The Economics of Male Preference

by W.F. Price on May 4, 2011

The neglect of baby girls in Asia is in the news again; these kinds of stories are somewhat popular in the West because they give us a sense of moral superiority while making us feel charitable at the same time. It is true that girls are neglected in Asia when compared to the West. However, this is an overwhelmingly rural phenomenon, and linked to age-old cultural practices that developed around subsistence farming. Male physical labor and technical know-how has always been more highly valued in those parts, because when it comes down to it men put more food on the table. It isn’t that women don’t bring anything to the table – I’ve seen Chinese women hard at work in rice paddies – it’s simply that pound for pound they don’t bring as much. Additionally, since these societies, like almost all societies in the world, are patrilocal, females generally leave when they reach adulthood and get married. Therefore, all that labor invested in raising them is lost.

The articles we see on this subject tend to focus mainly on dowries or other cultural idiosyncrasies, ignoring other, more important reasons for the higher discrepancy between male and female children in Asia when compared to the West:

Part of the reason Indians favor sons is the enormous expense in marrying off girls. Families often go into debt arranging marriages and paying elaborate dowries. A boy, on the other hand, will one day bring home a bride and dowry. Hindu custom also dictates that only sons can light their parents’ funeral pyres.

But it’s not simply that girls are more expensive for impoverished families. The census data shows that the worst offenders are the relatively wealthy northern states of Punjab and Haryana.

In Morena, a sun-baked, largely rural district in the heart of India, the numbers are especially grim. This census showed that only 825 girls for every 1,000 boys in the district made it to their sixth birthdays, down from an already troubling 829 a decade ago.

Though abortion is allowed in India, the country banned revealing the gender of unborn fetuses in 1994 in an attempt to halt sex-selective abortions. Every few years, federal and state governments announce new incentives — from free meals to free education — to encourage people to take care of their girls.

First, it should be pointed out in every one of these discussions that Asians naturally have an androphilic sex ratio at birth compared to Europeans, and especially compared to Africans. However, this doesn’t make up for all the excess boys, so it’s clear that there is some level of preference extended to infant boys. As the above passage suggests, better-off areas have a higher discrepancy, probably because families can afford ultrasound and abortion procedures. Keep in mind that “well-off” is relative in India — basically it means that you have electricity, a telephone and some minimal form of motorized transport.

Secondly, dowries have traditionally been a feature of European society as well, and I’ve never heard of female infanticide or neglect being a feature of pre-industrial Europe. And in China, bride price rather than dowry is the cultural norm, yet that hasn’t stemmed sex-selective abortion in rural China.

So, what is behind the apparent neglect and murder of female babies? The Chinese family planning initiative that began in the 1970s offers a clue. It is largely the introduction of birth control, abortion and family planning measures, enthusiastically promoted by clueless Western feminists who are too wrapped up in their own highly insular worldview to predict what consequences their programs will engender in ancient rural societies.

When there is a restriction on family size, families that would otherwise keep trying will manipulate the sex composition of births to have a son, which often means aborting daughters. Given the reality of life on the farm, condemning them for this is counterproductive, because sons are directly correlated with economic security, which is far more relevant to health and comfort than here in the West (if you are poor, no antibiotics, no surgery — you just suffer and die).

The government and feminist solution to this is socialist measures, which backfired in China and probably will in India as well:

In Morena, a Madhya Pradesh state government program offers poor families with one or two daughters a few thousand rupees (a few hundred dollars) for every few years of schooling, and more than 100,000 rupees ($2,250) when they graduate high school.

Ironically, socializing responsibility for women eventually leads to a society-wide adoption of male-preference. This is happening in the West as we speak. We often forget that the abusive American child-support guidelines adopted in the late 80s and 90s were largely a result of national outrage about “welfare queens” living off our dime. The burden for women’s welfare was rejected by most Americans, who gladly threw it onto the shoulders of hapless fathers, many of them blameless victims of circumstance who couldn’t afford it themselves. Today, groaning under the load of programs and preferences directed toward women, states are cutting women’s studies departments at universities, closing women’s shelters, and cutting benefits to women’s health services. The “misandry bubble” is nearing its bursting point; the widespread affluence that allowed feminism to thrive is becoming a thing of the past.

So, if socialism is ultimately doomed to failure, what solutions remain? And, in particular, we should ask what humane solutions we can implement.

There is only one rational means to increase the value of females in Asia, and, ultimately, our own society: encourage women to be productive, and create realistic opportunities for it.

In India light industry suitable for female work should be promoted in regions where girls are unappreciated, allowing them to earn some of their own income prior to marriage. Despite Western denunciations of “sweatshops” in China and SE Asia, the truth is that the factories around the Pearl River raised both the standard of living and status of girls in southern China. Both their parents and the men around them appreciated them more for their contribution to the wealth of the family. Although not up to Western standards yet, many parts of south China are thriving today, and it’s undeniable that women played a large role in bringing about this state of affairs.

But were these girls pampered and babied, and were preferences extended to them? Not at all. They were put to work and expected to produce, and they did. Since then, female infanticide and preference for male children has started to subside. Most urban Chinese are now content to have a daughter as their only child, and the imbalance in the sex ration has begun to correct itself.

Here in the West, we might want to start thinking about teaching girls home economics again, and offering courses in small business administration that could help them contribute to their future families’ welfare. Give them realistic goals rather than encourage them to become soldiers and engineers. Sure, there will always be exceptional girls who can match boys in primarily male professions, and they shouldn’t be held back, but focusing on the few to the neglect of many is counterproductive. Women have their strengths, and they should be encouraged to work to their potential, but trying to equalize everyone to the detriment of the majority of boys and girls alike is not only misandric — it is misanthropic.

{ 131 comments… read them below or add one }

shiva May 4, 2011 at 08:51

Very insightful W.F. As a long time student of Indian culture, and having lived there for 6 years, I often wondered about this. Your explanation makes total sense. There is no evidence of female infanticide or the like in ancient indian cultural records (that I know of). It appears to be largely a modern phenomenon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Omega Man May 4, 2011 at 08:56

Again the feminist’s karma is running over their dogma.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 2
Tory May 4, 2011 at 09:14

Women should be worked to death the way men are. Then their whines about equality of opportunity will have some basis in reality. The comment section in that yahoo article shows just how brainwashed the self-righteous sheeple are by feminist hatred. There is nothing worse to me than a female supremacist who is also a racist.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 7
demirogue May 4, 2011 at 09:20

“Here in the West, we might want to start thinking about teaching girls home economics again, and offering courses in small business administration that could help them contribute to their future families’ welfare. Give them realistic goals rather than encourage them to become soldiers and engineers. Sure, there will always be exceptional girls who can match boys in primarily male professions, and they shouldn’t be held back, but focusing on the few to the neglect of many is counterproductive. Women have their strengths, and they should be encouraged to work to their potential, but trying to equalize everyone to the detriment of the majority of boys and girls alike is not only misandric — it is misanthropic.”

Yep. If the sexes become so independent and singular that they don’t need, then eventually they will not want to be around each other. We talk about marriage 1.0 but in many cases, both needed the abilities of the other to survive and each had defined roles within it. In the modern world where those roles have disintegrated, we have single mothers and many men and women who choose to remain alone.

Speaking as one of those males that would rather be alone and is capable of taking care of my home and work life and whatever else I have to all by myself, what’s the incentive for me to bring a woman on board? Sex? Her abilities to add to the day to day functionality of the household? Companionship? Tell me because all those things are taken care of by me, myself, and I and the friends I have. So to want a woman is one thing, but to have her around for the long haul means I need her as well. We add value to the life of the other and our individual contributions betters both of us plus the good outweighs the bad. And right now, I don’t need a woman for anything because I have yet to run across one that adds anything except demands.

Beware women. For the BS many of you spew out your mouths and allow to go around of not needing a man is and will be taken to heart. So much so that many of them will turn around and use that to better themselves without you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 4
Firepower May 4, 2011 at 09:25

W.F. Price

The neglect of baby girls in Asia is in the news again; these kinds of stories are somewhat popular in the West because they give us a sense of moral superiority and while making us feel charitable at the same time.

Don’t feel bad. America will import several million of them, and Canada can take a couple million more just in time to vote Democrat Party in 18 years.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 13
Geography Bee Finalist himself May 4, 2011 at 10:11

I know I should know the answer to this given my comment name; do sons in India have additional unlisted RESPONSIBILITIES (as conditions of religious affiliation, Indian citizenship, or otherwise) besides lighting their parents’ funeral pyres (assuming the son or sons outlive one or both parents), providing wealth for the families they create, and bringing home an arranged bride who will bring the groom’s biological parents enough dowry wealth?

I would figure that if Hindu men pass a family name from generation to generation like a sprint relay baton the father would want as many Y chromosome sperm fertilizing his wife’s egg cells as possible.

The Han Chinese have very few family names despite their sheer numbers.

OT but worth mentioning

China’s one-child policy of requiring financial penalties for raising multiple children from multiple pregnancies or abortions of pregnancies after the lone child has been born reportedly also does NOT have an exception clause for NATURALLY CONCEIVED multiple births. Women who naturally conceive more than a certain number of fetuses simultaneously are required to pay penalties or abort one or more of the fetuses. Remember that most feminists who were born alone do not care about multiple births, not even the all-female Dionne sisters who would grow up to hate the word “quintuplet,” the French “quintuplée” and possibly even the masculine form “quintuplé.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Common Monster May 4, 2011 at 10:14

There is only one rational means to increase the value of females in Asia, and, ultimately, our own society: encourage women to be productive, and create realistic opportunities for it.

I’m not really buying that.

“South Korea was the first country to report exceptionally high sex ratios and has been the first to cut them. Between 1985 and 2003, the share of South Korean women who told national health surveyors that they felt “they must have a son” fell by almost two-thirds, from 48% to 17%. After a lag of a decade, the sex ratio began to fall in the mid-1990s and is now 110 to 100.”
– source: Gendercide: The worldwide war on baby girls

There’s nothing to suggest S. Korea did what you’re suggesting.

Selecting for males at births already increases the value of women at a later date. Sex ratios will naturally return to their equilibrium value if left alone in something approximating a free market. Those who, ~20 years ago, were wisely buying straw hats in winter (so to speak) and having girls, now find they have something relatively scarce and thus of higher value to all those men seeking wives and mothers of their children. Nothing more need be done. It will correct itself. Funny that The Economist there kinda glossed over this part of the dynamic. (well, not really…)

I would note that a male in one of these highly skewed sex ratio societies may already think women’s value is too high for him to be able to afford one. Trying to make women even more valuable certainly isn’t doing him any favors. I think the article is trying, perhaps inadvertently to raise the specter of all these pissed off bachelors coming over here to bash our heads in and steal our women. We do have an excess, but I’m not sure those are the ones they’d want.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Robert May 4, 2011 at 10:26

OT: Show how much you support this;

http://whitehouseboystomen.com/blog/

http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Robert May 4, 2011 at 10:27

I signed it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Keyster May 4, 2011 at 10:52

We intrinsically know that females need help to compete against males in the working world, which is why they get it. But even with all the “gender normalization” you can muster, without being too blatantly unfair to males, as a group they’re not doing that well. Partly because they can’t, but mostly because they don’t want to.

Females are bred to conceive, give birth and nurture young children. It’s their biological imperative to do so. And feminists know it, and they reject it, because being a “mommy” is a disadvantage against competing with men. If you’re too fat, ugly and surly to attract a male partner to impregnate you; what do you do? You become a feminist and sway ALL women to join you in social retribution against men!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5
W.F. Price May 4, 2011 at 10:57

There’s nothing to suggest S. Korea did what you’re suggesting.

-Common Monster

Actually, that’s exactly what S. Korea did in the 60s and 70s (think of the footwear manufacturing), so the data you link confirm my conclusions. In addition to China, I had S. Korea in mind when I was writing the article — perhaps I should have mentioned it.

jmnzz May 4, 2011 at 11:11

You know I always wondered why feminists had such a big problem with the abortions in China. Well not really. I always knew.

It may be needless to point out but I suspect that if the situation were reversed and families were aborting boys in favor of having girls, feminists wouldn’t even know China existed.

But since it’s girls getting the short end of the stick somewhere then it has to be a another reason for feminists to point their fingers at another part of the world and use the situation there as a reason to bitch about the welfare of women in their own country.

Well feminists have got no one else to blame but themselves for promoting abortion as the new birth control pill. If they are pissed about what Chinese women are doing, so what?

Their bodies, their choice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
jozin May 4, 2011 at 11:11

So, if socialism is ultimately doomed to failure, what solutions remain?
More socialism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer May 4, 2011 at 11:13

“Don’t feel bad. America will import several million of them, and Canada can take a couple million more just in time to vote Democrat Party in 18 years.”

Asians tend to vote Republican.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer May 4, 2011 at 11:17

Good essay Price.

A big lie that needs to stop is the insistence that a young woman needs a “career” during her child-bearing years. Most of them end up working a crappy job to make payments on their SUV.

Anyone can enter the workforce later in life.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Jos May 4, 2011 at 11:24

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 55
Uncle Elmer May 4, 2011 at 11:26

“Actually, that’s exactly what S. Korea did in the 60s and 70s (think of the footwear manufacturing), so the data you link confirm my conclusions. In addition to China, I had S. Korea in mind when I was writing the article — perhaps I should have mentioned it.”

Anecdotal but my wife’s father was a shoemaker until the viet communists shut him down after 1975. Years later when they allowed more market-oriented activity my wife and her friend started making and selling shoes on the street. They could not keep up with demand, so started a factory which now employs about 25 people (almost all of them Cambodians). At this point there problem is still being able to meet demand, mostly from Chinese customers.

First time I visited them her brother measured my feet and made a pair of dress shoes that fit me like an old glove.

As for China, I have been in the Pearl River area and astonished at the number of factories and workers. I thought, “this must be what America looked like in the 1950s”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer May 4, 2011 at 11:34

“If women were unproductive in China, it may also be because for over 1000, their feet were bound, which meant they could barely walk (and certainly not for long distances)”

No clue at all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
TomJW May 4, 2011 at 11:34

No more programs for women. Let their social and economic structure collapse around them. If they are too stupid and self centered to make themselves of value to another, then they die alone.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
Maaldweb May 4, 2011 at 12:01

@Jos

you mentally retarded feminist troll, it clearly says it is a rural practice and it is related to the inability of women to work in the fields as hard as men. didn’t they teach you basic reading comprehension at school or the feminist brainwashing deleted it from your already dysfunctional brain?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 8
oddsock May 4, 2011 at 12:04

Hmmm, interesting and very thoughtful post Mr Price.

Do you think this could be linked in some way ?

Population reduction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbuRMVVekg&feature=player_embedded

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Firepower May 4, 2011 at 12:49

Uncle Elmer

Asians tend to vote Republican.

Even Canada, too? Wow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Seamus the Classicist May 4, 2011 at 13:02

I remember under Roman Law, for Patrician Families, it was required to raise all male children and ONE female child. The meaning of “required to raise” is that all other infants could be exposed: which involved a multitude of processes to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. So many rich Roman families would have only one girl (usually named after the father’s Clan, e.g. Julia from Julius) usually she proved useful in marrying off for the purposes of political alliance.

The preference for males in most societies is for pragmatic reasons, here W.F. is speaking of the straight economic benefits. But let us not forget the political and social benefits to an individual Pater. In the days before Idiots (from a Greek word indicating a man who did not take care of his business) voted for another Idiot to represent “interests” to a main body of Idiots who represented the almighty government of bureaucracy. Before all this government was an outgrowth of Clan-like families, the most similar thing who know of today was/is Cosa Nostra , that was government, the Big Man ruled all….with his brothers, sons, nephews, and other male relatives sharing and supporting his power. So having a wife who was re-pleat with sons was equivalent to power.

As an example when the Great King Agamemnon (who was a Wanax, equivalent to the Medieval Irish ‘High King’ or the baddest Chieftain among Cheiftains,) was murdered by his wife and her lover upon returning from the Trojan campaign (he should have watched out for the that Jodi.) It was his son who came forward (with his buddies/companions/allies, the Classical languages don’t have a deep distinction between these words if any) and avenged his father BY KILLING HIS MOTHER AND HER LOVER.

Sons are important because they are the standard bearers of a culture and society.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price May 4, 2011 at 13:06

If women were unproductive in China, it may also be because for over 1000, their feet were bound, which meant they could barely walk (and certainly not for long distances)

-Jos

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think foot-binding only emerged as a widespread practice (i.e. amongst the peasant class as well as aristocrats) during the Qing dynasty, so I believe it was prevalent for more like 300 years than 1,000.

Additionally, female labor mainly involved household industry such as spinning, weaving and creating silk cloth, none of which require much walking or even standing; women with bound feet could walk in any event. A notable exception to the practice is the Hakka, who did not bind their girls’ feet.

The best theory for the origin of widespread foot-binding that I’ve heard is that it distinguished Han Chinese from Manchus, allowing for some ethnic solidarity under Manchu sovereignty. That it was more prevalent in the north, where Manchus exercised tighter control, would seem to bear this out.

Seamus the Classicist May 4, 2011 at 13:11

Or to put it another way referencing contemporary events: Osama son of Mohamed son of Awad son of Laden (Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden) has hundreds of direct descendants, the fruit of his loins so to speak.

Whereas the men who killed him, President Barrack with his two daughters (in most societies that would be cause for him to be mocked by other men) and I am sure the SEAL team members have just as paltry an offspring record because even they have to beg, plead, and moan for an Ameriskank to give them more than two children if any at all and he is still SOL if they turn out to be girls because the breeding partner will close the womb for business.

So in a generation or two, with the breeding and proliferation patterns mentioned above, who will come to win the war of attrition?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6
SingleDad May 4, 2011 at 13:30

Economically seperate and culturally similar North Korea has more women than men by very few:

0-14 years: 22.4% (male 2,766,006/female 2,700,378)
15-64 years: 68.6% (male 8,345,737/female 8,423,482)
65 years and over: 9.1% (male 738,693/female 1,483,196) (2011 est)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous May 4, 2011 at 13:59

Seamus the Classicist:
Yea and that sucked for men because females were rare.

If you want something to be worth-less, let it be abundant.

Idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Elusive Wapiti May 4, 2011 at 14:11

Excellent article Welmer.

A few points:

1) I did some research into the sex ratio issue a few years ago, while writing a paper on gender inequality in India. The white paper that I wrote back then is here. I found some of the feminist scholarship about sex selection in favor of male fetuses credible, as well as post-natal abortions (commonly known to as murder) of female infants and toddlers as well.

2) I think you are correct that, when the feminist groups who do the bulk of research (funded by feminist grant mills) find a sex imbalance at birth, they are applying Western demographics to a central Asian population. In other words, they compare the sex ratios of Indian society against that of modern industrialized countries, note the discrepancies, and claim adverse discrimination.

3) In the paper I linked to above, I also noted that the feminist groups may not take into account other phenomena, such as the disease environment, that naturally skews toward more male children.

4) Women in the US and UK prefer girl babies. I don’t think Western women are one bit incapable of expressing their gender disappointment in the form of undue hostility toward male fetuses–IOW, aborting them. For it is an established fact that male babies and children are afforded harsher treatment by their mothers; it’s not much of a stretch to apply that same principle in utero, when it isn’t a child, it’s a choice.

5) Life expectancy for women, where it used to be equal to men in the West, has skyrocketed relative to men, so that a woman can expect to live some 7 years longer than a man. Most chalk this up to biology, and there may be something to that, but how does one know what fraction is biological and another fraction cultural if they aren’t willing to consider the lifelong impact of a Western cultural preference for females?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
criolle johnny May 4, 2011 at 14:14

You have to consider the position of Chinese parents. Their children, male children, are their Social Security. A male child is expected to attend to his parents in their old age. That’s why they put so much into his education and upbringing.
On the other hand, a female child becomes part of her husband’s family. Everything they have invested in her is a dead loss.
A “One Child” policy in Communist China makes a female child a financial disaster.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer May 4, 2011 at 14:15

” Uncle Elmer
Asians tend to vote Republican.

Even Canada, too? Wow.”

Your original comment :

“America will import several million of them, and Canada can take a couple million more just in time to vote Democrat Party in 18 years.”

The Democratic Party is in the U.S., not Canada.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
SingleDad May 4, 2011 at 14:21

OT but precious, even little kids know what we are talking about here is true, from the mouths of babey’s:

1.) “Mom, why do you have those lines on your face?”
2.) “If you have a baby growing in your tummy, what’s growing in your bottom?”
3.) “Mom, you have zero imagination.”
4.) “Wow, mom, you used to be so pretty!”
5.) “If daddy’s job is to go to work, and my job is to go to school, then what’s your job?”
6.) “Mommy, your hair looks brown. You need to put some yellow in it.”
7.) “I love daddy waaaay more than you!”
8.) “Mommy, why do you have so many more shoes than I do?”
9.) “Dad and I were talking and we think you need to be more athletic.”
10.) “Mommy, what do you want to be when you grow up?”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/04/mothers-day-crazy-things-kids-say-mothers/?test=faces

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
greyghost May 4, 2011 at 15:14

With out artificial propping up women can be more productive. Women are a huge burden on every level. And with feminism it is amplified. In every measure. Emotional.financial,legal,medical, anything a woman will cost. That is why they have to force companies to hire women. Look at title IX. Modern western women know what I’m talking and actually see their burden as something that gives them status. Where do you think the “man up” crap comes from. Given a real choice it looks like a lot of people in the world wouild rather not have a female around. The west is now being bled down by socialism and feminism and the ecomics here will make it unbarable to carry the female burden. Look at the slowly growing MGTOW culture. and reduced marriage rates.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
Epoetker May 4, 2011 at 15:36

The feminists talk about us wanting to make women property. This is incorrect.

The only question is whether women are public or private property.

As John Derbyshire once said:

The main thing that caught my febrile adolescent attention was the very striking difference in the female population of these two political tribes. The conservative women were much prettier, but the socialist girls were much looser. The star of the latter set was actually a girl named…well, never mind her name. Her nickname was “Nookie”, and for very excellent reasons. Though far from being a beauty queen, and even further from being obsessive-compulsive about personal hygiene (regarded in this set as a contemptible bourgeois affectation), this young lady, not to obscure the matter behind any veil of false delicacy, banged like an outhouse door in a force nine gale. Well, youth has its own priorities. I became a socialist, and remained one well into my twenties.

Hint: People are more likely to take good care of what they actually own.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
buggeroff May 4, 2011 at 15:51

demirogue….
you took the words from my fingers, spot on & hit the nail on the head.

When you get out & about & talk to guys in their 20s so many of them now express similar thoughts. Feminism, misandry, political male hatred , male bashing media is starting to seep into a lot more sheepies brains as unacceptable.

More of them at least are understanding ‘even men’ have a right to be happy & just not earn money that someone else spends while he dies sooner.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
universe May 4, 2011 at 16:07

Good work on the lead article, btw.
The following first comments are not intended to be critical of the article. More like a conundrum of my own making.

There is only one rational means to increase the value of females in Asia, and, ultimately, our own society: encourage women to be productive, and create realistic opportunities for it.

– Being productive appears to be at the root to the enablement of consumption. That productivity means that one either utilizes resourses to develop a final object for sale – a commodity – or one being a cog of the production wheel beast itself.
How many commodities – raw minerals, automobiles, nuclear power generators, chemicals, computers, etc., with their resulting toxicities – need be produced and consumed to make our lives simpler and more fulfilling? Existance appears to be more about ability to produce and consume than about contemplation and happiness. Unless one adopts the view of work first, enjoy life later or just try to enjoy, period.
Yet, if it were not for the consumptive creations of industrialization, and accrued taxations for further refinement of a nation’s people, we would not so readily have advanced beyond the forests and, later still, agrarian subsistences. So one is left with accepting the effects of the original cause. That so ends my puzzle.

On to other ramblings.
Barring catastrophic planetary upheavals, humanity is headed further down the industrial path with its commodities, waste tailings and socialilizing movements. Yes, trade and commerce has some good – the eventual trickle down benefit for the many.

However, what we are slowly witnessing today is an accelerated shift toward mass industrialization and trade – globalization. Being the dependent creatures that humans are, globalism (New World Order, for others) has a social element. And today we are witnessing that in an accelerating form as well. Get all the adults to be industrially productive and gear them toward competitive corporate production through schooling. Behind the scenes politics through U.N. General Assembly Agreements facilitate the hastening of such direction.

Today the forward push is for the involvement of females in the industrialized workforce and social arena. Many charitable foundations of corporate industry have spent enormous sums of money to lobby for the facilitating of women as an equal work drone to men but with special added privileged value. And that is working quite well.

Understand female psychology to an extent, utilize comfortably paid indoctrinated malcontents with false beliefs to believe that there is an inherent conspiracy against them, plus their sisters, and voila’ – instant taxpayers, in part, enabling more globalization (in turn funding further discontent).

Years past, women contributed enormously to advancing the next generation. Without their involvement of all aspects of femaledom humanity would not so have readily advanced this far. Regardless of differences it is still best to have both sexually divergant parents. And as the mrm advances the critical role of the father, as well, will form part of the whole picture.
Encouraging Chinese, or all, women to be industrially productive outside the home could be fine if this were to contribute to home, spouse and family. In the Westernized world we are often finding that the politics of shallow grievance separates the union at home. Politics, in part, fueled by the extra will of conglomerate mega-bucks. It is difficult to know who our global plantation masters are but if they wanted to stop the radical assault upon men and the family they would have by now ceased the social strangulation of men and especially boys.
Female favourtism is enabled by political will and fed by the equivalent to genetically modified frankenstien food – manipulated information. This false picture contributes to a culture on artificial life support. The corporate body and profit appear to be the victors over the longevity of established norms evolved in culture. Today, we’re headed toward the unknown.

Many women in the western world, unlike the majority of productive men are comfortably involved in falsely inspired social changes benefitting themselves. Throw a little money at some of them and their true nature comes out. Only now, many women can no longer claim innocence to effecting cultural shifts like so many have denied in the past. Many women have advanced themselves at the expense of and off the backs of mostly industrially productive men. Now there is a paper trail to their slamming the door in the face of most men and to future of those who would be supporting them – young boys.
Solution? A solution now contributes to future issues in need of more answers. Meantime, the slow road to change here at men’s reality blogs is one answer. We are on the right track of understand, identify, display and act. When futher called upon to assist others in distress sometime in the future, we’ll be better prepared then to negotiate our involvement with the future. The bail-out can’t be done without us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Red Baron May 4, 2011 at 16:19

-The article about India reminds me of how a feminist would cook a turkey. One side is being burnt black and the other side is raw making the whole turkey useless.

-Being a male in a feminist society makes it hard for me to feel any sympathy for women and daughters suffering in a foreign country. I assume feminists will look after this problem since they have all kinds of money and they don’t need my help.

-The numbers of boys and girls in China may be not be accurate. The girls number might be higher due to the fact that the births are sometimes not reported in the rural area. By not reporting, they are legally not citizens of China.
The mother would give birth at home without medical help. The child would not be able to go to school or get government help. Bribing someone to sneak them into the system is possible but expensive. I have been told this but have never read this anywhere so this would be classified as a rumor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
E May 4, 2011 at 16:34

demirogue said…

“Speaking as one of those males that would rather be alone and is capable of taking care of my home and work life and whatever else I have to all by myself, what’s the incentive for me to bring a woman on board? Sex? Her abilities to add to the day to day functionality of the household? Companionship? Tell me because all those things are taken care of by me, myself, and I and the friends I have.”

The invention of labor saving technologies like: indoor plumbing, electric stove tops, washing machines, hot water heaters, etc… allowed women to do household chores in 1 hour which used to literally take all day. Now that women had all this extra time on their hands this allowed women to pursue a career outside of the home and thus “2nd wave” feminism was born. The iconic 1950′s housewife would be a thing of the past.

Speaking of “the day to day functionality of the household” feminists fail to understand a basic point. The labor saving technologies which “liberated” them from the home have also made a wife an option NOT a necessity. I’m a single man. What do I need a woman for? If I want hot food there’s a microwave. Now if this was the Victorian times where the fastest way to get access to (something we take for granted hot water) was to first go fetch water at a well and then fire up a clunky coal fired stove then yes I agree having a wife would be very useful.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Dalrock May 4, 2011 at 17:08

@Elusive Wapiti
5) Life expectancy for women, where it used to be equal to men in the West, has skyrocketed relative to men, so that a woman can expect to live some 7 years longer than a man. Most chalk this up to biology, and there may be something to that, but how does one know what fraction is biological and another fraction cultural if they aren’t willing to consider the lifelong impact of a Western cultural preference for females?

One thing I found interesting when looking at actuarial tables is that if you compare men and women of the same race and age later in life (say a white man and woman both age 65) the difference in how long they are expected to live is surprisingly small. Looking this up in tables 5&6 here, the woman is only expected to outlive the man by 2.6 years (16.9 years for the man, 19.5 for the woman). However if you look up the life expectancy for white male and females at birth in the same tables the difference of 5 years is twice as large (75.4 for men and 80.4 for women).

I don’t think this challenges what you are saying, because the data show that the higher mortality rates for men is continuous throughout their lives and you are talking about lifelong cultural preferences. It isn’t that men hit a biological wall at say 65 that women don’t hit until later (at least the data shows otherwise). Men are dying off in slightly higher rates across ages.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
criolle johnny May 4, 2011 at 17:24

Chinese foot binding was practiced from the 10th century until 1912 when it was formally outlawed. Small feet were considered a sign of freedom from manual labor.
Oddly enough, Colonial British officers on the Royal Army also took great pride in their small feet and took great pains to wear boots that were too small for comfort. It seems that large feet were a sign of a working man. Gentlemen never worked a field or walked when they could ride.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Jameseq May 4, 2011 at 17:34

From memory, footbinding was a marker of status reserved only for aristocrats and wealthy merchants. The manchus upon taking over china may have adopted the custom. although i read that manchu women who didnt bind instead put a pebble in their shoe. So that they could replicate the hobbling ‘lotus gait’. as the style of walking was admired

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
greyghost May 4, 2011 at 17:52

@E
In keeping with the personal observations I see it the same way. If I had never met my wife I would be right where I am and maybe a litle better and most likely freshly fucked. My wife on the other hand with out a doubt would not even be close to the life she has. Wives really do not bring anything to the table. And it seems more and more has women complain there are no men. The answer is to blame men for not manning up and then coming up with a new way to burden all they come in contact with. Even children carry the burden of modern women.
I have qualified for a mortgage, purchased cars, lived in and maintained a home, had my dial up internet, and a dog all while single. All easily and much easier to do with out a woman. It becomes more and more true every day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price May 4, 2011 at 18:03

From memory, footbinding was a marker of status reserved only for aristocrats and wealthy merchants. The manchus upon taking over china may have adopted the custom.

-Jameseq

it was at first, but peasants adopted the practice as time went on. Fashion does tend to trickle down.

As for the Manchu women, foot-binding was banned for them by imperial edict at the beginning of the Qing dynasty. If they did, they were essentially rejecting their patrimony.

Odd, isn’t it, that the resistance to foot-binding came from the most powerful men of the land, yet it flourished just the same…

LaughOrCry May 4, 2011 at 18:47

E – “The labor saving technologies which “liberated” them from the home have also made a wife an option NOT a necessity. I’m a single man. What do I need a woman for?”

Absolutely. Up until the early to mid ’60′s in my country – really not that long ago – there were almost no restaurants, there were no fast-food joints, no supermarkets, no frozen meals or prepared sauces, no food retailers open after hours or during the weekends and so on. Single working men lived in boarding houses or hostels that kept cooks; otherwise a single man working full-time would almost literally starve to death. That’s why it was so important for wives to be able to cook (you know, from raw ingredients) and that they not be working full-time so that they could go food shopping.

These days of course, like any other single guy even if I am at work until 10.00pm on the way home I can swing by a fast-food joint, or nip in to the 24hr supermarket to pick up the ingredients for a quick stir-fry or something (and frankly, I’m a better cook than any woman of my age that I’ve met so far).

I can also get the dry-cleaners to sew on any buttons and stuff, I can throw my laundry into the washing machine, I can squirt the shower stall with powerful cleaners that rinse off without scrubbing, I can vacuum my 1-bedroom apartment in no time etc and so on. So yeah, what do I need a woman for? To tell me what a useless sexist pig I am?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
LaughOrCry May 4, 2011 at 19:01

OT – I found this section of the address from Richard Chartres, Bishop of London at the royal wedding (yeah, I know) to be interesting:

“As the reality of God has faded from so many lives in the West, there has been a corresponding inflation of expectations that personal relations alone will supply meaning and happiness in life. This is to load our partner with too great a burden. We are all incomplete: we all need the love which is secure, rather than oppressive. We need mutual forgiveness in order to thrive.”

How many women these days would accept that their husbands do not have a duty to keep them amused and entertained, and that they don’t have a right to walk out of the marriage with half his stuff should he fail in this “duty”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
DevilDog May 4, 2011 at 21:19

I think as technology becomes more advanced, Men & Women will continue to become more polarized, I honestly believe we simply are not compatible in the big picture. In the past, we were forced together out of necessity, but in the future, there will be more options.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Carnivore May 4, 2011 at 21:22

Great article, Welmer. Comment on the following:
“Sure, there will always be exceptional girls who can match boys in primarily male professions, and they shouldn’t be held back, but focusing on the few to the neglect of many is counterproductive.”

This is where we have to be careful – the “shouldn’t be held back” part. What does that really mean? Interpreted in the usual liberal sense, we’d be back where we are today within a decade. Any man or woman should be free to pursue a dream – BUT it is NOT the responsibility of any business or government or school or individual to provide the opportunity to enable that dream.

So, if there are 10,000 blacksmiths in the USA, and they are all male, and they only take male apprentices, no one has the right to force anyone of them to take on snowflake as an apprentice if she wakes up one day and “decides” to become a blacksmith, even if she’s got an iron grip.

Or a more real example – if snowflake decides to become a submariner, it’s not the job of the navy to retrofit all submarines with separate quarters for females nor should the navy even be required to take her into the program.

My point is, the “we only make exceptions for those who are truly qualified” mode would quickly morph into “there must be discrimination because so few women are in this profession” and, as I said, we’d be right back to where we are now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Donn May 4, 2011 at 21:26

Excellent article, having lived in China for four months now, I can see a lot of your observations(and others made in this thread) to bare out, it’ll be interesting to see what countries like China and India do going forward(though if both of them would give a collective fuck you to feminism that would be one big first step.)

btw, for the feminist who wrote the tirade about foot binding, as should be made obvious to you by now, you don’t know shit, please shut up. Actually open up a book on Chinese history before frothing at the mouth about widespread oppression. Of all the things Emperor’s did to their subjects, foot binding would’ve been the LEAST of their worries.(Look at Qin Shi Huangdi for instance, who buried countless people alive, male and female. Or the people prosecuted/murdered during the Cultural Revolution which was spearheaded by Jiang Qing, who’s a woman if you didn’t know.)

Anyways, back to the main topic, agree big time with LaughorCry. Our mom taught us how to cook, clean, do laundry, etc. I don’t have any need to depend on a wife for anything, and I think it’s much better that way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
LaughOrCry May 4, 2011 at 21:36

Carnivore – yes indeed. A real world example of the opportunity cost of giving women the same options as men is that of British women doctors dropping out of the profession, as pointed out by AngryHarry:

http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
E May 4, 2011 at 22:47

LaughOrCry said…
“These days of course, like any other single guy even if I am at work until 10.00pm on the way home I can swing by a fast-food joint, or nip in to the 24hr supermarket to pick up the ingredients for a quick stir-fry or something (and frankly, I’m a better cook than any woman of my age that I’ve met so far).”

At my job an older man was chatting with me about how things were “back in the good old days”. He was in the navy, the Soviet Union was the biggest threat to America, and he met an Asian woman in Okinawa. She was the traditional type that insisted he never do the cooking. When he asked her why she said, “As long as you do not know how to cook your own food, you will have no choice but to always be with me.” *wink* They’re still married. Traditional cultures emphasized gender roles for a reason. They knew (through thousands of years of experience) that when men and women are dependent on each other they’re more likely to stick around for the long run.

It was feminists who demanded that these gender roles be dismantled and men do an equal amount of the household chores. If a man is capable of not just bring home a paycheck, but also doing his own laundry, dishes, and cooking then why would he ever need to bring a woman into his life?
Exactly! Funny how these very same feminist now complain about MGTOW but they completely fail to realize they made it all possible.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Porky D. May 4, 2011 at 22:52

OT, but Dreamhost, the company that hosts this site, is funding feminist attempts to get more women into the tech industry. Feminism, it’s everywhere, rather like mould spores.

http://blog.dreamhost.com/2011/05/02/dreamhost-and-the-ada-initiative/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Maaldweb May 4, 2011 at 23:05

Sometimes the comments are as informative as the article.
Keep it up guys!
Seamus the Classicist thank you so much for the historical information!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
alpha May 4, 2011 at 23:42

[[But it’s not simply that girls are more expensive for impoverished families. The census data shows that the worst offenders are the relatively wealthy northern states of Punjab and Haryana.]]

here’s some more data
http://www.nfhsindia.org/NFHS-3%20Data/Press%20Briefing%20Kit/Domestic%20Violence.pdf

As far as domestic violence rates are concerned, Punjab,Haryana fall 7 places below the national average.

Excerpts:
[[One in six (16 percent) married women have experienced emotional violence
by their husband2.]]

[[One in 10 married women have experienced sexual violence at the hands of
their husband, i.e., they have been physically forced against their will by their
husband to have sex or perform other sexual acts they did not want to
perform.]]

thats 10%. boo hoo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Troll King May 4, 2011 at 23:44

“criolle johnny May 4, 2011 at 14:14
You have to consider the position of Chinese parents. Their children, male children, are their Social Security. A male child is expected to attend to his parents in their old age. That’s why they put so much into his education and upbringing.
On the other hand, a female child becomes part of her husband’s family. Everything they have invested in her is a dead loss.
A “One Child” policy in Communist China makes a female child a financial disaster.”

This is what gets me when I think about the big picture of women and men. I have literally come to the conclusion that women do not ‘love’ in the same sense that men do. Studies have shown that men fall in love faster than women. Studies show that men are affected worse by break-ups, often killing themselves after a failed relationship or marriage. Studies show that women treat their sons differently than daughters, often times using sons as a father figure or dumping parental responsibility onto the boy, things like expecting the oldest son to model maleness for the younger ones. Some studies even show that a daughter is more likely to signal a divorce while women will put up with the man, until she finds a replacement, because she thinks her son needs a male role model.

In my personal life I have been astonished at how women treat relationships. Whether they move on incredibly fast or whether they don’t understand how a man hasn’t moved on by saying things like, “OMG, they were together for a few years but she dumped him 6 months ago, why is he still stuck up on her?”

Let’s look at some things. Feminists worldwide claim that ‘gender’ is a “performance.” What does this mean? Let’s restrict this to FEMALE gender performance, because when I look back at my teen years, when gender identity is supposedly solidified, I remember a lot of words like ‘poser’, ‘frontin’, and ‘keeping it real’.

So what is female ‘gender performance’? There is one famous feminist quote about how all women are female impersonators. What does this mean? I, like many here, would think that this is bullshit but let’s take women at their words.

Forget about all the make-up and nail polish and hair dye, let us look at something else.

I have observed time and again that women put on a ‘bubbly’ attitude and that about six months after you say I love you to her this attitude disappears and one day you wonder what happened to the girl you fell in love with. I think many of you divorced guys found even better performers and maybe realized this a few months after the honey moon.

Now, to bring this back on point. Women, in many countries that don’t have a husband government, CHOOSE boys over girls. Why?

The boys literally act as retirement plans for the mothers, they are expected to produce and then take care of the mother in old age. In the west this has inverted with daughters being preferred and many women sex-selecting through abortions for daughters because we have social security and a government that will take care of them in old age and the women can live vacariously through the daughter and have a best friend to bond with and gossipt with.

So, let’s put this together in a big picture sort of way. Take everything we know about how women see men and take it to it’s logical conclusion.

Women see men as status objects and marry those men who then become emotional tampons/psychologists or relationship objects. They get bored with those men and they treat them as walking wallets or if those men are of high enough genetic stock they treat them as sperm donors. The other side of the coin to being treated as a walking wallet is to be treated as personal security or a protector/white knight. Then they get a son, or daughter in the west, and they trade up if given the option. Now they have a son to be a beast of burden and lift heavy objects and to provide a secondary retirement and protection source…..

What are men and what does this say about women? Can you really tell me that women love men? We know they rarely respect men and that is usually conditioned on her having pussy tingles and that exciting butterfly feelin in her gut.

When I look at this I can’t help but think that women only see men in terms of whether they are desirable in a sexual way or a utilitarian way. They don’t see us as ends within ourselves but as a means to their own ends. I think much of the feminist harping about objects and being treated as sex objects is flat out projection. They know that women see men as nothing but utility objects.

They don’t see us as humans worthy of value because we are human. We are either sperm donors or walking atms or human shields or cannon fodder or beasts of burden or relationship or status objects or dildos prized for length and girth. If you don’t fulfill a role for her based on desire or utility then you are invisible and a loser.

I saw a homeless man sitting on the street the other day. I didn’t have anything to do so I stood and watched as men and women, mostly young college students and drop out but some older professionals, pass by.

One thing I observed was that the men acknowledged his presence. One or two gave some money, a few more a nod, but most simply stiffed up their body and showed they were cognizant of a potenital threat. The women, walking besides boyfriends and male friends and male strangers, didn’t acknowledge him at all. He might have been a bush or garbage can for all I could tell based on their reactions to him. It was like he, the homeless man, was a chameleon blending into the scenery. Think about that guys, women will never help you because if you are beneath them then you are invisible.

When you put female hypergamy into a cultural or social context, then it all makes sense.

I have never read of any group of humans that numbered above 1000 that didn’t have a hierarchy. We are talking about the east so think about the indesirable and the priest castes. Women marry up and they conciously and subconciously place men into a hierarchy of desirability and utility. Women, and feminist women especially, structure the class oppression they like to bitch about. Great article.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 00:54

OT..but nothing new.

“A religious education teacher has been struck off indefinitely after admitting to a sordid sex encounter with a pupil.
Erin La Porte, who taught RE at Princes Risborough School, Bucks, was struck off indefinitely by the General Teaching Council after a panel heard she had slept with the youngster during her year-long tenure.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383566/Erin-La-Porte-banned-teaching-having-sex-pupil.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 01:02

“Part of the reason Indians favor sons is the enormous expense in marrying off girls. Families often go into debt arranging marriages and paying elaborate dowries. A boy, on the other hand, will one day bring home a bride and dowry”

And the reason for this is that men, and by a VAST majority, are the ones who do the productive work that puts food on the table, a roof over the heads, cloths on the backs, and education into the heads of children.

It has always been this way. It will always be this way. Any attempt to force this to be different, as we are seeing now, destroys the society in which it is attempted.

Women are not intelligent enough to realise this. So it rests on the shoulders of men to make sure that they do not allow women to destroy their society. If they do allow this? Then men will live in that destroyed society too. And funnily enough? I see that quite a few men are looking forward to that. LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 01:11

oddsock May 4, 2011 at 12:04

The depopulation program is the #1 agenda of the Illuminati. I have been telling people this for three years. But men are too stupid and too wilfully ignorant to do their reading to learn as to whether this is true or not. The fact that 2 BILLION abortions have taken place in the last 40 years seems to completely escape men as a POPULATION REDUCTION measure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbuRMVVekg&feature=player_embedded

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 01:35

Gents. Just in case you men don’t get it yet.

Feminism is a key element of the POPULATION REDUCTION AGENDA.

Population reduction is the #1 agenda. Look around you. Everywhere you look you will see the message ‘people are a cancer on the earth’. You will find it in movies like the matrix. You will find it in ‘environmentalism’. You will find it being talked about by the likes of Ted Turner. You can see it in the food pricing. The oil pricing. The spiraling cost of ‘heating’.

Everywhere you look you will see evidence that there is a massive effort underway to REDUCE the number of people. And they are not all going to go quietly and willingly.

What men seem to completely miss is that they think just because the worlds population is currently growing that there can not be a ‘depopulation program’ ongoing. What they miss is that this program was instituted in the late 1800s most likely. The Illuminati want the worlds population to be in the 500M range. For some reason the Illuminati, in the early 1800s, decided to introduce new technologies at a rapid rate. The arrival of steam and fossil fuel power to replace the horse, the arrival of clean water and sewerage systems. The arrival of trains, telegraph, medical advances. These things lead to the suddenly extended lives of the vast majority by being able to produce better food, clean water, deal with sewerage, and stop people from dying from relatively minor ailments. As these things were introduced the Illuminati saw that there would be a need to cull the population as they foresaw that people would reproduce quickly in a better environment. So they made sure they could start some really big wars and create pandemics using vaccinations. This was shown in WW I where many of the troops with ‘shell shock’ had never been to the front lines. Their ‘shell shock’ was induced by the vaccinations they were given. And the flu epidemic in 1919 is alleged to have been started via the Rockefeller funded vaccination program.

Alas. The Illuminati seems to have miscalculated just how hardy people are or just how much they have a willingness to reproduce in better times and the population started exploding. Another war hardly put a dent in these numbers. So a new approach had to be found and used. That approach is to confuse men an women as to their sexual identity and get LOTS of men and women to be ‘gay’ so they don’t have babies and to create the situation where men refuse to have babies or to support the babies.

Hmmm…And where are we now exactly? That would be right. We are at the point in the west where men are waking up and realising that having babies makes them a slave to the woman. They are also waking up to the fact that most western women are not very nice to be around.

The secret to fewer babies was NOT talking the women into not having babies which is happening and you can see that all around you. You can see women are being sold ‘the career’ and the focus on ‘the career’ is distracting them from having babies. All the men here know this. Now you know why. Depopulation.

The secret to fewer babies is to convince the men to NOT SUPPORT the babies that are born. This is being done by abusing those men who have babies and then other men pointing out this abuse of the men who have been abused to the young men.

This is how to get ‘fewer babies’. Make it something that young men refuse to do. Make having a baby a total disaster for young men.

If you think about it? It’s really a very good plan because if the young men refuse to have the babies in the first place there are no real ‘losers’…..except the women. They lose because they then have no real function or utility in society. What does a woman do if she does not have a baby? What use is she, really? Can she do ANYTHING a man can’t do? Nope. This is why you are seeing young women respond with hypersexualisation. The young men are starting to realise that marriage is slavery and children are slavery and they are starting to ‘walk away’. And the women realise that the ONLY thing they have left to offer is hyper sexualisation. When a woman does not offer a man a chance to have children because he no longer wants them? She has nothing left to offer other than sex. It’s that simple.

Today we are merely in the transition period where men are going from

“father and husband is the most noble and most important job a man can do”

to

“Being a father and a husband is inherently evil and men who are such must be punished for their evil.”

This is why I take the position of ‘accelerate the program’ while offering the remedy to the very program that is being accelerated. The remedy being the ‘Marriage Agreement’ and ‘Arbitration Panel’ in the book. When women are held accountable for their actions or are chattel property to a man we can have stable families again. But while women commit crimes with impunity a stable family is not possible and all men are well advised to avoid interacting with PEOPLE (all women) who are not held accountable for their crimes.

I’ve been telling you guys this for nearly two years now. Yet few are intelligent enough to ‘get it’. You prefer to live in a world of denial saying “The Illuminati can’t exist because I don’t believe they exist.” Not good logic guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
LaughOrCry May 5, 2011 at 01:44

Troll King – “invisible males” Good post!

As per F. Roger Devlin, in human mating it is generally the man who pursues the woman – which means he must develop some strategy for achieving his goal. The first part of that strategy is to assess every female he encounters as a potential mate, and narrow down from there.

In contrast, the woman does not have a strategy; her only strategy, such as it is, is to say “Yes” or “No” to each man who draws himself to her attention. Therefore her default reaction to every male she encounters is to ignore him; he’s invisible – she’s not the one in pursuit so there’s no point in noticing him. As opposed to the way men see women, every guy she encounters is automatically dismissed as a potential mate. She will only notice him when there is some specific reason for her to – if she can see that he will be of some advantage to her.

While this only applies to mating, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that it might apply to some extent to the way men and women operate in society in general. Of course most men don’t assess each other as potential mates (unless they’re gay), but men still need to assess each other as potential mating competitors – that’s why guys notice the homeless guy (and of course, as you point out guys are also always on the lookout for potential threats).

I also don’t think it’s a stretch to say that this may be why men tend to be better at strategising and problem solving in general, whereas women tend to rely more on feelings and gut instinct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 01:59

Troll King May 4, 2011 at 23:44
“Think about that guys, women will never help you because if you are beneath them then you are invisible.”

Correct Troll King. The other night as I walked home from the office a guy begged me for some money. I have him EUR10 and you would think I had bought him a house. When I was in London a homeless guy begged me for some money and I gave him GBP10. Again? You would have thought I bought him a house.

I gave about USD11,000 in outright donations last year. This was money that was DESPERATELY needed. I gave another USD5,000 or so in work to an abused father. I just loaned a female friend (one who helped me greatly in divorce) USD6,000 to keep her flower shop open. I just loaned a man in Australia USD2,000 to keep him afloat while he brings allegations of torture and murder against the NSW government. How much have other men here donated t omen in need? That would be a good question for each man here to ask himself.

Some men then go on to malign me and say “but Peter makes lots of money and has a lot of money so he can afford it and that means I don’t have to bother helping desperately poor men”. This would be complete denial of the fact that 95% of my assets were stolen by the ‘guvment’ and that I have spent about EUR300,000 on creating the remedy for men to use. (Who then refuse to use it 99.9% of the time by the way.)

I am down to my last EUR30K or so. I have to get my cases run to get money or go out and sell some more software. Being down to you last EUR30K or so at 47 having made very good money for the last 25 years? Some say it is not a good result. But I am VERY HAPPY with the result I now have. I don’t have ‘money’ but I now have some REAL friends. Not the FAKE friends I used to have. And I can see just how indifferent both MEN AND WOMEN are to men in need. I can see that because I was one of those men in need, through no fault of my own, and I saw just how indifferent MEN AND WOMEN were to me. (Not to mention that no I have vastly reduced my time and effort in the MRA area I will sell a truckload of my software and be a millionaire soon enough.)

So yes. Women will never help men. But how many MEN help men? Not many. Less than 0.01% if you actually take a look. So I take the position that I am not willing to give men any real credit for being ‘better’ than women when it comes to helping men in need. The fact is that ‘help’ is all one way traffic.

FACT. MEN HELP WOMEN AND CHILDREN. PERIOD.

I am one of VERY few voices who are urging MEN to help MEN. It is a real shame there are so few men calling for MEN to help MEN. And it is a real shame there are even fewer willing to do so. What man here can stand next to me and say “I have given as much time, money and effort as Peter these last three years”? Some have done what they thought was right. Some have made efforts trying to ‘change the family law’. But few have joined me in the remedy as presented by the book. Most men who interact with me actually malign me. You men might want to think about that when you are telling yourself how ‘good’ men are.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
V10 May 5, 2011 at 02:14

Bang on the money, E.

Aside from the question of children, wives are redundant. Technology and convenience of commercial services means we no longer need to permanently subcontract a domestic maintenance technician.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
alpha May 5, 2011 at 02:29

[[But it’s not simply that girls are more expensive for impoverished families. The census data shows that the worst offenders are the relatively wealthy northern states of Punjab and Haryana.]]

here’s some more data
http://www.nfhsindia.org/NFHS-3%20Data/Press%20Briefing%20Kit/Domestic%20Violence.pdf

As far as domestic violence rates are concerned, Punjab,Haryana fall 7 places below the national average.

Excerpts:
[[One in six (16 percent) married women have experienced emotional violence
by their husband2.]]

[[One in 10 married women have experienced sexual violence at the hands of
their husband, i.e., they have been physically forced against their will by their
husband to have sex or perform other sexual acts they did not want to
perform.]]

thats 10%. boo hoo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Traveller May 5, 2011 at 04:46

“Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 01:35

Population reduction is the #1 agenda.”

Only if you are white.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Migu May 5, 2011 at 04:50

“How many commodities – raw minerals, automobiles, nuclear power generators, chemicals, computers, etc., with their resulting toxicities – need be produced and consumed to make our lives simpler and more fulfilling? ”

The more you burn, the more you learn.

That giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky started a giant chemical fire on the planet. Everything on the planet is a product of that fire and the various ways it has been burned.

How much sooner would we have discovered oil chemistry if we had deforested the planet in 2000 BC? Instead we didn’t have environmental groups attain influence (code word for response to fuel shortage) until somewhere around the coal conversion.

Save the forest types originally encouraged the burning of coal. With coal there would be minimal need to chop down the precious forests for fuel. When the coal exhaust began to kill off the environment……Natural Gas moved in. So it goes on to oil, and geothermal. (I include hydro here because if the earth wasn’t on fire there would not be a watershed.) We can even create controlled nuclear fires on the planet’s surface these days.

Life is better now for more people than it ever has been. The reason is because we have more energy. More Fire.

We are heterotrophic organisms, it is our life mission to consume. If we do not we die. So we develop consuming strategies to prolong our consumption as long as possible. Releasing otherwise unsuable energy and converting what we can of into usable energy is how we do this. For example, crops are the first solar panels, we release their energy by eating them.

Everything that you pick up and use to keep your ass alive is the ultimate product of a fire somewhere.

Biological imperative number one is to survive.

If we do not Consume, we do not survive.

Anti-consumption is dangerously close to a death cult.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 05:10
oddsock May 5, 2011 at 05:20

Peter- Andrew: Nolan

I agree with many of the points your raise in your posts, and I am quite sure I arrived at similar conclusions via much the same path as yourself.
However, our approach is different in that I do not believe you or I can force others to see what is, to us, blatantly obvious. The saying, you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink comes to mind.

I believe the best way is to simply keep planting seeds. No point in trying to shame or ridicule other men. We are all at different points along the path and I would much prefer to promote an environment of support curiosity and open conversation without the fear of being flamed or otherwise. Having said that, I do understand some of your frustrations. It’s par for the course.

The main difference between you and I is that I very firmly do not believe western society is worth saving, even if it was possible? I certainly do not want a return to any variation of mans previous/current or future status as wage slave cannon fodder.

This horse has bolted. ( the unintended consequence of feminism )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 05:23

Well, well, well. Who would have guessed. A woman regrets never having children and this is ‘news’?

Welmer and you other writers? Theres a column or two in this one!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1383689/With-unsparing-honesty-woman-lays-bare-regret-having-children.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
dadarbaap May 5, 2011 at 05:29

Actually in Indias case. The highest percentage of abortion of female children is not done by majority of rural masses but by certain communities, especially communities that are vegetarian. For example Jains that shun meat and look down on meat eaters have the highest rates of abortion of a female child. Not only are they vegetarians, but majority of them are rich urban and have access to higher education. Especially their women. So their women rather have an abortion then eat a piece of chicken. The typical baby killing communities in India are upper caste, urban, so called educated (ijukethidh) and vegiterian. For example in a state like Gujarat, if you look at districts that have a lower amount of upper castes you will see a better female to male ratio. Where as the districts that have those upper caste vegeterians you will see huge baby killing imbalances.

Now another thing I will mention is these communities that practice selective abortions will get screwed over later when due to the lack of females in their communities, the women will have enormous advantages for being in “demand”. So the will slut around and still not have to worry about social consequences.

Also the Indian media never point out the communities that practice the majority of selective baby killing. Furthermore they make excuses for the cunts that actually go through with killing their children. Even the majority of the doctors doing the abortions are cunts themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 05:37

oddsock May 5, 2011 at 05:20
“The main difference between you and I is that I very firmly do not believe western society is worth saving, even if it was possible? I certainly do not want a return to any variation of mans previous/current or future status as wage slave cannon fodder.”

Oddsock. I am pretty close with you on that one as well. What people like Roger Hayes is proposing in the UK and we are proposing in Australia is, indeed, not a ‘saving’ of western society. We are proposing that men who wish to live in freedom choose to do so and then start creating the kind of world they want to live in. Roger now reports they have 30 volunteer peace officers who have the same powers of arrest as ‘normal police officers’. They will also soon have their own courts. There is more news coming for you men in the UK. http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/

From where I am sitting? There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with ‘western society’. I am having a very good life. I don’t know how it could be much better. If I could find an honest woman that might improve my life a bit but I have accepted Shopenhauers assertion that such a woman might well be an impossibility. If more men did what I am doing? They too could lead a very good life. Remember. 99%+ of men will choose the current system of slavery over freedom even if they know they are doing so. I am really only talking to the <1% of men who wish to be free. Of them I think less than 1% will actually choose to become free. The rest will stay slaves. I now fully expect 99.9% of men never to choose to be free. I had thought that number would be more like 5%. Nope. My mistake.

The ‘wage slavery’ was created so as to keep men busy all the time. Distracted from looking up to see who is really in charge. And men who rebel against their slavery are then stomped on pretty hard by the ‘legal fraternity’. If that does not work they are declared ‘insane’ by the ‘medical fraternity’ and locked up so that none of the other sheep catch the ‘dis-ease’ of wanting to be free.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 05:50

OT…wow..this comment actually made it to the article. They must have forgot to censor me today!

woman not waiting for her medal for motherhood, humanity, 5/5/2011 14:31 ?I am surprised by the lack of compassion?

But I am pretty sure you are not surprised at the lack of compassion shown to men who have their children stolen from them. Indeed. Men like me who had our children kidnapped are almost UNIVERSALLY HATED ON by other mothers. Who would have thought that wanting to be the father you chose to be would make the man considered evil incarnate. This is why I tell all young men to refuse to have children. Because fathers are hated on now. So don?t be looking to abused fathers for ?compassion?.
- Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), London, 5/5/2011 14:44

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1383689/With-unsparing-honesty-woman-lays-bare-regret-having-children.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
TomJW May 5, 2011 at 05:55

Carnivore May 4, 2011 at 21:22

Exactly. Let womenm learn blacksmithing the way men first learned it, on their own. No special ‘ins’ or training for women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 5, 2011 at 06:00

@ Troll King from May 4, 2011 at 23:44
I hear you on that post man. I have said this a few times here. And I just don’t believe woman have the capacity to love. It just isn’t possible. It doesn’t sound nice to say at first and it also gives a taste of horror and fear with hopelessness to say out loud with the knowledge that it is true. But when your own emotional desire for what you were taught is a joyful life and use adult logic and understanding you can make a quote as Troll king here “When you put female hypergamy into a cultural or social context, then it all makes sense.” Once a man realises a woman’s lack of capacity to love and the selfish nature of women wth an infinte capacity to rationalise he can come to a conclusion to this feminism monster.
I have learned so much from the conversations here it is unbelievable. Today we are discussing the actual need a man has of a woman and there really is none other than to knock up to have a child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
oddsock May 5, 2011 at 06:23

greyghost & Troll king

You have both made excellent post and very accurate observations.

There is much truth/wisdom in the quotes or sayings we often find on web sites such as this one.

” There is no such thing as a dangerous woman only gullible men”

A fave of mine. “women are only as loyal as the opportunities she has before her”.

Sadly, from my own and many painful experiences I finally had to swallow the most bitter of all the red pills. Women do not give a monkeys toss about men. They only see us as a means to an end, her end that is.

The biggest con trick ever played on men is getting us to believe from a very young age through constant conditioning that women or a wife/gf will actually love us for who we are. What a crock of shite that is! How else would a man be fooled into being a wage slave and cannon fodder ? How many men on here still go to a mind numbing soul destroying job in the false belief it is his duty his role to finance or try and get/keep some lazy hairy arsed bint in comfort? Is it any wonder they have little respect for us ?

What suckers we have been

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 5, 2011 at 06:23

@ Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)
That is how it will be done. MGTOW is how that happens and it needs to happen on a scale big enough that the female suicide rate starts to match the male rate. Sounds bad but maybe we can get the male rate down.
Two things with out any changes in law or female attitude will end this madness in 2 to 3 years if even that long. Male birth control pill and an artificial womb. As the commenters have already demonstrated by personal example there is no need for women and this last bit of technology will seal the deal completely. Contrast this article with the one Peter-Andrew Nolan(c) posted up above. http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-675-hk-land-tycoon-s-son-lee-ka-kit-47-probed-over-surrogate-triplets.html Look at the smiles versus the the sadness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
TomJW May 5, 2011 at 06:30

Troll King May 4, 2011 at 23:44

Beautiful. That has been copied and is reading for my son this weekend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 08:14

Traveller May 5, 2011 at 04:46
Only if you are white.

Um..have you missed what has been going on in Africa these last 40 years or so?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 08:18

OT…this is the hamilton canada slutwalk page and my comment on it. If anyone wants to go over and like the page and give them bit of a serve that would be great. Of course they will take it down right away because ‘strong and independent’ does not make it to tolerance of free speech! LOL!

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/38/postid/345/scope/posts/Default.aspx#345

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 08:37

LaughOrCry May 5, 2011 at 01:44
“In contrast, the woman does not have a strategy; her only strategy, such as it is, is to say “Yes” or “No” to each man who draws himself to her attention. Therefore her default reaction to every male she encounters is to ignore him; he’s invisible – she’s not the one in pursuit so there’s no point in noticing him.”
Only true if you are not a man at the top of the tree. I have LOTS of women notice me. In some cases I have even had to have the waitress where I am eating tell the women to stop bothering me or they will be removed from the restaurant. I have women who have just met me give me their numbers. It’s only flattering until you realise they are after money. Really. I’m not that good looking! LOL!! I can’t compete with George Clooney!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
namae nanka May 5, 2011 at 08:44

Red Baron

“The girls number might be higher due to the fact that the births are sometimes not reported in the rural area.”
“I have been told this but have never read this anywhere so this would be classified as a rumor.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7787661/Chinese-hiding-three-million-babies-a-year.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
namae nanka May 5, 2011 at 09:29

funny headline that:
“Despite economic growth, India lets its girls die”

and the Economist’s “The worldwide war on baby girls”

and using abortion as the “war” tool.

How about,

“Despite humongous economies and high standard of living, 1st world lets its baby girls and baby boys die” while Hanna Rosin celebrates the selection of girl test-tube babies over boy test-tube babies.

But oh no, in that case its fetuses you’re talking of and a woman’s right to choose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Firepower May 5, 2011 at 09:54

Uncle Elmer

The Democratic Party is in the U.S., not Canada.

I never knew fisking was improved by banging gook mailorder brides.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11
Omega Man (As in the Charlton Heston movie) May 5, 2011 at 12:13

3 vids featuring how we got into the mess we’re in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHgYPDvQFU8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRVk4WVomjQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBm9ZyIg3I0

When someone says conspiracy theory or theorist in a snide manner, I reply in a counter-snide tone “Yep, it’s physically impossible for a group of people to get together and plan stuff.”

And on a unreleated note

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/comedy/8494687/John-Cleese-The-Alimony-Tour-Corn-Exchange-Cambridge-review.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Omega Man (As in the Charlton Heston movie) May 5, 2011 at 14:05
Troll King May 5, 2011 at 16:19

OT.

New info on the Bin Laden Killing

http://www.slate.com/id/2293111/

Wow, they found a cache of three aks and a few pistols….OMG!!!! Hope they don’t against men in the south, I know guys who have gun collections ranging in the hundreds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Me(lissa) May 5, 2011 at 17:41

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 37
Fenrir May 5, 2011 at 20:10

Melissa, read “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrel. Ph.d. “You had ALL the power for thousands of years” is simply false. Regardless of your friendly writing style you are still just chanting the party line. Even shaming men as being bitter at women and using NAWALT.

You are not being dismissed because of your gender but because you are just repeating what every other special snowflake who arrives here says, you really think the angry men here will respond well to passive-aggression?

Besides, most of them have a right to be angry, they were tricked into living in a world that doesn’t exist. And some of them have had their lives destroyed because of the lies feminists spread.

At least you allude to equality of opportunity instead of equal experience.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Guy May 5, 2011 at 21:05

Don’t know if it has been mentioned before, but male preference historically has been related to warfare. A society was only as strong as the number of men it possessed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jeb May 5, 2011 at 22:31

Regarding Melissa’s post, and Fenrir’s reply:

Men have never “really” had “power.” Female Primacy rules our species, just as it rules all other species on this planet.

Rollo Tomasso made a few really good posts in this regard over at In Mala Fide’s a while back, so I will just quote him:

First Post: (comment #33)

Simon, the Matrix has you.

Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.

For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here., who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.

Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.

So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.

Second Post by Rollo Tomasso:

The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.

Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.

ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.

————-

I doubt that women are even aware of this, as they are constantly stuck in “victim mode,” similar to how children are also stuck in “victim mode” in order to get their needs met.

This is probably the biggest reason why women’s political power has been restricted so much in the past – because her social power is so enormous.

“Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” — Samuel Johnson

There is a hierarchy in civilized society, and if you muck up the hierarchy, it is much like children making the rules for their parents, rather than the other way around. It is not the children hate their parents, but rather that they are not capable of empathizing with the parents, and thus, all of their behaviors become abusive towards parents in short order.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Jeb May 5, 2011 at 23:20

Btw, as much as Warren Farrell has given much insight to the plight of males, it should always be noted that his solution is more androgyny!

This guy was a blank slate feminist back in the seventies and eighties, and he is still a blank slate feminist/masulist in the modern day.

While he gets the condition right, his solutions are fully feminist, and his methods are fully Marxist/pro-statism.

I cannot support the man. He is a baby-boomer fool still believing in Utopia. His male studies program will be as dangerous as women’s studies. Don’t forget, this fella was the President of NOW when Dworkin, Millet, Solanis, Steinem et. al. were becoming world famous, and he did not oppose Utopia then… and then he got turfed for owning a penis, and simply switched teams.

Now he wants to lead us men in “Male Studies.”

No thanks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 6, 2011 at 00:41

“I cannot support the man. He is a baby-boomer fool still believing in Utopia. His male studies program will be as dangerous as women’s studies. Don’t forget, this fella was the President of NOW when Dworkin, Millet, Solanis, Steinem et. al. were becoming world famous, and he did not oppose Utopia then… and then he got turfed for owning a penis, and simply switched teams. ”

Hear hear Jeb, well said. outstanding posts.

I like the thought of a “Male studies” programme but not one that is run by a game keeper become poacher.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
buggeroff May 6, 2011 at 01:27

Feminist Melissa says
“Fact is, I think we all kinda hate each other” ….

Well feminists anyway,duh.

Then she whines about being confronted by the fact that in these feminist male hate societies women have lost for the most part the capacity to simply love a man for himself…..as a Human being.
Not rocket science where a lot of the male hate comes from..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Traveller May 6, 2011 at 02:33

“Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 5, 2011 at 08:14

Traveller May 5, 2011 at 04:46
Only if you are white.

Um..have you missed what has been going on in Africa these last 40 years or so?”

The African and Arab invasion here in Europe, with a skyrocketing birth rate compared to the indigenous white population, all of them on white (male) taxpayer money, and a free pass to any crime. Same in the USA with the Mexican immigration.

If you think there is an elite wanting depopulation, it wants a white obliteration, at least in this stage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Maaldweb May 6, 2011 at 05:36

Traveller wrote: “If you think there is an elite wanting depopulation, it wants a white obliteration, at least in this stage.”

Well said. That is why feminism was launched against whites and not against any other race. The goal was to break up the white family, turn white females against white males and make the former to go after careers instead of following their nature (re: give birth and raise children).

Those who pull the strings tried communism but it failed, they tried soft communism (i.e. liberalism) and it had mediocre results, but feminism alone managed to destroyed the West.
Patriarchy of course will be restored sooner or later. No species can survive having its females unrestricted for long. Unfortunately it won’t be whites who will restore it but the muslim invaders… Well at least when muslims become a majority they will have to deal with feminism and all those penis-hating, estrogen-insane women. Then heads will roll…literally:-)
I guess every cloud has a silver lining!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 6, 2011 at 05:51

Outstanding find and response Jeb. You guys are getting good. BTW it looks like the spearhead is gettig is the standard for MRA blogs. The spearhead makes the comments on a lot of blogs.
Me(lissa) try not to get too hung up on the idiology and really think about the place you have in this world and what you have to offer. Don’t focus on what you get but more on what you have to give. The joy you get from life will be seen on the faces of the legacy you leave behind. You are following in the path of this woman.http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-post-marital-spinsters-rationalization-hamster-in-the-final-stages-of-exhaustion/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
jameseq May 6, 2011 at 06:43

Jeb May 5, 2011 at 22:31
Regarding Melissa’s post, and Fenrir’s reply:

Men have never “really” had “power.” Female Primacy rules our species, just as it rules all other species on this planet.

john adams also thought the same, that women are the true rulers of this species

http://shegetzguevara.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/john-adams-to-abigail-we-know-better-than-to-repeal-our-masculine-systems/
John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776

As to Declarations of Independency, be patient. Read our Privateering Laws, and our Commercial Laws. What signifies a Word.

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient-that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent -that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out.

Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
jameseq May 6, 2011 at 06:52

W.F. Price May 4, 2011 at 18:03
From memory, footbinding was a marker of status reserved only for aristocrats and wealthy merchants. The manchus upon taking over china may have adopted the custom.

-Jameseq

it was at first, but peasants adopted the practice as time went on. Fashion does tend to trickle down.

As for the Manchu women, foot-binding was banned for them by imperial edict at the beginning of the Qing dynasty. If they did, they were essentially rejecting their patrimony.


Odd, isn’t it, that the resistance to foot-binding came from the most powerful men of the land, yet it flourished just the same…

yes it interesting how women now have the freedom to wear whatever they want, and what do they do? do they wear modest loose clothing. hell nooo. they brazenly display their sex and mount our eyes cowgirl style.

They even think theyre modestly dressed when wearing trousers, unluckily for them their lovely wide hips and delightfully full bottoms give erotic flesh tothe fabric. I dont even have to sleep with most women, i can simply look at them lol.

such joy, thankfully the maj of het women arent visual

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
jameseq May 6, 2011 at 06:55

W.F. Price May 4, 2011 at 18:03
From memory, footbinding was a marker of status reserved only for aristocrats and wealthy merchants. The manchus upon taking over china may have adopted the custom.

-Jameseq

it was at first, but peasants adopted the practice as time went on. Fashion does tend to trickle down.

As for the Manchu women, foot-binding was banned for them by imperial edict at the beginning of the Qing dynasty. If they did, they were essentially rejecting their patrimony.


Odd, isn’t it, that the resistance to foot-binding came from the most powerful men of the land, yet it flourished just the same…

yes it interesting how women now have the freedom to wear whatever they want, and what do they do? do they wear modest loose clothing. hell nooo. they brazenly display their sex and mount our eyes cowgirl style.

They even think theyre modestly dressed when wearing trousers, unluckily for them their lovely wide hips and delightfully full bottoms give erotic flesh tothe fabric. I dont even have to sleep with most women, i can simply look at them lol. the very thing they wish to deny us and lesbians, they offer up so freely.

such joy, thankfully the maj of het women arent visual

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jameseq May 6, 2011 at 07:02

Melissa

..To the person saying that women do not deign to notice homeless men…women are AFRAID of homeless men. I’ve seen homeless men act in very bizarre and unpredictable ways that made me not want to draw their attention to me. Homeless women are less of a threat, simply because women are GENERALLY less violent and aggressive. I have yet to see one punch someone in the face and throw their belongings into the street, like a homeless man I saw. Another homeless man screamed insults at me because I refused to buy a worthless ticket from him. I’ve seen homeless women trundling carts and whispering to themselves, but none have made me sense danger.

and many a policeman, many a bouncer has ended with knowing the eternal sleep because they underestimated the violent potential of a woman. if you havent sensed danger from a homeless woman, youre operating with reckless incaution, with a dangerous prejudice

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 08:37

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 31
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 09:43

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 32
greyghost May 6, 2011 at 10:03

Hey, the broad said you guys are a bunch of fags. LOL!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
greyghost May 6, 2011 at 10:19

This is a quote from Me(lissa)
“To the man who said a woman who wants to be a “blacksmith” should have to learn “blacksmithing” all by her lone, from scratch; so you believe that you are automatically entitled to anything accomplished by someone of your gender? YOU did not discover or figure out blacksmithing. Do you also believe that some random tribesman in a hut somewhere is automatically entitled to “blacksmithing” due to his gender, though he’d never have discovered it on his own? You are no more entitled to training than a woman. By your logic, modern black people should receive reparations for labor performed by their distant slave ancestors.”

This is comeplete jibberish and why you don’t debate or try and rationalise with a female mind. This is why MGTOW and indifference is what is needed. Save reself the trouble and avoid these women. To minimise the damage they can do in your life. Let this lady be a lesson for all to see and understand. It would be something to see the guy in love with this lady.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Jameseq May 6, 2011 at 10:31

Hey grey, not only are we gay(whats wrong with being gay, feminist?). we live in our parents’ basement, have a micro penis, are scared of a ‘real’ woman, arent ‘real’ men, are wimps, are little child-men blahblah.

Melissa tries to shame us into submission. Next will come ‘scold, scold, scold-de-scold’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 10:41

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 30
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 10:47

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 30
namae nanka May 6, 2011 at 10:52

“Part of me wants to say in response to all the whingeing about female power, “Suck it up. You had ALL the power for thousands of years.””

“so you believe that you are automatically entitled to anything accomplished by someone of your gender? ”

haha
Are you an idiot? And what if you were a man in the previous life?

“that I can express my sexuality however I see fit, speak my mind, vote, own property, have a say in laws ruling my life, etc.”

lol the empowered woman’s brave declaration

“who cannot conceive of a woman being anything other than a drudge slave/sex supplier for a man”

conceive? or see what women themselves are doing with their “empowerment”.

“As to “social power” as opposed to political power, no thanks on that, really. ”

men’s revolution – guns, blood, loss of life and limb.
women’s revolution – nagging, bra-burning
women’s “war of independence” – bunch of men voting to give women the vote

lmao

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Jameseq May 6, 2011 at 11:05

Melissa, im bi

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Jameseq May 6, 2011 at 11:10

And youre right melissa we are ‘silly kids’ aka ‘little child-men’. Lol

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Jeb May 6, 2011 at 11:38

As to “social power” as opposed to political power, no thanks on that, really. All that “social power” meant that I couldn’t so much as walk down a street alone without being labeled and mistreated by society. To hell with social power…I want the political kind that dictates I cannot be prevented from doing anything I CAN do, that I can express my sexuality however I see fit, speak my mind, vote, own property, have a say in laws ruling my life, etc. I don’t want special government programs or women’s studies or special concessions…I just want to own my own life, just like you do.

Are you trying to claim that you currently, or at some previous point in your life were prevented from these things? Lol! These claims that you cannot do these things illustrate quite well how females instinctively go into “victim mode.” Btw – even in the 19th Century, you could work and own property. You were also allowed to express your sexuality, as much as males were, back then. And if the 19th Century was sexually repressive, much of the blame can be laid at the hands of rising female political power – aka, The Temperence Movement, trying to instill morality upon the masses through government dictate. True, about the vote – but, this only lasted for a few decades, and you were no worse off than Catholics in most of the Commonwealth, who also had to pay taxes on properties owned but were denied the vote – for about as long as women. Also, you have to understand that this only affected a small minority of women, since most women were covered by Coverture Laws – for female benefit too, I might add. (The reasoning is that husband and wife cannot own separate property, and must own them together. As feminists try to say this “proves” oppression, the opposite is true. Males generally had more property and wealth than females, and the co-joining of husband and wife meant a great step up financially for the majority of females – if they would have left the two owning separate properties, most females would have experienced a higher rate of poverty.) The Right to Free Speech was never denied to females, just like today, the right to free speech is not even denied to five year olds. Voting, btw, is not, nor never has been a “right.” You should study a little history and government, and understand that none of the nations of the free world were ever intended to be universal democracies, as they are now.

What you talkin’ ’bout, Gringa?

You are a victim only of your own mind.

And since you believe in “equality,” how do you propose to counter that females have more innate social power (and constantly wield it, like you do here with your shaming language) than men, while you also assume political power. This “balance” automatically means that women will have 75% of the power in society. You could always wear a burka to try and dampen innate female social power, but somehow I suspect you would be opposed to that as well.

Women’s social power and manipulative abilities are the mirror image of male physical strength. Also, one of its biggest powers is denying that you possess such power, even though it is the first thing she wields in any encounter which she does not agree with. This social power is also how females tend to abuse both their spouses and their children – it is known as Social Aggression, or in DV Terms, Psychological Abuse, and it is stereotypically the realm of females.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 11:53

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 27
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 11:58

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 28
Jeb May 6, 2011 at 12:03

Women have been doing moronic things since the Garden of Eden.

When have women ever been prevented from being morons? History is rife with examples of stupid women!

Stay on topic please.

How can you balance female social power, which males cannot possess by way of nature, while also giving females all the traditional male power?

How

Can

You

Equalize

Them?

This sounds a lot like “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is ours.” Which, of course, results in 75% belonging to females.

If you say you just don’t care about this imbalance in society, then you cannot also claim that you want to see men and women having equal power – you would, by default, be advocating for females to wield the majority of power in society – while still paying the least for it.

Btw, in the last Presidential Campaign, aside from Ron Paul, every candidate openly supported women’s issues – the two females overtly supported it and made a big show about it – while claiming victimhood at the same time.

How many of those candidates illustrated any concerns about males specifically as a gender? Most males already use most of their power to benefit females – and when women gain political power, they only use it to benefit females.

It is impossible to maintain any semblence of balance in such situations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
namae nanka May 6, 2011 at 12:51

“I don’t have any reason to believe I had any previous lives. ”

Oh no, you don’t get to deny your previous life privileges.

“In addition to some negative things, they are also going to college, serving all sort of functions in society, buying homes, etc”

lmao fuelling the education bubble and the housing bubble and serving all sorts of roles in a society at the detriment of that of motherhood.
Below replacement fertility rates FTW!!

“Do you believe this shouldn’t be a free country, because some people use their freedom to do stupid, non-beneficial things?”

That was in response to “drudge slave/sex supplier for a man”. Women themselves embraced the sexual revolution, the sexual revolution changed women much more than men.

Did men ask women to go work when the housework could be done in a few hours with the help of modern appliances? Women had all that opportunity and free time to unleash their collective genius over the world and they threw it all away at the word of one disenchanted housewife named Betty Friedan.

Read her history, you’ll die laughing or crying, probably both:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?s=0c7986df312ab090b2996ed22ddc879f&t=94913&page=2

Men are merely useful idiots in the conflict between the content matriarchal mothers and the termagant women who make sammich “for no man” and go around proudly proclaiming so and want other women to follow suit.

See Sweden for example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world/europe/21iht-LETTER.html

Or the “how women got their vote” article on net where you find the story of a man, whose decisive vote was influenced by his mother.

You’d come to the realization that 1) it’s women’s conformity that is the biggest impediment to women’s liberation
2)the good things that you say women are doing, is (indirectly) leading to the downfall of society

Mother Nature is sexist, maybe man will undo it in the future and then feminists will promptly put their own label on it and declare it a victory against the pater-archy; but the way things are going, that future is well nigh impossible.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
universe May 6, 2011 at 13:01

Migu

Luckily I noticed your comments – May 5, 2011 at 04:50May 5, 2011 at 04:50.
Before I’m away from a computer for days on end I thought it best to reply to some of your comments or offer some clarification of mine.

I’m not opposed to technological advancement or industrial productivity and consumption, per se. I haphazardly muse over some long term consequences that certain technologies are manifesting and humanity’s willingness at or captivity to being part of their production. In a small way I am part beneficiary to all that has previously been manufactured as I am part beneficiary to the evolved economic success of what is on the industrial market today. And I am gratefull for them, too. Just a short time ago my grandfather lived during times when individual hand pumps supplied water and wood-fired stoves provided for other means of sustenance. Comparatively, today, I live a quality of life that even past aritocrats had no ready access to.

And, in not so many words previous, I wonder at where is humanity headed when our worth as individuals can be reduced to especially what we produce or consume. And that the production and consumption of some commodities has consequences upon a producer’s body and their surrounding physical environments (polluted air, water, and soils).

In my previous writing above I made a raw attempt at wondering what and how people in their disparate roles contribute to productivity. You provided a clue – [my wording] humanity’s consumptive nature and learning to improve on existing means of production. The first book of the Torah in Genesis 1:22 – “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply…”, provides an allegorical or actual manifested meaning of human nature. And some of your words are figuratively reflected in an except gleaned from, “Workingman’s Death: 5 Portraits of Work in the 21st Century”, formatted on DVD. “…The masses have boundless creative power and they can organize themselves in places and branches of work where they can give full play to their energy [where] they can concentrate on production in bredth and depth and create more & more undertakings for their own well-being”.

So, being that productivity and consumption is rooted in human nature, as similarly to an otherworldly nature of when celestial objects collide, break and form fiery objects, I wonder at whether people could be happier being satisfied by what they have or if their lives weren’t spent just being a ceaseless production cog for further encroaching profiteering industrial globalism. That, I suppose, would be within the choice of individuals for being one or the other or both.

I may have not addressed all you had written or as clearly as I seek to do when first setting out to write something (but fall short) but I do appreciate and thank you for the time you took to address my earlier comments. You have given me much more to consider.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 13:02

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 30
namae nanka May 6, 2011 at 13:27
Jeb May 6, 2011 at 13:48

The only thing I consider myself a victim of NOW is the mentality of men (or even women, for that matter) who define me according to my appearance,

There’s always that Burka thing, ya know. You could also, if you don’t want to be judged by your looks, don’t show your looks in other ways. Stop wearing make-up, and wear baggy clothing. Stop styling your hair, and all other sorts of things. But, you cannot dress to attract, and then claim attraction as your personal oppression.

You mention women having been allowed to work in the past…yes, in very limited, non-enriching, dead-end, uninteresting ways that paid very little and carried no power.

As opposed to all those men who were highly paid and enriched by working sixteen hours a day at the bottom of a mineshaft, or pounding railroad spikes, or shovelling coal into a ship’s furnace… do you think that ALL men in the past had wonderful, enriching jobs? How many do you think had great jobs that paid well, that they enjoyed? 5% of males? 1% of males? How come you can only see the small percentage of males at the top, but cannot see the majority that existed in shitty, harsh conditions, only to serve their families. Lol! Give me a break, lady. 99% of men had really, really shitty jobs throughout 99% of history.

As I keep stating, women should be allowed to do anything we’re capable of doing. If we’re capable of doing something and doing it well, why the hell do you believe that nature, god, or what-have-you would have equipped us accordingly if we weren’t meant to use the abilities?

Whoever said you weren’t? One thing women do exceptionally well – better than men, is have children. Other than that, in the past, when men were doing those “wonderful jobs” you believe they all had, like spending all day in the sweltering heat plowing a field with oxen, the women were doing what they did best, and were best suited for, given near universally poor work conditions. They were, um, baking, churning butter, milking cows, feeding pigs, sewing clothing, gardening, caring for children – and hey, women are specifically equipped for raising children! How about that!

Btw, sex drive is a constant, and unless you believe that all women should have remained virgins their entire lives, exactly how do you propose that women of the past would have juggled raising children with a sixteen hour work day in the mines? Once people reached sexual maturity, they started humping, and guess what, that meant babies, and somebody had to take care of them. Don’t you think women were better suited to care for children, while men were better suited for the heavy manual labor that pretty much only existed throughout history? It seems both sexes were doing things to the best of their abilities, given the circumstances. What planet are you from where this was not the case in most of history?

Property rights for women managed to evolve over time, continuously getting better…what does that have to do with women being denied anything approaching equal property rights in the past? Before legislation dictating those rights for women, there weren’t any! My point having been that women did not have rights in the past, but political power changed that.

Property rights evolved over time for men as well – however, men often had to resort to violence to achieve that. How did property rights evolve for women? By use of that “social power” you claim is no big deal… so again, this brings us back to you having your innate social power which influences society in your favour, and also demanding to have the traditional male power on top, lopsiding things horribly in your favour. That you continue to deny this just shows your solipsism. Btw, Coverture laws not only made “husband and wife into one” for many purposes – virtually all to the benefit of females – but it also conferred property rights to those females once the husband was deceased. So, during marriage she owned property through her husband, and after marriage she had property rights to his estate. A woman could also, as a spinster, inherit property, or own property. The only thing was that upon marriage, coverture laws prevented the husband and wife from owning property separately. As I said earlier, this was done in order to benefit the majority of females, not males. In fact, this was standard practice well into the twentieth century, again, for the benefit of the majority of females – so that husbands could not own any property outside of marriage, which the wife would not have rights to.

The right to vote SHOULD be universal in a democracy. Another example of society managing to evolve, as it should.

Then you don’t understand government very well. Universal suffrage is a tool of Communist/Totalitarian societies, not free ones. Everyone is a minority some of the time, and a universal democracy always devolves into a totalitarian one. The Founding Fathers mentioned democracy nowhere in their writings. They mentioned a Republic – a society founded on LAWS, and of guaranteeing RIGHTS. But nowhere did they mention Democracy because that is not what they intended. Karl Marx, on the other hand, he promoted Democracy.

If 51% of society votes for women to lose their vote and be put back into the kitchen, do you think you would agree with that? That is how democracy works.

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed sheep protesting the vote” — Benjamin Franklin

Your liberal education didn’t teach you very much, did it?

Sigh. You would bring up the Bible. A book written entirely by primitive men with primitive values, not a female perspective in sight. Of course the story they made up to explain why the world has so many flaws and terrible things despite being created by a “perfect” creator WOULD include a female culprit.

Give me a break. Mentioning the Garden of Eden is hardly “bringing up the Bible,” as the Garden of Eden is a fairly universal metaphor for the beginning of times.

Are you trying to be socially manipulative here? Redirect! Redirect!

Btw, at the time when men were primitive, women were equally primitive, or do you believe we evolved separately from eachother? Women had social power back then too, you know, and without female support, male society would never have flourished.

I keep “hearing” about all this influence I have as a female. Please, please tell me more…apparently, I have been missing out!!! I’m serious, I’m curious to hear what it is that you think I control, with my gender alone?

It’s been explained to you several times now, in this very thread. It has also been explained that the first thing females do when confronted with it is “deny, deny, deny” because once they quit denying it, they lose all its power. Have you, or have you not been trying to portray yourself and women throughout history, as poor, helpless little victims throughout this thread? The second you acknowledge that females are complicit in socially approving the way society has always been, you become equally responsible for the past, and can no longer claim victimhood from it – this is why females deny they have such power, because it would imply they actually have, gasp, responsibility!

M’kay, why don’t you run along now, little girl. You are arguing in a manipulative manner, as women are prone to do, while ignoring logic and facts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
greyghost May 6, 2011 at 14:08

Outstanding once women are responsibility adverse. Also is why you don’t try and have a conversation with a hamster brain. But it was a good lesson for the men here to see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
greyghost May 6, 2011 at 15:02

outstanding once again Jeb

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Jameseq May 6, 2011 at 16:15

Me(lissa)
May 6, 2011 at 11:58
If you make a silly kid remark, I
will refer to you as such,
regardless of your gender. I can
assure you, I have no thoughts
or opinions on your possible
penis size, or possible basement
habitation.

Unlikely, considering yr standard feminist murmurings about ‘possible’ sexual orientation. However you can continue lying to yrself about this and yr unconscious male-homophobia.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Jeb May 6, 2011 at 16:21

It’s interesting how Melissa writes her name, while denying female sef-centeredness.

ME! (lissa)

Me! Me! Me!

Absolutely zero ability to see the world from any other perspective than herself first, women second, children third, and men somewhere after the family dog.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Anonymous May 6, 2011 at 18:16

i saw this story on yahoo the other day….ugh.

Do people EVER stop to think about these things? it was the usual answers- god these primitve societies, valuing males like that , whenever will they join us in the real modern world? These stories are a great way to draw in know nuthins to squawk their gums and show how morally superior they are without knowing a fraction of the real facts. Try to enlighten them and youre one of the enmies- sexist, racist tea bagging white nationalist christian bibile thumper blah blah blah *eyes glaze over*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Anonymous May 6, 2011 at 19:01

It doesnt matter if you deconstruct each & every one of MElissa’s arguments with logic & reason- this the default mode of most modern women today; the hatred of men for ‘oppressing’ them & the NEED to get back at them no matter what it takes, even if it means destroying society. Logic doesnt apply, their feeling of being wronged is what’s paramount here, and no reasoned response will ever soothe that. That’s the female brain. The feeling doesn’t match up with the explanation given, so we MUST be wrong. They don’t accept our line of reasoning & we don’t accept theirs. There is no point in a dialogue with many of them to begin with

I think they truly *want* to destroy our society, even if they’d never admit to it to us or themselves. And they’d blame us for it the whole way down….

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Jeb May 6, 2011 at 19:13

Women are like a horse that’s gotten into to the oats – they won’t stop eating until they die from eating.

In other words,

Women would rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.

Screw ‘em.

Make you own life, secure from their involvement – even if it means going off the grid. Go into town and practice game when you are horny – the only thing they worthwhile to you for, (use condoms) then, again, screw ‘em, and let them wallow in their own filth.

Sex toys, that’s all they are. They offer no other benefits in the modern day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Rainbows and Lollipops May 7, 2011 at 07:06

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 30
MNL May 7, 2011 at 09:05

I recommend anyone wanting a more complete analysis of the history and consequences of imbalanced sex ratios read, “Bare Branches” by Valerie Hudson. This problem goes back centuries in India and China. While family planning abilities (and government policies in the case of China) are partly to blame, these advances couldn’t drive the imbalance if the culture wasn’t already predisposed.

The consequences of this are very troubling. As Hudson shows, throughout history, societies with imbalanced sex ratios like this are more prone to risk, violence, and social unrest. When enough men come to realize they have very little at stake (genetically-speaking) in maintaining the sexual and social order, there comes a tipping point. History shows that large numbers of idle, unmarried, sexually frustrated, testosterone-rich young men can–and will–upset the political status quo. With no sexual outlet and no prospects for spawning children, such men have little to lose in pursuing crime, violence, and even revolution.

Now consider the West’s present trends toward a “sexual dystopia”, the failure of social norms to reign in female sexuality, a pump-and-dump culture where young women circle the alphas while mass numbers of betas get stuck with their own right hands. Consider a culture that doesn’t lament any of this but instead celebrates it under the labels of “female empowerment”, eradicating “double standards”, “liberation”, and “gender rights.” These trends, carried to their logical conclusion, create social conditions that look very similar to those faced by countries with imbalanced sex ratios.

The similarity is this: once enough young, sexually frustrated young men collectively realize they won’t get any benefit from investing in a stable social-sexual order, the jig is up. The social order will weaken. It will weaken through crime, poverty, increased violence, and ultimately perhaps revolution or war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Jeb May 7, 2011 at 09:58

Because Adam didn’t sin in Eden Jeb? Adam and Eve’s sins where different in Eden but they both sinned equally. “People” have been doing moronic things since the Garden of Eden but to say that “women” only have been doing stupid things is prejudice and ignorant. — Rainbows & Lollipops

I didn’t say that Adam didn’t sin – please read a little closer, dear. Melissa tried to claim that women haven’t been allowed to do moronic things on their own in the past, and I merely pointed out that women have been allowed to do moronic things since the garden.

I didn’t know that one was required to point out male sins whenever pointing out a flaw in someone’s faulty description of history. I mean, does Oprah point out female sins each time she whines about men on her show?

It is exactly your kind of thinking that has lead society down this path. Exactly like how Melissa, while ranting against the Bible, tries to condemn it for pointing out a few female sins – despite the fact that the Bible points out male flaws compared to females at about 10 to 1. All that women can see, and get angry about, is the 10% that applies to them.

And by the way, Adam and Eve did not sin “equally.” Adam’s sin was worse, for while Eve was decieved into sinning, Adam sinned willingly with full knowledge of what he was doing. This points to the notion that men’s and women’s brains work differently, and illustrates how women’s rationlization hamsters get them into trouble – man’s folly is that he actually listens to women, despite knowing they are wrong. This is also why, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, God put Eve under Adam’s dominion, wheras when they were in the garden they were not under either’s dominion. Adam was expected to know better. You may take that to heart, but what it really illustrates is the dangers of a woman’s rationalization hamster – something you have illustrated with this very comment, silly woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
namae nanka May 7, 2011 at 11:41
Maaldweb May 7, 2011 at 23:24

Ms Lolipops wrote: “People” have been doing moronic things since the Garden of Eden but to say that “women” only have been doing stupid things is prejudice and ignorant”

Wrong again, historically men have been doing more stupid things than women. Why? Simply because men are the primary actors of history, the more you act, the more susceptible you are to do mistakes. But men are also the only force behind civilisation building. Everything we have achieved as a species is due to the male brain’s ingenuity (especially the ingenuity of the white man’s brain). Women on the other hand contribute minimum to civilisation and history. There are no female Mozarts, Rembrandts, Nietzsches, Platos, Heideggers, von Brauns, Copernicuses, Fords etc never were and will never be. Why? Because as you and the other females have repeatedly demonstrated here the only thing you can truly excel is in whining and manipulation. Since most feminists have long passed the age they could manipulate men through their looks (if ever a feminist could do such a thing given that all of them are fugly), you are only left with the whining.

And since I am sure your next line of argumentation will be something along the lines of “women gave birth to these men! You forget that!”. Let me remind you (again) not to confuse the subjects and derail the conversation (as you always do). The reproductive capacity of women is irrelevant in this conversation and I don’t think anyone ever doubted it.
You may also argue that the reason for the absence of female philosophers, composers, painters, scientists is due to the fact women were oppressed. There is no evidence to prove women were barred from composing or discovering things, or writing philosophic treatises. For example, 17th, 18th, 19th century upper middle class women were thoroughly educated and it was part of their education to know how to play the piano and speak foreign languages. Such women due to their wealth and status had enormous amount of free time and they always had the opportunity to further their education. Still no female composers, poets, painters, philosophers etc.
In ancient Greece there is indication that a few female poets existed and they participated in competitions but their performance was quite low, so nowadays none really knows them.
Of course in 3.000 years of recorded history you may find a few exceptions (e.g. Hypatia, Marie Curie) but these exceptions only prove that if a woman really had to offer something of substance there was nothing to hold her back.
Even today after 4 decades of hardcore feminist brainwashing, the female mind still hasn’t contributed anything of substance to sciences and arts.
My studies were in the field of Humanities an area were women supposedly excel. I honestly don’t recall any articles in academic journals or any books by females offering anything new or of importance. That puzzled me back then because I was pretty much a victim of feminist brainwashing myself and I believed women can be as competent civilisation builders as men. Well it turns out they simply cannot :-D

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Rainbows and Lollipops May 11, 2011 at 20:57

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20
Rainbows and Lollipops May 11, 2011 at 21:12

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 21
police March 29, 2013 at 02:07

I take pleasure in, result in I discovered just what I was taking a look for. You have ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: