A Response to the Hysterical Housewife

by Keoni Galt on February 19, 2011

Laura Wood wrote another post in response to my piece yesterday about her criticism. At first glance, it looks to be disingenuous and dishonest. But after a couple of readings, I think she honestly just can’t help herself. When she encounters criticism, obscenities and hyperbole, she gets rather hysterical.

I will now respond directly to her latest response:

Please note Laura, that not a thing I write here can be construed as an attack, hateful, nor a vile assault on you.

First off, the title of your response:

The Bullies Speak

Ahh…so disagreement and criticism is now “bullying?” My dear, you are the one who sought to criticize this entire community as a “hateful ideology” that was the “counterpart” to the cultural garbage of what you correctly call  “Eat, Pray, Love  Syndrome.” I merely sought to point out that this was a false, moral equivalency.

You picked this fight, and now you cry bullying?

THERE IS a lengthy highbrow discussion at the men’s website, The Spearhead, in response to the post here in which I said that a wife can never deprive a man of his honor and character.

Which was not really point of contention. To reiterate, you made a judgment of moral equivalence between anti-marriage, feminist-driven cultural propaganda like EPL and what you tried to claim was some kind of coherent, uniform ideology here at The Spearhead. The first half of my piece was to point out that your judgment was wrong.

I have not read the whole Spearhead entry, but I have glanced at it. To give you an idea of the tenor of the discussion, or at least of some of the participants, one reader writes of me:

“She is worthless, untouchable filth. She should have been aborted with a chainsaw.”

Hawaiian Libertarian, who moderates the discussion and who has not deleted threatening comments such as this…

First off, Laura, The Spearhead is by and large a free speech zone. Because of this, you will always be able to find some sort of extreme hyperbole in the commentary. The only time comments get moderated is if a comment could bring about possible legal action against The Spearhead. Other than that, this is a free-for-all zone. To find a comment like that and than ascribe it to the entire tenor of my piece and everyone that participates here is disingenuous and a complete cop out.

Second of all, I do not moderate anything at The Spearhead. Only the founder, Bill Price, and two other volunteers, have that authority. Even if I wanted to delete commentary I personally found offensive and counterproductive, I couldn’t. I do not have that authority or power. The only thing I can do at The Spearhead, is submit articles and comments like anyone else.

…falsely states that I do not accept comments here.I accept the comments of anyone who writes to me, provided they are civil and to the point, as is clearly stated on my home page at the bottom of every entry.

OK Laura, I concede this point here – though you try to make this seem like I’m deliberately lying about you. I should have been more specific in that you do not allow normal comment threads like most blogs, you only cherry pick and you edit your email commentary to suit your purposes. Let’s just say I did not give you the benefit of the doubt that my long critique would be posted at your site un-edited and not have parts taken out of context…if you even posted it at all. That is why I posted it here.

He also falsely states that I am a reader of The Spearhead. I am not, though readers do occasionally send me links from there.

Hilarious. I never said you are a daily reader. I wrote that I was posting it here because I knew you’d read it. And I was right…even though you laughably claim you only “glanced” at the article.

That’s an amusing claim on your behalf, when the statement you found most objectionable was halfway down the comment thread, and was the last line of a two paragraph comment. You HAD to have read a substantial portion of the thread to cherry pick out that one line you found so offensive (and I’ll even agree with you, that was a rather offensive comment.)

Another reader in the discussion states that I have said all men must marry. I have never said any such thing, but this appears to be a common rumor about me in the manosphere. I have said that men who don’t marry should decline intimate relationships with women and I have said that men should not seek to destroy the institution of marriage or urge other men to never marry.

This is precisely why I wrote a criticism of you for The Spearhead rather than submit it as an email to you. You go for the hyperbole that supports your caricature view and ignore anything of substance. Like Novaseeker’s excellent comments regarding these view of yours.

You equate men encouraging other men to not marry as “destroying the institution of marriage.” In other words, if men learn from firsthand experience just how badly they could have their lives devastated by the current state of the institution, they’d better not warn other men, or they’re “contributing to the destruction of the institution.” This is perhaps your worst fallacy you regularly reiterate.

I have also said repeatedly that the surge of female-initiated divorce is one of the greatest injustices of our time. No-fault divorce is wrong. All divorce is wrong. Women who leave their husbands for any reason other than danger to themselves and their children are abusive traitors. Men should have presumptive custody of children. There should be no government-benefits or garnished wages for single mothers.

Women who leave their husbands, except when a man is physically dangerous, are traitors in deed and by example to women everywhere.

Why yes Laura, on this we agree. As I wrote, I don’t disagree with everything you write. Unlike you, I can look at your arguments objectively and judge them for their own merits, rather than look at something you write that I find objectionable than simply write off everything you espouse as a “hateful ideology.”

However, because I refuse to say that even involuntary divorce and harassment by the state cannot destroy a man’s integrity and his honor, I am the object of withering hatred and threats at The Spearhead.

That is not what you wrote. As I responded, I agreed with that particular premise. What I disputed was your claim that “Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.

To which I responded:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage. It’s the DIVORCE we have to fear! We rightfully fear for the loss of our children, the garnishment of our wages, the loss of a lifetime we attempt to build for the benefit of our family!

Honor has got nothing to do with it.

Is that what you call withering hatred and threats? Perhaps you would do well to re-read my article again. While it contains vulgarities (which was a response to PATRICK’s asinine moral equivalence between “EPL Syndrome” and curse words), not once did I threaten or attack you in a personal manner. I merely pointed out that you were not using logic, but rather resorting to emotional outrage and trying to brand the entire Spearhead community as nothing more than a “hateful ideology.”

The men’s movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims. Even a woman who repeatedly stands up for the rights of men is hated if she does not agree that men are doomed and have lost everything.

This is a straw man argument that cannot be backed up by fact. As I previously pointed out, there really is not that much for which we here at The Spearhead agree on. We regularly have spats in our comment threads here about that very topic. Yes, there are some men who view all men as victims. There are plenty of us who disagree with that. But you don’t acknowledge the difference in viewpoints, you simply seek to marginalize us all with this straw man caricature.

I stand by my main point. The greatest losers in the world are those who commit evil, always and in all times, not those who are the victims of it. That does not mean injustice should not be resisted. If I thought that, I would not be writing here.

Let’s go through your claims here: if men point out they are victims of evil of the likes of EPL Syndrome, than you say “The men’s movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims,” but if men try to warn other men not to get married in today’s anti-male marriage legal system, than we are evil and assisting in the destruction of the institution?

This is why so many men in the men’s movement have a problem with you. If men are victimized by the feminist-warped institution of marriage, they are claiming “holy victimhood” status. If men try to warn others about the evils of the current system, than we are evil for trying to destroy the institution. You deign to pass judgment on men with a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum. This is a false dichotomy, and we reject your attempts at trying to seize the moral high ground and impose this double standard on us. Men ARE victimized by Marriage 2.0. Men MUST warn others about the perils of subjecting themselves to it.

If you did bother to read The Spearhead with an objective mind, you would see that there are plenty of men that STILL advocate for marriage…but only if they are fully aware of the risks, and that they have found a woman who is least likely to destroy the family via divorce after the vows have been exchanged.

By the way, men are not the only ones injured by female-initiated divorce. Children, mothers, sisters, and friends are too. And, of course, women are not the only ones who divorce their spouses without their consent though their rate of doing so is much higher than that of men.

Why, how gracious of you to concede that Men Do That Too! (Seriously, Laura, read that link. I promise, there are no attacks or withering hatred…)

One other point. I will not be accepting comments in this entry from anyone who participated in the thread at The Spearhead and who did not object to this violent language directed towards me, as well as to the threat by another reader there to disable my website.

Which is precisely why I did not email my criticism to you…I posted here, in a place where I knew it would be published in it’s entirety and not have it cherry picked apart and have parts of it taken out of context as you are wont to do.

I object to violent language towards you. I did not use any, nor did I approve of it. But I have no control of other people who comment here…this is a free speech zone, and that is far more important to keep it that way, than trying to get everyone here to adhere to some code of speech so as to not offend you or anyone else’s sensibilities.

I believe my criticism of you and your piece were fair, non-threatening and based on logic. You sought to brand The Spearhead as the moral equivalent to the anti-marriage/pro-divorce propaganda of EPL.

In short, your reaction was hysterical. You focused on a few comments that were over-the-top hyperbole and sought to claim that they were the sum total of our commentary and criticism of your writing and attitude. There are plenty of people that offered substantive, non-threatening criticisms.

You ignored those and acted as if the entire piece and all the comments were nothing more than a vile hate-fest that was entirely without reason or logic.

Either you are being purposefully disingenuous…or simply hysterical. Which is it?

{ 204 comments… read them below or add one }

Herbal Essence February 19, 2011 at 10:15

Next she will be accusing us of raping her mind with logic. Logic is a tool of the patriarchy!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 113 Thumb down 6
Country Lawyer February 19, 2011 at 10:28

You are wasting your time, HL.

There is no point in discussing any of this, or pointing out the emotional driven illogical positions of women.

It is useless, if it doesn’t benefit the woman directly she won’t care or pay attention to it and she will, predictably play the victim card.

Which she did.

She is a good example of why men are going to have to fix this without women.

Women are always woman first.

I was with a female preacher recently and she made the statement “that women need men. God made men to help women.”

And I almost laughed at the complete inversion of Genesis. From a conservative female minister.

Let her be, let her have her opinions, and let her watch as her religion dies like a candle in the wind.

(Now I say this while I recognize how important religion is to society, I also recognize that Christianity has become so effeminate that it will die, just as the Roman gods faded away, despite their faithful thinking they never would.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 100 Thumb down 10
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 10:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 106
Gunn February 19, 2011 at 10:52

Seems slightly delusional to me.

On the one hand claiming to understand that modern marriage is inherently anti-male (no fault divorce, assumed maternal custody, disguised alimony via child support ect) but on the other insisting that men must enter into it as their sacrifices are essential to maintain the institution.

Where we are now, the only way that marriage can be changed to what it should be is to do a full reboot and get rid of the accumulated crap that has grown up around it as parasite lawyers, evil feminists, and big-government politicians have coopted it for their own purposes. That won’t happen by maintaining the institution – it will happen by effectively destroying it and creating it anew, with the lessons from the past learned.

I think you have it right – she should replace the word ‘thinking’ with ‘hysterical’ as that seems a more accurate description of her inability to use rational thought processes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 3
Rebel February 19, 2011 at 10:57

Women will do what they will.
Men will do what they will.

What’s wrong with that?

Isn’t that simple enough?

So why the fuss?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 29
mananon February 19, 2011 at 11:16

You’re right rebel. But in afeminist world it would read ‘women will do what they will, men will do as they are told. Anything else is misogyny.’

As I see it this is the difference between feminism and the MRM. Feminism would see men ruled by women, while I personally couldn’t care less about women and have no desire to control them. Let women do what they want as long as they don’t presume to tell me how to live my life.

And I’m sure most of you folks would say the same.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 3
Dalrock February 19, 2011 at 11:21

I have said that men should not seek to destroy the institution of marriage or urge other men to never marry.

While I have a different take, it is absurd to suggest that urging men not to marry is in any way a risk to the institution. Far too many men are marrying women today who don’t deserve the honor. If some additional percentage of men decline marriage this would have the effect of creating more of a buyer’s market for wives. Aside from the eventual legal and social changes that this would likely create, it would also have the immediate effect of improving the sorting process of which women marry. Right now 90% of women are able to marry. There isn’t much pressure on women to not act like a slut and/or to take the institution seriously. If that changed to say 80%, or even 50% that wouldn’t weaken marriage, it would strengthen it.

I will not be accepting comments in this entry from anyone who participated in the thread at The Spearhead and who did not object to this violent language directed towards me, as well as to the threat by another reader there to disable my website.

Holy victimhood indeed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 74 Thumb down 3
Stickman February 19, 2011 at 11:25

Thinking like her’s is common to allot of women I met. You will be talking to them and something so stupid will fall out of their mouths. you just stare at it resting at their feet scratching your head. I believe this is the real reason for baldness in men, and our increased risk of stroke.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 5
Binxton February 19, 2011 at 11:29

Country Lawyer February 19, 2011 at 10:28

You are wasting your time, HL.

There is no point in discussing any of this, or pointing out the emotional driven illogical positions of women.

It is useless, if it doesn’t benefit the woman directly she won’t care or pay attention to it and she will, predictably play the victim card.

Which she did.

She is a good example of why men are going to have to fix this without women.

Women are always woman first.

Yes.

Women act the way they do, because they are women.

You cannot change their nature. They move through the world with self-centered purpose. This nature is consistent with one who is deficient in reasoning skills, perspective, and an eye toward the long-term greater good.

Their primary concern is themselves, and their children. They expect as a matter of course that men are to protect them and otherwise find solutions for them. We therefore shouldn’t be surprised to find that women are basically philistines lacking virtue or anything approaching a coherent moral system that includes men.

You will not sway women with sound arguments, because women ultimately do not care about men’s welfare. They will not feel sorry for men, nor will they vote to give up their privileges out of compassion for men. To believe otherwise is to fundamentally misread the nature of women.

When you understand female nature, you realize how stupid it is for a society to posit equality between men and women. Unlike a lot of men (perhaps even most men) I do not believe that equality is a requirement for a society to bring out the best in both men and women. That so many men seem to believe otherwise only guarantees endless, futile debate with a sex that is not really suited or amenable to debate.

Men will not correct the imbalance by reasoning and talking at the table with women. They will correct the imbalance by seizing, taking, and imposing their will on the subjects they conquer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 92 Thumb down 5
aharon February 19, 2011 at 11:30

“Christianity has become so effeminate that it will die, just as the Roman gods faded away”
— true and fascinating about how religions, civilizations, and institutions that become effeminate die out.

A worrisome concern is that feminism is not effeminate. Feminism is brutal, intolerant, authoritarian, demanding, rigid, aggressive, and bloodthirsty lack a pack of vampires.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 1
Richard P-Man February 19, 2011 at 11:37

@Hawaiian Libertarian:

Sheees – why waste your time debating.

Her kind are definitely toxic – in fact, I would argue that her kind allowed the anti-male sentiments to go as far as they did.

In her mind, all women are nothing but delightful little creatures with gumdrops, jellybeans and sparkles of light shooting out of their arses 24/7.

If anybody takes the time to examine the so-called “traditionalist” women – they will see a pattern – moral superiority, hygienic superiority – pedestal syndrome. It is this mentality that allowed things to get so out of control – I would argue that this mentality has simply showed its ugly face in recent days.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 7
Snark February 19, 2011 at 11:39

Next she will be accusing us of raping her mind with logic. Logic is a tool of the patriarchy!

To be fair, Laura Wood is not a rape-ist (she does not talk endlessly about rape), and she is a supporter of patriarchy.

No, Laura Wood will be telling us to ‘man up,’ which is the social-conservative equivalent of, uh, ‘man up.’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 3
Evil Pundit February 19, 2011 at 11:50

a Mel Gibson style tirade suggesting I be raped by a pack of ethnic minorities

Actually that would be a Sandra Bernhard style tirade.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Opus February 19, 2011 at 12:05

There are only two pieces of advice to be given with regard to marriage:

1. Never Marry

-however-

2. Should you break rule 1,. Never Divorce

The problem of course is that the Divorce Pandemic takes place apart from any action by men, thus Rule 1. must now stand alone.

Would I marry? Yes, of course, but as a legal principle I would have to say it is too risky and with limited benefits. The odds are stacked against men, both emotionally and financially. Women are not affected in the same way emotionally and tend to gain financially.

Am I against Divorce? No, (and neither was John Milton) – he and I would at least agree that a bad marriage is unendurable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 4
Keoni Galt February 19, 2011 at 12:12

I’m well aware of the futility of trying to convince Laura Wood using logic. My guess is that she will completely ignore this and let her last response stand as a pronouncement that The Spearhead is an extremist, misogynist, lonely and bile-filled haven of bullies.

This was no bother to me…but rather, I posted this for others who may come to either her site or The Spearhead via her initial thread. She wrote this place off with a broad stroke caricature. Perhaps someone will read her thread and come here and see this response and realize that her condemnation is off base.

Remember, guys like Novaseeker used to be a regular commenter and reader at her place. Not all of her readers are sycophants praising her for denouncing we who are the “perpetual victims and bullies actively working to destroy the institution of marriage!”

Keoni Galt February 19, 2011 at 12:20

I encourage you never to look at their website again; it is not worth the trouble. They will never treat you as you deserve to be treated and they will never be anything for you but a source of a constant and unrewarding stress. Likewise, I now vow never to read their website again, and I urge all who support Mrs. Wood to follow suit. This is for no other reason than this: The Spearhead is worth none of our mental and emotional energy. Let’s apply our resources where they will be productive.

E-mailer * Home
* Greetings
* Contact
* Support This Site

The Bullies Speak

THERE IS a lengthy highbrow discussion at the men’s website, The Spearhead, in response to the post here in which I said that a wife can never deprive a man of his honor and character. I have not read the whole Spearhead entry, but I have glanced at it. To give you an idea of the tenor of the discussion, or at least of some of the participants, one reader writes of me:

She is worthless, untouchable filth. She should have been aborted with a chainsaw.

Hawaiian Libertarian, who moderates the discussion and who has not deleted threatening comments such as this, falsely states that I do not accept comments here. I accept the comments of anyone who writes to me, provided they are civil and to the point, as is clearly stated on my home page at the bottom of every entry. He also falsely states that I am a reader of The Spearhead. I am not, though readers do occasionally send me links from there.

Another reader in the discussion states that I have said all men must marry. I have never said any such thing, but this appears to be a common rumor about me in the manosphere. I have said that men who don’t marry should decline intimate relationships with women and I have said that men should not seek to destroy the institution of marriage or urge other men to never marry.

I have also said repeatedly that the surge of female-initiated divorce is one of the greatest injustices of our time. No-fault divorce is wrong. All divorce is wrong. Women who leave their husbands for any reason other than danger to themselves and their children are abusive traitors. Men should have presumptive custody of children. There should be no government-benefits or garnished wages for single mothers.

Women who leave their husbands, except when a man is physically dangerous, are traitors in deed and by example to women everywhere.

However, because I refuse to say that even involuntary divorce and harassment by the state cannot destroy a man’s integrity and his honor, I am the object of withering hatred and threats at The Spearhead. The men’s movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims. Even a woman who repeatedly stands up for the rights of men is hated if she does not agree that men are doomed and have lost everything. I stand by my main point. The greatest losers in the world are those who commit evil, always and in all times, not those who are the victims of it. That does not mean injustice should not be resisted. If I thought that, I would not be writing here.

By the way, men are not the only ones injured by female-initiated divorce. Children, mothers, sisters, and friends are too. And, of course, women are not the only ones who divorce their spouses without their consent though their rate of doing so is much higher than that of men.

One other point. I will not be accepting comments in this entry from anyone who participated in the thread at The Spearhead and who did not object to this violent language directed towards me, as well as to the threat by another reader there to disable my website.

— Comments –

Jenny writes:

Oh dear! That was said about you? I couldn’t say that about anyone. Last summer, while traveling the blogging bunny trail, I happened to stumble upon a seemingly harmless blog which had a list of links along the side. My curiosity got the better of me, I clicked over and over for a long time, and what I read bothered me. I looked at a couple of blogs like the one you have referenced and a few others and was quite shocked to say the least. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine such statements being made about women and the institution of marriage, etc. I remember going to town one day and looking at the men around the hardware store wondering what they must be thinking of me — a modestly dressed housewife and mother. It has taken months to push what I read to the back of my mind.

Laura writes:

There is a meme in the manosphere that no woman can be trusted, even or most especially the conservative woman, who only wants to financially subjugate all men so that she can live a life of idleness. Interesting, how this is exactly what feminists say. Then there is the “hypergamy” meme, which says that women only choose men on the basis of status. There is also the “women have always worked” meme that says careerism in modern women is no different from the work women performed in previous ages. There is the “foreign women are always better” meme too.

David Casson writes to her:

…I encourage you never to look at their website again; it is not worth the trouble. They will never treat you as you deserve to be treated and they will never be anything for you but a source of a constant and unrewarding stress. Likewise, I now vow never to read their website again, and I urge all who support Mrs. Wood to follow suit. This is for no other reason than this: The Spearhead is worth none of our mental and emotional energy. Let’s apply our resources where they will be productive.My sincerest best wishes to you, Mrs. Wood, and also my gratitude for your work.

Laura writes:

Thank you. You are in for a severe whipping and possible threats directed against you as well.

A severe whipping and possible threats? Hysterically hysterical!

Yes, this White Knight’s defense of his Queen of Churchianity would indeed be in for a severe intellectual and rhetorical whipping where he to attempt to debate honestly with many of the men and women here at the Spearhead.

Prescripted Eyes February 19, 2011 at 12:26

Hey Hawaiian Libertarian, I didn’t read your whole article, but from “glancing” at it I’m guessing Laura is just another run of the mill self bonafied bitch. Now if I took the time and finish and read your article I would be certain she is one. Of course Laura would want me to since that means I would have to take responsibility for my actions (which she never will) and I she can’t use the prejudice card against me. The thing is Laura, I’m not pre-judging you, I’m judging you – prejudice, you see where I’m going here? Probably not…~*~

Hawaiian Libertarian, I’m sorry you had to waste your time and energy on her (which I am doing also, but I’m more writing this entry for you and fellow members here for a quick laugh). Sadly, this is what she wants. All of us here know that whether its good or bad, as long as we’re thinking of her it makes her gina tingle. Does your blog have a way to ban ip addresses? It would be sorta cute to see how much she would go out of her way to keep commenting on this blog.

Quick joke since I noticed Laura’s post was on a website called thinkinghousewife.com. What is the most dangerous type of wife? A wife who thinks she can think!

Enjoy the rest of the weekend fellas~

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 5
Opus February 19, 2011 at 12:28

Priceless isn’t it; women issue nearly all the divorce petitions so it is our (men’s) fault if we don’t care for marriage. As I said above, in principle I doubtless would marry, but I have never met anyone who seemed interested in me much beyond pumping and dumping (whilst of course protesting that ‘ they are not that sort of girl’). When you protest that they are treating you badly they counter (and one really said this to me) ‘friends’ – and apparently we had been down graded to ‘friends’ – ‘sleep together’. Nice bit of rationalisation that, where a lover is turned into a friend with whom you just happen to sleep. My dictionary describes such behaviour as slutting but what would I know as I after all am just an oppressive man! As far as I can see it is women who won’t marry. You know, they don’t need a man, they are not ready, they love someone else, they need to find themselves etc etc.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Deathslayer February 19, 2011 at 12:47

Laura Woods strikes me as a rather sensitive soul.
*
Then why is she on the internet, commenting about battle hardened and tested warriors, fighters and survivors and expecting ANYONE to care about her ‘feelings’?

I don’t think she ever expected to have her blog entry scrutinized to such a degree or to witness such abusive language.
*
Look at the Spearhead motto-

“Piercing the Shield of Ignorance”

She had her ignorance about what men really think and feel shield up and it’s been pierced. Shattered even. As for logically dissecting her post…that the FIRST thing you learn…logical analysis and dissection of discussions . As for ‘abusive language’, she needs to understand she is expecting to be treated like a delicate flower by men who could care less about treating women like anything.

Get it…it’s not hatred if the men could and do care less about a woman.

Women like her stay away from insensitive assholes
*
No they don’t. It gets them wetter. Why else would she spend so much time trying to shame us, scold us and lecture us if she knows she can’t CHANGE us? She loves our masculine rugged independence from women like her. It arouses her.

like most of us here because they just can’t handle it.
*
So, if you KNOW a place has people you disagree with, why would you antagonize them and expect them to react gently or kindly towards you? Wouldn’t it be best to leave them alone, walk away or never mention them again?

If the legions of feminist clap trap, threats, insults, attacks, shaming language, laws, shutting down websites and lies told about men haven’t stopped men so far, what makes any woman think she can get men to treat her as nothing but a potential threat and force her to earn men’s respect?

If you are genuinely interested in having a dialog with her
*
Nope. She can tell her lies, then when people come here to read the truth, their either take the red pill, swallow the blue pill or leave entirely. All she is is just a blogspot for reading for laughs, them moving on to the business of the day.

then it would make sense to email her.
*
Nope. Why give her the satisfaction? If she’s not afraid of being called out, critiqued or have her words analyzed by men publicly, then why waste time with email?

If you just want to see her ripped to shreds by the commentary then it seems silly to be upset by her rather natural reaction of being upset.
*
Who is upset? It’s more of a lesson for new members who believe that women like her are potential allies and can be reasoned with.

I am here because I am NOT sensitive.
*
I’m here because I enjoy the articles and knowledge I can gain from other men. PLEASE tell me you’re not going into ‘you’re the exception’ line…EVERY woman thinks she’s an exception, yet the actions show a similar mindset.

You can say anything you want to me
*
Fix me a sandwich.

and I will bounce back just fine.
*
Hmmm, a rubber woman. Interesting, how did your AI get programmed? What processor and power supply keeps you functional?

You can go on a Mel Gibson style tirade suggesting I be raped by a pack of ethnic minorities
*
WHOA, don’t project your fantasies on the men here…besides, ‘ethnic minorities’ can get sex from women of ALL colors without the threat of rape. Something about nonWestern women LIKE and LOVE good Western men, of all colors. BTW, if I posted your comment on a board of ‘ethnic minorities’, you’d find that your value as a woman is less than that of dog feces.

and I will shrug it off as just a temper tantrum.
*
Your post…I’d shrug off as you need your pipes cleaned.

Most people are not like that and the suggestion that they ought to be might be asking a whole lot more than you can reasonably expect.
*
I except adults to be adults…if she acts like a child talking to adults, she will get corrected at first; her failure to listen them means she will get ignored.

Adults don’t appreciate children trying to jump into adult conversations.

Deathslayer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 7
XS February 19, 2011 at 13:13

Laura Wood is just another example of the futility of trying to reason with women in any way, it’s like banging your head against a brick wall.

She’s just another case study in hypocrisy, lies, shaming, NAWALT, lack of self-analysis, logic, hyperbole, projection…. or to put it succintly: a western ‘woman’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 3
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 13:25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 58
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 13:50

paigeu
It seems as though she got several “chivalrous” men coming to her defense…which makes me gag.

White Knights are pretty much the only male humans that can stand to be around her for very long, most likely. Novaseeker is a pretty level headed fellow, and slwerner is the kind of guy who traditionalists should be going out of their way to work with. Both of them used to post at Woods website. Looks like neither of them do now.

So it appears that Woods doesn’t want genuine, committed, thinking men around her. She does want synchophants, white knights, and little boys who start fights with men, then run and hided behind her skirts (Josh/Thordaddy, Jesse Powell, etc.). Is this not the pattern we see with feminists?

I have little tolerance for highly-sensitive women but I don’t want to see them scarred for life either.

Woods was a feminist in college. She likely never really experienced rigorous, logic-based debate until recently. As I pointed out in the previous thread, the strawman fallacy seems to be one of her mainstays of debate, this is pure intellectual laziness. If she wants to argue a point with adults, she needs to step up and become an adult herself. That means using her brain, and not having hysterical fits & temper tantrums, making stuff up that is patently untrue, and deploying fallacy after fallacy instead of, y’know, thinking.

I do think we could probably find a middle ground between saying she should be aborted and only telling her what she wants to hear.

Woods really has no idea what a man’s anger looks like, or how some men are in a box with no way out today. If a woman can’t stand the heat, she should go back in the kitchen. Seriously.

She also clearly more than once has tried to control the men of this website with the usual female tactics: shaming language, appeals to social control, demands that we all bow before her pedestal. And I truly think that she’s never before encountered men who don’t respond to the various female tools of manipulation. Perhaps that genuinely scares her, at some level, to encounter men that she cannot manipulate.

Which brings up another point. I wager that more than a few of the men who post here have experience with manipulative women. We know what they look like, we know many of the tricks and games, and we don’t like that stuff. Perhaps one reason Woods encounters heat is because she prefers to attempt to manipulate us in various ways, rather than vs. actually having an adult conversation with us. And this induces anger, for reasons that should be obvious.

Well, if you troll for flames, don’t complain when you get burned. That’s been true for years and years, going back before the web even existed.

If a woman can’t stand the heat, she should go back in the kitchen…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 3
sharp February 19, 2011 at 13:53

Personally I just don’t visit her site. She’s just a blogger, one woman, this seems like internet drama to me. There are more important things going on, why spend time picking apart everything this woman says? It’s not like she has influence like Jessica Valenti or someone like that.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7
sharp February 19, 2011 at 14:02

Laura Wood! M’lady! My damsel in distress, hop upon my steed and I shall save you in your time of need. Off into the sunset we gallop, my fair maiden.”

/white knight :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 7
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 14:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 46
Herbal Essence February 19, 2011 at 14:19

A. Reader- “She does want synchophants, white knights, and little boys who start fights with men, then run and hided behind her skirts (Josh/Thordaddy, Jesse Powell, etc.)”

For those who haven’t had the joy of reading Thordaddy’s stuff, he believes that the Men Going Their Own Way ideology is evidence of secret homosexuality. He has an elaborate and completely nuts explanation for it. Seriously, he goes on and on about it. The Thinking Housewife can keep him.

Binxton-”When you understand female nature, you realize how stupid it is for a society to posit equality between men and women”

Yes and that’s a hard truth ain’t it? Your comment overall was great BTW.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
Laura Grace Robins February 19, 2011 at 14:23

“First off, Laura, The Spearhead is by and large a free speech zone. Because of this, you will always be able to find some sort of extreme hyperbole in the commentary. ”

Men have been saying such things, with language, for decades. The difference is it used to be behind closed doors. Women didn’t hear it. Now with the internet, women are confronted with ugly truth. With that comes frustration that there is nothing they can do about. A woman can’t reign all the Spearhead men in like she could with one man, her husband. Plus, chivalry used to keep women’s ears guarded from harsh language. Feminists ruined that, not men. Men were told women were “man enough” to hear such language and the women insisted they no longer be treated like innocent little girls. Men say things here that they can’t say in real life. I imagine this is the one place they have to let it all out, yet women have to legislate how men control things even in their own place.

“I should have been more specific in that you do not allow normal comment threads like most blogs, you only cherry pick and you edit your email commentary to suit your purposes.”

I have never bothered commenting there, because it is not like other blogs. I don’t want to put a lot of thought and time into something just to not have it acknowledged or published. I publish 99% of comments regardless of what they say, and even though I tout “gracious speech”. While such speech is certainly my goal, I realize I can not force or shame anyone into doing the same.

“I object to violent language towards you. I did not use any, nor did I approve of it. But I have no control of other people who comment here…this is a free speech zone, and that is far more important to keep it that way, than trying to get everyone here to adhere to some code of speech so as to not offend you or anyone else’s sensibilities.”

I think what she objects to is that the men such as yourself did not get all chivalrous and come to her rescue. She has Josh F. et al, looking out for her in that regard. Men are not going to force other men into ‘being nice’.

I still agree with LW 95% of the time, yet I am fully aware that commenting on this website may already have deemed me as not a “real Christian” or not a “real woman”. Because I can stomach the things said here and not go on a shaming crusade to make mean men nice, I of course, am probably neglecting my Christian duties. My reputation will suffer for associating here, yet that is a very small price to pay for the bigger picture where, “We don’t all have exactly the same opinions or the same solutions, but we’re all dedicated to tackling the same injustices and building a better society based on honesty and a realistic assessment of human nature.”

The honesty and realism here is key. That is what makes me seem unchristian at times, is because I deal in the real. And often times realness comes with rough language and people. It is hard to find such honesty and realism on female sites. There, things are often sugarcoated. What we need is an honest hard look at feminism and our culture, no matter how dirty the language, sometimes things just have to be said.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 18
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 14:32

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 45
Herbal Essence February 19, 2011 at 14:59

Laura Grace-
Longtime commenters like you, Crella, and Hestia clearly get what’s going on. And if one of you ladies told us the language was getting too over the top, or the woman-bashing getting too severe, I would take it to heart and remember to take a deep breath before I commented in the future.

The reason why Laura Wood’s criticism irritates me is because she calls us “bullies” and other names simply because we use salty language and have a healthy suspicion of women & marriage. Also, I really don’t think she fully grasps the extent of the damage to male-female relations, or the risks men face. Though I acknowledge she has some good things to say.

Most of the men here have been pushed into the feminist meat grinder, it should be understandable if we’re angry about it. Especially since forums like this are about the only place to talk about it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5
Jabberwocky February 19, 2011 at 15:37

I miss this place. I still read, just too busy self promoting at other places to promote myself here.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7
Mark Richardson February 19, 2011 at 15:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 60
Laura Grace Robins February 19, 2011 at 15:56

“I looked at a couple of blogs like the one you have referenced and a few others and was quite shocked to say the least. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine such statements being made about women and the institution of marriage, etc. I remember going to town one day and looking at the men around the hardware store wondering what they must be thinking of me — a modestly dressed housewife and mother. It has taken months to push what I read to the back of my mind.”

What Jenny says above, captured perfectly the first part of my last comment. Women were sheltered for so long, that now when they see men using language/being mean, they just don’t know how to process it. I don’t like the angle she is positioning—that what she read on some men’s sites basically emotionally scarred her for a few months. I can see it now and this is how I fear men’s sites could be shut-down–emotional infliction upon women. “What I read on those sites affected me so deeply that I could not go about my daily routine, I was constantly paranoid that the men around me think of me the same way” Whether men actually do or not, doesn’t matter. What matters is that a woman projects something from a website and makes it a reality in the men’s minds around her. I have seen this sort of comment often enough to make me weary. Some sites may need an “adult content” warning disclaimer before entering, because clearly freedom of speech as it relates to women is for adults who can take hard truths/nasty comments without being so sensitive.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 17
Richard P-Man February 19, 2011 at 15:57

@Laura Grace Robins:

“What we need is an honest hard look at feminism and our culture, no matter how dirty the language, sometimes things just have to be said.”

WRONG!

What we need is an honest hard look at THE GREATER PORTION OF WOMEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT LABEL THEY HAVE CHOSEN FOR THEMSELVES and our culture, no matter how dirty the language, sometimes things just have to be said.

It was a nice try though – but…

FAIL.

Glad I am seeing right through clever rouses like that now…

Thanks Spearhead and all you other PRO-MALE blog contributors!

You are opening my eyes!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 8
The Private Man February 19, 2011 at 15:59

Woods is in privilege mode, nothing more. While she might not call herself a feminist, she’s still feeding at the buffet of privilege and not willing to wash dishes in the hot, unpleasant kitchen with the male help.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 4
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 15:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 45
Laura Grace Robins February 19, 2011 at 16:02

Paige,
Thanks. I appreciate your thick skin. I have found commenting online sharpens my skills in real life. I have dealt with so many nasty feminists online that when I encounter them (or often any women with an agenda) in real life, I can handle myself a lot better.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 18
zed February 19, 2011 at 16:08

Men have been saying such things, with language, for decades. The difference is it used to be behind closed doors. Women didn’t hear it.

Men have been saying such things for decades, and women certainly haven’t heard it, but it hasn’t all been behind closed doors. It has been said in print, and broadcast media, and in private conversations. And, in all cases it has been ruthlessly suppressed. The tactics of personal attack to try to get men to shut up are so predictable that they have even been catalogued as “The Catalog of Anti-Male shaming tactics“, and turned into the game of “Fembot Bingo.”

The method has always been to respond to anything a man says with a personal attack which puts him on the defensive and hijacks the discussion to be about him personally, and derail any chance he has to say anything about the subject. It’s similar to the charge of “misogyny” as a shorthand way of shouting down a man trying to point out a double standard in the culture which favors women.

There is a double dose of perversity in these tactics. They only work when they are not true, and they only work against people who might view you as potential allies. In other words, they only work against those who would be your friends if you let them, but not against people who have come to regard you as the enemy and no longer care what you think of them.

And, this is the true danger sign that women should see in the rising level of anger toward them among men. If the issues had been allowed to be redressed before they became so severely out of balance, and not remained so severely out of balance for so long, the conversation would be much more congenial.

What TTH is engaging in is part of a broad spectrum of tactics which women have used to silence and control men. Even saying what they want to say “behind closed doors” has not worked due to the compulsion of some women to intrude into men’s lives and attempt to assert control. The nuking of the old MGTOW Proboard’s forum ten days ago is an example of the lengths some women will go to in order to silence men and prevent them from speaking freely even among themselves.

The next level of suppression is, of course, threats of lawsuits or police involvement. When all else fails, call in the thugs with guns to enforce women’s will on other men.

The bad news for women is that those suppression techniques are wearing out and losing effectiveness. A growing number of men are totally alienated from women and do not care about them at all – including what happens to them and what they think of him.

The sickest part of TTH’s approach is that, like so many Christians these days, she is turning to cannibalism. Non-believing men give her no moral authority whatsoever to make pronouncements on them or their lives. They treat her much like the mentally ill homeless women who hang around convenience stores looking for a handout – i.e. they look the other way and go about their business. It is only the believing men who are suckered into being cannon-fodder for her conservative brand of female supremacism. As this haughty attitude drives more and more men out of their churches, the burdens on the men who are left become more and more odious and increase the rate of the exodus, and the number of single Christian women who wonder why they can’t find any men to date them.

What women need to realize is that the more they attack us, the more practice they provide us in being unaffected by their attacks. It is a lot like snake venom – the more times you get bitten, the more immunity you develop. The person who took down the old MGTOW board might gloat about it for the short term, but the end result was actually to energize men and strengthen their resolve to fight back.

In the long run, these tactics will not serve the interests of women at all. Women would be much better off listening to men when they are having their say, as you do LGR, because if they don’t men are going to keep escalating until they get heard one way or another – as we are seeing right now in Egypt and nearby countries.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 4
Gendeau February 19, 2011 at 16:17

LGR

Some sites may need an “adult content” warning disclaimer before entering, because clearly freedom of speech as it relates to women is for adults who can take hard truths/nasty comments without being so sensitive.

I understand what you say and recognise the dangers that you point out BUT I feel that I (we) live in the real world, and if these delicate flowers can’t stand adult language, perhaps we should create a lovely walled garden of content for THEM (full of magical unicorns, soft toys and fairy stories).

I don’t think such people should be allowed on the real internet as they, themselves, claim that they haven’t the mental constitution for it.

What really makes me laugh is that we appear to be getting back to the Victorian era, when after dinner the ‘ladies’ would retire and leave the men to their port and cigars – to talk of important matters; those beyond the capabilities of ‘mere women’.

If you can’t handle grown-up (allegedly) language – DON’T VISIT MRA SITES.

I don’t swear in front of kids in their homes, or in the streets. But if you come into a men’s club, it is YOU that needs to adapt, not the men.

I find it VERY hard to believe, given the language on TV, that anyone is truly shocked by swear words. I think that they’re trying to shame people into sticking to nice-cuddly words where it is not possible to truly express anger / frustration.

There are no swear words at all that can compare to atrocities like late aborting babies as a matter of convenience / gassing people for their religion, sexuality, colour etc / society for cutting up men FFS? – they are the real obscenities.

Large parts of the human reality are far more obscene than any swear word – why don’t you address them. Maybe after you’ve sorted out FRA / divorce rape / genital mutilation etc I might not swear as much.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
Denis February 19, 2011 at 16:20

She is one of those rare women who have spoken out in defence of the male role within the family and society

It’s not perceived that way. It is seen as valuing men for their utility and disposability. That’s where the traditionalists fail. This is 2011, not 1950 and there is no time machine. This woman is a poor role model for young girls who will grow up with men who expect them to act like equals.

Women were sheltered for so long

Sheltered by chivalrous men and still a child.

Some sites may need an “adult content” warning disclaimer before entering

Children not allowed. Especially children offering advice to men to be celebate manginas and lie to young men about the fate that awaits them. She’s afraid of losing her pedestal and ability to use men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 3
zed February 19, 2011 at 16:26

Is it possible for a traditionalist woman to stick up for the male role without seeming manipulative?

Probably not among a group of men who have mostly been so badly burned by the traditionalist male role.

For a lot of us, you are about 30 years too late. The time to fight a fire is while it is still confined to the living room, not when the entire house has been reduced to a pile of ashes. The traditional roles have been destroyed, and women are crowing about it – while most traditionalists sat around with their thumbs up their butts. It is quite amusing how traditionalists seem to have just now discovered feminism now that men are raising their voices in opposition. Hmmmmm.

If you want to be seen as anything except self-serving, you need to go to the front lines of where traditional roles are being attacked – like feministing, and pandagon, and jezebel. Defend it against the women attacking it, not to the men on strike refusing to do it any more.

The fact that women have never been willing to do this speaks volumes about their real self-serving motivations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 1
Laura Grace Robins February 19, 2011 at 16:27

Herbal,
Thank you for the kind gesture. Although as a guest in your house, it is not my place.

The funny thing about language is I have known more foul mouthed girls than I have men. They spout off words here and there, but then when men say them, they get all sensitive.

“The reason why Laura Wood’s criticism irritates me is because she calls us “bullies” and other names simply because we use salty language and have a healthy suspicion of women & marriage. Also, I really don’t think she fully grasps the extent of the damage to male-female relations, or the risks men face. Though I acknowledge she has some good things to say. ”

I agree. You are bullies because you don’t agree and you express that disagreement in an unapproved fashion. It seems she keeps coming here looking to pick a fight. I don’t think Spearhead ever did an article about her, before she first did one on the Spearhead. I don’t think she fully grasps it either. You have to READ Spearhead and other similar sites and let it sink in, not just “glance” at it, to fully understand what is going on. Some women will come across the profanity, stop right there and toss the baby out with the bathwater. They can’t read any further. I have often thought that I would rather be cussed at by a man than finger-wagged/scolded by a superior thinking woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 13
Gx1080 February 19, 2011 at 16:44

Is the same everywere. Anybody who commits the unspeakable sin of speaking the truth or, *gasp* using curse words is a meanie.

I blame the pussifycation of culture due to PC bullshit.

I said it before, and I’m going to say it again: Neither I or any men has the duty to make sure than any used-up slut isn’t eaten by her cats. Fuck that noise.

PS: The whipped boys waggling their tails on the “comment” section of Laura’s blog are pathetic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 2
The Private Man February 19, 2011 at 16:46

The person who took down the old MGTOW board might gloat about it for the short term, but the end result was actually to energize men and strengthen their resolve to fight back.

Whack a mole… except that each time one mole is whacked down, two more pop up. This is the power of the truth behind mens’ issues.

I started my own blog precisely because of this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
RL February 19, 2011 at 16:51
Deathslayer February 19, 2011 at 16:51

Some sites may need an “adult content” warning disclaimer

*
OK…

WARNING…The Spearhead is an adult minded website, where adult views and logic are EXPECTED of all who enter. Sensitive, sheltered or delicate sensibilities who are not mature enough emotionally to respond or react like adults are to refrain from entering.

There’s yer sign.

Deathslayer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
freebird February 19, 2011 at 16:54

Exhalation of female sexuality promoting
adultery while ‘preying’ is not the work of a Christian. (Christ Man)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Gendeau February 19, 2011 at 16:57

The Private Man,

not bad!…I shall return.

Just one smallish correction to:

?Given the current state of divorce laws, don’t expect any man to marry you. It’s not you, it’s just how things are right now.

I think that should be “It may not be you”…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Deathslayer February 19, 2011 at 16:58

If you want to be seen as anything except self-serving, you need to go to the front lines of where traditional roles are being attacked – like feministing, and pandagon, and jezebel. Defend it against the women attacking it, not to the men on strike refusing to do it any more.

Remember, women operate of FEELINGS and EMOTIONS. They don’t FEEL strong enough to go against the ‘sisterhood’ and express what they say here to other females on their boards. They are not EMOTIONALLY mature enough to actually defend masculinity, yet they decry when men actually defend themselves. So, if a woman who knows the truth keeps silent about it, of what use is she? She’s like a ‘female friend’…we have enough friends, but true friends will fight for you and with you. How many female friends are your ‘true’ friends’?

BTW, now that TTH knows how a men’s board was unfairly shut do, do you think she will do a column about it…or continue her blissful existence in her own pocket dimension where men are civil and women are delicate and reality doesn’t exist?

Deathslayer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6
Richard P-Man February 19, 2011 at 17:00

@Denis – spot on – thank you for saying what I was ineptly trying to say…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Deathslayer February 19, 2011 at 17:01

?Given the current state of divorce laws, don’t expect any man to marry you. It’s not you, it’s just how things are right now.

Small correction…

?Given the current state of divorce laws, don’t expect any man to marry you. You have nothing good to offer him right now.

Deathslayer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 17:11

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 43
Joanna February 19, 2011 at 17:21

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 37
Twenty February 19, 2011 at 17:25

@Mark Richardson

I think the problem that many MRAs have with traditionalist women like LW is that such women are urging men to go “over the top” and run into machine gun fire in order to preserve the West … while they sit safely in a chateau (not that one) miles behind the lines. Traditionalist men (such as yourself) are at least in the trenches with us, and have their own ass on the line when it comes to the hazards of the actions they advocate. When traditionalist women add a hectoring, schoolmarmish tone to their insistence that other people (men) run off to be slaughtered, well, bad feelings are the inevitable result, however much we might share a common enemy.

FWIW, inasmuch as marriage is defined by the law, I don’t think that getting married is even possible in much of the Anglosphere. Marriage has traditionally been understood as a permanent bond, dissolvable only under extraordinary circumstances, and that arrangement no longer exists in, e.g., the U.S. Your only option would be to find a deeply religious girl for whom marriage as defined by her faith was more important than marriage as defined by the law, and they don’t make many of those any more. (And, of course, such a girl wouldn’t necessarily be marriage material on other counts … it’s just that such a rare creature would have to be found for marriage as our grandparents understood it to be an option at all.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Höllenhund February 19, 2011 at 17:32

“It’s difficult for a traditionalist to take any other position – we don’t want the West to self-annihilate.”

Maybe it’s time for you to realize that the “West” you are emotionally clinging to is already dead and not coming back, just as your religion will soon inexorably be washed away by the tides of history like the Roman and Greek gods. You cannot call yourself a conservative because there’s nothing left to conserve; your ideological enemies have won complete victory and nothing is exempt from their poison. A real traditionalist would observe the current situation and conclude that the death of this rotten culture is both inevitable and desirable. And if you want to rebuild the patriarchy, try something that actually withstands the tests of time. The last time you Christian traditionalists built a patriarchy, it was destroyed easily by feminists, whom you could never resist. You have left the West with the extremely poisonous ideological legacy of female supremacism and pedestalization which hinders any attempt to destroy feminism and has fucked up our culture completely.

Laura Wood is a female supremacist who expects men to follow rules that don’t exist and aren’t enforced anymore, to fulfill roles that society has devalued completely. She pays lip service to anti-feminism and claims to be the ally of anti-feminist men, imploring them to marry, thereby leading them to potential ruin. For that reason she’s dangerous. More dangerous than feminists, in fact, because the latter are at least completely honest about their intention to screw men over. If Laura Wood is really a traditionalist woman, she must STFU and GTFO straight back to the kitchen, where she belongs. Blogging certainly ain’t for her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 8
Gendeau February 19, 2011 at 17:33

Deathslayer February 19, 2011 at 17:01
?Given the current state of divorce laws, don’t expect any man to marry you. It’s not you, it’s just how things are right now.

Small correction…

?Given the current state of divorce laws, don’t expect any man to marry you. You have nothing good to offer him right now.

Deathslayer

Ahh, that’s too harsh; She might have something(s) good to offer, just not good enough to marry (or co-habitate if he’s playing safe).

The goods might be good, but the price (of marriage) is waaaay too high.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Höllenhund February 19, 2011 at 17:37

“Laura Wood expresses an earlier pre-feminist, Christian culture and ideal.”

That culture is dead and belongs to the grave. The poison of feminism, which you enabled with your Victorian female pedestalization, is here to stay in one form or another, and you traditionalists cannot claim with a straight face that you don’t share the responsibility for that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 4
JFP February 19, 2011 at 17:48

Nah, sorry Mark. Wood’s made her bed, she can lie in it. Her type purport to be about family values but really just are arguing on how to hold the whip. I’m not sacrificing for a western civilization that treats me as a second class citizen. She’s no Christian, she believes in “Churchanity”.

I have more faith in the Glen Sacks types of the world working from within the system, and his methods don’t interest me too much anymore. He needs the extremists, the bomb throwers to play the moderate role, otherwise he’s the extremist.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
JFP February 19, 2011 at 17:58

Zed: “The fact that women have never been willing to do this speaks volumes about their real self-serving motivations.”

Exactly. Yet, many men took the risk to support women’s equality. The only risk women will take today is to “ride the carousel” and the guy who gives them the tingles. Its not that much of a risk either because society gives them plenty of safety nets , golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards (pussy passes).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Höllenhund February 19, 2011 at 18:02

A woman cannot call herself a traditionalist unless she’s willing to throw other women under the bus without pity. Because let’s not fool ourselves: when we talk about the potential event of “reinstating the patriarchy” and “defending the institution of marriage”, that’s what those actually mean. Marriage 1.0 was a bummer for men because it reduced them to beasts of burden and robbed them of any chance at sexual variety, therefore they needed plenty of legal incentives to sign up for it. First of all, no such things as the concept of “marital rape”, “no-fault divorce”, “domestic violence awareness” and other shit. In the patriarchy you have many wives that are beaten and have no legal remedy, women that are raped and then shamed into not reporting it and so forth, women that are abused in all sorts of ways, because the preservation of the institution of marriage and female chastity trample all concerns about the fate of individual women.

So, to repeat my question: if Laura Wood is indeed a traditionalist, is she willing to throw other women under the bus in order to preserve the patriarchy? Is she OK with stripping away those female rights and privileges that are incompatible with the patriarchy? Is she willing to go back to the kitchen and forget about arguing with men and sticking her nose in their business? If her answer to any of those questions is no, than she should STFU and GTFO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 7
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 18:23

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 38
Type 5 February 19, 2011 at 18:31

paigeu: Laura Woods strikes me as a rather sensitive soul. I don’t think she ever expected to have her blog entry scrutinized to such a degree or to witness such abusive language. Women like her stay away from insensitive assholes like most of us here because they just can’t handle it.

Isn’t that just a roundabout way of saying she can dish it out but she can’t take it?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1
The Private Man February 19, 2011 at 18:40

Ahh, that’s too harsh; She might have something(s) good to offer, just not good enough to marry (or co-habitate if he’s playing safe).

The goods might be good, but the price (of marriage) is waaaay too high.

@Gendeau

Put that on my blog.

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Omnipitron February 19, 2011 at 18:50

Hmm, reminds me of a scene from the movie “Hot Shots” where Charlie Sheen’s father in the movie is trying to fix a plane while in mid flight as his co-pilot is shouting directions at him. This guy is literally doing evrything he can to fix what is wrong with the plane (humourously of course even going through one of the engines if memory serves correctly) and in the end, falls to his death while his co-pilot is liteally shouting for him to ‘Come back, where are you going?’

I agree with you HL, your rebuttals aren’t for TTH or her brood of Mangina supporters, but for people with a shred of common sense who can see the logic behind your points and the lunacy behind hers so they can arrive at their own conclusions.

This makes me respect the likes of Hestia, Grerp, LGR, and Thag Jones even more because at least they can see that men won’t marry due to the inherent dangers in marriage 2.0.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 18:53

Mark Richardson
So let me start with the contention part. Even now, after reading a great deal of stuff from the manosphere, I don’t reallly get why Laura Wood is such a target.

She’s not a target, save when she attacks first. I cannot recall an article on this site that was directed at her before, but she’s picked fights with Spearhead over and over again. She picks a fight, men respond, she pulls her dress over her head and shrieks, some of her White Knights console her on her site. Lather, rinse and repeat.

Got it? She picks a fight, but then runs away screeching for help. And here you are, the latest White Knight. So what is it you want, really?

There is a whole establishment of feminists out there who use their powers to undermine the male role in society.

Really? Golly. Nobody ever told us. We didn’t know. We had no idea. Not one man on this site has ever seen a feminist, or seen any attacks on men. Seriously. Thanks for telling us.

Mark Richardson, your contempt for your fellow man is quite, quite obvious.

Laura Wood has boldly set herself against this establishment; in terms of the big picture, she is an ally.

Laura Woods sometimes says some things against feminists. But she still wants men to fulfill all of their ancient roles, even as she and you tolerate women ignoring theirs. So she and you offer the same deal that feminism offers. Men have duties, women have choices. There’s a few differences. Woods and you would discourage women from divorce — with words, of course. Any attempt to actually push legislation through to change custody or presumption of guilt would get words and nothing else from Woods, and you are in Australia. Woods talks a talk, sometimes. But she doesn’t walk the walk.

It’s true that she doesn’t come across like an MRA.

It’s true that she, and you, have contempt for MRA’s. She wants to control us. She wants us to only use the words she approves of. She wants us to only talk about subjects she approves of. She essentially seems to regard herself as morally superior to every man on the planet.

Her authority exists solely within her own head. I am not bound to recognize her “superiority” in any way, no matter how much she screeches and stamps her foot. If it pleases you to fetch and serve her, to run around as her errand boy, go for it.

A lot of men here have been put through the churner of modern sexual relations and that has affected their outlook on gender issues. Laura Wood expresses an earlier pre-feminist, Christian culture and ideal.

No. Woods expresses a combination of older culture and modern, very feminist, privilege. She wants to have her cake and eat it too.

That means that her outlook is less coarsened (hence her understandable objections to the cruder and threatening comments directed at her) but it also means that there are occasionally comments at her site which are tinged with an older “pedestalising” attitude.

Tinged? Tinged? Laura Woods places herself on a pedestal so high, she must need an oxygen bottle to breath. She demands that every man here bow down before her like some sort of pagan goddess, and submit our every word and thought to her approval. I thought Christians were supposed to avoid idol worship, not set themselves up as idols?

If MRAs were expressing overall support for Laura Wood whilst making a polite criticism of some of these occasional comments, I could understand it.

If Laura Woods got down off of her stratospheric pedestal, and listened more while talking less, she might learn something. If she didn’t start her biannual fight with Spearhead by taking a schoolmarm, shaming, condescending attitude, she might not encounter quite so much anger.

Look, mister Richardson, there are women who post her. Hestia is one of them, crella is another, and now Laura Grace Robbins is another. All of these women have something your queen Woods lacks: humility. Every one of them is willing to listen first. If I had to be marooned on a desert island with a woman, knowing full well that the relationship could be only platonic, I’d pick any of several before I’d consider Woods. Because Woods comes across as too good to do any dirty work, the kind of delicate flower who would require constant attention and picking-up-after.

What’s my point? Simple. For all of the blatantly false accusations of misogyny by your queen Woods, if this place was really full of he-man woman haters, do you think the likes of Hestia, Robbins and others would ever post here?

It isn’t that Spearhead men hate all women. But some of us are fully fed up with pedestaled, “bow down before me”, privileged, smug, prideful, manipulative women, like your queen.

I could also understand it if MRAs didn’t feel that Laura Wood was “one of them” in the sense of having lived through the same experiences and having the same instinctive reactions to things.

That may be the problem some men have. You want my problem? Simple, Woods has no respect for what men actually go through today. She just doesn’t. She pays some lip service once in a while, but as can be seen by her latest barrage of half-truths, outright falsehoods and strawman fallacies, when the going gets a little tough, Woods gets her dress over her head and runs for a white knight.

And here you are…

But there should also be a recognition on the part of MRAs that Laura Wood has acted courageously to speak out against those feminists who have undermined the male role within the family and within society.

There should be some recognition on the part of you trad-cons that talking and doing are not the same thing. Woods talks. Sometimes. When she’s not wagging her finger, and trying to control/manipulate angry men. In case you haven’t noticed, many of us simply do not care what the likes of Woods has to say. We’ve heard far worse. We are numbed to shaming.

Novaseeker, whose views I respect a great deal, has made the argument that traditionalists like Laura Wood urge men to marry despite the risks of doing so under current arrangements. And it is true that traditionalist like myself and Laura Wood do want men to marry well, to have families and to raise another generation of Westerners. It’s difficult for a traditionalist to take any other position – we don’t want the West to self-annihilate.

Then you admit that what you want is for men to sacrifice themselves pointlessly in the fires of modern divorce court?

This doesn’t mean that we don’t recognise that men are being harmed within the current arrangements, or that we have the power to change things right now but perversely choose not to. Nor does it mean that we want men to indiscriminately marry undeserving women. What we want to do is to build up our own movement so that we are placed in a position in which we can make practical changes to the law and to the culture. In the meantime, we can at least encourage men to be aware of the risks and how to minimise them at the personal level.

Yet when MRA’s encourage men to “be aware of the risks” of marriage, your queen Laura Woods calls them evil. So we see the hypocrisy within the tradcons: on the one hand, you condemn men that warn of the dangers of marriage 2.0 as “evil”, on the other hand you eventually, grudgingly, haltingly admit that there could be some, maybe, possibly danger and that sorta kinda men should be aware of this, a little bit.

When your pal Josh/Thordaddy isn’t calling us all “homos”, that is. You are aware that he posts to both your site and Woods, right? He’s welcome at the “thinking” housewife, with his bizarre theories, but nobody on this thread (except you, of course, because you bow down before queen Woods pedestal) would be allowed to post there. See how that looks? A loon who raves about “devout dykes” is welcome, those of use who use reason and logic such as Novaseeker are not? Get the point, yet?

I know that’s not a perfect solution (I don’t believe a perfect solution is immediately at hand) and that it’s not going to appeal to the men here who have taken an MGTOW position. But it doesn’t mean that we are the source of the problem – we are trying to cope as best we can with circumstances created by a feminist establishment.

No, you are in submission to the feminist establishment. The feminists demand that men marry women and support them. So do you. The feminists demand that men must work, and women should have the choice to work or not as they please. You say the same. The feminists demand that women have the right to divorce any time they wish, for any reason they wish, or no reason at all. You disagree in theory, but Woods has said outright that if that happens, eh, so what? Men who are betrayed by women should just grin and bear it. Of course, Woods takes a totally different position if a man should betray a woman, in any way or form. This is one aspect of her feminist/gyoncentric side that grates on me in particular.

Betrayal of woman by man == very serious problem.
Betrayal of man by woman == sad, but endurable.

Even if you disagree with the strategy, your animus is best directed at those who created the problem, not at those whose path of resistance you believe is mistaken.

What strategy? Tell me the strategy of Laura Woods; so far as I can tell, she talks about a variety of subjects on a low-traffic website. Does she actually go to the likes of jezebel or feministing and post? No. Does she ever write any articles taking such websites to task? No.

There is one site, and one site only that Woods every attacks, and it is this one. Got that? She can’t be bothered to critique real feminist websites, but two or more times a year she’ll decide to pick a fight with the righteously angry men.

So from my perspective, Woods always has to point her finger at men like me, and scornfully, with contempt, try to shame us. But she is always just too, too busy to take on the feminisiting/jezebel/etc. sites.

Maybe, just maybe, if she quit picking fights with men, she’d stop getting men angry at her? Ya think that might work? Eh?

I enjoy reading The Spearhead and I find myself in agreement with most of the posts.

Really? Then you should have already read the previous posting on this topic, and you should have already seen my systematic takedown of Woods for logical errors. Yet you do not mention that. Why?

But I would ask those involved here to reconsider the tenor of the attacks on Laura Wood.

And I would ask you to tell your queen that her habit of picking fights with men has backfired.

She is one of those rare women who have spoken out in defence of the male role within the family and society. She is not the enemy and she doesn’t deserve the negative focus she receives here nor the threatening insults in the comments.

First: Woods picks fights. You are asking us to not fight back, “because she’s a girl”. That White Knighting won’t work anymore.

Second: As I documented in the previous posting on this, Woods makes stuff up, and pretends it is real. Go read the previous post. Scroll to the end. See where I have taken her own words, and pointed out the multiple cases of the strawman fallacy. Woods has been doing this for a while, and there is a fine line between making stuff up and lying. Woods has, in my opinion, walked right up to that line. She’s very close to crossing it.

You may respect women who lie. I don’t. I’m not the only one. Got it?

Third: Woods seeks to control this web site. She seeks to define what we can and cannot discuss. That kind of manipulation is all too common in women, especially feminists. I’m beyond tired of it, and I wager I am not the only one.

Fourth: Woods has an astronomical ego, puts herself on a pedestal so high she ought to have an FAA beacon to keep jet airliners from running into her, and has shown little to no ability to actually engage in a logical debate. Therefore she has nothing to contribute here. Women who are humble enough to listen are welcome, arrogant, prideful, ignorant know-it-alls are welcome also, but only for the practice in reasoning them right into the dirt.

Given these four points, I am at a loss to understand why you wish the men and women of the Spearhead to bow down before your queen, just because you do.

Try again. This sales job is a failure.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 4
Omnipitron February 19, 2011 at 18:54

Isn’t that just a roundabout way of saying she can dish it out but she can’t take it?

Actually Type 5, it is the exact same thing which TTH does herself. Novaseeker, Anonymous Reader and HL where supporters of TTH and even slwlrner have tried to to do exactly what Paigeu has suggested in the past with no results. Gotta love the advice of’ it didn’t work but c’mon, just try again.’ just like TTH says about men marrying.

Opus hit the nail on the head, they won’t listen so what does a man do?

Not marry, that’s what.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
greyghost February 19, 2011 at 18:55

@Mark Richardson You are on the right track as a traditionalist. Just remember you are just one part of the whole. MGTOW is the best thing for a traditionalist as yourself. As Dalrock commented earlier we get marriage for women down to 45 to 50 percent and 80 percent of the unmarried into there 40′s childless, marriage will be a very strong institution indeed.
Try to understand game and why it even works. Women are extremely selfish and will give up nothing out of compassion for a man. That is why you see comments here critisizing male debate with females as useless waste of time. It is true it is a waste of time to debate a woman on anything, but it is never a waste of time to demonstrate that openly for men new here to see and learn from. A good example to see this in play is the current lead female commenter paigeu. She will declare she is for the MRM. (being general here). Her comments do not match and she will consistantly compare any issue men have with a moral equivalent female point of suffering. She cant help herself. She will probably read this and may reply. Her reply will be something comepletely off topic. That is just the way it is with women in general. What the HL was doing was showing us this characteristic in Laura Woods.
Marriage 2.0 will not change to something fair and reasonable for men until women demand that marriage be worth a mans while. The real question for all men and why I am here is “What would make a woman do that?” The whole MRM from game to MGTOW is there to make it happen. Germany is in such bad shape that a female government type is thinking about changes. There is and article here on the spearhead about it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 19:03

Let me put my point another way, Mark Richardson.

When I was 12, there were a couple of girls who had grown tall in my school. They were as tall as most of the boys. On the playground, they developed a habit of kicking boys in the crotch (aiming for the testicles) and then running to the teacher when chased to complain “The boys are picking on us!”. This went on for a while, on the playground, until a couple of the fathers found out about it and went to the school. Faced with the righteous anger of men, the female teachers soon brought the young women to heel.

Your queen Laura Woods is like one of those girls. From time to time, she decides to metaphorically kick men at Spearhead in the crotch. And when the reaction comes, she runs away, shrieking about how “evil” Spearhead is for picking on her.

And you fall for her act every single time. So you are the teacher who tells boys “Just let her kick you in the nads a few times, that’s what men do”, rather than suggest to her if she doesn’t want men angry with her, she should not kick them where it hurts.

Is this too subtle an example, Mark Richardson?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 2
greyghost February 19, 2011 at 19:06

@ Gx1080

PS: The whipped boys waggling their tails on the “comment” section of Laura’s blog are pathetic.

Yeah man that guy David Cassen was unbelievable, I have never kissed a woman’s ass like that in my life. He was lapping at that hole front of everybody. I broke out laughing as soon as I read the shit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
Lead female commenter February 19, 2011 at 19:07

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 56
greyghost February 19, 2011 at 19:16

What did I tell you Mark right on que

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 19, 2011 at 19:21

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 51
mgtow February 19, 2011 at 19:25

There are only two pieces of advice to be given with regard to marriage:

1. Never Marry

-however-

2. Should you break rule 1,. Never Divorce

If you break rule number 1, make sure you hedge your bets on a woman born and raised in a non (not-so?) feminist society/country. Beware though. The basic, base nature of a woman is the same everywhere. But you’ll be slightly better off with a woman who wants to be ‘equal’, who wants to challenge your authority, who busts your balls at every turn.

Also, sometimes it’s better to just divorce, dump your wife, cut your losses and move on. Don’t tolerate crap from her ‘for the sake of the kids’. DO NOT go for ‘marriage counselling’.

Your kids will cope fine after a divorce. The years of your life is limited, so you should make the most of it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6
Mark Richardson February 19, 2011 at 20:25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 49
Kathy February 19, 2011 at 20:31

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 90
slwerner February 19, 2011 at 20:45

@Kathy,

You got quite a few in there, but you missed some. Go check this out, and then try to create a post that uses them all.

I have faith that you can do it.

Now, as far as actually be able to make a cogent and meaningful argument, or offer some useful insight, well, I’m equally as certain that you cannot do either. So, best that you just stick with those attempts to shame.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 4
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 20:45

Kathy trolled through with a collection of feminist shaming language. Let’s see what we have:

@mgtow, if you’re going your own way why don’t you just do it? You’re probably some poor, short faggy looking pimply guy living in mommy’s basement

Code Green AND Code Lavender AND Code Tan in one sentence…a trifecta!

with your blowup doll and porn collection who can’t get a girl and are now bitter. I doubt if you could get laid in a whorehouse with your attitude. Even those girls standards are too high.

…followed by the ever popular Code Purple and possibly Code Pink…

Evey man who rejects woman has a personality defect and has something physically and mentally wrong with him, probably both.
What’s your story dude?

…and not sure about this one. Code Blue? Code Yellow? Maybe Code White? Yeah, definitely Code White.

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

This is what passes for debate among feminists. Someone with time on their hands could go make a pass through the latest Woods posting, and see how many feminist shaming tactics the oh-so-traditional, oh-so-Christian, “thinking” housewife uses. Just off the top of my head, Code Red, Code Silver, Code Maroon…say, what does it mean if a “traditionalist” woman argues just like a feminist?

Maybe Mark Richardson can explain it to me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 4
Kathy February 19, 2011 at 20:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 77
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 20:54

Mark Richardson, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to address the points that I have raised about Laura Woods:
her prideful, arrogant self-pedestalization, her repeated use of the strawman logical fallacy, her habit of making things up that are not true, and her callous, utilitarian view of men just for a start.

You came here to defend her. Now you don’t have the guts, or honesty, to reply to my reasoned critique?

Picking and choosing one point out of an entire reply just won’t do, if you are here for serious discussion. If you are merely here to deflect righteous anger from your queen, Woods, then carry on just as you are doing.

The choice is yours.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
slwerner February 19, 2011 at 20:56

Kathy – “So slimemer”

I assume you’re referring to me, but just being rather childish?

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to prove me right.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 6
W.F. Price February 19, 2011 at 21:00

@mgtow, if you’re going your own way why don’t you just do it? You’re probably some poor, short faggy looking pimply guy living in mommy’s basement with your blowup doll and porn collection who can’t get a girl and are now bitter. I doubt if you could get laid in a whorehouse with your attitude. Even those girls standards are too high. Evey man who rejects woman has a personality defect and has something physically and mentally wrong with him, probably both.
What’s your story dude?

-Kathy

Guys, I’m just letting Kathy’s post through for an example of the comments I usually delete, since I’ve had a few questions about it recently.

“Kathy” is actually far more creative than your typical troll, and takes it so far it’s maudlin and amusing to me. But I know it pisses people off, so this is just an example that I’ll delete in due course.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 7
Kathy February 19, 2011 at 21:00

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 87
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 21:01

Mark Richardson:
What’s the “egalitarian” alternative? Men still have to go out to work and bear the burden of this traditionally male role, but when they get home they then have to bear half the burden of the traditionally feminine role. How is that a step forward?

It isn’t, but it is the role that is forced upon us, by both the feminists and by you trad-cons. “Help out at home” is the standard line that every, and I mean every, source of advice will tell a man today. That specifically includes pastors of conservative churches, and many priests as well. It is also presented as the way to make a woman less prone to divorce.

Of course, those who study Game know full well that a man who betaizes himself becomes less attractive to a woman, and thus this advice is poison. But it is popular with both feminists and tradcons. Another parallel between the two groups.

The most inegalitarian marriages I know of are modern style ones. My brother, for instance, is a politically correct left-winger. He and his wife both work, but then he is left when he gets home to do the childcare and the cooking. He is doing all of the traditional male role and nearly all of the traditional female role. That to me is more of a manipulation of men than the kind of marriage that someone like Laura Wood or myself enjoy.

So? He’s doing what you tradcons urge men to do: “ANYTHING SHE WANTS”. I fail to see how you can hold this up as a poor model, because catering to the whims of women is something that both you and Woods support.

Now, Mark Richardson, when are you going to reply to my criticisms of Laura Woods? You came her to defend her. Are you going to run away from the debate you asked for>?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 3
slwerner February 19, 2011 at 21:12

W.F Price – ““Kathy” is actually far more creative than your typical troll, and takes it so far it’s maudlin and amusing to me.”

Not that I actually give a crap what this “Kathy” thinks, but, just out of curiosity, do you know if she’s a radical, man-hating, gender-feminist or is she a Traditional Conservative Christian? They are so hard to differentiate just by their “debate” tactics.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 21:13

Mark Richardson
It’s true that Western society has been geared to female autonomy, to providing women with choices that men don’t have.

And you trad-cons go right along with that program. Case in point: men MUST work for money, women may work for money if they wish, or may stay home if they wish, or may pick daisies if they wish…that’s the trad-con line. Men have duties, women have choices.

Just like the feminists want.

But feminists themselves have not demanded that men marry women. In the main, feminists have claimed that marriage is an oppressive patriarchal institution that should be abolished.

Sonny, you are not ready for that discussion. Shall we compare the lesbian separatists to the radical equalitarians to the gender equitists to the third wave to the sex positive? Second wave feminists, the ones who enacted one-sided divorce with essentially no resistance from Eagle Forum or any other traditionalists, were all in favor of marriage. And once they found out that divorce could be expensive, rather than back down on that, they demanded “family court” from trad-cons, and got it, too. Nowadays, third wave feminists are mixed on marriage, lesbian separatists only want lesbian marriage, radical equalitarians are mixed (some regard it as outmoded, others probably are more like second wavers).

Shall I go on? I actually took a women’s history course once, and have from time to time lurked on various feminist websites. I know what I’m writing about, and can find examples of feminists who want men to marry, they just also like the ability to dump the chump.

And most feminists are unsympathetic to the idea of women staying at home as they consider this to be an oppressive role compared to careers.

More accurately, second/third wavers will pay lip service to women ‘working in the home’ but always do so with contempt; gender feminists are all over the place; equity feminists are willing to tolerate women at home even as they trumpet Mr. Mom (but seem to divorce the “kitchen bitch” with regularity). But one thing unifies them: Women Must Have Their Choice. Women must be Free To Choose, of course some choices are better than others.

Just like you tradcons, who are willing to allow the li’l woman to have a part time job, if it will make her like you more and not nag so much…

In Europe, for instance, the big feminist push is to have androgynous work and parenting roles.

In which part of Europe? This sounds like Sweden and Norway. When I was in southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland a couple of years ago, I didn’t see much androgynous parenting. So your sweeping generalization has some holes.

Now, you came here to defend your queen, Laura Woods. I have posted cogent, reasoned critiques of her multiple uses of the strawman fallacy, her tendency to use feminist shaming language, her tendency to just make stuff up that is not true, her clear desire to control this website, her refusal to actually engage feminist websites, and so forth.

If you are going to be her White Knight, you better get cracking on refuting my logic. Attempting to change the subject away from her is not working.

Well?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 21:18

Gx1080
PS: The whipped boys waggling their tails on the “comment” section of Laura’s blog are pathetic.

It’s been a while since I saw what can be called a “virtual tongue bath”. But this is typical of Woods. First, pick a fight with Spearhead. Second, shriek in panic when the righteously angry men don’t roll over like whipped puppies. Third, graciously accept the accolades of pedestaling White Knights.

I predict that before the end of August, she will repeat this cycle again. And Mark Richardson will hustle in here to try to explain how we should be grateful for her attentions, too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 21:21

Kathy
You boys are pathetic. You criticize hot girls like Lindsay Lohan but if she even just looked at you you’d turn in a blithering stuttering idiots. In your hearts you know you’d do anything to screw her.

Kathy, this is the wrong website for you. You should clearly be posting at http://www.thinkinghousewife.com where you would fit right in. Just be sure to say a word or two about how nice Laura is, and how brave she is. You’ll be a regular in no time.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 2
Journey February 19, 2011 at 21:24

The only time men will finally be free of all this stupid shit is when feminism is dead. Until then we’ll have the hypocrisy, narcissism, lying and all the rest of it.
The only time we’ll be free of feminism is when Islam is strong enough to start really scaring them, then suddenly it’ll be “of course your visitation rights will be enforced, we’ve ALWAYs respected fathers” and “of course we care about men falsely accused of rape, we’ve always just been concerned for EVERYONE.” The laws will then start changing, but only because men will see a real alternative, an actual choice instead of just feminist “equality”, the choice of maybe having human rights in many areas for the first time in their lives.
Until then we’re stuck with the absolute hypocrisy of people like this Laura and the all out poison of the feminist ideology.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
ruddyturnstone February 19, 2011 at 22:09

Mark Richardson:

“But feminists themselves have not demanded that men marry women. In the main, feminists have claimed that marriage is an oppressive patriarchal institution that should be abolished.”

Yes, this is what feminists, in their official capacity, say. But, when it comes down to cases, most feminists, like most women in general, and like you and most traditionalists, believe that it IS a men’s duty to marry (and support) women. As for the feminists, see how visecerally they react not only to MRA’s, but to MGTOW’s. MRAs, at least, pose a direct threat to their agenda, but MGTOW’s don’t. Yet feminists, again, like most women, immediately resort to shaming language (“Peter Pan,” “you are afraid of women,” etc, etc), when the MGTOW point of view is raised. As for you, and Woods, and other traditionalists, you admit yourself:

“And it is true that traditionalist like myself and Laura Wood do want men to marry well, to have families and to raise another generation of Westerners.”

Just as with Woods, you want men to marry, even though you know that marriage is a crap deal for men. Then, “traditionalist” folks like you and Woods wonder why men who care about their own rights and well being, and the rights and well being of their fellow men, don’t much like what you have to say. And, your excuse is the following:

“It’s difficult for a traditionalist to take any other position – we don’t want the West to self-annihilate.”

Which would make sense, except that “the West” has now become a foul and noxious combination of feminism gone haywire and lingering traditionalist-chivalric bullshit (such as you espouse). Why should I, or any man, dedicate his life, risk his financial, physical and emotional well being, as well as his freedom, in marriage, to save a society that considers him, and all men, to be worthless scum? Is this just a racial thing? That white people will continue to live, even though the white men of the future can look forward to a life of slavery? Is it cultural thing? Is the world going to forget about Bach and Dante if the West does not continue to reproduce itself? That’s not really the way things work, as history still records the achievements of Babylon and ancient Egypt, even though those civilizations are long since dead, and, in any event, the glorious achievement of the past aren’t what’s at issue here.

Then we have this:

“I myself have a very traditional marriage. I am the protector and provider and I go out to work to earn the money. But my wife has her duties as well. She looks after our children, she keeps house, she cooks and she has a nurturing role within the family.”

Do you now? Really? Well bully for you. Except, Mr. Patriarch, what happens if your wife should expose herself to some feminist BS? Maybe not today, or tomorrow, or next year, but five or ten years from now? What happens then? She takes your ass to divorce court, just as all divorcing wives do, whether their husbands are patrirarchs or Alan Alda’s, screws you over nine ways to Sunday financially, and takes away your kids and alienates them from you just for good measure. What will you say then, Mr. Western Tradition? What will you say to the feminazi family court judge? That you’re different, because you are a “patriarch?” I wouldn’t advise it. Not only won’t it do you any good, but the judge will probably see the marital arrangement you describe above as “abuse” or “domestic violence,” and use that as a reason to rip you off financially even more than is usual, and to deny any contact at all with your kids.

But say you somehow manage to avoid that fate, so what? Do you have daughters? What will they become? Do you think that by home schooling them, and by carefully monitoring what they watch on TV, listen to on the radio or explore on the internet or in books and magazines, that you can keep them from hearing the siren song of feminist “liberation.” You can’t. It’s all around you, like the air you breathe. Unless you move to the Outback, cut off all contact with the outside world, and live like some kind of crazy cult hermit, your daughters will be exposed to feminism. And, most likely, they will swallow it, hook, line and sinker. Especially once they realize that all of their peer group females friends have NOT been brought up to be the next generation of child care providers, cooks, and general family “nurturers.” I can hear it now….”Oh Daddy, don’t be so silly and old fashioned, I’m not going to get married and have children and be a slave like Mommy, I’m going to go to the big city to be a journalist/professor/actress/whatever, and have a CAREER!”

Then what will your lifelong project have amounted to? One isolated case of one family, for one generation, where the wife, by grace and not because of law or general social practice, followed the pattern you claim you want to see preserved?

Moreover, by marrying in the present legal and social climate, even to a woman who you claim “deserves” it, you are ratifying that legal and social reality. You are a strikebreaker. And you encourage others to break the strike too. We are doing something with our choices, with our autonomy (I know how you love that word!). We are, to borrow a phrase from the beloved feminists, making the personal political. You, on the other hand, can’t see past your own satisfaction, and think that by growing a beard and calling yourself a “patriarch” you are making a difference!

I think the whole enterprize is misguided and counter productive. If you want to save “the West,” and, at the same time, make the West worth saving, laws and societal attitudes have to be changed. And they are not going to be changed if men just go ahead and go along marrying women anyway. What incentive do women have to change anything, if all men acted like you?

Your claim is…

“Ah, all the feminist women I’ve offended over the years. I got one so enraged last week she wrote a whole post trying to express her rage but ultimately felt there weren’t obscenities strong enough to do me justice:

“Mark Richardson, Mark, Mark, Mark, you f–king . . . obscenities fail me”

Pardon me, but I’m not impressed. So, you got a feminist mad at you. Big accomplishment. Most men can do that just by breathing! The point is that you got married under a misandric, oppressive system, when you didn’t have to. The one most crucial decision in your life, and you buckled under. When it came to the one really important ACTION, as opposed to endless, but also meaningless, words, you sold out. You bought into the system. And you encourage other men to do it too. In the end, the feminists don’t care how much you argue with them on your blog, because you are still a “good boy” who “manned up,” “stopped whining” and did his “duty” by women. You are helping to perpetuate the now perverted “West” that you claim to abhor.

Finally, when you say things like this:

“Laura Wood expresses an earlier pre-feminist, Christian culture and ideal. That means that her outlook is less coarsened (hence her understandable objections to the cruder and threatening comments directed at her,) but it also means that there are occasionally comments at her site which are tinged with an older ‘pedestalising’ attitude.”

you almost make me laugh. You yourself are pedastalising her. If she truly represented some sort of a throwback to an earlier pre feminist culture and ideal, why is she arguing with men on the internet? As another poster put it, why isn’t she in the kitchen, making pies, or whatever? She wants to enter the polis and argue about public affairs, but, somehow, she is entitled to never have to hear or read a word that offends her delicate, feminine sensibility. Typical “traditionalist” double standard. If the feminsts were wrong, then why is she blogging? Why isn’t she behaving like what she claims to be, a “traditional” woman? That’s what neo traditionalism leads to, the worst of both worlds. Women, and their traditionalist male defenders, don’t really want women to go back to the kitchen. But they want special rules to apply to them when they come out of it. You wanted to be treated like a “lady,” then act like one. Act like womyn (or however they’re spelling it now), and you’ll be treated like one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price February 19, 2011 at 22:20

Not that I actually give a crap what this “Kathy” thinks, but, just out of curiosity, do you know if she’s a radical, man-hating, gender-feminist or is she a Traditional Conservative Christian? They are so hard to differentiate just by their “debate” tactics.

-slwerner

Actually, I have no idea. From the looks if it, Kathy’s a guy, but I can’t say for sure. A really good troll doesn’t even have an agenda besides flaming people and trying to get a response, and when that’s the case I can usually only tell because they are so outrageous that I just know it’s some dude throwing some mischievous stuff out there. When it’s a feminist they are usually trying to nail you down in one manner or the other — there’s a clear agenda. Guys, on the other hand, can disrupt and bait simply for the fun of it. It’s hard to really describe the difference, but after a while you can tell.

Probably the most persistent and talented disruptors when it comes to our genre are dykes like Satyajit Roy, AKA null. Guys usually don’t care enough and/or tend to sympathize, so it’s the radical, politicized lesbians who really devote major attention to us. There is really no class of people who will fight us as hard as the feminist dykes — that’s something we’ve neglected a bit here but is important nonetheless.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
MobilePT February 19, 2011 at 22:22

“At first glance, it looks to be disingenuous and dishonest. But after a couple of readings, I think she honestly just can’t help herself. When she encounters criticism, obscenities and hyperbole, she gets rather hysterical.”

There’s a third option, HL. Are you absolutely sure it’s not irony/sarcasm. I mean, it’s pretty funny poo-poo (trying to cut back on profanities for the sensitive dears) as it is, but if she intended it to be humorous, well, she got ‘ya.

Similarly, Kathy’s posts could be composed by a semi-random computer program. If written by an actual person, and knowing that most of what women write is projection, my mental image of who/what Kathy must be is horrifying, yet oddly amusing.

LW says she won’t let us post on her site (boo-hoo :-( ) if we didn’t ride to her defense on the prior thread. How would she know who was who if we used different screen names? Not that I care. It just seemed to be an exceptionally stupid comment in a sea of stupidity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
migu February 19, 2011 at 22:27

:Shrug:

Sums it up for me

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader February 19, 2011 at 22:34

Welmer — Slwerner was being ironic. I agree with him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire February 19, 2011 at 23:19

A traditionalist is just the 19th century version of a liberal.

Think of time as a train.
Liberals touch the engine.
Moderates touch the cars.
Conservatives touch the caboose. But they once touched the engine back when the train was further back.
Back then the caboose was touched by men who would have considered John Wayne to be a pussy. Men like Ghengis Khan.
And before all that there were (STRAIGHT) men (living in caves) who touched the caboose who would have gotten horny at the sight of John Wayne.

Returning to ‘traditionalism’ just means going back to a lesser mangina.

Masculinity is relative. Do we want a masculinity that’s capable of sublimating only SOME of the female’s manipulative, lying, cock teasing, cuckolding, cliquish ways? If so then how far to go back?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
The Caliph February 19, 2011 at 23:25

I’ll bet my left butt cheek kathy is a butt hurt FUPA who can’t get any from hot guys, projection much.

She knows MGTOW gathering steam in earnest would be the end of her ever getting any from the male gender.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7
Robert February 19, 2011 at 23:46

OT;

VAWA Reform — Call to Action
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2011-02-19 02:37.
This coming week, Congress will be out of session. Senators and Representatives will be back in their homes district, holding meetings with constituents.

The main topic of discussion will be the federal budget. Earlier this week, President Obama proposed a budget that would produce a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012. The Obama budget proposal includes over $777 million for VAWA and other domestic violence programs.

It is critical that we take action TODAY and contact your lawmaker’s local office and request to set up a meeting this coming week. I am attaching a hand-out that you can use – or use your own handout. If we implement the recommendations spelled out on the flyer, we will be able to help more true victims, remove dangerous mandatory arrest policies, remove false allegations, and save taxpayer money!

To get your lawmakers’ phone number, just do a Google search under the person’s name, or look in the phone book.

Folks, this is the real deal. Either we act now, or we wait until 2016 when VAWA comes up for reauthorization.

The SAVE Team.

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/16340

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
andybob February 20, 2011 at 01:44

<

blockquote>And I truly think that she’s never before encountered men who don’t respond to the various female tools of manipulation. Perhaps that genuinely scares her, at some level, to encounter men that she cannot manipulate. – Anonymous

Imagine her response when her ‘tools of manipulation’ age, head south and possibly even drop off.. The pedastal is a slippery slope for such women. The iminence of her inevitable irrelevence must create, oh, I don’t know, hysterics. And you thought soccor moms were stoic! Not in those jeans.

The ease with which she spits out terms (lips aquiver – is everyone looking?)such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’, ‘threatening’, ‘bullying’ etc is very telling. Seems to be such flights-of-fancy accusations are a first, second and last resort for such females. Imagine having this little madam hold the fort in your household. Where is her husband? I bet he’s hiding.

I’ll wager that more than a few of the men who post here have experience with manipulative women. We know what they look like, we know many of the tricks and games, and we don’t like that stuff… rather than actually having an adult conversation with us.

Women have an emotional age beyond which few ever progress. All of this,”OMG, did he really say that? Here have a tissue,” reminds me of those dramas that white trash schoolgirls always seemed to be having behind the toilets at recess. This unsightly sobfest is as embarrassing now as it was then. We should scurry back to the footy field ASAP and pretend we didn’t just see it. Don’t want to know – just fucking don’t.

And what’s the story with that David Casson bloke (he can’t be for real)telling ‘Mrs Wood’ (he must have been cracking some – smirk) that, “You’re so much better than that blah blah may I fondle your tits blah, blah?” Have some pride Davo – there must be a more dignified way of getting some. Then again, maybe there isn’t

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Muk February 20, 2011 at 01:50

What is with all of these people vowing to “Never read anything at TTH or The Spearhead AGAIN!!”

You’re being childish
You don’t like her article, fine
I may not read any more of her articles either
but it’s not like I’m making some vow
as if it makes you any better than them
you never know
maybe she’ll write another that you’re like “Holy shit you are so right!”
And that goes doubly or triply or quadruply so for The Spearhead
since there are so many different contributors here
with such diverse outlooks and opinions
to say that you’ll NEVER Read anything there AGAIN!!
is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand

Maybe it’s their way of “winning” the argument
“I won’t read any more of what they have to say so I win”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Gunn February 20, 2011 at 02:41

Welmer wrote:

Guys, I’m just letting Kathy’s post through for an example of the comments I usually delete, since I’ve had a few questions about it recently.

Wow, I swear I thought that post was a humerous attempt at parody rather than a real troll. I think you’re right that its a man posting rather than a woman; its too funny to be a woman in my opinion.

‘Kathy’ wrote

That’s right, censor free speech and then complain when so other site does the same.

Just to pick up on something here, and not intended to address Kathy directly:

The idea that any noise that comes out of one’s mouth should be protected as free speech is a perversion of what it really stands for. A 3 year old engaging in a temper tantrum in a classy restaurant is not protected by ‘free speech’, just as the typical infantile screeching from a feminist harpy attempting to use shaming language to shut down a debate is not protected by ‘free speech’.

Most anti-feminist comments on feminist websites are censored despite (or maybe because of) their logical content and rational perspectives. Men going onto those sites typically look to engage in logical debate on a given point, not realising that the women on there are by and large a group of pre-teen girls (mental devvelopment-wise) who have memorised a few choice phrases and who pat each other on the back everytime one of them repeats one of the mantras. Its a bit like a slightly less intelligent company of parrots sqawking at each other and saying ‘who’s a pretty girl then’ as the chorus.

Its rather amusing once you stop trying to follow the ‘debate’ and just enjoy the spectacle of a group of dumb birds trying to imitate human behaviour.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
migu February 20, 2011 at 02:43

Actually I win.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David F. February 20, 2011 at 02:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 47
Mykeru February 20, 2011 at 03:22

@Gx1080

“Neither I or any men has the duty to make sure than any used-up slut isn’t eaten by her cats.”

I’d buy the t-shirt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Robert K February 20, 2011 at 03:27

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 39
otherzed February 20, 2011 at 03:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 44
DCM February 20, 2011 at 04:11

Reason and logic are wasted on the vast majority of females. Liberals and females don’t and generally can’t distinguish between words and the things to which they refer — liberals by policy and stupidity, females almost entirely by stupidity.
This has its reversal, since some people are politically defined as victims who are suffering and crying out for help. Thus Islamic extremists who say, and mean, that they want to kill all the Jews and slit everyone’s throat who won’t submit are simply expressing their hurt feelings and not their intentions. Only those awful white American redneck men who realized racism is wrong and overthrew it and who tried to treat women as equals are in any way evil. Women and liberals are programmed to believe in the reality of that pronouncement no matter what.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
Philip February 20, 2011 at 04:29

It would not surprise me if Laura Wood thinks she is Cleopatra reincarnated, she just wants to swan around at home thinking happy thoughts. Well, she is welcome to bath in ass milk, all day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
AntZ February 20, 2011 at 04:44

Feminists often use shaming language/moral high-grounding/dove-with-broken-wing tactics in a cynical ploy to do harm. This underhanded tactic shackles a man into a position of vulnerability. The feminist then guts him with a vicious below the belt strike that reveals the double-standard that is the hallmark of her kind.

Feminists want to jump between “female privilege” and “female empowerment” at will. Of course they do — they are vicious, amoral, predatory harpies.

Laura Wood is a very different kind of person. She has spent her life fighting for traditional marriage, with traditional roles, and gender differentiated paths to influence and power. In a traditional marriage, men and women have equally effective, albeit very different, ways to express their needs.

I for one respect Laura Wood. Laura Wood has agreed to this ancient and holy covenant:

Men provide/protect.
Women nurture/dedicate.

If Laura Wood chose to “screw” her husband, the law would allow her to do Other women have played the “provide/protect me” card, only to skewer their helpless husband a moment later. I know this. It does not matter.

Laura Wood bought her right to be respected as a traditional woman who dedicates her life to the nurture of her family. Not because she is a woman, or because she is anti-feminist. She had bought this respect because she has staked her reputation, her persona, and her career on her faithful participation in the ancient contract between men and women. In my book, this makes Laura Wood a woman who deserves to be respected for her choice.

Wives today have the choice to throw down their mantle of femininity at any time, becoming heartless machine Terminators when their husband’s backs are turned. Laura Wood does NOT have this capability. If she were to do this, she would loose her life’s work. I respect her for this.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 23
Robert February 20, 2011 at 05:16

Herbal Essence February 19, 2011 at 10:15
Next she will be accusing us of raping her mind with logic. Logic is a tool of the patriarchy!

You can’t rape what someone does not have.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Robert February 20, 2011 at 05:37

There is a difference betwwen a mind and a hamster in a hamster wheel trapped in an echo chamber being kept somewhat cool by a turbofan opreating at max speed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
XS February 20, 2011 at 05:51

@David F.
“She will never love *The Spearhead*, or MGTOW, intense debates, or harsh language, which is fine”.
It’s fine as long as she doesn’t attack this site and make false representations about the discussions here. However she just couldn’t help herself from stirring it up and then pointing and accusing. Nothing new here.
“I think she makes an important contribution in reaching people who understand that the sexual landscape is rotten and are attracted to the traditionally Christian alternative.”
Well that sounds wonderful except, as many of the posters here have pointed out, the traditional alternative is now defunct. Christianity doesn’t exist in a bubble and is not impervious to the social engineers. Women have one finger on the nuclear button at all times and you expect men to trust them enough not to push it on a whim. Well sorry, but experience shows that they are not to be trusted regardless of their stated ideology.
“Laura has a point in criticising the “evangelical” MGTOW movement. It’s one thing to warn young men of the real risks in marriage, quite another to demand that they accept a life of nihilism and loveless, gamed sex.”
I’m not a regular poster here but I’ve never heard posters here demand that men accept a life of nihilism. In fact it has been a learning experience for me in seeing how far the degeneracy of western women has reached. I already went through the meat-grinder and talked to countless other men who also had similar experience but this site has brought my awareness to a new level. The destruction of the traditional family and degeneracy of western women is now so far gone that it’s beyond repair. No amount of happy clappy wishful thinking is going to change it. It now needs to be allowed to completely collapse and the marriage strike is one of the most potent weapons for that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
Denis February 20, 2011 at 06:59

Free speech zone is one thing, but Kathy and Lara are deliberately disruptive with insulting comments that are intended to create backlash. They are simply poking the bear and not providing any intelligent insight or perspective.

Why not just ban these children and send them to their rooms?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
XS February 20, 2011 at 07:07

@Kathy

So slimemer, what’s your problem? Latent homo? Tiny dick? Poor slob working in some cubicle? Delusions of grandeur believing that a Delta- Dwarf like you deserves an Alpha woman and are bitter because all you can get are the fuglies that hang out at the bowling alley? Don’t deny that you have a problem because it’s written all over you.

You’re cute.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 07:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 33
3DShooter February 20, 2011 at 07:34

But after a couple of readings, I think she honestly just can’t help herself. When she encounters criticism, obscenities and hyperbole, she gets rather hysterical.

She’s a woman – they’re all like that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
zed February 20, 2011 at 07:35

Omnipitron February 19, 2011 at 18:54 -
Novaseeker, Anonymous Reader and HL were supporters of TTH and even slwerner have tried to to do exactly what Paigeu has suggested in the past with no results. Gotta love the advice of “it didn’t work but c’mon, just try again.” just like TTH says about men marrying.

I made a comment above about Christians and traditionalists turning to cannibalism – the more men they lose from supporting their position, the more they turn up the heat on the ones left, which does nothing but accelerate the rate of loss of support for their position.

The circular argument –
“No, I am no going to marry, and these are the reasons why….”
“Those reasons are not valid, do it anyway.”
- does nothing except lead people into digging into deeper and deeper ruts. The refusal to acknowledge or address the reasons why men are saying they do not want to marry simply makes the traditionalists appear to be the enemies of men who do not care about them, and results in them having less influence over those men rather than more.

The strategy of simply screaming louder at these men, and attacking them more aggressively is self-defeating. Men have had 5 decades of getting used to being bashed from every direction, and for many of us it has become nothing more than background noise. The more training we get in tuning it out, the easier it becomes.

I think it is important to note that the author of this essay and the men who are most critical of TTH are former supporters of hers. Men who never viewed her as significant enough to bother reading what she writes still don’t. She is functioning as a sort of anti Dale Carnegie – “How to lose friends and alienate people.”

I suspect that the reason for the intense reaction by HL and others boils down to a sense of being betrayed – being sold out.

Woggy’s comment using the example of Judas on the other thread on this topic is significant. There are many who regard Christians and traditionalists as liars and hypocrites – selling men out for their 30 pieces of silver. Attempting to obscure this behind sanctimonious high-sounding language like “defending traditional values” fails once all credibility is lost and men start watching the 30 pieces of silver changing hands.

All that personal attacks do is drive men completely out of the dialogue. “No, I won’t marry, and this is why…” is actually an invitation to engage in discussion about how to address the problems. “Keep on doing what we want you to do, no matter how hard we make it for you to do that” is not an answer men will find acceptable.

Eventually men come to regard people like this as the enemy whose only agenda is to exploit men. “No, I won’t marry, and this is why…” becomes simply “No.” And, no really does mean no when a man says it. Men are simply ceasing to engage in the dialogue, which leaves the traditionalists screaming even louder at those few men left who will still listen, and that screaming does nothing but accelerate the rate at which men tune them out.

SoCons, traditionalists, and Christians have lost the “hearts and minds” of a lot of men, and they are losing more every day. It does not matter how many attacks on us that women like TTH or Kay Hymowitz write – all those do is convince those of us who already see them as the enemy that we are correct in our assessment, and knock those men still sitting on the fence off it onto our side.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
mgtow February 20, 2011 at 07:50

You know what Kathy? You’re right. I am all that you have said and more. Let’s see what you have missed out… I am flabby and a ticking heart attack timebomb. I have a small penis. I can’t get hard. I have man boobs and a grotesquely obese midsection. I have bad breath and body odor. I am utterly socially inept. I had poor grades in school, and I now work at a lousy job making lousy money. I am ugly and my face is distorted and very asymmetric. I don’t go out, I don’t get laid and I cry and whimper myself to sleep every night.

;_:

***
Agree and Amplify, Roissy-style. Because getting mad is a waste of time.
And great job invoking The Catalog, you guys.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
Migu February 20, 2011 at 07:50

When you see them wobbling go ahead give em a push.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Migu February 20, 2011 at 07:51

So as far as making the political personal I can’t see how patriarchists and mgtow’ers can’t be friends. The whole point is to decentralize government and show women they don’t make the rules.

Divide and conquer is played out. Go rot in hell with the rest of your crew.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
aharon February 20, 2011 at 07:51

Kathy wrote: “You boys are pathetic. You criticize hot girls like Lindsay Lohan but if she even just looked at you you’d turn in a blithering stuttering idiots. In your hearts you know you’d do anything to screw her.”

Obviously: 1) Kathy does not physically fit into the pop-culture hot woman category and is probably a fat old ogre 2) Kathy is jealous of women like LL 3) Kathy imagines most or all men are into a certain female ‘look’ and attitude 4) Kathy is shallow.

BTW, Kathy the men here have also criticized creatures like Andrea Dworkin. In your little mind, does criticizing a woman for her behavior make a difference regarding motive if the “it” is attractive or not? Yup, you are shallow. Go work on your EQ health.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Denis February 20, 2011 at 07:59

So as far as making the political personal I can’t see how patriarchists and mgtow’ers can’t be friends. The whole point is to decentralize government and show women they don’t make the rules.

Interesting analysis and I’ve sometimes wondered if some mgtow’ers are patriarchists who want the system to crash faster, while other patriarchists are trying to keep it intact to protect women’s privilege.

However, traditional patriarchists have not just commanded power over women but the majority of men as well. By holding power over men, women are the prize. This is where the alliance falls apart and they become the enemy of free men.

Regardless, the feminist centralization of womynz power is a threat to the entire manosphere and not just mgtow’ers and patriarchists. We need balance.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
aharon February 20, 2011 at 08:03

Kathy wrote: “Evey man who rejects woman has a personality defect and has something physically and mentally wrong with him, probably both.”

Kathy again proves one of mra criticisms of modern western women who have embraced feminist ideology. Kathy is just another sick woman or it creature who suffers from entitlement, sense of superiority, rationalization, lack of objectivity, and unhappiness.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 08:03

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 51
Snark February 20, 2011 at 08:06

Kathy” is actually far more creative than your typical troll

When will we get a chance to see this promised creativity?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
aharon February 20, 2011 at 08:07

When one is kind to the cruel then one is being cruel to the kind.

By voluntarily supporting marriage 2.0, men who choose to marry are rewarding and supporting a society, government, and group that is overall immoral and criminal in its behavior towards men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price February 20, 2011 at 08:18

When will we get a chance to see this promised creativity?

-Snark

It’s relative, Snark. You should see the typical mundane insults.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 9
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:21

Interesting analysis and I’ve sometimes wondered if some mgtow’ers are patriarchists who want the system to crash faster, while other patriarchists are trying to keep it intact to protect women’s privilege.

You really don’t see the agenda huh? Interesting my ass. It’s the same ole bullshit with a slightly better vocabulary. She is creating conflict and will pick the winner. It is what these creatures do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
zed February 20, 2011 at 08:32

It’s one thing to warn young men of the real risks in marriage, quite another to demand that they accept a life of nihilism and loveless, gamed sex.

Strangely, it seems from all the blogs about married men needing to game their wives that the men most likely to have either sexless lives headed for the devastation of divorce or loveless gamed sex are married men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 08:36

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 51
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 08:36

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 45
Denis February 20, 2011 at 08:37

You really don’t see the agenda huh? Interesting my ass. It’s the same ole bullshit with a slightly better vocabulary. She is creating conflict and will pick the winner. It is what these creatures do.

I see the agenda and I responded to it. There is conflict between controlling patriarchs and free men. It’s interesting simply because she is more thoughtful and intelligent than her traditionalist sisters. I disagree with Paigeu but she is not such a thoughtless child as the hysterical housewife.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9
Anonymous Reader February 20, 2011 at 08:38

When will we get a chance to see this promised creativity?

Welmer:
It’s relative, Snark. You should see the typical mundane insults.

Welmer’s right. It is relative. Even though “Kathy” could easily be replaced with a random number generator coupled with a database of text snippets (see “random insult generator”), she’s Mensa material compared to the typical fembot. If the newsgroups soc.men, soc.women, soc.feminism, etc. still exist in Google groups, you can go see what I mean. Although it’s hardly worth the effort or electrons.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:39

needing to game their wives

Precluding them from actually building a family.

If it is forbidden and backed with force, why try and do it??????????

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:40

I see the agenda and I responded to it.

Yes you did. Exactly as she wanted, as did I.

See it better now?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader February 20, 2011 at 08:42

By the way, I’d just like to point out that Skadi’s newfound luv for traditionalist marriage directly contradicts many of her previous postings. So for any newcomers, today’s series of postings proves that “Skadi” will take any position that she things will stir up the pot, and lead to men paying attention to her.

That’s how these attention hounds work. The easiest thing to do is downvote early, and downvote often.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 08:45

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 43
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:45

What is my agenda?

To pick the winner. Wasn’t I clear enough?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Laura Grace Robins February 20, 2011 at 08:46

“Attempting to obscure this behind sanctimonious high-sounding language like “defending traditional values” fails once all credibility is lost and men start watching the 30 pieces of silver changing hands. ”

That is what I can’t tolerate, the “sanctimonious high-sounding language”. The superior acting Christians is what kept me hating Christians for so many years. Nobody likes someone who thinks they are superior. Humility is needed.

Not my usual source, but Urban Dictionary offers this for “Traditionalist Christianity”:

1. Contrary to popular belief, it was not the faith Jesus taught, but started by St. Augustine.

2. The most filthy form of Christianity. They believe that anyone who does not follow them is doomed to eternal hell.

3. People who can sure dish out insults against any other people who do not think like them, but God forbid if anyone says anything bad about their cult, they get all mad.

4. Hypocracy at its best. They dont treat other kindly, but take time to make sure they follow the rules their church sets out.

5. People who cannot be reasoned with. Not only that, but their reasoning is really messed up.

6. Make bible matters more complicated by their church regulated theology.

You would think one could support traditional values, without taking on a snotty/arrogant attitude as the “traditionalists” do. I know some other bloggers who do this well. Even calling themselves “traditionalists” more frequently then they call themselves “Christians” is suspect.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 12
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:50

1. Contrary to popular belief, it was not the faith Jesus taught, but started by St. Augustine.

You might want to do a bit more research. Like actually read St. Augustine as opposed to what other people have written about him.

Sort of like what happened with Jesus himself. And Mohamed, and even Buddha with the Bhudi Satvas and what not.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 08:54

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 38
Anonymous Reader February 20, 2011 at 08:57

David F.
Laura Woods is what she is.

Yes. Part of the discussion is, what is she?

She will never love *The Spearhead*, or MGTOW, intense debates, or harsh language, which is fine.

I don’t see anyone here who wants Woods to love them. Do you? However, I do see people here who want Woods to either respect them, or leave them alone. She can’t seem to do either one. She can’t respect men as men, and she can’t leave this beehive alone, either.

Men don’t like to be regarded as animals that are fit only for labor, you know.

I think she makes an important contribution in reaching people who understand that the sexual landscape is rotten and are attracted to the traditionally Christian alternative.

I used to think that, too. This latest temper tantrum has altered my view.

Laura has a point in criticising the “evangelical” MGTOW movement. It’s one thing to warn young men of the real risks in marriage, quite another to demand that they accept a life of nihilism and loveless, gamed sex.

From what I can tell, MGTOW isn’t particularly “evangelical”, and what the MGTOW’s want the most from women is to be left alone. Now, why is it evil to want to be left alone?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
Dubcik February 20, 2011 at 09:03

The logic Hawaiian Lib.s post above was spot-on, and The Hyseterical Housewife know it.

Most women that post on this site really have another adgenda altogether than helping men. For the most part, they are promoting a traditional lifestyle that still favors the woman, as she gets to do exactly what she wants, hubby fits right into the slot she’s made for him, and she self-righeously defends it as the only way to live. That’s great if it works for them, but to pretend that the women doesn’t have the better end of the deal in that situation is a lie.

I am a women who comes to this site because of living in hell with my husband, watching his ex take his kids away and his income, and being dumb-founded by the family court system that screws men over so badly. I know that some men will say that I only care because it affects me, and I can understand that view, but honestly I had no idea about any of it untill I lived it. Now, it is too late for us, his children are gone and there is no way the laws will be changed in time for him and his children. They’ll be long grown up by the time (if) any sensible changes are made to how divorce currently is expereienced by the vast majority of men. I still petition our government (Canada), write MP’s, comment on sites where a large audience may be reached, talk to my divorcing friends about not doing it, or if they do, that the kids deserve shared parenting etc.

I don’t think the traditionalist women really get it, because they have never lived it, and seen it first hand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 8
Migu February 20, 2011 at 09:06

In a patriarchy men are the buyers and women are the sellers. The men pick the winner. Don’t you read Jane Austen?

A patriarchy is something that has never existed unless you are a dogmatic etymologist.

What does Jane Austen have to do with you creating a conflict, in order to find a winner? What gives Jane Austen the Authority to claim Patriarchy?

Whats in it for women?

What deal did she make?

Protection from the crazy antics of other women. I was raised by an Alpha bitch..they are far less benevolent than men.

And this has exactly what to do with you filtering out the unworthy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
Type 5 February 20, 2011 at 09:22

zed: The strategy of simply screaming louder at these men, and attacking them more aggressively is self-defeating. Men have had 5 decades of getting used to being bashed from every direction, and for many of us it has become nothing more than background noise. The more training we get in tuning it out, the easier it becomes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO-E2T1hayU

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Migu February 20, 2011 at 09:28

Most women that post on this site really have another adgenda altogether than helping men. For the most part, they are promoting a traditional lifestyle that still favors the woman, as she gets to do exactly what she wants, hubby fits right into the slot she’s made for him, and she self-righeously defends it as the only way to live. That’s great if it works for them, but to pretend that the women doesn’t have the better end of the deal in that situation is a lie.

I think you may just me angry she got to him first. Here is why?

I am a women who comes to this site because of living in hell with my husband, watching his ex take his kids away and his income, and being dumb-founded by the family court system that screws men over so badly. I know that some men will say that I only care because it affects me, and I can understand that view, but honestly I had no idea about any of it untill I lived it. Now, it is too late for us, his children are gone and there is no way the laws will be changed in time for him and his children. They’ll be long grown up by the time (if) any sensible changes are made to how divorce currently is expereienced by the vast majority of men. I still petition our government (Canada), write MP’s, comment on sites where a large audience may be reached, talk to my divorcing friends about not doing it, or if they do, that the kids deserve shared parenting etc.

I don’t think the traditionalist women really get it, because they have never lived it, and seen it first hand.

Seven I’s, One Me, and One US.

Zero hims, my husband, hers, shes, hes, good man, great man, I love him.

Plenty about how you hate the other bitch though. Plenty of people have called me an asshole. I guess I can’t help it anymore. You can suck it too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 9
Migu February 20, 2011 at 09:31

Sorry, there is 1 my husband. My bad

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
zed February 20, 2011 at 09:34

I know that some men will say that I only care because it affects me, and I can understand that view, but honestly I had no idea about any of it until I lived it. Now, it is too late for us, his children are gone and there is no way the laws will be changed in time for him and his children. They’ll be long grown up by the time (if) any sensible changes are made to how divorce currently is experienced by the vast majority of men.

I don’t think the traditionalist women really get it, because they have never lived it, and seen it first hand.

Some of us have no problem with the fact that you care because it has affected you personally, Dubcik. In fact, that has been the strategy of some of us for quite some time – when women wake up to all the ways feminism has harmed and is harming them, by feeling the pain themselves, then and only then will they start to oppose it. As long as it is only harming men, we do not expect women to care.

Where the traditionalists and the MGTOW clash is over how much of a price men must end up paying for every woman that gets waked up. Those of us who have the choice of avoiding what your husband is going through, make that choice and do avoid it. To us, it doesn’t matter whether a woman wakes up due to watching her own husband suffer or due to having no husband to watch suffer. The advantage to us MGOOW is that we don’t have to suffer along with single women in order to pay for their enlightenment.

Women like TTH would actually be doing more for their own causes if they would just STFU instead of alienating men who really want to support them – like HL. Those of us who wrote off women like her long ago don’t have to “evangelize” our position – all we have to do is wait around and let women like TTH drive her former supporters away from her and her position into our camp.

We can afford to be patient because any truly bad and psychotic idea will fail eventually. WRT children, I am in essentially the same position as your husband – meaning I have none – but it has cost me a great deal less, both emotionally and financially, to reach that position than it has cost him.

As painful as it can be for men to have to live without a woman’s love, it is still far less painful than having to live with their hatred.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Lead female commenter February 20, 2011 at 09:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 47
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 09:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 38
KV February 20, 2011 at 09:50

On a side note:

I had to smirk at reading her appraisal of Adam and Eve…

Lots of schmoozy romance speculation (quoting from Milton, no less) on the part of (what we now would term beta) Adam…

And the prerequisite fembot “equality” theme of thought and action allowed to both he and her…

Very little talk of his authority (which he obviously abrogated, hence this mess we’re in)…

Nor mention of her fault in exercising said “equality of thought and action”, leading to (that oh, shall we say, inconvenient) Fall of Man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 09:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 50
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 10:30

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 34
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 10:31

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 49
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 10:36

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 35
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 10:37

@Skadi

What you been smokin wench ? Marriage in any format or time period is a shit sandwich for a man. For many they still foolishly think it’s the best way to have and raise kids. Given the true nature of women he cannot even be sure he is the father and a paternity test is no solution or for that matter, reassurance.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 10:38

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 48
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 10:44

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 50
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 10:46

@skadi
paigue – the man can leave too. What can you do, we are all free individuals in a free society. You are right that a relationship is pretty stable where dependency exists, esp. financial dependency. I’m not really interested in that sort of a relationship, and neither are many other people. So then you have to look for another type of dependency.. love, infatuation, a working dynamic withing the couple, or maybe a habitual partnership (as in a pragmatic partnership where people live together because it’s cheaper and easier that way esp. to raise kids). No, the family court system doesn’t look fair, but it is also not fair to push everything on one sex – both money making and the larger part of childrearing. Either man or woman.

Biology says otherwise. But fear not, I believe the devolpment of the artifical womb is well in advance. In the mean time I note there is an ever increasing interest and demand from men for surrogate mothers to have a child with/from. Modern woman really has priced herself out of the market.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
greyghost February 20, 2011 at 11:03

Dubcik
Your post is normal for men and women. The lies told daily in every place in media and education and as government policy and pop culture are ment to keep us all in the dark. women in general are especially prone to the “if it aint happening to me it isn’t happening”
Most of the men here at the spearhead are family men. We have children,have served in the military and have given of ourselves to care for our families (wife ) and country all the while hated and dispised by both.
MGTOW, game and the the light of truth shined on the lies will get as many people as possible to be made aware. Fools like the commenter Mark Richardson are living a lie out of fear. You and the simple actions you are taking are doing more to save your country than any advocate of traditional values and marriage is by far.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 11:05

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 46
Jabberwocky February 20, 2011 at 11:08

“Why are women and men judged so harshly for unawareness? The person who might be completely unaware of mens issues might also be someone who would give you the shirt off their back if they saw you in need. A persons character can not be so easily judged by how aware they are of particular social injutices.”

Good point. A primary objective of the Men’s Rights Movement is education, awareness, and ultimately enlightenment. It was decided a long time ago, that to draw light into the darkness, fires must be built. No one was paying attention to us before, not until we decided to let our anger show. Anger/fire is an imperfect source of light, but with the tools available to us, it was our only choice. Other things were tried first from what I understand. I became aware of the Men’s Movement through Angry Harry. He was a early adopter of being a firebrand. The tone will change eventually….one day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 68 February 20, 2011 at 11:19

The reason men get angry at the thinking housewife is because she says stupid things, like, “I do not approve of MRA’s because they have created conflict between men and women.” She overlooks 45 years of conflict and hatred between men and women, caused by women. For 45 years the Great American Wimp ignored the hatred and conflict caused by most women, not just feminists. When men finally speak up, the conflict is all their fault? Dumb.

###
Dalrock commented something about 90% of women marrying. If you want more detail, go to his blog, and find the one where he claims he has driven a stake through the heart of the marriage strike myth.

He uses fuzzy math to prove to his own satisfaction that because 40 year old women today have a 90% married-once rate that 90% of women will always marry at least once. Attempts to get him to talk to someone who actually knows math have been ignored. I showed that to my engineer SIL, who knew at a glance his argument was wrong. It’s simple math.

One basic rule of math is that when you change the rate of a formula, the results will change.

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8 ***
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (Rutgers 2010)

The women who are 40 today were at the mean marriage age in 1995 with a much higher marriage rate than today.

Another argument given, though by memory I am not sure he made it, is that the reduction in the marriage rate above simply means women (hee, hee, women?) are delaying marriage until they are older.

Note the marriage rate has been dropping since 1969 and there has been no extreme surge in 35 year old women marrying. The marriage rate here includes my aunt who married again when she was 78 years old.

Also, note the average age at first marriage has barely moved in quite a few years, and is currently 27. Another bogus claim.

New Zealand has, I believe, a marriage rate around 28. That is where I expect the US rate to go.

There is indeed a marriage strike. Attempts to debunk that fact are doomed.

This is not a blanket attack on Dalrock. He has many good ideas in other areas.

###
LGR
I admit I was so turned off by the nasty comments on your 1/30/2011 blog I didn’t go back. Just now I went and looked and want to thank you for the follow up comments and explanation.

For others let me say I pointed out my wife is not capable of submitting, any more than elephants can fly. The Christian witch brigade jumped on their brooms and went to work. So, instead of being a good guy who has stayed married 35 years to a woman who is OCD; hyperactive; dyslexic; and contentious, I am a bad guy because I mentioned it. My fault she is that way.

I was told I was not close to Jesus. For those who don’t understand that, there is an almost universal heresy in the Christian churches today that when a woman commits adultery, it’s her husband’s fault. He was not a good Christian. Note the Bible says no such thing, but they imagine it does. Satan likes that in a Christian.

One said I did not love my wife. As best as I can tell, if I loved her, I wouldn’t notice she is contentious? Hee, hee. Or, would not mention it. IT MUST BE MENTIONED. There are Christian men going through literal hell on earth with rebellious wives. Not only need they expect no support, they aren’t even supposed to mention it.

Proverbs 21:9
It is better to live in a corner of a roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

Proverbs 21:19
It is better to live in a desert land
Than with a contentious and vexing woman.

Proverbs 27:15
…constant dripping on a day of steady rain
And a contentious woman are alike;

I have been through the entire Bible, page by page, noting any reference to men; women; and marriage. No where does the Bible tell a man how to control a contentious wife. That is because there is no way to do it, without violence. It can’t be done, but the Christian heretics today essentially insist all women are sin free unless the husband does not walk with God. What a pack of morons.

I cannot recommend any man with any self-respect attend a Christian church, unless his wife does not drive, and he takes her there because she feels she needs it. Do as I do. Sit in the balcony, tune out the garbage the wimp in the pulpit is preaching, and admire the Gorgeous Choir Babe. Heh, heh.

If you are Christian, get a good Bible, and read it at home. You will be further from Satan than in a Christian church today.

They also attacked my daughter on a bunch of stupid stuff. You do not want to marry women like them. Laura apparently gets it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 11:23

@Skadi

With respect and just for info. These days I try very hard not to get involved in pointless debates with women especially women like yourself.

Again, with respect can I suggest you re read your last post to me and perhaps your other posts. You change your opinions mid flight. One minute its ok for joint custody and agree on equality but then you say how difficult it is for a woman to give up her child. You are talking from both sides of your mouth. Its nothing unusual though, trying to talk logic with a woman is like ,,, You know , I cant even be arsed continuing trying to talk sense into you.

Regarding Biology; check your genitalia it was designed that way for a reason. Now stop being silly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
greyghost February 20, 2011 at 11:25

oddsock
You got that shit right.
MGTOW with these enhancements would be a nice goal for us to give our male sons today.
1. Artificial womb
2. Male birth control pill.
3. Game to get through youth.
4. sex bots for those too tired to play games
Notice no mention of family court or laws. MGTOW will get the females actually living with the truth of feminism they then will handle the laws. I firmly believe and have faith in female selfishness. Waste no more effort trying to live with women learn to live with out and they will come running with kindness. The most powerful weapon against feminism is indifference. All female power comes from the manipulation of others. Indifference is the kiss of death to feminism and will cause fear c nearly on par with the fear of being eaten alive. Think of a world with 40 -60 year old childless women unmarried that believe men are all jerks. These same women in a world of indifference from MGTOW. Those same men only real contact with women being gamed sex from young attractive ones insulated by birth control pills from being entrapped.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 11:27

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 32
Anonymous age 68 February 20, 2011 at 11:28

>>Very little talk of his authority (which he obviously abrogated, hence this mess we’re in)… (referring to Adam)

Another heresy. In 1997, the Promise Keeper Wimps had a national convention. What a pathetic mess.

One man asked sarcastically, “What was Adam doing while Eve ate the apple?”

The correct answer is, he was where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing

Eve’s spiritual leader was not Adam, who was still learning, but God Himself. With God as her personal spiritual leader, she sinned. Yet today the Christian heretics tell us when a wife sins, it’s her husband’s fault. If he were closer to God, she couldn’t sin.

If you will actually read the Bible instead of following Satan’s finger, you will quickly realize Eve was not placed under Adam’s authority until after she sinned.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
Slicer February 20, 2011 at 11:30

Skadi,

your egalitarian philosophies are pure fantasy. You idiot women need to get over the fact you aren’t men. Humans are not naturally hermaphrodites that have a male and female side as you seem to think. Women like you are trying to force your biological role on to men because you resent being female, you hate it and you hate the fact men are everything you wish your were. Equality is a stagnating force, nothing can move forward because there are restrictions in place. Equality prevents men from fulfilling their potential as men, it forces men to be pseudo-women, which plays into the hands of resentful females like you that want women to be men and men to be women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 11:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 32
Anonymous Reader February 20, 2011 at 11:46

Skadi
Let me explain

I don’t want an explanation from you.

All I want from you is silence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Vanyo February 20, 2011 at 11:52

This woman reminds me of the lesbian woman who was defending my ex who was drinking during her pregnancy with my child, by using the argument that I had no right to object to it seeing as I went out to the pub twice a week for a few beers, totally ignoring the fact that I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO WAS PREGNANT. Absolutely asinine argument.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 12:08

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 48
RMM February 20, 2011 at 12:32

@zed:

“We can afford to be patient because any truly bad and psychotic idea will fail eventually.”

I’d add something more: We can afford to be patient because we have little investment in the outcome. Things turn around? Great. They don’t? Good. I wouldn’t even call it being patient, I’d call it not being invested, that’d be more accurate.

MGTOW has a primal appeal to the male brain, that of independence and self-reliance. It is more than enough to build a satisfying life with. And trying to take that away from a man who’s decided to go with it will have predictable messy results.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 12:34

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 47
paigeu February 20, 2011 at 12:43

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 35
Anonymous Reader February 20, 2011 at 12:44

VAWA Reform — Call to Action
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2011-02-19 02:37.
This coming week, Congress will be out of session. Senators and Representatives will be back in their homes district, holding meetings with constituents.

Folks, this is the real deal. Either we act now, or we wait until 2016 when VAWA comes up for reauthorization.

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/16340

Welmer, this posting I’m copying may be the most important one on the thread. Defunding even a portion of the Federal grinder that is VAWA would be a huge blow for liberty, and against feminism. Urge you to make a separate posting out of the press release.

And hmm, seems to me this would be a good test of Woods. Maybe of Richardson, too. Because here is a chance for tradcons to actually do something for once.

Here’s the challenge: every tradcon site should post the press release from the SAVE team and the URL. Richardson can post it as something “for the US readers”, since some percentage of his readers are from the US. All US tradcons can just copy and paste.

Got that, tradcons? I’m not asking you to actually contact a politician, or write a letter to anyone; not asking you to really get involved in the process of government. Nope. All I am asking for is about 2 minutes of type, copy, paste, publish. That’s it. Hardly any effort at all, and no actual contact with a real person face to face required.

By carrying the SAVE team’s message to a wider audience, the chances of cutting funding for VAWA are increased, and that would be good for men, good for children, good for women, good for society. Only feminists would be upset.

Can you do it? Can you tradcons actually do this one, simple thing that MRA’s are asking for? You like to talk about “helping men”, here is a trivial, zero risk, easy thing to do.

If you can’t do this little thing, if you can’t raise your fingers for the handful of minutes required, that will tell us all we need to know.

(See why this deserves a separate entry, Welmer?)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Laura Grace Robins February 20, 2011 at 13:23

“I admit I was so turned off by the nasty comments on your 1/30/2011 blog I didn’t go back. Just now I went and looked and want to thank you for the follow up comments and explanation.”

I don’t blame you and like I said I almost did not publish their hate, yet I felt they reinforce my position of just how crazy some women are these days. So, I let them spout off knowing it only makes them look stupid. However, I don’t want good people to be turned away from of my site because of feminist garbage comments, so let me know if you think I should moderate more heavily.

After I apologized to you for their rudeness, did you see how I was instantly attacked for not apologizing to women when men comment nasty things about women? It was classic. They did not like that I would apologize to a you (a man), but not to them.

“If you are Christian, get a good Bible, and read it at home. You will be further from Satan than in a Christian church today.”

Completely agreed and that cannot be said enough. Being a Christian has very little to do with going to church (it is to supplement you spiritual life, not be your life), but the women won’t let you think that. Because Church is where they get you and tame you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 13:29

@Skadi.

Let me try and be as brief as possible.

You are trying your best to tell me as man what my role in a marriage or relationship should be while at the same time ducking and diving behind all sorts of mumbo jumbo claptrap about what you “feel” e.g, women giving up children and studies on surrogacy etc etc. Therefore even trying to have an adult conversation with you is like a pencil without lead,, pointless.

Women must really feel terrible about giving up children ?
World Estimate For abortion in 2010 949,479,786

I bet your different though? Because not all women are like that !

Regarding masculinity etc etc. You would not know it let alone understand it even if it was tattooed on your forehead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 13:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 46
Maximus February 20, 2011 at 15:04

Ahh…so disagreement and criticism is now “bullying?”

Yes… yes it is… and it is now the law in India!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in_4QhWQaq4

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 15:24

@Skadi

Ok, fine. My Batman suit is cleanish. Do you have a Cat woman suit ?

P.s. I don’t do mingers even with a Cat woman suit so don’t build your hopes up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 15:45

@Gunn

Fair comment but keep in mind some of us old dudes need to empty our bags somewhere !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Skadi February 20, 2011 at 15:47

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 47
oddsock February 20, 2011 at 16:04

@Skadi.

“odd, I wouldn’t do you, don’t worry”.

Don’t be like that flower, it must be coming around to my turn soon?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 6
andybob February 20, 2011 at 17:29

Men don’t like to be regarded as animals that are fit only for labor, you know. – Anonymous Reader.

Anonymous Reader gets to the core of the matter again. Clever writer. Fair, succinct, passionate and does his homework.

For the most part, they are promoting a traditional lifestyle that still favors the woman, as she gets to do exactly what she wants, hubby fits right into the slot she’s made for him, and she self-righeously defends it as the only way to live. – Dubcik.

Insightful and eloquently put Dubcik.
When I first stumbles upon TTH blog a few years ago, I thought it was a clever parody a’la ‘Captain Save a Ho’. When I realised that Mrs Woods was fair dinkum (on the level), I just thought that as long as she was happy tending to her family and minded her business, then good for her. She could bake all of the muffins she desired. At least she was contributing more to society than some crack whore.

But then, I noticed that the lady of the house had many jobs, tasks and chores to hand out to the rest of us. Not just instructions on how to trim the front yard’s herbacious border either. Oh no. Mrs Woods wants us all to man up, get married, procreate, go to church and never use naughty words. As Dubcik points out,

do exactly as she wants

.

That’s where most ‘ Spearhead’ readers take exception to TTH. The majority of the men who read and contibute here have had their wants, needs, hopes, dreams, and most importantly, basic rights, trampled. Men are angry about it. Mrs Woods thinks that the solution to this is to slot these angry chaps into her rose-coloured, cookie-scented white picket-fenced vision of her leafy suburb.

Trouble is, this vision entirely favours her and her kind – putting men at risk of one day being kicked out of their homes and taken to the cleaners. Imagine the response she’d get making a false allegation as she sobbed into her batter-encrusted frilly apron (no doubt clutching her bible). You can be sure that action would be swift. We in the manospere would have a seat ready at the ‘Spearhead’ table for Mr Woods (that’s if he survived the police beating and maximum prison sentence she would no doubt wangle from the judge who I’m sure would just happen to be a fellow parishioner and grateful muffin-recipient). Mrs Woods is a dangerous time bomb. She may be a dud, but who wants to take the risk?

Laura and her traditionalist cronies have it all worked out. The spanner in the works is the collective non-compliance of men everywhere. MGTOW are the ulimate target as they won’t even engage the ‘thinking’ housewife – no matter how many muffins she waves temptingly in their faces.

A year ago, the worst 4-letter word I could aim at TTH was ‘smug’. But now I can conjour up a few more.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
The Caliph February 20, 2011 at 17:30

Speaking of the bible, i believe there is a verse where God says – where two or more are gathered in my name my spirit will be there.

In other words you and your wife can bible study at home and that makes your home church.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12
Poester99 February 20, 2011 at 18:59

Anonymous Reader February 20, 2011 at 11:46

Skadi
Let me explain

I don’t want an explanation from you.

All I want from you is silence.

And a sammich.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
stonelifter February 20, 2011 at 19:00

I can’t think a more pointless actively then arguing with a woman?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
migu February 21, 2011 at 00:59

Two women show up. Hopes run high. Enter woman three, anyone get a blow job yet??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 21, 2011 at 02:40

Laura Wood:

“I have not read the whole Spearhead entry, but I have glanced at it”

“He also falsely states that I am a reader of The Spearhead. I am not”

Women tell lies all the time. I’ve ‘glanced’ at an article means you have READ the spearhead. But then she is not a ‘reader’ of the spearhead? Oh. That’s the OTHER sort of ‘reader’ who reads each article is it.

In my dealings with women I see them lying ALL THE TIME NOW. It’s just disgusting. They can barely say two sentences without contradicting themselves. I find it really repuslive women can not make it to the hurdle of being HONEST.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Gendeau February 21, 2011 at 03:10

@AndyBob,

perhaps some kind of t-shirt

“Don’t care how good your muffins are, I ain’t drinking teh koolaid”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
DirkJohanson February 21, 2011 at 04:36

About women being self-centered and not caring about men, I received this message from a Facebook friend the other day, which is a quote from an organized campaign to raise money for PP:

“Stand with Planned Parenthood and sign the open letter to the reps who voted to cut funding for HIV tests, cancer screenings, birth control, and more, putting millions of WOMEN AND FAMILIES at risk — and to the senators who still have a chance to stop it” (emphasis supplied).

My response to her: “I guess, for whoever is behind this campaign basically sending the message to single guys, both gay and straight, ‘if u contract AIDS or cancer, tough luck- but we’ll take your tax money’”

Look at this ridiculous retort of hers: “maybe families includes men…my family has men.”

Yes, families includes men, but “families” is not the way one normally refers to single people. Had PP meant to include single guys, they could have stated “women and men” or just “people” or “Americans.” And BTW, PP does in fact treat guys – been a patient there, myself (and, for the record, I’ve always tested clean).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
mgtow February 21, 2011 at 09:39

@Anon Reader

From what I can tell, MGTOW isn’t particularly “evangelical”, and what the MGTOW’s want the most from women is to be left alone. Now, why is it evil to want to be left alone?

MGTOW is evangelical. We try to do it online as well as offline within our social circles. This is called ‘Dispensing the Red Pill’. Nothing gladdens our hearts more than to see younger guys vowing to never get married, after they have learnt about the sham of Marriage 2.0.

Ladies, your pool of marriage-minded eligible bachelors is going to shrink, and shrink GREATLY, in the coming years. The cries of ‘where have all the good men gone’ will only get louder, and so will you see more of the typical misandrist ‘please man up (by getting married)’ articles by darlings such as Kay S. Hymowitz.

And yes, ignoring women is a cardinal sin. Didn’t you know that women are all natural born attention whores? They need it like oxygen. You can witness this first-hand right here, in the comment section of The Spearhead. The usual female shit stirrers who barge in here and leave behind their little slices of intellectual cheesecake, just so to incite men to respond, and respond often. To them, there’s no such thing as negative attention!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
greyghost February 21, 2011 at 16:57

keep it coming mgtow

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
MobilePT February 21, 2011 at 18:41

@MGTOW: ” The usual female shit stirrers who barge in here and leave behind their little slices of intellectual cheesecake, just so to incite men to respond”

My dear oddsock, I do believe he is referring to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8
GT66 February 21, 2011 at 20:25

So like a woman. This bint is filled to the brim with victimhood. Forget that. Forget her projection and forget ANY idea that women of her ilk can be met half way in any sort of ethical debate. As HL pointed out, she is completely inconsistent and we men immediately fall into the classic damned-if-we-do-damned-if-we-don’t circular logic traps her and her sort set for us. HL set the record. Good enough. Stop there. We know what we mean, we know what our purpose is and no matter how we express them, feminists will twist our words to make us sound like Manson devotees. Screw that. We are here for us, the Spearhead is here for us. The Lauras of the world NEVER had us pegged as anything but their enemy. We owe her nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
oddsock February 22, 2011 at 00:19

@MobilePT

“@MGTOW: ” The usual female shit stirrers who barge in here and leave behind their little slices of intellectual cheesecake, just so to incite men to respond”

My dear oddsock, I do believe he is referring to you”

Don’t be a numpty all your life, take a day off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
slwerner February 22, 2011 at 12:08

Just got another “rejection letter” from Laura Wood (actually, two of them), stating:

”By the way, I know you participated in that discussion moderated by Hawaiian Libertarian. Did you write to Spearhead and object to the violent language used about me and the threat to disable my website? Do you seriously expect me to discuss anything further with you ever if you have not objected to such threats against me?

Please understand that anyone who participated in that discussion and who did not demand that violent language such that my mother should have been attacked with a chainsaw when she was pregnant and the threat to disable my site will ever, ever comment at my website again.

You call that “over the top?” I call that pure, raw hatred. I will not tolerate it.

Laura Wood”

She’s not going to post my reply to her, but, here’s what I sent to her:

You wrote – “Mangan writes about my comment that men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their honor.”

Well, Laura,

To be frank, a lot of men have a “problem” with that statement of yours. And, while it is unfortunate that they respond in ways that seem over-the-top, the fact remains that you are just dead-wrong about the only thing men have to fear being the loss of their honor.

No, they have very real fears regarding the potential loss of their children, significant portions of their earnings, the loss of their own genetic legacy (paternity fraud is no small issue, BTW), and even their freedom (false DV/child abuse/child molestation allegations are now a staple of the divorce racket). The total list is really rather extensive.

And, even when it comes to their “honor”, I believe you have picked the wrong term. Many men are subject to public ridicule as their wives (openly) cheat on them, then dump them for a “better man”. Those men are truly “dishonored”. Men who are hauled of in cuff’s due to their wives launching a false DV (etc) attack as part of a planned divorce are not only dishonored, they also lose their “dignity” as their peers will typically assume that they are guilty.

No, Laura, the only thing a wronged man can take with him from a marriage his wife has chosen to destroy is typically nothing more than his “integrity” – and even that assumes that he doesn’t “snap” under the pressure and retaliate in some way (it’s no secrete that many woman will goad their husbands into hitting them so as to create a DV situation which will give them the “upper hand”). And, of course, those men who become bitter, and tend to launch into angry, misogynistic, profanity-laced tirades don’t even have their honor, their dignity, nor their integrity. But, many men simply cannot handle what has been done to them, and fined no other outlet than doing just that.

Your claim that men have only their honor to lose doesn’t really stand up to any real scrutiny.

Also, I would add, that the reason why many men (myself included) were angered by that statement of yours is that we know that you know better. As you note, you’ve commented extensively about the various evils conducted by women, yet you simply refuse to connect the dots to the obvious conclusion that men do, indeed, have much to fear from Marriage 2.0 – which long ago ceased to be a covenant between man and woman before God; but is now simply a contract with the state, obligating man to woman (in which the state is given the role of dividing up everything, including the custody of children).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 22, 2011 at 12:19

zed February 20, 2011 at 08:32
“Strangely, it seems from all the blogs about married men needing to game their wives that the men most likely to have either sexless lives headed for the devastation of divorce or loveless gamed sex are married men.”

Indeed Zed. I am quite surprised that I am getting about 10x more sex and it is about 10x as good as I was getting when I was married. (Yes. As a married man I would have made a monk look like Errol Flynn. And apparently that was my fault too.) I am also getting a LOT more ‘lovemaking’. This is something I never thought I would get again. In my age group, 47 now, with some money and a job like mine? (read money) the list of women who will date you is endless. Trouble is 99% of them are psychotic in the west. After I started dating my fav#1 in April 2008 I simply will not talk to a western woman. That’s all the screening I need to do. It works.

Example? My fav#4 and I spent the weekend here (http://www.villakennedy.com/) quite a few times. Gym, pool, spa, sauna, 5 star restaurant. We didn’t need to leave the place. They say it’s the best hotel in frankfurt. They have a good arguement. We just split and that’s kind of sad. But the experience of my time with her will be one of the most cherished memories of my life. Most men don’t find a woman like that their whole lives. First time I have found one. I am sad at her quitting. But I am delighted she was in my life. Would not have happened if I was married. I have managed to find 4 favs in 3 years. Two of them were short lived but two of them lasted 2.5 years and a bit over a year. No married men get to have this. Sure. I dated my ex when we were young. But I already knew her. There was no ‘thrill of meeting someone new’. There was no ‘learning about a new culture’ or ‘learning how other people see the world’. My view is that a man is MUCH better off focusing on making money and then using that money (and or game) in the dating arena.

The other thing I explained to fav#4 and will share with the young men is this. Fav#4 complained how women needed to land a man inside about a 10 year band. After which she would find it very hard. So if the man put her out after 2-3 years she had lost a significant amount of time relative to her child bearing opportunities. I pointed out to her that the support of women for lying against men was going to bounce back devastatingly. I pointed out that ALL a man needs to do to completely take advantage of a woman is lie to her. This is NOT hard for men to do. Us MEN police men from lying to women and abusing them. NOT WOMEN.

I told her that with the willingness of women to lie to men being so strongly supported by WOMEN we are starting to see men refusing to police men from lying to women. I pointed out to her that, though I have been honest with her, I could have just as easily lied to her. She would have had NO WAY of telling if I was lying. She got it immediately how damaging women not policing women lying had become. And she got it immediately that she was going to be very likely a victim of a man lying to her.

She was NOT happy when she got this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 22, 2011 at 12:30

slwerner February 22, 2011 at 12:08

Dude…the “stinking housewife” is a cunt. What else can you describe her as. As far as she is concerned a woman stealing a mans children, his house, his assets, and 50% of his future income is just A-f***ing-OK.

But some words on a computer screen? F*** me…THAT’S VIOLENCE. PLEASE SOMEONE PROTECT ME.

Let me be clear about this.

THERE IS ARE TWO WOMAN IN THE WESTERN ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD THAT HAVE RETAINED MY RESPECT BASED ON THEIR ACTIONS

And those two are silent on these issues.

The rest are crap. Total crap. Have any of the WOMEN called these other western women the liars and hypocrites they are? FM is the closest to doing this.

I repeat. I am thoroughly, totally, and utterly disgusted at western women. That is what they deserve. I am awaiting them to get started on restoring their honour rather than hurling abuse at me. Hurling abuse at me is pointless. I don’t give a shit about women’s opinion of me. I give a shit about the opinion of my father. And that’s it.

These lying and hypocritical women are what my forefathers died to protect and provide with the opportunity of a better life?

Those men would regret their sacrifice now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Lavazza February 22, 2011 at 22:48

Dirk Johanssen: Well, families normally also include women, so there’s no reason to write “women and families”, “families” would be enough according to that logic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lavazza February 22, 2011 at 23:07

“I told her that with the willingness of women to lie to men being so strongly supported by WOMEN we are starting to see men refusing to police men from lying to women. I pointed out to her that, though I have been honest with her, I could have just as easily lied to her. She would have had NO WAY of telling if I was lying. She got it immediately how damaging women not policing women lying had become. And she got it immediately that she was going to be very likely a victim of a man lying to her.”

Excellent stuff. I have changed my mind a lot concerning men lying to women and it’s something that’s making its ways even into popular culture, like the Barney Stinson character in “How I met your mother”, with his female friends having the attitude that “if a woman falls for that, she deserves what she gets”.

I have some player friends and when someone criticizes them I always respond that they are just providing women with a service they desire.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 24, 2011 at 07:49

Lavazza February 22, 2011 at 23:07
“Excellent stuff.”

Thank you.
Up until a few years ago it was WELL KNOWN among my friends that if a man was cheating and I found out about it I would force his hand to be honest with his wife. I took the position that adultery was wrong, by EITHER husband or wife. Obviously no married men told me they were cheating.

When women supported my ex after she confessed adultery with me at the start of our relationship I have changed my position to reflect that of women. I now take the position that given women consider adultery ok then I too will consider adultery ok. Predictably, women HATE on me for expressing THEIR opinion back at them.

I now tell young men that since my 23 years of being faithful was NOT valued by women then the young men have NO REASON to be faithful. Period. Yep. Women HATE on me for saying that. Adulter is either NOT OK or OK. It’s not OK for women and NOT OK for men.

Pass the word. Women consider adultery ok, so men should too. It’s called ‘equality’. Women are hating that men are being ‘equal’ now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
20thLevel February 24, 2011 at 09:13

When it comes to divorce laws women are in a position of power that they will tell you that you will have to take it out oftheir cold dead hands so to speak. In other words they will NEVER give up that position.

The reason men cannot win this fight any time soon is because there will always be men that think that women are capable of or are even interested in playing by the same rules as men. There will always be men that the will fall for the argument that all women want is equality when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Women don’t want eqality, women want what they want, which is not based on reason but on how they feel.. because how they feel is a justifiable reason for any action from their point of view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The White Rider February 25, 2011 at 04:32

What you have to understand about women like her are that they are all too happy to take advantage of feminism’s ill-gotten goodies. They see MRAs as a potential threat to the goose that lays the golden eggs, so nothing they say will make any sense at all and will merely be reactionary rationalization based on the perceived threat to the status quo which currently benefits them.

They only SAY they’re against feminism and all that to score cred points with the boys and lull them into a false sense of security, but when it comes down to action against feminists, well, it seems they’re on the feminist side of the line does it not?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
crella February 25, 2011 at 21:41

By the way, I know you participated in that discussion moderated by Hawaiian Libertarian. Did you write to Spearhead and object to the violent language used about me and the threat to disable my website? Do you seriously expect me to discuss anything further with you ever if you have not objected to such threats against me?

Wow. That’s an order for you to white knight if ever I saw one. You have to chastise people on this site before she’ll talk to you on her own!? Princess much?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Lyn87 March 11, 2011 at 16:06

Having posting issues. Just ignore this, please.

test
test

test

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: