Reinholt December 12, 2009 at 12:50

21G,

You work in finance? I saw the stock market reference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reality2010 December 12, 2009 at 12:52

This really says it all- I resurrected this classic a week ago:
http://problemwithwomentoday.blogspot.com/2009/12/problem-with-women-today-what-in-hell.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 12:52

Keating..
1) Don’t tell me how to post EVER. If I say something is not up for debate that means that I am not going to fucking talk about it. I don’t care if you don’t like it.

2) Mix in some reading comprehension and a timeline. Hell, at least Renee figured out the point I was trying to make. You and her were looking to sidetrack the point I was trying to make, and I will have none of it. Again, she at least figured it out. That doesn’t say too much for you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Vincent December 12, 2009 at 12:53

I guess I can tell you about my mom.

She was a career woman. Her personality is exactly as described by Nancy Levant: “grossly self-involved, horrible and mean-spirited mothers and wives, and they are constantly, incessantly, angry and neurotic. American women are shallow. ” Growing up with her was miserable and emasculating. She was a “tyrant mother” (google that). My brother and I still suffer from the damage she caused.

At first she stayed home and did the mom thing. Around the time when I was 4 or 5 she told me she was leaving my dad. I would later find out that she told my father that, “She was going to the top and he was holding her back.” My dad was a blue-collar kind of guy and she had gotten a job at an insurance company so she had decided that he was no longer good enough for her. She went on to become a VP, and married a self-absorbed white collar guy who later cheated on her. Now she’s been laid off from her corporate career and married to an unemployed handy man/drunk who’s probably going to end up leaving her.

Feminism convinced her that she could have it all. It ended up ruining her life and our family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns December 12, 2009 at 12:57

Reinholt,

I work in the entertainment industry, but I’m good at spotting trends.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 12, 2009 at 13:08

Let me see if I have this right, Zed.

You let women post here so guys can see exactly what women think. After all, seein’ is believin’…

Where some guys might get frustrated is the “round and round” of it all, ie, the constant rehashing of issues.

Actually, I don’t have anything to do with who posts here and who doesn’t – that is Welmer’s call completely.

That being said, let me enumerate the reasons why I agree with his decision to pretty much let anyone post who wants to.

1) The lesson learned from the Battle of Forbes. Men are going to get absolutely nowhere if they keep running away from confronting the bitches. The Gender War has been lost as badly as it has been for men one stupid dinner-table or bedroom argument at a time. Women are never going to back off until men start backing the bitches off. This is a great place to learn that without some mangina moderator coming down on and silencing men while letting the bitches run free. If a man wants to unleash his inner sadist, he will soon see that these bitches are not nearly so fragile as women pretend that they are and if no one here falls for their faux victimhood, men get a chance to learn what it really takes to shut one up.

2) As you mentioned, men have got to find a way to defeat the “feminine mystique” and expose women as they really are. There is no better way to show (NOT “tell about” or “try to describe”) how women really are than to let one shoot her mouth off here to her heart’s content. As long as men participate in the cover up by not allowing women’s extremes of behavior to be seen, the men who do that are part of the problem and the denial system.

3) To the extent that women ever can or will be “potential allies”, it is useful to have an example to point to and say “this how men believe all women look.” One of the seduction community guys (I think it is Frank Kermit) talks about the 10 emotional needs of women. #1 on the list is “protecting her reputation.” If you look at the cultural carnage caused by women, it is mostly men’s inability to believe that they have become so evil that allows them to get away with what they are getting away with. When the point starts being made to women that women like LR are damaging their reputation, they might actually become motivated to actually do something about it. Then again, maybe not, but as a part of a multi-pronged strategy I think it has a place.

4) Short of putting all women in cages or having a lot of George Sodinis in the future, showing women how deeply and bitterly men are beginning to hate them might wake a few of them up. I say “might” because I don’t count on this strategy in any way, but again as a part of a multi-pronged approach it seems to be worth trying – particularly when it takes no effort at all to allow it to play out naturally, and a whole lot of effort to try to enforce speech codes.

5) And this is the most important. It seems to take a very long time and a great deal of conflict and beating his head against a stone wall for a man to become as radicalized as you are, arthur. By doing anything to decrease the conflict that will convert these white knights to hard-cores like you we are actually prolonging the problem. Let them beat their heads, argue, and tear their hair out and eventually they will throw up their hands and say “guys like arthur were right, there is no way to negotiate with these people.”

6) Continuing to engage them in good faith and demonstrate that they almost always respond in bad faith is the world’s best way to convince those who want to continue to pursue strategies which have been proven to be ineffective, to abandon them and try something else.

Lady Raine December 12, 2009 at 13:14

Raine is a perfect example of why men should not rely on women having any sense of justice or objectivity. Women simply lack these senses! They define “justice” as “I get what I want”, and “objectivity” as “everyone agrees with me that I should get what I want”.

Name even ONE way I am an example of that. I provide my own income through WORKING. Not “taking”.

I am teaching my son that if you want to be treated well, with respect, and fairly you must work hard to EARN it. Do you honestly believe that I have somehow “gotten by” in CNC Programming by “pretending” to program if I didn’t actually have the skills to do it? Do you mistakenly think that Feminists help or even respect women like me? They HATE women like me. Women that prove that you can EARN a man’s position by your intellect and hard work and NOT by playing victim and using the “I’m a chick” card.

I earned my position by proving to the men I work with that I’m there to be good at our trade, not to “prove my girlpower”. Everytime I start at a new Shop or Inspection Lab, I get weird looks…..I get patronized by the older guys (who aren’t used to seeing women in shops at ALL let alone in the “skilled trade” positions like CNC or Welding)…..have to ignore the eye-rolling and the “oh here’s another Feminist trying to prove she’s better than us” attitude.

I have to fight AGAINST those things BECAUSE of the very Feminists you are referring to. I don’t “blame the men” I work with for their attitude. I just make sure that I prove them wrong (and I do because those guys figure out quickly that I don’t fuck around and I’m good at my job).

Stop trying to demonize every “single mother” as some sort of vampire on society. Guess what? There are plenty of us who work hard, come home, and still WANT to be the loving nurturing mother AND the provider. Not all single mothers are collecting child support or welfare. Not all are “man-haters” and hate the idea of traditional family. Some of us would just rather not “take the risk” on bringing a new man into an already “smooth running” household. But you can’t admit those things because then you cannot continue to tell your outright LIES about women and mothers. You can hate your “new role” as men all you want to, but feeling sympathy for you for your current situation would literally be a case of “Stockholm Syndrome”. Why should we feel sorry for Karma coming back to bite our previous jailors in the ass?

It’s actually amazing to me that you still present that argument considering how little the system actually does to catch REAL deadbeats (that make sure they aren’t “found” to make payments they know they owe).

Note also that she has a son. Apparently she’s OK with him growing up in a society where he’s going to be screwed out of a spot in college or a job in favor of some female, and work twice as hard if he gets a job because women don’t pull their weight, and screwed in a divorce by some scheming slut. All that is no big deal so long as Lady Raine gets what she wants!

Actually, I see plenty of men in today’s world that seem to be doing just fine and don’t seem to have any of these complaints. It’s called “men who are not entitled whiners”. If my son grew up to blame “the system” for his failure, I’d look him right in the eye and tell him that there is no one to blame for “failure” but himself. A real man or woman doesn’t “blame the system” or society for their failures and their weaknesses.

I would hope that reading the comments from men here, my son would be just as disgusted as I am by your excuses, your laziness, and your open hypocrisy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9
Fiercely Independent John Nada December 12, 2009 at 13:18

by zed on December 12, 2009:
…So, use this as an opportunity to tell your story – what sort of trail of destruction have feminist women left in your life?

Greetings:

I’m John Nada. I’m a trained Environmental Analyst and managed a department for the largest Sports Gaming firm in North America, based out of Las Vegas, Nevada. Did that for 5 years.

I was married to an Entitlement Feminist American woman for 8 years (although at the time I had no clue what EF was).

At the height of my success, I experienced what I thought was the Apocalypse: I got dragged through the Garden of Pain and had the Holy Triumvirate of Divorce/Domestic Violence/Child Support Judicial system falsely used against me with impunity. I was left destitute and bereft of my (at the time) 6 year old son.

I felt totally destroyed. Actually suicidal.

So with nothing left to lose, I booked a flight to Bogotá, Colombia. Figured I’d go out via massive heart attack from an 18 y.o. hooker and a big ol’ bag o blow.

But then something happened. Instead of finding the 3rd world shitohole” I was expecting, I found a country with joie de vivre, rich culture, great music and spectacular, friendly women.

Feminism-free pretty women.

(Come on, what’s a good story without a pretty girl, right?)

So I had to go back inside the Matrix but I returned like a man possessed. I rebuilt almost everything I’d lost from scratch within 13 months. The whole time I started seeing things and analyzing them for what they were. At first I thought I was looney tunes.

Then I found that there were other men who’d experienced similar circumstances.

I kept researching and eventually once I formed a foundation based on facts and logic I started getting self-confidence to post and debate.

Then I put it all together and patterned myself after the main character Nada from the movie “They Live!” by John Carpenter. I superimposed EF over the anti-capitalism theme and the shoe fit perfectly!

After a while I came across the zenpriest. He gave me some good insight. Pointed me in the right direction. I’m very grateful for that.

I advocate shunning any and all Entitlement Materialism Feminist women and counteracting Global Socialism by expatriating/marrying and procreating with traditional Foreign women only. I’m the 2nd wave the zenpriest speaks about. Just my version of Men Going Their Own Way.

This is much more longwinded than I normally post, but I’m here to support and to learn. I prefer to play Johnny Bench at the backstop waiting for men to awaken from the coma so I can snatch them up and whisk them away to Never Never Land–a place without the baited, spring-loaded beartraps of Entitlement Materialist Feminism.

And believe you me, it does exist.

This is a snapshot of who I am. John Nada.

Thanks for reading.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 13:18

Zeta,
I was born in Portland, Oregon in the early 1960′s. Up to the early 1980′s women still liked men and were reasonably pleasant. This changed in the mid 1980′s. Women started getting more obnoxious, crude, loud and confrontational. Mix in the rampant lesbianism and chasing career criminals, and there you go. A friend of mine, we were both in our early 20′s at the time, used to have lengthy conversations as to why women would tell us to act one way, and then go off to screw the guys that acted just the opposite.

What the hell was going on here?

It is said that the USA is a “sex prison” for men, and that Portland, Oregon was the gulag. Truer words were never written. Imagine being in your mid 20′s with no “outlet”. Unless you call slinking down to the porn shop an option. This was pre internet, folks. No outlet and no information. All of the shaming and strawman tactics that women use now are the exact same tactics they used in the mid 80′s. It’s laughable that they don’t realize guys are making use of the internet to compare notes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 13:23

There are men who I would love to see being made aware of their wives cheating on them. Family court judges and divorce lawyers. I’m going to tell you a true story. My daughter, who I have nothing to do with, works at a relatively high paying job for a large liquor corporation, and does modeling. She did a year as a ‘dancer’ in Phoenix. My brother, an outwardly religious physician who visited after my dad died, but not my mom (who was very ill) or myself. He visited two lawyers to see if he could break the trust that was set up. He could not, and he emailed me, calling me, my son (who still lives with me–autistic) and daughter a waste of human skin. My kids are half mexican, and he’s never seen them. He happened to walk into “Bourbons” which is a high class ‘dancer’ club in Phoenix and ordered a dance–from my daughter. After a brief conversation in which she determined who he was, he ordered another dance from her. She bent down low and told him it was ok to grab her breast, which he did. She then stood up and asked him if he still thought she was a waste of human skin, Uncle Mike? He beat feet out of there very quickly. While I don’t subscribe to karma per se, it was funny as hell. I don’t allow her around because she is an amoral thief who only give a shit about one person (and given what we’ve observed about the women in the US, we all know who that is). I was married and stayed faithful, until the day she told me she wasn’t, at which time I had a fuckfest (yes, it was out of spite, so what?) This is the same crazy bitch who is remarried, and when I am unfortunate enough to see her tells me “I know you still love me” (ahem). The last time she said that, I told her it won’t work because I don’t see a crane around here, and that’s what it would take for me to get it up for her. I have great sympathy for her husband–and I would never fuck a married woman–however, I would love to see the judges and divorce attorneys go through the same shit so many honest men have. I was naive to believe that she would follow the monogamy agreement. My point is that any man here, if you sincerely believe she’s being faithful, please step back and take an objective look if you’re married. If you are not, DON”T (unless you are in a country without misandrist divorce laws, of which John Nada knows much more about than I do. I cannot emphasize this enough–I hate manginas, and every attempt at white knighting that I see I will point out CLARENCE.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 12, 2009 at 13:25

I was born in Portland, Oregon in the early 1960’s. Up to the early 1980’s women still liked men and were reasonably pleasant. This changed in the mid 1980’s. Women started getting more obnoxious, crude, loud and confrontational. Mix in the rampant lesbianism and chasing career criminals, and there you go.

-arthur

There was definitely a shift in the mid-80s. Even though I was a child, I remember it myself. Maybe it was when radical feminist ideas from the 60s/70s started to be embraced by some critical mass of women. Then, in the 90s we saw the consolidation, including the horrible laws, police state, fathers having no chance at all, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 12, 2009 at 13:28

Basically, what I seen and read (from misogynists like most of you) is:

Women who stay home and raise kids are golddigging vampires who are going to rape you for your money.

Women who go to work are ballbusting, selfish Feminists who want to rape you for your money.

Women who stay virgins until marriage are just “tricking you” into marriage…..

Women who don’t want to get married are sluts……

Women who are single mothers are all hardcore Feminazi’s who collect Welfare and want to wipe men off earth

Women who DON’T have kids are angry “man-hating” lesbians who wish to eradicate the “family” as we know it…..

So basically, you hate ALL women no matter what their REAL intentions are, what their situation, their education, their religion, their morals, or even race/culture….. you see nothing but blind hate and a way to blame every creature that happened to be born with a uterus for your many failures as men.

How are we to feel sympathy, when we can clearly see just by reading that no matter WHAT kind of woman you are…..you are hated?

You blame women and call them “tyrants” while at the same time implying that they are weak and cannot lead. Well you cannot be a “tyrant” without be able to lead. So which is it? Are we weak? Or are we tyrants (leaders)?

This is why “women” don’t take your complaints seriously. You cannot even seem to agree on WHAT (horrible creature) we are…..let alone what you hate about us. Why should we continue to care what you think or feel at all?

Some of us stopped caring about your plight long ago. Like back when you happily treated women like shit since the beginning of time. As far as I’m concerned, a lovely lady named Karma rode in and delivered you the fruits of your harvest. You know what they say…..you reap what you sow and you as men sowed the “tyrant” seed long ago. The only difference is that you didn’t plan to be on the receiving end at any point in time.

Now that you are, you want sympathy? Now we’re supposed to be the “forgiving nurturers” and forget the entire history of the world? Nope. Sorry. That ship sailed long ago.

Do what we ladies used to do, suck it up, shut your mouth, and fantasize about getting revenge on them someday.

Oh, wait….I guess that’s what you’re already doing here by having this blog at all, huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8
zed December 12, 2009 at 13:30

I could cite how my mother damaged her marriage and alienated her children, but that was due to a horrible confluence of her own mental illness and the whole post-modern mindset in which feminism is but a piece of the puzzle.

True, it is only a piece of the puzzle. But, a puzzle is solved one piece at a time and it is the most identifiable piece.

I think the fundamental issue boils down to separating average women from their support for feminism, and addressing (if possible) the strange belief that some women hold that they have more in common with women they have never met and will never even set foot in the same country, than they do with their husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, and male friends. The only way I know how to do this is for women to start losing what is important to them right along with men.

When they have lost enough, maybe the pain of that loss will motivate them to start to look at things differently.

And, maybe not. We will never know unless we try, and spending our lives trying to do something about the problem is a lot more powerful stance than simply helplessly living through it and complaining about it.

zed December 12, 2009 at 13:32

There was definitely a shift in the mid-80s.

Susan Brownmiller->Andrea Dworkin->Catherine MacKinnon->Mary Koss.

They attacked the most fundamental male/female bond, and succeeded in driving a wedge into it and tearing apart intimate relationships.

Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 13:32

@Reinholt

” I could equally say that anyone over the age of 50 should step aside. Your time has passed, and you are part of a generation that has already failed spectacularly to do anything to halt these issues, so the best thing you can do is shut up and die so we can fix the shit you fucked up in peace.”

You should read my piece, …

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

… to see why men were unable to stop what was happening.

First and foremost, they didn’t actually know what was happening, because they were being lied to.

In fact, I think that this is probably still true!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keating December 12, 2009 at 13:37

@ Arthur

I’m not telling you how to post. But I am saying, and it’s already been laid out, that men who sleep with married women are doing a disservice. There’s not much more that can be said about that… and if you’re going to get all wily about being called out, then so be it. If you want me to ignore something you said, i can only advise not to type it out. Apologies, then, for not having the forethought to ignore something you wanted me to ignore.

The internet is serious business brah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 13:40

@Arthur

I agree with Keating. You did wrong by sleeping with that woman.

Live and learn though, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 12, 2009 at 13:41

Reinholt,

Renee, shut it.

Lol, nope.

Your attempts at steering the discussion away from the key points are unwelcome, intellectually dishonest, and foolish. NAWALT is stupid; to echo Hestia, not all snakes are poisonous, but I’m not picking one up to find out.

I’m not trying to steer the discussion away from the key points anymore than anybody else who responds to specific comments on here, like yourself. And WHERE did I make the NAWALT arguement….nowhere.

Likewise, nowhere in this post did it say all men are saints who do no wrong;

I know that.

suggesting that men should be the focus of this post just tells me you are either a moron or an intellectually dishonest snake.

And you thinking that I was suggesting such a thing tells me that either you’re making grand assumptions, misreading what I posted, or that you yourself are a moron. I never suggested or insinuated such a thing. You’re seeing something that’s not there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Renee December 12, 2009 at 14:10

Arthur,

2) Mix in some reading comprehension and a timeline. Hell, at least Renee figured out the point I was trying to make. You and her were looking to sidetrack the point I was trying to make, and I will have none of it. Again, she at least figured it out. That doesn’t say too much for you.

Yes I get the gist of what you’re saying. But if you visit this site frequently, you’ll find that alot of guys here don’t look to kindly to men who date married/taken women (or at least that’s the impression I have). So for you be one of them weakens the strength of your point.

But like I said, if you didn’t know, then I understand.
———————–
Keating at December 12, 2009 at 11:41 am,

About the whole “women using men as tools thing”….

This is why I don’t understand why some men have such a problem with women being in the workforce. If women were encouraged to support themselves and be financially independent, then would they still see men as tools?

Perhaps “social tools” is a whole other thing all together, so my previous points aren’t related this.

That said, there is much shame for a woman who is unable to find a suitor or procreate.

Does the same apply to males?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
clarence December 12, 2009 at 14:12

I find this all so rather amusing.

Go to radical feminist website and I’ll probably be banned, though I did manage to post to an ALAS thread once without being banned.
On the website plastic.com (where I have been for a few years ) I am known for being one of 3 or 4 resident “misognyists”.
I’ve been a member in good standing of the forum from the old NiceGuy website for at least five years.
I post on Roissy’s and LadyRaine’s from time to time.
I’ve posted that on Mikee’s website that while I don’t like his thoughts, I did think he got screwed over . I’ve posted on Arparguses board my partial agreement with some of his thoughts. Many people in the men’s rights movement won’t give either of these characters the time of day. I see the humanity behind the extremism.
And I’m a member of both StandYourGround and feminist critics.
Because I realize that to get to our present messed up gendered state required years of “marching thru institutions” and money and money and support from both chivalrous idiots and feminist leaning mangina’s – and I realize that undoing this , if it were possible without a collapse will take literally a few decades – I refuse to hold children and real young women responsible. They had nothing to do with setting up what we call “the matrix” after all, and most o f them don’t realize how much they benefit from it for the first few years of their maturity.

And because of that I’m apparently a White Knight Extraordinaire.

Bows,

Sir Clarence of White Knighthood

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
arthur December 12, 2009 at 14:17

@Keating
and you are a seriously brainwashed mangina, brah. I was relaying my experiences, nothing more. It was not bragging. And, in typical brainwashed fashion, you focused on me instead of the women. At least Renee got it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 12, 2009 at 14:28

@Clarence

Young women are foot soldiers that are endoctrinated with Feminism since birth for their Feminist mothers. Duh.

Can’t believe that something so simple is out of your comprenhension. Guess the helmet is really tight, White Knight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
zed December 12, 2009 at 14:29

” I could equally say that anyone over the age of 50 should step aside. Your time has passed, and you are part of a generation that has already failed spectacularly to do anything to halt these issues, so the best thing you can do is shut up and die so we can fix the shit you fucked up in peace.”

Gladly! I kept telling myself that 30 years in the Army of Occupation left behind by the Sexual Revolution was enough for any man to have to put in. After about 30 years of cycling in and out of the dating nightmare, I just totally quit once and for all even trying to get along with American women about 15 years ago. I kept up trying to wake dumb-fuck men up to what was happening to them for about 5 more years, and finally did the same thing with the MRM that I did with the dating world – quit for a while, then the reasons why I quit would fade a bit in my memory and I would jump back into the fray, and in short order I would be reminded why I quit.

If younger guys aren’t interested in hearing our take on why what we tried did not work, that is fine with me. As the old saying goes – “hire the young, while they still know everything.” In 20 more years you guys will be in the shoes we are in now, and younger men will be chewing your asses for not fixing things.

Thus is the way of the generations. It feels great to be out of the game for good.

clarence December 12, 2009 at 14:33

LOL!

Ok GX, I’ll be sure to put it on when the first baby passes extensions to “sexual predator” laws :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
clarence December 12, 2009 at 14:35

zed:

I would hope you would remain around here. Contrary the desires of a few, we do need the wisdom you’ve built up- not to mention many of your posts are so damn interesting! Still there is a point: you’ve put in your time, don’t do more than you feel like. No one will blame you if or when you decide to retire for good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 14:41

@Clarence
“They had nothing to do with setting up what we call “the matrix” after all, and most o f them don’t realize how much they benefit from it for the first few years of their maturity.”
From about the age of 11 or 12 (perhaps as early as 9 now. Unlike you, I’ve had a great deal of experience not only watching this but attempting to stop it. Perhaps some other single dads who have had the experience can weigh in. But I have read a number of your posts, and I am writing from years of observation and direct experience. Now I am not so blind that I don’t see the societal paradigms at work here. I lived through the change and watched it as it happened, but at it’s greatest turning point (and I think I can speak for other ‘old guys’ here) we didn’t know what hit us. You rush to support ‘children’ and young women, and yet you haven’t a clue–you haven’t observed what I and many others have including Globalman. So I’m calling it like I see it. I call my own brother a mangina and white knight because he will rush to defend women under almost any circumstance–but has no problem unknowingly grabbing his niece’s tit. It’s hypocritical at the least, and while I can’t speak for other men, I flat out don’t trust any man who rushes to women’s defense–perhaps it’s a matter of integrity. I will reply courteously to women who have valid questions, and have stated that Hestia has made some excellent points. So has the female masculinist. I have had more than enough of the bullshit, however, and this small group of women are not going to fix the problem. Men are, by refusing to participate. As long as you are jumping to their defense every damn time you get a chance, you are part of the problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
arthur December 12, 2009 at 14:41

@Renee,
For what it’s worth, let the record reflect that you are not the person who derailed this thread, that honor goes to Keating. It’s amazing how stupid people can be. Or at least frustrated cops.

What you are witnessing is why I am a firm believer that the will never be an organized men’s movement. Guys are too busy looking for any reason to jump on other guys. I relay my experiences and Keating immediately focused on me, instead of the women. In typical brainwashed fashion he ignored the timeline and the women. That makes him no better than clarence. He focused on where I have been, rather than where I am going. If relaying my experiences is so offensive to some people that they can’t get past the timeline, then Lady Raine is right.

Maybe we are a bunch of fucking whiners.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 12, 2009 at 14:50

Zed,

Don’t cherry pick what I said and skip the second paragraph. My point, which stands, is that factionalism or appeals to arbitrary authority are just plain silly. Though if you want to bow out, feel free. Weirdly, this is the tactic I have seen being the most effective myself; men who simply refuse to play are hugely threatening to modern feminist women. After all, who can they pass the consequences of their behavior to if men won’t even deal with them, or at best pump and dump.

Among younger men, the growing lack of desire to commit and failure to regard women as anything other than adversarial sex partners is already coming home to roost for women. There are many in my age range who are unhappily unmarried, and fewer men by the year who want to marry.

But that aside, my point is that if we are going to dismiss people, we should do it for intellectually honest reasons, not promote pointless division.

And Renee, I didn’t read what you wrote and won’t in the future. I would advise others to do the same. Enjoy your echo chamber, alone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
clarence December 12, 2009 at 14:53

JFC, Arthur:

If it hasn’t hit you yet, 9, 10, 12 years old – not only do they not have political power, in some cases they can’t even do abstract thinking yet b/c their brains haven’t even developed and you want to hold them responsible? They are still being molded by society, their peers, and the adults in their lives.

I almost never defend women perse as women, but I will defend them if they have a good point. And one thing I will not do is borgify. Otherwise, I’m no better than the feminists who can’t figure out a definition of masculinity that doesn’t include violence or their favorite boogeyman patriarchy. Blaming children and young teens for your misery is counter productive, misguided , and makes me question many of your other judgements.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
arthur December 12, 2009 at 15:08

Clarence,
that helmet is tight dude!! Who said I was blaming teens?
What part of “I am not going to do anything to fix this mess” are you struggling with? How is that “blaming?” How is that “misery?”

Are you retarded?

Are you related to My Name is Kelly?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 12, 2009 at 15:18

@clarence&Reinholt –

It was rhetorical. I find that irony and humor are workable ways to defuse some of the inevitable conflicts which arise between men when trying to deal with these issues.

Let me take something arthur has said, and try to expand on what it means for this context –

What you are witnessing is why I am a firm believer that the will never be an organized men’s movement. Guys are too busy looking for any reason to jump on other guys.

What we men seem to be better at than just about anything else is getting on each other’s nerves and chapping each other’s asses. Our own competitive natures and instinctive reactions to challenges make it unbelievably easy to get our fuses lit and slip into confrontation/combat mode. More than anything else, this is what has kept the MRM stalled for the past 4 decades.

In fact, I have quit the fray. I’ve aged out of the mating years and thus no longer have any stake in the outcome. For years I was driven to fight by the sense that I was fighting for and defending my own “home” – meaning my chance to find someone to spend my life with. Now, I’ve reached the point where I have rounded the final bend and am in the home stretch – all I have to do from now until retirement is keep a woman from getting herself into position that she can destroy my life. That will be easy because my experiences with women over the years have conditioned me to believe that most interactions with women will turn out to be unpleasant – some of them excruciatingly so – and thus are something to be avoided.

However, I would rather see some outcomes than others. I would like to see men and women work things out and come up with some sort of “new deal” that works for both sexes. I think that the SoCons will have to die off before this can happen, however, because I think most of them are so caught up in the Cult of Moral Womanhood that they will never be able to see that the scales need to be rebalanced.

The nice thing about being a “consultant” is that I get “paid” no matter how things turn out. There is a place for firebrands like arthur and Globalman who will say what more tactful men don’t want to say, but they do abrade a lot of people and get tempers flaring and verbal fistfights started and before men know what happened a group with a bit of cohesion has blown itself apart with heated emotions and flame wars.

I suggest that people practice the “hypothalamic pause” and be aware when their goat has just been got and walk away from the keyboard and not respond until they have cooled off a bit. Conversations here tend to be between a couple of people, but things get said which come across as broadsides toward an entire group of people – most of whom are not party to the conflict.

fedrz December 12, 2009 at 15:24

Lol! Zed.

My father used to say to me, with some authority in his voice and a dangerous look in his eye, “When I was young, my father knew everything. Now that I am old, my son knows everything. Apparently, somewhere along the way, I missed my turn!

Hmmm… I don’t know if it was the words or the dangerous look, but it always shut me up pretty fast. Hoy yoy yoy! That poor man to have a hard headed stubborn son like me. It must be in my Dutch blood. You know what they say: Wooden Shoes, Wooden Head, Wouldn’t Listen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 12, 2009 at 15:29

I’m not blaming female teens and under, moron. If anything, they are one of the victims of the Feminist assault, one of its triumphs is that there’s almost no virgins of 16 years old or more, make that none in the cities. And being raised by single moms helps so much.

But when people get in the legal adult age, whatever that be, they have the responsability of being held accountable for their actions, and all the college girls that become sluts that cry hate and hate all males that commit the sin of not making their gina tingle are foot soldiers of Feminism. All the White Knighting of the world isn’t going to change that.

In fact, White Knighting isn’t going to change anything. Period.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keating December 12, 2009 at 15:35

@ Renee

I’ll answer your second question first: I don’t know. I can give you my thoughts, however.

As I mentioned before, a woman’s ultimate ideal is 1) to become married and 2) to have children.

But this isn’t the standard by which men are judged. Men are not judged by marriage or children but are instead judged by their work and identity.

For a MAN who is not married or has children, my limited experience tells me that they’re certainly not being ‘shamed’ for this result (whether by choice or circumstance). For the most part, a man’s value increases as he ages (as opposed to a woman’s value which peaks in her 20′s). Yes, I’m sure some women question his sexuality, but so far as I’ve seen, the women who do this are the very women who are not married and are venting their own frustrations with themselves because the proverbial train has left the station for them. (Note: the guy who wrote MirrorOftheSoul.blogspot.com is one example that comes to mind: he’s got plenty of stories on there about this situation as a self-chosen bachelor). In the mean time, 20-something women are probably competing for him. The only other group that would likely shame him for not getting married or having children are the religious groups who think marriage and procreation is a demand made by supernatural space ghost authority.

All of this, of course, all depends on the man. If he’s focused on his purpose (whatever it may be), focused on his career and making more money for himself, and acting consistent with his values, his sexual currency (as a friend once put it) grows exponentially over time. If the guy is still working hourly jobs, spending his nights drinking with friends, wasting time on the internet or playing video games….he’s probably going to be viewed as a skeezy irresponsible guy who never grew up (a view I don’t necessarily disagree with). I’m not here to say that spending one’s time wasting away in front of a tv or computer screen is wrong. I’m not saying that one cannot spend every night drinking while maintaining a subsistent living. But even men who choose bachelorhood and have made something out of themselves are going to look down on that type of lowly guy.

I’m just riffing here, so your views and experience may vary.

As for your first comment as to why men do not support women in the workforce so as to enable them to become financially independent:

1) This comes at a cost. As mentioned in this thread (or maybe another one) there is great cost involved in having women in the workplace. Children, possibility of lawsuits (legit or otherwise), distracting other men. I know some women who are stellar co-workers. I know others who are a complete waste.

2) From a perspective of allocating resources: women who are working jobs and only supporting themselves are depriving men with families from supporting thier wives and children. With men being significantly harmed by this recession, it would not surprise me that some men see their jobless friends struggling and think ‘he needs this job more than they do’.

3) Answer honestly: do you think women who become financially independent want to stay single? Although I cannot say for sure, I don’t think that money usurps the prime directive of marriage and motherhood. This is a generalization of course.

As for seeing men as tools – it depends on the nature of the work I suppose. I know some women who are cutthroat and who openly seek to gain advantage in the workplace. Men are tools. As are other women. I know others who are passive and content with where they are and treat everyone as team members.

Though there is some merit to what Schopenhauer said, I don’t think it relates to all women, or even most women.

4) I think men do have some insecurity about a woman besting them at their work. I know this skirts the line of feminist propaganda, but I can’t say it doesn’t ever happen. I think this is more likely to be true among the younger men, who have to fight against a school system that is structured against them. I don’t think the stigma of having a girl beat a guy at something will ever change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Keating December 12, 2009 at 15:38

@ GX

white knighting HAS changed things. And for the worse.

Also, regarding single motherhood: it’s probably the biggest threat to this country imo. boys growing up without fathers become criminals and abusers. girls who grow up without fathers become damaged goods. It adds stress to our welfare scheme, and creates life-long liberals who by their nature pose a huge threat to the middle-class of this country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
fedrz December 12, 2009 at 15:43

Lady Raine,

Since you have been so kind with your sharing, I would also like to share something with you:

Fedrz’ Baloney Sandwich Recipe

Ingredients:
- 2 Slices of white bread
- Butter
- 1 Slice of Baloney
- Mustard

Directions:
- Lightly butter one side of each slice of bread.
- Place baloney slice on top of one slice of bread (butter side up).
- Liberally apply mustard to top of baloney slice.
- Take second slice and place on top of baloney (butter side down).
- Put on your best, lacy, merry widow. Grab the baloney sandwich, plus a beer from the fridge, and politely seek out Mr. Fedrz’ presence. In a humble voice, call out to him, “Sir, even though I am unworthy, I bring you this baloney sandwich and beer offering, in the hopes that you will tolerate my silent presence until one day, I am one-tenth as wise as thee.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
zed December 12, 2009 at 15:45

I’m not blaming female teens and under, moron.

Word bombs may feel good to toss at someone when we are really frustrated and feeling very pissed off at them, but they seldom accomplish anything toward actually getting our message heard and understood.

This is just a suggestion, but leaving name-calling and personal attacks to people like LR who really don’t care if people listen to what she has to say – and in fact prefer it if they don’t – will probably aid and abet getting your message across rather than hindering it. ;)

whiskey December 12, 2009 at 15:54

What feminism boils down to is women pursuing the Alpha male without any constraints. Look at Lady Raine, and who she chose to have a kid with — the most hyper-aggressive, low-impulse control guy around.

Now, lacking money/status/power, her son is up the creek. He won’t have inherited wealth to play Big Man and be successful with women. Unless he is supremely athletically gifted (the next Joe Montana/Tom Brady), musically gifted (next Slash or Bono), or a hyper-dedicated, steroid-using body-builder (next Arnold Schwarzenegger) he will be a LOSER WITH WOMEN. Just like the LOSER Beta Males that Lady Raine has contempt for. Who she has cleaning her house and cooking her meals while she bangs the tattooed biker guy.

So, let’s assume that LR’s son follows her advice, and becomes a TOTAL LOSER with women, lacking genetic lottery tickets PLUS god-given discipline to become a famous superstar in sports, music, or body-building. He will be totally AVERAGE. In fact, a celibate loser who would “never know the touch of a woman” lost in WoW or whatever video game, porn, and perhaps cheap prostitutes.

His only way out, is to BECOME HIS FATHER. Hyper-aggressive. Violent. Poor impulse control. Substance abusing. We know this is a very good strategy for getting women — Lady Raine used it to make the most important choice a woman can make: the father of her child.

LR is willing to lie to her son, repeatedly, and make him a bitter, abject failure with women (like the losers she laughs at and exploits while banging bikers who are likely to molest/abuse her son), and that is because she would rather make her son a failure with women and thus a failure in what matters most to men in life, than confront her own self-delusions. Her lying to herself is more important than her son’s success.

Here you see feminism writ large and small, all at once.

This is why I favor LR posting, her life is so instructive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
clarence December 12, 2009 at 16:01

Arthur:

If you want me to assume you aren’t blaming teens and pre teens for this mess perhaps you should leave them out of the conversation and stop beatingyour chest about how hard you have it as a single father. All I’ve ever said, and I stick by it is that I don’t hold anyone 22 and younger responsible for this mess and needless to say that includes children and teens.

None of that should be particularily controversial. Hell, I probably should have gotten on your case on behalf of the few MRA women over the past two or three decades as well.

You want to ghost go straight ahead and do it. No skin off my bones or back. You are under no obligation to try and fix anything. But if you are going to go out spitting on someone 20 years old because you’ve had a miserable existence mostly based on what women and men 30 plus have done , don’t think you’ll get much respect from me. It sounds too much like blaming people for being born female and I’ll never respect that.

Far as it goes I’ve had experience with false accusations (one of which cost me a job) and female violence. I don’t need to show my MRA credentials to anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 12, 2009 at 16:05

I proposed that question coming from the irresponsible and ignorant perpsective of my own particular head space back on that thread. The reason it was irresponsible was due to it being out of complete emotional exasperation on my part regarding the war of the sexes. I was tired of hearing it from guys and girls and I wanted solutions, period. Once I began to read the stories, the vents, and the attacks I pulled back and had to adjust to a wider, more profound looking glass. I hadn’t counted on coming under personal attack, I fired back. And so it goes, and all is ok.

One huge difficulty with lancing a huge, festering, immensely painful boil is that there is no way to start that isn’t going to hurt. The first few moments are going to be unpleasant no matter what you do, but getting through them is essential if people ever want to get to the next step.

The fact that you are extremely frustrated with the current situation is good news for everyone. It is not possible to address a problem until some people, at least, are willing to admit that it is a problem.

And the biggest part of the problem is that there simply are no simple solutions – the issues are much too large, and complex, and of unbelievable significance to the people involved to be able to “fix” with a couple of emotional aspirin. I don’t think it was “irresponsible” of you at all – a bit naive, perhaps, but at least it provided the opening to address the magnitude of the problem, and dispense with the idea that there are or can be simple solutions.

newly divorced December 12, 2009 at 16:18

I’m only in my mid 30′s but I’ve had the typical experience with American women. Not interested in me except as a sex toy when I was poor (early 20′s), false sexual harrasssment claims by female work rivals (late 20′s), many many goldiggers (I’m am successful) tried to ruin my life (25-30), finally got married and my wonderful ex made my life a living hell.

Now I don’t want anything to do with them. The only women I would ever date are non-US women and I will never get married again.

Don’t ever get married. It’s almost a sure ticket to ruining your life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
adan flores December 12, 2009 at 16:22

Anyone else here ever read Mencken’s ”In Defense of Women”? Guaranteed to put the kibosh on 99% of the discussion here; certain to abuse and amuse in equal measure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 12, 2009 at 16:34

@zed
Fine.

@Keating

You know what, you are right. I was thinking about classic chivalry, a concept that has always existed, and although I consider it dead, it wasn’t a bad thing until Feminism. The modern White Knighting, which is completely supporting women no matter what they do in the hope that they will allow to have what they give to the Bad Guys for free, did changed things for the worst.

Another triumph of Feminism: It made males that women desire even more rare, at not allowing most males to learn what women truly want: Social Dominance. Everything else is secondary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z December 12, 2009 at 16:43

“Women have no sympathy . . . And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so.
“- Florence Nightingale

I guess if anybody would know, it would be Florence Nightengale.

Actually, all kidding aside, Nightengale is describing pathological narcissim to a “t”. Narcissists have little ability to emphathize with the suffering of others.

Lady Rain,
You dissapoint me. Surely you see that if a woman leaves a man in marriage for someone else, he should not have to pay her money out the wazoo. Thats what most of these men are so ticked off about. They can behave perfectly fine in a marriage, and at her whim, be up the creek financially because she “met” someone. Thats not fair, and you know it. If a guy cheats his wife and leaves her, he deserves to pay……………………but if he is blameless, he shouldn’t owe her a cent. Thats why men are bitter and piqued. You know this, but dont want to admit it. You picked a guy who was such a bum he probably -cant- pay child support. Thats your fault LR, and nobody elses. What you did was the male equivalent of falling in love with a drug-addled stripper or even prostitute, and being pissed off at all women for what the stripper or streetwalker eventually did. LR, there are many decent average guys who would have fallen in love with you and tried their best to make you happy, but you wanted a dominant male who displayed risk (his alcoholism and violence). Disregarding these warning signs, you made your bed with him by having his child, and are reaping the logical outcome of that. Dont blame the nice guys for that outcome—-blame your ex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Caliph December 12, 2009 at 16:55

Lady Raine you are an idiot.

If all you’ve managed to glean from discussions on this site is that men seek ‘derelitiction’ of duty you’re a fool.

Nobody here is against womens freedom, what folks are unhappy about is how women are utilising said freedom. I know, its a paradox that your single celled brain cannot comprehend, the fact with great amounts of freedom comes great responsibilty which actually limits the use of said freedom.

Does it make sense , that YOU can choose your own husband and who will be your baby daddy yet, you fail miserably in keeping him around? Thus burdening the social coffers with yoru single mother pesnions and welfare, get your arse off here and go look after your son before the kid robs me in a few decades because he was unfortunate enough to have a whore of a mother who couldnt keep a man around due to her bad behaviour or poor judgement in choosing to breed with the wrong type of man.

Folks here arent whinging about forcing idiots like you into the kitchen, they’re whinging about how idiots like you can now choose your husband and yet have no desire to keep him around and fleece him in divource court thorugh not fault of his own because you simply got bored.

I mean you’re an excellent example aren’t ya? you choose your baby daddy but cant seem to keep him around, you bloody foul BEAST.

DO US ALL A FAVOUR AND STOP BURDENING HUMANITY WITH YOUR CORRUPTED DNA, STOP BREEDING THIS INSTANT !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
dontfeedthetroll December 12, 2009 at 17:02

There was definitely a shift in the mid-80s. Even though I was a child, I remember it myself. Maybe it was when radical feminist ideas from the 60s/70s started to be embraced by some critical mass of women.

The Oprah Winfrey Show started in 1986

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 17:07

@Newly Divorced
Interesting, I read thr0ugh the first paragraph, and except for not learning as fast as you (different eras perhaps–but many similarities spread across years). Your second paragraph sums it up for me perfectly about what more men can do about this–get out of this stupid feminist culture. Going from the anglosphere to many other places is like traveling to another world (and I’m not just referring to women). The entire nanny state vanishes. Great post!
While I agree with you as per the marriage, there are some guys who want to do this for personal reasons. GTFO is the only way to do this, unless you want to play odds like the lottery. At 30, you’re doing waay better than I was. I still believed that “they’re not all like that”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eman December 12, 2009 at 17:38

Married to a wimp – http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/12/married-to-a-wimp/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eman December 12, 2009 at 17:39

adan:”Anyone else here ever read Mencken’s ”In Defense of Women”?

Yes, I have. It’s a good book – an online version @ http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/defense/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reality2010 December 12, 2009 at 17:44

I am teaching my son that if you want to be treated well, with respect, and fairly you must work hard to EARN it.

LR, have you also taught your son the most important life facts of all that he as a male needs to know? That rules, laws, accountability, morals, and ethics only apply to men? And that women can molest children, commit massive fraud against him, make false accusations of rape and domestic violence against him and go scott free? That in fact, they don’t just go scott free, that those are their very operating systems? That right and wrong do not apply to girls and women, only to men and boys?

Have you taught your son he can live right, be a good person and work hard but then put in prison by nothing more than a pointed finger of a female with no proof? Or to have all the fruits of his hard work and playing by the rules and laws stripped away from him by any woman at any time with the help of the legal system?

If not, that is negligence and you are a shitty mother.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Reality2010 December 12, 2009 at 18:01

Women who stay home and raise kids are golddigging vampires who are going to rape you for your money.

Women who go to work are ballbusting, selfish Feminists who want to rape you for your money.

Women who stay virgins until marriage are just “tricking you” into marriage…..

Women who don’t want to get married are sluts……

Women who are single mothers are all hardcore Feminazi’s who collect Welfare and want to wipe men off earth

Women who DON’T have kids are angry “man-hating” lesbians who wish to eradicate the “family” as we know it…..

So basically, you hate ALL women no matter what their REAL intentions are, what their situation, their education, their religion, their morals, or even race/culture….. you see nothing but blind hate and a way to blame every creature that happened to be born with a uterus for your many failures as men.

LR, we all know what women’s real intentions are regardless of their shape, size, color or smell (think turds.. turds are turds regardless of their variety) from dealing with American women and observing them all of our lives and so do you. You act like you’ve never met an actual U.S. female- you’re either a slobbering idiot or playing stupid.

And these intentions and the behavior of AW are facts that still would be facts whether we were reporting them or not. As far as our ‘hatred’ of them – that is nothing but a small side note – a tiny tool shed in someone’s backyard during hurricane Katrina.

Take the subject of ‘American Women’ and replace it with the subject of our current economy and listen to how utterly, pathetically, and bizarrely mentally handicapped you sound.

“The economy is in the toilet- something needs to be done about it!”

“You’re blaming the economy for the failure of your business… you just hate the economy.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 12, 2009 at 18:13

@Reality 2010
“That rules, laws, accountability, morals, and ethics only apply to men? And that women can molest children, commit massive fraud against him, make false accusations of rape and domestic violence against him and go scott free? That in fact, they don’t just go scott free, that those are their very operating systems? That right and wrong do not apply to girls and women, only to men and boys?

Have you taught your son he can live right, be a good person and work hard but then put in prison by nothing more than a pointed finger of a female with no proof? Or to have all the fruits of his hard work and playing by the rules and laws stripped away from him by any woman at any time with the help of the legal system?”
Damn, that’s true. If anyone wants to dispute that, I’m sure that any number of us can point to numerous well-documented cases. There are plenty of them at the ‘Toy Soldier’ site, and more at the ‘Female Mysogynist’ site.
Also, refer to “A note on commenting”, LR.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Renee December 12, 2009 at 20:53

Keating,

As I mentioned before, a woman’s ultimate ideal is 1) to become married and 2) to have children.

But this isn’t the standard by which men are judged. Men are not judged by marriage or children but are instead judged by their work and identity.

Perhaps if women were also judged by their identity and more was expected of them, then there wouldn’t be as many problems or it wouldn’t be as bad as it is today.

1) This comes at a cost. As mentioned in this thread (or maybe another one) there is great cost involved in having women in the workplace…..

2) From a perspective of allocating resources: women who are working jobs and only supporting themselves are depriving men with families from supporting thier wives and children……

So what would you have women do? Stay and continue to live with their parents until they are married off – to be dependent on them until they find a husband? Not all women want to be married and have kids, so how would this work. And isn’t women being dependent on her parents and future spouses a common complaint and criticism about them?

3) Answer honestly: do you think women who become financially independent want to stay single? Although I cannot say for sure, I don’t think that money usurps the prime directive of marriage and motherhood. This is a generalization of course.

No, I don’t think so. Of course there are those who do want to stay single, but I think their the minority.

4) I think men do have some insecurity about a woman besting them at their work. I know this skirts the line of feminist propaganda, but I can’t say it doesn’t ever happen. I think this is more likely to be true among the younger men, who have to fight against a school system that is structured against them. I don’t think the stigma of having a girl beat a guy at something will ever change.

I think this also has to do with this age-old idea of being beaten by a woman as being emasculating. Why, I can’t say for sure.

Anyway this reminds me of this post on here called “There’s No Honor in Competition with Women” or something like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
21Guns December 12, 2009 at 21:03

There was definitely a shift in the mid-80s.

My pet theory is that when the ERA was shot down in the early 80′s, feminists went into stealth mode. They stopped pushing for political change and instead launched a culture war, which resulted in the Pyrrhic victory that we’re all paying for today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reality2010 December 12, 2009 at 21:34

So what would you have women do? Stay and continue to live with their parents until they are married off – to be dependent on them until they find a husband? Not all women want to be married and have kids, so how would this work. And isn’t women being dependent on her parents and future spouses a common complaint and criticism about them?

Society worked just fine before the stupid social re-engineering of Feminism. Society is going to go back to they way it was before once the government & American economy completely collapses- I can’t wait myself.

I think this also has to do with this age-old idea of being beaten by a woman as being emasculating. Why, I can’t say for sure

.

It’s sad how women are so clueless about the facts. Men are not intimidated by women ever in this sense of being ‘beaten’ by them.. because women never come by anything honestly- it’s always some kind of artificial hiring program or manipulation of the system that is borderline illegal or out and out FRAUD. We know this because we work with these hideous monsters everyday.

And of course no man wants a ‘co-husband’ – we want an actual female – not some stupid chick trying to pretend she’s half man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman December 12, 2009 at 22:12

Gentlemen,

All is not lost. I am now seeing more and more women coming out to condemn the disaster that feminism has created, doing the work that slimy socialcons and spineless Betas won’t do :

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-are-tigers-women-getting-a-pass/

This woman is asking why Tiger’s mistresses are getting a pass, rather than being called ‘home-wreckers’ like they might have in the past.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
gwallan December 12, 2009 at 22:50

Rebel asked…

Why don’t men hate women?

Men have an understanding that the future must be catered to. They plan for the future.

Women have no temporal consciousness. They live IN the moment. Consider how few of them are genuinely able to see the potential consequences of their actions and how few of them can give a true account of the past.

More and more I believe men are learning to tolerate women rather than love them.

Meanwhile women WILL continue the hatefest and the whining. It’s what they do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Keating December 12, 2009 at 23:46

@ Renee

Just some responding thoughts here.
1. Perhaps you’re right: increasing our expectations and demands on women maybe have that very desired effect. Not something that’ll happen overnight, but something I’m willing to entertain more fully. An adequate analogy might be the children of very wealthy parents: the children are infantilized and no expectations of maturity are placed on them.

2 things come to mind here to engender an upwards push towards a more mature womanhood: 1) eliminate the white-knighting that enables women to get ahead solely on looks and on being ‘cutesy’ and basically get away with anti-social behavior; and 2) increase our expectations of women as equal mature partners in our Republic, meaning we eliminate the laws that give them advantages, make them enter selective service, stop coddling them in our legal system, and perhaps do something about shifting the shame of not getting married or having children to disdain for girls who never grow up as mature adults.

I don’t think it would be possible to dissociated the duality of wife/motherhood from women: but I think the push to get men AND women to have higher expectations of maturity and competency on young girls would have an overall positive effect.

2. As for the workplace, I was only giving my thoughts on what men likely think. For me, I need to think more fully about this matter. It’s a very complex issue not likely to be resolve here or anywhere in the near future. Personally, I would have women do as they want: If they can create value and wealth, I say, let them. But I know of great abuse on businesses burdened by women who try to take advantage of maternity leave. (there was a recent article about a woman in georgia who tried to do this when she entered the military. Several more come to mind that I saw on Angry Harry’s site over the last year). Whatever the small puzzle pieces may be, I think the big picture is to return to the proprietor the right to employ whoever he or she wants and to provide whatever benefits he or she wants to bestow. If they want to grant women maternity leave, let them: but I would not force it. If they wanted an all-woman or an all-male workplace, let them.

From the perspective of allocating resources which would you choose: employing a single woman or a man who has to put food on the table for his children. This may or may not be a loaded question.

3) I agree with you, even those who become independently wealthy still seek a partner and most likely have a desire to procreate. I just don’t see it being any other way.

4. Why is being beaten by a woman at something a bit emasculating? I can think of several reasons. Men are natural competitors. The winner takes all. That’s where the whole “alpha” and “beta” idea came from. Losers get nothing and die off. Being beaten by another man is emasculating enough. But being beaten by that which men compete for is a whole higher plane of shame. It feeds on the inadequacy men feel as protectors and providers (in the eh, caveman-esque kind of way).

@ Reality2010

1. I can’t say I fully agree. Human resources were not applied to their potential. If women had not left the kitchens to enter the workforce, the industrialization of this country, the progression into the technological and space and computer ages would have been greatly hindered in my opinion. This isn’t about gender or feminism, but just a matter of allocating human labor into positions that were needed to be filled.

Now, from a perspective of the role of men, I’m not sure what men thought about their station as the sole provider for a family in decades past. Were they stressed to the max to ensure they would make ends meet? Or did they enjoy knowing that their wife and children existed but for his own work. My guess is that men (particularly middle class men) were able to start enjoying themselves outside of their careers once the re-allocation of labor and supplemental income started to come to the workplace and household. Retirement, a concept of very recent origin, was also probably made more available due to this as well. (Just riffing here again, but those are my initial thoughts.)

I’m open to differing interpretations, however.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/men-the-gender-wars-are-over-%E2%80%94-we-won/

(there is some truth to humor, no?)

That said however, society would have worked fine until feminism destroyed a mutual and positive working relationship between men and women. Meaning it was feminism that corrupted a good thing. Of course this was the whole point of feminism: to destroy families and relationships, and spread communism.

Also, you bring up the idea of co-husband.
Think about it for a second. How bad could it be? Have another dude living in the opposite wing of your house, not having to worry about frivolous expenditures, not worry about tip-toeing around the house. Always being able to invite girls over, always having a wing man. (the idea o Project Hollywood comes to mind, but not as ridiculously stupid).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 13, 2009 at 00:52

Zed:
Even with signs everywhere one looks, any attempt to draw attention to the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem will be met either with the same old denial and personal attacks, or the meaningless dodge “but NOT ALL women are like that.”

But it’s important to stress that not all women are like that, because far too often PUAs and MRAs make statements that begin with the words “all women.” As in, all women are stupid whores only fit to serve as cum receptacles, and so on. Often this is justified using some kind of ridiculous biological determinism. Eventually these ideas become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Lady Raine:
Some of us stopped caring about your plight long ago. Like back when you happily treated women like shit since the beginning of time.

One of the staples of the feminist mythos is that men have collectively oppressed women while leading lives of leisure and priviledge, as if some poor male peasant was high-fiving and having a drink the king after they were done oppressing women for the day.

Feminists do not have a realistic or factual idea of how men and women have actually been treated throughout history, particularly in the West. The brutally oppressed Englishwoman Isabella Bird was free to travel the world in the late 19th century, and she observed during her travels in the Joseon Dynasty of Korea that its women were basically prisoners in their own homes and subjected to strict gender segregation.

As far as I’m concerned, a lovely lady named Karma rode in and delivered you the fruits of your harvest. You know what they say… you reap what you sow and you as men sowed the “tyrant” seed long ago. The only difference is that you didn’t plan to be on the receiving end at any point in time.

So not only must we accept inherited and collective guilt, but we must also perpetuate an infinite cycle of oppression and warfare alternating between different extremes, instead of trying to work out a balanced and peaceful society. Preach it, sister.

Now that you are, you want sympathy? Now we’re supposed to be the “forgiving nurturers” and forget the entire history of the world? Nope. Sorry. That ship sailed long ago.

If people were able to forgive and forget after World War II and various atrocities, I’m pretty sure women should be able to get over their “oppression.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 13, 2009 at 00:54

gwallen
“Women have no temporal consciousness. They live IN the moment. Consider how few of them are genuinely able to see the potential consequences of their actions and how few of them can give a true account of the past.”
This is an observation that I’ve been attempting to make, but you nailed it. I have written that they create a selective memory of what is said and done that bears no resemblance to reality–and no amount of memory cues have an effect, even pointing out logical contradictions. I have no idea why this is. If anyone has references on studies done on this, I would be interested in reading them, because this is a constant I have noticed for years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
denizen December 13, 2009 at 02:36

heres what i think
feminism is the biggest lie and collective victimology and group manipulation by retarded women called feminists, a feminist stands for equality ???? what !! bullshit feminist claim equality while continously creating anti male laws , finding newer ways to financially exploit men , get their claws on ever more privileges on account of victim status ,perpetually mooching off men while promoting hate against men and indulging in male bashing .The very name feminism denotes advocacy for women, the term womens rights means rights for women ! it tickles me when a feminist says feminism means human rights , human rights only for women ??excluding half of the population, a whole gender : males
Feminists cannot survive without affirmative action they are too weak to compete and they cannot survive without being parasites on men,Feminists need men like a fish needs a bicycle right ??? well THERES MANY A FEMINIST FISH THAT HAS FOUND AND MARRIED HER BICYCLE !! .Feminists are the most hypocritical liars they say they want equality whereas what they want is a FREE MEAL and preferential treatment at the expense of men.feminism also has no qualms vioalting mens human rights and constitutional rights. Coming to our femtard cultures “independent woman myth”
FEMINISM IS AS INDEPENDENT AS A PARASITE , A VENEMOUS ONE AT THAT IT POISONS AND KILLS THE VERY HOST(MALES), IT FEEDS OFF AND SURVIVES .
feminists say a feminist needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle whereas the reality is FEMINISTS NEED MEN LIKE A FISH NEEDS WATER,FEMINISTS NEEDS MEN LIKE A PARASITE NEEDS ITS HOSTS TO SURVIVE, without men feminists and feminism just cannot survive ,if they did survive they would just end up being trafficked by criminals or gang raped by bunches of lawless gangs.it is only courtesy of man and the protection males provide that feminists are alive and only because of men that they have tampons between their hairy legs that prevents them from crawling around secreting menstrual blood all over !
FEMINISM IS TRULY A BITCH THAT BITES THE VERY HAND THAT FEEDSIT , AND ITS A RABID BITCH THAT MUST BE PUT DOWN!
just suceeding in having a male awareness movt or a male consciousness movt will ensure that FEMINISM IS TURNED INTO ROADKILL .
I see no hope for the feminists once men start identifying themselves as a gender ,the male gender seeing themselves as a separate political group just like the feminist have their gender based feminist organisations, only then we will be on an equal footing and be well organised to fight back in the gender politics arena, presently it is only feminists who are organised on gender lines whereas men are not .GENDER POLITICS PRESENTLY IS A SINGLE PARTY FEMINIST SYTEM A FEMINIST DICTATORSHIP, this needs to be BALANCED out by ensuring THAT THE MALE GENDER TOO HAS ITS POLITICAL REPRESENTION & ADVOCATES TO PROTECT ITS OWN INTERESTS IN THE ARENA OF GENDER POLITICS. Infact most men are not even aware of such an identity they believe lies like “feminism is for everyone and rights for everyone” this is one of the reasons feminists are vehemently opposed to any pro male groups forming , cause they know that once men start identifying themselves as a group opposed to feminism and start questioning feminists, things will go downhill for the feminists very soon , there is strength in unity what a man might not speak out alone, he might very well speak out in a group !
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ORGANISED RESISTANCE BY THE MALE GENDER AS A GROUP , men themselves gave women the right to vote !
It is time males got together AS A GENDER and eliminated the biggest enemy of mankind – feminism !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 13, 2009 at 03:15

Denizen
“Feminists need men like a fish needs a bicycle”
Even this was stolen from a man, while making a reference to religion. Yes, a perfect example of not being able to come up with one original thought. The same example can be found by looking around your surroundings at anything that functions with two or more working parts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
piercedhead December 13, 2009 at 03:44

Men have an understanding that the future must be catered to. They plan for the future.

Women have no temporal consciousness. They live IN the moment. Consider how few of them are genuinely able to see the potential consequences of their actions and how few of them can give a true account of the past.
-gwallan

This man gets a cigar.

Creatures that get through life by hunting out others to provide for them have no need for ‘future’ or ‘past’. Everything is present. Manipulate, nag, lie – whatever it takes – to get someone else to take care of you.

Accurate recounting of the past and the necessity of planning for the future falls only to those who must provide for themselves and others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith December 13, 2009 at 03:48

Women hate men. It’s a well known fact.

Women are narcissists. They don’t hate men so much as they don’t care about them. Other than the nuts in academia who really do hate men, women are too self-absorbed for their feelings towards men to rise to the level of hate. Men don’t register as important enough for such a large emotional investment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Paul December 13, 2009 at 04:43

Yes Bob Smith could I just concur with you. I wrote a comment a little time ago saying much the same thing as you. My experience is that to women men don’t really exist at all.I gave a few examples of this when I wrote before. I will give another one now. Women expect you to know exactly how they are feeling. In other words they view you as a sort of extension of themselves and not as a separate individual. They expect you to understand their ‘feelings’ even when these feelings are never expressed. So we are sort of a part of their internal chemistry like a turd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
arthur December 13, 2009 at 05:07

Clarence–
where did you get the idea that I was a single father? Are you even reading my posts, or are you just knee-jerking it? I have no kids and I have never been married. That’s why I stated that not too much devastation has rained down on my person. This was in my first post in this thread, you know, the one you apparently didn’t read.

And you continually try to paint me as blaming young women for today’s problems. You even went so far as to say that I brought them into the discussion. Go reread this thread. In my posts I state that women fucked it up and women can fix it. YOU brought young women into the discussion by saying that I was throwing them under the bus.

I have merely stated that I will neither fix nor participate in the current system as far as women/marriage/having children is concerned. And you have been all butt hurt ever since.

Don’t you have some shining armor to clean?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Reality2010 December 13, 2009 at 06:41

If women had not left the kitchens to enter the workforce, the industrialization of this country, the progression into the technological and space and computer ages would have been greatly hindered in my opinion. This isn’t about gender or feminism, but just a matter of allocating human labor into positions that were needed to be filled.

Whoops.. someone’s Feminist education is showing. I’ll go easy on you- you’re obviously young.

The U.S. saw the greatest economic growth & boom in all human history and all of it happened when women were still mostly housewives. The only jobs women had were teachers, daycare, secretaries, etc.

Today women are working alright, but the jobs they have are mostly middle management in the corporate world. I’m actually out here in it everyday and I have to deal with these she-beasts constantly (more like get around them- they’re nothing but unproductive obstacles). To women, the corporate white collar world is the only one that exists, so they certainly aren’t working in sewage maintenance or in a machine shop.

I have a unique birds eye perspective on all of this since it is my very job to pester massive corporations all the way down to small businesses to use my firm’s service. Rarely though do I run into an actual female in any position of real responsibility wherein if a certain monthly or quarterly expectation isn’t met she’s fired- no, they simply take positions with no responsibility that are dreamed up for them just to accommodate them. (Positions they don’t show up for half the week btw- come in late, leave early- never come in on Mon. or Fri. – take weeks off at a time and when they are there- they are ‘unavailable’ – probably waiting in line at Starbucks or buying decorations for the office – and you know what I say? Thank GOD they’re AWOL.. when they’re gone, they’re not causing trouble).

And they certainly are not at the table in corporations at the leading edge of engineering or software (except for the token Asian females) or anything that is going to push the company to success. Women are parasites and a burden in a place of business and worse are always trying to sabotage everyone else. They simply see the workplace as nothing more than another backdrop in a soap opera where they are the ‘star’ attraction of attention.

My point? If 95% of women left the workforce tomorrow the economy wouldn’t just be fine- it would bounce back into 100% health! One of the biggest reasons the economy and American business is sick and dying is because of women exploiting it into the ground .

Real estate and retail would be forced to lower prices as well because there would no longer be the ‘dual-income’ household . No one’s going to pay a quarter of a million dollars for a house if no one can afford it. Women created this sick economy by entering the workplace wherein now women HAVE to work as well to make ends meet in a marriage whether they want to or not- it’s all very stupid and twisted just like all the rest of Feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Sociopathic Revelation December 13, 2009 at 07:15

“Eventually these ideas become self-fulfilling prophecies.” —Null

Like so many that fulfill them? Women?

I don’t think you really understand that. It isn’t just MRAs and PUAs that come to those conclusions based on subjective experiences alone.

If so many Ameriskanks would stop that behavior and mindset, try to make an effort to stop treating the vast majority of men as drones for their short term use, and w0rk on themselves first before anything, we would not be questioning that as much and men wouldn’t be balking and reticent to engage anymore.

The “all women aren’t like that” is no reason to ignore the fact that legions certainly are just like that, and the long term repercussions in this culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
null December 13, 2009 at 07:26

“The “all women aren’t like that” is no reason to ignore the fact that legions certainly are just like that.”

Did I say or imply that it is? No, I don’t think I did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sociopathic Revelation December 13, 2009 at 07:40

From my vintage point, you did imply it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 13, 2009 at 07:47

Then you need your head examined.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sociopathic Revelation December 13, 2009 at 07:56

“Then you need your head examined”

Since you obviously forgot what you stated, I’ll repost it here:

“But it’s important to stress that not all women are like that, because far too often PUAs and MRAs make statements that begin with the words “all women.” As in, all women are stupid whores only fit to serve as cum receptacles, and so on. Often this is justified using some kind of ridiculous biological determinism. Eventually these ideas become self-fulfilling prophecies.”

What you are saying, in a nutshell, is that PUA and MRAs are making the mistake of viewing women as certain types, and believing and acting accordingly.

This notion is not inherently correct.

What you also missed is that men are acting in accordance to what women are CHOOSING to be; skanks, golddiggers, sluts, emotional absent, combative, bitchy, self-entitled, etc. Eventually, many have come to the conclusion that many women are “just like that” and has little to do with enacting a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Please take your own advice about “your head examined” as a lame retort.

Unless you’re willing to debate seriously, I’ll just scroll down and ignore your trolling just like Lady Raine. It’s useless garbage no one needs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 13, 2009 at 08:07

No, what I am saying is that PUAs and MRAs make absolute blanket statements where all women are XYZ. This is precisely what I said, and it is not possible to infer anything else unless you have have mental problems or reading comprehension issues. In your case it’s mental problems.

You have mental problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keating December 13, 2009 at 08:08

@ Reality

I did not draw upon my indoctrination: it’s clearly a matter of common sense. If a man spends half his day tied up with taking calls, writing small pointless documents, copying, etc…. he’s only producing value for half the day. You can call it exploitation all you want, but I’d willingly fork over a small chunk of change so that I never have to do mundane tasks that keep me from producing value and creating wealth.

But since I’m obviously wrong, do send me some literature that explains to me otherwise. I need some good ammo.

Oh, and if these women aren’t being canned for failing to meet deadlines, who the eff is NOT firing them??? This is my thing: we’re letting women walk all over us and we’re enabling their immaturity and irresponsibility. Tell me: have you spoken up about this to their employers? I wouldn’t care if it was a lazy ass guy or a lazy as gal.

There is no doubt in my mind that women working in an office 60 years ago were incredibly more productive and adept at their work than the women of today. The difference is feminism. Maybe it is because I’m able to distinguish a female from the feminist ideology that parts our views.

If 95% of women left the workforce tomorrow, our economy wouldn’t be returning to 100% health. This is wishful malice on your part: You’re essentially returning to men the burdens and bullshit of working time-consuming jobs. You’re tying men down with more menial tasks ..why? Because you hate women? The engine of wealth in this country would sputter! Your’re burdening the productive. You’re putting women back at home and back in the shopping world spending more money and racking up more debt. You’re depriving millions of households the benefit of a second income. (which for all your ranting, is still necessary; not because women have’entered the workforce’ but because the buying power of our dollar has been fvcked by the Federal Reserve). And you’re going to keep men at the office longer, more tedious hours.

I don’t disagree that women have a hand in our ailing economy. I think they’re accountable for the housing bubble (flipping house, pushing husbands to buy shit they cannot afford). The massive debt our consumers have created is mostly of their doing. I simply disagree to the extent you shift the blame.

Is this also me being indoctrinated? Because my vision of eliminating feminist bullshit doesn’t involve economic waste? Because my vision involves holding men accountable for white-knighting? Because my view is that women can actually become valued, productive, responsible, and competent members of society if the stain of feminism is lifted?

No response necessary, unless you’re sending those links my direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 13, 2009 at 08:42

No, what I am saying is that PUAs and MRAs make absolute blanket statements where all women are XYZ.

Could you point to some examples? I think that more often than not the “all” is supplied by the audience. Most of what I have seen is in the form “Women are…” or “Women do…” without the qualifier “some.” If you have some good examples – meaning not some obscure blog but something reasonably high profile – where the “all” is explicitly stated, I would like to see them.

null December 13, 2009 at 08:48

And here comes the all-too predictable “nuh uh, post examples because clearly this could never ever happen” evasion game. Negative blanket statements about women are made all over the PUA/MRA blogosphere and don’t even try to pretend otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed December 13, 2009 at 09:00

Unsubstantiated assertions only work with those people who already agree with you. If you are trying to make a point, and such examples are all “over the blogosphere”, then it should be very easy for you to come up with a few examples. If you can’t, then both your credibility and your argument are blown.

null December 13, 2009 at 09:20

You people are so fucking intellectually dishonest and cowardly. Can’t even stand behind your words or acknowledge what you’re doing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
wow December 13, 2009 at 09:23

Null: I hear the “blanket statement” canard a lot from feminists. MRA’s are not blanketing all women. They are explaining what they see and experience and are using generic terms such as “feminist” or “women”. It is up to the reader, one with at least half a brain, to deduce the inference…it’s really not that hard…when a woman says all men are pigs, I assume she is referring to many men she has experienced that treated her poorly, not all 3.1 billion men on Earth. When a fembot suggests men are immature, I deduce she means the irresponsible men in her wordly experiences….it’s really quite simple….that said, feminist use this tactic of NAWALT when they are devoid of argument.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 13, 2009 at 09:29

Null, not all of us are like that. Please don’t make blanket generalizations about us like that. Perhaps you ought be more honest and preface that charge like this: “Some of you people…”

Tsk, tsk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed December 13, 2009 at 09:35

You people are so fucking intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

Because we can provide examples of what we are talking about and you can’t? ;)

The personal attack tactic does not work any more – it is worn out, we have become immune to it. Time to come up with something new.

null December 13, 2009 at 09:36

If you say “all X are Y” then you mean it. If you don’t mean it then don’t fucking say it.

This corner of the blogosphere is filled with posts like “all women are sluts.” Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or in denial.

“Null, not all of us are like that. Please don’t make blanket generalizations about us like that. Perhaps you ought be more honest and preface that charge like this: “Some of you people…”
Tsk, tsk.”

Hur hur hur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 13, 2009 at 09:37

zed, that wasn’t a personal attack, that was a factual statement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed December 13, 2009 at 09:38

This corner of the blogosphere is filled with posts like “all women are sluts.” Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or in denial.

Anyone who claims it is true without being able to provide a few examples is relying on hot air rather than evidence. Following that up with personal attacks makes it appear that the person knows what they are claiming is bogus and is hoping that bluster and hysteria will divert people’s attention from noticing.

wow December 13, 2009 at 09:52

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Catherine MacKinnon

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French Author, “The Women’s Room” (quoted again in People Magazine) “All men are rapists and that’s all they are …” –Feminist Marilyn French, People Magazine (Percent of reported rape or near-rape incidents = .07% [The FBI's Uniform Crime Report lists for the year 1996])

“[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR” [emphasis added] — Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin

“Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,” Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

“One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

“In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.”–Gloria Steinem

hahahahaha

Imagine!

null=owned

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Icaros December 13, 2009 at 09:52

This “all women are” or “all men MRAs” discussion seems pretty pointless.

The debate in this thread was started by arthur’s statement “All women hate all men”, which really is a pretty extreme and even a demonstrably false statement, if we use a common definition of “hate”. But it’s just an opinion of one person.

And yes, IMO, there’s an unfortunate undercurrent of misogyny in many of these discussions, but it may in many cases be well justified by the experiences of the participants. (The same applies to feminists on the other side. You can’t totally get rid of subjectivity.)

Now, the quibble about if this attitude is common is mostly an empirical question with no clear answer, because I doubt that someone would be willing to make a study. I would say that burden of proof comes into play if someone were to take this whole thing seriously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 13, 2009 at 09:56

Actually, Null, I get really irritated with people making your silly argument.

Generalizations are absolutely necessary to get anywhere in figuring out any species.

When observing a herd of cows, is one allowed to say “cows congregate in herds,” even though there may be a few stragglers that are not part of the herd?

Should biologists be forced to say “Some birds fly,” each time they refer to such an act, to constantly reinforce that, yes, there are exceptions to the rule such as kiwis, emus and ostriches? I don’t think they do that, do you?

Can I point out that women have larger breasts than men, even though there are some men who are heavy set and might indeed have larger breasts that a very flat chested woman? Should we therefore say, “some,” or perhaps “most” women have larger breasts than men? I mean, are you serious?

Women walk differently than men too… but, some women are quite butch, and walk like a man. I guess a disqualifier should be thrown in there too! “Most women” walk differently than men. Good grief!

The point of writing is to communicate, not to get your short and curlies all twisted up into knots over how politically correct you sound. Political correctness is purposeful in its misdirection, in that it fractures the idea into fragments like a kalaidescope, until any idea no longer has relevance.

“Birds fly” is direct communication.

“Most birds fly, except for kiwis, emus and ostriches” might be more correct, but it takes the focus off of the point the author is trying to make, in much the same way that many people try to use big, confusing words when they write, for the intention of impressing the reader with their intellectual brilliance for knowing such words… except, using such words are often counterproductive because it makes what was written harder for the reader to understand. The point was to communicate, not obfuscate.

George Orwell writes about this in his essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part42.html

Also, this very PC Bullshit argument has been used by the MRM itself way too much. It is just insane. In fact, this is another one of those gender-reversal things.

Take Marc Lepine here in Canada. This one man has been used for 2 decades to generalize that all men are violent against women, and the anniversary of his crime has been used annually (up until only a year or two ago) by feminists to push hard for more laws to passed against all men in Canada. One man out of 15,000,000 is good enough to generalize, and it nary recieves even peeps of protest like what Null is doing here for far less greivious claims.

Not all men are rapists either, yet, society generalizes that all men have the potential to be rapists, and therefore, it is just to restrict all men to prevent rape.

Well, then. All women have the potential to do many harmful things against men, and pointing out that there ought to be restrictions against women potentially harming someone, immediately brings up the “Not all women are like that” argument, in an attempt to refute that there is any pressing need to do anything real about it.

This is just like what Aristotle spoke about with The Spartan Women, where men were easily brought under the laws, and readily obeyed them. But, when the legislators tried to make women equal to men under the law, the women actively resisted any such attempt to be brought under the laws.

Seems the same today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 13, 2009 at 10:08

Zed: “Anyone who claims it is true without being able to provide a few examples is relying on hot air rather than evidence. Following that up with personal attacks makes it appear that the person knows what they are claiming is bogus and is hoping that bluster and hysteria will divert people’s attention from noticing.”

Blah blah blah. It’s funny that you’re a writer here but have no clue what’s going on in your neighborhood (or pretend you don’t).

Wow: “null=owned”

Uh… you posted random quotes from feminists and that somehow results in me getting owned? I imagine you could get the same results by posting food recipes or football statistics because they, too, are completely unrelated to anything I’ve posted. I have not voiced any support for feminism, and even if I had it still wouldn’t make those quotes relevant.

fedrz: “Generalizations are absolutely necessary to get anywhere in figuring out any species.”

Generalization != explicitly stating that all X = Y.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
wow December 13, 2009 at 10:26

Null…that’s my point, your heroes are quoted above and did exactly what you’re stating.

Generalization != explicitly stating that all X = Y.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Icaros December 13, 2009 at 10:29

Blah blah blah. It’s funny that you’re a writer here but have no clue what’s going on in your neighborhood (or pretend you don’t).

So Zed should be of the opinion that “This corner of the blogosphere is filled with posts like ‘all women are sluts.’ Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or in denial” because… you say so and it’s been your personal experience, but you are still unable to provide any evidence?

Your impressions are not facts and that sentence is a terrible generalization in itself because “this corner” is left undefined.

And you haven’t considered the possibility that, say, Zed hasn’t read exactly the same writings as you or simply doesn’t think that the word “filled” means the same thing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 13, 2009 at 10:33

That’s very funny. I hadn’t even made this connection until something in the comments made it click; since women have entered the workforce en masse (70s & 80s), the middle class standard of living, and its wages, have stagnated or even gone down, depending who you consult. So much for the canard that bringing females into the work force would send the economy rocketing higher. To be fair, it’s not because women are entirely a net drain in and of themselves, but they certainly did not give us a new economic golden age. Instead we had the worst credit boom in world history, yet no real increase in the standard of living for most people.

And if you don’t believe that, by the way, do some research into what things used to cost 30 or 40 years ago. College is four times more expensive, inflation-adjusted, yet any degree you get today is worth massively less than it was a few decades ago. Job instability, even before this recession/depression, has been increasing and apart from people on the gov’t teet, no one really expects lifelong employment at one company. Cars are more expensive as well, thanks to that easy credit mentioned earlier. Gasoline? More expensive. Food? More expensive (I’m talking inflation-adjusted, btw, and this is partly because… the cost of gasoline inputs are higher). Housing? Still much closer to the all-time bubble levels reached a few years ago than historical norms. And of course wages haven’t moved, at all, to cover all this.

However, I have good news! You can buy lots of cheap shit from China, like iPods or iPhones (which costs an arm and a leg with the calling plan). And American companies like Goldman Sachs are making record earnings! I guess that makes it all worth it, huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 13, 2009 at 10:45

When one says “women are,” the prefix “all” only exists for those who choose to read that into it.

If I witness three women entering a bar then it would be perfectly correct for me to state that “I saw women entering a bar.” From this statement we can deduce that “women entered the bar.”

To say that “women are” is to make no suggestions about what proportion of the whole that one is referring to.

It could be some women, or few women, or most women, or all women. Consider this statement: “men are becoming increasingly involved in a counter-feminist movement.” Empirically true, yet this does not refer to all or most men. We remain a minority of men, yet the statement is not problematic. It would only become a blanket statement – where it is fallaciously taken to mean “all men” – if we choose to read it in that way.

My point is that one should differentiate between “women are” and “all women are”. Somebody up there said that all women hate all men; if you wish to take issue with this then please do, but don’t pretend that an equivalent blanket statement is being made when somebody comments that “women are …” No proportional reference is made. Perhaps “some” or “most” would help to clarify things.

Compare this state of affairs to the feminist quotes listed above: “all men are rapists”, etc. It seems very clear who is and who is not endorsing blanket statements about the opposite sex.

More to the point, though, is that men hold legitimate grievances and need a place to blow off steam. Feminists and women have every public space conceivable in which to do this. Open a newspaper to the comments section and you’ll find a woman blowing off steam about men, whether that’s all, most, some or a few. Visit any feminist blog, and even if the author herself does not go down that route, the comments certainly will. It seems hypocritical that, while you have so many more avenues to blow off steam when it comes to men (the practice being culturally and socially sanctioned), you would take issue with us doing the same in the only avenue available to us. In fact, it further reinforces the belief that feminism is about controlling men, not about seeking equality or free discussion. This is a site primarily for men, and it’s categorically not your place to come here telling us what we can and cannot say on any subject we damn well please.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed December 13, 2009 at 10:52

This “all women are” or “all men MRAs” discussion seems pretty pointless.

And that is the point – to consistently divert discussion away from the topic at hand to pointlessly arguing whether it is 100%, or 99.9999%, or 50.000001% or 32.685542924511458412% of women who are “like that.”

Having said that, there are several reasons why people like null are wasting their time trying to persist in a strategy which is completely worn out from over use.

1) The ALMOST universal response by women, manginas, white knights, and feminist apologists that “NAWALT”, is a form of complete opposition to the message – a way to prevent it from being heard. It puts them in the same kind of category as Holocaust deniers – implying that it either does not exist or is not any sort of problem. In legal concepts, this makes them “accessories after the fact” which makes them legally considered to have some guilt or culpability in the issue. Thus, anyone who tries to prevent discussion of the destructive and excessive behavior of women by using the “NAWALT” excuse will be regarded as being equally guilty to those women who “ALT.” People who condone or excuse an inexcusable behavior are considered culpable in its continuation.

2) As a result of many years of dealing with flat out denial and stonewalling whenever he tries to point out the excessive and destructive behavior of women – as Nancy Levant does in terms that seem more palatable to some people – it does begin to appear as though the vast majority of people, seemingly “all”, either engage in it or condone it.

3) There are two distinct groups of men beginning to emerge in these discussions – those men who still give a shit about women, and those who don’t. Arthur has volunteered to serve as the textbook example of men in the 2nd group. Men get moved from the first group to the second as a direct result of their experiences with trying to make people aware of the problems and encountering that stone wall of denial. While men are trying to talk to women about the problems it is because they still care and are trying to resolve them. In many ways it is exactly the same situation as I have seen described in many marriages – when the woman stops complaining the man interprets this as a sign that everything is OK, when in reality it means that the woman has given up on the marriage and emotionally withdrawn from it.

4) Men do not have the same strange herd mentality that women do. When I started hearing things like “All men are rapists and that’s all they are”, or “[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR”, my response was “Nonsense! Very few people are really stupid enough to believe that.” and just shrugged it off. Men are well aware that there are some really nasty, scummy, men out there, and make the mistaken assumption that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that and can tell the difference. This has been one of the huge mistakes men have made.

5) Because we lack this herd mentality, and in fact have sabotaged ourselves by perpetual argument with each other over minutiae, few of us feel the need to jump up and defend men or MRAs when someone attacks them. This becomes particularly true when a man makes the decision to GHOW and treat relationships and the legal system as a hostile environment which is simply his challenge to survive.

6) MGTOW, or disengagement, is the ultimate weapon in the Gender War. The problem is that feminists have used the legal system to make it illegal for men to have any sort of relationships with women. From redefinition of “rape”, to “meritricious relationships”, to “imputed income”, feminsts have worked tirelessly to come up with some sort of financial or criminal penalty for every possible method of involvement with a woman. The question of whether those penalities will end up getting applied hinges completely on whether or not a particular woman is “like that.”

7) What is missing from the whole dialogue is the way in which a great many “average” women have actively thrown away any characteristics which might make them attractive to men as relationship partners. The perfect analogy is to say that “not all” the mushrooms which pop up in a yard after a rain are necessarily poisonous. Focussing entirely on arguing about the probability of whether it is poisonous or not misses the point of whether any particular mushroom is worth eating even if it isn’t poisonous. It might be simply unpleasant tasting, or bitter, or neither but induce nausea, even it won’t kill you. As the reward for eating the mushroom approaches zero, the probability that it will kill you becomes increasingly irrelevant.

8 ) And here is where the rubber meets the road. The entire mating paradigm depends on male pursuit and initiation – men chase, women choose. When men stop pursuing and initiating, women are left high and dry. And, here is where we come to reason for the hysterical reactions and attacks when a man makes it known that he is simply quitting – if men quit, women are stranded.

“NAWALT” is most often used as the first step in a 3 part argument –
1) “But, NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!”
2) “There are TONS of ‘good women’ still out there.”
3) “YOU just HAVE TO go find them.”

Anakin has characterized this as the “you must sort through the turds until you find your tootsie roll” mandate.

And, the answer to this from MGTOW is “Um, no, actually we don’t ‘have to’.” There is no law which requires us to seek out mates, although the biological imperative and social pressure have some of the same effect. But, there is no way that men can be forced to continue to bear the bulk of the risks which go along with intiating and forming relationships with women while the penalities are still escalating and we are facing a cultural wall of denial that those penalties, along with the absolute refusal of the culture to recognize out out-of-control behavior of women and start to hold them responsible or accountable, make relationships into situations with such high probabilities of loss and low probabilities of reward that they are simply no longer worth it. There is no way you can attack us into continuing to do it.

Jack Donovan December 13, 2009 at 10:58

Excellent comment, snark.

I agree completely. I think some people take a critical thinking 101 class in college (reading material I saw for one I saw recently was humorously left-wing biased from beginning to end) and get confused about the different levels of discourse taking place at any given time. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say. A handful of Latin phrases and a few “rules” to throw around and they think they’re master debaters.

One of the biggest problems is this confusion about how “bad” generalizations are. Generalizations are useful, and unless you’re writing an academic paper, calling them out and qualifying them every single time makes for weak, mealy mouthed writing that moves no one and says nothing.

I agree that “all” statements are best avoided, but saying that “women do this” is a generalization and it works if any large percentage of women seem to behave in a particular way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Icaros December 13, 2009 at 11:19

I have to say that I’m very impressed just by the simple fact that the discussion didn’t go the usual route of mindless nitpicking. Plus, very informative replies there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 13, 2009 at 11:25

LR, have you also taught your son the most important life facts of all that he as a male needs to know? That rules, laws, accountability, morals, and ethics only apply to men? And that women can molest children, commit massive fraud against him, make false accusations of rape and domestic violence against him and go scott free? That in fact, they don’t just go scott free, that those are their very operating systems? That right and wrong do not apply to girls and women, only to men and boys?

Of course I wouldn’t tell him those things because they AREN’T TRUE. One obvious way is that women are STILL given “custody of the kids” in most cases whether the woman WANTS custody or not! Clearly women ARE held responsible for their “moral” actions because we are the ones who are stuck HAVING and RAISING the kids. Men don’t do shit. Women are still expected to raise the children, provide a home to live in (with her), make sure they’re educated, and do the actual “parenting”, while still providing the obvious financial support.

Men just have to send a check.

Hmmmm….so which is “more responsibility” of those two choices? The women yet again.

Your whole statement is a lie. Women have their children removed by Child Services when they don’t properly “care for them” either physically or financially (and yes subsequently are often charged with crimes or tossed in jail).

Women are convicted of crimes just like men are and yes sometimes they go free….. sometimes male criminals go free…..and VERY often deadbeat dads get off scott free while the WOMEN are left responsible now for everything.

Again, your whole statement is ridiculous, completely without grounds, and practically imaginary.

Have you taught your son he can live right, be a good person and work hard but then put in prison by nothing more than a pointed finger of a female with no proof? Or to have all the fruits of his hard work and playing by the rules and laws stripped away from him by any woman at any time with the help of the legal system?

Umm, lol I went to school for Criminal Law (yes and ended up doing what I do instead) and this is a blatant lie on your part. The ONLY men who can be “deemed the father” without a paternity test are the men who CHOOSE to NOT show up to their court date, to NOT show up to pay for and take the paternity test, and who are HIDING from the court in the first place.

The only time men’s wages are automatically garnished (without proving paternity) is when they don’t show up to a court date or are found in contempt of a previous court order (such as having to pay ON TIME).

So basically you are trying to make victims out of men who CHOOSE to miss the court date, CHOOSE to NOT get the always-available Paternity Test, and who CHOOSE to continue to pay and STILL not ask for a Paternity Test.

That is the only way the situation you described is plausible. The men who are crying about “paying for babies that aren’t theirs” are usually the same ones who refuse to get a paternity test for seemingly mysterious reasons (meaning because they KNOW they’re the father and just want to try to keep getting out of paying.)

So once again, your entire statement is a lie and completely without fact.

As for your complaint about men who get thrown in jail because they “don’t make enough”. Well, guess what? The mother who has custody can’t just stop feeding her kids, paying the mortgage, or having electricity just because she doesn’t “make enough” now does she? Her children would be removed by the State and she would be subject to a wide variety of “child negligence” related crimes. She would eventually be charged with far more crimes and pay far more “fines” than a dad who’s late on his support payments does.

You consistently fail to see the OTHER side of those things. The immense responsibility that STILL falls on the women in the end. The decision to give birth, the decision to keep them or give them up, the responsibility to raise them, and ultimately….if the father is “good at being a deadbeat” and never pays her a dime….she’s also responsible for everything financially.

For you to say women are not expected to have “any responsibility” for their actions is REALLY unfair and REALLY far reaching. You cannot possibly believe something that is so far past “rational”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Hestia December 13, 2009 at 11:26

Null- If you were to walk outside right now and find a snake on your porch, would you pick it up? Probably not; most sane people would leave the snake undisturbed as the creature may be poisonous. Not all snakes have the potential to harm you, of course, but it’s better to err on the side of caution than have venom pulsing through your veins.

To assume that women may be harmful with the way the legal environment is today is a wise course of action for any man or sane woman who doesn’t with the bad behavior of women collectively taken into account. If she’s bad and you make her mad, there are ample ways for a woman to take revenge on you and nothing you can do about it, just like the venomous snake who bites you.

Furthermore, those who pull the NAWALT card and consider this to be being “kind” or “understanding” to women are acting in a foolish manner. If somebody actually cares about people, as white knights and other NAWALT proponents claim to, they’d care about holding women accountable so they could grow up, get over themselves, and become mature human beings who can actually contribute something to their families and society. Speaking as a woman, I think one of the best things that ever happened to me was having strong men in my life who wouldn’t have taken any princess antics of drama queen garbage from me. Instead I was expected to grow up, be accountable for my actions, and not be a whiny little brat who wanted everybody but me to be responsible for my choices in life. *This* is what women need on a personal level and societal level, not more excuses and defense and women will be better served by men like arthur who have nothing to do with them than those who want to “be nice” and look the other way in hopes of extending some sort of olive branch of peace to a group who doesn’t rightly deserve it at this point in time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Reality2010 December 13, 2009 at 11:29

You can call it exploitation all you want, but I’d willingly fork over a small chunk of change so that I never have to do mundane tasks that keep me from producing value and creating wealth.

The young guys fresh in the company would do all the hardest & most menial tasks., like back in the old days.

Oh, and if these women aren’t being canned for failing to meet deadlines, who the eff is NOT firing them??? This is my thing: we’re letting women walk all over us and we’re enabling their immaturity and irresponsibility. Tell me: have you spoken up about this to their employers? I wouldn’t care if it was a lazy ass guy or a lazy as gal.

Oh my God, yes, it is apparent you have virtually zero experience in corporate Hell America. If you complain about a woman, first you will immediately be labeled a woman hater and then she will come after YOU- you’re dead meat and she will get you FIRED! It’s happened to me before.

In our society today you cannot criticize a woman at all without her redirecting the blame onto you and it is no different in the business world. You try to get a woman fired that you work with and you just started WORLD WAR III.. try to get a female fired at another company for her incompetence and the male superior will, yes, completely White Knight her and stop doing business with your company and now YOU are in trouble with your OWN company for losing that other company’s business! If it’s a female superior she will automatically take up for the female and the results are the same.

Not to mention the fact that if you were going to complain about all the women who are incompetent and AWOL.. there wouldn’t be enough time or energy left in the day to get work done!! Because it’s virtually ALL of them! It would take the REST OF YOUR LIFE. So you just learn to deal with the 500 pound gorilla like all the rest of the men do- do you want to keep your job? Then keep your mouth shut!

Are you actually naive enough to think there is some official university or government-like study demonstrating how worthless women are in the workplace? The president of N.O.W.’s head would explodeand heads would roll.

And it’s frightening how PC even the net is.. but a reality that is SO huge and SO prevalent cannot stay hidden for long – just like when the MRA movement 1st started- it was met with sheer disbelief and still is- but like a turd sitting in a Christmas wrapped box under the tree, the smell is going to eventually sneak out.

There is a lot of info that nibbles around the edges though- any info about women just dropping out of the workforce, PC articles on ‘people’s’ absences, etc. You have to connect the dots- OR you can simply go to work for any corporation U.S.A. – get back to me & let me know how it goes.

This link isn’t exactly scientific data on the subject or statistics, BUT it is in fact a first hand testimonial of a woman no less who decided to hire ALL women for her company and what happened… and even though this happened in England it’s straight out of corporate America 101- it’s exactly how women behave in the workplace anywhere.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Hestia December 13, 2009 at 11:31

Lady Raine- Clearly women ARE held responsible for their “moral” actions because we are the ones who are stuck HAVING and RAISING the kids.
If you truly feel motherhood to be so burdensome and that you are “stuck” raising your son, how very tragic for him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Sociopathic Revelation December 13, 2009 at 11:57

“You people are so fucking intellectually dishonest and cowardly. – Null

Troll.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Patr December 13, 2009 at 12:57

Lady Raine wrote:
“Men just have to send a check.”

Translation: ” I wish men would shut up about rights and just send a check.”

If you think men should do more of the child-rearing, why wouldn’t you support custody laws that were more balanced?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Icaros December 13, 2009 at 12:59

One more thing, the question at the end of the post clearly states: “So, use this as an opportunity to tell your story – what sort of trail of destruction have feminist women left in your life?”

If this isn’t a proper place to state what’s on your mind — even overstating it — I don’t know what is. To start complaining about trivialities of language use in this specific discussion is highly impolite towards all the people who have proper grievances.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 13, 2009 at 13:06

“Men just have to send a check.”

Only if they allow a woman to trap one of their sperm. As long as men keep their sperm away from women, the umbilical cord which extends from it to his wallet for life never gets formed.

anoukange December 13, 2009 at 13:29

“Eventually these ideas become self-fulfilling prophecies.”

bingo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anoukange December 13, 2009 at 13:34

“There are two distinct groups of men beginning to emerge in these discussions – those men who still give a shit about women, and those who don’t.”

yep. It gets tangled up a lot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zimmy December 13, 2009 at 13:52

Feminism is the result of women who feed and grow their spiritual and biological gifts.

I’ve met lots of feminists who grew their “biological gifts”; why some of them grew their biology from 110 lbs to 300 lbs.

A truly superb article; a real keeper.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith December 13, 2009 at 14:00

Men just have to send a check.

Does money fall from the sky in your world? It sure doesn’t in mine. Men do not “just send checks”, as if the labor required to earn money is trivial and unremarkable. I’ve never understood why women feel the need to discount and trivialize men’s wage-earning labor. Besides, if you wanted the apparently easy life of sending checks, you could have given the father custody. The fact that you and 99% of your sisters don’t tells me raising children isn’t the hell you pretend it to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Nemo December 13, 2009 at 14:14

This is in response to David Brandt’s request from his 12:54 a.m. post:

gwallen
“Women have no temporal consciousness. They live IN the moment. Consider how few of them are genuinely able to see the potential consequences of their actions and how few of them can give a true account of the past.”

This is an observation that I’ve been attempting to make, but you nailed it. I have written that they create a selective memory of what is said and done that bears no resemblance to reality–and no amount of memory cues have an effect, even pointing out logical contradictions. I have no idea why this is. If anyone has references on studies done on this, I would be interested in reading them, because this is a constant I have noticed for years.

——————————————————————————–

“Intelligence In Men And Women Is A Gray And White Matter

ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2005) — Irvine, Calif. (January 20, 2005) — While there are essentially no disparities in general intelligence between the sexes, a UC Irvine study has found significant differences in brain areas where males and females manifest their intelligence.

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.

“These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” said Richard Haier, professor of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and longtime human intelligence researcher, who led the study with colleagues at UCI and the University of New Mexico. “In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain.”

Study results appear on the online version of NeuroImage.

In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example, 84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain’s frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively. The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout more of the brain.

According to the researchers, this more centralized intelligence processing in women is consistent with clinical findings that frontal brain injuries can be more detrimental to cognitive performance in women than men. Studies such as these, Haier and Jung add, someday may help lead to earlier diagnoses of brain disorders in males and females, as well as more effective and precise treatment protocols to address damage to particular regions in the brain.

For this study, UCI and UNM combined their respective neuroimaging technology and subject pools to study brain morphology with magnetic resonance imaging. MRI scanning and cognitive testing involved subjects at UCI and UNM. Using a technique called voxel-based morphometry, Haier and his UCI colleagues converted these MRI pictures into structural brain “maps” that correlated brain tissue volume with IQ.

Dr. Michael T. Alkire and Kevin Head of UCI and Ronald A. Yeo of UNM participated in the study, which was supported in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

About the University of California, Irvine: The University of California, Irvine is a top-ranked public university dedicated to research, scholarship and community service. Founded in 1965, UCI is among the fastest-growing University of California campuses, with more than 24,000 undergraduate and graduate students and about 1,400 faculty members. The second-largest employer in dynamic Orange County, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $3 billion.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

This study disproves the feminist axioms that men and women are completely identical and that gender is a social construct.

I would also take the assertion that men and women are of equal intelligence with a grain of salt. Most studies show that men average around 5 IQ points higher than women. The scientists who wrote this carefully avoided stating a politically incorrect truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 13, 2009 at 14:52

Nemo
Thanks!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella December 13, 2009 at 15:57

Of course I wouldn’t tell him those things because they AREN’T TRUE.

Really?? Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back and watched him die because she was ‘abused’, said abuse allegedly consisting of being asked to wear white platform shoes when having sex and being called names. We’ll never know for sure because dead men don’t have much to say……how much jail time did she get? Did you know she got custody of the kids again, after she killed their father? I’ve heard this ‘snapped after years of abuse’ defense time and time again, tell me LR, do you think it justifies murder? By all accounts Winkler’s husband was shot in the back as he slept. Why not during one of those alleged episodes of abuse? Proof doesn’t matter, she was believed and now has her kids back. Is it a good idea for someone who kills when she ‘snaps’ to have custody?

Forget about the Duke case already? One of the men accused of raping Crystal Gail magnum was at an ATM at the time. She said that they all three or four raped her but–

“A DNA report released in December 2006 revealed that sperm from several males was found in the accuser’s body and on her underwear; none of which was from any of the Duke players. Mangum has denied engaging in any sexual activity in the days before the assault, saying that she last had sex a week earlier. She also said that her attackers did not use condoms and ejaculated”

Those young men lost how many months of their lives?

How about the Hatley case in Georgia? He had a relationship with a woman, she told him the child was his…

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning in 2000 that the boy might not be his. A DNA test that year confirmed the child was not fathered by Hatley, court documents said.

He returned to court and was relieved of any future child support payments, but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 he owed the state before the ruling.

They ruled that he didn’t have to pay any more, but had to pay up until the date of the decision!? Did reality change somehow on that date? Do you see the logic in this LR?

How about the Kobe Bryant case? Consensual sex, she says it’s rape…here comes a court case.

How many women in the news lately for making false accusations are seen getting prison sentences?

Do you remember the Lefavre case? Do you remember her lawyer saying she was ‘too pretty to go to prison’? Have you ever seen a man being treated as lightly for statutory rape?

I think you need to read a bit more…..google anything you like, false accusations, paternity fraud, length of prison sentences for the same crime for men vs women, then get back to us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith December 13, 2009 at 16:03

That science daily article appears to imply that high IQ doesn’t imply high G (general intelligence). My experience is that’s wrong, high IQ people are smart at everything. They may not be experts at everything, but they’ll pick up things outside their field of specialization faster than somebody of ordinary intelligence. In other words, not only is math (for example) easier for them, so is chemistry, biology, and English lit.

Now, the higher one’s IQ is the more likely one will suffer social deficits. I never can tell if it’s because they have genuine difficulty or because they’ve made a “rational” decision to opt out of the social rat race and so don’t see the point of learning. I refuse to use the term “social intelligence” because it’s a politically correct bastardization of the word “intelligence” designed to imply equivalence between being charming and solving Fermat’s Last Theorem. The latter is obviously harder than the former.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 13, 2009 at 16:06

“I have written that they create a selective memory of what is said and done that bears no resemblance to reality–and no amount of memory cues have an effect, even pointing out logical contradictions.

During current debates, they seem to engage in ‘creative reality’ which can be countered by factual evidence. Sadly, facts and evidence regardless of the empirical proof do not seem to exist in the same consensus reality we assume to share, so they are conveniently ignored or dismissed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 13, 2009 at 16:25

Now, the higher one’s IQ is the more likely one will suffer social deficits. I never can tell if it’s because they have genuine difficulty or because they’ve made a “rational” decision to opt out of the social rat race and so don’t see the point of learning.

-Bob Smith

It could simply be because people of average intelligence have less in common with them – and the average ones aren’t capable of improving their ‘social intelligence’ to communicate in an interesting and stimulating way with someone of much higher intelligence. Bright people tend to mix with other bright people, and their talk and manner of speaking is often quite different to the norm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mike S. December 13, 2009 at 16:48

Maybe islam will solve the problem of feminism for us. Since most western women aren’t even having enough children to (maintain) their own demographic, while their immigrant muslim sisters rack up broods of a half-dozen or more….by the next century those kids will elect their own and western culture will be history.

And women will have come full circle….barefoot and pregnant once again.

Some delicious irony there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
chic noir December 13, 2009 at 17:05

keating I’m of the opinion that a man who sleeps with a married woman is committing a crime against the brotherhood.

I will cosign this and I would advise any of you wit goodlooking women to avoid those types of male friends. They will cross you as soon as your back is turned.

*chic noir throws hair into ponytail and wraps fists*
You guys better leave my Clarence alone. White knighting is good, it gives me gina tingles. I love having a man come to my resue and this is coming from a woman who sees herself as being pretty darn tuff and taller than many men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Reality2010 December 13, 2009 at 17:07

Maybe islam will solve the problem of feminism for us. Since most western

women aren’t even having enough children to (maintain) their own demographic, while their immigrant muslim sisters rack up broods of a half-dozen or more….by the next century those kids will elect their own and western culture will be history.

And women will have come full circle….barefoot and pregnant once again.

Some delicious irony there.

Ah, good point- actually white women both in Europe & the U.S. have dropped in their birth rates far below replacement levels. In other words whites are on their way to extinction and it’s already too late. This is due to for the first time in human history millions of women of child bearing age living alone and not having children… all thanks to Feminism.

This simply isn’t how the human species behaves and it has already sewn the seeds of our own death as a race.. and the vast majority of people know nothing of this – completely clueless and ignorant.

Any culture that practices traditional family values will over take this continent of the U.S. & Canada & Europe (and they already have started- why do you think our country is letting them in? because white women will not reproduce to replacement levels) those will include Asian & Hispanic populations and yes within 100 years this entire country will be Muslim.

Ever wonder why Asian people always give you that funny smile and seem to always be laughing at you? That’s because they’re thinking, “Oh stupid white man can’t even control his woman and he is going bye-bye in next few generations – he SOOOO stupid HA HAHA and this country will be ours.”

All because of Feminism. Stupid Cunts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 13, 2009 at 17:31

Reality 2010 –

Ah, good point- actually white women both in Europe & the U.S. have dropped in their birth rates far below replacement levels. In other words whites are on their way to extinction and it’s already too late. This is due to for the first time in human history millions of women of child bearing age living alone and not having children… all thanks to Feminism.

Reality is cruel and unforgiving. Brings a tear to my eye.

Just the one tear, because more would be unmanly.

A beautiful, triumphant culture and civilization, gone in a few generations.

Feminism is cultural suicide. The West will probably not survive this indulgence of women at the expense of the reality of demographics and human nature.

Or as a young friend said to me recently, “that sounds like the wost…thing…EVER.”

If it happens, and I hope it doesn’t, it will be the saddest story ever told.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 13, 2009 at 17:34

Bob Smith –

I refuse to use the term “social intelligence” because it’s a politically correct bastardization of the word “intelligence” designed to imply equivalence between being charming and solving Fermat’s Last Theorem. The latter is obviously harder than the former.

Or even better, emotional intelligence. Ahem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer December 13, 2009 at 17:34

If it happens, and I hope it doesn’t, it will be the saddest story ever told.

-JD

I don’t think it will. Someday a war will put an end to this crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 13, 2009 at 17:35

Here’s hoping.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 13, 2009 at 17:43

“Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 13, 2009 at 17:47

“When a nation shows a civilized horror of war, it receives directly the punishment of its mistake. God changes its sex, despoils it of its common mark of virility, changes it into a feminine nation and sends conquerors to ravish it of its honour.”

Juan Donoso Cortés

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
G December 13, 2009 at 17:56

In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

Guess wich Matter was used to build civilizations, and wich one is active during TV talk-shows.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
dontfeedthetroll December 13, 2009 at 17:56
If it happens, and I hope it doesn’t, it will be the saddest story ever told.

-JD

I don’t think it will. Someday a war will put an end to this crap.

Of course, it will. My native country, in Europe, is becoming a Muslim country. When I was born, four decades ago, there were no Muslims. Feminism is doing well the job of demographic suicide of the West.

About the sadness, you just IMAGINE the disappearance of Western society. I SEE it with my own eyes, every time I go back to my hometown (a small town where I was born and my family lives) and see the streets full of Muslim people living as if they were in the Middle East.

The sadness is unbearable. You cannot imagine it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 13, 2009 at 17:59

I think the conquerors will come from within. It’s obvious that there are two, distinct Americas, and they will eventually come into conflict. However, traditional conservatism will probably have to die before that happens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 13, 2009 at 18:38

Bob Smith:

Now, the higher one’s IQ is the more likely one will suffer social deficits. I never can tell if it’s because they have genuine difficulty or because they’ve made a “rational” decision to opt out of the social rat race and so don’t see the point of learning. I refuse to use the term “social intelligence” because it’s a politically correct bastardization of the word “intelligence” designed to imply equivalence between being charming and solving Fermat’s Last Theorem. The latter is obviously harder than the former.

It is a cultural artifact I believe. English Culture is founded on hypocrisy. That is, lying about everything. The more intelligent one is, the more holes one sees in the lies. That lowers one’s social ‘adaption’.

Listening to people talking about how the sky is green and the grass blue and women and men are the same and we live in a democracy and all the other limitless nonsense is simply annoying after a certain point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith December 13, 2009 at 19:18

Maybe islam will solve the problem of feminism for us.

Maybe it will. That cure, however, is far, far worse than the disease.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 13, 2009 at 19:44

Bob Smith
“Maybe it will. That cure, however, is far, far worse than the disease.”
Agree. I have my own beliefs and will not accept any belief system. Under Islam, I would be in deep shit because of this. However, I’m all for men GTFO and letting the white knights fight the black knights. If you understand anything about polarity, it is to not align yourself with one or the other, but become a blending of both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 13, 2009 at 20:12

Icaros: “because… you say so and it’s been your personal experience, but you are still unable to provide any evidence? ”

I’m not going to spend hours or days digging through discussion threads to “prove” something that everyone here knows but will not admit. I know well from past experience that people will vehemently deny even things that they explicitly said a few minutes ago. People will deny anything.

Snark: “When one says “women are,” the prefix “all” only exists for those who choose to read that into it.”

It also exists when it, you know, exists. When someone puts it there. I hope all this denial doesn’t give you a headache.

“It seems hypocritical that, while you have so many more avenues to blow off steam when it comes to men (the practice being culturally and socially sanctioned), you would take issue with us doing the same in the only avenue available to us.”

I am not a woman you paranoid fuck, and I have never said or implied people can’t make general statements about women. What I said was that people shouldn’t make blanket statements that apply to every single individual woman on the planet and then justify them using some biological determinism nonsense.

I merely say that you shouldn’t make statements that apply to every single individual woman, and the thread explodes with people writing long-ass essays and feverish rants demanding to know what I have against generalizations and why I’m “white knighting.” LOL.

Sociopathic Revelation: “Troll.”

Yes you are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 13, 2009 at 21:07

Here we go with yet another attempt to de-rail the comments in this thread by null.

You really seem to have hit a nerve with this one, Zed. Nice work.

So back on topic, I do think it’s quite possible that feminism is a self-destroying philosophy, but I think the change will not occur overnight, but rather over the next upwards of 40 years as the boomers die off and successive generations have major demographic shifts.

And unlike Japan, where they are just shrinking the population, we allow immigration in the US, so we will actually have replacement, just not with white liberal Americans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 13, 2009 at 22:00

@null

The essence of your position is that you refuse to accept the validity of the statement “women are shorter than men”, because it omits the preface “ON AVERAGE, women are shorter than men.” I see your point, but a reasonable person would accept that the words “on average” are implied in the statement “women are shorter than men.”

Your insistence on rigorous grammar and logic from your opponents also strikes me as inconsistent with your willingness to construct your own arguments thus: “Everyone knows…….therefore”

Please take the time to read more of The Spearhead. Whether or not you agree with much or any of the content, I hope you will see that The Spearhead is extraordinary because of the raw intelligence exhibited in the writing and comments and by the absence of insults and ad hominem attacks. I would appreciate it if you would participate here in the spirit of an energetic but respectful debate among adult men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 13, 2009 at 22:09

Have you guys forgotten our good friend Globalman?

He often says things like “ALL women are children” etc etc.

And they might be! Who knows?

But this is not the point.

The point is that Null is simply saying that he disagrees with the view that ALL women are anything.

I don’t think he was getting at Zed, or anyone else, for making generalisations. He just doesn’t like the word ‘ALL’.

And I have certainly seen Globalman using the word ‘all’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ray December 13, 2009 at 23:05

G– “In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.”

an important point and distinction

that white matter overload in women (or grey matter deficit) operates as Woman

the real Ma-trix

ie the heightened connectivity via white matter is accessed both personally (as individuated consciousness) and collectively (shared, and largely unconscious)

females are a kind of collectivity, men arent, and the white matter difference roughly correllates

females have thousands of female-serving (self-serving) organzations in the u.s. alone

males have ?

etc etc

erich neumann’s “the origins and history of consciousness” is v good on this– he wrote pre-PC of course

Internetwood— “It is a cultural artifact I believe. English Culture is founded on hypocrisy. That is, lying about everything. The more intelligent one is, the more holes one sees in the lies. That lowers one’s social ‘adaption’.”

yep, v observant

lies are actually pretty easy to see in the face, too

along the “grey matter” theme, your point illustrates why bright, older males arent usually social butterflys

society being female …. with rare oases

the “asocial adaption” you mention is pronounced in many autistic men, especially profoundly autistic males (“kanners autism”)

unsuprisingly, autistic guys are often extremely intelligent, and kind of “hardwired” to be intolerant of lies, or perhaps of artifice in general — characteristics i would associate with the “high end” of human maleness

the matriarchy has all the money, the organizations and corporations, the medea networks, the governments, the power — all the typical female strengths, that have been deceptively termed “the patriarchy”

what do m.r.a.s have? mostly just reality, the truth

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 13, 2009 at 23:16

Here’s a “generalization” you can bank on: ALL posts by the creature calling itself null are ignored by yours truly. I scroll right past ‘em and somehow I don’t even regret it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 13, 2009 at 23:23

the “asocial adaption” you mention is pronounced in many autistic men, especially profoundly autistic males (”kanners autism”)

unsuprisingly, autistic guys are often extremely intelligent, and kind of “hardwired” to be intolerant of lies, or perhaps of artifice in general — characteristics i would associate with the “high end” of human maleness.

My son described to the letter, which is interesting to me. I have referred to him as ‘intuitive’, but perhaps that’s a misnomer. Nothing escapes that guy. I described what he has done with his mom, however I could relate other stories. However, we get along well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 14, 2009 at 00:15

Ray
I appreciate the information, all of it since I requested information about it, but particularly that on autism. I’m curious how you understand so much about the autism part though. I have watched him simply cut people off, turn his back and walk away when the bullshit is flying. He has extremely little tolerance for female BS, which is thrown at him constantly simply because of he is extremely attractive. It almost seems like a curse for him, since he wants nothing to do with it. His mind (or parts of it) function at such an advanced rate above mine–I stopped being amazed by it when he was a child. There must be some connection between this advanced intelligence and his intolerance for BS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 14, 2009 at 01:08

I remind everyone to check out this misandrist ‘blog’. The quotes are because it receives no discernable traffic, other than men using it as an example of over-the-top misandry.

http://winecatsandfeminism.wordpress.com

A more complete example of 100% projection, I have never seen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
KARMA December 14, 2009 at 02:26

Only males, can fix the mess feminism has made, the only way is for millions of GEN X and Y males in the western world to avoid western women/marriage/baby’s…

ie :- less is more, less man have to do with women, the more power men will have over our own destinies, sorry guys but treat women like they have the plague and your life will be YOURS.

I know so many women 30 – 40, that are single, childless, and no hope of a date in sight due to their feminist attitude. Who wants to marry a women that is always right?And when she is wrong it is always someone else…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lara December 14, 2009 at 04:53

Say what???

You are saying women are selfish, individualist and self-concerned…
Everybody men and women are this way nowadays.
Women are going down culturally…and what about average western men? Do they talk about Niezche???
come off…they are the same than women, (girls, let´s strike back¡¡), don´t you like baseball and live like a coach potato??
Isn´t the aim of your whole life eating hamburgers, watching football or baseball and doing nothing but cheating your wife??? (See “tiger” woods)
look upon yourselves before going for someone else.
Materialims, not feminism is the evil of today¡¡¡

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
fedrz December 14, 2009 at 05:42

Well, now that that’s been cleared up, I suppose I might as well go home.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 14, 2009 at 05:43

Nietzsche *

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sociopathic Revelation December 14, 2009 at 06:59

“Women are going down culturally…and what about average western men? Do they talk about Niezche???”

Why do you care? Because deep down, you really don’t.

I’ve discovered that most of you Amersikanks do not honor a well-rounded education and sophistication in a man. Renaissance men are not interesting to you people unless they are on the big screen, have tremendous status among your peers, or have other women lining up for them. As much as Tiger Woods is being blasted in both the media and with babbling small town average Janes, men like him have no problems securing a harem while the Laras of the world complain about not finding the right/good man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lara December 14, 2009 at 07:20

Sociopatic (good nick):

First of all: I am an Eupean woman

Secondly: I don´t complain about finding a good/bad

Thirdly: I have the perspective enough to realise that us ALL western people are loosing increasingly principles and values, and are devoted to materialim, shallowness, comsumerism and strong individualism. Blame on feminism, but this is not the target: the only thing you all are going to get is more hatred between the sexes; if you want to know who is really moving the world´s threads, read something about the “Bildelberg club”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Sociopathic Revelation December 14, 2009 at 07:25

Lara;

Feminism has incorporated itself with the blind materialism and shallowness you criticize, and fosters that hatred between the sexes all the while promoting the myth of the morally superior woman/female supremacy. It’s all around us like the plague.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lara December 14, 2009 at 07:51

We could be going arguing time and time and never reach one solution: if you think feminism is the evil that´s your problem, but it isn´t;
materialism is withing the economical system, withing the goverment purposes, and, above all, withing the big companiess strategies. It´s all around us like a plague; remove feminism and the problem wiil still continue.
Mass media, everyday fight at work and all around us tell me we are getting the top of selfishness and materialism, but I don´t find men being better than women at all.
I don´t believe there´s a moral that promotes the myth of women to be superior; anyway is a matter of the person, not the gender.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
zed December 14, 2009 at 07:52

Do they talk about Niezche???

What about Nietzsche? What do you have to say about what he said?

Blame on feminism, but this is not the target: the only thing you all are going to get is more hatred between the sexes

There is a difference between “blame” and looking for root causes and responsibility for a problem. Hatred between the sexes seems to have become a way of life, and feminism promotes and is based on hatred of men. Any sort of “truce” requires mutual disarmament. As long as feminists continue their Bliztkrieg against men and the majority of women support and go along with them, men’s only choices are to fight back or be destroyed. Since men don’t generally go for laying down and dying, that pretty much leaves fighting back.

If you want a truce, then try convincing feminists to call off their attack dogs.

Reinholt December 14, 2009 at 07:56

More attempts at misdirection, this time to try to pop the hot air balloon of “materialism”. What’s next, calling us to socialism and communism as our only true refuge in this world, which will dovetail nicely into feminism?

Nice try.

The true scourge here is not materialism (although materialism, in itself, is just kind of silly sometimes), but the inability of a society to interact with itself and produce the next generation of human beings (or, if they do so, to do so in less than ideal conditions that lead to crime, disorder, and a persistent decline).

Feminism is the issue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
null December 14, 2009 at 07:58

Reinholt: “Here we go with yet another attempt to de-rail the comments in this thread by null.”

I just replied to something that was said in the post. Is that “de-railing” now? Should I have talked about something else instead, like medieval history or astronomy?

Charles Martel: “The essence of your position is that you refuse to accept the validity of the statement “women are shorter than men”, because it omits the preface “ON AVERAGE, women are shorter than men.” I see your point, but a reasonable person would accept that the words “on average” are implied in the statement “women are shorter than men.””

The essence of my position is that I refuse to accept a blanket statement that explicitly applies to every single woman on the planet. I have explained this many, many times now.

“I hope you will see that The Spearhead is extraordinary because of the raw intelligence exhibited in the writing and comments and by the absence of insults and ad hominem attacks.”

Somehow your “raw intelligence” (lol) does not enable you to figure out what I’m trying to say, even though I repeat myself and speak very plainly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed December 14, 2009 at 08:01

I don´t believe there´s a moral that promotes the myth of women to be superior; anyway is a matter of the person, not the gender.

Do a Google search on “women morally superior to men” and you will get quite a background on that myth. Then do a search on “women’s way of knowing” and you will get quite a number of hits exploring the claim that women have some sort of mystical consciousness that men lack.

In day to day life it plays out in interactions with women in which they hold tightly to a double standard. In the midst of all their attacks on men, manhood, and maleness itself, if a man points out a woman doing exactly the same thing he will almost invariably get “But, THAT’S DIFFERENT!

You may not believe it exists, but you are dealing with men who do believe that.

Reinholt December 14, 2009 at 08:07

To further what Zed says, one can also look at the implementation of law:

If a man even so much as bumps into his female partner, it is always domestic violence.

If a chick takes a golf club to a car and/or a person, it’s “because he deserved it”.

Yes, there is an enforced double standard and the morality and justification of actions as it regards the two sexes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
crella December 14, 2009 at 08:42

(girls, let´s strike back¡¡)

Typical female herd thinking. There you are, in black and white, demonstrating what these men are talking about. What’s right and what’s wrong should be your focus, not gathering more ‘girls’ to your side, this isn’t a playground snowball fight…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Snark December 14, 2009 at 09:15

Guys, please … if we DO respond to trolls, then let’s use brevity – and then get back to the topic at hand.

“Brevity is the soul of spit” – Roissy

It’s best just to say “NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!!!” in response to any troll who attempts to derail the topic. They do not want us to discuss these things, which is why they are doing this. By responding to them with these – perfectly reasonable – arguments, you are letting them win.

You’re making the fallacious assumption that these are people who can be reasoned with. But they’re not interested in reasonable arguments. Reasonable arguments are their very enemy. Because at the end of the day, it’s reasonable discussion – not violence or name-calling – which will topple them. And the people we need to present our reasonable arguments too are other men who have not yet caught on. We certainly don’t have to argue reasonably against trolls, because they won’t respond to it. That’s not why they’re here. They’re here to distract and derail. To halt progress. To stop our reasonable discussions from taking place. When you respond reasonably to their posts, you’re no longer reasonably discussing the actual topics you otherwise would have been. See what they did? They very intentionally use needly language to get under your skin and force you onto the defensive. Where you would have been discussing solutions to the problems of feminism, suddenly you’re on the back foot, trying to prove that you’re not a rapist. What the hell? How did that happen? Simple trickery. Feminist trolls are not genuinely asking about what we believe, as if they misunderstand our positions. They know what our positions are. Their attempts to undermine our discussions only work if you allow them too – by playing their game.

But you cannot lose if you do not play. Don’t even read troll comments. When has a feminist troll said anything of worth? Exactly. It’s not worth your time to read it. If you do feel the need to respond, just make it snappy. Trying to prove why she’s wrong, logically, point by point, is like trying to ride a pig to the moon. It’s not going to happen, and if you try it will be endlessly frustrating and you will get nowhere. The most you’re going to end up with is a pissed off pig.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Reinholt December 14, 2009 at 09:36

Ironically, isn’t a pissed off pig what we also started with in that case?

Ahem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 14, 2009 at 09:37

Yes – and it’s the most you’re going to achieve! Even if you manage to tailor your words to get deeply under her skin, she’s still been successful at derailing the topic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 14, 2009 at 09:57

And another anecdote from the front lines of the war: http://regretfulmorning.com/2009/12/i-slept-with-50-guys-bf-should-get-over-it/

Money quote, and winner of the “I just don’t get it” award:

I had a period in my life where I wanted to have some fun. In doing so I slept with just over 50 men in a short amount of time. I told my current boyfriend of 11 months this last night and now he’s being really distant. He has been with 25 women he claims, so I don’t see what the big difference is. I’m not fucking these 50 guys currently as I only want to be with him. He says that he is worried that I will cheat on him even though I’ve never cheated on anyone before.

… I am an attractive female who attracts good looking men. I like to have sex. Why is this so hard for the hive mind to comprehend a woman who knows what she wants? The reason why I’ve been in a relationship with my BF for 11 months is because I’m through with that. I got my kicks and got out. I am a lot more happy where I am today but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have fun doing what I did.

Well, there you have it.

It’s always humorous when women do not get the double standard. I’m not an apologist for male promiscuity at all, really, but even I understand why male promiscuity and female promiscuity are two different things — for men it is *hard* to be successfully promiscuous, whereas for most women it is relatively *easy* to be so. We tend, leaving moral issues aside, to praise those who have achieved something that is difficult more than we praise those who have done something which takes almost no effort in comparison. This is the underlying reason for the double standard.

As for why it is different that she had 50 partners in a couple of months vs his higher than average for men 25 in his life the answers are both many and obvious. First, there is the differential in time periods. 50 men in 60 days. There is only one way to describe that: extravagantly promiscuous. That leads to the next point: she described this extravagant promiscuity as “fun” — that, in itself is incompatible with being in a committed relationship, and presents a huge risk of infidelity. If she found it fun once to be the “town bike”, how can you be sure she won’t find it fun again? You can’t, which is the source of the problem. She is a woman who likes sexual variety and finds it fun — not only in “theory”, but also in practice. And she still looks back on that period of her life fondly.

The BF here should run for the exits, and it looks like that is in the cards from how he is described as reacting here. But the weird thing is how so few young women “get it” when it comes to these issues. This reflects directly the devastation wrought by contemporary feminism. Instead of telling young women the truth, which is that the absolute worst thing they can do to mke themselves an attractive prospect for long term mating is to slut around in many short term sexual liaisons, because almost all men find this to be a very big turn off, they told them that they could and should have sex just like they assume men do (ignoring the reality that most men are not having much sex at all, but feminists have always been focused on the apex males, in every context, and had no concern about the reality for most men).

The ironic thing is that this is now coming home to roost, as women like the clueless young thing who penned that article are learning the hard way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 14, 2009 at 11:04

If you think men should do more of the child-rearing, why wouldn’t you support custody laws that were more balanced?

I have openly stated on my own blog and on others that I wish many of the men who are complaining about Child Support WOULD fight to gain custody.

Men continue to seem “satisfied” with being “weekend dads” or having “visitation” and enjoying the kids for a day or two and then sending them back off to mom’s house.

I think that courts SHOULD start ruling based on “which parent really IS better for the child to live with” and giving men a chance to be considered the “automatic custodial parent”.

I am fully supportive of that, but that’s the very reason these complaints about paying child support are bullshit to me. These are the same men who don’t WANT custody of their kids. Who don’t WANT to raise them and just get a check in the male from their ex-wife.

They (seem) to want to do NEITHER. How is that fair to the woman OR the children?

I think that if men starting gaining custody of the kids as often as women do, that the arguments and bitterness on BOTH sides of the table would be less. I think more men would understand just how hard it IS to raise children AND have a job…..

….and I think more women would be appreciative of having an ex who actually PAYS and does his best to pay on time.

I think it would create more understanding on both sides of the gender fence if men would start standing up and FIGHTING for custody of their kids.

The sad thing is that very very few do. You hear TONS of men complaining about the Child Support payments…..but very few complaining “I want full custody and can’t get it!!!”

What does that tell you about their argument? They want to NOT pay and at the same time NOT be responsible for raising their kids. How are we supposed to feel sympathy for them then?

Crella–

I’ve heard this ’snapped after years of abuse’ defense time and time again, tell me LR, do you think it justifies murder?

If she actually WAS abused either verbally or physically then YES absolutely. (Meaning if there is proof that he was abusing her, I very much believe in the “imminent danger” defense for abused spouses).

You seem to miss the MANY cases where women finally killed their abuser and WERE convicted and sent to prison (and many of those cases the women were PROVEN to have been abused and in my opinion where there is proof of abuse, murder is completely acceptable).

If you have never been abused by a parent, a spouse, or otherwise you have no idea what is inside the mind of the abused. It’s like if you put a human inside a cage with a hungry Lion and lock it. Even if the lion is sleeping…..not intending to pounce….but the imminent danger was there of being eaten, would you say that the human “murdered the Lion” without a good reason just because the Lion was sleeping? NO. Because the person knew that when the lion woke up he WOULD be eating him immediately.

Same rule should apply for abused spouses. It’s not often that women abuse men physically on a regular basis (like men) but of course it DOES happen. It’s more often, though a woman abusing a male-child (since all abusers are cowards and go for who they think is weak) then a female abuser typically picks children or younger males. (My point being that’s why I’m using a women vs. male children as an example because it’s more common than adult female abusing adult male).

If a woman was abusing her young sons on a regular basis and they finally snapped and killed her, would I feel bad for the abusive mother???? Nope. She deserved what she got and the sons would have been acting in self-defense and “imminent danger” of future attacks.

I think ANY person who has been (proven) to having been abused regularly (whether male or female) has the right to kill the abuser and not be charged as a “murderer”. They are not a “murderer”. They are simply invoking their Constitutional Right to protect themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
fedrz December 14, 2009 at 11:15

There was this time that I worked out of a camp up north, doing some firefighting. You worked your ass off, and often would exceed 400hrs/month. It is much like the military. Fires don’t turn off at night.

It was good though, you made piles of dough and didn’t have any place to spend it. The best thing about camp was that they usually had a professional cook, and the meals were awesome. It sucked when it was busy though, because you couldn’t always make it for meals. But, they made up for it with having gobs of fruit and sandwiches at the ready pretty much 24hrs a day. It was always good to be able to pass through camp, even for only five minutes, because you could load up on sandwiches.

There’s power in a sandwich, Raine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 14, 2009 at 11:20

Snark–

Women are not “trolling” and attempting to derail actual justified complaints by men. We are pointing out that 90% of your complaints and woman-hate are about things that women never had a hand in.

From what I have seen in this joke we call “MRA”, there hasn’t been a single mention of a “right” that you don’t already have.

Basically when it comes down to it. The “rights” you are supposedly fighting for is the “Right to do nothing, be nothing, contribute nothing, and be responsible for nothing.”

Last I checked, some men already have those rights. They are called “deadbeats” and “criminals”. Welcome to reality, buddy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Novaseeker December 14, 2009 at 11:21

The reason men do not “fight” for custody more often is that it is, in most states, highly discouraged by the courts and the court-appointed “mediators” (who typically lean heavily on men to give in and settle for what the wife wants, mostly) and is often nothing other than a waste of legal fees. In cases where men contest custody, they often win, but this is because men only contest, typically, when there is some kind of obvious black eye on the woman that will present one of the rare cases where the court will not award her custody (e.g. addiction, documented abuse, etc.).

My lawyer told me flat out that in my situation (me and ex both professionals and high earning, spent almost equal time with the kid) it would be a waste of time and money to fight custody because I would not win since my ex had no obvious black eyes, and it would just piss off the judge. And I live in the suburbs of Washington DC, not in some rural traditionalist enclave.

The basic rule in most of the country is this: unless the mother is clearly unfit, she gets as much custody as she wants. If she wants full custody, she gets that. If she wants to share custody, she gets that. The only time she doesn’t get what she wants, by and large, is when she is clearly unfit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Snark December 14, 2009 at 11:26

Lady Raine -

I saw that your post was addressed to me and read no more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 14, 2009 at 12:50

Just watched a short video that I found on Makow’s sidebar, in regard to the physiological & resultant psychological effects of promiscuity on both males and females. Excellent stuff! It reminds me a lot of things I’ve previously read about “Sperm Wars.”

You can find the video here. (11 min.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 14, 2009 at 13:38

This is a beautiful thread. This is what its about.

I won’t post my life story and how feminism made it hell, I’ve done that enough in other threads and this one has gotten long anyways, but I will say this: The pain is real and it was severe. Severe to the point that I have described it as psychological torture, and that is not hyperbole. That pain was, for the most part, directly and indirectly caused by feminism.

To all you females against us, to all you mangina’s and white knights; Why would I make something like that up? I might be a little weird, but I’m far from crazy. I’m skeptical and rational by nature, and by deliberate design. Why would I lie about being a victim of feminism? Do you think I’m casting blame somewhere to cover up for the fact that I’m actually just a big old looser? (If you don’t know me, that’s ironic because I’m so fucking awesome.) Do you think, despite my high IQ, that after years of searching for the root cause of my discomfort and misery, my cognitive dissonance, that I made some horrible miscalculation, and feminism has actually been a completely benign force in my life. Come on. I’ve been ruminating on this shit for over a decade. I’ve looked at every concievable cause to my discontent, including a full analysis of the very nature of God itself. There is no way I’m completely wrong about this. There is no way I’m mostly wrong. Full stop. You think men take pride in being a victim? You think its easy to admit that I was so completely fooled by a system of feminist inspired PC thought police that it damaged my psycho-sexual development and twisted my very soul? You need a reality check if you think that, not me. It might not be “right” or “moral” for me to “hate” feminism to the full extent that I do, but is necessary, and it is real, and nothing, nothing, will stop me from seeing its utter and complete anihilation from the very psyche of our species, so God help me. If I’m 89, and this shit ain’t over, I’ll float my fucking hover chair into the HQ of NOW with my adult diapers stuffed to the brim with C4, and I’ll let God himself sort out the feminist goo from my rightously sprayed innards and excrement (I don’t advocate actual violence, I’m making a point). Until then, I plan on waging war the best way I know how; by being me, and letting people know what the fuck I’m about, and what I’m about is psychically raping feminist and their goons until they know what if feels like. But thats just me. We all have our paths, even if the destination is the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 14, 2009 at 14:03

Nova–

What you are failing to mention is the mothers who DON’T want custody, who CANNOT properly raise children and are given custody anyway. There are two sides to every story.

I agree with you that the courts make it “difficult financially” for men to fight for custody, but do you see the point I was making just in your statement?

Men are upset about the skewed Child Support Laws because they require them to pay (and sometimes pay unfairly). But those same men basically don’t want to “fight” for custody, either because it costs money and time.

What I am saying is that men are acting like they “fought and lost” a battle about Child Custody/Child Support, but in actuality men had a HAND in making the laws the way they are by NOT wanting to jump in and fight, by NOT wanting to spend the time and money, and by NOT “fighting” at all…..just giving up before even trying.

How are we women supposed to sympathize with your plight if you don’t even “toss your hat in the ring” so to speak before giving up and pointing the finger?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Novaseeker December 14, 2009 at 14:09

I actually don’t care if women sympathize or not. I stopped caring about that years ago. The system is baked and it isn’t going to change much. There is no point in fighting it. I write what I do to raise awareness so that other men can avoid the pitfalls of the system. Trying to change it is a fool’s errand, in my opinion, and an almost complete waste of time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 14, 2009 at 14:25

Nova, upon hearing you make that statement then where is the “men’s rights” part in that? If you aren’t fighting for “more dads having custody” then what ARE you trying for?

Like I said, its’ hard for me to see this as anything other than “We don’t want to pay OR be active fathers.” That’s not a “right” you have once you have made the adult decision to have sex and possibly create life.

There isn’t a group of mothers out there who enjoy the right to “Not be mothers and raise the kids OR pay for them” so why should men have that “right”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Novaseeker December 14, 2009 at 14:32

I’m not “fighting for” anything. I am trying to educate men on the dangers of marrying and/or having children in this culture. Trying to change the system is pointless — ain’t gonna happen unless there is a “system crash”.

I’m not really an “MRA”, LR. I’m about helping men make more informed and less self-annihilating choices in their lives. I think MRA-ing is a waste of time in our culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 14, 2009 at 14:51

Zed,

Could you point to some examples? I think that more often than not the “all” is supplied by the audience. Most of what I have seen is in the form “Women are…” or “Women do…” without the qualifier “some.” If you have some good examples – meaning not some obscure blog but something reasonably high profile – where the “all” is explicitly stated, I would like to see them.

Ummmm…Arthurs comment near the top of this post:

All women hate all men.

And basically just about any GlobalMan post lol. At least when it comes to American women.

Now whether there’s more, I can’t remember, but the use of “all” seems to be in the minority on this board. However it seems that Null has seen it elsewhere on PUA and MRA blogs.

Null’s issue is simply with the use of the word “all”, not generalization itself (unless I missed something).

Moving on…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Harry December 14, 2009 at 14:58

@Novaseeker

“Trying to change the system is pointless — ain’t gonna happen unless there is a “system crash”. … “I think MRA-ing is a waste of time in our culture.”

Bottom of the class! More homework needed.

@Jabherwochie

” It might not be “right” or “moral” for me to “hate” feminism to the full extent that I do, but is necessary, and it is real, and nothing, nothing, will stop me from seeing its utter and complete anihilation from the very psyche of our species, so God help me. If I’m 89, and this shit ain’t over, I’ll float my fucking hover chair into the HQ of NOW with my adult diapers stuffed to the brim with C4, and I’ll let God himself sort out the feminist goo from my rightously sprayed innards and excrement.”

Top of the class! Scholarship awarded.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
wow December 14, 2009 at 15:31

LR..”What I am saying is that men are acting like they “fought and lost” a battle about Child Custody/Child Support, but in actuality men had a HAND in making the laws the way they are by NOT wanting to jump in and fight, by NOT wanting to spend the time and money, and by NOT “fighting” at all…..just giving up before even trying.”

Why the fuck do men have to fight at all?…it should be 50% shared equal parenting by law, upon separation. Instead, women hold all the cards, rob men of access to their children, and men are “compelled” to ask a judge to slap the cunt on the wrist for denying access. Maybe go to court to fight for equal parenting and drop $50K…only to lose. Many men don’t fight because they can’t afford to fight, and then cunts like yourself come along and trump the feminist canard, “see, he never wanted the children anyway, he won’t even fight for them”.

I have a friend of mine, the polar opposite of the men you write about, great dad, hard worker, etc. Upon separation, he discovered his ex is calculating HIS access in order to keep it below 40%, as in Canada, that is considered shared parenting and subject to C/S adjustment or elimination. He discovered sheets of paper calculating hours, days, and a number with 35% calculated…fucking unbelievable….she quit playing coed volleyball once a week because if he had the children the calcualtion would top 40% forcing a C/S adjustment…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 14, 2009 at 15:49

“I’ll let God himself sort out the feminist goo from my rightously sprayed innards and excrement.”

Oh, trust me….God hates you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Lady Raine December 14, 2009 at 15:54

Wow–

You further proved my point. You mentioned $$$ in your argument…..then more $$$$$ along with “fuck that!” as your argument for why men aren’t ACTIVELY FIGHTING TO CHANGE the Laws regarding custody.

You don’t REALLY want equal custody and equal responsibility for raising the children. If you DID you’d realize that spending the $$$ to go to court for custody……

….would be far “cheaper” in the end than paying 18 years of Child Support. So, basically….it’s NOT the $$$ it costs to “go to court for custody”, it’s that you don’t want to pay child support AND you don’t want to have actual REAL parental responsibility.

If it were REALLY about money, you would be smart enough to realize that gaining custody of those kids and paying a lawyer would be the more economical solution to paying a lifetime of child support. So that leads me to believe that you are using that as a cover for your REAL intention, which is to not be responsible, period.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Novaseeker December 14, 2009 at 16:09

Bottom of the class! More homework needed.

Fine, Harry. An example of why MRA will never really work. We disagree on too many things. Why? Precisely because we are men, and it is our nature to disagree with each other.

If it were REALLY about money, you would be smart enough to realize that gaining custody of those kids and paying a lawyer would be the more economical solution to paying a lifetime of child support. So that leads me to believe that you are using that as a cover for your REAL intention, which is to not be responsible, period.

This assumes it works. It mostly doesn’t. I have had quite a few colleagues contest custody and they ended up just as I am, yet they wasted legal fees, and also pissed off the judge enough for it to impact the property settlement, too. Your argument makes sense only if men have a decent chance to win, and they do not, unless the mother has a black eye. If she doesn’t, and most of the time she doesn’t, the courts lean in favor of mother custody, regardless of whether the father contests that or not. In light of that reality, men are as dumb as doornails to waste the money to contest a foregone conclusion. You’re basically saying that unless men piss into the wind, you will have no respect for them. That’s your right, but it’s not reasonable to expect men to piss into the wind simply to win the approval of women to make changes to the system. The fact is that changes to the system won’t be made, regardless, and men will simply be poorer for having pissed into the wind. Women do not care about this stuff, because they know they win in the family court, and why on earth would they ever support changing that? Unless they are religious, it makes no rational sense — it’s a zero sum sex war and has been since forever. Every side takes its advantage when it can, and right now women have the advantage and it’s dumb for men to waste money and energy to try to change that. It will change only when conditions change which make it unsustainable. Until then men need to realize they have options to deal with this disadvantage we suffer from, and those involve avoiding marriage and pregnancy. It really is that simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 14, 2009 at 16:09

LR…..I understand your child’s dad bailed. But, the courts are stacked against men when trying to acquire 50% or even less custody of their children. The argument is in the best interests of the child. What you are suggesting is men spend whatever money they have left post-separation (which is little for middle class men) and go to court to fight and lose. This has been done to death LR, that is why sites like this exist, it’s not imaginary.

Organizations like NOW are fighting against equal custody because the financial gravy train would end for many women. You say you support men who want to be part of their children’s lives…well, stop spreading the myth about irresponsible men. I have my son 50%, and I don’t pay child support. He will grow up with an amazing dad, a good mother (terrible wife) and be better for it. Even my-ex had your mentality….I almost had to prove my fathering skills before she “GAVE” me 50%…do you know how humiliating that sounds….I was a 100% dad, diaper changer, rocked him to sleep…but upon separation she offered ONE nite a month and Wednesday for dinner…..are you getting it LR???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 14, 2009 at 16:17

Yet one more attempt to de-rail the thread, because valuable ideas and stories are being shared.

This must actually be extremely important; I, for one, think wow is on to something. I mean, if this were no big deal, why would anyone be so upset about it? If money were a non-issue, why would we spend so much fighting over it after a divorce? If children were so unimportant, why would who has custody even be part of this discussion?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 14, 2009 at 16:20

Also, wow, don’t bother trying to argue with her. She has a strongly vested interest in not getting it; what we see on these sites is merely the incredible psychological discharge that comes from trying to deal with cognitive dissonance. If she ever “got it”, she’d have to change dramatically as a person and accept fault for her bad decisions, and that will never happen.

You might as well go argue with a brick wall.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 14, 2009 at 16:22

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/31.htm

Proverbs 31:10-31

10) An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.

11) The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.

12) She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.

13) She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.

14) She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.

15) She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household
And portions to her maidens.

16) She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.

(Hey! Property owning business women! Who make sandwiches!)

17) She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.

18) She senses that her gain is good;
Her lamp does not go out at night.

19) She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.

20) She extends her hand to the poor,
And stretches out her hands to the needy.

21) She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22) She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

23) Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.

24) She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.

25) Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future.

26) She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

(Ever notice how much the Bible mentions women’s tongues?)

27) She looks well to the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.

28) Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:

29) “Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all.”

30) Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.

31) Give her the products of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.

——

An excellent wife, who can find?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jean December 14, 2009 at 16:27

Pierced Head said:
“Creatures that get through life by hunting out others to provide for them …”

There is a name for such creatures in biology – Parasites.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith December 14, 2009 at 16:56

The only time she doesn’t get what she wants, by and large, is when she is clearly unfit

I would argue it’s worse than that. Heck, women in prison have been awarded custody. Mere unfitness isn’t sufficient, she must be disastrously unfit. Even then, if she somehow fixes her problems she can petition for custody later, and she’ll usually win. A man, of course, doesn’t get second chances. Once unfit, always unfit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry December 14, 2009 at 18:19

@Novaseeker

” An example of why MRA will never really work. We disagree on too many things. ”

1. Why do you waste your time here then?

You will probably deny that you are an MRA, and yet you spend your time round here trying to educate men about the numerous pitfalls these days.

Sounds like an MRA to me.

2. One of the problems that MRAs face is people like you repeatedly telling them that they are wasting their time.

3. The fact that MRAs disagree with each other does not mean that they are wasting their time, nor does it mean that they won’t achieve anything. The latter does not follow from the former.

Indeed, MRAs have already made some significant progress.

You obviously cannot see this progress, despite the numerous articles pointing them out.

4. MRAs do, in fact, mostly agree on what the problems are, and on who are their enemies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jean December 14, 2009 at 18:41

Raine, Null,
I don’t usually feed trolls, so here’s your only meal: .50 @ 350 grains.

Finest lead we can find, to ensure this ends the right way.

Some of us are more than a bit tired, more than a bit cranky, and if you intentionally CHOOSE not to get it, we’ll just end the debate in what WE perceive to be a favorable way…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 14, 2009 at 19:20

@Jabherwochie
Damn, I couldn’t have said it better (I mean that, I really couldn’t). Excellent post, much appreciated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 14, 2009 at 19:56

Renee December 14, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Zed,

Could you point to some examples? I think that more often than not the “all” is supplied by the audience. Most of what I have seen is in the form “Women are…” or “Women do…” without the qualifier “some.” If you have some good examples – meaning not some obscure blog but something reasonably high profile – where the “all” is explicitly stated, I would like to see them.

Ummmm…Arthurs comment near the top of this post:

All women hate all men.

And basically just about any GlobalMan post lol,

Globalman and Arthur have already been given as examples. Apparently null and I define “all over the PUA/MRA blogosphere” a bit differently. So far Welmer has chosen to exercise very little control over who comments here and what they are allowed to say. That is clearly an unpopular approach because I have read a signficant number of posts here basically demanding that someone else be silenced.

But comments are not the blog, and I honestly can’t think of a post by any of the authors here who made blanket statements about “all” women. I’ve read some pretty vile comments about men from some of the women posters, most of which I simply chose to ignore.

I was serious when I said I would like to see examples. I know that there are a lot of extremists in the MRM, but there is nothing we can do to control them any more than there is anything they can do to control us.

The simplest solution for anyone who doesn’t like what gets said here is for them to go away and not come back. No one forces them to come here and read what is said, and it will be a very valuable lesson for them to learn how powerless they are becoming to dictate or restrict how men express themselves.

The Fifth Horseman December 14, 2009 at 19:59

But comments are not the blog, and I honestly can’t think of a post by any of the authors here who made blanket statements about “all” women.

On the contrary, a woman who does consistently display maturity, genuine fairness, and empathy for the massive mistreatment of men that happens in America today, is quickly praised by men here. I certainly make sure I recognize the (rare) fair and intelligent women here with praise.

Feminist/misandrist websites quickly ban even the most polite dissent. That men’s sites don’t do this drives the misandrists nuts, and proves the moral superiority of men over ‘most’ women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
ray December 14, 2009 at 21:06

David Brandt—

“I appreciate the information, all of it since I requested information about it, but particularly that on autism. I’m curious how you understand so much about the autism part though.”

thats a long story and my relationships w/ autistic people difficult to summarize

but my interests in autism and men’s consciousness/movements are in most ways the same thing

i work w autistic men on a variety of projects, usually involving communication

one of these men, who is nonverbal, one day typed out (laboriously!) this sentence, concerning his local group of autistic friends:

“Taming the shrew sole bent to our purpose”

LOL!

“I have watched him simply cut people off, turn his back and walk away when the bullshit is flying. He has extremely little tolerance for female BS,”

yep i’ve seen mine go off on ‘em too, in public or where-ever, zero bullshit affability

it’s especially gratifying when the autistic guy is, say, eight years old — then theres nothing the skank can do about being lit up for whatever bullshit he caught her pulling

every autistic male i’ve known well, boy or man, has been an MRA — dunno where that puts them by ratio extension vis the general population, but it’s got to be astronomical

“which is thrown at him constantly simply because of he is extremely attractive. It almost seems like a curse for him, since he wants nothing to do with it. His mind (or parts of it) function at such an advanced rate above mine–I stopped being amazed by it when he was a child. There must be some connection between this advanced intelligence and his intolerance for BS.”

bingo

yr kid is just sane, is all, david — and like many autistic guys, including boys, he has NOT allowed his mind to be washed, waxed, and taken for a spin by matriarchal propaganda nor feminine charms/deceptions

one autistic kid i know, v sweet and intelligent, has been an overt MRA since around five or six — started freezing Batman still-shots of F4J protests from england and pointing them out to mom and me

:O)

future so bright/gotta wear shades

i’ve got a lot of respect for good caretakers of autistic people, it isnt easy but it is challenging, and both rewarding and incredible in ways one must experience to understand

it’s great that you and your son have each other, thats the kind of “new age” i will support

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 15, 2009 at 01:50

Ray
Thanks, much appreciated!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 05:23

Snark: “It’s best just to say “NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!!!” in response to any troll who attempts to derail the topic. They do not want us to discuss these things, which is why they are doing this. By responding to them with these – perfectly reasonable – arguments, you are letting them win.”

It was Zed who brought up the subject in the first place, you idiot. Responding to something he wrote in his post could not possibly be defined as derailing. But all these hysterical, paranoid ravings about “trolls” that are out to get us all? Those are clearly derailments. You are derailing the thread right now. You are a troll.

“But you cannot lose if you do not play. Don’t even read troll comments. When has a feminist troll said anything of worth? Exactly. It’s not worth your time to read it. If you do feel the need to respond, just make it snappy. Trying to prove why she’s wrong, logically, point by point, is like trying to ride a pig to the moon. It’s not going to happen, and if you try it will be endlessly frustrating and you will get nowhere. The most you’re going to end up with is a pissed off pig.”

What’s extremely typical for MRAs is that any real or imagined opposition towards MRA ideology can only be the work of feminists. Kind of like how Muslims think Zionists are responsible for everything, and how loony left-wing conspiracy theorists think the US government is responsible for everything. The universe is a simple place where it’s just us vs. them.

Naturally, feminists are no different. They think any real or imagined opposition towards feminist ideology can only be the work of misogynists.

Novaseeker: “It’s always humorous when women do not get the double standard. I’m not an apologist for male promiscuity at all, really, but even I understand why male promiscuity and female promiscuity are two different things — for men it is *hard* to be successfully promiscuous, whereas for most women it is relatively *easy* to be so. We tend, leaving moral issues aside, to praise those who have achieved something that is difficult more than we praise those who have done something which takes almost no effort in comparison. This is the underlying reason for the double standard.”

They aren’t different things, they are the same. If you’ve slept with lots of women then you have no business whining when your girlfriend has slept with lots of men. And should we give lesser sentences to murderers if they committed their crime through great difficulty?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 15, 2009 at 06:14

@Null

Anyone considering marriage counseling should know there are two kinds of marriage counselors – women and men that think like women.

They aren’t different things, they are the same. If you’ve slept with lots of women then you have no business whining when your girlfriend has slept with lots of men.

You think like a woman. A woman aspiring to be a player is like a guy aspiring to be fat. No effort required and no honor or achievement in it – all it takes is to open and swallow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 06:17

“They aren’t different things, they are the same. If you’ve slept with lots of women then you have no business whining when your girlfriend has slept with lots of men. And should we give lesser sentences to murderers if they committed their crime through great difficulty?”

They are different. Men and women are different. Both our bodies and our brains. Therefore different behaviors are expected of the two. Men are expected to lift weights for muscle mass. Women are not. Women are expected to be chase because it is a sign of self control, future fidelity, women get STDs easier, women get pregnant easier, women have a harder time seperating sex from emotion, and because men like a vagina that hasn’t seen a lot of traffic for the same reason we like brand new furniture vs old furniture. A man is not. His penis is like a weapon, and it needs to be weilded in combat to perfect the art of fucking, and needs to be honed by use and abuse into a weapon that becomes as much a part of him, as say, his penis. Men are also a lot hornier. FULL STOP. (For you linquistic perfectionist, I’m talking averages here. Exceptions exist.) If someone needs to eat 7 times a day, and someone else only needs to eat 1 time a day, you will be a lot more forgiving when hungrier person raids the cubbard in the middle of the night. Common fucking sense.

Hey Ray-

I’m a nut about Autistics too. I have/had Aspergers. I used to vividly think in pictures (Its more consciously used now, less automatic, although images often pop into my mind accompanying my thoughts. It helps to think in words for dealing with life, as they are often appropriate shorthand for more complex stuff, stuff it would take too long to visualize through) and I had delayed speech development. My honesty, which was luckily interrperted to my advantage as dry, biting humor in my school days, I’m sure is what turned most girls off to me. That and my weak chin. (I have a goatee now. Amazing difference a chin, which is a sign of testosterone can make with women. I have normal T levels, just a geneticly small chin. My Dad is worse, looks like a Simpson’s character when he shaves his beard.)

Unlike more typically Autistic people, I have strong emotional fluxuations, which I think ended up being a net positive in the end, although brutal for much of my life. It forced me to confront emotions as the chemical reactions they are, and although I partake in emotions, I can rationalize them away pretty good if I’m able to concentrate on it just a bit. In chaotic situations, they can take over, just like for everyone. Anyways, I know we’ve had a rough spot in the past, but sometimes I come here to let off steam by masturbating my own ego. Try not to let it make you uncomfortable. “Dad, the doors locked for a reason!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 15, 2009 at 06:27

Charles Martel -

A woman aspiring to be a player is like a guy aspiring to be fat. No effort required and no honor or achievement in it – all it takes is to open and swallow.

Just want to chime in that this was a pearl tossed before swine. Hilarious. I love it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 06:31

Charles Martel: “You think like a woman.”

If logical thinking is “women’s thinking” then I have no problem with thinking like a woman.

“A woman aspiring to be a player is like a guy aspiring to be fat. No effort required and no honor or achievement in it – all it takes is to open and swallow.”

Hahahahahahahahaha. When you grow older I hope you’ll realize that sticking your dick into a woman is not an “achievement” and there is no “honor” involved.

Jabherwochie: “They are different. Men and women are different. Both our bodies and our brains. Therefore different behaviors are expected of the two.”

There’s no rational reason to apply different standards of behavior in this case. There’s no difference between a woman sleeping around and a man sleeping around. This double standard has developed simply because it’s convinient. Rationalizing the double standard and coming up with reasons for it is just an afterthought.

“Women are expected to be chaste because it is a sign of self control, future fidelity.”

Yes, because men shouldn’t excercise self-control or be loyal. That shit is for bitches only, am I right bro?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Snark December 15, 2009 at 06:36

@ null

I saw that you had addressed a comment to me, but I didn’t read it. Could you type it up again?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 06:43

“There’s no rational reason to apply different standards of behavior in this case. There’s no difference between a woman sleeping around and a man sleeping around. This double standard has developed simply because it’s convinient. Rationalizing the double standard and coming up with reasons for it is just an afterthought.”

This is fundamentally wrong. I can’t argue against it, because I can’t argue against someone who claims the sky is green. How am I supposed to counter that? I just gave you rational reasons. They are not after thoughts to justify random behavior. The reasons are so basic, all religions express the value of women being chaste. It is cultural wisdom. So traditional, we’ve forgotten its origianl purpose, but I just gave you some, not all, logical reasons why it should be that way. Why their is a double standard. Why the double standard that only men fight in wars?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 06:45

@Null-

Your name is appropriate. Your ideas are null and void.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Sociopathic Revelation December 15, 2009 at 06:49

“Your name is appropriate. Your ideas are null and void.”

Yep. And he’s a big fat zero and a reeking troll to boot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel December 15, 2009 at 06:50

@Null

When you grow older …….

I’m 52…….how long do I have to wait?

blockquote>……..I hope you’ll realize that sticking your dick into a woman is not an “achievement”

Now I get it. You’re gay.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 06:59

There’s no rational reason to apply different standards of behavior in this case. There’s no difference between a woman sleeping around and a man sleeping around. This double standard has developed simply because it’s convinient. Rationalizing the double standard and coming up with reasons for it is just an afterthought.

Oh, come on. Assuming that things “just developed” for no reason in a consistent way across the planet beggars belief, null. The reasons for it have been articulated pretty well here, and I would add that the true underlying reason why female chastity was everywhere prized more than male chastity is that the impacts of female infidelity on men are more dramatic than the impacts of male infidelity are on women — that is, women cannot be forced to raise a child who is not their genetic offspring unknowingly, while a man can be so forced rather easily. This is the reason why female chastity and virginity were prized everywhere — it shores up very real concerns about male paternity that are risks that women simply do not run, full stop, in cases of male infidelity.

But you can go and assume that the double standard, which applies virtually everywhere on the planet, “just developed”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 07:06

A modern troll like Snark is like a ruler of a country who terrorizes the population in the name of anti-terrorism. The idea is to do something while giving the appearance of doing the opposite. Snark attempts to derail the thread while trying to make it seem like he is fighting “trolls” who are supposedly doing the real derailing (in this case it’s “derailing” to reply to something that the author of the post wrote). His goal is to turn the entire discussion into a flamewar about who’s trolling and who’s not and what all this trolling business is really about anyway.

Any smart person can see through his ruse. A person of average intelligence should be able to figure it out once it’s been explained to him. Sadly, forum dwellers are neither smart nor of average intelligence, so the tactics employed by trolls like Snark are very effective.

Jabherwochie: “Why the double standard that only men fight in wars?”

Because men are stronger and more fit to fight wars. See, there’s an actual reason for that, whereas there is no reason why men should be able to sleep around with impunity while women shouldn’t. Any appeals to biology or how things used to be are irrelevant, because we have this thing called birth control that lets women have sex without the danger of an unwanted pregnancy. Even if you consider the situation from the perspective of, say, 18th century society, then you are only arguing about practical matters, i.e. unwanted out-of-wedlock pregnancies. It still doesn’t mean there is any moral difference between female and male promiscuity. It just means that it’s easier for men to sleep around.

There are not lulz big enough to convey the hilarity of having men shake their fists at sluts and whores while discussing how to have sex with as many sluts and whores as possible. That’s basically roissy’s site in a nutshell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 15, 2009 at 07:13

Sociopathic Revelation: “Yep. And he’s a big fat zero and a reeking troll to boot.”

You’re a troll, for the reasons I explained above.

Charles Martel: “I’m 52…….how long do I have to wait?

If you’re 52 and still have the mentality of an immature teenager, there likely is no hope for you.

“Now I get it. You’re gay.”

A juvenile retort like this is, of course, exactly the kind of thing you’d expect from an immature teenager.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 07:24

null – “…there is no reason why men should be able to sleep around with impunity while women shouldn’t. “

Okay (forgetting about all the reasons already presented as to why there is a difference), let’s go with that line of reasoning.

Then it’s up to women to start devaluing promiscuous men the same way men devalue promiscuous women. Once you’ve achieved this, the double standard will no longer exist.

So, then, go ahead and start explaining to women all the pitfalls of seeking after promiscuous men – STD’s, tendency to f*ck-n-chuck, lack of fidelity,etc.; and see if you can get them to change their mode of judging men.

The reasons why men devalue women are fundamentally sound, and women would do well to adopt the same views.

But, since we all already know that your position is that men should learn to be wholly accepting of womens promiscuity, I’d invite you to explain how a promiscuous woman can be of benefit to a man in any long(er) term relationship. Or, perhaps you might just explain the value of promiscuity (as it relates to the modern world) in a gender neutral way?

Goo ahead, sell me on the idea that promiscuity should be the ideal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 15, 2009 at 07:31

slwerner: “Then it’s up to women to start devaluing promiscuous men the same way men devalue promiscuous women. Once you’ve achieved this, the double standard will no longer exist.”

If men devalue them so much, why do they continue to enable them? Women cannot be promiscuous if there is nobody to be promiscuous with.

“But, since we all already know that your position is that men should learn to be wholly accepting of womens promiscuity–”

You are making things up, though why you apparently expect to get away with it is anybody’s guess. I haven’t said or implied at point that female promiscuity – or any promiscuity – should be accepted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 07:44

“Because men are stronger and more fit to fight wars. See, there’s an actual reason for that, whereas there is no reason why men should be able to sleep around with impunity while women shouldn’t. ”

Women can get pregnent you stupid fucking idiot! Not men! THATS BIOLOGY TOO!! Do you understand that this might not be fair, just like the war analogy, but it is the reality! Are you that fucking dense! Do not fucking insult me by claiming my logic is irrational you fucking twit! You have frayed my last nerve! There is very little gray area in this argument! If you cannot admit you are wrong, then your ego controls you, it makes you a fool, and you have no buisness engaging someone as open minded and brilliant as I am. Bow the fuck down to a superior mind! I tried to make peace with you in another thread, but the absolutism you claim to hate in us, also runs rampant in your unsophisticated mind! How many times must we articulatly refute before you acknowledge the potential validity of our perspective, even if you hold onto yours! Your inability to admit your own failibility is so much like that of a feminist! Shut the fuck up and learn, or just admit you are wrong and continue debating us in other areas. And don’t fucking split hairs all of a sudden. We’ve covered the broad spectrum of issues surrounding promiscuity. Its not right for men, but it is inherently, logically, rationally, biologically, psychologically, socially more acceptable. Deal with it. I’m only pissed because you’re a man, and you should know better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 07:47

@Null-

How old are you and whats your intellectual background?

You sound like a highschool punk, someone who knows everything he needs to, in other words, everything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Snark December 15, 2009 at 07:49

Jabherwochie,

Firstly, we have no proof that the troll is male. Feminist trolls will often claim to be male in order to be taken more seriously.

Secondly, I understand why you are angry and that your anger is sincere. A man has every right to be angry when confronted with such bullshit arguments as the trolls – ridiculous arguments which already have an effect on his life and autonomy.

The thing is, the troll’s very purpose was to wind you up like this. His/her mission is accomplished. He/she knows exactly what our positions are, and knows that his/her own arguments are ridiculous. The aim is to derail discussion and make people angry. If the troll succeeds at this, he/she has successfully prevented us from discussing the issues we otherwise would have been.

I know I’ve already made a big post about this already here. But please, don’t respond to troll arguments. If you must respond, do it briefly and dismissively. Don’t try to reason with them. They’re not interested in being reasonable. It’s like trying to ride a pig to the moon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 07:54

And technology doesn’t change our evolved instincts, emotions and behaviors. Just because we invented abortion, doesn’t make it right. Just because we invented the nuclear bomb, doesn’t mean that should be our first option in wars. Birth control better allows women to be sluts, that doesn’t make being a slut moral or eithical, and birth control doesn’t prevent all the pscyhological ramifications from sex from happening, and isn’t full proof for stopping pregnencies and is even less affective at stopping STDs. Have you seen current STD statistics. I guess you want everyone to have warts on their cock and cunt. Theirs nothing immoral with it, is there, they are just warts. Your smart enough to rationalize things away, but not smart enough to not be abrasive and smug. No one will listen to you if they don’t like you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 07:56

@Snark-

I am volatile. Its a fault we will all have to work around and adjust for, including myself. I do not wish to extinguish it however, as it has served me well in the past. I appreciate your candor. I am far from perfect, unlike Null apparently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 07:56

null – “If men devalue them so much, why do they continue to enable them? Women cannot be promiscuous if there is nobody to be promiscuous with.”

I afraid you’ve gotten this one exactly backwards. It is women (promiscuous women) that make it possible for men to act promiscuously. Most men WOULD be promiscuous, except for the lack of opportunity (we are hard-wired that way).

In their historical role as sexual “gatekeepers” women have always held the key to promiscuous behavior. If they didn’t put out for promiscuous men, it would put an end to promescuity.

null – “You are making things up, though why you apparently expect to get away with it is anybody’s guess. I haven’t said or implied at point that female promiscuity – or any promiscuity – should be accepted.”

Perhaps not out-right. But your comments certainly suggest that you believe men have no grounds to reject womens promiscuity. How does that NOT argue for the acceptance of such female promiscuity?

Why don’t you come right-out and state your position? Is promiscuity a good thing, or a bad thing in the world today?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed December 15, 2009 at 07:58

The thing is, the troll’s very purpose was to wind you up like this. His/her mission is accomplished. He/she knows exactly what our positions are, and knows that his/her own arguments are ridiculous. The aim is to derail discussion and make people angry. If the troll succeeds at this, he/she has successfully prevented us from discussing the issues we otherwise would have been.

My experience has been that it takes highly developed mental discipline to overcome the power of words to trigger our reactions. I’ve watched men engage in these arguments for a long time, and I think one of the most difficult things for men to do is to really internalize and fully believe that they are interacting with people totally devoid of good faith – people whose entire intent is malicious. It seems like every individual man has to come to this conclusion on his own, and can only do so as a result of wasting hundreds or thousands of hours in fruitless argument.

I think good conversations can continue around the trolls and the people they sucker into reacting to them. There are a lot of people on this site whose posts I just scroll past because I have either heard everything they have to say, or I have come to expect their input to be useless and/or inflammatory.

My personal strategy is to continue the dialogue and by doing so make sure I frustrate those whose purpose is to derail it.

Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 07:59

I apologize for this and future outbursts. I’ll do my best at limiting them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:02

It did feel good. Maybe I’m a rage-aholic. Goddamn white trash genes rearing their head.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 08:04

@null

Double standart exist, basically because men and women are different. Is women, and not men who give praises to male promiscuity by sleeping with them. If they want to do it, fine, fuck them (in all ways possible).

But we as males have the right to value chastity on a woman, because women without it are only good for us as a cum-bucket and with date rape laws, not even that. Just as women want a man with social dominance, we want a woman who is chaste and modest, at least for a Long Term Relationship.

See, that’s the crux. We will gladly fuck women without the intention of having a long term relationship with them, and any male who has both the option and the insight to do it will do the same. We reject promiscuous women as a Long-Term Relationship material, but we will put our dicks in them vag.

That’s the only talent of them (promiscuos women) that is useful to us. And for beings that are all about “equality”, they do get hurt when thay are called sluts. Deep in their black hearts they know that no male will stay after the fuck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 08:07

Any appeals to biology or how things used to be are irrelevant, because we have this thing called birth control that lets women have sex without the danger of an unwanted pregnancy.

That’s not the point, null. The medical profession will tell you that non-paternity is around 10%, on average, across the population. This equates to guys raising kids of other men without their knowledge. That is a risk that women simply do not run, and birth control and abortion do not change that risk. Female infidelity has a potential impact on men that is greater than the impact of male infidelity on women, and promiscuous behavior in women raises the risk of infidelity, which in turn raises the risk of being biologically duped. Men and women are simply differently situated when it comes to the risks run by unfaithful spouses, with men faring worse — hence the logic of seeing female promiscuity (as a predictor of female infidelity in potential) as a more serious matter than male promiscuity. It simply makes sense because men run risks relating to female infidelity that women do not run with respect to male infidelity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 15, 2009 at 08:10

Jabherwochie: “Women can get pregnent you stupid fucking idiot! Not men! THATS BIOLOGY TOO!! Do you understand that this might not be fair, just like the war analogy, but it is the reality! Are you that fucking dense! Do not fucking insult me by claiming my logic is irrational you fucking twit! You have frayed my last nerve! There is very little gray area in this argument! If you cannot admit you are wrong, then your ego controls you, it makes you a fool, and you have no buisness engaging someone as open minded and brilliant as I am. Bow the fuck down to a superior mind! I tried to make peace with you in another thread, but the absolutism you claim to hate in us, also runs rampant in your unsophisticated mind! How many times must we articulatly refute before you acknowledge the potential validity of our perspective, even if you hold onto yours! Your inability to admit your own failibility is so much like that of a feminist! Shut the fuck up and learn, or just admit you are wrong and continue debating us in other areas. And don’t fucking split hairs all of a sudden.”

lulz

Maybe next time you should read a post all the way to the end before replying in a hysterical fit of misplaced rage.

“We’ve covered the broad spectrum of issues surrounding promiscuity. Its not right for men, but it is inherently, logically, rationally, biologically, psychologically, socially more acceptable. Deal with it. I’m only pissed because you’re a man, and you should know better.”
So when something in society is unjust and needs to be addressed, we should just accept it and “deal with it.” I assume this applies to feminism as well?

“How old are you and whats your intellectual background?

You sound like a highschool punk, someone who knows everything he needs to, in other words, everything.”

I’m old enough to read a post all the way to the end before replying.

And I see Snark is still continuing his brilliant trolling scheme even though I already exposed it for what it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 15, 2009 at 08:12

No worries, Jab. If nothing else, stringing null along has proven, beyond any doubt, his/her/its (I prefer it, personally) complete and total idiocy.

With that said, I think it is pretty telling that we live in a world where that sort of behavior is enabled and/or people genuinely believe what null is saying (I hope the former, as the latter is more chilling to contemplate).

Maybe we should write up some sort of article on typical feminist troll tactics to de-rail conversations?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed December 15, 2009 at 08:15

Maybe we should write up some sort of article on typical feminist troll tactics to de-rail conversations?

Excellent idea. We can put it along side of Anakin’s “Catalog of Anti-male Shaming Tactics” because there is a lot of overlap.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Snark December 15, 2009 at 08:20

Maybe we should write up some sort of article on typical feminist troll tactics to de-rail conversations?

I’ve been considering this. I had some of it already mapped out; the exact course these conversations will follow. One tactic I often encounter is that where she refuses to answer your questions (which pick holes in her arguments), and then poses her own ridiculous questions instead – forcing you constantly onto the defensive if you play her game.

Responding dismissively and briefly is how you turn the game back on them. It’s exactly as zed says – their entire intent is malicious, they are not engaging with us in reasonable discourse or the pursuit of truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:20

“Maybe next time you should read a post all the way to the end before replying in a hysterical fit of misplaced rage.”

Fine. You caught me at a moment of weakness. Are you proud that you can be so enraging to people? And don’t deflect now, all of our points stand, even the biological one I made. I don’t need to ace every debate to see the weak logic of my opponent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Reinholt December 15, 2009 at 08:23

Jabber,

Just stop, man. We all know that null is acting purely out of malice, and has zero desire for actual discourse. Your actions only encourage it. This is like attempting to reason with a rabid raccoon.

Let it go.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:26

“We’ve covered the broad spectrum of issues surrounding promiscuity. Its not right for men, but it is inherently, logically, rationally, biologically, psychologically, socially more acceptable. Deal with it. I’m only pissed because you’re a man, and you should know better.”

So when something in society is unjust and needs to be addressed, we should just accept it and “deal with it.” I assume this applies to feminism as well?

Thats a non-sequitor. We can deal with the immoral nature of men’s promiscuity most affectively by discouraging female promiscuity. War is wrong, but advocating destroying all of our weapons is suicidal. Male promiscuity is wrong, but advocating that the sex programmed to spread its seed far and wide suppress his nature so women don’t have to worry about it is equally naive. Do you think women would respond by just letting it be. Their is something called seduction that women are quite skilled at using when they need to. You can’t stop men from being more horny then women, but you can stop women from immitating that behavior because you think it empowers them. Women immitating mens worst attributes, attributes beneficial in certain context, don’t make me give examples, use your own brain, is hardly something we should defend. Now stop deflecting. I’m sure the emotional high you got by sticking one to me should wear off soon enough and you can join us again in logic land.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:28

…so women don’t have to worry about “their” nature…

Damn, I am flustered. I’m out. You guys take over and clean up my mess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:30

I am letting go. It takes a second. I also didn’t know Null was a troll. Her faulty logic seemed somewhat sincere. I was not familiar with her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
null December 15, 2009 at 08:32

Hahaha, zed doesn’t realize he is talking to the real troll. He actually bought Snark’s incredibly contrived and obvious bullshit hook, line and sinker, even after his trolling scheme was revealed in detail. How does this man expect to fight feminism when he is so gullible and easily misled?

GX1080: “But we as males have the right to value chastity on a woman, because women without it are only good for us as a cum-bucket and with date rape laws, not even that.”

Yes, but you forfeit that right if you do not practise chastity yourself.

“See, that’s the crux. We will gladly fuck women without the intention of having a long term relationship with them, and any male who has both the option and the insight to do it will do the same. We reject promiscuous women as a Long-Term Relationship material, but we will put our dicks in them vag.”

And this is because you are a hypocrite. You also contibute to the problem of female promiscuity by condoning and supporting it. It doesn’t matter if you verbally rail against promiscuous women as long as you’re having sex with them and therefore enabling and supporting them.

Novaseeker: “That’s not the point, null.”

There’s no moral difference between male and female promiscuity. You’re just talking about practical problems. Just because it’s easier for men to be promiscuous doesn’t mean it’s right.

Reinholt: “Maybe we should write up some sort of article on typical feminist troll tactics to de-rail conversations?”

Oh, I see Snark has an accomplice now. Well, certainly trolling becomes more effective when two or more people are involved.

Anyway, it seems Snark’s trolling is finally beginning to pay off, as the thread is now starting to be about trolling rather than the actual subject or anything else that could be considered relevant. This is all going exactly like I described, and yet people still don’t realize what’s going on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:34

Now your insulting ZED! Thats it…I’m going to rip…

J/K I’m out of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Snark December 15, 2009 at 08:36

Jabherwochie,

I know exactly how you feel, having been there myself.

It’s a very devious and dishonorable tactic which feminists use – manipulating our very combative natures, our very need for discussion to be fair and reasonable.

They very intentionally get under your skin. They intentionally invoke language and ideas which make you feel uncomfortable to provoke a reaction.

They are adept at manipulating men’s natural combativeness, just as they manipulate men’s sexuality. There’s simply no hope of winning if you go along with them. Pigs and the moon.

It probably helps to have some outlet for aggression readily available. Or just scroll past the posts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:38

Thanks for being understanding Snark. It is appreciated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 08:38

There’s no moral difference between male and female promiscuity. You’re just talking about practical problems. Just because it’s easier for men to be promiscuous doesn’t mean it’s right.

Has nothing to do with “easier”. Has to do with the very different risks men and women run when their partners cheat on them — and promiscuity is a pretty good predictor for higher cheating risk. Are you not reading what we are writing here?

I agree that there is no *moral* difference, by the way. But the double standard relates to practical issues like non-paternity — that is its underlying basis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel December 15, 2009 at 08:39

@Null

Yes, but you forfeit that right if you do not practise chastity yourself.

Now I get it. You’re celibate. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m actually kinda looking forward to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 08:42

null – “Hahaha, zed doesn’t realize he is talking to the real troll.”

I fail to see where you, yourself, have established your positions vis-a-vis the issue pertinent to men in the world (or, more specifically, the Anglosphere) today. On the other hand, I’ve seen a number of comments posted by snark, a I have judge him to be sincere in his regards to men’s issues.

Perhaps your charge that he is the troll would carry some weight if you shared with us just what your positions are in regards to the issues we tend to care about.

Thus far, I inclined to agree with others that your comments seem to be only of a malicious intent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 08:51

This was written a few posts before my outbursts.

“Unlike more typically Autistic people, I have strong emotional fluxuations, which I think ended up being a net positive in the end, although brutal for much of my life. It forced me to confront emotions as the chemical reactions they are, and although I partake in emotions, I can rationalize them away pretty good if I’m able to concentrate on it just a bit. In chaotic situations, they can take over, just like for everyone.”

Prophetic? Spooky at the least. Should I go by Nostrawocky or Jabberdomus?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 08:52

GX1080 stated – “But we as males have the right to value chastity…”;

to which null replied- “Yes, but you forfeit that right if you do not practise chastity yourself.”

I have to disagree with this. Their is no rational for forfeiture here. What you are suggesting (again) is that men who are not chaste themselves must somehow accept promiscuity in a woman. But, no one has the right to force anyone else to accept anything they disagree with.

One can demand whatever they will of another – it is up to the one on whom the demand is placed as to whether or not they accept such a demand. For instance, if a man wishes to be promiscuous, but demands that his girlfriend be faithful, she can simply refuse to be his girlfriend. She cannot demand that he accept her being promiscuous as well, even if it would be fair. The only real resolution is for individuals to refuse to enter into agreements with which they are not content.

Now, if you had made the argument that it was pure hypocrisy, then I could agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 08:53

It’s not easier for males to be promiscuous. It requieres social dominance and adquiring that is hard. For a woman to be promiscuous it just requieres to keep her legs open. That is easy. Just as easy to keep putting food on your mouth.

Since male promiscuity is hard, the few ones who can do it don’t feel insulted when they are called playaZ, pimps, studs, etc. It’s a recognition of his skill. In the other hand, even insinuating that a woman is easy and she will be really upset about it, even if she puts her pride parade.

You are so blinded for your morality that you can’t realize that this is a war that Feminists started against all non-dominant males (and even those who are) and we have to find a way to survive the storm. For living in the mine field you need to know where are the mines.

Before you can say that you don’t have to be in the mine field in the first place, if it’s the only way to get sex, we’ll do it. And with rape laws totally skewed, even the most socially retracted guy can be dragged to the meat grinder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Snark December 15, 2009 at 09:04

slwerner:

I fail to see where you, yourself, have established your positions vis-a-vis the issue pertinent to men in the world (or, more specifically, the Anglosphere) today. On the other hand, I’ve seen a number of comments posted by snark, a I have judge him to be sincere in his regards to men’s issues.

Perhaps your charge that he is the troll would carry some weight if you shared with us just what your positions are in regards to the issues we tend to care about.

null has been saying I’m ‘the troll’?

LOL!

That almost makes me want to read her posts; but not quite.

Allow me to clarify. It is an unfortunate – and ironic!- consequence that, in proposing that all men ignore the derailments of trolls, I have actually ‘derailed’ from the original topic myself.

But you are right to consider me sincere. And my aim here is to get as many men as possible to ignore the trolls. If I am successful in this aim, then the proportion of comments and time dedicated to the discussion of real topics of interests will be greater than if we all pause to refute trolls every time they rear their heads (and they won’t simply go away after being refuted – they’ll come back again, and again, and again, requiring endless refutation!)

So, while my discussion of how best to deal with trolls – which is, don’t deal with them at all – did in fact detract from the topic at hand, the aim was that, in the long run, there will be less derailments, because we will all merrily ignore trolls.

Think of it like a vaccine! I gave you all a little bit of the disease, so you can fight it off when it hits for real.

And always remember … you’ll never ride a pig to the moon!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 09:04

Jabherwochie: “Fine. You caught me at a moment of weakness. Are you proud that you can be so enraging to people?”

Que? You only got enraged because you didn’t bother to read my post all the way to the end, and not because of something I said.

“Thats a non-sequitor.”

You said that male promiscuity is socially acceptable, so I’d better just “deal with it.” The same thing could be said about feminism, clearly.

“We can deal with the immoral nature of men’s promiscuity most affectively by discouraging female promiscuity.”

And is anyone doing that? I see many who can talk the talk but won’t walk the walk. They’ll shake their fists at sluts only to end up desperately chasing after them. All their sermonizing about female promiscuity is just idle bullshit that they’re unable and/or unwilling to back up.

“Their is something called seduction that women are quite skilled at using when they need to. You can’t stop men from being more horny then women, but you can stop women from immitating that behavior because you think it empowers them.”

Seduction isn’t mind control, you can just choose to ignore it.

“I am letting go. It takes a second. I also didn’t know Null was a troll. Her faulty logic seemed somewhat sincere. I was not familiar with her.”

MRAs think anyone who disagrees with them is a woman (and also a troll, naturally) even if the person’s writing style is clearly masculine and they have denied being a woman. Why would a woman go to such lengths to conceal her gender? Well you just don’t get it man, it’s all part of the feminist infiltration program! Yes, I suppose it all makes sense once you step through the looking glass and into the paranoid world of the MRA where every shadow conceals a feminist, where every man is a potential enemy agent and where the only thing standing between you and the mind control rays is a sturdy tinfoil hat.

And Snark is still going on and on about non-existent trolling, and Jabherwochie is completely oblivious to the fact that Snark is the troll. I bet if I disguised myself as a feminist I could convince Jabherwhochie of the righteousness of my cause, because he seems willing to accept any bullshit without question or thought.

Novaseeker: “I agree that there is no *moral* difference, by the way. But the double standard relates to practical issues like non-paternity — that is its underlying basis.”

The underlying basis is that men want to have their cake and eat it too. Anything else is just rationalization.

slwerner: “I fail to see where you, yourself, have established your positions vis-a-vis the issue pertinent to men in the world (or, more specifically, the Anglosphere) today. On the other hand, I’ve seen a number of comments posted by snark, a I have judge him to be sincere in his regards to men’s issues. “

I have very clearly established that Snark is a troll. This is incontrovertible.

“Perhaps your charge that he is the troll would carry some weight if you shared with us just what your positions are in regards to the issues we tend to care about.”

I could be the president of Feminazistan and Snark would still be a troll.

“Thus far, I inclined to agree with others that your comments seem to be only of a malicious intent.”

And “malicious” is, of course, defined as “something we don’t agree with.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 09:08

The underlying basis is that men want to have their cake and eat it too. Anything else is just rationalization.

Balderdash. There are substantial differences between the impact of infidelity on men and women. You cannot refute that because it is simply true. Instead you choose to ignore it — which just makes you look stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 09:16

The underlying basis is that men want to have their cake and eat it too. Anything else is just rationalization.

LOLOLOLOL. Really, and women who want to “Have it all” at the fantasy gospel of Sex and the City don’t right? You are proyecting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Reinholt December 15, 2009 at 09:25

Ironically, in trying to detract from the thread, I think null has proven perfectly what the original discussion was:

The Cultural Devastation of and by Feminist Women.

Just look at the quality of “discussion” coming out of null on these points (or, even better yet, don’t look, because your eyes might start bleeding). Is there a more damning critique of such idiocy to be found in print? Perhaps not, but I always marvel at a movement producing its very own examples of why the movement is intellectually bankrupt.

Congratulations, null. You have something in common with AIG. You’re both bankrupt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Lara December 15, 2009 at 09:27

That is the matter that shock most men of today…not so long our mothers and gramdmothers had to endure the “terrible” pain inflicted by their (supposed) loving husbands when they committed infidelity, and they still had to stand for it and go on with the marriage. Today´s woman rarelly remanins the same, in many cases, couple split up (I know several cases)
Men don´t realize that this is a huge, enormous, trauma in everyone´s life…and many women aren´t going to put up with it.
It undermines the couple confidence forever.
There is no real difference between the suffering of a man or a woman who have been cheated…
Both are equally evil, equally because of the harm it causes. So both are the same thing, make no difference.
Don´t have the nerve to say its different when a man is cheating.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 15, 2009 at 09:28

slwerner: “I have to disagree with this. Their is no rational for forfeiture here. What you are suggesting (again) is that men who are not chaste themselves must somehow accept promiscuity in a woman. But, no one has the right to force anyone else to accept anything they disagree with.”

If you are not willing to be chaste yourself then you have no business demanding others to be chaste. You are a hypocrite if you do so. You are not some special snowflake exempt from the principle of hypocrisy.

GX1080: “You are so blinded for your morality that you can’t realize that this is a war that Feminists started against all non-dominant males (and even those who are) and we have to find a way to survive the storm. For living in the mine field you need to know where are the mines. Before you can say that you don’t have to be in the mine field in the first place, if it’s the only way to get sex, we’ll do it.”

Then do so, but don’t complain if you get blown to pieces. It’s your choice to stumble around the mine field.

Snark: “null has been saying I’m ‘the troll’?

LOL!

That almost makes me want to read her posts; but not quite.”

Yes, I explained the nature of your trolling and the tactics you employ, and I also accurately predicted what would happen to this thread if you were successful (and you were).

Gotta love the delusionally paranoid MRA way of thinking that anyone who in any way challenges MRA dogmas is a woman in disguise (why would women go to such ridiculous lengths to conceal their gender? I have no idea, but surely it must all make sense in the wacky world of MRAs).

“Allow me to clarify. It is an unfortunate – and ironic!- consequence that, in proposing that all men ignore the derailments of trolls, I have actually ‘derailed’ from the original topic myself.”

It is indeed. Since I exposed your strategy of derailing the thread while trying to make it seem like someone else (me) was derailing it, you are now playing along as if you were just doing it unintentionally all along.

“So, while my discussion of how best to deal with trolls – which is, don’t deal with them at all – did in fact detract from the topic at hand, the aim was that, in the long run, there will be less derailments, because we will all merrily ignore trolls.”

The only derailment here is coming from you. But of course you know that.

Novaseeker: “Balderdash. There are substantial differences between the impact of infidelity on men and women. You cannot refute that because it is simply true. Instead you choose to ignore it — which just makes you look stupid.”

I don’t see how that matters. It doesn’t give any justification – moral or otherwise – for male promiscuity.

GX1080: “LOLOLOLOL. Really, and women who want to “Have it all” at the fantasy gospel of Sex and the City don’t right? You are proyecting.”

When did I say they don’t? What does that even have to do with this? And what am I projecting?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 09:30

Gx1080 – “You are so blinded for your morality…”

I highly doubt that null is invoking any morality, what so ever. To me it seems she (and, yes, I’m highly inclined at this point to believe that a woman is writing the comments) is actually coming from an entirely amoral standpoint, appealing to the supposed “unfairness” in judging the behaviors of men and women differentially.

In this regard, Novaseeker has deftly maneuvered his remarks away from the morality involved to the practical aspects:

“I agree that there is no *moral* difference, by the way. But the double standard relates to practical issues like non-paternity — that is its underlying basis.”

Which are the very issues that null refuses to acknowledge – suggesting quite strongly that we are dealing with a woman here.

Most men would readily agree that there is hypocrisy in expecting a higher standard in women with whom we would seek longer term relationships. Yet, men would rationally hold on to their reasoning for that apparent hypocrisy, because, again, in transcends the mere morality, and goes straight to the practical matters involved.

Many women will, as I previously suggested, refuse to enter into agreement with these observations. I’ve personally run into this before with ardent gender-feminists. What they invariably argue for is that womens promiscuity should be praised and valued – much like women respond to male promiscuity (and, we could go off into lengthy discussions as to why women so value promiscuity in men – what it suggests of a man’s “fitness”). To admit that there are very real issues with female promiscuity would completely undermine their position. For that matter, even admitting that their proclivities for promiscuous men carries many inherent risks, also tends to undermine them. As such, they consistently refuse to acknowledge either set of concerns.

One of their underlying motivations is their firm belief that women should be free to engage in sexual activities whenever, where ever, with whomever, and as often as they wish. It is part of their imagined “empowerment”. Many openly, and quite vehemently decry that it is the “patriarchy” that has long held women’s sexuality in check, and they equate the the slut/stud “double-standard” to a tool of that evil patriarchy. This poster, null, has been quite coy to avoid declaring promiscuity as being a bad thing.

To me, this is why I highly suspect that null is a woman. Men seldom tend to deny the potential downside of promiscuity by either gender – even men who are actively promiscuous themselves.

It is also why, whenever the subject comes up, I suggest that women should adopt the male position WRT the valuation of promiscuous partners of the other sex. The flat-out refusal of such a suggestion serves to indicate to me when I’m dealing with a hard-core gender-feminist (who simply refuses to declare that standpoint).

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but I cannot see where null has divulged any personal philosophical standpoint. This is a very good tactic to take when one simply wishes to attack others and their opinions. But it also suggest their insincerity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 09:34

I don’t see how that matters. It doesn’t give any justification – moral or otherwise – for male promiscuity.

It’s not a justification for male promiscuity — rather it’s an acknowledgement that the risks associated with female infidelity are greater, and therefore, as between male promiscuity and female promiscuity, when viewed as predictors of later infidelity risk, it is sensible to see female promiscuity as more serious. That doesn’t mean that male promiscuity is more moral. It simply means that the associated behavior — infidelity — has worse impacts on men than it does on women. Therefore the double standard has a rational basis.

You have said nothing which refutes this, but you are simply ducking and dodging in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and ignore. That is typical troll behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Expatriate December 15, 2009 at 09:35

I think its safe to say null is a woman or an extremely sad case of a mangina or a troll.

In premodern times if women slept around they were likely to get pregnant which didn’t apply to men who did. Also only women could be certain of paternity before paternity testing came along which was another reason why chastity was much more important for women.

Plus a woman bragging about sleeping around is hilarious because the dumb cunt doesn’t realize that it’s no achievement. Even the ugliest cunts can get some desperate man to fuck them if they just spread their legs.

It’s much harder for most men to get sex. For every Tucker Max type there are 10 Sodini types who never get any pussy.

If you can’t understand these simple things then a) you are a woman b) you are a brainwashed mangina c) you are trolling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Reinholt December 15, 2009 at 09:43

Thanks to modern science, Expatriate, it is possible that a, b, and c are all true!

But I concur with the statements made. Until null actually posts its own viewpoint on gender relations and legal standing, I suggest we all, collectively, do our best to ignore it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 09:56

Reimholt: “Ironically, in trying to detract from the thread, I think null has proven perfectly what the original discussion was:”

Oh, you crack me up, Mr. Troll.

“Just look at the quality of “discussion” coming out of null on these points (or, even better yet, don’t look, because your eyes might start bleeding).”

And this assessment is coming from someone whose sole interest in the discussion thread is to derail it into an off-topic argument.

“Is there a more damning critique of such idiocy to be found in print? Perhaps not, but I always marvel at a movement producing its very own examples of why the movement is intellectually bankrupt.”

Do remember to keep your tinfoil hat on when you leave the house (assuming you ever leave it), you never know when those men disguised as feminist women might try to fire mind control rays at you.

slwerner: “I highly doubt that null is invoking any morality, what so ever. To me it seems she (and, yes, I’m highly inclined at this point to believe that a woman is writing the comments) is actually coming from an entirely amoral standpoint, appealing to the supposed “unfairness” in judging the behaviors of men and women differentially.”

Of course you are inclined to believe that, just like leftists are inclined to believe that Bush blew up the WTC and Fox News controls all mass media. Paranoid nutjobs believe what they must.

My morality comes from the standpoint that it’s immoral to uphold a double standard according to which men can, for no good reason, practise promiscuity while women cannot. Men can sleep around as much as they wish and still demand a wife who is chaste with a small number of sexual partners, or perhaps even none, while women cannot do the same. Again, there is no good reason for this double standard, and it only exists to benefit men. I also just loathe the blatant hypocrisy involved.

“Which are the very issues that null refuses to acknowledge – suggesting quite strongly that we are dealing with a woman here.”

Maybe you’re the woman. Maybe you’re a feminist agent who is trying to draw suspicion away from herself by accusing others! In this madcap world of men’s rights activism, who is to say what is real and what is not, and who is a woman and who is not? For all we know Gloria Steinem is a deep cover MRA operative.

“This poster, null, has been quite coy to avoid declaring promiscuity as being a bad thing.”

Except I haven’t, because I consider it a bad thing. Obviously.

“To me, this is why I highly suspect that null is a woman.”

You have absolutely no idea how unintentionally hilarious this sounds to someone who isn’t a feminist or MRA. This paranoid cloak and dagger business (that’s a product of your delusional imaginations) is perfectly normal for you, but completely preposterous to any outside observer.

Novaseeker: “Therefore the double standard has a rational basis.”

No it doesn’t. The whole idea of the double standard is to argue that men should be able to sleep around as much as they want to while women cannot do the same, at least not if they expect to retain their eligibility for marriage. It’s completely beside the point that female promiscuity may have more dire consequences than male promiscuity, because the two are morally equal. You cannot accept one without accepting the other.

“That is typical troll behavior.”

Hey, looks like you can be added to the list of trolls too. Same goes for Expatriate.

Reinholt: “Until null actually posts its own viewpoint on gender relations and legal standing–”

That is not what this thread is about, and you know it. You’re grasping at straws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 09:57

null – “If you are not willing to be chaste yourself then you have no business demanding others to be chaste. You are a hypocrite if you do so. You are not some special snowflake exempt from the principle of hypocrisy.”

Hum???

For someone who chastised another for failure to read an entire post, it sure seems you’ve been guilty of doing the same:

“Now, if you had made the argument that it was pure hypocrisy, then I could agree.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 10:02

No it doesn’t. The whole idea of the double standard is to argue that men should be able to sleep around as much as they want to while women cannot do the same, at least not if they expect to retain their eligibility for marriage. It’s completely beside the point that female promiscuity may have more dire consequences than male promiscuity, because the two are morally equal. You cannot accept one without accepting the other.

You’re talking about morals, and it’s been explained to you why morality is not the basis of the double standard. The practical impact of infidelity differs. That difference accounts for the different way that promiscuity among men and women is viewed. Normally, when you look at what appears to be a double standard you look to see whether there are any differences that support the double standard. In this case there is a clear, material difference that supports it, which is why the double standard has applied in virtually every culture, regardless of their “moral” system.

One can believe, at the same time, that (1) infidelity by men and women is equally morally reprehensible but that (2) female infidelity has different, and higher, risks for men than male infidelity has for women. It’s (2) that is the basis for the double standard, and it’s the reason why the double standard is “sticky” across all cultures — it has a brass tacks basis.

If women wish to be promiscuous, that is their choice. If women wish to select men who have a low number of partners, that is also their choice (and a choice at least some women make). But to allege that the double standard has no rational basis is to ignore the underlying realities rather blithely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 15, 2009 at 10:03

I did read all of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 10:12

Novaseeker: “You’re talking about morals, and it’s been explained to you why morality is not the basis of the double standard.”

I consider hypocrisy as the basis for the double standard. Sleep around like a manslut and still demand yourself a pure and chaste wife (who you can then cheat on because that’s what alphas just do, am i rite) while condeming all promiscuous women as filthy whores. Anything else is rationalization.

And it doesn’t matter how things used to be in the stone age, because we are talking about the 21st century.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 10:13

Men can sleep around as much as they wish and still demand a wife who is chaste with a small number of sexual partners, or perhaps even none, while women cannot do the same. Again, there is no good reason for this double standard, and it only exists to benefit men.

Have you even read this thread? Because here and here it’s easily explained that the double standart benefits both men and women.

Women need the double standard because being chaste is the only way to convince a male attractive to her, and hence, to many other women to put her on the top of his choices.

D o y o u g e t i t ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 10:17

Hey, we aren’t condeeming sluts. We can treat them well, we just choose to not have any Long Term Relationship with them. Just as simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:27

“My morality comes from the standpoint that it’s immoral to uphold a double standard according to which men can, for no good reason, practise promiscuity while women cannot.”

Men are held to double standards all the time. War, child custody, dangerous and dirty jobs, being the pursuer in the dating game, killing bugs, changing tires, make more money, etc. etc.. I’d be willing to validate your point if women would stop holding onto the double standards that benefit them.

“Men can sleep around as much as they wish and still demand a wife who is chaste with a small number of sexual partners, or perhaps even none, while women cannot do the same.”

Um, women can do much more. Women demand all types of stuff from men and men often oblige. Chastity is not one of the things women demand of men. Blame women.

“Again, there is no good reason for this double standard, and it only exists to benefit men. I also just loathe the blatant hypocrisy involved.”

It only benefits certain men. If everyone here got laid all the time, do you think we would have such a problem with sluts.

“”””””My morality comes from the standpoint that it’s immoral to uphold a double standard according to which men can, for no good reason, practise promiscuity while women cannot. Men can sleep around as much as they wish and still demand a wife who is chaste with a small number of sexual partners, or perhaps even none, while women cannot do the same. Again, there is no good reason for this double standard, and it only exists to benefit men. I also just loathe the blatant hypocrisy involved.””””

Read that paragraph again. This is a women. Even if it has a penis.

@Null-

Your spelling a grammer is very precise. What was your college major?

And why did you continue to go after me after I backed down? Seriously, if you’re not a troll, why did you kick me once I was down?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 10:30

And it doesn’t matter how things used to be in the stone age, because we are talking about the 21st century.

That doesn’t matter one whit. Non-paternity rates are still ~10% in this 21st Century we live in, and the risk is a real one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 10:30

GX1080: “Women need the double standard because being chaste is the only way to convince a male attractive to her, and hence, to many other women to put her on the top of his choices. “

So if all or the vast majority of women were chaste, men would not be interested in them because… I’m not even going to try to unravel this bizarro logic.

“Hey, we aren’t condeeming sluts.”

Yeah, I’ve heard this bullshit before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:31

“manslut”

Female word.

“am i rite”

Girly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:33

“And it doesn’t matter how things used to be in the stone age, because we are talking about the 21st century.”

History is so unimportant for understanding the present, don’t you think?

Its probably useless for predicting the future also.

(Sarcasm off)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 15, 2009 at 10:35

Jabherwochie: “Men are held to double standards all the time.”

Irrelevant.

“Um, women can do much more. Women demand all types of stuff from men and men often oblige. Chastity is not one of the things women demand of men. Blame women.”

Also irrelevant.

“Read that paragraph again. This is a women. Even if it has a penis.”

How does it feel to be a paranoid nutjob? I am firmly against Islam, but do you see me suspect everyone I meet of being a secret Muslim? You people need professional help.

“And why did you continue to go after me after I backed down? Seriously, if you’re not a troll, why did you kick me once I was down?”

I didn’t realize that kicking people while they’re down suddenly has something to do with trolling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:35

“So if all or the vast majority of women were chaste, men would not be interested in them because… I’m not even going to try to unravel this bizarro logic.”

I see the point. She doesn’t understand logic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:37

“Also irrelevant.”

And we are done here. Thanks, I win.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:39

Comebacks feel good. She’s not even a good troll like Lurker can be. She is apparently an idiot too, because she doesn’t see how kicking someone when they are down isn’t related to trolling, when trolling is precisely about emotions and not about winning debates.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
null December 15, 2009 at 10:39

Jabherwochie: “Female word.”

Commonly used by men.

“Girly.”

Sarcastic phrase most commonly seen on Something Awful.

Seek professional help you fucking nutjob.

“History is so unimportant for understanding the present, don’t you think?

Its probably useless for predicting the future also.

(Sarcasm off)”

Where did I say history is unimportant? Nowhere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:42

Ah, there is the calm I’ve been so lacking today, washing over me like a cinimon scented zephyr on a warm Autumn day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 15, 2009 at 10:43

Jabherwochie: “I see the point. She doesn’t understand logic.”

There is no logic to be understood because there was no logic in what he said.

“And we are done here. Thanks, I win.”

You can now “win” by making irrelevant remarks?

“Comebacks feel good. She’s not even a good troll like Lurker can be.”

I’m not any kind of troll, but you are. Anyone who accuses another person of trolling without sufficient cause is a troll himself.

“She is apparently an idiot too, because she doesn’t see how kicking someone when they are down isn’t related to trolling, when trolling is precisely about emotions and not about winning debates.”

It doesn’t have anything to do with trolling. You have no clue what trolling is, yet you think you’re in a position to decide which people are trolls. Lol.

Also, seek professional help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:45

I ammm the ChaampiOON!!

Thank you! Thank you all very much! I would like to thank Zed and Angry Harry, the yin and yang that hold my center firm. I don’t deserve this! No please, enough with the applause. Really, I’m blushing. Your all too much! THANKS!! See you at the after party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
null December 15, 2009 at 10:47

You’re really, really fucked in the head.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 10:48

Who is next? Where is Lady Strain? More meat for my immense intellectual maw!! Bring me a challenge!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 10:50

Oh, FFS. Males are attracted to chaste women. Specially alpha males who really know women, especifically, how a promiscuous woman can become a self-serving, man-hating cunt who can ruin his life at the first sign of weakness. Period.

Is interesting that all double standards that benefit women are glossed aside. It’s even more interesting that you call other people hypocrits. Takes one to know one, huh?

And finally, a) History is cyclical and b) We study it for not commiting the same fuckups of those before us. But no wonder that is irrelevant, it makes your arguments look like the bullshit that they are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary December 15, 2009 at 10:52

And it doesn’t matter how things used to be in the stone age, because we are talking about the 21st century.

Where did I say history is unimportant? Nowhere.

You’re right, it’s not unimportant. It just doesn’t matter. What an important distinction.

In an effort to un-derail this topic, I will share a few stories about negative impacts of feminism from my life experience…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 10:53

PS: Getting you to not complain and hence, to admit that you are a woman is a victory, although a small one.

PPS: Lady Lame is in the “The Right Woman” thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary December 15, 2009 at 11:35

My tales of woe begin with my aunt…my mother’s younger sister. My aunt was a DJ at a radio station in the Pacific Northwest. Or rather, that was her nominal job title; I have not listened to very much of her antics, but she was largely the comic relief/person they sent to do ridiculous publicity stunts. I don’t know a huge amount about exactly what her lifestyle entailed, as I only saw her on rare occasion (having grown up living on the East coast), but she was a typical free-spirited “liberated woman”. She died when I was 16 a couple of days after contracting one of the Hep viruses from an unknown source; the story I was told was that it was probably related to her most recent stunt (which had involved submersing herself in a food product, I can’t remember what off the top of my head). This story, both in its details and in the way it was told, rang hollow to me (although to be fair, I had just discovered that my aunt had died, so my ability to detect such things may have been inaccurate); if the virus had been in a food product, one would think that this would be a serious health concern to consumers of products produced at the same plant. I suspect infidelity as the source of the disease; I know she enjoyed “people watching” (as she put it, like bird watching but with people) and going to bars…there was an undercurrent in this (together with allusions to her wild past) of the possibility that her marriage was open (or, at least, not entirely closed).

The immediate source of the disease, however, is not relevant to the question of whether feminism shares any blame in the damage. My aunt was a literal casualty of societal support for risky behaviors–support fueled in no small part by feminism.

I have two more tales of woe, similar in nature to this one, but one should hopefully be enough to divert this thread back in its intended direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner December 15, 2009 at 11:43

Gx1080 – ”We can treat them well, we just choose to not have any Long Term Relationship with them”

And, isn’t that really the crux of the issue for gender-feminists?

Everyone knows (or should) that “sluts” have no trouble garnering male (sexual) attentions. What they don’t get is respect. And men don’t want to enter into long term relationships with women they cannot respect.

And, of course, it’s no secret that many women admire and desire “mansluts” for sex as well. The difference is that they would gladly enter into LTR’s with them, if only they could.

It seems that only men are keen enough to consider the considerable down-sides to investing into a previously promiscuous partner. And, that really bugs these gender-feminists.

I’m made the point (perhaps hundreds of times, on dozens of forums) that women would do well to likewise eschew promiscuous men WRT LTR’s. Yet, convincing them to overcome their proclivities for such “mansluts” is much harder to do.

Personally, I’m of a mind that highly promiscuous members of either gender are “damaged goods” as far as LTR’s go. Most men seem to be in agreement WRT promiscuous women. However, many women disagree WRT promiscuous men.

It seems that the preferable resolution in the minds of many gender-feminist is to seek to have promiscuous women be admired by men the way women admire promiscuous men; rather than to try to convince women that they should devalue promiscuous men the same way men devalue promiscuous women.

Looking back at where this thread started off, one simply cannot overlook that fact that much of the “The Cultural Devastation of and By Feminist Women” has come about specifically in regard to many those women’s desires to challenge the male valuation of chastity (yes, selectively and hypocritically) of women, by making sluts out of themselves. As is often noted, a good many women spend their 20’s and even their 30’s chasing off after “bad boys”, only to find themselves alone and unwanted as their sexual market values drop off as they age.
Men who wish to have nothing more to do with them, other than use them as convenient sex-partners, at that point in their lives are indeed wise, for the reasons rightly noted by numerous posters.
But, gender-feminists cannot afford (ideologically) to admit that their approach has been a huge mistake. So they whine about the apparent double standard which allows a man who’s been promiscuous to continue to have his pick of younger women, while they are considered little more than used-up cum-dumpsters – not the enlightened and revered sex-goddesses they like to imagine themselves to be (or have been).

Feminism continues to wreak it’s trail of destruction via the continued opposition to the supposed double-standard WRT sluts vs. studs, and the associated emphasis on making young women into sluts. In the end, the male “take” on promiscuity is far, far superior to the one taken by these gender-feminists.

Turns out that a lot of what feminists rail against was the stuff that served to hold societies together. Sadly, feminists have largely gotten to have “their way”, and we all seem to be much worse off because of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
ray December 15, 2009 at 13:33

Jabberwochie—

“Anyways, I know we’ve had a rough spot in the past, but sometimes I come here to let off steam by masturbating my own ego. Try not to let it make you uncomfortable. “Dad, the doors locked for a reason!””

lol i’ll sure keep that in mind!

w/o the contributions of aspie guys, esp over the past couple decades, i dont think there would be ANY “mens movement”

autistic guys have the Right Stuff for this kind of work, they are at the heart of the movement, and as the movement gains steam and eventually triumphs, their roles and abilities will be much better understood

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 15, 2009 at 13:38

It seems that the preferable resolution in the minds of many gender-feminist is to seek to have promiscuous women be admired by men the way women admire promiscuous men; rather than to try to convince women that they should devalue promiscuous men the same way men devalue promiscuous women.

You’re half right. Feminists do indeed insist that promiscuous women should be admired. They also seek to devalue non-promiscuous men through sexual shaming tactics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Snark December 15, 2009 at 13:46

I don’t know all the PC terminology around autistics and aspies, so forgive me; the following is not meant to be in any way offensive.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to present the men’s movement as an ‘autistics’ movement, or to say that aspies have always been ‘at the heart’ of the movement. Firstly, I don’t think it’s true. I’ve actually seen zero evidence of this.

Secondly, it derails the movement’s purpose. I don’t know an awful lot about autism or asperger’s syndrome, but what little I do know is that those people who have them often have a difficult time communicating with others, reading body signals, etc.

To say that the men’s movement is driven by autistic people or those with asperger’s is almost to suggest that the problems we address are more typical of those people than of men in general. It would be easy, from there, for an opponent to say that the ‘real’ problems are problems faced by autistic people. Thereby detracting attention away from the fact that the problems we focus on affect all men, autistic and non-autistic, and are addressed by men who are cognizant of what is really happening, which has no defined link to autism or being autistic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian December 15, 2009 at 13:48

It’s glaringly obvious that null is the reincarnation of TokyoBetaFisted.

Ignore it and it will eventually go away. This is a great thread idea, and thanks to the few folks who contributed their personal accounts rather than wasting time trying to reason with an unreasonable mangina douchebag. It’s a shame that these are stories getting buried amidst this attention whore’s garbage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Nemo December 15, 2009 at 13:54

Isn’t it amusing that you can differentiate between the women and the men who are posting simply by gauging the level of politeness in their posts?

Some men have responded to insults with insults, but it appears that every person who has initiated rude behavior on this forum is a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 15, 2009 at 14:26

@Snark-

I totally agree. I see ray’s point, but men are men. We don’t need any divisions. Period. The below statement is just addec detail not meant to distract from my original point that I am in total agreement with you. Just color commentary.

Aspergers and Austism, which are spectrum disorders, and really the same thing, Aspergers implying highly functional, are believed to be versions of the extreme male brain. As examples of extreme male thought, high systemizing, visual spatial abilities, raw processing power, poor social skills, Vulcan like ability to be confused by humor, sarcasm, and emotions, we are somewhat in a unique position (I couln’t spell that word until a picture of it just popped in my head, I wish that happened more often, I suck at spelling) to express the male experience and perspective. Obviously, this sounds sorta arrogant, like I’m more male than you, but trust me, it wasn’t easy being this way, you would not wish for it, and in general, its always better to have a balance of male and female abilities. We obviously live in a matriarchy where female approval is very important and powerful from a social status perspective. Scientists and nerds, drivers of human advancement, still don’t get laid like they deserve. Moderation is the key. Autistics just represent the extreme edge of the bell-curve of maleness and are useful for describing that experience. Do you know what they think the other end of the bell-curve is, the extreme female brain? Schizophrenia. Makes sense doesn’t it. Be glad you’re not on team women, or the schizo’s would be your quintessence. Just saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Snark December 15, 2009 at 14:35

That’s very interesting, Jabherwochie. I had no idea that Aspergers was essentially the male brain taken to its extreme.

With that in mind, I can appreciate ray’s comment more (though I still hold that we need no divisions between men … not that I thought he was trying to create divisions. I just mean that the movement must be of and for all men.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 14:38

Jabher nailed it. This is a movement of ALL males, division don’t matter.

And women feel, all their actions are guided for their feelings, that’s why they don’t need to have sense. And their feelings say that they need to create a way to make a small cadre of males superior to all others, they need to date guys that know that they are alpha, they don’t want to be with non-social dominant males that can impregnate them with their inferior seed.

Hence, Feminism.

@Hawaiian

Who is this TokyoBetaFisted? Inquiring minds need to know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Hawaiian Libertarian December 15, 2009 at 14:46

He was a dude that did this exact same spiel at Roissy’s for some time. He’d enter every single thread and turn it into this exact sort of debate. He eventually became the only person Roissy ever attempted to ban…though he quickly returned using an IP proxy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 15, 2009 at 14:50

You’re half right. Feminists do indeed insist that promiscuous women should be admired. They also seek to devalue non-promiscuous men through sexual shaming tactics.

The idea was that if more/most women behaved promiscuously, men w0uld not have have a choice to avoid them — they would be unavoidable, and men would, if they wanted a female partner, simply have to accept a long sexual history. The idea was that this would liberate women from the double standard by not giving men an opportunity to exercise it since, following this plan, there would be very few non-slut women in the market.

I think that the reason this approach was taken, rather than the idea of scorning male sluts, was that the whole thrust of feminism was about female *liberation*. It wasn’t consistent with that message to be preaching sexual restraint. Instead the emphasis was on sexual freedom, which is why we ended up with the system we have today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Puma December 15, 2009 at 14:55

Nova – I think your General Theory of Human Mating essay captured this very well. Perhaps it’s time to republish it on The Spearhead?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 15, 2009 at 14:57

He’d enter every single thread and turn it into this exact sort of debate. He eventually became the only person Roissy ever attempted to ban…though he quickly returned using an IP proxy.

And he tried to convince everyone here that it’s me who is the troll … lol!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 15, 2009 at 15:04

The combination of a no-ban policy and a presentation of the crude truth, once again makes Roissy’s the place of origin of the more batshit insane trolls that scour MRA sites. Nothing new to see.

@Novaseeker

Of course, that plan didn’t take in account that most males, between being in a LTR with a slut and opt-out of the market all together, will choose the latter. After all, why commit to such disgusting human beings?

Hence, a complete social pressure to marry and a ball-busting law that wants to make any relationship with a woman a way to take his assets and share between the woman and the Goverment. Is good for them that most males become poor thugs, after all, males need to prove that they are alpha, How else women are going to know if his seed is worthy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Expatriate December 15, 2009 at 15:06

There is no real difference between the suffering of a man or a woman who have been cheated…
Both are equally evil, equally because of the harm it causes. So both are the same thing, make no difference.
Don´t have the nerve to say its different when a man is cheating.

So Lara when men cheat do women end up raising kids that are not theirs?

Financially support another womans kid for 18 years under the belief that its your biological kid & then talk.

Yet this has happened to many men through out history when cunts cheated & it happens even today.

Men are forced to pay for bastards that aren’t theirs in all the Anglo cuntries under Lord Mansfield law which states that any bastard born in a marriage automatically deserves financial support from the husband even if he is not the biological dad.

The vast majority of women have no understanding & cannot understand even if they tried to on what its like to be a man.

They are fine with other double standards that benefit them like 99% of war casualties which happen to be men or over 90% of work related deaths which again happen to be men.

I hope some of these feminist cunts when they have a kid has their kid mixed up in the hospital & they end up raising another womans kid for the next 15 years at which point they find out the truth but are told that the “interests of the child” means they must continue to support him/her & receive no compensation from the hospital, that would be fitting justice for these stupid fucks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Globalman December 15, 2009 at 15:56

arthur December 12, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“And here we have guys like Globalman and Rebel, who are in essence calling for the death of all white western women.”
What a piece of crap comment that is Arthur. I have not called for the death of all white western women. I have said I couldn’t care less if they are killed by the Illuminati which they are being in large numbers and will be in even larger numbers soon. I have said I personally would have no problem shooting and killing feminised women. But I have at no time called for their death. Mind you, a number of people have called for my death on a number of forums I frequent. Take your lies somewhere else dude.

Harry December 13, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“Have you guys forgotten our good friend Globalman?
He often says things like “ALL women are children”.”

Absolutely I have said that. I have also made it quite clear that women have the mental capacity of boys around 7-10 years of age and there is good science behind that statement as well as 10,000 years of evidence laying around for us to look at.

Men have 6.5x more grey matter than women. This is the stuff of processing information. Women have about 10x more white matter. This is the stuff of memory. Unless you are going to equate memory to intelligence, making computers ‘more intelligent’ than people, you are going to have to agree men are about an order of magnitude more intelligent than women…making ALL women very like male children based on their brain physiology. And sure, some 10 year old boys are pretty smart, and so we see some adult women seem pretty smart too. But mostly adult women are working from memory and not from intelligence. You can notice this if you know what to look for. Women can not figure out an unfamiliar task. If they have not seen a problem before they have very, very little capability to solve it. Even if it is only changing a car tire.

If you have a problem with that Harry I suggest you take it up with those who genetically engineered women to be so suitable to the task of raising children, where an intellect like a mans is a distinct dis-advantage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Globalman December 15, 2009 at 16:12

Angry Harry December 12, 2009 at 8:19 am
“They don’t even care about their sons so much more important than them must they see themselves to be!”

Harry, I have a story worth sharing on this one. I hope it’s not buried and perhaps it can be put on the forum.

When my step-son had cancer (at 24) he was trying to be ‘manly’ by being responsible for taking all his own medicine. As you can imagine, this was not a good idea. He had been told he had a 50/50 chance to live. He was doing chemo every second day and vomiting and shitting and all his hair was falling out and he was in terrible, terrible shape. I was in London and he/my ex were in Sydney.

On the phone one night my ex let it slip that my son was trying to manage his own medication. I was very angry at this. I told my wife that she was to take over everything that went into that boys body. Everything had to be written down and he was not to take anything she did not know about so that if he went into cardiac arrest or some form of seizure she could give the doctor the book of EVERYTHING he had taken. Further, she was to make sure SHE went to the dispensary and collected ALL medication and did not allow our son access to ANY medication she did not know about.

I will never, so long as I live, forget what she said next. She said: “But if I do that the nurses at the dispensary might get upset with me for interferring.” And that is the Gods honest truth.

I flipped. I abso-fucking-lutely flipped. I screamed at her down the phone this was “OUR SONS LIFE that hung in the balance and you are more worried about what women you don’t even know think of you?” I was as angry at her as I ever was.

As I went and sat down and talked to my old friend I was staying with in London I repeated what had just happened on the phone. I said to her that one day I would have to divorce that woman because she is not willing to give up her ‘I need to be liked’ even when what she is putting at risk is her sons life….a few days later I told my wife that given her attitude towards the life of her own son I saw no other option than to divorce her at some future point in time because she was unwilling to even put the life of her son before her own petty interests….how could I, a mere husband, ever persuade her to transform her ways when there was certainly no threat I could make greater than the death of her son? She later tried to make out I was ‘cruel’ in telling her that at that point in time, when I thought of it. Typical woman.

You men want to take note. My ex is not unusual. Every man who kills himself from the abuse recieved from the FC is some womans son. Are these women doing anything about their sons who are killing themselves? No. If you think women care about anyone but themselves, just think about the lack of action in the face of their sons killing themselves.

Then you will see the face of the medusa called ‘women’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Globalman December 15, 2009 at 16:18

Charles Martel December 12, 2009 at 9:53 am

Charles, great story…thanks for sharing. I hope the young boys take it in.

I too was suicidal at the loss of my ‘first love’ when I was 17. Back in those days, 30 years ago nearly, the brainwashing was pretty severe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman December 15, 2009 at 16:24

Wow….350+ comments….that’s out of the ball park and down the road Zed.

Women do not seem to realise us men have a genuine grievance. Well, that’s fine by me. I will just f*** and chuck women, in the nicest possible way of course, until I am ready to lay down on the train tracks and meet my maker.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Globalman December 15, 2009 at 16:27

wow December 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“LR..I understand your child’s dad bailed.”
The father did not ‘bail’. She said she was not married so he had made no vow. He did what he should do. Leave a child abusing tramp like LR well alone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
crella December 15, 2009 at 18:33

LR, I just found your answer to my post, this is a heckuva long comment thread, it has taken me several visits to the site to read it all.

If she actually WAS abused either verbally or physically then YES absolutely. (Meaning if there is proof that he was abusing her, I very much believe in the “imminent danger” defense for abused spouses).

What’s wrong with walking out the door? I assume you’re addressing the Mary Winkler issue. She shot him AS HE SLEPT. How is that ‘imminent danger’ in any way shape or form? Was she going to die from wearing platform shoes? No one ever saw a mark on her , nor any changes in her behavior. There are numerous cases reported in the last few years alone where women pour boiling substances over sleeping men, cut off their testicles or penises when they’re asleep. Why not leave???

You seem to miss the MANY cases where women finally killed their abuser and WERE convicted and sent to prison (and many of those cases the women were PROVEN to have been abused and in my opinion where there is proof of abuse, murder is completely acceptable).

Perhaps because they also killed in especially cruel ways, or when the man was asleep. Why do women stick around after the first beating? Why are they there?

“Even if the lion is sleeping…..not intending to pounce….but the imminent danger was there of being eaten, would you say that the human “murdered the Lion” without a good reason just because the Lion was sleeping? NO. Because the person knew that when the lion woke up he WOULD be eating him immediately.”

Don’t get in the cage in the first place! I am alarmed that you have so little regard for human life.

It’s not often that women abuse men physically on a regular basis (like men) but of course it DOES happen.

Absolutely false. Take a look at FBI statistics for domestic violence.

If a woman was abusing her young sons on a regular basis and they finally snapped and killed her, would I feel bad for the abusive mother???? Nope. She deserved what she got and the sons would have been acting in self-defense and “imminent danger” of future attacks.

Young children are not in the same position as an adult. Minor children cannot just walk out the door and become self-supporting like adult women can.

I think ANY person who has been (proven) to having been abused regularly (whether male or female) has the right to kill the abuser and not be charged as a “murderer”. They are not a “murderer”. They are simply invoking their Constitutional Right to protect themselves.

I vehemently disagree. The first step is to take oneself out of harm’s way, not to kill the offender. Why sleep next to, share a house with and eat someone that you feel is dangerous enough to justify killing them in their sleep!?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
crella December 15, 2009 at 18:36

I am sorry, I meant to preview…..I messed up the quotes…..paragraphs 2,4,6,8,10,12 are LR’s quoted posts. Sorry to have flubbed it up.

Editor: fixed

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ElectricAngel December 15, 2009 at 19:12

I think the conquerors will come from within. It’s obvious that there are two, distinct Americas, and they will eventually come into conflict. However, traditional conservatism will probably have to die before that happens.

The most important thing, here, Welmer, is to avoid losing bodies to the side that will lose the demographic battle. It is 100% necessary to withdraw from the vampiric mainstream culture that suffuses the country. This means homeschooling, and perhaps becoming more like the Amish, whose lack of payment of SS and Medicare taxes prevents their investment in the next generation from being transferred outside the community to the childless. The Amish do not need to fight to take over, and they will not by temperament.

One other thought: the feminized culture survives only by being parasitic on real, living cultures, ones that show real profit and growth. I used the word vampiric for it: perhaps this is the source of the fascination with vampires in the grrl world?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella December 15, 2009 at 19:49

Editor: fixed

Thank you very much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher December 15, 2009 at 20:25

I have three little sister, all viciously anti-feminist. Ever read the thinking housewife? Sorry, but not all women are like that is a simple statement of fact, and anyone thinking otherwise would be advised to do some HBD readin’.

The problem with the MRM is the “R”, meaning “Rights”, a notion that is feminine to the very core. If you are complaining about your “rights” then you’ve already lost the war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella December 15, 2009 at 20:35

Too often ‘all women aren’t like that’ is simply a dismissal of whatever point is being addressed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
crella December 15, 2009 at 20:36

‘Rights’ is a feminine notion??? Read the preamble to the Constitution lately?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 15, 2009 at 20:38

Who cares if not all women are like that?

Enough are that it’s a problem. Not all snakes are poisonous; I’m not about to pick one up. Not all cars at the shady used car lot are lemons; I’m not about to buy one.

When the risk of a bad outcome is large enough, not all outcomes need to be bad, just enough that the ( probability * magnitude ) of the event makes it a bad bet.

So enough women are like that, and the consequences are bad enough that it’s a problem. Thus, for all intents and purposes, yes, all women are like that, because the rational choice is to avoid them (or at least commitment).

Don’t like it? Change the laws, or other women. Not my problem now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
David Brandt December 15, 2009 at 21:25

Reinholt
“Who cares if not all women are like that?

Enough are that it’s a problem. Not all snakes are poisonous; I’m not about to pick one up. Not all cars at the shady used car lot are lemons; I’m not about to buy one.”
It is like playing the lottery, but the risks are far greater. Going to male friendly countries is IMO the best viable alternative, even if one is not looking for a woman. Many of these places honor their elders. Ever been inside a nursing home? Do you want to live in one someday. Me neither.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
porkchop December 15, 2009 at 22:06

@Asher

The problem with the MRM is the “R”, meaning “Rights”, a notion that is feminine to the very core. If you are complaining about your “rights” then you’ve already lost the war.

Nice use of shaming language. So instead of standing up to injustice, we should all just take it like men, or we are feminine to the very core. Crap like this doesn’t work anymore Asher, certainly not here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 16, 2009 at 04:35

Gx1080: “Is interesting that all double standards that benefit women are glossed aside.”

That’s probably because they aren’t relevant.

“It’s even more interesting that you call other people hypocrits. Takes one to know one, huh?”

Where have I expressed hypocrisy?

“PS: Getting you to not complain and hence, to admit that you are a woman is a victory, although a small one.”

Have you ever considered getting psychiatric treatment? Because I think you’re in serious need of it.

Hawaiian Libertarian: “Ignore it and it will eventually go away. This is a great thread idea, and thanks to the few folks who contributed their personal accounts rather than wasting time trying to reason with an unreasonable mangina douchebag. It’s a shame that these are stories getting buried amidst this attention whore’s garbage.”

Cool, I’m a “mangina” for daring to suggest that men and women should be held to the same moral standards. It’s also cool that responding to something zed said in the blog post is now “attention whoring.”

Nemo: “Isn’t it amusing that you can differentiate between the women and the men who are posting simply by gauging the level of politeness in their posts?”

I don’t think anyone here is mentally stable or intelligent enough to differentiate between women and men.

Snark: “And he tried to convince everyone here that it’s me who is the troll… lol!”

You are the troll. I explained in detail why you’re the troll, and I even predicted where your trolling would eventually lead the thread. Nobody here can argue against what I said, and nobody here can argue that I’m a troll.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Snark December 16, 2009 at 04:36

The problem with the MRM is the “R”, meaning “Rights”, a notion that is feminine to the very core. If you are complaining about your “rights” then you’ve already lost the war.

No offence, but this is a little silly. The original liberal philosophers were all men. A right is simply a legal construct which protects one’s property (understood in the wider sense, including bodily autonomy, etc.) In a society or community, individual rights are a precondition of a decent life. The Men’s Movement takes issue with a kind of clash between men’s rights and feminist laws which negate those rights in practice, even if they remain de jure. E.g. a false rape accusation can pretty much destroy every single right you have, based alone on somebody’s word, and even if this is proven false you will have lost years of your life and will probably be bankrupt. Such is necessary to prove one’s innocence, while the accuser walks away scot free (though this is changing). So it’s absolutely necessary to reassert men’s RIGHTS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
crella December 16, 2009 at 05:50

I don’t think anyone here is mentally stable or intelligent enough to differentiate between women and men.

Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, then….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 16, 2009 at 06:18

I have three little sister, all viciously anti-feminist.

How does this vicious anti-feminism manifest itself? If they were sitting with a gaggle of feminist women and the man-bashing started, what would they do? Would they jump in with “BUT NAMALT!!!” Do they believe in the “wage gap” lie? Do they firmly believe that women are paid 75 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the exact same job? Do they believe that 1 in 4 women are “rayyyyped” and that millions of unreported rapes are occurring? If they are among women who bring up these lies, what do they do?

Lara December 16, 2009 at 10:47

´
If there are lots of men firmly supporting the double standard for infideliy (we are in 2009 I remind all of you), that is telling me that us feminists have a long way to go and a long time ahead to demand EQUAL rights that you all, with your statements done here at this post, do nothing but confirm.
You all are a bunch of male chauvinists, and if you thing a woman is going to stand a man cheating her because she is a woman and he has a right from heavens to act so…. the response is come off, what´s next, applauding a rapist??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
slwerner December 16, 2009 at 17:59

Lara – “If there are lots of men firmly supporting the double standard for infideliy”

Where are you getting this idea from? If you’ll take the time to re-read what’s been discussed, you’ll will find that the only double-standard anyone is actually justifying is that for promiscuity – aka slut vs. stud (hint – promiscuity need not entail infidelity).

And, that double-standard is largely the part of women, who could, if they wished to, adopt the same views of promiscuity in potential opposite sex partners as men do – and the double standard could be eliminated.

But, instead, you gender-feminists demand that men come to accept female promiscuity the way women admire and desire promiscuous men. The problem with this is that there are numerous problems in seeking relationships (either short or long-term) with previously promiscuous partners. Men simply demonstrate greater wisdom in this regard, and women are annoyed that men don’t suspend their good judgment the same way they they often tend to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 16, 2009 at 18:51

I see Lara has been handed the exact same set of talking points everyone else in the feminist movement has.

Here’s a hint:

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do better next time. That wasn’t even a post that rises to the level of trolling; it was just boring, and beyond being wrong, it’s also a carbon copy of every feminist objection out there.

What’s next, accusing people of having small dicks?

Typical.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
slwerner December 16, 2009 at 19:25

Reinholt, of Lara’s post – “it’s also a carbon copy of every feminist objection out there.”

I’m not familiar with Lara, other than that she self-identifies herself as a feminist, so I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (at least for the sake of making a point).

Perhaps (go with me on this one for a moment), she has misinterpreted the discussion of the disparity of the relative potential impacts of infidelity of infidelity by gender as suggesting that some posters were implying that a double-standard regarding infidelity was justified (this despite their having specifically noted that there was no moral difference what so ever in their minds).

For the benefit of Lara, assuming she’s willing to consider alternative interpretations which go against her own, what these posters have actually been noting is that, due to the discernible disparate impacts, men are in the right to be as concerned as they are about high promiscuity being a solid predictor of future infidelities.

To hopefully illustrate the arguments regarding disparate impacts, let’s look at another double-standard that many women do support, based on an argument regarding the disparate impacts observed.

I’m speaking of physical violence in domestic disputes. Many women believe (and some will argue) that it’s okay for a woman to hit a man (but, certainly not the other way around) because a woman is less likely to seriously harm the man she hits. They may agree that it is morally no different, yet they will still hold that female-on-male violence can be over-looked, if not made light of.

Still, unlike the case of women suggesting that such female violence is okay, I cannot discern that any of the posters who pointed out the disparity of impacts WRT infidelity have actually argued that male infidelity is okay.

All they done is to demonstrate why men are correctly concerned about possible infidelity in their mates, and, by extension, why they are also correct in being less “forgiving” of promiscuity in women (seeing sluts as only useful for short-term sex, but not for LTRs).

Women OUGHT to likewise consider the greater probability that entering into relationships with promiscuous men also entails peril – STD’s, infidelity, etc. That they FAIL to do so simply cannot be laid at the feet of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Avinguda Diagonal December 16, 2009 at 22:47

damned me if this ‘null’ character is not mr. Tokyo jesus hand (or whatever it was) from roissy’s.

same bold facing of the commenters’ names. same style of blockquoting and responding. same writing style. same complete lack of grounding, sanity, or critical thinking ability.

roissy should check the ip’s

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 17, 2009 at 05:35

Even if I was him, so what? But I have not used blockquotes or bolded people’s names so maybe you’re confusing me with someone else.

“same complete lack of grounding, sanity, or critical thinking ability.”

Really? If you think I’m insane then that’s just proof of your own insanity, since you see nothing insane about the hysterical paranoia of Spearhead users who think feminist agents disguised as men are out to get them. It doesn’t get much more insane than that.

As for “critical thinking,” I’ll try to scream and foam about “trolls” the next time someone dares to challenge me. That way I can be just as smart as everyone else here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1