This sounds a bit hopeful, and I’m inclined to think the gender wars have only begun…
But Barbara Kay’s commentary here is commendable and deserves a link.
“The notion that female victimhood is more tragic than male victimhood has long been widely accepted. But those days are over…”
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 111 comments… read them below or add one }
Ending?
I am saying exactly the opposite.
I hereby, on 1/1/2010, kick of the decade as the Decade of Misandry :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
The end is already in sight, by 2020.
*kick OFF the decade.
Oh Jack I do wish it would end.
Of course feminists are calling for a truce now … men are in the worst position they have ever been in, relative to women, who now ‘have it all’.
The backlash has not yet begun.
The backlash has not yet begun.
It begins TODAY. 1/1/2010. The decade has been defined :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
…and victory is in sight (2020).
Ha! Barbara Kay wrote :
“Am I dreaming in technicolour? Let me know in 2020. Happy New Year to all my readers.”
2020! Which is exactly the timeline I am talking about.
Hits on women´s rights sites on the internet two years ago: 4,3M
Hits on men´s rights sites on the internet two years ago: 511,000
Hits on women´s rights sites today: 48M
Hits on men´s rights sites today: 70.000.000!!!
From Paul Elam´s site: A Voice For Men.
We´ll there you have it, Jack, -it doesnt get much more obvious about what´s going on out there. You guy´s are doing a terrific job!!
Salutes.
Just wait till the angry feminists start dying alone (aside from their cats) en masse. Then we’re talking much more visibility. By that time it’s too late for those old worn-out women as they realize the predicament they’ve chosen for themselves. Snark is correct, the backlash has hardly begun and is in its infancy. Just wait till harder times come. Nobody, myself included, will give a rip about feminists and their hardships. Many man-hating women will have to choose between being alone or becoming lesbians.
There are few things more sad than a woman past her expiration date who still thinks she’s physically attractive and acts like it. And so many of those worn-out raggedy ‘cougars’ attempt to deny the obvious by seeking liaisons with betas who otherwise can’t find someone more attractive and closer to their age.
In the future we might see witchburning as the sensible thing to do, in order to maintain a well ordered society and avoid political situations like the present!
The best NEWS of the New Year!
@The Fifth Horseman,
that’s a useful round-up and introduction to the various ideas thrown around in the manosphere, well done. Perhaps a tad alarmist and exaggerative for my tastes, but nothing’s perfect.
BTW, does someone know the primary source to the claim “Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did”?
Same question concerning “90% of divorces initiated by women”?
I think I am with you Jack. For years I have been periodically reading predictions of the end of feminism. These extend back now for about 20 years. All I can say is that I see no sign of it coming true and like you Jack I think we are still at the beginning.
I don’t claim any particular powers of prediction but if I was to bet I would see the future being a little more like this:-
The instruments of male repression will extend to more traditional forms of brutality. So look out for work camps and penal colonies.
Feminism will strengthen its global strangle hold. Those of you in the USA should remember that the rest of the world has not quite caught up with some of the things you are doing. For example here in the UK a man can not yet be imprisoned for non payment of child support. So this is something that can spread to the rest of the world.
In future any form of sexual contact with a woman will give her a claim on a man’s earnings.
So I see the future for men more in the nature of him being a dumb corralled animal.
As I say I have read many article saying the end of feminism is nigh . I know that some MRAs like them because it sort of cheers them up.
This also works in reverse. E.g., women’s prisons in the UK are being cut back – not because of less female crime, but because … well, because they don’t want to send teh wimminz to prison when they have committed crimes.
Fewer sentences for women is the stated goal – even when they have committed the same crimes as men who are sent to prison.
Those politicians who have enacted this refer to women as victims of their own crimes – being caught up in the cycle of crime not only harms society but the women themselves, etc. It is as if they simply cannot help themselves, and should be treated as victims, and spared prison sentences, when they have committed an offence.
No one would say anything similar about men.
As far as I know this has not become policy in the US yet. Expect it to. Women will soon be able to get away with anything they damn well please.
Yes Snark I fear its a kind of leap frog. Feminist are always on the look out for things they can copy.
Guys,
The War of the Sexes is over. Guess what? Women kicked our sorry asses! By any measure, women beat our sorry asses.
MarkyMark
I have to agree with 5th. Barbara Kay is hopeful, but she severly underestimates the sheer stubborness of her own gender. And I would say that, yes, in this decade, Feminism will fall. Is up to us whatever the West falls with it.
As I’ve said before, this year, this decade will be one of personal improvement. At least for those who will be awakened to our realities and for those who are already awake. The ones in stubborn denial will simply outbreed themselves out of relevance and out of existance, in that order.
Happy 2010!
As long as women were gaining on men they never spoke of a truce.
Now that so many men are coming to, they want a truce (temporary?) and make friends with men.
What a sorry joke!
I have said time and again that before the gender war comes to an end, it will have to escalate to gigantic proportions.
Something funny: I sort of enjoy the gender war. I’m not sure I want to see the end of it.
There are currently two wars going on that will not end:
1-The war on terrorism (enemy is undefined)
2-The gender war (eternal victim no matter what)
Personally, I could do well without number 1.
But the gender war is what keeps us on our toes.
Should the gender war end now, men would be screwed forever. And why should anyone surrender? (M or F for that matter).
Throughout the ages, human progress has always been linked to war. (think of the numerous inventions that were necessary because of wars and now think of the benefits these war inventions have brought us.
I am thinking about a way to get this society on its feet again by making huge changes in the way we live.
I have some ideas I would like to present: I’m writing them down and will post them here for your judgement.
How many remember Steve McQueen in the movie “The man who loved war”?
What are we going to do if the gender war comes to an end? I mean, who will we fight?
Isn’t fighting the essential element of being a man?
So, why should we hope to end this war?
Remember the “100 years war” (guerre de cent ans).
Is wasn’t always bloody and gory: there were periods of calm, followed by more fighting.
We are engaged in a war that will last more than 100 years. (or I hope so) .
There will be periods of relative truce followed by other periods of intense activity.
Victimhood warfare has limits. New reasons must be found to slug one another. I am certain that if women want truce, it’s because they are preparing yet another offensive. This is eternal warfare, fear not.
Rebel –
I think this is a question that comes up in response to a lot of feel-good, Utopian ideals. Leftists love fighting, too–the most excitable ones are always all hopped up on some cause or revolution of some kind. Humans have a love/hate relationship with conflict. They say they want it to stop, but in many cases, it defines them and gives their lives meaning.
Without struggle, men (and probably women to a lesser extent) become lazy and cynical and self-indulgent.
There is always sexual conflict (in many cases I’m going to guess this is an ingredient to really awesome sex), but the “war of the sexes” as we know it today is a historical aberration. It probably happened at all in part because the 20th century offered such extreme luxury to people in Western nations. The sexes can and have worked together in reasonable harmony.
But PEOPLE, must always be in conflict.
After about the fourth chorus of the whole world singing kumbaya together, I predict that some guy will stand up and start beating down the guy next to him out of sheer boredom.
@Icaros2010
Roy Baumeister, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University states this in his excellent article, Is There Anything Good About Men?
Barbara Kay writes:
“We will see the return of the traditional family unit as a phenomenon worthy of concern and respect. The needs of children will come first”
Not while Family Courts still exist.
@Charles Martel,
I’m already familiar with your link and agree that it’s very much worth reading, but I was looking for an actual scientific paper or at least something more in-depth.
Quoting: “To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. ”
But thanks for the suggestion.
MarkyMark is quite correct. We got our asses kicked, but it was only because men didn’t show up in any real numbers to fight. Now that is is happening, it is a given that the war will be won…by men.
In find it interesting that Kay used much of the same rationale, even a bit of the same verbiage as I did just a few weeks ago in my excellent article Men’s Rights Will Prevail as Feminism Sinks it’s own Ship.
I am not saying she read me first (but I am not saying she didn’t). The important thing here is that the collective consciousness is changing. The Spearhead is now a part of that collective consciousness, as is MND and AH and an exponentially growing number of voices. As long as MRA’s keep pushing the message it will keep finding its way into the MSM and into household conversations.
You can also see more clearly why how this is happening in my three part video series addressing the matter.
Defeating Feminism – Part 1
Defeating Feminism – Part 2
Defeating Feminism – Part 3 Conclusion
The prediction of the end of the Gender War isn’t premature. It is an unavoidable reality. All we need to do is what we are already doing.
Jack:
Good link. But you’re right when you say “I’m inclined to think the gender wars have only begun…”
I think what’s happening is that a handful of rational women have begun to see the emerging male blowback and they’re afraid. They’re way ahead in the Poker game and they want to leave the table early taking their chips with them. Ain’t gonna happen.
I have played by the old rules all my life – chivalry, responsibility, fidelity. I have never received a dollar in public money and I have paid vast sums in taxes. I am a typical upper-middle class straight white male.
I have a recurring dream – I am not making this up – that I am naked in the desert. I am completely alone, kneeling in the hot sand. My arms are at my sides, my head is down and I can see that I am bleeding from the veins in my forearms. Blood is running across my open palms and falling into the sand. The blood does not pool, it just disappears leaving only a small red stain.
I am teaching my son that he can choose the old path if he wishes – college, hard work, responsibility – but that he should always be selfish, put his own needs first because the system, our culture, does not deserve his loyalty or self-sacrifice.
Argh, no user editor here. Sorry for making link out of that last bit of text, but I think it goes to the right place.
Guys like to compete and this can result in destructive conflict but it can also be healthy. Like almost any instinct it can be controlled and channelled constructively. Of course there will always be conflict. The gender wars have been largely a massacre rather than a war. Guys just didn’t realize what was going on and they didn’t fight back. That period is coming to an end. Some guys will never fight back but an increasing number are and that is making a difference.
MarkyMark, the war of the sexes is far from over. It was very far along before it was even begun to be understood. The baby boomers are beginning to retire and in another 10 years their evil influence will have decreased dramatically. That alone will change the world in our favor.
@Icaros2010
If you already had that article, then why post here? All you have to do is e-mail Roy Baumeister for his source – his e-mail address is in the article.
Charles Martel writes:
“I am teaching my son that he can choose the old path if he wishes – college, hard work, responsibility – but that he should always be selfish, put his own needs first because the system, our culture, does not deserve his loyalty or self-sacrifice.”
You’re right Charles, unfortunately, such has been the change to our society and certainly not for the better. Society is on its way to implosion and that’s just fine with me, the sooner, the better.
Guys I’m a woman and I am not on here because I am afraid of the “gender wars”. Geez, what are you going to do? Take to the streets and murder us all? Over the dead bodies of myself and the five men in my life.
I’m actually all over this whole us and them scenario and am really looking forward to men changing the world again instead of being changed by it.
@Charles Martel:
Because I had seen Baumeister’s article itself before in another context, but I’m not sure if it is the actual source where TFH got the numbers from (no reference in the post and didn’t connect the two for certain until you pointed it out).
It seems to me that Baumeister is giving a guesstimate in his speech while TFH is stating the numbers as a fact.
TFH: “Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did.”
Baumeister: “To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.â€
It’s a small detail, but I try to be factually correct.
@Icaros2010
If you’re not a woman, you sure do act like one.
I’ll e-mail Roy Baumeister for you. I’ll let you know when he replies.
lol, I haven’t seen that plan articulated anywhere outside the minds of outlier lunatics like George Sodini, Marc Lepine etc., who emphatically did not have anything to do with the Men’s Movement.
‘Gender war’ was a term used by feminists before it was used by us; it’s a war we are already in. It doesn’t involve actual urban warfare. Having said that, feminist knee-jerkoffs do leap to the defence of a woman every time she cold-bloodedly murders a man.
@ Sugar
Yeah, that’s the ticket. The plan is to hit the streets and murder women everywhere. Then we are going to finish off the baby seals. And kittens, little black and white striped kittens, they must be crushed.
So typical of you to offer up the lives of 5 men in your defense, but resistance is futile! You and your seals and your kitties are toast!!
Translation: Jesus woman, what the hell are you doing in a place like this? You should be able to THINK before reading here. But here is a hint: The “war” isn’t literal. If it were, you’d be in a POW camp or a grave yard by now. Please, please go get your thinking cap and screw it on.
Actually he acts more like a man who is concerned with credibility, in my view. Numbers and figures are thrown around without the source / methodology always being included – by all people, not just those posting here. It’s important to have the facts to back up our statements.
Glad to hear that Snark. About the gender-wars not the women murdering men. Where do you live Snark? Where I’m from cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded murder no matter the gender of the killer.
As very much a baby boomer myself I can recall clearly how feminism emerged as far as I was able to observe . It happened in the early seventies. Of course I did not fully understand what was happening at the time, or indeed for a long time afterwards.
I was at what you would call graduate school in Oxford. We were an international body and there where quite a few American women amongst us. Uniformly they where very elegant usually charming and always extremely fashionably turned out. Then suddenly a group of American women arrived who where the antithesis to what I described before. Everyone noticed their presence and where bewilder by them. They stuck together in a group, and where uniformly scruffy and rather ugly. This was not just my impression. A male American acquainted of mine having come into the common room found one lying on the floor for some reason christened her ‘The Beached Whale’. So that’s the way it was. Suddenly there was this perplexing alien group amongst us.
Shortly after these events I left and gave it no more thought. However, I can now see that these women where amongst the fist wave feminist to come here from America. There is a reason why I relate this other than to tell you a story.
The point was that these women emerged fully formed and already constituting a group. They had come through the American educational system and where now a fully operational mutually supporting unit.
Now contrast that with what some say is an emerging resistance to feminism. Even on the small scale I don’t think we could call ourselves either coherent or a group. Mostly the MM is a disparate group of people often thousands of miles apart. Probably feminist as such are not that numerous but they are present in strategic location in all the key organisations. Each location might only have two or three feminist but that is enough. I don’t think it will be easy to dislodge such people by trying to effect the Zeitgeist using the Internet.
@Snark
I pointed Icaros2010 in the right direction twice and am now doing the job of finding the primary source for him.
Here’s my point. Men do things for themselves. They do not demand to be spoon-fed.
Paul Elam you made my day, you’re quite funny….
@Charles Martel:
Yeah, being interested in sources for assertations and in factual accuracy is reeeeally feminine. Come to think of it, so is all science.
Besides, even if you get a reply from Baumeister, it doesn’t logically prove anything regarding TFH’s article, if TFH for example didn’t get his numbers from Baumeister’s article. I think you should have waited for a comment from TFH or email him first.
@Icaros2010
Twisting the meaning of my words to suit your own interpretation of reality. Plus over-the-top hyperbole. Think now, is that a masculine trait?
I restate my point. By your own admission, you already had the information you needed to answer your own question when you first challenged TFH’s statement. And yet you demand to be spoon-fed, first by TFH and now by me.
I repeat, when I hear from Roy Baumeister, I’ll let you know.
Unfortunately yes!
Only one sex declared war and it was fueled by feminism. Perhaps the ancients knew more than we did and the biblical Eve was the first feminist. Adam may have been the first mangina for ‘giving in’.
@Icaros2010
One more thing. I did make an inflammatory statement….“woman…act like one”….and for that I apologize.
@Charles Martel:
Wise men also don’t do unnecessary work and try not to assume too many things.
It’s would also be good if you would try to actually understand the situation instead of howling silly accusations.
I’m actually interested in two things here: (1) the actual numbers and their truth value and (2) the accuracy of TFH’s post regarding said numbers which depends on their origin.
Well, to be honest, interested is putting it too strongly, I after all started my request with a humble “BTW”.
Yes, I “had the information” in the sense that I had seen the article by Baumeister on the Internet before.
And no, there’s still no word from TFH if he got the numbers from that Baumeister’s article or not. If he got, and didn’t have any other sources, then actually he has misrepresented Baumeister regardless of what the actual factual situation is.
You can compare the quotes yourself, read carefully:
TFH: “Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did.”
Baumeister: “To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.â€
This article was good, with the future predictions being especially nice, but I sincerely doubt this is what will happen. Even if feminism should lose its hold over the culture, there are many women far beyond repair who will not care about men or value masculinity beyond what men and masculine strength can accomplish for women. This IS still a feministic attitude even if politics and legal measures no longer supported feminism as they do now.
Hardly a day goes by when I do not hear a woman my age bemoan the fact that there are no good men left. Oftentimes these are women I went to high school with who have 600+ friends on their facebooks including many good guys we attended school with who might not be “exciting alphas” but are wonderful people who would be good husbands and fathers. They are overlooked for reasons I do not understand by women who (how do I put this nicely??) have no reason to be so choosy. These women are not the hottest, smartest most interesting thing to ever walk on the planet, nor can they cook, clean, or have anything to offer beyond sex it seems, but they have lofty lists of what they expect from mates. If I try to talk any sense into them, as a woman who is happily married with a child they will not listen. What could I know, I only have the life they supposedly want.
Also, the mention of society valuing masculinity after the tragedy of 9/11 may be true with men themselves, women over a certain age, and sane younger women, but women as a whole do not value the sacrifice so much as they want men like my husband and all the other “protectors” of society to be there when they are needed but completely taken for granted otherwise. Think of the cries of “chivalry is dead” made by women. This is absolute nonsense when said in a country such as the United States where MEN are the majority of volunteers in our military, make up the largest numbers of our police officers, firemen, and other first responders, and when they do the dirty, gross, and dangerous jobs. Chivalry is often said to be dead because men are not benefiting women *directly*, not because men have completely abandoned society, which could happen some day if women do not shape up and start being sincerely thankful rather than entitlement princesses. Point this out to them and they do not “get it”, even women that seem smart and quick. In that case I personally believe they just don’t care rather than do not get it.
Until women can muster up the smallest bit of empathy and understand the horrible monster that is matriarchy and all the harm that has come to boys and men (aka their husbands, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, friends, sons) the gender war will not be over on a personal level regardless of what might happen on a grander scale.
@Charles Martel:
Why do you think that I was “challenging” TFH’s statement? That brings to mind a fight to the death over trivia or something similar.
I was merely interested in the source of the statement, because I had seen similar claims made before in other blog postings too, but had not seen any definitive proof. And it was phrased in a way which suggested that it had an obvious and easily findable/widely known trustworthy source, e.g. a scholarly work.
How am I “demanding“?
I think you’re taking this way too seriously and personally. It’s not uncommon, but it’s not productive either. Criticism and fact-based thinking should be encouraged, not avoided. That’s what I’m used to, anyway.
Perhaps it’s only natural to see feminist women spies and enemies of men’s rights everywhere in a place like this due to priming, but still, I’m not really getting the psychology behind it.
Advice: it doesn’t look too good if your case is so weak that you have to resort to insults when someone is casually interested in finding out more.
That’s OK, I didn’t get offended. I’ve been claimed to be a woman by self-styled MRAs before on this very site. It’s a strange way to argue, but quite common in some circles it seems.
Anyway, I’m interested in what Baumeister has to say, though it would be helpful if TFH would fill us in, too. As said, I’m interested in factual accuracy, though I wasn’t prepared to spend this many words on this rather trivial and inconsequental matter. It certainly doesn’t reduce the worth of TFH’s article.
We must remember that feminism is sponsored by the government. So, in order to defeat feminism, its provider must be dealt with the same way it dealt with men: they shafted us, we must shaft them. An eye for an eye is the only law that should exist until we get our rights back.
I am happy to see that men are finally waking up and are willing to face feminists head on in a historical showdown, but there is that other enemy (much more powerful: the government: our arch-enemy).
Our governments have betrayed us: we have the right (obligation) to betray them. We OWE that to our sons.
So, anything can happen: from the enslavement of men to the utter destruction of the country.
Too much is at stake here. I will not hesitate to betray my country if it helps men’s cause.
We must put our cause (our freedom and our dignity) before everything else. Before patriotism. Before family. Before religion. Before life.
Our rights must trump all else and at ANY cost.
Hestia, it must be said, your comments are always excellent.
Haha! Indeed! I see this a lot …
There will be no end to the gender wars, because im afraid that women wont acquiesce until sharia is imposed on our society and I believe it will be imposed. If you were a reasonably intelligent black man living in the ghetto would you support sharia or the black matriarchy?
I’ll take the other side of that bet. For one, such a development (a halt in valuing women over men) will go against human nature: “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” and all that jazz. Women band together and men generally compete for them.
Then you have all the entrenched lobby groups for women out there who will never give up the power of claiming victimization. There are so many billions involved in that, and that’s just the budgetary side. Think of all the other benefits women get – preferential hiring, preferential college funding, the whole “pick and choose equality” thing. No way in hell is that going down voluntarily. Only when it’s perceived to harm women will things change. Why do you think there’s a challenge to the Massachusetts alimony laws? Because the second wives are also on the line for it! And yet the success of even that limited reform isn’t ensured, because another group of women (the lawyers, most feminists, the legislators) are against it!
@Icaros2010
You are one annoying s-o-b. The reason you are accused of being a woman is because you use 10 words when one will do, you’re determined to get the last word and you respond to an apology with another round of veiled insults.
TFH didn’t write a PhD thesis, no footnotes or references are required. You want more data – go get it yourself.
Speaking personally, I’ve made some changes in diet, exercise, and the way I present myself and this past month I’ve caught more than a few women looking at me with that hungry/submissive look. If I decide to end my years of celibacy soon, I will charge headlong into the gender war with my latex-covered spear at the ready.
Also, Ive been talking more about anti-feminism with my friends and co-workers. The most receptive are actually two women who are over 40.
By the way, guys: please stop using the word “gender”. It’s using the playbook, the terminology of the enemy. “Gender” is something flexible and always redefinable. Use “sex” instead, please – there’s an actual hard basis for that one (biology) and it doesn’t have its origins in feminist sophistry.
Typical woman. “Oopss….we fucked up…so forgive us and let’s all let’s get along like friends now.”
My response? NO FUCKING WAY. Excuse the language but I am deadly serious.
In my case crimes were committed. I seek remedy for those crimes. Until I have remedy, and until every other man I know or even know of who has a solid case for remedy for crimes committed by a woman against him these women can forget being given a seat at my table. Just FORGET IT.
When western women are:
51% of war dead, cumulative over all of history (Off you go ladies. Go to Iraq and get killed in your tens of millions.)
51% if the workplace dead
51% of the incarcerated
51% of the homeless
THEN I will consider that the ‘gender war’ with these horrible western women might be brought to a truce. Until then? Why would I consider any sort of a truce to people who betrayed their society, their men and their children?
I propose men form men only business organisations and totally, utterly and completely destroy any company that makes an effort to compete with them. Men can run a business as a ‘war machine’ destroying all adversaries. Women run companies liike day care centers running a benefits program. Just don’t hire them into your business organisation. If they are so smart and so empowered let them run their own companies. Let them PROVE how ‘EEKWAL’ they are.
When men do this women will fall into economic slavery and that will be just fine by me.
By the way, guys: please stop using the word “genderâ€. It’s using the playbook, the terminology of the enemy. “Gender†is something flexible and always redefinable. Use “sex†instead, please – there’s an actual hard basis for that one (biology) and it doesn’t have its origins in feminist sophistry.
Even better – use them interchangeably, thus destroying the distinction which feminists seek to create.
@Charles Martel:
Thanks, I’m honoured.
I try to be less verbose in the future, but it’s not easy to clear misconceptions using few words. Explaining takes time.
I try my best to defend truth, justice, and the European way.
I’m actually sorry about that. I’m very pro-men’s rights, but sloppy debating hurts the cause, and admittedly I tried to teach a lesson there. Don’t take it personally.
Of course, but there’s no harm in asking, right? Factual accuracy for the win.
I think that the best way to go on living together reducing our conflics is looking for a kind of humanism.
Not feminism, not masculism. we have to ask for rules and practices which don´t consider people on their gender (or sex), but on their realities and particular circumstances.
Men and women can inflict too much harm to each other. Let´s put efforts on conciliation and search for an equal balance.
I don´t want another woman to take profit on any man (I have two wonderful brothers and many male friends).
But I wouldn´t want to be humiliated, hit or even raped and see that it is almost imposible to put the offender in jail (like it was not so long ago, or it is in muslem countries).
Humanism, balance.
Rebel January 1, 2010 at 11:18
“Our governments have betrayed us: we have the right (obligation) to betray them. We OWE that to our sons.”
Rebel, we do not have a ‘right’ to betray anyone. We have a right to ensure the enforcement of justice upon those who have committed crimes. That includes every single member of the ‘law society’, most politicians, many doctors, the senior banksters and the like. The Family Court and femnazi regime is the ‘tip of the iceberg’. There is also an ongoing genocide that most people don’t know about and even those who are told refuse to believe it. Genocide is a massive crime. The lawyers, the politicians and the doctors know it is happening and they are complicit in that crime as accessories during and after the fact.
We have an obligation to bring justice to criminals. No more. No less. If you do not bring justice to criminals they will continue to be criminals.
For any men who wish to banish ‘feminism’ from their lives? It can be done today. I see there are no comments on this:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=165
I am no longer subject to any femnazi legislation. It’s lovely to know that if some cop turns up with a ‘complaint’ from some stupid woman feminist I can refuse jurisdiction and send him on his way.
@Hestia,
Those women you are talking about are the ones men must avoid. I am not talking about hating them (that would play their game), but simply to abandon them, to ignore their existence.
Eventually, we may , this way, remove them from the gene pool. And that’s what matters the most for the sake of the next generations of human beings.
I do not believe these women should be permitted to reproduce. Why reproduce failure?
Just breed feminists out and our sons will again be able to live a normal life, without all that hatred.
I always ask a woman if she is a feminist. Bluntly.
Most say no, after some hesitation: I take no chance and I classify them as feminists, specially if the answer is followed by the infamous “but..”
No bad feelings, no insults, I turn them off in my own mind, never to talk to them again. For me, they cease to exist and I make it plain for them to see that I am completely indifferent.
I think they must be given what they want: no man, no love, no children: just our indifference and nothing more.
That should be punishment enough if such is required.
This is part of what I call a gender war.
If we stop breeding with such women, it will only take two generations to get rid of them without the use of violence. Let them live long and die out.
But the sooner they do, the better, of course.
RIP.
@Icaros2010
I can see you’re determined to turn this thread into the Icaros2010 show.
You “tried to teach a lesson.” This patronizing statement has no bearing on what took place. You asked for information, I pointed you to it, you said you already had it.
“Don’t take it personally.” Another patronizing statement intended to evoke an emotional response from me. Fail.
Win!
DRINK!
(Hey, I gotta get rid of the leftover lembic from last night somehow.)
Isn’t it funny how feminists are calling for a more male-inclusive ‘humanism’ now that the MRM is growing?
The MRM will not be co-opted into feminism.
Nor are we about the ‘right to rape’ or any other feminist fables.
The problems we address are those which specifically concern men, as a social group and as individuals, so there will be no co-opting thus under a more general banner of ‘humanism’.
What cowards feminists are, to fire and fire shots at us for four decades, and then immediately offer peace when men step up to fire back.
No, I am at war, and there is no length I will not go to, to ensure that feminists and feminised women reap in full what they have sown. There’s no turning back on this. You don’t get to dictate peace, on your terms, after four decades of attacks.
I’m already hung over. Or at least I feel like it. So thanks, but no thanks. Some other time!
Zeta –
This is a good point and something that should probably be elaborated on.
I first came across this idea while reading “Taking Sex Differences Seriously.”
There is a whole lexicon of terms that feminists have appropriated for their uses, some of which are compound words or neologisms. “Hypermasculinity” is another one, and the word pathologizes the kind of behavior that men often admire, even when they think it is a bit over the top.
Harvey Mansfield made an argument that “masculinity” is also such a word, but I disagree. Or rather, I agree when it is used in the plural “masculinities” which throws out a pink (or red) flag for me immediately. But “masculinity” in common parlance is almost interchangeable with “manliness,” the word Mansfield prefers.
This might be a good topic for an article.
Snark –
Strong words! Hear, hear.
Snark
OK, then the problems I am affected are ONLY those th
that woman have suffered….on 2000 years of attack¡¡
I am not dictating peace on my terms, I recall humanism as the cultural groundings coming from continental europe philosophers.
but If you prefer, I can go to feminism and the cry “al men are pigs, bastards and rapist”
Lucy, unless and until you actually do something to help us, we don’t, won’t, and most of all shouldn’t care what you think.
A bare minimum for-example would consistently, regularly, and most of all PUBLICLY criticizing women for behaving badly, such as single motherhood (they should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to get their children a good father or step-father), false accusations, complicity in male genital mutilation (AKA circumcision), and so on.
If you want what you think to matter to us, you need to bring something tangible first to establish your credibility.
I am TOTALLY against false accusations (affecting ANY human being, not only males), genital mutilation affecting boys and girls, crimes, abuse, maltreatmen and any other bad behavior of a person agaisnt another person, and that´s all. No more no less.
Oh, and Lucy? Over that 2000 years of attack?
During that time, far, FAR more women been far, FAR more discriminated against and oppressed by WOMEN from the ruling aristocracies than they have been by men of their own socioeconomic status.
To put it in simple terms: Would you rather have been a female slave-owner, or a male slave?
You want me to try to ‘win your favour’, is that it?
Here’s some continentalism for you: fuck off.
I’m not here to win your favour. I’m here to attack those repugnant assholes you described. If you want to put yourself in the firing line then that’s your business.
Why ’2000′? lol! Sometimes it’s 5000, sometimes it’s 10,000, sometimes it’s from the dawn of time itself!
’2000′ is my favourite though. Is Christianity the real issue for you? Or do you think that time began at year 1? Marking Jesus’s birth as the beginning of ‘female oppression’ always makes me chuckle because it’s just so arbitrary.
Acksiom:
You are right; I don´t think Patriarchy (or whatever name you give to this regime) have oppressed women. It only has different roles for men and women. The only complaint on all this is that these roles were too rigid, and thus, women, in most cases (like many men surely) werent allowed to get further education
And again, Lucy, unless and until you actually do something to actually help us, we don’t, won’t, and most of all shouldn’t care what you think.
This is a problem I’ve noticed with people who want men’s issues advocates and activists to calm down and be equitable and compromise. You consistently appear to believe that just “being against” something is somehow meaningful in our context.
Well, it isn’t. Unless and until you show us some actual, tangible efforts — we don’t even require results, just honest efforts to accomplish something — your “being against” all that bad stuff means nothing. Zip, zero, zilch.
Because being against all that bad stuff is just the bare minimum for being a civilized adult. There’s nothing special about being opposed to it; that’s just barely scraping the bottom of the barrel of acceptability.
You’re positively contrasting yourself against the scum of the earth as though it’s some kind of significant accomplishment. Guess what; we’re not impressed.
2000 years has to do with the first most important written documents which emerge and spread regarding the most important person of history: Jesus.
And he was a great humanist, too.
First most important written documents emerged only 2000 years ago?
Are you a philistine?
And what connection does that have to ‘female oppression’? Especially if Jesus was a humanist.
What a clusterfuck of an answer. You didn’t even stay on point.
I am not try to impress you, that´s not my aim.
You want particular and certain facts to prove that I am with you.
But I am not with you ONLY.
If you are calling for justice, you have to be just for everybody.
But if you want certainty: I have worked in issues related to divorce (not now) And I always tried my best to get the best for everbody, try to conciliate couple, to keep calm to give another opportunity, and believe me, in many cases situations were rather hard.
As far as I know, written documents has to do with culture and history, hasn´t it?
If you want we can talk abour Proto-history as well, but I can infer that whatever I say as a woman you will be agaisnt.
Well, you’re obviously not from Tennessee.
never forgive, never forget.
Rebel-If we stop breeding with such women, it will only take two generations to get rid of them without the use of violence. Let them live long and die out.
But the sooner they do, the better, of course.
Hopefully this is what the future holds, for such women are not only dangerous to men, but useless as mothers and have no business destroying small children as they are doing now. There is enough pain in the world without mothers harming their own children.
Lucy-The only complaint on all this is that these roles were too rigid, and thus, women, in most cases (like many men surely) werent allowed to get further education
These “restrictive” roles were also what kept civilization growing and moving forward, rather than declining into lawlessness, violence, and general sickness as is happening today. A patriarchal system allowed most men to have wives and children and gave them a reason to invest in society and help move the game of Western civilization forward into what nice parts we still have left to enjoy today. Patriarchy also celebrates excellence and allows the most collective success to happen while allowing for individuals to be rewarded on merit and talent, not sex or feeling to entitlement as happens nowadays.
When society is in shambles, none of us “little guys” can truly be free or have any sort of liberty, making higher education a moot point. Some sort of order is necessary for the social order to be maintained and what we are seeing right now is only the tip of the iceberg. As more and more men are disenfranchised and left without meaningful connection to others and love in their lives, there will be more George Sordinis and a much bleaker reality than the one we face now.
Any new “humanism” that might come about will be a miserable failure, just like feminism, if the contributions of men are not recognized, along with the traits that men posses that rightfully should make them the pillars of civilization and leaders (physical strength & stamina, logical thinking that has brought, and will continue to provide us with, scientific and mathematical discoveries, character traits such as honor and bravery, etc). Celebrating “boy power” this could be called. Women collectively need to become comfortable enough with their femininity to acknowledge their own strengths and weaknesses and relish their supportive role in the game of civilization. They needn’t try to become men or seek to harm men to make themselves feel better as happens now.
@Rebel
Throughout the ages, human progress has always been linked to war. (think of the numerous inventions that were necessary because of wars and now think of the benefits these war inventions have brought us.
For a website that just featured Smedley Butler, you might want to check your premises. I’ll not directly answer, but only give you the words of Will and Ariel Durant, from The Story of Civilization:
“Civilization is a stream with banks. The stream is sometimes filled with blood from people killing, stealing, shouting, and doing things historians usually record – while, on the banks, unnoticed, people build homes, make love, raise children, sing songs, write poetry, whittle statues. The story of civilization is the story of what happens on the bank.”
Yes, we know that women are incapable of being anything but victims. That is why a growing number of men are reaching the point where they don’t have much use for them.
good comment Hestia
also zimmy–
“Only one sex declared war and it was fueled by feminism. Perhaps the ancients knew more than we did and the biblical Eve was the first feminist. Adam may have been the first mangina for ‘giving in’.”
ouch, da trooth hoits!
but eve was (is! is!) the “first feminist” and the bible is correct in depicting the War on Maleness as an evil already extant at the dawn of humanity
so it aint going bye-bye quite so readily….
barbara kay, i will assume for her benefit, doesnt really understand the genesis, nature, operations, inter-relationships, or future plans of our matriarchies, nor does she really grasp how equivalent feminism and western civ have already become — how deeply male-hatred and femsupremacy have been institutionalized, and how difficult it will be to sever the mutualism between womens’ collective power and self-serving male “elites” (dominating from both civil and religious sectors)
kay mistakes the end of the gender war — a unilateral war, to this point — for the beginnings of resistance to an antireligion that has ALREADY conquered the western world, and is busy busy busy infecting the east and africa even as i write, funded and facilitated by both the public and private sectors
right now we’re feeling merely the first rumblings of discontent, but before the Global Gynogulag falls, the earth itself will tremble, shake, and mebbe do the boogaloo too
and you will be in no doubt
who’s In and who’s Out
Goodness, Lucy, women have suffered 2000 years of attack?
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Now move away from the punch, lady. You’ve had more than enough.
Leadership…another point of conflict: there are “people” capable of ruling a country (man or woman), there have been great, great women-queens or governors. I particularly think that us women are more careful and have more pshychological strength, and a social point of view regarding power, feminine point of view brings more school, homes and social assistance.
Next time, just think it, don’t type it.
Having been in the men’s rights movement almost two decades now, I’ve seen this sort of thing many times before. A woman notices that the war against men is insane and says so publicly. Men embrace her and cry out “Hurrah! Peace is near! Peace is just around the corner!”. And then things go on just as they were before.
Barbara Kay may be sincere, but she doesn’t speak for other women. She can’t commit the rest of her sex to any sort of truce. The majority of women seem to feel the opposite of the way she does. New antimale insanity appears regularly with their hearty approval.
Even if every last woman personally swore to a truce, the history is not encouraging. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
And repeating globalman’s point, there are so many wrongs to undo. Undoing the wrongs against men is important.
Yep. That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Just when men are getting warmed up and starting to stand up for themselves, she calls a “truce.”
LOL. I don’t think so. Given the lies and double dealing, we have no choice but to demand unconditional surrender.
Lucy-I particularly think that us women are more careful and have more pshychological strength,
Considering men are the ones who bear the terrible realities of combat, police work, and dangerous jobs more often than women do, I’d have to question the notion that they are weaker in psychological strength than are women. Certainly women can be strong in character and emotion, but this is often in a different way then men are, not so much a better way. There is a large difference between the two.
a social point of view regarding power, feminine point of view brings more school, homes and social assistance.
Yes, a feminine point of view does bring about all of this which results in a larger government that can have a more tyrannical hold over our lives as well as more money that must be paid in taxes to fulfill the programs of Big Husband Government. This is not at all desirable and not something women should be proud of or celebrate IMHO. I must also add, as a proponent of home education and a homeschooling mother myself, that I do not believe children are served well at all in compulsory government schooling and are often harmed in this prison in fact. Women would do much better to keep their “feminine viewpoint” within the bounds of their own families and seek to provide schooling, wise financial planning, and charity themselves rather than running to the “protection” of the government.
”””””LOL. I don’t think so. Given the lies and double dealing, we have no choice but to demand unconditional surrender””””””
Surrender would imply something is needed from the ones surrendering. Nothing is. Every woman in the us can be replaced by a foreign woman no problem without even really making a dent in the number of woman worldwide. Just like mens jobs were outsourced woman can be outsourced as well. No real war just need mass replacement of defective goods. 2.3 million marriages a year in the us a drop in the bucket. Could replace all 2.3 million of those woman no problem. Shit there are 700k of work visas given out a month so yea already at replacement.
””””””’Of the 121 million women age 16 years and over in the U.S., 72 million, or 59.5 percent, were labor force participants—working or looking for work.
”””””””
72 million woman working in us. Again no problem to replace them all with woman from another country. All of them.
The war continues. As it must.
Warren Farrell himself pointed out years ago that it was totally unreasonable for feminists to suggest a truce having won the day — that is, in effect, calling for a surrender. They shall get no such thing. The sex wars continue, and in fact they are just getting started, because only now are men starting to fight back. Agreeing to a truce or some kind of cooperation at this point would be agreeing to a surrender.
And besides, does anyone really think women like Barbara Kay can shut up strident young feminists like Jessica Valenti, even if they wanted to?
Re: Rebel…Sir….01-01-10. @ 11:18
Hear…Hear…I yeald my time and attention to this gentleman…well stood and exact ! ( my fist pound table )
My guess is that the struggles will continue.
Women want soft, polygamy, i.e. hooking up with Tiger Woods and a stint on “Jersey Shore.” Professional women want the Mr. Big variant from Sex and the City, working class women want to be Snooki, but the desire to be part of a Big Man’s soft harem is strong.
Men would like to be the player, but most have no clue and even less natural ability. PUA can help a few but not many. Most will simply opt out, using porn and video games as a substitute. Few men fancy themselves as Kitchen Bitches.
Moreover, the economic disparity, between men (higher unemployment and lower earnings) and government employed women (stable, high-paying and status employment) means women will broadly seek a rotating stable of exciting, dangerous bad-boys, and default to single mother matriarchy.
In response, men will simply try to out bad-boy each other, falling into White British Chav or Ghetto Black behaviors, steadily, and very rapidly at the end. Men after all want sex and affection. Being the most dangerous guy can get that … while things women CLAIM they like but in fact detest (stability, loyalty, compassion) fail totally.
Women are likely to get EXACTLY the kind of man they want. And be totally unhappy. But they cannot call back the bullet.
whiskey –
Agreed and well put.
I think that when the state, who gave feminism what it wanted in return for votes, eventually sees a lot of old ladies consuming too much medicare from the state (women live longer than men), the state will decide that cutting them off is worth it, even at the cost of their vote.
The state can be cold, and if feminists are a net cost to the state, the state will end that.
Well fifth I think the state will get even more involved in all the single mother households. Coming in to administer piss tests to make sure they are not on drugs. Checking the babies weekly to make sure they are being taken care of or they take them away. Already like that for welfare mothers. Now they just need to up it to all mothers and create lots of jobs in the home. Yea woman gonna have no rights either before long.
gunslinger,
They may want to.
But who pays the taxes to support all this? The tax base cannot be squeezed much more than it already is. More taxation would lead to less revenue, not more.
Single motherhood creates a bunch of criminals who cost $60,000 a year to jail. Eventually the state cuts them off. The state also cuts off old ladies on medicare……
“But who pays the taxes to support all this? The tax base cannot be squeezed much more than it already is”
There’s always slavery, by whatever name. If the state has run out of money to buy things legitimately, it can conscript labour to reduce its costs. Sort of like a civilian national service program – mopped up the unemployed, appropriate their labour for a token payment.
And then there is borrowing or money printing. You can keep things going for a long time after the point where you’d expect collapse, if you are willing to starting acting like Socialists with a capital S.
Have you considered the possibility that the system is going INSANE and will continue down the road it has chosed until it goes right of the cliff?
Suppose “the tax base cannot be squeezed anymore than it has” but they squeeze it anyway, because they are out of touch with reality? Drive the bus right off the cliff.
What a collection of splendid posts – nice to read!
Men Invented Humanity, By William Tucker
Let’s not forget the origin of Mankind – the man-made society based on law.
There’s a lot more if you care too google it.
TMM:
I believe that TFH is referring to the fact that when you tax beyond a certain point (all cumulative taxes, not just income tax, we are actually taxed pretty heavily), then production is discouraged, even becoming harmful, and less is produced.
I’ll leave TFH to cite his own reasons and sources for this idea he posts quite a bit (which is a good thing), but one basic theory that helps explain it is the Laffer Curvehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve.
The Laffer Curve is a bit basic though, there’s more to taxanomics than that, but it does establish (rather logically) that things are approaching the point of declining revenues. Slave labor (labour if you will) isn’t as beneficial as you’d think, it’s actually rather inefficient. It gets things done, but not as well or even as efficiently as incentivized employment, there’s no better “slavemaster” than a Man’s own thirst for gain. They can TRY to increase taxes, but it won’t do anything, it’s not about pissing off the people anymore, it’s about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
@Lucy-
Lucy, you are the enemy. You are too far gone, too brainwashed, too much of a believer in the power of unicorns and rainbows to be worth our effort. Let me state, as a matter of fact, that I hate you, and I hope that hate prevents you from having a good nights sleep, as your rationalizations, ego defense mechanisms, and emotional shields go into overtime in an effort to paint me in your mind as the badguy, when I was someone who your beloved feminized education system almost drove to suicide, a nice guy whose niceness was repaid by the women who didn’t outright ignore me with nothing but rejection, and whose benevolence, drive, intellect and empathy was used against me to insure my enslavement to a system that sees me as little more than a beast of burden or cannon fodder. Let your dreams tonight twist into a cold dark nightmare as you try to see me as little more than a villian, while you try to envision yourself as the saint.
You would say to us, the victims of torturers, “But what about the torturers needs and desires? We must take them into consideration also.”
That is humanism taken too far. That is how I see your views. May you know how I feel one day. May you know the psychological torture young men in the 1990s, whose single feminist mothers hated men and wallowed in that hate, whose school saw masculinity as little more than a behavior problem that needed to be fixed, whose culture titulated us with sex and then shamed us for being sexual, whose society painted us as the oafish brute, as the badguy, for the original sin of being born with a penis. May you know torture one day, and then try to argue that we should compromise with our torturer. Sleep well bitch. Jesus would be ashamed of your self rightous moral certainty. You are asked to love thy enemy first, not chastise him because you think he is over reacting to his pain and sorrow.
@Charles Martel and Icaros2010-
You guys! How long did ya’ll work on that skit? I was laughing so hard! Like men would argue over something so irrelevent and frivolous! Hilarious parody! Brilliant!
Sarcasm off.
Knock it off guys. I like your words both, a lot, not just saying that, and I prefer to be the only one who gets in pointless and random verbal dust-ups. My credibility is already….iffy, as I relish and wallow in my randomness and childlike exploration of trifling matters. I see you too as both adults in our tribal brotherhood. Don’t scare the little ones (me) with your bickering. I need to believe daddy and daddy still love each other. I need stability. I’ve already lived through one divorce.
@Jabberwocky from home,
good that someone can appreciate the work of majestic brilliance created there by Charlie and yours truly. Someone has to set new standards — excellence in nitpicking and petty squabbles.
@Jabberwocky from home
Yup, that was all pretty silly. Sometimes you just have to dig in and defend your position. Can’t remember why today, though.
Epoche asked:
“If you were a reasonably intelligent black man living in the ghetto would you support sharia or the black matriarchy?”
It depends. If you were a playa like Desmond Hatchett (Google him) the black matriarchy is a great deal. If you were a grown up version of Steve Urkel and weren’t getting any in spite of the numbers in your favor you might think otherwise.
“Well, you’re obviously not from Tennessee. ”
Zed, you read my mind and got it in first.
@Hestia
I’m with you on the homeschooling! Best thing you can do for your children.
No Justice, no Peace.
Women declared this war. Men’s only rational response is to achieve total victory.
{ 2 trackbacks }