We are told NAWALT (not all women are like that) over and over again. Naturally, the question comes up on whether all women are like that or not or if a particular woman is like that or not. The answer can be more complicated than being either/or. There are many cases where a particular woman may truly not be like that but pretends to be, acts likes a woman like that, or thinks like a woman like that out of some bizarre sense of female solidarity. Here is an example (from a woman using the username “Doomed Harlot”):
I self-identify as a “slut” because I have always opposed the double-standard and the transactional view of sex, and have acted accordingly. On the one hand, I may not qualify under the standards set forth here. I never had sex with, or even kissed, anyone other than a premarital boyfriend of several years and my husband.
For the sake of argument let’s assume that everything “Doomed Harlot” says about her sexual history is true. She has only had sex with two men, one of which is her husband. Yet, she calls herself a slut out of some bizarre desire to oppose supposed double standards and female solidarity. Is “Doomed Harlot” a slut? Is she like that? Technically not, but if she’s willing to talk like one, think like one, and identify as one what is the real meaningful difference between her and an actual slut?
The issue of female solidarity and NAWALT is not limited to slutitude. This applies to a lot of issues. For instance a woman might never intend to divorce or have an abortion herself and find those acts in most or all cases to be immoral, but she will fight against any changes to the law on those subjects. Even if she has no intention of having an abortion or starting a divorce, can she really be said to not be like a woman who does those things?
What has happened is that a lot of women who technically might not be like that have decided that female solidarity is more important than actually demonstrating that they aren’t like that. What is the meaningful difference between a woman who is like that and a woman who isn’t but talks, thinks, and identifies as a woman like that out of a sense of female solidarity? There really is none because either unintentionally or (most likely) intentionally, the woman who isn’t like that but acts like a woman like that is providing cover for the women like that. A woman who truly isn’t like that would want to demonstrate the difference between her and women who are like that.
Going back to the “Doomed Harlot” example, if a woman talks like, thinks like, and identifies as a slut, how is a man supposed to know she isn’t actually a slut? If she thinks she’s a slut then how can men know she really isn’t a slut? If “Doomed Harlot” isn’t going to make an attempt to differentiate herself from actual sluts, why should men?
Unless a woman is willing to clearly demonstrate she is not like that, using NAWALT as an argument is hollow and hypocritical. If a woman doesn’t think it’s important to clearly differentiate herself from women who are like that then men cannot be at fault for thinking she is like that.
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
Nawalt appears to be only an excuse for the bad behaviour of their own ilk. To justify NAWALT one must be aware that there are AWALTs (All women are like that) but lives in denial. Knowing fullwell that in an instant she could indulge..
The girls can justify any other female’s bad behaviour and consistently do so without suffering any consequences or accoutability on her own part..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
3
NAWALT and what?
I do not care if NAWALT or not.
First, it is a simple statistic. If 99,99% of women is bad, searching for the remaining 0,01% does not worth the benefit.
Second, even if NAWALT, for the law it is not true, any woman can decide to “be like that” (divorce, child support etc) whenever she wants. The possibility is always present.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
3
As I said, (http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2011-03/about/) NAWALT exists solely to cause you self doubt, cut your balls off, and hide the greater truth that NAMALT.
Basically, the question of whether or not any particular wimminz is different from the crowd is not our problem as men, it is their problem as individual wimminz, and when they start handing out white feathers to their sisters who refuse to sign a petition calling for mandatory 20 years for making a false rape accusation and mandatory requirement for more than he said/she said before arrest, much less court, they can tough it out, or no, for all I care….
All women ARE like that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
3
We should change NAWALT to All Women Have The Right To Be Like That.
But AWHTRTBLT does not work though LOL
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
2
“Doomed Harlot” is typical of her ilk. She is a shapeshifter who can modify her identity to suit her purpose at any given moment. She can identify as a slut to cover her butt in every direction. She gets to support the sistahood (or at least be seen to by the rest of the herd), rationalise any slip-ups (oops, was I sitting on an alpha cock?) and tease and befuddle men (I’m just innocently self-identifying, so stop looking at my tits).
She can do all of this, then claim to be as chaste as Hillary in a cell full of sex-starved rapists if she is ever accused of being the slut she pretends to be(!?). She can chop and change to argue from whichever angle suits her at any given time. Hmm, she sounds like a typical western woman to me. The shapeshifting Ms Harlot (bet she never dons the slutguise for Mr Harlot’s benefit) doesn’t need any rational arguments – she merely transforms into the most convenient posture pf the moment.
I don’t know if “Doomed Harlot” is a slut. But I would bet grandpa’s gold watch that she’s more than a tad crazy. We are talking about a demographic that has flocked to the will-she-ever-go-away Oprah for decades to tell them what to read, how to blame men for being sad, and how to diet (smirk). Back away slowly, and don’t engage. She’s a whorish good grrrl, don’t you know? Try to figure that out at your peril.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
1
I think your American citizen Lorenzo da Ponte had it right in 1788 ‘Cosi Fan Tutte’.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
Gentlemen,
if you read this link you will see why it is totally useless to talk to women about these issues. Women are 1000% PRO WOMEN and 100,000,000% ANTI-MAN. This is an email trail between me and a woman who has NEVER met me. Yet her claim is that I think ‘all women are evil’ and I have ‘attacked’ her and she is a victim.
Now. The reason to highlight this woman is because she is 70 years of age and has spent ‘endless years’ campaigning for FATHERS. Yep. That’s right. The women who are the VERY BEST according to ANY STANDARD will hate on men real quick of they are asked to do something that will actually make a difference. The women are in the MRA area SPEFICIALLY TO MAKE SURE IT GETS NO-WHERE.
But don’t take my word for this. Check out ‘Janes’ email to me. I’ve got THOUSANDS of email just the same. It’s like talking to robots or tape recorders.
Really. Just stop walking to women on this topic. There’s no point.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/100/threadid/285/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
11
There are a few rare and precious examples of women who are “not like that” the trouble is so many who appear to be “Not like that” on the surface will certainly become “like that” when it benefits them to do so. Peter Andrew has the right idea, only by knowing a woman’s history and seeing how they really reacted in situations can show us their true colors overall.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
AFALT – All Feminists, male and female, Are Like That.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
I’ll accept NAWALT from women *only* when women qualifying themselves as such actually speak out against the women who are behaving badly and don’t want to be lumped in with them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
2
People are to be judged by their actions, not necessarily their words. I say not necessarily because when your words publicly support something, that has become an action. The women you discuss, Mr. Price, actively supports sluthood (or is it called being a women?) so that is how she is judged.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
@nutz:
I think your comment is one of the best I’ve seen here! Sooner or later, something like this will (or should) be part of the motto or the disclaimer for MRA websites (if such websites will be “tolerated” in the future).
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
“The women are in the MRA area SPEFICIALLY TO MAKE SURE IT GETS NO-WHERE.”
I don’t believe this is true. While there will certainly be those who get involved in order to infiltrate the movement I do believe that there are some who honestly want to help men. This may largely be because they see it in their best interests to do so. We should leverage this.
There are some female MRA’s/anti-feminists on youtube that are getting attention. A recent one is Christy0Misty (That is a zero in the name). Young, easy on the eyes and ears, she certainly can help to draw in men that normally would ignore other men on this issue.
Her first video on feminism is here
http://www.youtube.com/user/christy0misty#p/u/18/IlHFj208qPs
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
11
OT…
Oh deary me…..muslims ‘extremists’ are starting to insist their law is imposed in the areas they live. What a surprise. Like this is something that could not be forseen..LOL!!!
And with men now refusing to defend women in large numbers? Who do these women believe will ‘protect’ them? They are equal. Let them defend themselves from ‘muslim extremists’. After all. They ejected millions upon millions of good fathers and husbands who would have protected them like me..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
12
Meritocracy April 17, 2011 at 07:08
I don’t believe this is true.
It does not matter whether you believe the truth to be true. It matters that the truth is true. BIG DIFFERENCE.
How to tell is a woman is NOT there to help? Simple. Ask ONE question.
“Are you willing to sit on an all woman jury and try fairly and justly a woman accused of a crime against a man on an equal before the law basis meaning that the remedy instruction for a guilty women is the same for a man.”
The women who say YES and start organising such juries are FOR mens rights.
I am yet to find one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
12
Maybe this is being harsh, but at this late date, who the hell CARES if NAWALT? When was the last time anyone ever heard of modern women-when they are talking about their endless problems with us–say, regarding e.g. “spousal abuse” “paternal abandonment”, or “male chauvanism” EVER qualify their objections with “not ALL men are like that”? Has even ONE feminist ever said that she was “over the top” with some of her previous writings about men in general, and that as men, as husbands and fathers, and as people, we are often pretty decent. the occasional rotten apple, notwithstanding? In the sundry “rape” hysterias, has ONE woman ever done the decent thing and even reminded the rest of the sisterhood from hell that the man in innocent until proven guilty, that not “all” men are rapists, and that sometimes women lie about being (or witnessing) rape! Even more gruesomely, how many such modern women have reminded courts, family “therapists”, and journalists that child molestation is EXTREMELY RARE among healthy heterosexual men?
To ask these questions, after more than four decades of the most callous defamations, abuse, and what can only be described as “legal terrorism” by women against their male victims, is to answer them!
I haven’t even touched upon the ongoing, unending complaints of women against regularly law-abiding men who only want to have a good time with their friends, preferably away from their shrew, and they (along with the rest of us unfortunates born with a Y chromosome) are unrelentingly belabored as “childish” “lazy”, “selfish”, and so on…
Ever hear from the complainer–or her friends—”not ALL men are like that”?
‘NAWALT’–who cares?? Goodwill is reciprocal, and modern women have as much human goodwill or benevolence as your average black-widow spider, scorpion, or piranha! My apologies to spiders, scorpions, and piranhas!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K, Meller
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
3
@Robert.
I like ATFALT. But that gave me an idea.
If I may, how about ATFAULT – All True Feminists Are Universally Like That.
And it could also be Typical Females – what does everyone think?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
0
ATFAULT. I like that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Dear All:
“Female Solidarity: An Additional Aspect Of NAWALT” is certainly an escape hatch for women who AVOID accountability for the class of humanity, the female.
Notice in applying the strategy, when a MEN’S ISSUE is the orientation of the discussion, the WOMAN has turned the discussion FEMOCENTRIC. So, in employing the strategy, the woman who uses it has CONFIRMED BEHAVIORALLY her SOLIDARITY with, 1. WOMANKIND and, 2. FEMOCENTRICITY.
The CATEGORY of FEMALE is ALWAYS femocentric; as are most individual women. There is no such thing as a COLLECTIVE EXCEPTION; nor is there such thing as a majority of women being the exception.
In using the strategy, the women who do so reference a mythical whatever number of women who are WHERE? The strategy avoids specificity. That is the nature of collectivity. Just as in the, “Tiananmen Massacre” in which police officers REMOVED their service numbers (typically displayed on their shoulder slipons (to avoid INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY), so do such women who argue, “NAWALT.”
One can recall that a further point of reference employed by women who use the NAWALT strategy is that of ACTION. INACTION is thusly avoided as a test for offence. That is to say, women’s CATEGORICAL and most women’s INDIVIDUAL offence of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE TO PROTECT MALES is thusly covered-up.
EVIDENCE OF THE FEMALE-DOMINANT CRIME is only SEVERELY OBVIOUS those who have an awareness of Men’s Issues. Right now, women’s Canada is in an election (Vote Monday, 2 May, 2011). Men’s Issues have had no place in the discussion whatsoever. In the two (English then French) TV political-party-leaders’ debate, “Women’s Issues” were mentioned. The, “Green” Party leader, Elizabeth May (only parties wtih Parliamentary representation are included–as such, no GP rep) mentioned WIs in her platform. No surprise, the Green Party is just another Pink Party.
When the Tories obtained, “women candidates,” they include overwhelmingly if not entirely the Feminist type. In one city, the Tory candidate is a school-board member where the OVER 80% OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ARE WOMEN AND THERE IS LONG-STANDING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WOMEN. Boys are paraded by the head women in schools each December on Marc Lepine Day (just as the Nazis paraded Jewish BOYS in front of school populations referencing such as subhuman).
There is one female Liberal-turned-Tory Senator, Anne Cools who mentions DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and stands up against feminist LIES as per children, etc. But she doesn’t defend men per se. About 9 years ago, I contacted her office by email and phone after Canada’s newsly appointed head doctor made a bigoted female-as-victim/men have no disadvantages medical presentation at one of the man-hating women’s churchs I was invited to attend by my father. At the question period of that presentation, I pointed out a number of female advantages and female advantages, including the fact that 80% of suicide was male. The church where the presentation I had visited had had a number of male suicides–and no female suicides. The most recent one was at 12:00 noon at one of the local women’s government schools (and a week and a half later the women’s government school district brought in yet another program for girls to the exclusion of boys as per depression and the like).
In that context, the head physican CRACKED A JOKE ABOUT MALE SUICIDE SAYING, “It isn’t that men commit suicide more often: It’s just they’re more successful.” The congregation laughed. Nazi bastards. No one (NO ONE) defended my just observation and protest. NO ONE. And Senator Anne Cools protested NOTHING. ZERO. NUL. AVOID. EMPTY SET.
I am familiar with 17 suicides. Each one is NO JOKE. I could go on.
“NAWALT:” ya, right.
In response to that AVOIDANCE OF ADDRESS OF WOMEN’S FOREMOST CRIME (criminal negligence to protect), one would likely do well to quote the words of Martin Niemoelle of Nazi Germany at or about as follows (with addendum of yours truly):
“First they we Jews, but I wasn’t a Jew: I did nothing.
Then they went for the Catholics, but I wasn’t a Catholic: I was a Protestant.
Then they went for the union leaders, but I wasn’t a member of any union: I did nothing.
Then they went for the Communists: I did nothing.
Then they went for the Socialists: I did nothing.
Then they went for me. then there was nobody left.”
And then, they went for the MEN, the BOYS and the MALE BABIES, and I didn’t defend them BECAUSE I WASN’T A MAN.
When it comes to political crime, media crime, military crime, school crime, university crime, political-party crime, church crime, synagogue crime, temple crime, court crime, feminist-rights-commission crime, bank crime, grocery-store crime, teacher-union crime, student-union crime, union union crime, the United Nations crime, the whole Western World’s crime and a whole lot else’s crime, IT’S NEVER A TIME TO PLAY ADD-ON: IT’S ONLY A TIME TO PLAY TAKE-AWAY.
It’s often accounted that the pen is mightier than the sword. In deed, it can be. But with the pen one can do GOOD or BAD; and ALL OF THE ABOVE HAVE DONE BAD AND STILL ARE DOING BAD. So, it’s time to find something mighter than the pen: it’s time for the erasor. Use it well. Take it to the whole paragraph PLUS THE WOMEN’S ADDENDUM. Then start anew. This time using a pen from which flows kind ink and write from eyes that see, ears that hear, hands that feel mouths that speak and hearts that pump warm blood.
Here I stand. I will not move. To all of contrary heart everywhere I say: There you sit, MOVE.
Amen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
5
When it comes to expressing or voting solidarity with misandrists even if the individual woman does not herself practice rad-feminism or slut-hood, the ‘personal is the political’.
“only by knowing a woman’s history and seeing how they really reacted in situations can show us their true colors overall.”
— I’m not sure that is a safe bet. A woman can change quickly in ways that can go from one extreme to another. A thirty year history cannot predict a woman’s behavior tomorrow. Eat, pray, love and she says goodbye to husband Joe.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
I will believe that NAWALT when more women litigate for the responsibility of selective disservice in the United States.
I will also believe that NAWALT when alimony become a thing of the past for the wife who initiates a divorce, and child support payment to the ex-wife becomes a thing of the past for an ex-husband who has little/no custody to the ex-wife who hogs (or should I say sows, for that’s an insult to boars) custody. Want a divorce AND the lioness’ share of custody of the kids? SUPPORT THEM YOURSELF. GET A JOB.
I will believe NAWALT when women want equality with the possible ramification of females being on the losing end more than 50% of the time when women stop using more double/multiple standards.
I will believe that NAWALT when women stop sowing the trough of gender-specific medical research money, whining about how their power decreases as they age, and not appreciating a longer life expectancy. Men’s power ONLY increases as they age IF THEY REMAIN ALIVE. If anyone’s power decreases with age, it is men’s.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
Women aren’t very good when it comes to abstractions. Everyone who deals with them knows there is a sense in which all generalizations are lies, that minor details are necessarily lost in the distillation process which results in something simple enough to be usable as a concept.
The NAWALTers strike me as being like someone who has no idea what’s going on, but thinks they do, and insists on interrupting to point out the obvious. No Shit, Sherlock! (NSS?) used to be a standard reply.
It’s almost impossible to talk about “women” in the presence of one without her thinking you’re talking about her, or people she knows. So the conversation always gets twisted in that direction.
It wouldn’t be bad having reliable informers who’ve infiltrated the other side much easier than we can, but the NAWALTers haven’t much panned out that way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
NAWALT is simply the cowards way of avoiding telling the truth about the female gender.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
3
The only reason as to why “NAWALT” even exists is to shut down all earnest debate bent on revealing the truth. It makes no difference to me as to whether or not all women are like that, because it says nothing about the women that actually ARE like that. No one really even needs to be told that not all women are like that, because most (sane) people are well aware that there will always be outliers in any given circumstance.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
This female solidarity is another example of the herd mentality of women. It is their power, since independent thought is so rare.
And if it is present, they still will uphold the status quo “for the good of all women”.
It’s disgusting and brilliant at the same time. If men had this form of solidarity, we’d be invincible.
Too bad men will kill each other because a president or king said so. Men can not work together like women do on such issues. No herd mentality, but a rat race mentality.
We should learn from this and use it against them, like they do with us now, with this NAWALT shit.
f6m6n6st
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
MWALT- Most Women Are Like That.
– The Women Are That. I wonder what acronym that works out to?
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
Have you ever noticed women getting the singular and the plural exactly backwards? It seems to happen whenever I talk MRs with women.
Tell a woman that women collectively do something bad, or enjoy some privilege over men, and she’ll say “No, I don’t do that”
Tell a woman that another woman personally did something bad or enjoys some unearned privilege, and she’ll say “What do you have against women?”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
1
They’re all like that; to what degree depends on the situation they find themselves in.
Most refuse to admit they’re like that, but are.
The remaining proudly admit they’re like that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
In my humble opinion, when somebody says : “Not all women are like that”, he/she/it already admits that ALMOST ALL women are like that.
Therefore, pointing out a few individuals here and there that do not match a description does not add/subtract anything to the original statement.
Therefore, we can safely state that “All women are like that”
In mathematics, one percent of one percent is considered negligible.
NAWALT deals with the one percent of one percent…
Just remove the two or three individuals who are not like that(they found one in Nunavik: where is the other one?) and, suddenly, the equation becomes AWALT.
QED. (Quod erat demonstrandum)
Another question?
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
4
Dear Tom936 April 17, 2011 at 09:47:
A+ observation: well done, brothers.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Dear Rebel April 17, 2011 at 09:56:
As per, “In my humble opinion, when somebody says : ‘Not all women are like that’, he/she/it already admits that ALMOST ALL women are like that,” the women refer to the civilized pink needle in the feminist haystack. Such women want us to get the point.
One can respond: “But Dearie, haystacks are not made of needles; haystacks are made of haystacks.” If she has a brain in her head AND is prepared to put it into gear, one can insist that she chew the cud and stop AVOIDING ACCOUNTABILITY both COLLECTIVE and INDIVIDUAL; and be advised point-blank to stop MAJORING in the MINORS and NOT EVEN AS MUCH AS MINORING IN THE MAJORS.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
In our society, women aren’t held accountable for the clarity of their reasoning or the consistency of their character. It’s one of the major pieces of evidence that Feminists and manginas are the biggest misogynists. When a woman is given a pussy pass, she is being treated as a subhuman, a mental deficient, or at best a child.
On the other hand, men and women who think differently actually believe that women should be held to the standards that men are. We are the ones who actually “respect women.”
It is a sign of how low the Western Woman has fallen that she has chosen subhuman status over the responsibilities of being an upstanding adult.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
“All True Feminists Universally Are Like That”–AT FAULT–is very clever! I like it!
Maybe Mananon-April 17, 2011 at 07:50 has something here!
Thank you, Mananon.
The other suggestion, “All Typical Females Are Universally Like That” probably will have its uses on The-Spearhead, but let’s be honest, Feminists are NOT typical females, they are a carefully grown mutant strain, common to colleges and universities, the news and entertainment media, and–of course–law and government! Those poisonous and vicious mutants have no more in common with typical REAL women (in most cases) than brightly colored, pretty butterflies have in common with ugly grey-brown moths, or piranhas have in common with brightly colored goldfish!
Of course, this plague is spreading, and even the more traditional women are becoming rare and harder to find!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
Many excellent analogies and variations of NAWALT.
I can’t remember where I heard this? But it’s one of my favourites to describe female behaviour.
Any women is only as loyal as the opportunities placed before her.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
All humanity is “like that” from their formation. Boys are typically trained to be responsible- or else. Iif they reach adulthood, not having grasped the concept of “responsibility” in the fullest sense, society will hold them responsible, both in the media and the courts. They’ll even be held responsible for the failings of their sisters.
The interesting thing is this: if a young woman evidences discernment, takes responsibility, acknowledges and endeavors to mitigate the faults latent in her humanity and those peculiar to her personality, there will be, 99 % of the time, a good FATHER who taught her.
That is, without a doubt, why feminism has doubled their efforts to remove fathers from real parental influence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
Not all women are like that, but that’s beside the point because all women are allowed to be like that.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Men are a collection of individuals.
Women are a group.
They must organize together as one, to overcome the power of the individual man. It’s group think, power in numbers. One individual man against one woman is a “no contest” proposition on too many levels. To maintain status quo power they must unite and organize into one collective conscious of thought and rhetoric.
One individual man has no chance against a group of women, this they know.
Indocrinating weaker men to support this (with the hope they’ll be rewarded with sex), was a part of the feminist doctrine.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
Robert April 17, 2011 at 08:12
ATFAULT. I like that.
ATFAULT: AT FAULT for the f*cked up lives men and boys are FORCED to live
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
NAWALT is like NAWPALT or NABPALT…It is technically true, but there are generalities that usually hold true. Someone wouldn’t be wrong to assume that what is true for a significant proportion, especially of the most vocal, is true in a particular case.
I try to avoid that sort of response except when I’m dealing with a person who cannot accept that there are any exceptions at all when it is beneficial for them. If addressing the exceptions would not benefit them, it’s not worth an argument.
Like arguing with a guy who doesn’t like fat women sexually that some of them are nice people or in recovery from conditions or lifestyle situations that don’t resolve overnight. To bother with that means that I’m kinda pressuring him to be less “superficial”, which is a pointless and often malicious shaming tactic. What people like is what they like. It’s not my business.
The argument would only be relevant to a guy who was in the habit of banging fatties and liking it, but needed help sorting between the corn fed and the grass fed…or maybe how to convert the former to the latter. Heheheheh…
About the slut thing, there isn’t really another short word for women who are willing to have non marital sex. I don’t try to “reclaim” it in the sense of making it less durogatory. It’s supposed to be durogatory so that we remember, even if we do it for the sake of our sanity (similar to a Muslim living in “dar el harb” committing a smaller sin to avoid committing a worse one) that it is not an ideal situation.
One has to remember though, that women are generally *extremely* socially dependent; fatally so in the vast majority of cases. So it can’t be that they have to do something bad to survive. They have to make the thing itself not bad, and if they can, convince others that the thing isn’t bad.
In the male mind (mangina excepted) nobody faults one who does what they need to do to get by. People sometimes have to kill in self defense or steal to eat. So a woman has to sometimes have sex outside of marriage in order not to become a harpy or because they understand marriage is a bad deal for men.
Any of you complaining about the women you’re banging? Anyone? No?
Yet, the rationalization hamster is going to spin nontheless. It can’t be that they’re making the best of a bad situation or admitting that they have a high enough sex drive that if society doesn’t fit them then they’re not going to fit in to the society. It has to be that there is an oppressive double standard and all women should fight it.
Women don’t generally like to be rebels. Even most of our “revolutionary” ideas are attempts to make ourselves seem not like rebels by adjusting reality to one in which we fit in. It would be cute if it wasn’t kinda sad.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
21
Dear woggy April 17, 2011 at 10:55:
True. In fact the evidence is insurmountable. I suggest you read: The Garbage Generation. I cannot find enough good to say about it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
f6m6n6st April 17, 2011 at 09:35
This female solidarity is another example of the herd mentality of women. It is their power, since independent thought is so rare.
And if it is present, they still will uphold the status quo “for the good of all women”.
AS LONG AS IT SUITS/EMPOWERS THEM.
It’s disgusting and brilliant at the same time. If men had this form of solidarity, we’d be invincible.
FEMINISTS KNOW THIS, AS DO MANY WOMEN. THIS IS WHY THEY HIGHJACKED ALL “SPHERES” OF SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT, MEDIA, AND SOCIAL DISCOURSE.
Too bad men will kill each other because a president or king said so. Men can not work together like women do on such issues. No herd mentality, but a rat race mentality.
AMEN.
“THERE IS NO “I” IN TEAM. I remember hearing many woen say this. Let these same women come upon a man who has a penis that is dragging the ground and, is as thick as a baseball bat. I bet they would all fight to ride that “cock carousel” and, if the winner was not capable of handling it: she would claim victimhood (as a rape victim). The others who lost, would get over being jealous and support her as a victim.
We should learn from this and use it against them, like they do with us now, with this NAWALT shit.
WHAT YOU SAID! Every man who visits this site knows they are different from all other men. Do we need to have bullets/grenades coming at us before we have “unit” cohesion?
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Dear Robert April 17, 2011 at 11:53:
As far as the drifting of the locus of mathematical identification of the male from that of the individual to that of the collective is concerned, there are causal factors which can be identified.
For example, in areas where males are the CATEGORICAL VICTIMS of Feminist hate/incompetence/entitlement, etc., one can notice the formation of male collectives (e.g., The U of Chicago men’s collective). In Canada, in 1989, Marc Lepine shot, “14 women” (and some men–and himself to death). His complaint was as per the CATEGORICAL OFFENCE OF WOMEN against MEN (as a COLLECTIVE).
In any pyramid, the bricks thereof are assembled more CATEGORICALLY at the bottom and INDIVIDUALLY at the top. As MEN dominate the top, they do so INDIVIDUALLY. Men must INDIVIDUATE in order to climb. WOMEN hold themselves back by remaining COLLECTIVE. CATFIGHTS are in EVIDENCE when WOMEN get to the top of a pyramid AS FEMALE-DOMINANT PATTERNS OF OFFENCE NECESSARILY APPEAR. “Who’s the most female-supremacist? Who’s the most successful thief/parasite? Who knows how to receive the most gifts from men?’
In women’s Calgary Schoolboard, an ALL-WOMEN (7 members) group got into a CATFIGHT in childishly passing around each other notes with comments (during board meetings) as per whose clothes/makeup, etc. were the best/worst. It got so bad that MEN COMPLAINED to the Minister of Education who, as per the MONARCHIST PATTERN OF RECALL, FIRED THE WHOLE BOARD, ordering by-elections.
On the level of the slogan, people state, “United, we stand, divided we fall,” or, “Divid and conquer.” However, at the level of the DESCRIPTION, one can find that when an area becomes 100% composed of an identifiable group, “Unitedly, the intragroup pattern of offence is made as a test.” That is to say, “United, the group/category’s pattern of offence is OUTTED.”
About 7-10 years ago, in the various women’s provinces, there were unifications of vari0ous school districts. As such, there were duplications of hiearchies of WOMEN. Queendoms were divided. Cat-on-cat fights ensued. The feminazis criminal children were at each others’ throats to see who would reign supreme. Patterns of female-dominant offence were in evidence (such as false accusation) and such were tested before ALTHOUGH BEHIND THE SCENES WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE WOMEN’S TEACHER UNIOINS.
Latent in such halls of female absolutism, lies evidence upon evidence of female-dominant patterns of offence which were used as tests for benefit/disbenefit.
Just as male-dominant patterns of offence arise from the male-only franchise as per MEMBERSHIP of LEGISLATIVE BODIES, such as per the test of MOBILITY as per STALKER LAWS, tests for IMMOBILITY as per FEMININE PATTERNS OF OFFENCE can be anticipated as per feminine absolutism in legislative bodies, de facto or otherwise. There are, “Stalker Laws” but no, “Sitting Duck Laws” as of yet, per se. But, once women are necessarily at other women’s throats, ONE COULD ANTICIPATE THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
Men can sit back and watch the women CATEGORICALLY DESIGN TESTS FOR FEMALE ACCOUNTABILITY because of the driving of SELF INTEREST OF THE INDIVIDUATED FEMALE. And men, as subjects, can PLAN the use of such tests in combatting CATEGORICAL, FEMALE-DOMINANT OFFENCES SUCH AS THAT OF FALSE ACCUSATION.
There are other evidences, but, in part, for the sake of brevity, I will leave it at that.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
OT: this is priceless.
http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/2011/04/this-is-what-mra-looks-like.html
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
” Nicole April 17, 2011 at 11:43
Any of you complaining about the women you’re banging? Anyone? No?”
I’m not with any of them any more and it’s because of their obnoxious behavior.
At times I did complain guys I knew.
I didn’t complain about the sex till they started using it to manipulate the relationship, though. I complained about their incessant complaining, nagging, bitching, manipulative efforts, lies….
Those are the things they need to quit doing.
Speaking of which, and of women claiming that supposed exceptions aren’t the same as most women, if you make a statement like “Most women aren’t as strong as men” the female will immediately counter with an exception — in that case some female body builder who’s stronger than the average man or is a martial arts expert. The exception is supposed to mean that all women “really are” stronger?
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Funny thing about NAWALT:
“NEARLY All Women Are Like That” fits just as well.
Or if you want some contrast, there’s “RAWALT”:
“Really, All Women ARE Like That!”
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
We are growing fellas. I have already come to the conclusin that there is no such thing as NAWALT and it looks like that is becoming the norm for men to see NAWALT was just another lie.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
DCM, what I’m saying is that the fact that they were women willing to have sex with you wasn’t the problem.
The nagging was most likely because they couldn’t handle that all they were getting out of it was sex and hopefully good company. Too much time on the cock carousel will make a woman insecure and she’ll take that out on the first guy to spend some real time with her.
I think the problem is that these women are operating against their nature. If they are slightly mercenary (not in the totally negative way but more in the needs guarantees and penalties normal way) types who need paperwork, then they should have waited for that instead of playing the slut.
I’ve been there in my own way before I understood I need male friend/family participation in my mate choices. I used to get involved with guys that were wrong for me because I was culturally ignorant, and then have freakouts because I couldn’t figure out what was going on. If they were younger then I’d spend the relationship waiting for them to screw up, and if they were older, I just didn’t know what kind of feedback I was supposed to give. I was a mess.
So I have sympathy for the frantic closet paper chaser, but at the same time, I understand they maybe have to learn the hard way about walking the wrong path for one’s nature. Like mine was, most of their drama is self inflicted.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
21
The actual phrase, ‘Not all women are like that’ is in itself a sign of herd mentality. Why not simply say ‘Well I’m not like that’, which would be more accurate in many cases, without feeling the need to jump up to defend all women? I personally have no desire to defend the majority of women, but if you are weak and socially dependent I guess that’s what you do…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
2
“I have always opposed the double-standard and the transactional view of sex”
Whether a person opposes a transactional view is irrelevant. People who think that their decisions are made completely cognitively are idiots. Attraction is not something that is voluntary. You don’t look at someone and decide to be attracted to them.
With that in mind, when a women decides to have sex with someone that attracts her, she is doing so because that person is providing her with something that she values. For example, the guy might have good genes as indicated by his appearance. In effect, the guy is paying her with his appearance. That is why she’s having sex with him.
A non-transactional view would have to be completely random.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
” Nicole April 17, 2011 at 16:20
DCM, what I’m saying is that the fact that they were women willing to have sex with you wasn’t the problem.
The nagging was most likely because they couldn’t handle that all they were getting out of it was sex and hopefully good company. Too much time on the cock carousel will make a woman insecure and she’ll take that out on the first guy to spend some real time with her.
I think the problem is that these women are operating against their nature. If they are slightly mercenary (not in the totally negative way but more in the needs guarantees and penalties normal way) types who need paperwork, then they should have waited for that instead of playing the slut.
I’ve been there in my own way before I understood I need male friend/family participation in my mate choices. I used to get involved with guys that were wrong for me because I was culturally ignorant, and then have freakouts because I couldn’t figure out what was going on. If they were younger then I’d spend the relationship waiting for them to screw up, and if they were older, I just didn’t know what kind of feedback I was supposed to give. I was a mess.
So I have sympathy for the frantic closet paper chaser, but at the same time, I understand they maybe have to learn the hard way about walking the wrong path for one’s nature. Like mine was, most of their drama is self inflicted.”
I’m speaking of times long past — 60s, 70s — because after that I simply quit dating or seeking “relationships”. While I did think most or even all of their drama was self-inflicted it was also inflicted on me.
One thing was women’s constant evasion of responsibility and efforts to shift it onto me. This from women who sometimes literally screamed about how they could do anything I could and were as good as men at everything. They weren’t, though, or they wouldn’t have tried to avoid doing what they wanted me to do for them. Worse is simply throwing tantrums to motivate men or to get other women and men to turn against me — or whoever they were involved with. They pretend to be frightened and upset when people were around but not when we were alone, that kind of stuff enlisting other people in their games.
I don’t see such females as “confused” or “saddled with difficulties”, but as selfish, evasive, abusive, just plain evil garbage. They deserve not one shred of sympathy or “understanding” except to the extent that men understand what they’re up to. The ultimate aim is to make men so mad they’ll hit them — which I wasn’t stupid enough to fall for, much to their rage.
Or then there’s the trick of trying to “get” you to “want” to do what they want. Not say they are going to the store and do I want to go or need anything, but “get” me to “want” to go….
I could go on, but I will say I have found women profoundly disappointing. They weren’t what we were brainwashed into believing they were and they weren’t the companions they claimed they would be as “liberated” women. They were just exactly as they have always been: in need of control.
I believe my experiences, and there are more, are pretty typical of what men have gone through and why we don’t like women the way women want.
Such persons are not good for anything but sex. And getting it was too much trouble when you could pay someone for it.
It is men whose consciousness has been “raised” by seeing women as they really are and not the ideal and wonderous beings who are the solution to all our needs. I am not defined by the presence of females.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
We already know all this. Just like we know everything else espoused by all of us on the net over and over.
We simply ultimately need to control female humans through any means (tech, “discipline” etc) because they are “bad” and the deserve to be controlled; period.
To do that…
We need to stop the false dichotomy of “tax break vs government” and create a political ideology that advocates a strong government from the pro-male perspective. That ideology then– once it consolidates power, _through a strong government_– will simply cull back its enemies [fruity males and outlier females] (using the tech and social organizing tactics of the day– and deception if needs be–to do so).
This notion that we will have a world without government is fruity. This notion that “tax break vs government” dichotomy is benefiting men is obvioulsy demonstrably ludicrous. …Just look at the history of the anglo west since this false dichotomy became the way in the last few centuries.
It has been centuries now–the “experiment” failed. Wake the fk up.
—-
There should be a military “dictatorship” (where only serving-males “vote”) –specifically because that benefits maleness. This is what we come from: A warrior-ocracy (ie barbarians/”savages”) that controlled the “baggage/luggage” (juveniles, wimmins, hosted old infirmed deranged). Civilization/democracy/chrisensdum/ art/etc is that baggage taking over and ultimately breeding the warriors/men (just like dog breeds were bred from the wolf–ie selection) to be like immune-system drones for the ascendant /successful BAGGAGE-OCRACY’S hive.
(The baggage ocracy is the juveniles, wimmins, hosted old infirmed/deranged, with the old warrior-ocracy now ousted and well controlled and bred to be of two types: conformist drones (police/military) and criminals.)
(Prerequisite: WE DO NOT COME FROM A MATRIARCHY OF BARBARIAN WARRIORS, you complete utter duped dolts.)
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
I used to be a strong believer in NAWALT. At least in regards to my family. I’ve been through some very tough, traumatic times, and all the while I believed the women in my family would be there showing me love and support.
Of course the story is the same time and time again. The “more empathetic sex” was nowhere to be found.
I suffer greatly from my mother killing my father and then killing herself. But sometimes I think the greater wound was having to live the rest of my life knowing I was so wrong about the women in my family who I thought would be my rock.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
“I self-identify as a “slut” because I have always opposed the double-standard and the transactional view of sex, and have acted accordingly.”
Don’t be fooled by this kind of language. It does NOT mean they oppose the pussy cartel. It’s crafted to deliberately dodge accusations of running a pussy cartel.
Opposing the ‘transactional view of sex’ is modern feminese for “I’m just against sex being CHEAP for men.”
This, I think, is the way the sex pos crowd works. Keep prostitution illegal but allow ‘free love’ knowing perfectly well that it means the majority of men (non alphas) will be stuck with shit that way.
Also poison the well by handing women heavy weight legal instruments that they can use as leverage against their boyfriends, husbands, etc. if they cheat.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Damnit they need to legalize prostitution already, it’d fix a whole lot of problems.
To you guys saying why pay a whore? Meh, with legalized prostitution, the market would be flooded with whores, the prices would drop drastically for a whore. Remember, illegality always raises the price. Prostitutes would be a dime a dozen, really, a dime for a dozen. You’d be spending less money hittin up the brothel and droppin a quick coin to bang than you would be trying to court a regular female. Plus you wouldn’t lose your sanity during the process.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
“Prostitutes would be a dime a dozen, really, a dime for a dozen.”
They WERE once a dime a dozen. That’s probably why feminism got started in the first place.
http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/
In the 19th century mass production techniques were making contraceptive devices (rubbers, sponges, etc.) cheap and ubiquitous. This led to a surge in prostitution.
1st wave feminism was likely reactionary to this.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Sort of like I’m anti war but support the troops.
Or government is corrupt and useless. Where is my social security check?
And finally. A married man is doomed….unless he married my cupcake
.nice article
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
“Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)
It does not matter whether you believe the truth to be true. It matters that the truth is true. BIG DIFFERENCE.
How to tell is a woman is NOT there to help? Simple. Ask ONE question.
“Are you willing to sit on an all woman jury and try fairly and justly a woman accused of a crime against a man on an equal before the law basis meaning that the remedy instruction for a guilty women is the same for a man.”
The women who say YES and start organising such juries are FOR mens rights.
I am yet to find one.”
I’d be willing to sit on an all-woman jury, if I were the ‘foreman’ and the other women on the jury didn’t drive me completely insane by attempting to engage in an illogical and nonfactual debate. If I could participate in a jury I would, however, my employment bars that because it could be construed as a lack of neutrality and a private defense attorney would have a field day if one ended up on a jury. I fully support the idea that sentencing for women should be identical to the sentencing that men are given as the penalty for the same criminal act. The laws (at least in the state I live in) specify what can be given during sentencing as the penalties for committing a certain criminal act; ’1000 fine, up to one year in the county jail, or both’ for example, or ’2/4/8 years in a state correctional facility’. If they had two case files in front of them and all of the information didn’t mention the gender of the person charged, but both of them had committed identical crimes against similar victims – they’d seek the same sentencing and the judge would likely sentence both people to the same. It’s not the laws or the way they’re worded that continue to be the problem that prevents gender neutral equality, it’s the bias of individual judges, prosecutors, and the ease with which public defenders give up when they see how things are stacked up against the people they’re supposed to be defending. Add in politicians whose main interest is how they can secure enough votes to stay in office and don’t really care how, and the result is exactly the kind of mess things are in now.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
I’ll believe that NAWALT exists if i ever hear these words from a woman…” i don’t accept child support nor alimony and insist we share custody equally”.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
“It’s disgusting and brilliant at the same time. If men had this form of solidarity, we’d be invincible.”
Now forming, a team of all men against a team of all women.
A football team, a chess team, a debating team, a science team, a team of engineers. They choose the topic or area to compete in; their best against ours.
It’s why men innately won’t organize against women. It’s not a fair fight. It would be a rout. We would beat them and then they’d be mad at us and have their self-esteem damaged. What average bloke would ever want to be on a team of men against a team of women in anything?
That’s the male conscious thought pattern on men’s rights. Men refuse to unite against women, and always will.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“It’s disgusting and brilliant at the same time. If men had this form of solidarity, we’d be invincible.”
The problem with female solidarity is, it isn’t honest. It’s ‘stick together, right or wrong’, up to and including murder (‘maybe she was abused..’ ‘maybe she is mentally ill’ etc). Women bashing their husbands, you name it, there are few circumstances when the most herd-oriented will break from that herd. How they choke down a normal reaction to repugnant behavior and keep backing each other up is beyond my understanding.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
U know. I always see women telling us guys who and how they are, and I just wonder if anyone else notices how this behavior truly comes off? No respectable person publicly sizes themselves up. But women do this constantly. They take on the position that their own subjective narrow opinion – is the all pervasive objective truth. How is it they get away with this? It’s a Joke! The only thing a person is really allowed to seriously say about themselves is something self-depracating. It’s up to the rest of people to augment their public image. While it’s all fine and good to think highly of yourself, it’s not fine to come out and public and announce it. That’s called being conceited which diminishes your trustworthiness immediately. But if your a female IT IS OK.
I assume it’s because society holds women as the unaccountable gender. But as they demand privileges of accountability while simultaneously maintaining their unaccountable nature it’s getting to the point where people are so drunk off it they are really beginning to believe these eccentricities. So you get manginas, and white knights, and all the likes of the chaos of idiocy rampant across the world.
What happened to old fashion modesty, or humility?
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Crella, one doesn’t need to understand it so long as one accepts it and does what one needs to do to protect one’s self from it. I can’t really get inside the head of a thief or murderer either, but I accept that they exist and remain vigilant.
IMO, it would help men to unite if they stop looking at this as fighting *against* women. When they stand up for their rights, they’re actually fighting *for* us. They’re fighting for humanity. They’re fighting against people who are anti human.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Dear Cyclotron Majesty April 19, 2011 at 00:11:
Agreed. In other words, Proverbs 27:2 (RSV) “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger and not your own lips.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“For instance a woman might never intend to divorce or have an abortion herself and find those acts in most or all cases to be immoral, but she will fight against any changes to the law on those subjects. “
Oh boy does that ring a bell. Had to deal with a lot of those types when we were active in the pro-life movement.
The idea that some of them are “covering” for other females rings true, but I still feel most of it is due to the spoiled nature of modern women.
In areas other than gender relations I must hasten to add, modern men are often spoiled too. Men’s character faults though, what ever they may be, are never as damaging to civilization as our are the short comings of our women.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
{ 1 trackback }