There are lots of people who claim to be against feminism, but who really aren’t. One way of figuring out whether someone is seriously opposed to feminism is by asking if their critiques and solutions of feminism deal with the reality on the ground for men and boys. Instead, if they are engaging in an academic discussion, which is mental masturbation that does not offer anything to help the reality that men and boys are dealing with, then they aren’t serious about opposing feminism. Most likely they are another form of female supremacist that agrees with 99% of feminism, but has some sort of meaningless trivial disagreement with feminism. This is even more likely to be true if they claim to be against feminism but spend lots of time attacking MRA’s or the MRM.
Take this post from the Oz Conservative blog for example. There’s a lot of talk about “individualism”, “separatism”, and “autonomy”. This is supposedly a criticism of both feminism and the MRM. Notice how those terms aren’t really defined for the context they’re used in. They are supposed to be “bad” because they are “bad”. There are also a lot of bizarre claims that MRAs want to be “liberated from masculinity”. What “liberated from masculinity” means is not defined either. Nearly all MRAs would have no idea what is being talked about in that post because MRAs are dealing with the reality on the ground. MRAs are dealing with issues that affect (and in many cases destroy) the lives of men and boys such as anti-male divorce courts, fathers having their children taken away from them, men forced to pay for children that aren’t theirs, men in jail because of false rape charges, men losing their jobs due to affirmative action and the mancession, boys trapped in feminized school systems, boys forced to take drugs like ritalin, etc. If a 7 year old boy fights back against a feminized school system he is trapped in (to the extent a 7 year old boy reasonably can fight back), are we really supposed to believe that 7 year old boy wants to be “liberated from masculinity”? The author of the Oz Conservative blog is a teacher, so he may actually believe that.
Another example of supposed anti-feminism that refuses to deal with the reality on the ground can be found at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (along with another post at that blog). Look at some of the things Josh F. had to say:
And so what is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke.
The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.
The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.
To lead males to de facto homo-ism with a rally cry of “no marriage, no kids” is to lead males to a state of radical autonomy. Meaning, you are ensuring that he never sees the light of manhood.
Homosexuality is not JUST two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other.
It is a simple fact that those who believe in sexual autonomy (fluidity) simply reject the idea of an externally imposed sexual order. This means that their sexuality is self-created. Homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to the self, first, and only then the same when the void is felt. But make no mistake, a self-created sexual “orientation” that is sexually attracted TO ITSELF (the purely physical narcissist) is really a sexual “orientation” that rejects the externally imposed sexual order; this fluid sexual “orientation” rejects man as devout dyke and it rejects woman as radical homosexual. It is very plain to see that a self-sexualizer, even when he fills the void with something of the same, is by nature a self-annihilator.
What Josh F. is saying is difficult to read because many of his concepts are not defined. What is “autonomy” in this context? What is a “real man” supposed to be in this context? What is the “externally imposed sexual order”? It can not be clearly identified, but it is supposed to be “bad” for some unknown reason.
Also, Josh F. tries to redefine terms like homosexual to some other nebulous concept similar to how leftist academics try to murder the English language for destructive purposes. The only idea that Josh F. communicates is that he is trying to expand anti-male shaming language.
What are these “devout dykes” that Josh F. talks about? They sound like aliens on another planet. That is because Josh F. refuses to deal with the reality on the ground of feminism. If the only problem of feminism were a group of aliens on another planet then men would have nothing to worry about. The problems caused by feminism are all around men on this planet. A woman who forces a man into divorce court and steals his children from him is not a “devout dyke” – she’s a heterosexual woman. An actual lesbian wouldn’t marry a man in the first place. When considering all of the problems caused by feminism, it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems. It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too. To ignore this is to ignore the reality on the ground for men. Josh F. refuses to consider that not getting married and not having kids is a solution that men can actually implement to protect themselves. This is why a lot of men avoid marriage and children. These men have never heard of words like “autonomy” or “self annihilator” in the context they are being used. Even if they have, they don’t care because they are dealing with the reality on the ground. They are trying to avoid things like divorce court and jail. Does a man dealing with the real problems of feminism such as a man who is a victim of false rape charges care about Josh F.’s weird ideology? No, because he is dealing with the reality on the ground, namely avoiding jail.
Look at what Jesse Powell (the same person who said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to “protect women”) had to say:
“Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.
Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.
What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women? Why does it exist? These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer. Those statements exist to avoid the question, “Why should men get married knowing the reality on the ground?” The reality for men getting married particularly younger men is that there is a greater than 50% chance their wives will force a divorce on them, take half or more of their assets, and take their kids away. Since when is it a man’s duty to go to divorce court or jail? Jesse Powell is telling men to ignore their own good judgement and ability to plan for the future and pretend the reality on the ground doesn’t exist.
All the people in these examples do the same thing: they avoid dealing with the reality on the ground that men are facing. They provide no practical solutions for men to use who are staring these problems in the face. They refuse to admit these problems even exist, and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created. Instead they waste their time engaged in mental masturbation, inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way. This is in stark contrast to how the MRM or the greater manosphere acts. Take game, for example. It’s a solution that was created to deal with the reality on the ground men were facing. This is one reason it is effective. The only way we men will move forward in dealing with feminism is dealing with real problems and find concrete and feasible solutions to them. Anyone who wastes their time on weird ideological debates will not be a part of a solution to the problems of feminism, and is not really opposed to feminism.
{ 139 comments… read them below or add one }
Josh F. Is just mad because we didn’t invite him to our MGTOW sleepover.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
0
I’ve been wary for quite some time of women who claim to be anti-feminist yet, after a little prodding, reveal they are still female supremacists. The younger ladies have realized “feminism” is a dirty term, so they’ve swapped it out for others but they’ve kept all the awful tenants.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
87 
3
” ‘Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike’ ?”
Because it means less men becoming indentured servants.
The marriage strike should extend beyond merely not getting married. The marriage strike should also mean refusing to go to any marriage. All my friends are well aware that if they decided to get married, I would refuse an invitation to go.
Friends Dont Let Friends Get Married
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
5
Yes, apparently ‘manhood’ is something like working for 20-30 years and then getting completely screwed over in the FC and having all those OTHER women cheer on your demise not to mention idiots like Josh F.
Hmmmm……young men. As a man who experienced that type of ‘manhood’? Give it a miss. It’s complete crap.
The problem idiots like Josh F has is that men like me are willing to tell our stories to the young men and to make sure those young men ‘get’ that bullshit is being peddled bv the likes of Josh F. For sure, you do not need to experience the joys of the FC to ‘experience manhood’.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
1
People like that, which are simple CONservatives, don’t deal with the reality of the ground because:
They don’t care.
They just want cannon fodder for their own purpouses, nothing else matters. A real attempt to reverse the leftism advance would requiere them to risk their gated communities and secure positions of power. Like hell they will do that.
As long as they are in their safe bubbles, Rome can burn for all that they care. All human beings are like that, but: Why the fuck I should sacrifice to the Feminazi idols to keep you in there, huh? No answer? Well, you can just fuck right off.
Also, some more bashing of the CONservatives:
http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/12/15/ehe-macht-frei-why-laura-wood-and-other-conservatives-and-traditionalists-just-dont-get-it/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
5
Women today have no concept of consequences of actions. College girls are putting ads on Craigslist of all places tricking themselves out. And this Jesse Jackoff thinks false rape charges are a good thing?
I comprehend that there are a minority of good women still out there but the majority of them give the rest a bad name.
A culture that feeds the ornate inabilities of women and tells them that they are equal to or better than men while using tactics to marginalize those same men is leading to their own demise. Men are just reacting to it. And on top of it, women can’t grasp the fact that they are the one’s responsible for it and are still trying to blame men for not being “real men”. Whatever.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
1
J. Durden December 15, 2010 at 07:19
J, when a woman tells me she is ‘anti-feminist’ I now send her this link to the template for the bonded affidavit of lawful equality to a man.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/58/threadid/585/scope/posts/Default.aspx
As of right now it has had 122 views. Can you guess how many ‘anti-feminists’ have completed on of these and told me about it? Of course, that number is zero. Which is my expectation of how many women WILL fill this out….zero or very, very few.
Well? This is the document that, when completed, defines lawful equality for a woman. Any woman who claims equality and is NOT willing to complete one of these is, in my opinion a liar and a hypocrite, hoping to hold on to her ‘fema-nazi-supremacy’ while bullshitting on about how she wants ‘equality’ or is an ‘anti-feminist’.
Every man here has access to that link. Every man here can challenge any woman who claims she wants to be ‘equal’ to ‘put her money where her mouth is’. She can create a bonded affidavit like this to tell us men just exactly how much her word is worth by the size of the bond and exactly what she means by ‘lawful equality’. And, in my opinion, men who refuse to challenge women to complete one of these is a whimp not worthy of the title ‘man’.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
7
The young security guard where I worked? I asked him one night what ‘news’ he had. He said, well in my holidays I got married.
Me: Wow. That was really stupid of you. I thought you were more intelligent than that.
Him: Yeah, I thought you might say something like that. (He was hanging his head.)
Me: Well? It really is a very stupid thing to do. I should know.
I am finding that when tell me they are have decided to get married and you tell them flat out that it is a really stupid thing to day that they actually ‘get it’. I tell young guys who are not yet engaged that I can have no respect for any young man stupid enough to get married now. I tell them that such stupidity marks them as not being worthy of my respect or the respect of any intelligent man. More and more young men are telling me that they are hearing this from a lot of different directions now….GOOD!
I was in a Starbucks this morning and this woman was playing up to her man all kissy, kissy and what not. I looked at him and what immediately came to mind was ‘stupid loser’. When MANY MORE men look at a man doing that and call out to him that he’s a ‘stupid loser’? We will see this massive, and I mean MASSIVE, collapse in men willing to be publicly humiliated as a ‘stupid loser’ for being on the receiving end of such blatant lies as western women present today.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
11
I had a recent discussion with a catholic girl who didn’t take her husbands last name.
She explained straight that she is against feminism, but she considers this to be a useless old tradition. She also mentioned that men should be chivalrous becaause women are butyful and how her husband lets het go out alone and dance with other guys. (I wonder how long it will be just “”dance””)
This is obvious tw0-tongued snake speek to me, but a man whos awareness about these subjects is not developed (the poor husband) will be left confused.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
1
Peter,
I frequent this restaurant where one of the managers is or has gotten married by now. I tried to tell him about the current climate of divorce and feed him facts. His response was that her family had more money than him. And he also bragged that his wife to be was friends with two of his ex’s and that she invited both of them to their wedding. One of them he dated for 4 years before getting with his bride to be. A perfect example of hypergamy and competition at play here.
Yeah boy, he’s asking for the ‘ol ass reaming and isn’t even aware of how much his chances are of getting it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
No. We don’t have this duty as an ‘intrinsic characteristic of being a man’.
This was a privilege offered by men to women in return for women being obedient and loyal to the man as a wife. The men then agreed to take care of OTHER mens wives and daughters as a social contract good for all.
Metaphor? A man does not have an ‘intrinsic duty’ to buy a dog and feed it and care for it. He only has the duty to feed and care for the dog if he buys it and it is loyal and obedient. Without this? The man can kill the dog or release it into the wild to look after itself. This is why the dog IS loyal and obedient. It knows it is on a good wicket.
Sadly. Pretty much ALL dogs are more intelligent that pretty much ALL western women who, it seems, can not figure out this simple equation like a dog can. Being a loyal and obedient companion for a man is a GOOD DEAL.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
3
OT but a very interesting blog entry on this guys blog on ‘fatherless america’.
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/10/fatherless-america.html
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I believe that the Catholic/Natural-Law wing of the traditional movement is an necessary ally against feminism, the total state, and the perverse intellectual culture of the Left.
Unfortunately Josh F. is not a very good apologist for these views. Put simply, sex is gift that is not ours to use however we wish. Its purpose is to draw man and woman together to bring new life into the world. Any other use of sexuality is a rebellion against the natural order, and an act of abuse against oneself and others. From this perspective, feminine sexual liberation, game, and the homosexual lifestyle are all aspects of the same problem: radical rebellion against Man’s own nature as a rational, moral animal.
The natural consequence of this rebellion against nature is slavery to one’s sexual instincts, and the demands that the State step in to manage the most intimate relations between men and women through force and bribery–in the same way it might control domesticated dumb animals.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
28
I guess the old saying, when you start seeing flack, you know your over the target, is appropriate here.
Never, marry, don’t have children (as a single dad, I can tell you it’s either you loose them or raise them alone which is very difficult), don’t let a woman know your real name, where you live, your license plate number if you can avoid it.
Get a prepaid phone that cannot be traced to you and only use this for dating.
And with all these women, and believe me, every married woman I know is know going out clubbing, cheating it is pretty easy to hide your identity.
Always, always, always wear a condom no matter how you feel about it or what she says shes on or what stage of the relationship your in. Then, when you done watch it flush or put salt in it.
At this point they are all scam artists out to get your money and that’s all they are. And that doesn’t change where ever you live.
Or be like Assanage. A man smart enough to outsmart the US gov but destroyed by a pair or easily spot-able bimbettes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
4
There is no such thing as the intrinsic character of a man, there is only you, a real person with an individual name and set of feelings.
Take care of yourself only. Our laws are designed to suck in all suckers so if you take care of a woman, her child, whomever, the laws now state you must do this forever.
Do not become a slave, take care of yourself. No one will care about a man but himself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
2
Take the fight to the political system.
An email hit my account today asking for any medical student wishing to be the ‘Equal Opportunities Student Representative’ for the Medicine & BioChem Faculty.
Looks like I should get the position – and I plan on trolling the meetings to the point where they will have to take notice, or force me to resign.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
1
“…it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems. It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too.”
I agree, however, I would argue that a small handful were able to influence the larger portion (when it started anyway).
What exists now is a slew of self-indoctrinated men, and brain-washed women – the effectively keep the machinery going (unaware of it).
In my humble opinion, the best way to fight it – is to expose to the masses how absurd it is.
Hence, the screw-ball farce news stories on my site…
(which – I will not say why here – is having a MUCH bigger impact that I thought it would).
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
I think that many in the MRM genuinely want a return to something resembling Marriage 1.0, in which men have clear responsibilities but also the authority necessary to fulfill them.
To the Natural Law/Catholic traditionalists, I want to point out that your side lost spectacularly and decisively. The Left’s conquest of education and institutional Christianity has been so complete that a 2000+ tradition of moral reasoning can be dismissed airily as “repression” by the dumbest teenagers and most exalted intellectuals alike.
I hope every man who can finds a good wife, raises and teaches his children well, and thus enjoys some of best human life can offer. However, men who chose to marry need to do so with their eyes open.
Furthermore, we will not return to a sane social order until the cost and suffering caused by our current one becomes unbearable. The MRM has an important role in attacking feminism directly and aggresssively with secular arguments, which is one area in which Christians have failed miserably.
It is necessary for the MRM to figure out what its positive agenda is. The Catholics are correct that simply demanding “men’s rights” without responsibilities is simply a male version of feminist whining at the feet of the State and will degrade men in the same way feminism has degraded women.
I naturally vote for patriarchy, which is the only system capable of motivating men to maintain a first world civilization. Men and women are not interchangeable and any call for “equality” will simply be perverted to the benefit of the side that whines louder.
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
17
I don’t know what that teacher smokes, but it’s very potent stuff.
And to tell the truth, why does the fact that men no longer want “wife and kids” bother him so much?
Now that men are deciding to let women go their own way, what else, what more do they want?
Maybe the best response to those idiots is no response at all.
And then what???
And who cares?
Really?
Let those idiots drown in their own bile.
Altough I am mighty glad to see that men are, at long last, waking up, too many of them still try to argue with feminists: those men have not turned their backs on women completely. Yet.
Some more work has to be done.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
Devout dykes are women for whom being lesbian isn’t just a sexual preference, it’s an ideological and political statement. When these women say they lead “woman centered” lifestyles, they don’t mean “I only have sex with women”. They only patronize woman-owned businesses, only take women as employers, and never patronize mixed-sex functions or events. While such a lifestyle isn’t narcissistic per se, I have no doubt it reinforces narcissism to the most extreme degree.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
0
lmao
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
I understand what he’s trying to say; that “devout dykes” and MRA/MGTOW are flip sides of the same coin, out to destroy society from the fringes inward. And then the usual shaming of you’re not a “real man” unless you commit to and abide a woman.
“What is the “externally imposed sexual order”?”
It’s feminism and marriage 2.0. It’s men’s “duty” to accept it and adapt to it, or in other words “MAN UP”.
They completely ignore the “facts on the ground” that women have become very unpleasant to associate with, not to mention the legal mine field he’ll be entering. These white knight guys are naive and inexperienced. They intellectualize and analyze from an isolated view. Spend some time “out there” and they’ll begin to get it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
1
Sometimes, when I read something written by a feminist, I think to myself, “you know, I wouldn’t really care if patriarchy was re-established, the most violent, anti-female patriarchy imaginable. It would be worth it just to see the looks on these feminist faces.”
Then I read something written by a social conservative. And I actually start to think, “thank fuck your movement and worldview is tanking. I actually almost want to see the feminists win, just to see the looks on your faces.”
Of course, I don’t really feel either way most of the time. I know that both feminists and social conservatives are terrible, horrible people that both need to be defeated or at least bridled.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
Josh F.’s blathering reminded me of ThorDaddy’s.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
@ Richard and David
I can only speak for myself. I will never return to being a slave. No matter how nice they make my bunk and how much more food they promise me.
Women have been exposed to me for who they are. Marriage was always a bad deal for men. In our society mothers abandoned their son’s over 100 years ago and so sell us into this slavery. That’s why we have to say these things on SH that are obvious.
I went to 6 years of marriage counseling. Not once did a counselor take me on the side and say, this is just not going to work out. When my wife left, it was a PhD psychologist that taught her how to falsly accuse me (which she of course failed at like everything else that had to do with our relationship).
There is a large segment of our population that now depends on failed marriages and the destruction wrought to earn a living.
Marriage is and was bad for men. Did I always feel that way, no, did I have to learn the hard way, yes. Did it cost me everything I have and nearly destroy me and my future, yes.
I think we need to go back a bit further, to a time when women pulled their own weight. Maybe 500 years ago, when men and women were truley equal mainly working a farm together.
I suppose the model today is that women work and stay single and men work and stay single and they hook up when the need arises. This is a much safer and better way for men.
By the way, I said for men, not women, not children, not society (whatever that is).
Back then men knew the deal and only married when it was to their financial benefit. Everyone else they slept with was paid.
Back then men had to be chided to get married and if a woman found a man, they were considered lucky.
For me this started out as a search for what was really happening because I surely was mislead as to the nature of mens relationship to women.
Now I have discovered that I have been set free. I will never go back, liberty or death for me.
I don’t think that men that have been through the systematic slavery that marriage is and had their children ripped from them and fruits of their labor robbed for decades want to return to traditional marriage, I certainly do not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
4
There is a Russian phrase:
?? ?? ?????, ? ??? ???????.
Every woman is a rebel, and usually in wild revolt against herself.
What does a woman want. She doesn’t know, but whatever she has isn’t it. And what she wants this moment will change in a few moments.
This is what makes it so hard to deal with women. They are not rational. They were not created rational, as St. Thomas Aquinas states in his Summa Theologica.
Consequently, arguments with women really be emotionally laden, semi-rational arguments. As long as we men attempt to deal with feminism from a rational standpoint we are going to lose.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
2
David F – ,i>”I believe that the Catholic/Natural-Law wing of the traditional movement is an necessary ally against feminism, the total state, and the perverse intellectual culture of the Left.”
I used to believe that too. I even tried to pitch it to Laura Woods.
but, just as she did then, she continues to reject the idea of men collectively seeking rights and protections.
To her credit, she does address the issues honestly, and actually agrees with what most in the MRM are saying.
However, she stubbornly refuses to connect the (obvious) dots – that the MRM is the only game in town when it comes to actually seeking to do something to counter-act the excesses of feminism. She clings to the notion that all that is required is for a handful of “traditionalists” to return to the “old ways”, and somehow, magically ( I might say “Miraculously”, given her staunch Catholicism; but “magically” better captures the utter delusion of her fantasy much better), things will return to the way they used to be/should be.
Her lap-dog manginas (Jesse & Josh) do her bidding in trying to shame men into continuing to throw themselves of the grenades that moder western women have become in the (faint) hopes that they will find the one that isn’t going to blow-up on them. They have no force of conviction to fall back on other than to try invoke this imagined sense of duty to women and”for the good of society” to back up their desires to see men continue to sacrifice for women.
They are a sad pair (who Laura will allow no criticisms of on her blog).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
Should be clearly noted that Traditional Catholicism has always recognized three states in life: married, religious and single. There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing single life.
That said, whenever I’m confronted with someone who demands I man-up and marry, protect women, be the breadwinner, support society, etc., etc. my response is simple – no problem, as soon as women woman-up and keep house, obey their husbands, be modest in dress and demeanor, don’t compete with men for jobs, bear many children, etc. That always stops the conversation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
The only good that will come out of that is possibly to create traditionalist island communities. Such communities would always be on a precarious edge since the government can and will step in at any time to make sure women get their “rights”. “Stepping in” is something the government will do more and more as things go from bad to worse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
i was thinking when reading, ” sounds familiar, i’ve seeen it before”
yes, probably here
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
A priceless comment from Laura Wood:
“Fatherhood is its own reward and that is true even for the man who has been abandoned. But even when fatherhood is not a conventionally happy experience, the man who has fulfilled his duties to others has infinitely more than the man who has not, even if he has been left by his wife. I don’t worry about the man who has been betrayed as much as the woman who betrays. She has lost everything important while he still has his humanity.
What advice would I give men who have been left and betrayed? I would advise them to love their children. I would advise them to preserve their manhood from narcissism and fear. And I would advise them to have confidence in God. That is the greatest truth. God is there.”
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/12/does-society-need-mens-rights/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
It is an absurdity of very high degree for us mens rights activists to continue trying to demand of women and feminism to respect mens rights when we are unable to even take the simple position of first asking men themselves to respect mens rights.
1.
It is not women or feminism that deprives a father of his children, especially his sons in ways girls are not deprived of mothers. It is our fellow men serving genderist institutions whom are do this to us claiming to be following orders.
2.
It is not women or feminism that forceably go into a mans home, his bank account, his employmet payroll or his tax-rebate to take what they feel like in the name of this or that right somebody else is enjoying for free. It is our fellow men with state arms that are lawfully doing this to us whilst claiming to be only following orders.
3.
It is not women or feminism that abandoned girls and female youths to rot away in sole father custody households for which women are forced to bankroll at gunpoint. No … It is our fellow men that institutionally agreed to abandon young boys and male youths to sole mother custody households where they are either psychotropically drugged for being too male, or persistently reported to armed male police to punish and lock up for delinquency.
4.
Women and feminism by their political might and influence on men, made cast iron laws and sanctions prohibiting decidedly medieval cultural practices like female circumcision, forced marriage and the veiling and covering up of females in public. But men for their part instituted laws and sanctions against themselves prohibitting the nudity of a man in his own home and property let alone in public, ignoring male circumcision as unproblematic, ignoring male on male violence and even rapes especially in prisons and ignored other specifically male mandated role hazzards !
So it is we males whom have to first abandon self betrayal and must first have to get our own house and gender in order. That is by demanding and indeed mandating by all means necessary that men themselves respect mens rights … long before any single one of us can even dare to ask women or feminism to respect mens rights.
Otherwise we are just making big fools of ourselves with all this anti-feminist noise that lacks any real substance or genuine sincerity. Afterall does charity not first begin at home ?
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
15
@Snark:
“Sometimes, when I read something written by a feminist, I think to myself, “you know, I wouldn’t really care if patriarchy was re-established…”
I.E. There never was a “patriarchy”.
There is no spoon.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
@ Poiuyt
Or an indivdual man to appreciate himself and his own rights.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
When it comes to the ideas, words, and logic of Josh and Jesse, the only people that I have ever known to communicate that way are hard core FEMALE feminists deeply steeped in their academic theory or religion.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
On January 1, 2011 (which is exactly 365 after The Misandry Bubble on 1/1/2010), I will unveil a strategy that gets more men aware.
All it will take is 1000 collective hours of volunteer time.
On 1/1/2011, things will begin to happen.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
13
You’re right, and I should have pointed out that flaw in both Laura and Josh’s arguments. The difficult part is that one must be single and chaste. You only get sex if you’re willing to support a wife and kids. A chaste single man is supporting traditional marriage by not competing with men who are interested in actually marrying.
Maybe Laura and Josh were criticizing pick up artists (formerly known as rakes) who compete with men seeking wives and damaging the marriageability of their conquests.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
The only person under 40 who can possibly NOT be worried about false rape charges is someone who NEVER gets laid.
These manginas fit that description. They don’t get laid, so they want to punish the men who are getting laid. It really is that simple.
Any attempt to use false rape charges to combat Game is doomed to failure, of course. They will instead trap hapless Betas while the real masters of Game will be unscathed.
On January 1, 2011, feminists and manginas will be given a vein-popping stroke. I will show us the way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
14
Those wacky quotes sound like the crap I had to read in college. Except now it’s conservative nonsense instead of liberal. Whatever.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
Every time I post that on January 1, I will unveil a strategy that will allow just a couple hundred of us to cause asymmetrical damage to misandry at no personal cost or risk, I receive some down votes.
I wonder who is down voting?
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
24
Well that settles it once and for all.
Engage with the female half and learn to pray.
God will help pay your legal fees and make child support payments.
That men are starting to reject the marital union is not the problem.
The problem is one of legal liability and a court system, that consistently demonstrates favorable bias towards women, despite supposed “equal protection”.
Can’t these pious zealots see that much?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
These traditionalists follow a very simple logic:
1. Average women, empowered by feminism, have left a disgusting mess in their trail in the past 40 years in the form of dysfunctional fatherless homes, rampant sluthood, false rape charges, unfair divorce and a bloated government bureucracy.
2. It is the duty of traditionalist men to man up and take responsibility for cleaning up this mess. They must fulfill their duties at all costs even if women aren’t expected to fulfill any duties at all. They should just keep getting married in order to uphold Western Civ, no matter how risky it becomes. Women may contribute to civilizational decline; men may not.
I swear traditionalists like Laura Wood and Mark Richardson are worse than feminists. At least the latter are usually honest about their intention to screw men over. Just look at the idiotic comments of Laura Wood and her minions at the links PMAFT posted. They want all of us to become cannon fodder for a deservedly dying civilization.
I’v stated this before but I guess it should be stated again: if women want to live in a Christian monogamous patriarchy, they must forfeit their current rights which are incompatible with such a system. It’s that simple. The West is in the current mess because women have changed their behavior and abandoned their patriarchal responsibilites. It logically follows that only women can stop their feminism – by changing their behavior. They have power, influence and privileges; if they don’t like the current system, they should act. Expecting men to “man up” and clean up the mess that women created is delusional and unfair.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
3
@ THF
I take it as a compliment. There have to be many hardcore feminists reading this, the one down voting us is the one who just is so pissed off, they have too.
Thanks down voter, without you I wouldn’t know I was doing my job.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
13
I am not anti-religion. Actually think it can be a beautiful thing. But when conservative female supremacists use it to shame men into marriage and fatherhood “duty”, it makes me sick. If there is a Deity of some sort it’s probably sick too.
I’ve seen more than a few religious friends get pushed into marriage by his family, and then get all the blame when the wife wants out.
Thank God I’m an Atheist!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
This is based upon a misunderstanding by tradionalist men about what is going on. It is the belief pushed by many pastors that if men only work harder at being good husbands and fathers everything will be hunky dory.
Such men have not yet grasped the fact that they have been defrauded. There was no real marriage, only a ceremony, because the woman never intended from the beginning to fulfull her vows for “better or for worse” to “love, honor and obey” until “death do us part”.
Consequently there are no incumbent duties that men must fulfill as there there was never a binding contract.
Exactly. Unless women want to create a binding marriage which binds their performance therein, no man need do anything other than remain single – which, as another writer pointed out – is a valid state of life.
Men do not owe women marriage. They must earn it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
TFH, I think people want to see action more than rhetoric. If you’re going to do something to change what’s going on, that’s great. But do it, don’t just talk about doing it.
You’ve posted about 5-10 times now that you’re going to do something. That in itself doesn’t help move anything forward. Do something. Or don’t do something. But beating your chest over and over again about how you’re going to do something just makes people roll their eyes.
Certainly, the Misandry Bubble was a great piece of writing. It was influential in the sphere of these blogs. We’re all anxious to see what you have to say. It’s just that, being men, we respect action more than talk.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
3
Consider farm families where kids, far from liabilites, were downright assets.
Or the fact that once upon a time a man not only had the right to ‘rape’ his wife but actually had the OBLIGATION to discipline her.
I used to think that it was in men’s nature to be ‘dead beat dads’.
Now I realize that men aren’t really allergic to responsible fatherhood at all. Instead they are simply allergic to expensive children and mouthy wives. Both of which are relatively recent developments.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
Seems to me Josh and Jesse got a bit of projection going on. What could be more self-annihilating than to believe that men, be they scientists, poets, warrior or farmer, can only find true meaning through utterly subjugating themselves to women?
Incidentally, this stuff can’t be blamed on Christianity. On the contrary, it is virulently anti-Christian. Any true Jesus Freak, for example Jesus, would know this quote: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me’. The idea of achieving meaning and salvation through worship of the sacred femme is a reversion to Pagan theology.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
Whenever I see a mangina/pedestalizer like Josh or Jesse, this is what I say to them :
_____________________________
Josh/Jesse,
You are a member of the ‘third gender’ that is forming in the West; the modern equivalent of Chinese Eunuchs in the Emperor’s court. The difference being, you have a financial responsibility, and thus a crucial role to play.
Pickup Artists want to have sex with a woman you want to marry.
The woman wants to have sex with pickup artists.
You get to pay the bills, receiving a ‘Thank You’ from the woman.
Everybody gets what they want, so everybody wins!!! Your role as a financier to essential to the happiness of women. Isn’t the 21st century great?
______________________________________
Say that to any mangina/whiteknight. Word for word. It has the maximum effect on them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
8
Coastal – “The idea of achieving meaning and salvation through worship of the sacred femme is a reversion to Pagan theology.”
Dead on!, and brilliantly stated.
I’d like Laura woods to have to read your post (she say’s she no longer reads any comments here).
Unfortunately, it seems she just ignores anything I send her anymore.
thinkinghousewife@msn.com – perhaps coming from someone she is unfamiliar with, she’ll accidentally read it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
If these “religious right” types want to bring God into it we should then start adhering to the “Biblical Law” of marriage. But then they want us to follow THEIR version of the Bible only. NOT the patriarchal/female oppression version that God, Jesus and his disciples wrote. What parts of Deuteronomic covenants are they selectively filtering out to better fit a feminist agenda? I suppose they can rationalize their interpretations through “faith”, that God has “evolved”. Or shall we just bring back slavery?
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
TFH – “Pickup Artists want to have sex with a woman you want to marry.”
I’ve always taken Jesse to be one of those “nice guy’s” who’s real intentions are also to try to have sex with women. But, like the mangina’s who go about trying to please feminist women into bed by demonstrating their willingness to throw their fellow men under buses; he is simply unaware that his attempts to appeal to “anti-feminist” (but every bit as gynocentric as their fembot sisters) women by demonstrating his willingness to throw his fellow men under buses (for some of the exact same reasons, no less) will not make him sexually appealing to those women.
Of course, while you indent it in a snarky manner, the fact is he will be left bustin’ his ass trying to please and provide for a woman who’s sexual interests will ultimately be in other men.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
TFH: i was trying to upmod but about when I got to your first post I could not upmod or down mod any post.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
David F.
It was never Christianity that kept the female under control. But rather the patriarchal philosophy ONCE supported by Christianity. Religions, left to themselves, simply become vectors for whatever ideas are popular at a given time.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
slwerner,
Of course, while you indent it in a snarky manner, the fact is he will be left bustin’ his ass trying to please and provide for a woman who’s sexual interests will ultimately be in other men.
Of course. Therefore, my goal is to bait them into doubling down on their pedestalization/whiteknighting. This will cause them to eventually crack under the burden.
I have noticed a distinct uptick in mangina/whiteknight behavior since the start of 2010 (our actions have had a lot to do with that). We need to make their burden larger and larger. One man running Game deprives 10 manginas of what little scraps they were getting, making them even more desperate to double down. It is very asymmetrical.
Of course, in this day and age of Google, any man who has yet not learned that sucking up to women is repulsive to women, and what women say a man should do is NOT what will make him succeed with women, is a low-intelligence idiot. How can someone be THIS inobservant in the Internet age?
A man this stupid, despite the amount of material freely available online, deserves to be a Chinese Eunuch in 21st-century America.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
@”slwerner December 15, 2010 at 11:41
I’d like Laura woods to have to read your post (she say’s she no longer reads any comments here).
Unfortunately, it seems she just ignores anything I send her anymore. ”
This is what I meant in my previous post: We should really not care about those feminists anymore. We should not be concerned about what they say.
The proper thing to do is to ignore them, let them rot in their bile. Better yet: let them die. How can any sane man still consider them as humans?
The simple sight of only one of them makes me sick to my stomach.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
4
The Internet is the new and still establishing “collective conscience”.
It’s the new repository of human thought.
The more that tap into its power, the more enlightened we all become.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
I call the closet female supremacists “fifth column feminists.” I just hope Josh F. marries one.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
I agree, feminists are aware of history and aware of eunichs. That’s what there gay friends are to them, eunichs to their harem.
They are actively trying to turn all men not approved by a woman to support her into a eunich, that’s what the repressive rape laws in Sweden (blech) are all about. Do you honestly think they care about rape victims, please.
Sweden is the alpha test for eventual release version enacted in the US and Europe.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Always bear in mind that our audience isn’t necessarily the person we’re rebutting. More often than not, that person is a committed ideologue who is unlikely to change their commitments as a result of anything we say. Trying to convince them of anything is a waste of time.
No, our real audience is exactly that: not the participants, but the people who are listening to the discussion and who still have at least a somewhat open mind. They’ve heard some bad advice from people like Laura, and our task is to show what’s wrong with that advice and what men should be doing instead.
When the happy day finally comes that nobody is listening to the feminists any more, then we can lay down the job of countering what they say. But as long as they still have an audience, we have to step up to the podium too.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
ATTENTION, W.F. PRICE AND ALL OTHERS.
During this year’s mancession, we men have faced a lot of stick – in fact, we’ve had our noses rubbed in very serious problems that happened through no fault of our own, and that happened to us specifically because we are men.
Women mocked us for losing our jobs. They belittled us for our poverty. They kicked us when we were down and implicitly advocated that our extermination should follow – as in Hannah Rosin’s hate screed ‘The End of Men,’ a piece celebrating men’s humiliation for the whole world to titillate at.
But, there were a few of us who said all along that what goes around comes around – that the only reason men were losing their jobs was because more of them worked in the private sector, whereas women tend to make a living in the public sector. And the latter depends upon the former for its survival – meaning that a huge loss of jobs in the private sector necessitates huge cuts to the public sector, where women work.
Indeed, this is fairly basic economics; but apparently beyond the intellectual capabilities of Hannah Rosin and those other feminists who showed their true colours once they thought they had begun their permanent victory in the battle of the sexes. We knew better – there was simply no way that a He-cession would not turn into a She-cession.
It was inevitability; simply a matter of time, we said, before the shoe is on the other foot.
Those thoughts kept us smiling through those dark times.
December 15th, 2010: it’s official. In the UK, women have lost more jobs in the recession than men, and this is only the beginning of what will become record levels of female unemployment. Already, the numbers are at their lowest since 1988.
It’s been a tough year. We’ve taken a lot of bashing at a time when we were at our most vulnerable. We were twice victimised – once by the banks and their government minions, and then again by women who blamed us, scorned us, left us, impoverished us further, or lobbied for the redirection of construction industry stimulus packages into the hands of teachers and social care workers whose jobs weren’t even threatened.
Well, ladies, turns out you’re the biggest recession losers. If it’s happening in the UK today, it’s bound to hit America tomorrow – and most other places, I should think.
I can only assume that Hannah Rosin and her misandrist friends will play the Woman Card – or even better, the Womenandchildren Card – demanding sympathy (as a right!), sharing sob stories with puppy dog eyes, because, y’know, as with all bad things, it’s even badder when it happens to the chicks.
Sniff.
I would like to take this occasion to solemnly proclaim that we are witnessing The End of Women, and may no man shed a single tear nor feel one iota of sympathy for them now that the chickens coming home to roost. In fact, since women have spent the last year systematically violating The Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – I think we should do all we can to mock, belittle, flip off and tear down the newly unemployed females.
And as a man who was unemployed for half of this year, but who managed to find decent employment with a decent wage after having my face repeatedly spat in by brats like Hannah Rosin – I am happy to say I will be enjoying this season’s festivities with family, in financial security, and with plentiful food and gifts.
But I am not without a heart, and I feel for those poor women struggling to make ends meet.
Tell you what, ladies – come around my way on the 26th, and I’ll leave some moldy carrots and potato peelings out on the street for you. Hey – it’s Christmas!
(Welmer, if you want to make this into a post, go right ahead. It started out as a comment but I just kept on going.)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
2
“chickens coming home to roost. ”
chickens are coming home to roost. *
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
@Snark
“I would like to take this occasion to solemnly proclaim that we are witnessing The End of Women, and may no man shed a single tear nor feel one iota of sympathy for them now that the chickens coming home to roost.”
I have been waiting for that for a lllong time…
Time for me to buy those Cuban cigars and French cognac. I will shed no tear, I promise: just a long and loud belly laughter.
Dunno about chickens roosting… but I know a bit about the Boom-a-rang effect..LOL!!! What goes up… must crash down.
Those feminists are better get hold of themselves because there will be no one to offer a hand. (they might steal the hand that feeds them).
The world has been laughing at us? Really?
Let me tell you bro: laughs best who last laughs. I am holding my breath, on the ready to let the joy explode! And what a fiesta it will be!!
What was that dish that tastes best when served cold? Well, I want some of that!
There’s that horrible backlash just awaiting to manifest itself. What a fest this will be. Our day will come, so said the song. It is true here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
Awesome, snark.
I agree. Experience has taught me to be unmoved by puppy-dog eyes, unless they’re actually in a puppy’s head.
Especially retrievers. I can’t resist that look from a retriever.
But that’s because dogs are genuine. With women (and a lot of children), it’s usually just an act. Want proof? Watch how quickly they turn beliggerent after you say “No”.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
“…we’ve had our noses rubbed in very serious problems that happened through no fault of our own.”
Agreed 100%
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
Good one, Snark. I’ll post it in a while, so as to leave Pierce’s on top for a bit first.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Look, the Non-thinking housewife answered:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/12/the-man-hater-and-the-frigid-white-housewife/
The juice is, of course, in the comments:
Let’s start:
“These male liberationists,”
Of course, you start without saying MEN. Mangina. Also, “liberationists”. Well, since Marriage as a whole has become a prision with buttsex, being released of that is bad because…?
“anti-Supremacy by definition”
Against the Supremacy of Pimp Daddy State and his army of cunts? Guilty as charged. Too bad that it isn’t a real crime.
” are simply unable to communicate with God-fearing persons.”
We are communicating. Well, calling watching your kind go “lalalalala marriage is good, can’t hear your screams of buttsex in a divource court” communication is a stretch, but meh.
“To have God-ordained free will”
We HAVE free will. We are choosing not to go to a deathtrap.
“or the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy ”
Well, autonomy is making an individual, informed, non-coerced decision. We are individuals who are informed of the odds and decided to not marry. Problem is, you keep coercing us in the oposite. Cut that and we have autonomy!
“is a foreign and alien concept to these males ”
Is not foreign or alien. See above. Also, is MEN, you stupid fucker.
“immersed in a lifetime of radical liberalism.”
Of course we are inmersed. Not everybody lives in a gated community payed with the blood of others. That’s why we are fighing against it’s influence in our lives.
Overall, Dear God in Heaven as a witness, you are a fucking idiot.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
According to Bruce, the men here are “in thrall to political correctness”. WTF???
And Josh F. says most of us don’t have a “real battle with any particular woman.” Au contraire. The woman who cashes my child support checks is quite particular. She’s a concrete example of modern womanhood, and I’m in constant and very real battle with her. I don’t think I’m the only one here with an antagonist like that.
When women turn to other women for solidarity and support, that’s considered a good thing. But when men do it, it’s an “abstraction” and a “retreat from the battle of life.”
Pierce nailed it. These guys really are out of touch with the situation on the ground.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
TFH wrote,
“Of course, in this day and age of Google, any man who has yet not learned that sucking up to women is repulsive to women, and what women say a man should do is NOT what will make him succeed with women, is a low-intelligence idiot. How can someone be THIS inobservant in the Internet age?
A man this stupid, despite the amount of material freely available online, deserves to be a Chinese Eunuch in 21st-century America.”
Very true. Without the internet I would have never understood why being a decent guy never got me much female attention. Of course there were bumps along the road. Anybody remember the site Niceguys.com? I went to this site quite often in my early twenties. It was somewhat popular, and the guys who started it, as I recall, were actually decent guys who were trying to give a forum to nice guys who were having trouble finding relationships. Of course it turned into a site where the women despised the men who talked honestly about them. As well as a site where I first witnessed manginas sucking up to women on the internet in the hopes getting thrown a bone.
Of course in true nice guy fashion the guy who started the site shut it down, and blamed it on the men and their “negativity.” It’s to bad he shut it down though, because it really was a great look into the psyche of women and their hatred of nice guys, as well as how far men will go in sucking up to women in the hopes of getting pussy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
Awesome. Edit, tidy it up if/how you please, etc.
I think ‘The End of Women’ would make a good title for the piece.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Let me add one more thing re the supposed “abstractness” of the discussions here.
One of the things I’ve had to deal with in the aftermath of my divorce is the self-justifying, feminist-inspired interpretation she’d put on events that occurred during our marriage. We literally had a clash of realities, and to hold on to my sanity I had to unpack and reconsider many of the bedrock assumptions I’d absorbed from that same leftist, feminist culture. The “abstract” theorizing I
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Sorry, somehow that last comment got submitted before I was done with it. I meant to end it as follows:
The “abstract” theorizing that goes on here isn’t just mental masturbation. It’s therapy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
21
@ Corky
Even reading what men post here is therapy. I owe a great debt to you posters here and many men who post here used to or still post at Stand Your Ground or Mens New Daily (now not so interested in mens issues).
I have been going through this for the 13 years and the cognitive dissonance that occurs from trying to reconcile reality with what women will tell you to screw with your head in divorce will drive you crazy. Be assured it is a screwing with your head is part of the plan to break you down. And they keep changing the methods, accusations and terminology. I think every thinking man who has to deal with women needs to read this site.
Part of why I post now is that my case is over so it is to pay it forward for all the guys who, through their posts, helped me to understand what is really going on.
So thanks guys.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
As a Classicist, this not the first time Western Civilization has dealt with the problem of feminism, all one has to do is read the story of Pandora from Hesiod’s Works and Days. One of the first historic examples is Archaic Athens (re: the Athenian founding myth, in which it is demostrated that women had a say in the vote) yet Classical Athens was one of the most mysogenistic societies we have in antiquity (their treatment of Athenian Citizen women was comparable to fundementalist Muslims.) Also consider that the Athenians were fairly open to homosexual practises, though they did not view in the same light as the modern world (for example they wouldn’t have termed it attraction to one sex, it was more of a pan-sexuality, nor would th eidea of two of the same sex marrying since marriage was just a mechanism for the citizen class to reproduce itself.)
A counter example to this is Classical Sparta in which the citizen women were liberated to care for the day-to-day running of Sparta since the men were constately engaged in war preparations. In this consider that Sparta had a sharpe population decline of citizens shortly after the Peloponessian War, hence why by the time of Alexander the Great, Sparta is no longer a player.
I won’t go into a lengthy discussion on the Bell curve of Civilization and its’ effects on the man/woman dynamic, for a better summation I recomend Juvenal’s Satire IV, which is just as applicable to today as it was 2000 years ago.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
This offering by Josh F in the article pretty much gives his game away. It looks like he’s tried to characterise modern hetero-sexual relationships in a pseudo biblical way without knowing his subject or his bible very well. That he is the product of a Christian upbringing is almost without doubt, although I very much doubt he’s a true believer. The ideal relationship he’s trying to describe is the ‘helpmeet’ relationship described in scripture. Problem is that he fastidiously avoids the fatal flaw in this argument – that modern western women are not fulfilling their part of the bargain. Western women no loinger feel any need to ‘help’ men or ‘meet’ them. Nor have they done so for a very long time. Their radical factions have, in fact, institutionalised their desire to NOT be helpmeets for men; to be only what they themselves have a whim to be at any given moment. This return to the law of the jungle is the essential reason for the existence of the MRM. The MRM is, in essence, the Return of the Valiant Man.
Of course, the other flaws in Josh F’s argument are obvious. There’s no need to dignify most of them with a rebuttal but to claim that a ‘radically autonomous’ man who is also part of a movement is proof of the fundamental illogic in his writing. Suffice it to say that men who ‘reject’ women form a subset of All Men, not just those who identify as MRA’s. MRA’s and MGTOW’s reject the products of rampant feminism and unbridled female self-interest, which is a contemporary political response to a contemporary political problem. They reject Marriage 2.0 because it bears no resemblance to the HOLY institution of marriage. They reject the ball-breaking altar to the blood-drunk, baby-eating Mother Goddess. They reject narcissistic, selfish and unholy women, NOT the blessed helpmeet. All men who hope and pray women will find their way out of the endless empty chambers of self-worship are part of the MRM. I suspect even Josh F, when his testicles descend. up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Pls disregard the ‘up’ at the end of my last post…typo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is really hard to figure out what Josh F is trying to say. Anyone who would communicate this way is very unlikely to have said anything that is worth sweating to understand. I suspect it is just some sort of bloated strawman argument.
Take this sentence/paragraph:
“The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.”
what? Does that make sense to you? This guy needs a wedgie and a writing class.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
They’re hiding behind a bunch of post modernist third rate psycho-babble steeped in whatever relativism serves their purpose. Such is the nature of a feminised society and feminised thought. They’re really describing their own self identity.
Of course its all bullshait. Self is a bunch of crapolla and society constantly peddles it and gets humans to buy into and wear whatever persona suits the master/slave mentality of the tribe. It scares the crap out of them, b/c sloughing off that rubbish leaves them without any strings to pull or buttons to push.
A human who accepts the innate authority (as in being the author) of the thoughts within is of no use to the authoritarian types. Not only of no use but also perceived as a threat. This is why it is wise to keep this type of thinking under one’s hat so to speak. The open nature of the internet is a bit of a double edged sword. It gets the word out and switches the light on earlier for the brain-washed men, yet it also draws attention from the other side. Whilst giving them a bit of a heads up.
That’s the paradox.
l’ve learned to play my cards close and bluff. In fact l will out right lie to maintain cover. Will not ‘challenge’ feminism directly. Instead l put on the sheep costume and pretend to support it. Meanwhile, behind the scenes lm going another way. l take the pieces that have been quoted in the article as an insight to the other side’s thinking and tactics. Its like they’re delivering their battle plans on a silver plate. Revealing their buttons. Showing their strings.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
I second the wedgie, I need a writing class (oops took some in college, they just didn’t take).
I think it mean he saying he doesn’t like us and we’re gay.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
@singledad
I’m definitely not a great writer and I forget grammar rules sometimes but I’d need to be really drunk or on crack or something to write something as inane as that. If he doesn’t like us that is a real tragedy. Nothing makes me toss & turn like the possibility that somebody doesn’t like me. I’m sure all Spearhead readers are as preoccupied with popularity as I am.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Gay, or selfish.
Refusal to self-sacrifice = selfishness. It’s really not any more profound than that.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
But does he think that we are gay virgin rapists?
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
I can’t express how much I relish the irony that the same person who wrote that accuses us of being too “abstracted” from the situation on the ground.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
slwerner, do you recall the thread a while back at TTH in which Jesse Powell laid out for all “real men” the rules to handle their wives? Someone, I think it might have been you, took him to school as to what VAWA says and how he basically was handing out free advice on how to get hit with a DV charge. I thought perhaps he would learn some humility after that, but it appears not to be the case.
Both the “thinking” housewife and Oz conservative remind me of some World War One general, ordering the troops out of the trenches and into No Man’s Land again, convinced that if enough young men are sent out with fixed bayonets, all the machineguns on the other side can’t stop them. We all know how that worked out.
There’s also a demographic at work. From what I can tell, Oz conservative is in his 50′s. I can’t tell how old Woods is, but it seems mid-40′s is likely. So what we have here is a couple of out-of-touch middle aged Catholics, convinced that all the 20-something men need to do is just be “real men” to the 20-something princesses and everything will become just wonderful.
It’s strange, the disconnect. Woods will, from time to time, acknowledge pieces of the problem; she understands how one-sided divorce can be, she recently acknowledged that no husband can stop his wife from having an abortion, she’s even called for preferential hiring of men and the end of affirmative action. I think she finally got around to opposing VAWA. So she sees pieces of the mosaic, but she can’t get her mind around the whole picture.
And I agree, both Josh and Jesse are conspicuously hiding behind her skirts. They are like a pair of spoiled 8-year olds, throwing spitballs and then running to the kitchen to hide behind Mommy’s skirt rather than deal with what they’ve started.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
This is a perfect parallel.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
It might give them a heads up, but they’ve given very little evidence of being able to take advantage of it. I.e., they don’t seem to be very adaptable.
I think we understand them better than they understand us.
It’s like the proverb says, the last person to perceive an injustice is the one who benefits from it. Feminists have been blinded by their success.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
… making them considerably less manly than those they attack.
Their level of argument boils down to “no, YOU’RE the STUPIDHEAD” plus a liberal squirting of squid ink …
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
I think we are all familiar with the sneaky little pricks who have always tried to tag some fanny on the down-low by talking the talk. I’ve never, ever trusted men like that, but it is a classic tactic that one can observe even in primates. They are the equivalent of the ape who hides in the bushes and only emerges to offer the she-monkey a banana when he doesn’t think anyone else is watching.
It may be contemptible, but it does work to some extent. This is why one has to seriously question the integrity of a “housewife” who indulges these creatures on her territory.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Dear TFH
I am one of those who have been voting down your comments, because I’m tired of your BS = TFH is the PROPHET, TFH has THE ANSWER, TFH has THE SOLUTION.
Dude, if you have something to say, spill it or STFU.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
Fester,
No. Only on January 1.
That symbolism is important, and I intend to remain consistent on keeping January 1 releases.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
10
Like UncleFester, I downvoted the comments advertising the forthcoming “solution”. Because I don’t see a reason to wait if the news is all that good.
If the presentation isn’t ready yet, don’t say anything about it until it is. This attempt to build up a sense of anticipation is bullshit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
Some of you may be familiar with another traditional blogger, Lady Lydia. She heads up “Ladies against Feminism”. Ever since I critiqued her post about men not being “real men” if they don’t keep their wives at home, I have been shunned. I have reason to believe it is because of my support for men and for my ever controversial “Wife Whisperer” post. This is how women are…you offend them or don’t agree with them in the slightest way and that is it for you. It dawned on me then that the battles between the sexes is no longer just a battle, but full-fledged war and it is only going to get worse. Sides have to be chosen. The LW’s and LL’s of the world can no longer wallow in shades of gray.It is a very black and white issue–you help men or you don’t. When they do posts such as the ones mentioned here, they are showing their chosen sides, despite how they dress it up with Christian theorizing about how great it ‘can be’. I don’t know why it is always forgotten that we live in a fallen world and as much as God’s plan for man and woman may be the best one, it is NOT the realistic one. We can talk all day about how great life will be in a Christian Utopia, but we are NOT in one nor will we ever be here on earth. I agree that men need practical solutions not “sunshine and lollipop” talk about the ideal society.
“These male liberationists, anti-Supremacy by definition, are simply unable to communicate with God-fearing persons. To have God-ordained free will or the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy is a foreign and alien concept to these males immersed in a lifetime of radical liberalism.”
Christians elitism is what you have there. Not to mention, I think men exercise their “God-ordained free will” quite nicely when they choose not to marry.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
3
Please don’t write off Mrs. Wood. She may never love the MRM, but her advocacy of patriarchy and feminine virtues makes her a valuable ally. Men here often complain that women need to improve, and that they will not listen to criticism from men. That’s Mrs. Wood’s speciality, and its a different task from the Spearhead’s.
I doubt she is aware of how ridiculous Josh and Jessie look as they snipe at other men from the protection of a woman’s personal blog. Mrs. Wood is extraordinarily perceptive, but she can’t be expected to intuit the rules for male conflict. Hopefully she will shoo them outside to settle things with the other boys, and not continue to host Josh’s unintentional parodies of Catholic sexual teachings.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
22
I would argue that the Omega’s chance of being hit with a false rape charge, per sex act, is much higher than an Alpha’s.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
@LGR
Josh is quite literally raving — almost barking at the moon. This supremacy thing is a naked fetish exposed for everyone to see.
I don’t make such assumptions lightly, but it seems to me that the guy has some psych issues.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
“They refuse to admit these problems even exist, and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created. Instead they waste their time engaged in mental masturbation, inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way.”
So fucking true man! I hate those blind calls for duty. Its like they want us to fight and die for some foolish and corrupt king. As if there was honor in simply fighting and dying.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
I would argue that the Omega’s chance of being hit with a false rape charge, per sex act, is much higher than an Alpha’s.
Per sex act, yes. To my knowledge, no prominent name in the PUA community has ever had a false rape charge filed against them. The likes of Gene Simmons, Hugh Hefner, Wilt Chamberlain (all of whom have had sex with several hundred women each) also have not had charges filed against them over a multi-decade period.
But I suspect Josh and Jesse are not even seen as sexual beings by the few women who know they exist.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
I’m not so sure about that. I don’t think women would want to admit that they’d slept with an omega. Pro athletes are hit with false rape charges constantly. I’d say their chances of getting hit with one is significantly higher per woman.
Therefore, I think it would be highly unethical to suggest that game or higher status can protect men from this. In fact, the only thing about being of higher status that protects men is that the jury will be more likely to believe she consented. But it certainly doesn’t shield one from accusation. Oh no, not at all.
Ask Clinton, Roethlisberger, Bryant, Assange, etc. ad nauseum.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
No, they want us to fight and die for THEM. The Non Thinking housewife and her ilk are at least smart enough to know what the deal is and is upset that men are wising up. Hoping that her slant may get more beta’s to marry and stop the slide to catastrophe.
Simply put, covering her own @$$ while not giving up an iota of what Feminism has given women.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
“Per sex act, yes. To my knowledge, no prominent name in the PUA community has ever had a false rape charge filed against them. The likes of Gene Simmons, Hugh Hefner, Wilt Chamberlain (all of whom have had sex with several hundred women each) also have not had charges filed against them over a multi-decade period.”
I mostly agree with you, and you could even put It in the context of Paul’s masculinity hierarchy where the lower ranked men tend to get the worst from Feminism. But don’t forget Assange, hes gotta be alpha.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
David, it goes way beyond parody. The guy is clearly out of his mind. He used to post here all the time and would not quit with his lunatic theories. It seems almost as though he is permanently high on acid, which suggests that he may actually be schizophrenic. I’m no psychiatrist, so I can’t say that with authority, but I have had a couple acquaintances and a cousin with the disease, and I am familiar with the kind of thinking it produces.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
David F:
I doubt she is aware of how ridiculous Josh and Jessie look as they snipe at other men from the protection of a woman’s personal blog. Mrs. Wood is extraordinarily perceptive, but she can’t be expected to intuit the rules for male conflict.
The trouble is, even when men tell her straight out what the rules are, she does not pay attention. There’s a comment up at her site right now that tells her if she posts “fighting words” on her website, it should be no surprise that some men take that as an invitation to conflict. Go read her reply, and tell me if she’s even paying attention to what’s being said.
Hopefully she will shoo them outside to settle things with the other boys, and not continue to host Josh’s unintentional parodies of Catholic sexual teachings.
After reading the latest thing by “Josh”, I’m wondering if that writer isn’t a woman. Look at all the RANDOM words CAPITALIZED, for example, and all that post-modern crap. Is that really a man? Or is it some 20-year old college grrrl pretending to be a “Catholic Patriarch” in order to yank Wood’s chain?
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Omnipitron:
The Non Thinking housewife and her ilk are at least smart enough to know what the deal is and is upset that men are wising up. Hoping that her slant may get more beta’s to marry and stop the slide to catastrophe.
That’s definitely one way to look at it. Another possibility is that she just doesn’t really “get it” at the gut level how painful it is for a man to be raped in divorce court, and how that pain radiates out into the larger society. See my comment about her and Oz conservative as “WW I generals” above.
Simply put, covering her own @$$ while not giving up an iota of what Feminism has given women.
Gotta disagree here. She’s come out in favor of doing away with no-cause divorce, ending affirmative action, overturning VAWA and even preferential hiring for men as “head of the household”. So at least she talks like she’s willing to give up at least some of the feminist privilege.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Anonymous Reader – “slwerner, do you recall the thread a while back at TTH in which Jesse Powell laid out for all “real men” the rules to handle their wives? Someone, I think it might have been you, took him to school as to what VAWA says and how he basically was handing out free advice on how to get hit with a DV charge.”
I do. I did.
But, even then Laura had heavily edited the post I had sent to her. Not only had I tried to call him on his complete misunderstanding of VAWA and DV laws, and his “practicing law without a license”, I had also “reminded” him of his imprisonment of innocent men to “protect” women BS. Laura edited out that part altogether, and took it upon herself to reword the rest so as to be kinder to Jesse (she did keep most of my main points).
She and I discussed our issue privately, and I realized she would always protect Jesse. I’ve seldom comment there since.
It was quite frustrating as I had previously gotten her to “come around” on several key points, even to the point of admitting that Family Law needed to be changed. Yet, despite numerous examples I pointed out to her, she’d just never admit that there were those in the ranks of the (very loosely organized) MRM who were actually attempting to make legal changes.
I’ve basically given up on my efforts to convert her.
Fortunately, there are other bloggers who are much more sympathetic to men who are not necessarily part of her “Traditionalist” sub-culture.
Despite the best efforts of Men’s Right’s Activists (like Glenn Sacks/Fathers & Families – who I do financially support), legal reforms to provide men and boys adequate rights and protections are simply not going to be achievable unless and until a significant number of women will step up and help to push such reforms.
Laura Woods has made it abundantly clear that she eschews such legal reforms, preferring to simply demand that men “man up” (and presumably sacrifice more) until the effects of feminism can be overwhelmed – or so her fantasy goes.
David F. says, “…Men here often complain that women need to improve, and that they will not listen to criticism from men.”
perhaps we could make efforts to steer more reasonably minded women who visit sites like this to check out what our actual allies amongst the female bloggers have to say. They may take the message better from other women. [I suppose that's why I thought it would be nice to have Laura Woods join the effort].
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Anonymous Reader – “slwerner, do you recall the thread a while back at TTH in which Jesse Powell laid out for all “real men” the rules to handle their wives? Someone, I think it might have been you, took him to school as to what VAWA says and how he basically was handing out free advice on how to get hit with a DV charge.”
I do. I did.
But, even then Laura had heavily edited the post I had sent to her. Not only had I tried to call him on his complete misunderstanding of VAWA and DV laws, and his “practicing law without a license”, I had also “reminded” him of his imprisonment of innocent men to “protect” women BS. Laura edited out that part altogether, and took it upon herself to reword the rest so as to be kinder to Jesse (she did keep most of my main points).
She and I discussed our issue privately, and I realized she would always protect Jesse. I’ve seldom comment there since.
It was quite frustrating as I had previously gotten her to “come around” on several key points, even to the point of admitting that Family Law needed to be changed. Yet, despite numerous examples I pointed out to her, she’d just never admit that there were those in the ranks of the (very loosely organized) MRM who were actually attempting to make legal changes.
I’ve basically given up on my efforts to convert her.
Fortunately, there are other bloggers who are much more sympathetic to men who are not necessarily part of her “Traditionalist” sub-culture.
Despite the best efforts of Men’s Right’s Activists (like Glenn Sacks/Fathers & Families – who I do financially support), legal reforms to provide men and boys adequate rights and protections are simply not going to be achievable unless and until a significant number of women will step up and help to push such reforms.
Laura Woods has made it abundantly clear that she eschews such legal reforms, preferring to simply demand that men “man up” (and presumably sacrifice more) until the effects of feminism can be overwhelmed – or so her fantasy goes.
David F. says, “…Men here often complain that women need to improve, and that they will not listen to criticism from men.”
perhaps we could make efforts to steer more reasonably minded women who visit sites like this to check out what our actual allies amongst the female bloggers have to say. They may take the message better from other women. [I suppose that's why I thought it would be nice to have Laura Woods join the effort].
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
I did read your post above Anon Reader, and true, maybe TTH simply doesn’t get it due to her being out of touch. The reason why I think at some level she is only covering her heinie is that after some of the the men she says she’s trying to protect have attempted to show her how destructive her approach is, she refuses to change her ways.
She isn’t listening, and in some ways propagating the issue.
Where I have an issue is when I think back to my own Manginaness when I was younger and took at face value when a woman said she was against feminism only to see them balk or make excuses when men started stating their problems with the status quo. It took me far longer to wake up from the matrix as a result as the messages I was getting where truly mixed and FWIW, I didn’t see the fact that men in general didn’t have many female supporters in North America after all.
I gotta wonder just how many younger men who are just beginning to see these issues and trying to figure stuff out may go to her site, and come away thinking that ‘manning up’ is really the solution before they realize that her message needs a little tweaking?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Late to the game tonight – Wednesday is kid’s night . . .
Great article! And great comments too! The quality of TS articles is definitely maturing in content.
The juxtaposition of ‘reality on the ground’ with feel good ideology is spot-on. In my opinion it is ‘The Message’ every real MRA should be able to articulate clearly whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Omnipitron
The reason why I think at some level she is only covering her heinie is that after some of the the men she says she’s trying to protect have attempted to show her how destructive her approach is, she refuses to change her ways.
She isn’t listening, and in some ways propagating the issue.
You have a valid point. It is strange, Woods will concede on issue after issue, but she still will insist, as you say, that men need to “man up” and just assert their will. That’s why I think she’s over 40. Because she doesn’t seem to have a clue how incredibly entitled younger women are, all too often, or how interlocking the legal pieces against boys and men are.
Where I have an issue is when I think back to my own Manginaness when I was younger and took at face value when a woman said she was against feminism only to see them balk or make excuses when men started stating their problems with the status quo. It took me far longer to wake up from the matrix as a result as the messages I was getting where truly mixed and FWIW, I didn’t see the fact that men in general didn’t have many female supporters in North America after all.
I’ve had similar experiences. Interestingly I’ve worked with some pretty hard core feminists in a technical environment, and gotten along with them ok so long as we kept things on a strictly professional level – I never, ever socialized with them away from work. All of them were childless, some were single or in a lesbian relationship. Meanwhile, I’ve also worked with supposedly “religious” women who would, when the open feminists weren’t around, talk about how feminism wasn’t so good. But…I never saw one of them criticize affirmative action, not one. So they talked a good line in a vague way, but wouldn’t go so far as to give up one of their privileges.
I gotta wonder just how many younger men who are just beginning to see these issues and trying to figure stuff out may go to her site, and come away thinking that ‘manning up’ is really the solution before they realize that her message needs a little tweaking?
Heh. So long as she keeps pissing and moaning about the rude barbarians at Spearhead, she’ll just keep providing a free link here…
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
I think are young men are smarter then we give them credit for From 2000 to 2010 I have seen a whole new language Developing through places like the urban dictionary , Movie’s like” Brick, or John from Cincinnati and A California that’s In its self a moment .
This is nothing new . Neo -logo-isms and Catch phrases have been used for century’s when dealing with new Issues.Young men are always the progenitors of these new Movements.
If your not in touch with the new lingo , We can just look at Two that strike me as well thought out ” Baby momma’s and Cougars. Two terms that are offensive But , Vary descriptive of the nature of the problem .
Baby momma is a term used for singling out a Young women searching for someone to pay the bills on the child not born yet. Now cougar that my favorite . I think it describes the Modern Feminist in her environment , Predatory In nature .
Just keep your ears open ,The young men will tell you how they feel . We as older Males Need to listen and give Good advise Not just old rehashed phrases that are fathers gave use. Its a complex World for these young Men We need to become more absolutionist about are agenda. If we become Absolutely subjective we will continue to Run in circles.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Typical Woman “Somebody think of the children!” bullshit. Fuck your children. What’s this whole “Real Man” crap these Women talk about, REAL MAN? I’m sorry, a Woman does not define what a Man is.. That’s like saying “Well, a real Woman is a Woman who can keep her ass in the kitchen, if shes not in my kitchen, shes in my bed licking my balls”.. Obviously Women and feminists will shriek and cry at the statement and, and also have bitched and moaned for decades now to destroy any type of Woman who Men look at favorably and have created their own convoluted image, and lets be honest, an image they aren’t happy with. Weather they admit it or not, their actions speak for their feelings.
So why can’t Men do that in current society? Why can’t we abandon the typical “REAL MAN, DEFENDER, PROTECTOR, WATCHER, HELPER, WORKER, EVERYTHING AND MORE” idea..Well, mostly because white knights are inherently coward little pansies who think if they go against feminists, they’ll be blacklisted from the pussy market.. Funnily enough, the ones who DO go against the grain get the pussy, while the little modern white knight who sympathizes with feminists gets to wait 15-20 or so years until thy fair maiden is done getting thoroughly fucked and used up, then he can marry her. Only to be divorced and pushed away from his kids many a times.
Only thing worse is the clearly emasculated, pussy whipped (He doesn’t get any pussy usually, but is still whipped, HAH), spineless Male who tries to define “Real Men” by directly sympathizing and repeating whatever his favorite feminist says. Lets be 100%, if feminists said a real Man is one who can chop off his own dick and shove it up his ass while riding a tricycle down a highway on a Sunday morning while it’s raining, and flinging his Grandma’s feces at passing cars, you’d have many emasculated Males making the case to defend the feminist claim. Of course they’d write a nice long article on their blog filled with regurgitated crap from feminist websites.
In this society Men&Women are equal, BUT NOT REALLY… Why is it that they expect Men to remain their former 1950s’ selves (Without the attitudes toward Women), while Women can be goddesses of the world.. Are traditionalists retarded? The tradition is dying. But don’t expect any of them to accept it, you know why? Because once Men completely drop the ball, kick the ball away and walk away, society collapses. Men create society, nurture society, and innovate society. Every successful society in Human history. A country is measured by how strong, smart, and productive it’s Men are. In countries and communities where the Men aren’t strong, smart, or productive (Matriarchies and androgynous societies of the past), the society goes nowhere, and stays primitive.
“Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
Well DevilDog, you made excellent points, and we are coming around to what you describe. As in my example with the Ancient Greeks,e specially the Athenians who had a continuous tradition from Mycenean times until the the Roman era (about 1000 years.) They put a heavy hand to woman. Some examples that may prove elightening to the men here: Pericles in his famous funeral oration has only this praise for Athenian (citizen women) “it best that they are neither seen nor heard nor spoken of in public,” one Athenian politician was mocked because his mother worked a stall in the Agora which to the Athenians was equivalent to prostitution, the main incentive for Athenian men to marry Athenian women (i.e. of the citizen class) was that to be an Athenian citizen both parents had to be citizens and for a woman that was only possible by virtue of her parents.
I am working on a theory of Near Eastern societies (this includes, Ancient Israel, Greece, Babylon, the Summerians, basically anywhere between Italy to modern Iran) held tight control over their women because of their long history of having Urban Civilization: women are important to the society as being functionaries of the family (i.e. society’s basic unit) however the comfort of civilized life allows them more freedom than barbarity (in that they don’t have to sew clothing, act as medics, or prepare bread from freshly cut wheat.) In this arena of comfort they become victim to those things corrosive to virtue ( a word that is cognate with the Latin “vir” for “man” for a reason) whereas men can maintain it by their nature, women need an external factor to reinforce it. In the openning lines of Juvenal’s Satire VI he remarks that in the “days of Saturn’s reign” i.e. a pre-civilized state, chastity dwelt among men.
As an aside, don’t worry about the strictures of english grammar and spelling. In Latin and Greek, such things are simplified for two reasons: inflection (change in a word’s ending to indicate snytax) and the Greek and Roman alphabets were suited to the language’s phonetics (for example in Latin no letter has more than two phonetic values.)
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
@DevilDog
Awesome post, great writing.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
The upshot of what I am getting out with using Classical Greece as an example, is that in reaction to this feminist degradation, men will become hypermasculine. Which is a problem in many case, consider the great Heroes, Achilles, Cuchuliann, etc. who are tragic doomed to violence and an early death (men as a general rule though can accept this more easily than women.)
I present to you the story of the Wanax (High King, Ard Ri, Chieftan of chieftans) Agamemnon who in order to please the Sea God and Artemis (a masculine idealization of feminity) sacrificed his loved daughter (probably the only creature he loved) to placate their wrath.
Consider that the conflict of the Iliad was produced by women, whether the judgement of Paris or the abduction of Helen, women in Ancient societies were considered as conducive to conflict (another example is Medb in the Irish epic The Tain.)
Nihil novi sub solei. > Nothing new under the sun.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
DevilDog, it goes way beyond the feminists and manginas/white knights in regards to the situation for men and boys all the way to the political and economic elite. The reality is that feminism made it this far only because the ruling elite sought to use the feminists to massively expand their power base.
The sad thing is that pretty much all women and even a slight majority of men are too stupid to realize how the ruling elite are screwing over men and the country by extension. The ruling elite pretty much
what they’re doing against men and have actively spit not only in our face but also in the face of our nation itself (and the elite of other Western countries are doing the same thing). They align themselves with the very institutions that rape men in the ass yet simultaneously expect those same men to work in advancing general society; they have not realized just how EVIL the Government is becoming and still hold onto an outdated ideal of national unity.
They beleive men can and should be subjected to anything for the benefit of others and then complain and yell at the men when the men stop putting themselves in these situations, completely illustrating their complete inability to grasp the concept of incentives.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Rebel December 15, 2010 at 13:16
“What was that dish that tastes best when served cold? Well, I want some of that!”
Revenge. It can be served two ways; cold and sweet like ice cream or, piping hot and full of hot spices.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Brilliant as ever. 99% of men here do not even know where rights come from. When I asked the assembled audience here, and the 2,000+ member of the Irish Free Man group, about 1,700 of which are listed as male, to form juries to defend mens rights? I get a very muted response.
It is simple. Any man NOT willing to sit on a jury and issue a remedy instruction, and, if not complied with, an outlawry writ to place the guilty and unrepentent offender outside the law? THAT MAN is guilty of not defending mens rights. And THAT man is no man at all in my opinion. I am prepared to sit on such juries. I am prepared to write to many world leaders in my own name denouncing them as criminals. I am prepared to bring treason charges against Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. And, as far as I am aware, no other man in this place has done similar. Yet? Men here whine about how ‘our rights are being violated’ while demanding ‘someone else fix this’.
Whimps. Men fix their own problems for themselves. And therefore there are very few adult males in this place worthy of the title ‘MAN’, in my opinion.
Same wimminz as are doing the down voting to me TFH.
Dude, your logic is very poor. You have in front of you if you wish to read it the book that will show you how to ensure women behave as deemed ‘fit and proper’ by men. That you can make some argument about ‘logic’ deeming something different when you have said book in front of you is… ill-logical…..Mr. Spock.
Snark, further to this. I urger ALL MEN who can to dissolve their ‘companies’ (which are actually owned by their guvments which is why the guvments can make up the rules) and form ‘associations’ instead. The ‘association’ should be owned by the members of the association. NOT the guvment. The association then bids for work either individually or as a combination of members. This will work for MANY jobs. Construction workers, road workers, plumbers, builders, electricians, auto mechanics, freight lorry drivers, police, firemen, soldiers. Everywhere you find groups of men doing real jobs those men have every right to band together into an association that is not owned by the Guvment or subject to the guvments legislation. I already operate in this mode. I work with ‘associates’ not with ‘employees’. Every man who does this? He will make a HUGE difference to himself and be part of the remedy to the problem of ‘guvment manipulation’ of the population.
By the way….you gotta love the comments on the link you put…the men are PISSED.
Even more black and white Laura. Either women will punish women who commit crimes against men or MEN will punish women who commit crimes against men. Women are irrelevant apart from their willingness to punish crimes. And so far they have proven to my satisfaction that they are unwilling to punish women who commit crimes.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
jan 1st is only 2 weeks away. give the fhm a break and see if the anticipation is worth it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Dealing with reality on the ground? Those of you noticing what I have written before will love this one.
I spent some time with fav#1 over the weekend. It is clear we are going our separate ways after knowing each other just over three years. I am pretty sad about that. The issue is the ‘miracle baby’.
We were talking a bit about how I was now ‘alpha’ but on my ‘training wheels’ and how she knew me much better as the ‘beta’ I used to be. We had a very funny conversation that shows young men the ‘reality on the ground’. She asked me about how being ‘alpha’ has changed talking to new women for me. So I related a story of a young woman I met a couple of weeks ago who is a ‘prospect’. I reminded her how, when we met, I told her about my life and background, family etc…..I pointed out I presented myself then as a ‘nice family guy’. She remembered…..Then the conversation went.
Me: I met a nice woman recently that seems to be a good candidate for being a ‘girlfriend’. Instead of talking about how I was a ‘nice family guy’ I just told her straight out what my job is, how much money I make, and that I’m just interested in a bit of company and fun. A ‘girlfriend’. You know, how I like to spend a weekend here and there in a nice hotel and eat in nice places…all that stuff. I just told her all that straight out, even before talking about my ‘family man’ period.
Fav#1: But Peter, if you tell women that they will just try and use you to get your money.
Me: (Now smiling). Exactly!
Young men. THAT is the reality on the ground. I didn’t even bother with ‘gaming’ this woman. I let her come to me. I hung ‘money’ out as ‘incentive’. Guess what. It works. Now some women will ‘criticise’ me for doing that. Fine. Thanks for your input. Some will criticise the woman if she ‘buys’ the deal. Fine. Thanks for your input. It works. It takes no time at all. Both parties are adults. Both are consenting. Both know the game. It’s called ‘equality’. Not something women like. They like ‘privilege dressed up as eekwalitee’.
The reality on the ground is that my fav#1 would marry me if I would agree to have a baby or two. She wants my money as much as the next woman only she doesn’t put it quite like that. I can say that I was very saddened and disappointed to realise just exactly how ‘resource/money hungry’ women are for THEM and THEIR babies. I had always thought better. With a mountain of evidence before me? Well? What can I do but follow the evidence. Being in ‘denial’ does not work very well.
All you young men here (and all you lurkers) should be well aware now that:
I see now that I have made all my docs etc public that women are not willing to even buy into the discussion about the crime of 5% vs 95% in my case or buy into the discussion of Sarah Bevan saying that I should ‘not be afforded the benefit of justice’.
As far as I am aware I am the first man to lawfully publish such things as the video of my ‘family court meeting’, the transcript, the order as well as the notices of the crimes committed etc. One reason I did all this to make it very, very clear to young men as to the ‘reality on the ground’ in the divorce courts.
No young man reading this can any longer stay in denial that the vast majority of women AGREE AND CONDONE such crimes committed against a man. You young men are very fortunate that a man like me is willing to claim sovereignty and publish all these documents so that you have in front of you the irrefutable proof of womens complicity in these crimes.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Laura’s back at it again this morning. A woman commits statutory rape on a 15-year old boy, even taking him across state lines (making it a federal crime, BTW), yet Laura, always the gynocentrist, is aghast that a woman could be charged with rape in any form:
A Logical Outcome of Feminist Absurdity
SPEAKING of rape, how is it possible for a woman to rape a man? As far as I know, it is physically impossible. Nevertheless, Lisa M. Lavoie, a Massachusetts teacher, has been convicted of statutory rape and will serve a three- to five-year prison term.
Since it is unlikely that she will post my rather low-key and measured response, at least not without heavy editing, I will also post it here:
Really, Laura? Do you not understand what statutory rape is?
Another thing that seems to trip you up is your misguided belief that feminism is about women seeking equality, manifest as equal treatment under the law, with men. Feminism has always been about special treatment for women – “equality” in areas where they feel they lag behind men (which really means artificial advancement via mechanism such as Affirmative Action and reduced qualifying requirements for women), while still retaining all special privileges that women have historically enjoyed (i.e. being consider essentially little children when it comes to their breaking the law).
Lisa Lavoie’s conviction for statutory rape (and adult having sex with an under-aged person who is held to be unable to consent to sex) is not the designed goal of feminism. In fact, in other cases, the usual feminist suspects have spoken up for women who’ve had sex with under-aged boys, trying to portray the boys as “lucky”, if not themselves the ones who pushed sex on the poor woman (essentially “raping” her). That some women do get charged for their crimes is simply an unavoidable consequence of the feminist efforts to exceed men. And even when they are charged, they are STILL given preferential treatment relative to men committing the exact same crimes, and they will invariably receive much, much lighter sentences [you’ll not like this, but around the “Manosphere” this is termed as the “P*ssy Pass”] Since they cannot spare all women from experiencing some consequence for criminality, they have fought long and hard to ensure that women will at least receive lighter punishments (in keeping with their view that men are inherently bad, and women inherently good – thus if a woman “falls”, it’s usually a man’s fault anyway. I guess that’s yet another area where the religious social conservative right is in lock-step with the gender-feminists on the left).
In that one stated goal of some in the MRM is to restore balance and achieve equal rights and protections under the law for men and boys as are enjoyed by women and girls, you mischaracterize the MRM as the “mirror image” of feminism. This would only be true if feminism where also seeking truly equal rights. But, they are not – they never have, and they never intend to do so.
But, getting back to the “rape” issue, the Constitution of the United States of America calls for Equal Protection for all citizens. This would necessarily include that the genders not be treated differently, especially as it applies to criminal law. If we are to protect under-aged girls from older men (who they may very well believe that they are in love with, and are willing and eager sexual participants with) then we must also protect under-aged boys from predatory older women in the same way. So YES Lisa Lavoie is guilty of rape, no “if’s, ands, or but’s” about it. Straight-up rape under the legal statute. If men have to abide the law, then so do women.
And, frankly, women can and do rape men (although men are almost always adverse to reporting it, or even admitting it. Men normally experience erections when sound asleep, even when under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Many men relate accounts of waking up to find a woman on top of them, engaging in intercourse that she, and she alone, initiated. Technically, that is rape. If a woman woke up to find a man on top of her so engaged, would you not consider it rape?
You might have missed a story coming out of Russia last year in which a woman had drugged something like a dozen young men, with a drug cocktail that apparently included Viagra, and had had sex with them while they were unconscious. As I recall, all but one of the men did not even feel that they had been raped. Yet, we all know that if the genders were reversed…
You may be dead-set against legal equality between men and woman, but given the great unlikelihood of “flipping” from the current system of female privilege, such equality is much more realistically achievable. That it may actually be achievable is in no small way the reason why the MRM tends to target that outcome.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Wow – talk about missing the point. There are two main reasons why so many advocate that men steer clear of marriage:
1) to avoid being forced, [b]against their will[/b] into ‘radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism’ & ‘spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman’ by a feckless wife & her handmaidens in the family courts.
2) to avoid being deprived of their children and their present & future liberty and property in the above process.
So, one could justly say that by passing up marriage, a man is steering clear of a situation that has decent odds of forcing him into detachment from a woman (and so much else) with extreme prejudice.
If Josh F. is at least as vociferous in his condemnation of the current divorce regime, it would suggest that for him and his odious ilk, ‘radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism’ & ‘spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman’ is a perfectly fine state for men to risk – so long as that state is forced upon him against his will by a woman.
One could easily imagine Jesse Powell making the case that the male casualties in the divorce wars are a necessary and acceptable price for society to pay in order that women are ‘protected’ from involuntary singlehood (voluntary singlehood via divorce being yet more homage paid to female-centrism).
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Doh!!
should have been:
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I think women should receive heavier sentences for consensual statutory rape than men, because the potential harm to a boy is greater than to a girl. If an underage girl gets pregnant, she can get an abortion or keep the child and receive child support, whereas the boy runs the risk of being nailed with a support order that will destroy his chance to complete his education and make it into the middle class. Furthermore, he has to deal with the emotional damage caused by being an absentee father, because even women convicted of statutory rape usually get custody anyway. There’s also the high likelihood that the woman will claim he raped her (happens all the time — I have a friend who is a defense attorney who just had to defend an underage boy from rape charges after a friend’s mother seduced him).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Rebel December 15, 2010 at 09:28:
Simply to have their cake and eat it too. Is that too much to ask? Is that not our ‘natural duty’ as men; to provide women with ‘everlasting cake’ via our blood, sweat & tears?
/snark
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
It just occurred to me that while Josh & co. castigate men for eschewing marriage, they are blind to the fact that it has been women who are in fact doing so. I think that most men embrace marriage, properly understood, i.e. Marriage 1.0. It is women who have dispensed with Marriage 1.0 with their nearly unbridled enthusiasm for Marriage 2.0 and its progeny. While Laura and her mangina pets Josh & Jesse (visions of harem-gaurding enuchs come to mind) might well detest Marriage 2.0, if they want to resurrect Marriage 1.0, they need to knock out its supports – which would mean aiming most of their fire at women, not men.
Not holding my breath…
I’m sure this isn’t an original thought – but I thought it worth sharing anyway.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
somehow my comment got lopped off:
….and yet, they presume to hold forth on what it means to be a ‘real man’. Simply precious
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
TFH,
Count me in.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“Josh and Jesse are conspicuously hiding behind her skirts. “
Again, lacking the courage and/or convictions to to take his claims before a broader audience, Jesse continues in the delusion that Laura’s blog in the center of the Blogging Universe (or close to being)
So, when he and Josh’s ideas get widely pilloried on other, much higher traffic sites, he believes it to be evidence that they’ve taken over the debate? I knew he was ignorant, I knew he was a coward – but the arrogance of that little prick is absolutely astounding.
I believe that it’s been well known around the MRM/Manosphere (for some time, in fact) that social conservatives were no allies. He’s just picking up on that, and probably patting himself on the back for what he believes to be some astute insight on his part.
Those two parts are just laughable.
But, what I’d like to ask him (if only Laura would let it happen, or he reads it here) is about this notion that the Men of any ilk need these “traditionalist” or their insipid moralizing? What (no make that WTF!!!) have they been doing to actually help men out?
They do nothing! Jesse, who can’t even get a girl friend (by his own account) bloviates about how he would act as a husband, and how other men should also be.
And, he proclaims some “moral authority”. What “authority” would that be, and what damned good would it be in the real world, I have to wonder? I guess that fits in with Laura’s idea of a man who wife abandons him and steals his children and his money (for years to come) should take his legal ass-raping quietly, prayerfully remembering that he still has his “moral authority”. Quite comforting…NOT!
I’ve come to the conclusion (but, in the interest of avoiding shaming language, have previously kept it to myself) that he is afraid of the reality staring him in the face that he is a lesser beta – a failure in the sexual market place – and is trying to convince himself that if he acts like he’s Dudley Do-Right (even if he could never pull it off from perspective of raw masculinity), that doing so will somehow cause women to notice and appreciate him enough to be interested in him. (I do apologize, for that was definitely “shaming language”, even if aimed at trying to explain what I believe his motivations to be.)
[hint: Jesse, if you read this, I am calling you out. Have you the courage to respond?]
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
lol wut
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
“There’s also the high likelihood that the woman will claim he raped her (happens all the time —I have a friend who is a defense attorney who just had to defend an underage boy from rape charges after a friend’s mother seduced him).”i
Im guessing that b*tch was able to keep her anonymity. What was the strategy, going on the offensive, waste his money on the first trial, and maybe even get lucky by him punished?
She has her anonymity so theirs no downside to attacking him when she’s the rapist.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
So that’s it, gentlemen. We’re all secretly white liberationist homos.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Josh F.’s blathering reminded me of ThorDaddy’s.
They are the same. He just admitted so over at TTH.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
A great deal may be obtained by everyone acknowledging that chivalry, properly understood and acted upon, did indeed make life more pleasant for both sexes in their dealings with each other. However, it must be unconditionally and permanantly RECIPROCAL! Men should, indeed practice courtesies which women enjoy and expect in a civilized society, but they should promptly and unreservedly be favored with corresponding courtesies as MEN by the gentler sex.
For every time a man e.g. remembers a lady’s birthday or anniversary, for when a man tips his hat to a lady, rises when he enters a room, walks on the curbside when they are out together, complements her on her clothing, makeup and whathaveyou, the ladies,on their part, respect mens’ wishes to be alone with other men at times, refrain from outtalking or contradicting him in public, also refrain from running around like an alleycat in heat when she is with an escort or date, and so on.
If women don’t want to do this, their whining and kvetching about the “lack of chivalry” is one sided, and deserves absolutely NO attention from men–who are already burdened far too much by women and their demands–and deserve nothing but a standing rebuke that if chivalry is dead, than feminist women and the men who agree with them, are the ones who have killed it, in the name of “equality’!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“jan 1st is only 2 weeks away. give the fhm a break and see if the anticipation is worth it.”
Lighten up. It was just a thumbs-down, for crying out loud. If TFH’s solution lives up to its advance billings, he’ll get plenty of thumbs-up to offset the few he’s received here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dang, now I can’t remember if it’s tfh or fhm. All of those tla’s look alike to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I’ll reply to a couple of misconceptions. Höllenhund wrote that traditionalists like myself hold the view that:
“It is the duty of traditionalist men to man up and take responsibility for cleaning up this mess. They must fulfill their duties at all costs even if women aren’t expected to fulfill any duties at all. ”
That’s not true. I would not have married, and would not advise marriage, on such a basis. My wife certainly has duties, including the primary care of our children and the housework. She also plays a feminine, nurturing role within the family.
Another commenter supposed that I was in my 50s and therefore out of touch. As it happens I’m in my early 40s and have been actively anti-feminist since my mid-20s. I’m all too aware, from my own personal experience, just how difficult relationships with modern women can be.
I’ve done the whole MGTOW thing. It made me feel as if I was treading water in my life. One of the best decisions I ever made was to have another go at relationships when I was in my early 30s. I’m now happily married and have two chldren. It’s been a very rewarding experience, one that I would not want other men to miss out on.
Has marriage been made a risky undertaking for men? Absolutely. I doubt if there are any traditionalists who would support either the current marriage laws or the current culture of marriage. But we traditionalists are in no stronger a position right now than the MRM to make practical changes. We are trying to build our movement and our influence just as the MRM is.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
“What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women? Why does it exist? These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer.”
Yes there is. It exists (all the traditionalist arguments on the relation between men and women exist) because the future of the race or species requires it – in the absence of this behavior, everything civilized and good eventually comes crashing to a halt, and the survivors are back in grass huts at best. I do not say that any given man is required to put the future of the race above his own personal welfare, nor would I blame him given current circumstances for choosing not to. But _somebody_ needs to, or else there is no future for anybody.
I plan to. “MGTOW” is not an answer that makes any sense to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
And what happens when the people men have a duty to protect don’t give a rat’s @$$? You’re right when you say that if men don’t invest themselves in society, everything comes crashing down, but there is one very important thing you are forgetting, men can’t do it alone.
What does one hand clapping sound like?
That’s the point, for all your idealism, if women don’t want to change the rules, all you are doing is p!ssing in the wind. Go ahead and marry, one man can’t support a country and women have no reason to change their current agenda.
This is reality, due to the current climate; the doomsday scenario you pointed out will happen regardless, a few fish swimming upstream can’tsolve the issues, marriage has to be made safe again for men in the aggregate. To be honest, while men continue to marry while things are like this not only gives women no incentive to change, but also propagates the issue in terms of divorce and the negative effect it has on kids while they grow up.
You want to see reality on the ground; go to an inner city ghetto and tell the young black men exactly what you have posted here. I’d be surprised if you didn’t get laughed at. That is our future, and ‘we have a responsibility to society’ is simply unrealistic and they will scoff while they fight to take care of themselves.
This is reality; simple as. The coming collapse isn’t to be placed at the feet of men for not taking their responsibility, that’s a cop out and not placing accountability where it squarely lies. Maybe the blame should be placed on the people who loaded wedded bliss with landmines in the first place?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
{ 2 trackbacks }