Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

by Featured Guest on October 20, 2011

The book in a nutshell

By Tim Goldich

The overarching principle that pervades and unifies every element of this book can be expressed in a single word: Balance. The book’s “radical” premise is this: in the benefits enjoyed and in the liabilities suffered, in the power and in the victimization, in the freedoms and in the constraints, it all balances out between Man and Woman—and it always has. By helping to promote a general understanding and perception of this balance throughout the culture at large, this book’s ambition is to effect a fundamental gender paradigm shift.

As it stands now, common wisdom perceives imbalance—an “imbalance” of power enjoyed by men and victimization suffered by women. Society has long recognized a world of male power/female victimization, yet that has never been more than half of the full story. The missing half can be found. It’s contained within a shelf full of excellent but as yet rather obscure books. What might be thought of as the female power/male victimization half of the story remains obscure because neither sex wants to hear it. Nevertheless, for every female complaint, there is an equal and opposite male complaint. For every one CEO there have been many POWs.i Hard/hazardous labor, battlefields, prisons, mines, the streets, the sewers—men have always occupied both extremes, the most and the least enviable positions on earth—the latter in far greater numbers than the former.

Imagine, if you will, a gigantic scale where there is love on one end of the balance beam and respect on the other:

This love/respect dynamic upon which gender balance pivots can be described in two brief statements:

Throughout history, both sexes have respected men

more than they’ve respected women.

Throughout history, both sexes have loved women

more than they’ve loved men.

Feminism has made women’s lesser status along the respect axis abundantly clear. Both sexes have listened and both sexes have worked together to change the cultural environment in ways that promote respect for women. That men are less loved, however, may ring true from the outset yet be met with cynicism just the same. Both sexes receive the female side with empathy and the male side without empathy exactly because both sexes love women more and men less.

Hostility toward women is given the pejorative label of “misogyny” because hostility toward women is forbidden. Ours is more a misandrist (“male bashing”) culture. But few know this word misandry—a word that would, if it existed in common parlance, condemn hostility toward men the way the word misogyny condemns hostility toward women. Our lack of love toward men is so pervasive as to be invisible, and we concern ourselves with it so little that we don’t even have a word for it.

Balance is revealed in the following four key statements:

One: At birth, members of both sexes are assigned roles, conditioning, and socialization that facilitate and ensure a world in which men are more respected/less loved and women are more loved/less respected.

Two: Historically, men have been no more empowered to escape their biology, role, socialization, conditioning, and concurrent fate than women have been.

Three: The two sexes, equally powerless and equally powerful, have plied an equal overall force of influence upon the world and upon each other, engaged in equal complicity and partnership in the sculpting of our world, and are thus equally responsible for outcomes both good and bad.

Four: Throughout history, the enormous consequences and vast repercussions suffered by women for being less respected have been matched in full by the enormous consequences and vast repercussions suffered by men for being less loved.

These four statements are key, because taken together they lead inexorably to the one key truth: It All Balances Out!

In light of the world as it is ordinarily perceived, the above may strike one as an outrage, but I can make my case well. Indeed, I intend to do so, because I believe that a culture-wide perception of this balance that I speak of forms the only path leading to the full restoration and preservation of love and respect between the sexes.

As things stand at the dawn of the new millennium, we can clearly see that men and women have broadened their horizons. Yet at the same time, we feel a profound wedge has been driven between the sexes. Progressing further and healing the divide will require a new system of gender politics that deals with the many and varied issues of men and women as equal opposites that balance each other. This balance is plain to see, but only to those who have come to a full understanding of both perspectives, female and male.

Understanding begets compassion, which begets love to replace rancor and resentment. With full cognizance of balance, there comes a dissolving of self-righteousness, divisive hostility, vengeance motives, and victimhood—the emotional bile currently poisoning love/respect between the sexes.

If average, ordinary men were empowered enough, enlightened enough, and courageous enough to speak to what truly lives in their minds and in their hearts, doubtless a new cultural ideology based on fairness, maturity, and sanity would soon replace the escalating “Battle of the Sexes” insanity wherein we now stand bewildered.

We have learned to take seriously the need for both sexes to better respect women. But our lack of love for men itself blinds us to the need to be equally understanding and sympathetic when it comes to the issues and inequities of men. By better understanding the vulnerabilities of men, both sexes may learn to better empathize with and love men.

The goal ultimately is for a unified movement that would combine the concerns of men and women equally under one banner. But first, men must distract themselves from the business of rescuing women long enough to begin dealing with their own issues and the issues of their less fortunate brethren. Both sexes must forgo the illusion of “superman.” Men must cry out, and women must listen. Only then can the gender politics of the future be built upon an even foundation.

i WWII, Europe and North Africa, about 8.75 million allied POWs (Prisoners of War) taken by the Axis powers and 8.25 million German and Italian POWs taken by the Allies—in all, about 17 million soldiers, sailors, and airmen prisoners of war. This does not include the war in the Pacific, nor the Korean or Vietnam wars or any other armed conflicts worldwide. In comparing this number with the number of CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) up at the pinnacle of success, think of the “Fortune 500” companies. Multiply that number by as many as ten thousand and you still don’t approach the total number of POWs [Source: Vance, Jonathan F (editor), Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2000) p.341]

{ 97 comments… read them below or add one }

garvan October 20, 2011 at 10:38

This assumes that women are capable of love.

This I have yet to see.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 20
cybro October 20, 2011 at 10:48

Women don’t have the ability to love anyone but themselves and little carbon copies of themselves who are their children. They do however respond the same way dogs do to the warmth a man’s love has for it. In other words they know a good meal ticket when they can feel it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 81 Thumb down 18
Yesod October 20, 2011 at 10:50

Men need to learn to love an respect themselves first. Then women will catch on. Women never do anything innovative. They can only follow the lead of men.

If men backstab each other – women will backstab men.

If men fight against other men – women will fight against men.

If men sacrafice themselves for women – women will sacrafice men for themselves.

If men respect each other – women will respect men.

If men love each other (no homo) – women will love them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 17
AmStrat October 20, 2011 at 10:54

Yeah, this is a good theoretical article and all, and definitely may have applications attracting fence sitters, but with enough experience and research of every kind of woman there is of all ages, you just find that they are incapable of loving Men. As said above, they love themselves and (to a degree) “their” children, but not Men. Men are the ones who DO the loving, women just love being loved.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 10
Rhahael October 20, 2011 at 10:55

This also assume men want that “society love” They Don’t! They want back the respect society has taken from them, nothing more. Courtship is the easier part to solve this problem since it’s in a microscale (personal – you only have to game your girlfriend); the actual problem is in the macroscale (social – you having to endure all the policies against you).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 4
keyster October 20, 2011 at 11:02

“One: At birth, members of both sexes are assigned roles, conditioning, and socialization that facilitate and ensure a world in which men are more respected/less loved and women are more loved/less respected.”

No, they’re born to biologically assume these roles, despite trying to “condition” or “socialize” them to the contrary. Girls have an abundance of “respect” through coddling their precious self-esteems vis a vis boys, in schools and by parents.

“Two: Historically, men have been no more empowered to escape their biology, role, socialization, conditioning, and concurrent fate than women have been.”

No, men are much more “empowered to escape” because they don’t don’t give birth.

You’re avoiding the thing no one likes to talk about because it so weakens the “balance” argument. Women give birth and men don’t; a pretty important difference. Which is why men and women can never be equal in any other way, but in VALUE to humanity.

The mother figure has been so derided and shamed by feminists, to the point of being VERY unstylish to be one, that her perceived value has diminished, while we pretend to assume she’s simply a man with a womb. This is why the abortion issue is #1 in femafascist land. They think it’ll maintain a balance of power if women aren’t “burdened” by little ones. Housewives are looked down upon by the careerist woman, like she’s a sell-out to patriarchy or traitor to the cause of empowerment.

“Balance” is father, mother and children.
Not careerist single mom whisking kids off to daycare and single dad visiting every other weekend. The day we absolved women of motherhood is the day the big tilt of the scales began. And I don’t see a movement afoot to re-embrace it, at least among the cloistered believers of feminist orthodoxy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 4
Rebel October 20, 2011 at 11:05

What a crock of shit!!

Love is nothing more than an illusion that runs high in men’s brains: it has no substance other than a couple of electrical impulses.

Respect is the fear that strength inspires.

The author of this book must have been born in the 19th century.

What a fecking crock of cowshit!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 23
keyster October 20, 2011 at 11:06

“They do however respond the same way dogs do to the warmth a man’s love has for it.”

A dog’s love is sincere and unwavering.
A woman’s love is fluid and unpredictible.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 7
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 11:09

The book ? What a load of bollocks!

I love me and women can feck off!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 13
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 11:12

OOOh well said Rebel. It’s a complete load of horse poo !

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 12
Firepower October 20, 2011 at 11:14

Tim Goldich

Imagine, if you will, a gigantic scale where there is love on one end of the balance beam and respect on the other:

NOT happening Young Tim.

Society had this – ONCE. Not any more. The disappearance of a cherished value means one thing: you’ll have to see Hell before you see its return.

Imaginings, wishes, hopes and shoulds are all the realm of women and children. I am a man, and therefore, deal in the realm of reality and absolutes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 9
Carnivore October 20, 2011 at 11:19

Seems to be saying that the 20th century movement (i.e. feminism) to gain more respect for women was good and sprung up naturally. Now, for the 21st century, we need a movement to gain more love for men to balance things out.

The purpose of feminism was not to gain more respect (or power, or equality) for women, although that’s how it was sold to the masses. The reason the power elite instigated feminism through their channels of control and its real purpose was to destroy the middle class, male-headed family, just as welfare was used to destroy the lower class, male-headed family. Lack of strong, male-headed family units leads to more governmental and centralized control of and power over the population.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 3
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 11:21

See Firepower, you make some really outstanding comments, as above, and written so well but then you always go and destroy it with some totally out of context attempted insults at other posters. Really really weird !

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14
Towgunner October 20, 2011 at 11:29

women wanted respect that’s how this whole thing started, eh? Well, this is wrong from the get-go. First, they want respect without earning it. Okay, so there are women that are shamelessly promoted, over and over again and again, if they prove to be a statistic outlier and achieve something perceived to be manly. Whether that person did it or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the arbitrary action of some outside force, normally the state, that mandates the inclusion of women in the first place. This “force” also acts to force women to do things they wouldn’t do if left alone i.e. don’t play with dolls play with trucks etc. For instance, there was a big “woop woop” moment for women when an all female crew piloted the space shuttle. Okay, how did this team come to be in the first place? Isn’t NASA really just masquerading as our Space agency but really another node in the social engineering scheme? Of course it is, and what happened to that the shuttle anyway? How can you expect me to respect that? Now take this example and apply across nearly all walks of life. Moreover, when one of us confronts feminists with something akin to ‘respect must be earned’, what do we get? We get cries and whines…as if they were some helpless creature flopping on the ground. Oh the oppression, they say. Instead of falling for this tactic, we should call it for what it really is – pathetic! Again, how can you expect me to respect that?
Perhaps the most odious part of this dynamic is this – after forcing men to “respect” women, has this grave wrong now been righted in an absolute sense – meaning men and women equally respect each other? I’ll let you be the judge of that, please reference: The atlantic’s “end of men” and WSJ’s “man up” articles plus the current portrayal of all men in all media, except for user-generated content on the internet.
My answer is an emphatic NO. We’ve bent, twisted and perverted our system, running huge deficits, compromising quality, rationality, reason…to accommodate this respect-gap for women. And after they have self-declared victory what do our newly respectable people do?? They turn quickly at the incumbents and utterly disrespect them with the level of contempt akin to nazi to jew or white to black (pre-civil rights).
In that light, have we progressed? Shouldn’t it be the underlying ‘prejudice’ that we collectively fight? Or have we just supplanted one master for a new one. Furthermore, our new masters are an inefficient solution. women, like it or not, are not the optimal people to be put in charge or things. I do love the women form, but I don’t see it as an optimal vehicle for utility versus a man’s form. You can call that whatever you want, and it’s not just me most people, men and women, will see the same thing in any system that is left to evolve on its own. I think the progressives have highjacked the word respect and turned it into something it’s not. I respect a woman more if she is a woman and not trying to be a man, mostly because I see someone not submitting to peer pressures, which is weakness.
Lastly, If women want respect than please consider this next statement very carefully – I certainly cannot respect let alone ever love a creature that looks at me as inferior…and this attitude is here today with us, again reference the article “are men inferior?”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 3
Rus October 20, 2011 at 11:51

If the role of man is to love and the role of woman is to respect then it follows that asking women – especially the women of today – to love men is futile as it goes against their basic biological nature. Instead, we need to take back the reins in society.

No more feminism, make talk of the glass ceiling taboo, shame them into staying thin and attractive and ostracize those who act like men.

Force their respect, so that we might once again feel love for them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 7
Common Monster October 20, 2011 at 11:56

How about “Good Will Towards Men” – which was the title of a book by Jack Kammer ~20 years ago? No need to reinvent the wheel, Tim.

I was just explaining to someone not long ago how the word “respect” is a rather complicated word maybe best avoided… what Aretha Franklin sang about is way different than what you mean when you say you respect rattlesnakes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
hf October 20, 2011 at 12:19

hmm, so this is also assuming that women are ok with balance. We all know that is not the case. Women want it all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Una Salus Victus October 20, 2011 at 12:47

OT: Repent!!! The end is f*cking nigh!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2050300/High-heels-men-rise.html

This is living proof that society is in a tailspin that it is unlikely to recover from. If this catches on, this is going to become an issue that makes raising well adjusted boys near impossible. As much as I dislike organized religion, I’d find the most rigid religious institution to send my sons (should I have any) to be educated.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Tom936 October 20, 2011 at 12:55

The book s radical premise [is that]
it all balances out between Man and Woman and it always has

No. It contradicts Feminism, but even so it’s not true. Feminism’s shameless, truth-be-damned mentality has turned the truth on its head. Men have it worse and probably always have.

Think about it for a moment: Feminism couldn’t have perverted the truth so fully and so easily if women didn’t already have staggering advantages.

I couldn’t possibly enumerate all of them, but let’s name a few: Women’s easy access to unearned power. The sisterhood mentality. By contrast, men will step on a brother to help a distressed woman. Easy forgiveness for women’s transgressions, such as lying about history and about their personal situations. The power of female sexuality – let’s not forget that elephant in the room. Society perceives women’s anger non-judgementally and even as a cry for help, while our anger, however greatly warranted, is perceived as dangerous. Women naturally complain, men naturally don’t. When we suppress our instincts and articulate justified complaints anyways, it is taken as weakness. I could go on and on.

It has never balanced out. Feminism isn’t a reaction to unfairness, it is a continuation of an unfairness that has been here for a long time. In seeking fairness for men, our movement is seeking the first real change ever in gender roles.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 20, 2011 at 13:13

@Una Salus Victus

Please do not lament the rise of high heel shoes for men: it’s a question of power.
Women wear these to raise their power (the hard click noise they make when they walk).

High heels were fashionable during the reign of kings and queens. The monarch had higher heels than everyone else to show superiority.

I would laugh quite a lot if a great number of men were to acquire and WEAR such shoes (specially with very high heels and a metal piece underneath)

Wouldn’t that be a laugh?

And what if many men wore women’s clothes and wore women’s perfume: wouldn’t that piss women off real good?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Jim October 20, 2011 at 13:16

Is it better to be loved or feared? That’s a good question. It’s great to be both, but it’s very difficult. But if I had my choice, I would rather be feared. Fear lasts longer than love. -Sonny- A Bronx Tale

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 13:18

Rebel

Oooh oooh, can we wear stockings too ? With red suspenders ? They don’t fit angry izzy too well so I may as well use them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
MWPeak October 20, 2011 at 13:22

This reminds me of egalitarian equality (a favorite idea among feminists) where male and female are essentially androgynous without whatever parents, culture and education teaches them.

Also, mothers loving boys perpetually without at some point showing them respect as men remains something that is either ignored or promoted. Moving from love as a child to respect as a man used to be part of moving a boy into adulthood.

Finally, men already respect women. Their meekness to women in places of authorty and efforts of husbands to please their fickle wives is respect.

Loving men and respecting women is essentially what we have and more of the same is not going fix the problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Rebel October 20, 2011 at 14:43

@0ddsock October 20, 2011 at 13:18
Rebel

Oooh oooh, can we wear stockings too ? With red suspenders ? They don’t fit angry izzy too well so I may as well use them.”

What?
You bought Izzy suspenders instead of a bra?

No wonder she’s angry!

LOL!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
CorkyAgain October 20, 2011 at 14:44

In today’s world, men are neither loved nor respected.

Meanwhile, women are still loved and are demanding — and getting — respect.

So much for the theory that these things balance out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Jaego Scorzne October 20, 2011 at 14:44

There is some Truth here. In the old days, women were naturally considered ditzes and very delicate. Some of them made the most of it when society became wealthy – Victorian Ladies would “take to bed” for years or even decades. Fainting was considered very lady like.

And then? This extreme bred the opposite and Feminism was born. Contrast this to the Pioneer Women who worked hard and HAD to be sensible. There are many cases of them standing with their husband and sons fighting off Indians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Reece October 20, 2011 at 14:48

Wow. In sitting on the fence and attempting to pander to both men and women, you have only succeeded in antagonizing men. Why do people like you fail to see what the solution actually is?:

1) All members of the ruling classes need to volunteer to be the first humans in space without a space-suit.
2) All women need to give up all rights to the “pussy pass”, and stop aborting babies.
3) Men need to dismantle, burn and bury the “pussy pedestal”, forever.

Tim Goldich said:
“Nevertheless, for every female complaint, there is an equal and opposite male complaint.”

No, there is not. There are at least three reasons why they are not equal:

1) Women complain, even when they have no legitimate complaint. Men, do not complain unless they have good reason, and they base their complaints on evidence and not feelings. Partly because both men and women are aware of 2), and that accomodating the complaints of women, usually make life worse for men.

2) The government treats the complaints of women seriously and acts upon them, while the complaints of men are ridiculed, if not ignored outright. Worse, the evidence of the legitimacy of male complaints is actually distorted to give the opposite impression. So, clearly, the complaints of men and women are not treated equally. Only the feeble-minded or agenturs would think otherwise.

3) There is no reason why any two complaints should necessarily be equal or opposite. Is there some sort of strange magical force at work that equalizes the complaints of men and women? The authors statement is however, equally both foolish and absurd. Perhaps the author was hit on the head by a book discussing Newton’s laws of motion, and has become confused? (See Newton’s third law)

The truth is, apart from the tiny number of men that have power, which they acquire by treating the rest of humanity unfairly, both men and women are relatively powerless. The only “power” that ordinary men have, is to render themselves powerless via confering special treatment of women, i.e., putting the pussy on a pedestal, to which some men reach almost omnipotent ability. In fact, they have used this power to such an excessive degree in recent history, that they have convinced women that they are superior beings, nay, goddesses! The ruling classes have gleefully seized on this weakness of men and used it mercilessly against them. Now they have almost made it completely illegal to oppose the ascendency of women or the government.

It would be easier to unsheath the legendary Excalibur from it’s ancient stone prison, than to extricate men from their present self-inflicted predictment. Yes, self-inflicted. For generations, juries of men have acquitted women of heinous crimes (See the Fraud of Feminism Below). The same crimes that men would be convicted of, in a heartbeat. Even during periods when women received exactly the same punishment as men or would have, if the men on that jury had done their duty. By failing to apply the law evenly to both men and women sometimes in the face of clear evidence to the guilt of the latter, they forfeited justice, for themselves and the men that followed. For what once was the short-sighted discretion or misplaced chivalry of a jury of men has gradually become law. In fact, we are almost at the point at which female criminality is no longer even recognised, never mind punished.

For what it is worth, I forgive these men, since they probably illiterate and naive, and the world moved a lot more slowly back then. They couldn’t hope to forsee the momentous changes that lay in store for future generations of men. But in the internet age, there is no excuses for us whatsoever to be clueless about this situation and what must be done to correct it. I figure we have one more generation to get this done.

(Read The Fraud of Feminism (1908) by E. Belfort Bax).

An old book but still valid, today. In fact, he could have written this in 2008. The MRM needs this guy!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
keyster October 20, 2011 at 14:55

“Instead, we need to take back the reins in society.”

That means you’ll need to recapture the all powerful mass media system and academia, especially the social sciences; and abolish political correctness. This is what keeps men under thought control and silences dissent; while feminist lies continue without correction.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
woggy October 20, 2011 at 14:59

Men are “respected”but not “loved”?

I don’t buy it.

Women and children are coaxed , by our feminized churches, schools and media, into an unreasonable FEAR of men- fear which seeks to invalidate and destroy at the slightest provocation (or even where NO provocation exists).

RESPECT has it’s basis in facts- Facts such as the benevolent love that the vast majority of men bestow on a society that actually fears and hates them. The commonplace reference to benevolent patriarchs of old as “dead white guys” is but one example of the level of contempt heaped upon penis-bearers.
Karl Marx would be so proud!

No – society does not respect men. It fears us and feigns respect whilst figuring ways to make use of us to their own ends, and then soil our memory and piss on our graves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 October 20, 2011 at 15:06

Towgunner October 20, 2011 at 11:29

women wanted respect that’s how this whole thing started, eh? Well, this is wrong from the get-go. First, they want respect without earning it.

And there you have the basis of feminism.

Respect must be earned. Period. Anything that calls itself “respect” that does not involve effort is unworthy of the name. It is no accident that “self esteem” has replaced “self respect” in our schools. Schools used to be meritocracies, where high achievement earned high grades. Now feminist education teaches that self esteem is more important than anything, including knowledge itself.

Anyone can bask in esteem. Paris Hilton and the Kardashian sisters are esteemed, generally by particularly vapid women, but are they respected? I think not.

For respect to really matter it is best received from people who understand the sacrifices and self discipline required in the earning. I try to treat everyone in a respectful manner unless they prove unworthy of such consideration, but being born with a uterus is not an achievement worthy of the kind of respect I give to someone who worked hard to accomplish something.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Reece October 20, 2011 at 15:10

Maybe I’m just not in the mood for any trifling today but this comment got my hackles up.

Towgunner said:
“They turn quickly at the incumbents and utterly disrespect them with the level of contempt akin to nazi to jew or white to black (pre-civil rights).”

I almost gave you a thumbs up but this bit spoiled what was an otherwise good post. When the Jews had finally worn out the patience of the germans and they took action, lots of countries threw millions of men away to protect the Jews. Today, the whole of the West is bashing men, and there is no-one coming to help. In fact our lives are still being thrown away. The accumulated suffering and death inflicted on men, far outweighs anything that happened to the Jews. Incidentally, 10 million Germans died *after* WWII, as a result of forced labour, abuse and starvation. You could call it a holocaust, but nobody does.

Looking at crime statistics, blacks kill more blacks, than white people ever did. They kill more blacks in a month than the entire activity period of Ku Klux Klan. You went back to the “civil rights” period to look for black persecution, and even then you’re wrong. Most whites were just exercising their right to freedom of association. They were no more likely to attack blacks then, than they are today, despite the crime statistics clearly showing that black-on-white crime is over-represented.

The point is, I think it’s time to stop citing the Jews or Blacks whenever we want to point to hardship or suffering. It just reinforces the lie that men, especially white men have got it easy. Isn’t that what you’re arguing against? And you were quite successful until you got to the part I quoted, which actually damages your argument. It taps into the same “step-up, step-back” bullshit that accuses white men of being “priviliged”, and therefore liable for “reparations”, until the end of time, or extinction whichever comes first (white men are less than five per cent of world population and falling).

Let’s try to not perpetuate the lies and disinformation that would have us believe one group suffered more than another group so certain groups like men or white people must suffer endlessly. White suffering has been swept under the carpet, which is the only reason that it may *appear*, that white people are “priviliged”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
Slicer October 20, 2011 at 15:17

Latest news about women:

“Most women are naturally bi-curious when it comes to sex, a new report has discovered. And what’s more, it becomes more pronounced the older they get. The latest research simply claims it perfectly normal.

Boise State University found in a group of 484 heterosexual women, 60 percent were sexually attracted to other women; 45 percent had kissed a woman, and 50 percent had fantasies about the same sex.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2051284/More-half-women-bi-curious-attracted-women.html#ixzz1bMZD2FQO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Laura Grace Robins October 20, 2011 at 16:04

“Men must cry out, and women must listen.”

Women listen? Afraid the dream stops there. Men are crying out, letting their voices be heard, but in return what do women do–shame and tell them to “man up”.

I also don’t see how to get women to “begin dealing with their own issues” as they largely don’t see themselves as having “their own issues”, rather their issues are ones imposed on them and furthered by men or other people.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 16:15

Rebel

“What?
You bought Izzy suspenders instead of a bra?
No wonder she’s angry! ”

Ohhh Feck!

Listen mate, we have got to work our comunications.

Angry Izzy is the inflatable sheep. Izzy is the real life one and me bitch.

If she reads this she will find out I did not deflate all me sheep. If she discovers I put suspenders and stockings on them she will think I am weird.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9
Anonymous Reader October 20, 2011 at 16:20

Tim, you really do not seem to understand biology. Women, because they birth babies, are vulnerable in the physical sense and need protection – love makes them feel protected. Therefore women need love.

Men, because they are in genetic terms expendable, need to have some worth, dignity, value. Therefore they need respect.

In the current regime, as others have clearly stated, men are not loved and are not respected – exactly the opposite, as a group we are feared and the target of female contempt.

I’ve lived all alone with no love. I’ve lived in bad situations with little respect. I’ll take the former – if I have respect of co-workers, of neighbors, then I can get by without love. The worst of all is contempt: to live in an atmosphere of contempt is just corrosive. I won’t have that ever again in my house.

So I’d say you are at best confused, at worst attempting to co-opt the righteously angry men for some other purpose.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 16:25

keyster

“Instead, we need to take back the reins in society.”

That means you’ll need to recapture the all powerful mass media system and academia, especially the social sciences; and abolish political correctness. This is what keeps men under thought control and silences dissent; while feminist lies continue without correction.

Interesting.

The mass media system is dying thanks to the internet. As for all the other systems, they will die or at least undergo a major restructuring with the collapse of western society and it also smacks of a return to the “old ways”. That aint gonna happen. Lets see what unfolds in the near future. If you or anyone else want’s to try and fix it or even save it? Be my guest, pass the popcorn.

This horse has bolted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Avenger October 20, 2011 at 16:37

I would laugh quite a lot if a great number of men were to acquire and WEAR such shoes (specially with very high heels and a metal piece underneath)

Don’t laugh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2050300/High-heels-men-rise.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Firepower October 20, 2011 at 16:44

oddsod

Rebel

“What?
You bought Izzy suspenders instead of a bra?
No wonder she’s angry! ”

It’s amazing the number of upvotes you get for this type of stupid crap – clogging up the site with lame jokes sure is fun fun fun for your Futrelle fem fans.

You’re like some weird class clown in college: stupid and unamusing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6
oddsock October 20, 2011 at 16:53

Firepower

“You’re like some weird class clown in college: stupid and unamusing.”

That’s a tad harsh. Rebel is quite funny. LMFAO.

Hey Jizum boy. If you want to wake up in the morning with a smile on your face? Go to sleep with a coat hanger in your mouth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10
Herbal Essence October 20, 2011 at 17:34

Totally disagree.

This implies that men “are” respected as if it is a default position. Not so. A man is required to EARN respect by jumping through a myriad of arbitrary, unfair, and often dangerous hoops. Then, and only then, is he respected. And that respect is often fleeting. How many men have spent 25 years busting their hump at a difficult job for wife and family. And then the day he gets laid off, his wife calls him a worthless bum.

On the other hand, women are loved pretty much by default. Yes there are women who live in adverse conditions. But most of the time, the love is granted unconditionally by both men and women.

Women can damn well earn their respect.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Rebel October 20, 2011 at 17:43

@Firepower:

… by the way, little paper tiger, for chronic constipation, the recommended cure is to use a Unicorn on a daily basis.
A rhino can also be substituted.

Only glad to have been of service.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6
Boxer October 20, 2011 at 17:56

Herbal Essence:

Women can damn well earn their respect.

That’s my take on the matter as well. How many women have truly achieved greatness on their own merits? I can think of Hypatia of Alexandria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

And…that’s about it. (Marie Curie is the usual woman trotted out… maybe she comes close, but she collaborated with her husband on what she was renowned).

I’m sure there might be a few more, but that’s pretty pitiful given the complexity and length of human history. Bitches need to get out there and earn it if they want respect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
fmz October 20, 2011 at 18:34

To be liberated of nonsensical relativisms such as love and respect, is to turn the whole ego game that is Woman on its head.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
CorkyAgain October 20, 2011 at 19:05

oddsock,

“The mass media system is dying thanks to the internet.”

… and yet the hive mind still seems to be thriving. Perhaps it’s adapting to the loss of its old methods of mass hypnosis, and has learned new ones better suited to the new technology?

I’m old enough to remember when television was sold with the promise that it would be an educational tool, something good for the kids to have in the home, like a set of the Encyclopedia Brittanica or the Great Books. For the past twenty years people have been trying to sell us the idea that the Internet is an educational tool, but I’m not convinced. I think most people are using it just like they did TV: they’re watching cartoons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
greyghost October 20, 2011 at 19:06

Men must cry out, and women must listen
Wrong move.
Only men respond to the needs of others. Women do not have the capacity to love or concern themselves with others. Men only need respect. Women who are fully feral now have nothing to offer any one or any body. Because it is not needed in their self interest in the world they themselves have set up with the vote and the “love” men have for women. Even children that are not seen in the interest of ta woman are murdered. Crying out or pleading to them is foolish and ignorant and very blue pillish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
Alcuin October 20, 2011 at 19:10

Men have been forced to respect women even though women have been acting worse and worse, and never deserved that much respect to begin with. This increased respect, not from an inner impulse but forced on us from the outside, has come at the cost of love. Men, I’ve noticed, increasingly don’t love women. Men have become indifferent to women. So women have gained phoney respect from men at the cost of genuine love.

Maybe that’s why I see so many mannified women walking down the street with their girlfriend, and why I likewise see (often in the same person) a depth of loneliness and sadness in a lot of females.

Can’t blame men for any of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
fmz October 20, 2011 at 19:11

The rational man has neither need nor desire of concepts like love or respect. Dropping that stuff turns the whole Woman game (ego) on its head. She is adept at keeping all bound up and down in her limited consciusness. That is how She operates. She dwells in and upon illusion, keep all blind to reality. She cannot handle the rational, conscious, absolute male. Instead She tries to destroy him with petty childish notions such as live and respect. It is all She knows and all She can do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Rocco October 20, 2011 at 19:33

@ Laura Grace

Well, your right, they don’t see anything wrong at all, if anything things are going better than expected and our lamentations here are music to the ears of some of the more twisted in the feminist bunch.

That’s why I think us men should take back some privilages we previously bestowed more generously.

As everywoman over 20 has been exposed and can transmit oral cancer to men through cunnalingus, this questionably hygenic activity should be curtailed and eliminated to stave off the epidemic of oral cancer occurring solely in men age 30-50.

Even your wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
Tim Goldich October 20, 2011 at 19:34

The piece above was written in an effort to reach the standard grass-roots masses who have been brought up with a standard feminist indoctrination, but who aren’t actual card-carrying feminists and are, therefore, potentially reachable. It is an effort to introduce them to a masculist message in a manner they might find simple, easily understood, and relatively palatable.

The irony is, in my darkest parts, I believe I could match any of you in the depths of my hatred and contempt toward women. I know the masculist position as well as anyone. I totally understand the conviction that it does not all balance out. But I decided early on, if I was to step up and write a book and attempt to make a real difference, I needed to give up hatred and be mature and responsible and constructive.

If It All Balances Out were taken to heart by society at large, I believe that understanding would soon prove fatal to feminism. I don’t think feminism could survive without the MalePower/FemaleVictimization paradigm that supports it. For me destroying feminism’s ideological foundation and thus undermining feminism as a force in our word would be victory enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Jack October 20, 2011 at 20:51

Women can openly hate, detest, disrespect, and not love men. Society applauds it. Men have been forced to defer to and be formally respectful of women or face being fired, divorced, and arrested. That builds anger and resentment. Until the past few years I had never met a woman hater. Now, I am seeing many of them. Men are increasingly seeing and responding to the unholy trinity of women-government-society that hates and uses men. This is slowly starting to get funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
NWOslave October 20, 2011 at 21:10

Men might still respect other men, but it’s been a generation since the majority of women have shown men anything but indifference to outright contempt. Two generations since a decent number of women have shown men that, “stand by your man” attitude. It’s been a century since the majority of women showed men both respect and love, and actually called out other women for their short-comings.

More telling than even the massive propaganda machine of the MSM is popular music. Women literally sing songs of hatred and violence against men; These songs reaching the tops of the charts on a regular basis. When was the last time you heard a popular song sung by a woman with a message like, “I’m sorry,” or “Stand by your man” or “I honestly love you?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Rocco October 20, 2011 at 21:49

@ NWO Slave

Those songs are written in Norway, Sweden and Scandanavia….it is the siren song of the victorious viking warriors, bold, blonde and botoxed in oblivion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Bill October 20, 2011 at 21:49

Women won’t allow high heels for men to become pervasive in society. Note also that women won’t give up their high heels either, in spite of the foot, ankle, knee and back pain they cause.

Whats the height difference, on average, between men and women? Four inches. What is the typical height of women’s business “power” heels? Four inches. Coincidence?

Height is a gross indicator of power and health, that’s why women want to wear heels and that’s why they want you and me wearing shoes that are flat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 20, 2011 at 22:26

@NWOslave:
“Women literally sing songs of hatred and violence against men; These songs reaching the tops of the charts on a regular basis. When was the last time you heard a popular song sung by a woman with a message like, “I’m sorry,” or “Stand by your man” or “I honestly love you?”

They sing a different tune.

Between yesterday’s and today’s song, which one speaks from the heart: the former? The latter?

At least, there are no more lies.

The truth will set you free. No one ever said it wouldn’t hurt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jaego Scorzne October 20, 2011 at 22:37

St Paul enjoined men to love their wives “as Christ loved the Church” – in other words, unto death. Wives in contrast, only have to respect and obey. Women got the better deal – as befits their weaker nature. But now they want it all and therefore will end up with neither love nor respect. Nothing – exactly what they want to give us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire October 20, 2011 at 22:39

Carnivore October 20, 2011 at 11:19
Lack of strong, male-headed family units leads to more governmental and centralized control of and power over the population.
************

I agree.

But what if feminism, by no intended design, simply ripped a hole in the constitution. And that the mundane, bumbling, and opportunistic power structures we see everyday have simply exploited that hole rather than some master plan by global elites all imposed from the top down.

If talk of big brother is to gain respectable ear then we need something with a little more meat to it besides freemason reptiles from outer space.

Plausibility is what separates good hypothesis from crackpotism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Reece October 20, 2011 at 23:41

I’m not sure why you are confused about the purpose of feminism. It’s goal is to help destroy the concept of family, i.e., a married heterosexual couple living together with children. This is one of the objectives of the Communist Manifesto, which the ruling classes are clearly following.

As for plausibility, is the family unit not being destroyed? Feminism is actually having a real-world impact. This much is clear as day, and there is nothing crazy about acknowledging the link. The ruling classes are destroyers and if feminists want to join the wrecking ball party, it’s all good. That’s their attitude.

BTW, RIP Gaddafi. Another country bites the dust to “democracy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
fmz October 21, 2011 at 00:19

Live like the politicians and their hacks dont exist.
GYOW.
F0rget the ideology and let action do its thing. Even if its by not supporting the rotting beast.
GYOW, forget their misery and learn to be content again.
This they revile the most and will always react against.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
E October 21, 2011 at 00:47

keyster

A dog’s love is sincere and unwavering.
A woman’s love is fluid and unpredictible.

wikipedia source
In 1924, Hidesabur? Ueno, a professor in the agriculture department at the University of Tokyo, took in Hachik?, a golden brown Akita dog, as a pet. During his owner’s life, Hachik? greeted him at the end of each day at the nearby Shibuya Station. The pair continued their daily routine until May 1925, when Professor Ueno did not return. The professor had suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage and died, never returning to the train station where Hachik? was waiting. Every day for the next nine years the dog waited at Shibuya station.

Hachik? attracted the attention of other commuters. Many of the people who frequented the Shibuya train station had seen Hachik? and Professor Ueno together each day. They brought Hachik? treats and food to nourish him during his wait. This continued for nine years with Hachik? appearing precisely when the train was due at the station.[2]

Hachik? died on March 8, 1935, and was found on a street in Shibuya.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
CorkyAgain October 21, 2011 at 03:19

@ E

The moral of that story would seem to be that a dog can be trained but a woman cannot.

But given a knowledge of the relevant aspects of a woman’s nature (her instincts and character, for example), an appropriate regimen of stimuli could probably be devised that would shape the desired behavior in most cases. This, after all, is the idea behind Game.

The problem is that the prevailing laws and social customs will almost certainly prohibit carrying the training program through to completion. So we usually have to settle for only a partial and temporary taming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
CorkyAgain October 21, 2011 at 03:38

@ Reece

Don’t forget that feminist and other leftwing ideology doesn’t see the destruction of the family, etc. as a bad thing, the way we do. They’ve managed to convince themselves that all of this is a necessary and welcome change for the better. It’s “progress”.

Of course, there are some nihilists among them who enjoy destruction for destruction’s sake. But most of them aren’t willing to go that far. They’re still telling themselves that the glorious socialist utopia is just over the horizon. As Joni Mitchell sang to them at Woodstock, they’ve just got to get back into the Garden. Their paradise on earth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rocco October 21, 2011 at 04:25

The moral of what I’m reading here is that men will just not stay down when kicked to the floor, they must get up and get kicked again.

I don’t men one hundred years ago had such little self respect.

The feminist version of the Duneque breeding program to perfect the perfect coffee colored man woman worked, they got what they wanted, it’s not what they need, a leader who will get us out of this mess.

I think when men had to succumb to the peer pressure of real men with real black eyes being the result we didn’t cower in front of our women.

The entire world, from the lowest poorest tribes laugh at the way american men let themselves be treated and here, we can
t even concieve of the difference, how precient George Orwell really was.

Of course, women have never been able to predict or stop determined male renegades, I suppose their counting on this….me….I’ve deciced, time to feather the cushion in my two expat contries of choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rocco October 21, 2011 at 04:36

@ High Heels for Men

To the victor go the spoils. Try watching grown fathers paint their toe nails pink in the Hollyweird hills and your, aparently, not supposed to notice.

Women are hating this aping of women by men, they hate brand “woman” much more than we brand “men”.

I say, bring it forward…..start wearing something inocuous but feminine like a pink or purple cheap plastic bracelet then toss it get a new one occasionally, they watch everything like hawkes and it would drive them batty to think eyeliner for us guys was next (wore it in a new wave band I as in once….lol, I looked like one big scary girl).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Rocco October 21, 2011 at 04:48

btw

The reason I’m now focusing on actions is that if indeed their listening to us the next questoin is how man of us are their and how many will act…march….do a letter writting campaing.

Make a political statement at home, regaining equality in your own home.

So I’m brainstorming ideas and slyly sprinkling some odd notions that in a year I bet are mainstream.

I say we get a bracelet or something to identify us as mra’s. Maybe just us lefty ones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
PeterTheGreat October 21, 2011 at 07:20

cybro @

“Women don’t have the ability to love anyone but themselves and little carbon copies of themselves who are their children. ”

I’m not sure this is true. Perhaps. But they are capable of great devotion when properly motivated by masculine culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
keyster October 21, 2011 at 08:46

“This, after all, is the idea behind Game.”

Game is a reaction to feminist conditioning.
It was not necessary to have Game before feminism, as there was a decorum of mutual respect between men and women. Game is nothing more that a reclaiming of male dominance and power men once had over women in the mating dance. Difference is it was natural, now it’s faked and has to be “learned”.

How is a man expected to respect a woman unconditionally, if her love for him is conditional in return? Pleading for women to love men again is useless as its not in their nature to love men unconditionally. There must be some form of utility that she’s sees in him as a benefit to her in the deal; something more than “he’s a really sweet guy”.

This is why marriage is so important to women. It’s a government enforced insurance contract that he’ll continue to provide. You don’t marry a woman, you marry the government. Women know this, men do not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 21, 2011 at 10:00

@keyster

A dog’s love is sincere and unwavering.
A woman’s love is fluid and unpredictible.

This is something I have witnessed all my life. It is even taken for granted and recognized as true by most people.

A dog, any dog, could teach women in that area. (provided they were capable of sentiments).

When it comes to the higher levels of sentient feelings, dogs are clearly superior to women, unfortunately.
I find that cats and other pets also display that superiority over women. (perhaps, even tarentulas are more capable of love than women, although I am not totally sure on this one.)

Our guagmire, as men, is that it was the wrong species of females that evolved. Now we are stuck with women… until the first female android hits the market, I guess.

Do you think that Man will be able to devise a sentient android?

Wouldn’t that solve most problems if they did?

Now imagine a faithful dog and a loving android.. wouldn’t women suddenly become irrelevant?

…except as work drones, of course..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Red Baron October 21, 2011 at 11:29

@ E
http://www.fortbenton.com/shep/story.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower October 21, 2011 at 12:02

Rebull

Between yesterday’s and today’s song, which one speaks from the heart: the former? The latter?

What an astounding, erudite question – designed purely to promote the Deepest of thoughts in the responder.

How many guesses
do you give -
the masses

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 21, 2011 at 12:29

@Firepower:

The unicorn trick didn’t work!

Try a corkscrew.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Firepower October 21, 2011 at 13:38

Rebull

@keyster

A dog’s love is sincere and unwavering.
A woman’s love is fluid and unpredictible.

No thanks, I’ll just wait around for more amazin’ observations like those.

Do you think that Man will be able to devise a sentient android?

All still await you
to show sentience

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rus October 21, 2011 at 15:18

Sapience, not sentience. A flower is sentient.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 21, 2011 at 15:44

@Firepower:

You might gain something by taking semantics: you might even become a better debater.

If only you could pull your mind out of wanting to bomb the whole world, that would already be progress.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader October 21, 2011 at 15:57

The piece above was written in an effort to reach the standard grass-roots masses who have been brought up with a standard feminist indoctrination, but who aren’t actual card-carrying feminists and are, therefore, potentially reachable. It is an effort to introduce them to a masculist message in a manner they might find simple, easily understood, and relatively palatable.

I do not see how it will work. On the one hand, it does nothing for men but put even more burdens on them. On the other hand, it expects something from women they clearly are not going to give. So what’s the point?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Reece October 21, 2011 at 16:16

CorkyAgain said:
“The moral of that story would seem to be that a dog can be trained but a woman cannot.”

If you treat a dog well, it will respect your leadership, value your life more than it’s own, and create an unbreakable bond.

Rocco said:
“I don’t [think] men one hundred years ago had such little self respect.”

Men were probably tougher but that didn’t stop them being naive manginas.

The Pussy Pedestal is quite possibly the worst invention that man has ever created. Like the Devil, it’s been around for a long, long time. It was definitely in use a hundred years ago; juries of men would acquit guilty women out of some misplaced chivalry, but not extend any such mercy to other men.

(See The Fraud of Feminism (1908) by E. Belfort Bax)

So, acting as jurors, men elevated women above the laws of the land. In doing so, they demonstrated how little self respect they do have for themselves. They placed and reinforced an unjustifiable value on women that they have never deserved and never will deserve. A value they did not extend to themselves or other men, despite the overwhelming evidence in society and civilization of such a value.

The ruling class, not one to waste an opportunity to increase it’s power at the the expense of men, made this attitude into law, creating the Pussy Pass, that we know and loathe, today. It’s not an unfair development since formerly, men themselves have often issued their own Pussy Passes. Now, the judge does it. You could say the Pussy Pass became ‘privatized’; just like our currency.
Is it Just? Nope. It was never Just, not when male juries did it, nor when a judge does it. Let this be lesson to all of us – Don’t Mess With Justice.

If you treat a woman well, she will treat you with contempt, value her life more than yours, and divorce you whenever it is advantageous.
And therein, lies the reason why dogs are man’s best friend; men have more in common with dogs than with women.
RIP Hachik?

Anonymous Reader said:
“I do not see how it will work. On the one hand, it does nothing for men but put even more burdens on them. On the other hand, it expects something from women they clearly are not going to give. So what’s the point?”

I think he was fulfilling a condition placed on him by the publisher. A good author writes about he knows, and provides useful information to the reader. By witholding opinions he knows to be true and appeasing women and therefore the publisher, he has created yet another pointless book.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reece October 21, 2011 at 16:18

I just messed up my post. After you read my first paragraph skip down to the second from last paragraph, for the end of that comment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red Baron October 21, 2011 at 22:34

@NWOslave
Men sing a different song now. with 25 million hits and comments to boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfeys7Jfnx8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempre October 21, 2011 at 23:16

As for plausibility, is the family unit not being destroyed? Feminism is actually having a real-world impact.

**********
Feminism is having an impact. You’ll get no arguments there.
What isn’t plausible is that the whole thing was conceived completely from the top down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Angelguy October 22, 2011 at 09:31

@Keyster

“This is why marriage is so important to women. It’s a government enforced insurance contract that he’ll continue to provide. You don’t marry a woman, you marry the government. Women know this, men do not.”

I really agree with this statement.
It is an enforced insurance contract.

Another thing, regarding the article, it is both sexes that don’t respect Men. Men and women only respect power and force.
The main difference is, Men have more to lose, and are often on the recieving end of that force. Women are not, they are shielded more with the aid of the legal system.

The problem is Women are becoming too “self entitled” and are going to run into the roadblocks Men have dealt already for years.
You notice, there are not many female leaders in power, because they are not equipped to handle some of the power making decisions Men deal with on a regular basis. Men have to use a cool head and logic, to deal with things properly, because they UNDERSTAND MORE, the CONSEQUENCES of their actions.

Eventually, when more Men go MGTOW, Women will start feeling these results. But I am sure I won’t see it in my lifetime.
Angelguy

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean October 22, 2011 at 15:58

I made it about halfway through that article. I’m not saying it’s wrong. In fact I think it makes a lot of sense.

But hearing “love” and “women” in the same sentence makes me want to puke.

I’m not trying to be macho here. I’m just at the point in my life, having lived the entirety of it in the shadow of female hatred, where I just don’t give a fuck about women any more.

It’s like that McDonalds video the other day of the guy beating the piss out of two cunts who thought they were protected by female privilege. I laughed my ass off at that. Seriously, I was entertained and it wasn’t until afterward that I realized what had happened.

In short, women finally got what they wanted–equality. In this case it was equal disposability. Sure the NEW’s media didn’t think so but I sure did. In my lifetime I admit to enjoying violent movies where men are butchered for comic relieve, but now I’m finding the same pleasure in seeing women finally get what they want.

So while this book about equality and balance sounds real nice it’s about 4 decades too late. I don’t care about balance any more and I’m not alone. Men are turning away from marriage and would rather invest 5o$ in a new video game than invest in a dinner and a movie with the hopes it might lead to something with a “woman”. You have to admit that it is funny as hell that a vagina is less interesting than a game console. It’s certainly not how I felt when I was 20.

As the saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it”. In this case the women are finally getting it and I don’t see what’s in it for me to try to go backwards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
SM October 22, 2011 at 17:23

I’m liking the responses to Tim and the book.

This sums it up:
————–
Tom936 October 20, 2011 at 12:55

The book s radical premise [is that]
it all balances out between Man and Woman and it always has

No. It contradicts Feminism, but even so it’s not true. Feminism’s shameless, truth-be-damned mentality has turned the truth on its head. Men have it worse and probably always have.

Think about it for a moment: Feminism couldn’t have perverted the truth so fully and so easily if women didn’t already have staggering advantages.

I couldn’t possibly enumerate all of them, but let’s name a few: Women’s easy access to unearned power. The sisterhood mentality. By contrast, men will step on a brother to help a distressed woman. Easy forgiveness for women’s transgressions, such as lying about history and about their personal situations. The power of female sexuality – let’s not forget that elephant in the room. Society perceives women’s anger non-judgementally and even as a cry for help, while our anger, however greatly warranted, is perceived as dangerous. Women naturally complain, men naturally don’t. When we suppress our instincts and articulate justified complaints anyways, it is taken as weakness. I could go on and on.

It has never balanced out. Feminism isn’t a reaction to unfairness, it is a continuation of an unfairness that has been here for a long time. In seeking fairness for men, our movement is seeking the first real change ever in gender roles.
——————–
…………………………

There is no equality to be had new guy. And your daughter and nice do NOT deserve “respect”. Flush out your head gear.

Conservatives conform. They are like mules being dragged from tree to tree over time… The mule brays to stay at a tree on instinct. But if pulled he goes to the next tree and then brays there not wanting to leave that tree. If one tried to bring the mule back to the previous tree he brayed so hard to stay at before he would resist. Conclusion: it is instinct.

(Liberalism is instinct too: the impulse of the underling /pubescent.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
SM October 22, 2011 at 17:59

And I like “Reece” here too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
SM October 22, 2011 at 18:11

evilwhitemalempire October 20, 2011 at 22:39

Plausibility is what separates good hypothesis from crackpotism.

—–
Correct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eric October 22, 2011 at 20:31

Since gender has become politicized, how about a tried-and-true political solution? Secession. The more men opt out, the less of this garbage they have to endure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
E October 23, 2011 at 00:00

Angelguy

Eventually, when more Men go MGTOW, Women will start feeling these results. But I am sure I won’t see it in my lifetime.

We’re not going to see the end result but we’ll definitely see the initial stages.

I am certain the next society to achieve world superpower status will NOT have an ideology based on feminism. I expect to see the USA (and the west in general) lose it’s dominant position before I die.

Enjoy the collapse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Firepower October 23, 2011 at 09:34

Rebel

@Firepower:

You might gain something by taking semantics: you might even become a better debater.

You would gain treasures (more specific than a vague “something”)
if you were thoughtful enough to realize
debating means nothing in 2011

If only you could pull your mind out of wanting to bomb the whole world, that would already be progress.

Firepower 3:16 – what gaineth a man, from withholding bombing a world, if that world be stupid

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
oddsock October 23, 2011 at 16:33

SM

“Think about it for a moment: Feminism couldn’t have perverted the truth so fully and so easily if women didn’t already have staggering advantages.”

Hence the saying; womans greatest strength is to feign weakness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire October 26, 2011 at 21:16

oddsock October 23, 2011 at 16:33
SM

“Think about it for a moment: Feminism couldn’t have perverted the truth so fully and so easily if women didn’t already have staggering advantages.”

Hence the saying; womans greatest strength is to feign weakness.

*******************
Well what he’s really getting at here is that feminism didn’t just happen. There was a lot of changes taking place over many centuries to pave the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Zorro November 7, 2011 at 02:45

Phil Donohue wants his article back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Just a Girl November 29, 2011 at 09:50

I’m a little shocked at some of the comments. Do you really hate women? Do you really think they are stupid, selfish, and incapable of love? Am I, as a female, stupid, selfish and incapable of love? What about your mother?

I agree that there is a lot of misandry in our culture. I’m on the writer of the article’s side. There is something wrong with society. I do not believe the stupid stereotypes in the media that men are goofy, clueless, or somehow less than women. Nor, however, do I think less of women.

Is it really that hard to understand others as a PERSON, as an individual, before slapping on the labels “idiot male” or “bitchy woman”? I take people as they come to me, and am very careful about not assuming anything about genders. It’s not fair to, and it’s not right.

So how do you see me, a girl? Am I some lesser person in your eyes?What about as a person? If you knew me as a male, would your respect for me change? I ask this question humbly. It’s not a challenge.

I’m not indignant or offended at what I’ve read on this thread… just interested, and sometimes a little saddened. I’m simply curious if those who’ve expressed general dislike for women in their comments truly apply this principle to any and all women they know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
aussieguy January 2, 2012 at 01:42

I’m a little shocked at some of the comments. Do you really hate women?

How about this for an answer:
=> We’ve had enough of being blamed for everything, and now, we just don’t care any more. You live your life, and we’ll live ours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
WomBats January 28, 2012 at 04:08

I kind of like Rocco’s MRA bracelet idea. The women would learn them and stay away. We could also scorn blue pillers for selling out men.
This tactic worked well for feminism. Even women today that dont like it are scared to say so publicly (in most cases)

You see a bros. with the tag or bracelet you give him respect. No tag-bracelet would be a blue piller or a feminazi. Feminazi wont try to go near you coz your the enemy ( a blessing for most of us at this stage of history) Man without tag is scorned by MRA.

Would help awareness in a way. Make them noticeable so that people notice them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
WomBats January 28, 2012 at 04:11

Aaaaaah sorry I didnt even touch the topic in that last post totally OT but still i think a good idea.
On Topic:
Nahhhhhh. Women are a total car crash. Lets just call a cab and get the flock out of here :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
WomBats January 28, 2012 at 05:21

Lol aussieboy thats my land too. Yaaaaay lets get gf’s while Ellis-Gillard take our rights and give ridiculous new powers to women that are already exploiting the crud out of us.

Flip ya for her mate. If you lose you get the girl. lmao

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Auntie Pheminizm February 5, 2012 at 05:55

TEST

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Auntie Pheminizm February 5, 2012 at 05:57

I’ve tried submitting 3 times. None seem to go through. If they do, please keep this one and remove the others. I also might think the link I put it bollixed something…so I’ll try to amend it.

————————————————————————-

> [Rocco wrote]: “I say we get a bracelet or something to identify us as mra’s. Maybe just us lefty ones.”

Dude, perfect!

They only cost 15-cents.

Spearhead should order a slew in grey, “debossed” with MRM or MRA or SPERAHEAD or whatever.

We should all wear them.

Grey being neutral, they’d go with anything we wore. And be subtle enough to wear to work, etc. And be easy to keep clean (silicone).

They’d attract attention, too: “Hey, I see you’re wearing a bracelet. What’s the cause you support?”

This could be a winner.

Plus Spearhead could sell them for $5 to raise funds.

And if enough of buy in, it’d attract media attention, too..raising awareness (like all that ubiquitous “pink-themed” stuff does).

Here’s a sample website…with the “.” spelled out since it seems to glitch the submission:

http://wwwDOTtheawristocratDOTcom/debossed-rubber-wristbandsDOThtml

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Shackleton February 22, 2012 at 19:38

Tim, my sincere congratulations to you for your courage in laying out a message that is both true and generous. You have a lot of detractors among the commenters, it is clear, but do not be disheartened – important truths are ridiculed because they are so threatening. Yours is a stance that can be attractive to both masculists and feminists, if they are willing to get over their insistence that they are the “special” victims, that they are uniquely victimized. It is only human to want to be “the” victim, and we humans are perhaps most accurately defined as the rationalizing species, the species who shapes our perceptions to match our desires. Eventually, truth usually emerges – it’s hard to deny reality for ever. But it may not happen in your lifetime or mine.

Hang in there, buddy, you have the right of it even if virtually no-one sees it yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: