As men realize how shaming language is repetitive, it loses its effectiveness. What female supremacists and their manginas and white knights do is simply produce more shaming language. Another method they use is the expansion of shaming language itself through redefining various terms, such as homosexual, to buttress their poor arguments.
Over at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (where a mangina said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to protect women), one of the resident manginas, Josh, tries to claim that anything regarding men’s rights is homosexual. We know this makes no sense, so he tries to redefine what the word “homosexual” means, despite it having a specific definition about being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Take a look at what Josh had to say:
At root of both the “feminist” movement and its modern mirror, the men’s rights movements, is radical homosexuality (devout dykism), i.e., radical sexual autonomy. Radical sexual autonomy is the biological “goal” of liberalism and the easiest way for a “default elite” to stay in power after convincing a populace to deny Supremacy. A populace in a state of anti-Supremacy and willing to embrace homosexuality is a self-annihilating populace.
The core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids and that Christianity is the liberal juggernaut. This is de facto homo-ism and anti-Supremacy.
The MRM is at root a liberationist movement. Like all liberationist movements, it seeks to dissolve all relations and destroy all impediments to its autonomy. In short, all liberationist movements seek a radical autonomy. But this existence must manifest in the physical world. The two most primitive liberal manifestations are atheism and homosexualism
The MRM is merely a MALE liberationist movement largely driven by atheists and homosexuals. It is “feminism” (euphemism for devout dykism) for males.
I think our common understanding of homosexuality is a false one and it is easy to see why. Homosexuality is, first and foremost, sexual aversion with the “same-sex attraction” merely filling the void. More specifically, male homosexuality and devout dykism are sexual aversions to female and male, respectively. With this aversion and before the “attraction” is homo-sexuality, i.e., self-sexualization, a radical form of autonomy. A homosexual is one that is averse to the Other and attracted to self. He is a radical autonomist and ultimately a self-annihilator.
Putting aside the fact that Josh is guilty of triangulation for trying to equate feminism with men’s rights, he is not only trying to redefine the word homosexual, but uses other terms such as supremacy in a manner that differs from their actual meaning. And why does he capitalize the word “supremacy?” Why doesn’t Josh use words as they are defined in the English language? Because he is white knighting for women and has no real argument against us. Calling us all homosexuals makes no sense. While there are homosexual men as part of the MRM, most of us are not homosexual nor do we have any sort of “homosexual agenda”. What Josh is doing is trying to expand shaming language by redefining words like homosexual so that he can call us all fags. The lack of logic in such a process is clear.
Josh’s real agenda is made clear when he says, “the core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids”. What he is really worried about is that men are leaving the plantation and refusing to be slaves to women. Josh is incapable of admitting that actions like the marriage strike and refusing to have children are rational and sensible responses by men to the fallout caused by feminism. The clear answer to such a problem if you want men to get married and have kids is to fix problems like the family court system, the child custody system, other unjust laws and socialism. This would increase incentives and decrease disincentives for men to get married and have kids. While this seems simple, a white knight like Josh can’t understand this exactly because he is a white knight. Instead, he tries to redefine words like homosexual in a pathetic attempt to tar us with the sodomite brush.
To see how absurd white knights like Josh are being, compare what Josh is doing to what he would be saying if he tried it with other shaming language. Another form of shaming language that gets used against men is, “you have a small penis”. If Josh was trying to redefine that in the same way he is trying to redefine homosexual, he would be claiming that he can say that we all have small penises because our penises are less than 15 inches long.
This is not the first time that someone has tried to redefine the term homosexual beyond sexual attraction to the same sex. Extreme conspiracy theorist, Henry Makow, claims that all porn is gay, even that porn that has only heterosexual sex, and that sex is for procreation and that we are supposed to “outgrow” sex afterwards, with any further sexuality being gay. Josh is a conspiracy theorist because he believes that the MRM, the marriage strike, male refusal to have children, etc. are tools of the “elite” as opposed to a rational and sensible response by men.
We will see more attempts to redefine homosexuality so our opponents can call us “gay” and hope we will obey them for fear of this childish slur. As shaming language loses its effectiveness over time this will have little effect, because the argument is so poorly reasoned that any man with an ounce of common sense could see through it.
{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }
This must be thordaddy
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Attempts to redefine language is a sign that western governments are turning to the far left of politics.
In the past socialist governments and governments that are turning to socialism used this technique to confuse and brain wash the population. Just look at what happened before and during the French revolution or Stalins Russia or Hitlers Germany
People who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them,,,,, repeat them,,,,,, repeat them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
About time someone exposed their treachery – the site started off well before the White Knights showed up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welmer,
Josh was over here for awhile. He called himself thordaddy. Personally I think he is mikeeusa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the sodomite brush
______________
I don’t like the cock but this is going to be my yacht’s name when I steal it from it rightful owner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course, painting all of the MRM with the homosexual brush is ridiculous. Yet, Josh accurately describes some ( a minority, IMO) in the MRM with the following:
He then, incorrectly, makes the illogical jump to say that this version of the MRM is based upon homosexuality.
PMAFT, you hit the nail on the head with:
Of course, I’d take it further – restoration will not only require fixes in the legal system but also require that Christ be again made the center of public and family life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That there is an educated dumbass.
“What we have here is a failure to communicate”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s hard for me to concieve of a man who has degraded himself so far that he labels the search for justice for men and reciprocity from women as “gay.”
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Josh’s observations are almost a complete 180 from my own which is why he must redefine homosexuality. The MRM does very little to include homosexuals (I think this is a mistake). While I’m sure there are some homosexuals in the MRM, I’ve seen no overt homosexual advocacy, in fact, it seems just the opposite. The marriage strike and refusal to have children aside, most men in the MRM appear to be quite heterosexual and there is at least a slight anti-homosexual undertone in much of what I’ve read (on the internet). Homosexuals are frequently grouped with feminists and liberals when they are discussed and therefore are classified as the opposition. I have always thought this to be a mistake for two reasons. First, homosexuals are men and men’s rights and issues apply to them just as they apply to heterosexual men (although they have some additional concerns). Second, homosexual men are perahps the best organized and most active group of men’s advocates on the planet. Unfortunately, many have embraced feminist concepts and have sought the support of the feminist movement as a reaction to hostility from heterosexual men.
Given that they are men, and have many common interests with heterosexual men, I doubt it would be difficult to enlist a large number of homosexuals and their organizations into the MRM if they were more welcome. Josh could be an unwitting ally in this cause. His comments appear quite homophobic. The shaming language using the label of “homosexual” (even if redefined) to refer to those in the MRM, would likely be quite offensive to homosexual men. Josh obviously uses the term in a rather derogatory manner, as an insult. If Josh’s attitude towards homosexuals is pervasive, perhps the homosexual community needs to wake up and begin to choose its allies more carefully. With friends like Josh, who needs enemies?
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sigh… this site has really taken a turn towards the Jesus in the last few weeks. Maybe the departure of Obsidian and, dare I say it, GlobalMan, have created a lack of diversity in the opinion here. There’s too much talk of creating some sort of Christian theocracy; and not only does this discredit the men’s right’s movement as a reactionary force, it is also not practical/possible, and nor is it in the general interest.
Noone is going to make Christianity the central religion of the West anytime soon. It’s not happening for practical reasons – as I’ve argued, there is too much diversity of opinion even within the various Christian factions in the U.S. and other countries. Are you suggesting that governments choose a single religion as the “official” state religion? Which one? Your favourite Protestant sect? Catholicism? Is divorce legal? Alcohol consumption? Contraception?
What about the atheists, agnostics and non-Christians in your dreamworld? Are they to be jailed for their lack of faith? How do you propose you make Christ the center of their public and family life?
And how are you to create Christian fixes in the legal system that are compatible with the MRM? The problems, as I’ve stated before, lie with the mix of policies created by Christian White Knights and Feminists. Take out the hard-core 3rd wave post-gender Feminist stuff and you’ll still have all the Christian-inspired woman centered policies: social engineering to “reduce domestic violence”, mandatory jail for drug posession, rape hysteria, easy divorce (for Protestants), woman-first child custody, male wage slaving, male cannon fodder, and even welfare.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve tried to say something to that effect but TDOM worded it better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the title “(Non) thinking” housewife. A while back, she said she was against the men’s movement. I forget her exact wording, but she doesn’t like it because it causes problems with relations between men and women. I sent an e-mail to her stated address, suggesting she has been asleep much longer than Rip van Winkle slept. For nearly fifty years feminists have been doing everything possible to destroy men, and thus have totally destroyed the desire of intelligent men to have anything to do with most women. When finally the men decided to speak up, we are at fault? Ridicul0us.
Also, though she always has comments, they are always closed when I check in. I have added her blog to the AVOID status.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If you’re a men’s rights activist you’re a woman hater and therefore by default must be homosexual. He’s views radical feminism (dykism), and men’s rights as two sides of the same coin. He has no idea what he’s talking about but thinks if he sounds intellectual about it, people will think he’s right.
If you’re not for women’s rights/liberation/feminism and everything it stands for, you must be against women. That’s exactly why, as a movement, it’s worked so well up until now. Like criticizing Obama makes you a racist, Hillary Clinton a sexist and so on.
Shame and blame are the roadside bombs of feminism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, there are any number of common points between the MRM and gay men’s advocates, which could be useful for an alliance; but unfortunately, as you say, many gay men have been poisoned by feminism into hating straight men, and there’s still a strong religious component to the MRM which probably holds back any alliance with gay men.
Nevertheless there are many common issues:
1. Male only spaces. Gay men are complaining about party girls invading gay bars because they’re trendy. Women have always been mistrustful of male-only spaces, and try to take them over for their own purposes. A useful way to get men’s only spaces, such as sports clubs back would be to be more inclusive of gay men.
2. Male adoption and the use of female surrogates. For men to free themselves, they require reproductive agency, and it is mostly gay men who are fighting on this front. The establishment of precedents for the rights of biological fathers can and has done much already for straight men.
3. Also, divorced gay couples who share custody precisely 50-50 with no child support can be used as a template for the deconstruction mother-first custody and of the divorce theft industry.
3. Domestic violence – by supporting gay men who are the victims of domestic violence, and highlighting the reciprocal nature of it, the MRM could deconstruct the feminist narrative that DV is about asserting Patriarchal authority and other idiocies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do not believe that this is any kind of shaming language destined to make MRA’s change their mind. This tactic would not work. Rather, the text is aimed at women who wonder why they cannot find a suitable man. Telling those women that the dearth of men is not caused by their behavior reassures women that their endeavor is fine.
After all, if all Men’s rights activists are gay, they are not husbands and fathers material anyway. It is meant to make women feel good about themselves, therefore need not change their way.
Personally, I do not care in the slightest if MRA’s are thus described by a pathetic mangina. I consider the sourc… and shrug it off.
Anon68, salutations
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This really does take shaming language to a new level of contortion. This guy needs to petition his wife for his balls back (assuming any woman will marry him).
I advocate that men still marry, which puts me in the minority in the manosphere. But I only suggest they do this understanding the full risks of marriage 2.0 and only do so if the woman they will marry brings the ability to hold her end of the bargain without the aid of the law, church, etc. Trying to shame a man into jumping into as one sided an arrangement as marriage 2.0 can only be described as heartless. In his case I would add cowardly.
BTW, I just wrote a post I think members of this board will like and fits in general with the topic at hand: What to expect when you debate a feminist. Make sure you hold the mouse over each image to see the mouseover text.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
TDOM, there is a reason homosexuality is not all that relevant to the “MRM,” but that may be changing.
1. The single largest issue is marriage and family law, and until very recently homosexuals were not involved in that.
2. False sexual harassment claims and false rape accusations – probably issue #2 in importance – fall overwhelmingly on straight men.
3. In domestic disputes, police and courts cannot discriminate on the basis of sex when homosexuals are involved in them, and VAWA doesn’t apply, so this is essentially a heterosexual issue as well.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that gay men are exempt from most of the main problems the MRM seeks to address, and that’s why homosexual issues are rarely brought up. In fact, from my perspective, it seems as though it would be significantly easier to be homosexual, but I’m aware that I’m not taking everything into account, so that’s probably not true in general.
As for low-level hostility to homosexuals, it is, as you pointed out, exactly because they are perceived as being as being in the feminist camp, and all too willing to bash straight men along with their feminist allies. However, living in a city with a large population of gay men, I’m aware that this is only a vocal minority, but for most other guys that’s about all they know.
Personally, I think it would be best if homosexuality were depoliticized and simply accepted as a biological reality for a few percent of men. Then we could move on and quit making such a big issue over it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Liberals always resort to twisting the meaning of words to further their attacks – it is much simpler than crafting cogent arguements. Control the definitions and the labels and the rhetorical battle is half-won. Witness the whole “gay marriage” debate; gays can’t marry each other because marriage consists of one man being joined with one woman. THAT IS WHAT IT IS. I’m just so frick’n sick and tired of liberals telling me a circle is a square, even though it lacks corners, sides and 90 degree angles! (Just wait – the polygamists are now waiting in the wings, licking their chops at the opportunity to change the marriage definition to its ultimate definition: multiple humans being joined together in a legally binding contract, with all the “rights and privileges” that come with them).
TDOM thinks gays are a needlessly overlooked potential ally. That is nonsense. Most homosexual men are feminine in outlook, and therefore burdened with the same limitations that prevent women from appreciating the advantages and necessity of patriarchy. And those that aren’t (perhaps a significant percentage) have been so indoctrinated against normal western culture and healthy familial structures and relationhips, and so warped by their own family and parent issues that they are incapable of comprehending the typical man’s difficulties with modern, western women and the intractable problems feminists have introduced into work (economic) life, home life, child rearing and the legal realm.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Now that we are all gay, do you think we could call it a hate crime when women and manginas screw us over?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
The core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids and that Christianity is the liberal juggernaut.
I have one challenge for Josh if he is reading this: Does your church measure divorce?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is the irony:
Feminists (male and female) like to think of themselves as liberal and enlightened. So what do they do when they want to insult someone? Call them “gay,” proving that they’re phonies and they are the ones who truly think being gay is “bad” and an “insult.”
Hypocrites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Marriage is on life support now and gay marriage will pull the plug on it forever. Feminism killed marriage. There’s a new paradigm; the socialist vision of men and women busily working and dutifully paying taxes while children attend state run education camps.
Gay marriage only exposes marriage for the sham it’s become. Much like drag queens mock women, gay marriage mocks the heterosexual union. It’s time has finally come. It was inevitable once everyone embraced feminism into the collective consciousness. The nuclear family is dead. Now it’s mother and child and her “community of support”. The best thing a young guy can do is stop blaming himself for something he didn’t do, and focus on his own greatness. And if he must interact with women, understand the legal ramifications first and protect himself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
As I read the turd Josh’s screed I couldn’t help but recall the villain dictator from ‘V for Vendetta’ as he spewed out almost exactly the same screed denouncing atheists and homosexuals in the same sentence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it is time for a little militancy in the men’s rights movement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Great post PMAFT, had me laughing all the way through.
I agree with TDOM and others that the MRM should include the rights of gay men. I don’t see any other way, quite frankly. The white knight that PMAFT fisked here is correct that the MRM is about radical autonomy, and so it should be – I want to expand and extend men’s autonomy as far as it can possibly go. This obviously includes gay men, since they are men.
It does not include ‘trans men’, since they are women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The ‘small penis’ shaming tactic also rubs up against their supposed respect for people’s bodies and sexuality. Et cetera.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keyster August 9, 2010 at 10:01
Marriage is on life support now and gay marriage will pull the plug on it forever. Feminism killed marriage. There’s a new paradigm; the socialist vision of men and women busily working and dutifully paying taxes while children attend state run education camps.
Gay marriage only exposes marriage for the sham it’s become. Much like drag queens mock women, gay marriage mocks the heterosexual union. It’s time has finally come. It was inevitable once everyone embraced feminism into the collective consciousness. The nuclear family is dead. Now it’s mother and child and her “community of support”. The best thing a young guy can do is stop blaming himself for something he didn’t do, and focus on his own greatness. And if he must interact with women, understand the legal ramifications first and protect himself.
***
Enough said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
One other thing worth noting is that gay men can have a unique perspective on women, simply because the latter have no sexual power over them.
It’s one thing some in the men’s movement share to a large degree with gays, but of course it doesn’t follow that men’s movement types are thus necessarily gay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This brings back memories, when I was a teenager my sisters loved to tell me how I was “probably going hit my wife when I married”. I think that qualifies as shaming language
What’s funny about it is of course that I never hit them (I’ve ever hit a woman) while they loved punching me or throwing things at me, scratching me etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I have said before, there has been a distinct uptick in mangina/whiteknight behavior since the start of 2010.
This is because more men are learning Game, and each man with Game deprives 10 whiteknights of what little scraps they were getting. This is highly asymmetrical deprivation of the whiteknights.
Their only response is to double down on their whiteknighting, getting as over the top as Josh.
However, you can only double down so many times.
This is another reason Game is good, because it is tightening the screws on whiteknights.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Good ridance to Obsidian …why did GlobalMan leave?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Josh, if you are still perusing this thread; you are amongst those who ARE oppresing and objectifying women. Think about it. Stop using women as your scapoegoats to cover for you defeciencies, insecurities and, shortcomings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“What he is really worried about is that men are leaving the plantation and refusing to be slaves to women.”
That’s not a fag. That’s a genetic kamikaze.
On the subject of Gays though, I wonder if any of them stopped to think the “out and proud” trend is a group of men who would have in the past, married a beard and done their “social duty”, deciding that it’s not worth it, and leaving the plantation.
Gay men coming out all over the place may well have been the “canary in the coalmine”. Now many straight men are following suit. That might explain how homosexuals came to Josh’s mind. His subconscious is trying to tell him something that he doesn’t want to believe.
It’s also why many are fighting hard to keep prostitution illegal or considered a disgraced profession.
One of the reasons I turned to benevolent sluttery when I was younger is because I love men and don’t want the legal power to destroy their lives. I think marriage 2.0 is slavery for men. The only reason my husbands and I did it is because we wouldn’t be allowed to be together without government interference otherwise.
So women who love men will only get married nowadays if they have to. They’ll be sluts (not the flaming kind) if they do it for love, and prostitutes if they do it for money, but maybe with a bit of love thrown in if they’re not treated like robots or slaves or something. The calling MRA’s fags is an attempt to make them look unattractive to women.
I don’t think that will work in the long term. Women want sex, love, and kids. If they realize they have to be trustworthy and loyal again to get a LTR and kids, or hot, professional, and not full of b.s. to get laid, they’ll do what they need to do.
…I hope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Peter
That’s an excellent list of common areas of concern.
@Welmer
True gay men as a group have not been involved in some of these areas. However, it is surprising at how many gay men actually marry and have children. Perhaps they haven’t been involved on a group basis because they feel even more powerless than straight men who lose their children. Also, police may not be able to discriminate on the baisis of sex in DV situations, but shelters can. Gay men have every bit as much problem finding services as victims of DV as straight men do.
@Meistergedanken
The effeminate gay stereotype is just that, a stereotype. Yes, there are some and perhaps there used to be more, but this is not the case today. I had a discussion about this with a gay friend of mine who was studying the effeminate and macho stereotypes in the gay community. The research showed that effeminate gays are looked down upon by other gays, unless they are Asian. For some reason gay Asians are expected to be effeminate, but it is not desired in others. I’m not sure I can find the research, but if I can, I’ll post it.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nicole-
“Women want sex, love, and kids. If they realize they have to be trustworthy and loyal again to get a LTR and kids, or hot, professional, and not full of b.s. to get laid, they’ll do what they need to do. …I hope.”
Good thoughts. I suspect that a few women will get this but not at nearly the same rate as men who are forever losing their trust and respect for women.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
TFH-”Their only response is to double down on their whiteknighting, getting as over the top as Josh. However, you can only double down so many times.”
One especially wonders at the logic of online white-knighting. Do these men actually expect women to woo them via email and blog replies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It didn’t take me as long to find the reference as I thought it would. The study was about self-esteem issues in gay Asian men. The conclusion was that these men were ostracized by European and American gay communities because those communities preferred masculine behaviors to feminine behaviors in their communities, but expected gay Asian men to act effeminate.
Han, Chong-suk. (2006). Geisha of a different kind: Gay Asian men and the gendering of sexual identity. Sexuality & Culture, 10(3) pp. 3-28.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One especially wonders at the logic of online white-knighting. Do these men actually expect women to woo them via email and blog replies?
Receiving a small online thanks is more than acceptable to these low-expectation losers like Josh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While there’s more I’d like to address in this post, I don’t have much time– but I must say, the use of shaming language in a post calling out shaming language (as well as in the comments) is pretty hilarious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Amanda, go seek out male attention elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, they do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Personally I think the homosexuals are traitors to the men. I am sorry to say, but it is true. they collaborate with the enemy.
of what I read and observed. gay men are prone to be in a violent relationship. And yet they blame the beatings on heterosexual men.
Speaking of shaming language, men of different colours, backgrounds, white knights, bigoted homosexual and feministic idiots often use shaming language whenever its possible.
When a man does a shaming language on purpose. I lose respect for him, right on the spot.
When a man uses a shaming language against another man, there’s several obvious reason. using the word race, discrimination, or how much his neighbour gets paid, and so forth. In truth he’s just an arrogant douche bag, that doesn’t deserve the word douche bag. The word douche bag is too much a nice word. For a scowling son of a bitch.
When a man uses shaming language. You’re supposed to chastise your fellow man only once. If he does it once again. Drop him. He doesn’t deserve to be your friend. Shun him, drive him back to the rock from where he crawled from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
misterb-”Personally I think the homosexuals are traitors to the men. I am sorry to say, but it is true. they collaborate with the enemy. ”
I have met a few wonderful and upstanding gay men in my life, but the criticism that the majority ally with Feminism against men is also true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Misterb, I can see where you get your observation. Yes, a vocal portion of gay right’s activists are allied with feminism. I believe this is not inherently so; rather, it is because gay men had no agency within a traditional society, such as the one we used to have. They thus turned to feminism and socialism – there is a reason that so many of the socialists and communists were gay men, and that is simply because they felt alienated from society.
Remember, there were times in history when gay men were accepted as part of the brotherhood of men. It is not their fault that Western civilization became hostile towards them.
As I’ve listed above, there are several breaking points where the interests of feminists and gay men no longer align.
Another example, and I wish I could find a link for this, there was a case recently involving two gay men who got some donor eggs, and used a separate surrogate mother to bring the child of one of them to term. The surrogate mom wants custody of the child. The feminist movement is aligned with the surrogate mother, saying that motherhood is determined by her status as an incubator. The gay men are arguing that it is genetics that determines parenthood. A victory for the gay men would also be a victory for straight men: non-biological children would not be by default the responsibility of men. Also, if motherhood is established by genetics rather than incubation, then there is nothing special to motherhood above fatherhood, which would set precedents against mother-first custody.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is nothing new or special. In the traditional discourse, women who chose not to (or weren’t able to) get married were stigmatized as “lesbians”; even if they weren’t naturally homosexual, their identity as a female were changed to “lesbian” because by not entering marriage they defied patriarchy, the social order and thus were deemed as outcasts. The same goes for bachelors in this case (because they shun family and don’t abide by the rules of patriarchy and the standard /gender role that it sets out for men).
The original masculinity studies (which were part of gender studies and arose from the feminist tradition) included gay men and it still deals with gay men’s issues. But the original masculinity studies, which are all about equality, are different from the “men’s movement”. And the difference is that the ideology behind men s studies is egalitarian, but the MRM is patriarchal and at times even supremacist. You can’t have both – equality / freedom from patriarchal male duties and the higher status. You either become equal to women and gay men, or go back to the traditional family. There is no in between.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The rhetoric might sometimes imply this, but you have got it all backwards. Traditional Men’s Studies is all about supremacy – of women. The MRM is about liberty and male autonomy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, to suggest that there is a coherent “MRM” is silly, and it’s a red herring opponents use in an attempt to discredit the efforts of men to fight injustice. What they do is choose some irrelevant statement from some nut and say “LOOK! That’s the MRM.”
We don’t have massive nonprofits – often recipients of public funds – dedicated to male supremacy. We don’t have entire departments in universities. We don’t have government programs specifically tailored to cater to men. We don’t have senators who explicitly back our goals. Feminists, on the other hand, have all these things, and they are very clear about how they want to control reproduction, family law, large parts of criminal law and civil law, and now international policy.
This is why I don’t presume to speak for any MRM — it doesn’t really exist in the sense feminism does. And, honestly, I don’t think I’d be happy if it did. Feminism is an abomination that I certainly wouldn’t want us to imitate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter, often people who are against religion are the most intolerant people around. Christians in the MRM for the most part are tolerant of unbelievers and accept them. But some unbelievers insist that Christians check their Christianity at the door before entering. You claim that Christians drive the gays away from the movement. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But why stop with Christians? Why don’t we ban southpaws or Rotary club members?
Peter, you’ve fallen into a feminist trap. First of all, Christianity is not going anywhere soon. But let me explain the trap you’re in. The one potent force that prevented Marxism/Feminism from taking over was not, government, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, or good ol’ American know how. Christianity and strong male-lead families is what prevented the spread of the evils of feminism. If Christianity was so irrelevant why was it the main thing, besides men, that they attacked?
So now they’ve run God out of the public arena and replaced him with slut chic, false rape accusations, entitlement issues, matriarchy, undisciplined kids and you know the rest. Peter I just think you should be a bit more tolerant of Christians in the MRA the way they are tolerant of you. And if you think the MRM can succeed without a dose of Christianity: WRONG.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
It is true that MRM is not ideologically consistent, it’s just a strange mix of different opinions – some patriarchal, some supremacist, some hedonistic. Whereas the original men’s studies stem from the egalitarian tradition and mostly deal with modern male identity / construction of male identity, ideas of virility, men’s health issues, fatherhood, gay men. It is an anti-sexists movement. As opposed to MRM, which is very sexist.
You don’t need funds, because the richest people in the world are men. They already hold / control most of the money. Even if they have to share it (and they don’t have to) with their wives or daughters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, Skadi, this is not true. Most of the wealth in the United States – and probably many other Western nations – is in the hands of women (60% at last count). I’m just waiting for the sparks to start flying when the government realizes that there’s no more to be had from men, and starts trying to take that wealth. This is really what’s behind the female interest in Tea Party rallies, etc.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I seriously doubt it, I simply know that men are richer (why are male A list actors paid so much more than women), but so be it if you say so.
The women involved with the Tea party mostly seem like traditionalist right wingers (there are many conservative women in America). Even though it’s a mixed crowd as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Let me state the obvious for Josh and the rest of the hard of thinking: for a large chunk of us, even MGTOW, if the war was won tomorrow, we’d probably be sending out the wedding invitations by the weekend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder what Josh thinks about early Christian monastics, I guess he sees these celibates as fags to. Faced with increasing Roman imperialism and feudalism these dudes (mostly non Romans and the back bone of the tax base) pissed off into the desert and led fulfilling intellectual lives sans marriage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nicole: ““What he is really worried about is that men are leaving the plantation and refusing to be slaves to women.”
That’s not a fag. That’s a genetic kamikaze.”
Not under several of circumstances, such as using a surrogate (e.g., Ricky Martin, Christiano Ronaldo), or baby daddies having multiple children with multiple women who they do not support or raise, leaving that up to the surrogate father – The Gubmint.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Btw… it’s weird that the Ronaldo’s case wasn’t highlighted much here.. it’s pretty significant and commendable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Skadi
You don’t need funds, because the richest people in the world are men. They already hold / control most of the money. Even if they have to share it (and they don’t have to) with their wives or daughters.
———————————————–
this is typical women’s thinking. Women are natural communists. Women make no distinction between state and household whatsoever in their political views because they are biologically incapable of it. If it is deemed legitimate for the state to support the dating service for lesbians with taxpayer funds known as women studies programs (which it is not legitimate) then it is almost certainly legitimate for the state to fund men’s programs. The only rationale for funding one and not the other is if you believe that “some are more equal than others”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, yeah, right, and what site are you talking about? Christianity being part of the solution is more like the minority of minority opinions at the Spearhead.
Who said anything about force?
It will happen, if God wills it. Until then, there are people who are creating traditional islands within the overall culture who do make Christ the center of their family life and, as much as possible, as part of their public life as well. They have father headed families with a lot of children. That’s a realistic option that both men and women can make.
That’s not part of the Christianity I believe.
In a sense, I do agree with you. Barring a miracle, there will be no mass return to a Christ-centered culture or for the majority of families. But neither do I believe the secularist approach will succeed (educating enough men, voting for the right candidates, signing petitions….) The patriarchy comes first, then the laws that support it grow out of it. There will be no laws supporting patriarchy coming out of a degenerate, feminist society. This is a society and nation in decline, going down of its own weight. It’s that collapse that will finally cut off the female privilege, but there will then be a whole bunch of other serious problems. In the mean time, I’m betting on the traditional island sub-community I belong to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Opps- i forgot artificial wombs. Just around the corner, they are. They will obviate even the need for a surrogate. My bad.
Artificial wombs + SynthSex will really rock some worlds. Especially for women that don’t look like Katy Perry or Jessica Alba. They will be a God-send to women who feel oppressed by the male gaze or by motherhood. I’m guessing not so much by plain-looking women who would like to marry a nice, docile pack mule.
BTW- Skadi, Ronaldo has been discussed here quite a bit. Perhaps you were busy and missed it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is this Josh coward not coming here to defend his stance? Is he that ashamed of who he is?
Actually, whiteknights like Josh play a crucial role in the modern sexual marketplace. They pay the bills.
Women want to have sex with PUAs.
PUAs want to have sex with women at low cost.
Josh gets to finance this.
Everybody is happy!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Personally I like GlobalMan, he’s a blunt and honest. And he’s quite entertaining.
I’m glad that Obsidian is not posting at the moment. No offense to anyone. I wonder what comeback shtick he would use. Probably condemning the likes of me who considers men using shaming language as male peacocks strutting around
Still I am not too pleased that men using shaming language. To be truthful, when a man uses shaming language he’s hiding something. And possibly an assless bastard
But still, there’s hope for Obsidian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Globalman was banned because because he wouldn’t stop his assassination shit and started attacking everybody. I suspect he was a feminist plant to try and bring down MRA sites with all of his assassination talk.
Obsidian left with his tail between his legs because he was exposed as a (reverse) racist mangina. Obsidian the mangina needs to stay gone.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
The world is full irony white and nerdy.
I got that impression when laid the blame on others. There’s a saying, never trust the words of a reversed racist.
Men shouldn’t blame others for doing nothing. A person has to accept personal responsibility for his own action and every word that cometh out of his mouth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skadi is just another dumb cunt demonstrating one of the cardinal principles of contemporary feminism: the truth is whatever I believe it to be.
As for Obsidian, I am sorry that his blog and contributions here have jumped the shark. When he started his blog, I had hoped he would provide a unique perspective on the extent to which black men are getting fucked over by feminism, but it has since deteriorated into a lot of paranoia about “racism”. His comments on roissy’s blog were always superb, but it’s been all downhill from there. He’s got the smarts; I just hope he can get his mojo back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Well, in my local university there was a masculinities study group which I attended several years ago and all the lectures/discussions were for free, so they must have been state financed too.
And, yes, I was pleasantly surprised by Cristiano’s decision to become a father. I had often thought who he would turn out to marry or have as a girlfriend and was puzzled whether that would be possible for him. It’s great that he decided to pass on his genes at the youthful age of 25. This is a good arrangement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”Of course, I’d take it further – restoration will not only require fixes in the legal system but also require that Christ be again made the center of public and family life.”
Replace one religion ‘feminism’ (feminists are clearly tunnel visioned zealots) with another religion. Not a great idea. Let the world live in reality NOT idealism. Idealism will always have one major flaw, us, humanity. Equality is fine imo, just let men actually have some, plus get rid of legislation that force privilege on some at the expense of others and let people gain position’s in jobs etc through ability. Raise standards to their original level, if women want to be equal to men, stop pandering to them by making it easier for them to ‘appear’ equal. Bring their standards up to ours, not reduce ours to theirs. I think all of our nations would benefit from such an approach.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
”Skadi is just another dumb cunt demonstrating one of the cardinal principles of contemporary feminism: the truth is whatever I believe it to be.”
Is it indicative of feminist thinking or female thinking in general, thanks to feminism?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Raise standards to their original level, if women want to be equal to men, stop pandering to them by making it easier for them to ‘appear’ equal. Bring their standards up to ours, not reduce ours to theirs.”
I’m just really baffled where you get this idea from that you are intrinsically better than I. It’s weird… I must have been raised somehow completely differently than you, but ever since I was a child, it would never even occur to me that I am somehow worse than a boy. What standards? We women get our education and support ourselves. We are in no way worse than you. If you still believe that, then you are simply a bigot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Really, so standards have never been altered to accommodate women in the work place? All women have done since they entered the workplace is change things to suit them. The evidence is there to be found if you care to look. I’m no bigot dear, just a realist. Perhaps you’ve seen too many shows where women are put in superior roles and are now starting to believe your own dogma/indoctrination.
Easier to call me a bigot than accept facts, ignorance is bliss, revel in yours.
The MRM will move on regardless. You’re now doubt here to try and retain your hard fought (nagged) privilege. Stop telling us you’re equal and SHOW US.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”We women get our education and support ourselves.”
Yet continue to accept AND enjoy the privileges laws and legislations continue to give you over men. Easy to take the high ground when there’s a continuous safety net to catch you if you fall. Men don’t have that dear, equality?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harry, the safety net is for the children. Besides it varies, where I live there is hardly any safety net. And what privileges? Just because the law is apparently a bit skewed in the States, doesn’t mean it’s like that everywhere.
There has been no privilige for me personally. I have not received a single penny from a man or from the state. Yet I have paid tons in taxes.
About the workplace… yes, they should accomodate that because women have to take care of kids and they have to do both – work, make money and raise the babies. They should continue to accomodate the workplace, the infrastructure and even the culture to help women (and men) with children like they tend to do in the most progressive societies because the children should be a priority. Or would you prefer to keep everything cruel and dog eat dog so that women would have even less kids?
A single, healthy woman is equal to a man, but a woman with a child is a completely different story. This is what you male chauvinists fail to understand because you are only concerned with your egotistical needs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/recbycat/index.html
http://chess.about.com/od/famouschessplayers/a/WorldChampions.htm
Many other examples of men PROVING to still be more competent than women but I can’t be bothered to post them as you’ll ignore the evidence. That’s what the indoctrinated do.
With all these new found privileges across the board, why are you still majoring in mediocrity? Why is female sports still separate from males? The answers obvious with anyone with an ounce of logic. Why is the ratio of female to male inventors so clearly in favour of males? Why are scientific advancements made mostly by men? etc etc etc. Don’t tell us you’re equal, show us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harry, I don’t care if men as sex are smarter, physically stronger or whatever. It doesn’t matter to me and I’m not going to count arguments where women are in fact superior to men. It is useless. I have been raised since a very early age that as a human being I have the same worth as the boy. Most people are regular and I will never accept that the man next door is somehow above me just because he is male. Does it make you feel better about yourself that you were born male? That is very shallow.
What privileges? I don’t see any. I certainly haven’t used any, if I saw any priviliges, I would be very interested in taking advantage of them… maybe.
Don’t mix sports into this, nobody is denying that men are physically stronger than women. I’m not arguing physical differences, but social worth.
I’m not denying biological differences. Having said that though, it’s easier to do science when you can just close the doors to your cabinet (when the woman only had a sofa in the kitchen) and not have to deal with crying children.
But that’s not the point. The point is that I refuse to consider you as superior just because you are a man. I was not raised like that and I don’t believe that and never will. You are not better than me (just because you happened to be born male).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”And what privileges? Just because the law is apparently a bit skewed in the States, doesn’t mean it’s like that everywhere.”
The law’s a bit skewed everywhere in the western world (I’m UK) all in favour of women, coincidence? Of course not, feminism.
http://www.misandryreview.com/rebuking-feminism/2010/08/06/list-of-male-grievances-and-injustices/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”Harry, I don’t care if men as sex are smarter, physically stronger or whatever.”
Of course you don’t, that’s the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The biggest threat I see to including gay men in the MRM are the ” flaming queens” who think that there is ‘gayness” in every man and, their misguided thinking that they can “pull (out) the gayness of any man. You cannot get blood from a rock. I personally could care less about anyone’s sexual preference/orientation. This does not mean or imply that I am in any manner attracted to or, comfortable with any idea of havinx sex or intamacy with anyone who (as I do ) sports a penis. I have a twin brother who hates me because we do not have the same sexual preference yet, he acts as if it is some sort of hate crime and a capital crime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”I’m not arguing physical differences, but social worth.”
Social worth? You jest surely. What social worth do women have apart from child birth? The inability to find contentment socially or personally? That’s not an asset.
………………………….
”There has been no privilige for me personally.”
Talking about gender, not you personally, as a gender women are currently sticking it to males, with the help of laws and with their own chauvinistic characteristics, in some ways worse than men ever were. Even the media have joined in. If you don’t see it, you’re probably part of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What you really get from female politicians when you vote for them. Here’s an excerpt from the link I’ll provide.
”Apparently there’s been consensus among members of parliament since 2003 to extend the same anonymity to those named as rapists that the law now extends to women who say they’ve been raped. The new government was supposedly poised to make that consensus the law of the land until Labour and Tory female MPs stopped it.”
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4954&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+glennsacks+(GlennSacks.com)
Party politics are instantly forgotten when their true agenda’s issues are raised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“What privileges? I don’t see any. I certainly haven’t used any, if I saw any priviliges, I would be very interested in taking advantage of them… maybe.”
Why don’t you post a picture of yourself Ms. “I don’t have any privileges.”
Seriously, tell everyone here what you look like. Your whole existence is a privilege.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Carnivore: thank you. Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Any heterosexual NATURE (inclination, tendency, instinct, arousal) in my book negates a de facto homo labeling. To label someone who does not want to marry/have kids as ‘gay inclined’ yet is someone who seeks pussy as a primary, is flawed logic. The pussy primary (his thoughts, his desires) positions man (regardless of his defiance) within a POTENTIAL – to create (legacies and all that). Never rule out a potential and heterosexual hard-wired nature.
Hetero NATURE (pussy seeking) defies TRUE characteristics of a de facto homo, if you want to talk absolutes. Gays would agree, pussy inclinations are not true to their cause/identity.
Stating you don’t want kids is not de facto homo when you’re willing to go (given the RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE) with a woman. Men are tired of women in many ways, but the pussy homing device nature is always within. We’re just fighting these instincts, because like many will claim, the socio-political, cultural environment biased AGAINST men is less fit for success to create, etc. At present, there is little to no inspiration to hook up.
It’s not about ‘gay inclinations’, it’s about the whole world around us is falling apart.
(Many) women are not fit for partnership, let alone the society they’re creating, which you would have thought would foster partnership.
Men’s arguments are about law, rights, equality, women’s negative/damaging traits and so on. Why switch the focus to be about a man’s sexual nature, when he’s trying to reason out why women’s actions serve him so wrongly? Can’t these feminists ever stick to a point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skadi
About the workplace… yes, they should accomodate that because women have to take care of kids and they have to do both – work, make money and raise the babies. They should continue to accomodate the workplace, the infrastructure and even the culture to help women (and men) with children like they tend to do in the most progressive societies because the children should be a priority. Or would you prefer to keep everything cruel and dog eat dog so that women would have even less kids?
A single, healthy woman is equal to a man, but a woman with a child is a completely different story. This is what you male chauvinists fail to understand because you are only concerned with your egotistical needs.
—————————–
if you want an employer to accommodate your childbirth then you should raise the productivity of your labor and negotiate such things with the aforementioned employer. Or you should negotiate such things with the father of your child. What women cannot understand, because they are not capable of it, is that that the law does not have an unlimited ability to abolish the pains of life. It can shift the pains of life, and make them far less under our control, but the law cannot solve all of the problem of living and dying for you. If such measures are enacted they make it less likely for an employer to want to hire a woman of childbearing age and make a company less competitive on the world market. But such abstract thinking is too difficult.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Epoche,
We have to decide what is better – to keep the workplace and the infrastructure less family/women friendly and have less kids; or accomodate it and have more kids. It’s a practical issue. You can make it harder for women, but you will have less children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skadi,
That is a totally false dichotomy. Women wanted to work and when they found out (duh) that this interfered with having children they decided they could use the law to further impose burdens on businesses and taxpayers by whining. Society cant “want” children in this manner, only families do. It really isnt in anyone’s interest to subsidize other people’s children in the long run to this extent because it disconnects the size of the population from the productivity of the economy and undermines savings and capital formation without which the children would be worse off (god bless their little hearts). As for the idea that “everyone benefits” from this or that government program that helps the children, well that is nonsense as well. If everyone equally benefited from all government programs equally we could just as easily cancel them and everyone would be in the exact same place. The whole purpose of subsidized daycare and maternity leave is to make women less dependent on men directly and more dependent on the state (men’s money). If women are as independent and strong as you say they are, they should stop asking for handouts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skadi,
This is what you male chauvinists fail to understand because you are only concerned with your egotistical needs.
—————————
your “needs” are just as egotistical as ours, the only difference is that our egotistical needs to not involve imposing a burden on disinterested third parties. I know that such subtle distinctions are hard for you to comprehend but please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Feminist equality= equality but we give birth.
Sorry, that’s privilege, only women or the obtuse mangina’s could see it as anything else.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;
”Harry, the safety net is for the children.”
skadi: women automatically get custody of children in divorce, by default they benefit from the ‘safety net’. It’s really not that hard to work out, when you’re not being deliberately ignorant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.misandryreview.com/rebuking-feminism/2010/08/06/list-of-male-grievances-and-injustices/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Allright troll feeders. Remember you are writing for the audience. Take the bait just remember to snap the line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”If women are as independent and strong as you say they are, they should stop asking for handouts.”
Bingo!! I wonder if the penny will drop or the deliberate ignorance will continue? My money’s on the ignorance.
Equality, but we give birth. Echo’s George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Epoche,
I get your point. It’s simply not in your culture to be egalitarian, but it is understandable given the history and demographics. In Europe it is different. This is why you will never have complete gender equality in the States. Egalitarianism (which you consider socialism) is simply not meant for Americans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Am I just on automod forever now? I haven’t even used a curse word in awhile here
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, nobody’s on automod. It’s the akismet filter that’s doing it. I’d suggest checking your IP to see if it’s on any blacklists such as spamhaus (this is very common, and almost unavoidable if you have a dynamic IP) — I suspect this is usually what gets posts held up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skadi lied :
Harry, the safety net is for the children.
What tired old nonsense, typical of women who want to be gold-diggers.
If society and the laws really cared about children, it would make it HARD to get a divorce in the first place.
You, like most women, put the woman’s whims first and the children last, and then weakly claim that money is needed ‘for the children’, well after the woman chose to put the children’s well-being at a low priority.
You have a long way to go before you understand how women think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skadi August 11, 2010 at 06:51
Epoche,
I get your point. It’s simply not in your culture to be egalitarian, but it is understandable given the history and demographics. In Europe it is different. This is why you will never have complete gender equality in the States. Egalitarianism (which you consider socialism) is simply not meant for Americans.
———————————
The US has many of the same undesirable “egalitarian” features as European welfare states such as: taxes on profit, dividends, income as well as tax credits for the poor, the non-productive and subsidized daycare for the parents of bastard kids – as well as a whole battery of programs designed to replace the traditional extended family. I have no problem understanding that your vagina gets wet at the idea of imposing tax burdens in the name of helping people but it takes a remarkable simplicity of mind to assume that the basket of goods is any larger because of it. It also is very simplistic to assume that the law can dispose of the burdens and pains of living and dying by good intentions. Every government program whether designed to help people meet their full potential, relieve their suffering or prevent misfortune is by necessity a strike against the ability of the individual to live his life as he sees fit. To say that your ridiculous notions of what the state should do costs you nothing existentially is pure foolishness, but women in general are afraid of any sense of personal responsibility whatsoever and we are all going to be in the same leaky boat because of their stupidity. I enjoy the whole charade thoroughly.
———————
Let me ask you this. My general idea in the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES that if you want something you should pay for it yourself rather than have the state pay for it. What is so immoral about that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Epoche,
I understand your point very well (I’ve heard it many, many times). We simply come from two differing moral perspectives. I am very individualistic, almost libertarian when it comes to my personal life – freedom is the most important, and you can’t have a normal society if 90-95% of the individuals don’t behave in a responsible manner. Only if the majority of individuals (including women) work responsibly and create wealth, can there be a welfare state for all. It is we ourselves who benefit from it, at least in Europe. I have never used any state benefit and I have paid for the education and medical care privately. I have worked in the private sector for many years (with unpaid overtime even). I also wouldn’t benefit at this point from a progressive tax if it were introduced in my country. However, there has to be equality in the society which would guarantee safety and wellbeing for most people. I think it is only possible in homogenious societies though. So in a diverse society like America it would probably not work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
However, there has to be equality in the society which would guarantee safety and wellbeing for most people.
——————————-
The current understanding of equality demonstrates that society values a lot of parasites over some producers, I dont understand how this guarantees safety and wellbeing for most people. Even the most schizophrenic Aids infected baby’s mamma would probably benefit at this point in western civilization if the size of government were reduced. Women are naturally socialists because they, like children, are afraid of any sense of personal responsibility and hope to use the coercive apparatus of the state to replace men in the family so they can chase higher status men. You dont have to look very far to see how completely irresponsible women are when they are granted access to the levers of power, even in this thread you want the government to guarantee gender equality which means imposing burdens on employers at a time when the economy is in shambles and the concept of the welfare state is under attack. The very interesting thing about women is that when they destroy things they do it because they are trying to “help” people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 5 trackbacks }