By Ethical Justice
Since the days of sufferage, across all western democracies women’s rights movements have made mad progress in promoting the rights of women. Sensitivity towards the rights of women and girls is now enforced rigidly in the workplace, as well as now being taught in schools right from kindergarten on up. Decidedly feminist messages have even become a mandatory part of television, radio, and all other media. The Father’s rights movement is like an under-performing bastard step child in comparison. The movement’s been around since at least the 1950′s, a quick survey of your friends will likely confirm your suspicion that few men know anything about the issues behind it.
Why this huge difference in visibility? Some will say it’s because the Father’s Rights movement is newer. Others will say it’s because the issues facing men are not comparatively as important or limiting. To some, a father wanting to see his kids more than the standard every other weekend doesn’t seem to be a matter of life and death. A father haing to pay more in spousal support or child support than he thinks is fair doesn’t seem like something that would prevent most fathers from being able to pay their rent or eat, and if it did … couldn’t they just move to cheaper accommodations or eat less? The fact is the same argument could be applied to most women’s rights issues and this hasn’t slowed them in the least. On top of that, the rate of suicide and depression for men after divorce is significantly higher than for divorced women. The argument that the issues aren’t a matter of life and death is misleading. In an unfortunate number of cases they can be.
I argue that the reasons for the difference in the visibility of the Women’s Rights and Men’s Rights causes are more subtle, a mixture of biology and the democratic process itself. Regarding biology, the developing field of evolutionary psychology reflects on behaviours that the human species evolved to better adapt to its environment, paying particular attention to how gender differences in behavior reflect different evolutionary strategies. Whether gender differences in behavior are innate or a result of environmental influences is a controversial topic to be sure, but there is no debate that the differences exist. Men overwhelmingly tend to be more strongly motivated by the desire to accumulate resources (money and power) and thereby increase their access towards potential mates, while women tend to be more strongly motivated by the desire to harness the money and power of men.
Accordingly, the problem with men’s rights is not that men are lacking in political influence or lobbying muscle, its that all their lobbying efforts and interests are dedicated to furthering their interests in ways that will increase their capacity to compete against other men. Women simply are far more motivated to contribute to social causes that require cooperation in the interests of other women.
That brings us to one of the fundamental limitations of democracy as it currently exists. Lobby groups are an important component of democracies as they ensure visibility of issues between elections. However even modern democracies fail to account for the fact that groups representing different demographics have differing predispositions to organize and work cohesively. Therefore two lobby groups representing the same proportion of the population may have WILDLY different levels of influence on government. A lobby group’s success at having their position become adopted into public policy has less to do with what the majority feels is more just, than it does with the group’s political impact. One demographic acting as a cohesive group may have greater impact, while another being far more individualistic may look to solve its own problems outside the political process and have little impact whatsoever. A quick comparison of the most influential american lobby groups, and the relative proportion of the corresponding demographic in the population will confirm this.
In general men very conspiciously ignore mens rights issues until they themselves are directly victimized. Historically it’s always been true that once their individual complaints have been resolved most men again drop out of the men’s rights movement. But we are now at an interesting point in history.
Marriage rates have continued their steady decline while divorce rates have hovered near all time highs. The issues surrounding divorce and separation that have rallied men’s rights groups around the world are now personally affecting more men than ever before. The result is that slowly consciousness is emerging about the financial impact of a split of assets resulting from divorce, and from the ongoing payment of spousal support and alimony. This impact makes divorce a bigger financial event by far than any investment, any promotion, any career change, and any business venture that the vast majority of men will ever experience. It even has a bigger impact on one’s future prospects; with divorce many men effectively lose the legal right to choose their own careers, to pursue lifelong ambitions, or even to retire, not to mention the emotional impact of the loss of any meaningful role as a father which can be devastating.
Equally devastating is the feeling of being abused by the court system. Most of us grow up swallowing the coolaide of our society’s lofty moral position. We look condescendingly on countries like Iran and China, believing that our governments are models of fairness and democracy. For many men family court will be the first time they deal with the justice system. Before that, without examining evidence to the contrary, they have faith in the court system and believe that the law is fair and dedicated to justice. Afterwards, the realization that their children, possessions, and labor can be stripped from them at the whim of a judge is a brutal shock that leaves them feeling desperate and victimized. Some men never quite recover from learning that in reality, there are no rights that are “inalienable”.
Luckily some men will never have to face this kind of adversity in court. But it is dangerous for those men to believe that their positive outcomes reflect the fairness of the system. Judge’s neither have the time nor the inclination to exhaustively review the facts of every case, and even if they did the sad truth is that courts have not yet evolved to the point at which they can add up the facts of any case and objectively come to any conclusion. In fact a judge’s right to make any ruling they see fit, or to essentially rule at their whim, is absolute law in most jurisdictions. Judges call this “judicial discretion” and defend it unrepentantly, saying they must have this latitude if the judicial system is to work properly.
Yet its a fact that judges are generally appointed or elected as the case may be because they have one bias or another and that their bias heavily prejudges most outcomes. The statistical correlation of outcome with the leanings of each individual judge is indisputable. Worse still, the bias can completly subvert justice. It is virtually impossible to discipline a judge for ignoring evidence, for ignoring the law, or even for colluding with their colleagues to ensure litigants have no recourse against an unjust sentence.
The stories of the kind of injustice that result are horrific. Men have come home to find their partner in bed with someone else only to have the courts evict him from his own house then force him to pay spousal support and child support so that the ex can live there with her new partner. The father may be lucky to get supervised visitation while the boyfriend sees the kids more than he does. Sons grow up either believing that men are uninvolved fathers or that father’s have no rights to their children. Then there are the stories of men going to prison or being made homeless because of child support owing for children that paternity tests show are not theirs. And of course there are many stories of men who just give up fighting and accept that they will never see their children again.
Researching how to make the inherent randomness of court proceedings more predictable might be a challenge we won’t solve immediately, but the wisdom of avoiding court in the first place if possible is something we can all agree to right now. A presumption of shared custody is one of the most central tenets of the father’s rights movement. It is in all of our interests because this presumption avoids puttting judges in the position of adjudicating on family matters which by any and all measures judges have shown themselves to be very poor at resolving.
Perhaps making this link between men’s rights issues and an equitable divorce being more important in any man’s financial well being than any other issue he will face in his lifetime, will finally help bring this issues the visibility required to make a change. Time will only tell.
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
Its Money EJ, the answer is to follow the Money. No Politician or Bureaucrat is going to make bank posturing as an advocate for Western Men. A remarkable group who pride themselves on their independence, self reliance, and are the source of all real wealth and genuine productivity. Why would any govt official attempt to advance their self-serving agenda under the rational and objective scrutiny of male voters when they can bypass it and appeal directly instead to the herd-like emotional mentality of women?
The goal is to extract as much wealth as possible, and the way to do that is to find Mens Achilles’ heel, which is his identity as provider and protector of women and children. Usurp that and give his role to the State, while the man himself is relegated to a mere eunuch and slave.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
1
Probably the MRM will achieve its goals without lifting a finger. Feminism is a blasphemous and unnatural thing.
That doesn’t mean that feminism can’t be helped along on its path of destruction. The MRM is severely underfunded. Our enemies have billions of dollars, lobbys, PACs, the power of the media, etc.
People don’t necessarily care about feminism. They are paid to do it, which is different. Thus, if the MRM had the cash, then they could compell the courts, lobbyists to do as they wish.
It is true, the MRM must evolve. When NOW asks for donations, they are asking doctors and lawyers. The emphasis should be on education, making money and keeping it. Everyone at this site understands the basic ideas of the MRM. There’s no need for an infinite amount of review. Focus on money then you’ll get the power.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
6
Dude, it CANNOT be fixed, the cancer has spread everywhere and invaded every organ of the State, it is no longer possible to tell healthy tissue from cancerous tissue.
Total collapse and rebuild from the ashes is the only answer.
Thankfully that is getting closer every day, Greek debt default next month and war with Iran by June, oil / energy prices will go through the roof, and the US$ will collapse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
1
MRM hasn’t “acheived” anything because its not supposed to. There’s no money in it for the powers-that-be. The powers-that-be picked feminism to support because its an excellent way to control and exploit the common man and his resources. When and if the majority of resources are owned by women, that will be the time to support MRM.
The powers-that-be (which are mostly male by the way) will be nowhere without active participation of the majority of men (all the cops, officials, lawyers etc). So in a way its just a case of few men oppressing other men. Most women are happy with it because they get a kickback, but don’t blame them. Who doesn’t like power and money?
Oppression on males will stop as soon as they stop participating in it.
Feminists and feminism is vastly over-rated. Behind every feminist there are 10 men enabling and supporting her. That’s the real problem.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
1
Men have a god given right to not be on the receiving end of someone “Bearing false witness” against them.
If there are perversions, semantics games, and manufactured statistics in law enforcement that are fostering and enabling this “Bearing False Witness” to become Routine, then we have a duty to correct these perversions, no matter how deep they have become.
I beleive its not only Perverse that American law enforcement are getting federal pork bloating dollars to manufacture statistics, and persecute innocent men… Its unconstitutional.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
4
American law enforcement are not going to correct these perversions themselves. American law enforcement ( like many other American burocracies), are manufacturing statistics to cash in on more and more, and more, state and federal bloating dollars.
America has the biggest prison population in the world because American Law enforcement are “farming violence” by letting violent women go on to breed more violence into the community.
American Law enforcements “Farming Violence” by letting violent women go un un-aprehended, is simmilar to fishing for Stryper in the ocean, when you catch a breeder stryper, you let it go back into the ocean to breed more stryper. American law enforcement are “Farming Violence” by releaseing violent women back into the community with no charges.
Theres Pork Bloating in those hills!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
5
I am in agreement with the previous comments. Trying to fix things would be akin to trying to bail out the Titanic with a tea cup.
Regardless, the global economy and society in general is in for a major reset. Tin foil hat or no, that much is quite obvious.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
4
Feminists and Women’s Groups are not the challenge.
Powerful White-Knight men, who run corporations and hold political office, are the problem. They’re the enablers, the REAL leaders (ie-money) behind the pussy cartel. Women’s Groups are able to extort millions of dollars from the coffers of corporations and tax payers every year.
Until a man or men of power and wealth dares stand up to Team Woman, the MRM will be a small fringe element on the internet wallowing in the grass roots. But because men of power and wealth can have and do have, any woman they want, and are typically the fathers of daughters – – there will NEVER be a benefactor.
I submit to every man here, if you were to strike upon significant wealth, would you honestly still give a shit about men and boys and Men’s Rights? Probably not. You’ll have other things to do.
Men are born to innately compete, and by extension compete for pussy. This will never change. Women and Feminists are not the enemy; other men are – – always have been and always will be. When have you EVER heard a man of significant power, influence and wealth publicly say “NO” to women?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
12
Keyster
Yes, to a point I agree with you as I am sure will many others but you still keep missing the big fat huge feckin Elephant in the room. A political solution is, as you clearly indicate in your above post, is simply not viable. And yet you keep trying to promote it.
Please don’t try and tell me that if everone just votes right wing they can improve the lot of men or it is all the fault of the liberals or left wing cultural marxist bull shite. It is all, again, as you clearly point out, royally fecked up and corupt beyond redemption.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
10
The problem with the idea of societal reset is that they tend to be socialist in nature. In fact, except for America, I cannot think of a single example of a nation built on the concept of pure capitalism (i.e. property rights, free markets, and limited government).
Pure capitalism is the only way that mankind can be freed from tyrannical authority; all other roads eventually lead back to totalitarian rule. The Founding Fathers understood this fact, as did the Austrian economists, and as do modern libertarians such as Ron Paul. The sad thing is that with universal suffrage, the voices of the few who understand how political power works is drowned out by the masses looking to government to secure ‘their’ entitlements never realising that what is really happening is that they are acquiescing to a gilded cage built around them, from which they will never be free.
I recently read Bureaucracy by von Mises, a book written about 70 years ago. In it he argues forcefully for a return to original guiding principle of America (i.e. the Constitution). He outlines the danger of socialism, and warns that government encroachment into the private lives of the citizens will make them less and less free, just as in Germany, in Russia, and in France.
You could apply all his observations and arguments to the modern day, where government is even bigger, and welfare and bureaucracy even more widespread.
Ultimately, I think only one of two things can happen:
i. America completes its journey into socialism, and the light of capitalism in the world goes out for generations (perhaps forever; there is no guarantee that the conditions that created the western enlightenment will happen again, and certainly as far as I know no historic evidence of any other capitalist societies in the history of man)
ii. America rediscovers the sublime truths enshrined in its constitution, and throws off the shackles of socialism, big government, and welfare that it has allowed to accumulate for generations. Perhaps this might even re-ignite libertarian movements in other anglo-saxon countries, but that may be a dream too far.
Ultimately, I am coming to the realisation / belief that the problems that the MRM had identified with feminism are in fact deeper, and they go back to the natural tendency for mankind to stifle its own progress through authoritarian rule.
Make no mistake: even if all the feminist ‘wins’ were reversed tomorrow, it would be only a temporary reprieve as long as government was getting bigger and more socialist.
In the short term, for Americans, the MRM approach should be to drive forward the libertarian movement and the return to constitutional government. Things are falling apart in any case, but the danger is that when the collapse happens, society will be rebuilt on socialist lines. If this happens, then sadly we will be the generation that can state – with regret – that we were there when the great western enlightenment experiment, which freed citizens from the arbitrary rule of government, came to an end.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
8
Opt out writer.
The only power you or any other man has in this genderist system is a negative one effected and expressed by way of a refusal to participate.
And indeed, why would and why should any rational man participate in a system so heavily rigged against him such as this one ?
Jim Crow, if he were a real embodiment of a man alive, would have blushed scarlett and blue witnessing this shit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
typically the fathers of daughters – – there will NEVER be a benefactor.
To me this is the main issue, and it isn’t just the case of the powerful. Men, up and down the social totem pole, want to protect their daughters and for their daughters to have good lives. In the early 21st Century, this means having an independent career and financial independence — it is fathers who want this for their daughters, and juxtapose the interests of their daughters against the sons of other men.
Again, as you say, it is men against men, as usual.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
4
@durandal: Of course money, power, and influence are important in furthering any cause. But isn’t that just a symptom of the MR movement’s lack of penetration rather than being the solution? Men have more of all those things. Is there any truth to the finding that women simply devote more energy towards cooperating (e.g. on social causes like feminism) and men simply devote more energy to competing against other men?
@keyster: Agreed that white knights are part of the problem, but if society were suddenly dissolved tomorrow, the white knights and all the feminized social structures would start recreating themselves the day after. Leads one to ask … what’s a deeper and more lasting solution?
@Gunn: Libertarianism is promising. If there’s less socialist government bureaucracy then we’ll all be more at liberty to set marriage contracts that both parties actually have to adhere to. Each party will be better protected against the other deciding not to hold up their end of the bargain and marriage won’t be such a losing proposition for men. But under strict libertarianism how do common services (roads, fire departments) get created? Is this a recipe for weakening a country’s infrastructure and making it less competitive?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Forceing America into a matriarchy creates more violence, which justifies more “Pork Bloating” for American Law enforcement.
Its the typical “American Burocratic triangle”.
Oh, and don’t forget, American lawyers charge by the hour off all these train wrecks.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
How many times have you seen people collecting for a charity, or demonstrating (walking, etc.) for a charity, or advertisements for a charity? Ask them why and 9 times out of 10 they will tell you that it is to help raise “awareness.”
And yet, who hasn’t heard of all of these major charities, like the pink ribbon campaign? Why would they need to raise awareness? Because they understand what we don’t seem to in the MRM: 1. That you can never have too much awareness for your cause and 2. that 90% of the battle is just getting people to have heard of your cause (in other words, “awareness”).
Ghosting is a viable strategy, and may prove to be the key in the end. But for those of us who aren’t satisfied to wait until the whole thing falls apart, we should be doing everything we can to raise awareness. Every person you tell about THE SPEARHEAD; every flyer you post at a urinal (TFH’s URLs@Urinals campaign); every pro-MRA comment you make at the major news blogs; these all help raise awareness and bring people into the fold. Awareness is key. The most articulate, poignant articles in the world aren’t worth very much if only a small group of people read them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
@Keyster: “But because men of power and wealth can have and do have, any woman they want”
HA! Go tell that to Bill Lockyear, California State Treasurer, former State Atty. Gen., and former President pro Tempore of the California State Senate. His hottie wife met a construction worker in a rehab class they were both taking. They’ve been hooking up . . . and made a sex tape . . . a copy of which the construction worker gave to Cuckhold Bill. I’m laughing so hard I can barely type this. Political Girls Gone Wild!
Here’s a link to one of several articles on this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/26/BADO1NC8OV.DTL&tsp=1
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
@Ethical
The US constitution is the best model I think to limit overall Federal government. Its also intuitively appealing to a broad swathe of americans, although this is probably diminishing as more and more children are brainwashed by the modern education system. The tea party movement, and the way that Ron Paul’s support appears to have increased in the current run for republican nominee, certainly suggests that there is a growing minority that embraces a return to America’s core ideals.
A fully realised libertarian model is probably difficult to imagine, particularly in the present day context where we are all so used to big government that it seems scary to go back to the days before welfare spending really kicked in.
My personal view is that an achievable goal may be to keep core infrastructure within federal government hands (i.e. energy distribution networks, strategic road and rail, air traffic control, strategic minerals/raw materials, limited federal policing) as well as defence. Local police, emergency services, roads, rail, airports, riverways might sit at state or lower level and be focused on key needs within the community. It would probably be a good idea to try to keep momentum going to remove government services that could be handled privately under a free-market profit/loss set up over time.
The overall point being that theres no magic bullet to reverse 100+ years of socialism overnight. However, if there is the political will to start the journey on a good-faith basis, then progress can be made.
Ultimately, feminism and related ills have sprung from the idea that a paternalistic government is better able to provide for society’s needs than the aggregate wishes of the individuals and families that comprise society. That this idea has been shown to be nonsense, particularly by economists and political thinkers from the Austrian school, is not commonly known; instead, people are bombarded by marxist thought from the time they start at school. Its why so few people have a critical understanding of what capitalism really is, what socialism is, and how the two are mutually exclusive; once you start down the socialist path, the feedback loops continue to strengthen the power of the state until you arrive at totalitarianism. One of the other things that is not commonly understood is that the basis for all progress of a scientific or technical nature is grounded in private property and the profit/loss mechanism that reshuffles capital and people to the most urgent needs facing the aggregate population. A central planning authority simply cannot shuffle capital and people around effectively, as it has no mechanism to measure where need is; the inevitable result is a society that becomes ossified and then stagnates.
In truth, I’m not sure that the libertarian model defined by the constitution is even possible under universal suffrage: as is reasonably well known, women in particular tend to vote for security over liberty, whilst those sections of the population that are employed within government bureaucracy (or benefit from its programs) have divided loyalties, with their status as beneficiaries of government spending usually over-riding their roles as citizens who in aggregate comprise the U.S. sovereign.
I think we’re definitely at a critical point however, as the U.S. is now at the stage where half the population no longer pays net tax; where about half the population is born out of wedlock into single mother families and on whom the influence of schools and feral peer groups is cultivating a deep reliance on government patronage; where the historic belief in the rightness of the constitution is no longer certain; and where the founding religion and culture of the nation is under attack from all sides.
America is still however a democracy where, if the people decide to, they can effect the changes necessary to go back to the founding vision. The question is, will enough do this before its too late, before the proportion of the electorate who will always vote for more authoritarian government becomes the dominant and unchanging majority voting bloc.
I hope America still can, because as I said in my previous post, I think it is the last hope we have for capitalism to continue to exist in the world; if it should be extinguished then humanity will doubtless begin the inexorable decline to the next global dark age.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
The MRM has made considerable positive strides simply by uniting like-minded men. I remember before I found the MRM, the shaming and guilt-tripping was like a suffocating smog.
That being said, I think the best way to move the MRM forward is to use the methods already proven to work. Fora like these are good for pointing out the problems with our feminised society. I think what we need are some new types of men’s sites—probably linked to ones like this one—that deal with more involved issues; e.g., alternatives to Western women; support for men ripped off in divorces; suicide/ depression resources, &c. Now that the groundwork has been laid, there is plenty of room for expansion into other fields of men’s issues.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Gerald Celente on Capital Account 24th Feb 2012
Interesting. Skip the first minute or two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNqgk5XzA8
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“For many men family court will be the first time they deal with the justice system. Before that, without examining evidence to the contrary, they have faith in the court system and believe that the law is fair and dedicated to justice. Afterwards, the realization that their children, possessions, and labor can be stripped from them at the whim of a judge is a brutal shock that leaves them feeling desperate and victimized. Some men never quite recover from learning that in reality, there are no rights that are “inalienable”.”
This is the brutal truth. Marriage 1.0 RIP. In today’s legal climate it is suicide to even think of entering into the state’s ‘Three-way Contract’ known as marriage.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
“A lobby group’s success at having their position become adopted into public policy has less to do with what the majority feels is more just, than it does with the group’s political impact.”
. . . which has to do with the intensity with which it feels about its advocated policy. Clearly, feminists are far more intense about their wants than most MRA’s are.
“Marriage rates have continued their steady decline while divorce rates have hovered near all time highs.”
Divorce rates are declining too, since no (except gays) bothers to get married anymore in the first place.
In other news, Darren Mack is appealing his conviction. All the best, Darren.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
It seems to me that the major problem men face today is the family court system, which is corrupt beyond redemption.
And in all, it always comes to a question of money.
The only way I see for men to protect themselves is to avoid commitment.
You must have heard of that old joke: in a breakfast, a chicken is involved, while a pig is committed. And that’s the secret: be involved but don’t commit.
And unless a man really wants to have kids, to be a father, he should not have any: in other words, do not let a woman to convince you to have offsprings unless you truly want them.
And then again, protection is required here also, that’s why surrogacy is such a fine solution.
Basically, with these two easy steps: 1-avoiding marriage and 2-use surrogacy, just about any man should be in a position to avoid most pitfalls of modern life.
Finally, when it comes to misandry, an Atlas Shrugged moment is often a nice way to deal with it.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
The question is guys, how long before the women who want fammilies (hetero-women) start saying WTF, because guys just “Aren’t Going There anymore”???
I believe there is so much hysteria propaganda, and so much institutionalised perversion of US law enforcement, that many hetero-males are feeling that relationships with women are a very real “Legal liability”.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
@Gunn
If you have read Von Mises you might also want to read Milton Mayer’s “They Thought They Were Free”. As he found after the war, it is always too easy to lead people towards despicable ends – when the trains run on time . . .
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Femininst female leaders have used female manipulative skills and then some to advance feminism. Chief among their tactics has been to motivate other women by using the amity enmity principle- us against them to instill fear and hatred in women toward men to the point of raising the hackles of women. Who wants to fight a hackle raised adversary if they can avoid it or don’t have to? No one. Men have been silenced for that reason. Further, women have been informed to the ninth degree by feminists so that men have learned that getting in a verbal fight with a woman about the virtues of feminism was going to be losing proposition and an embarrassing one at that, further silencing dissent. In time, because of the silencing of debate, men and women alike became more and more ignorant of any ideas that didn’t jibe with feminism’s and more and more indoctrinated to believe in the only game in town (the principals of feminism). This is how it has come to pass that almost all Americans are feminists. A feminist being defined as anyone that believes in shared authority with women, i.e. the 19th amendment. How so? Because, with shared authority, feminism is the inevitable outcome.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Surrogacy for men, will be the next big thing for men who want kids
I’m planning on getting a surrogacy, but I refuse to raise them in the u.s or u.k
I refuse to expose children to toxic feminised sluts as a mother
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Two sets of books!
Just like organized crime.
Which it is.
It just happens inside the courtroom.
Oh those boys in blue, so very proud, so very proud,to be on the moral high ground!
My daddy always said:
you may have to lie sometimes, but when you start believing your won lies, you’re in deep trouble.
LEO is believing their own lies.
Hence the disconnect.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
@Gunn
I’m glad you mention universal suffrage as a potential problem. For a _republic_ like the United States (people often confuse or don’t distinguish the words republic and democracy, but the difference is important because democracy is actually tyranny of the majority, say, by women), what do you think is the fairest way to distribute voting rights/weights? Recently I’ve been wondering whether universal suffrage is fair at all. I haven’t researched the topic, but intuitively I think it’s unfair and all it does is cause political warfare everywhere.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Margaret Thatcher once revealted in an interview that she didn’t believe in society. It was all just individuals and State as the enforcer of contracts. Complete nihilism. Such a thing would in fact end society and quickly. Certainly, it can’t compete with real Cultures with social norms and self sacrafice like the Japanese or even Islam. But as Lenin said, “Worse is better”. As a weapon against the Feminists and the Feds, I endorse Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Once they have effected their work of destruction, they must be shown the door.
Left to itself in hermetic isolation, Libertarianism would lead to a Medevial type world with private armies and vast armed estates. Maybe the Elite can make use of it after all? But they have mostly thrown in with the Socialists so I’ll stick with my first position.
As for America, John Adams said the system was meant for a people with Christain morality – and no other. Such caring for your brother is absent from most Libertarian Ideology to say the least. And even if present, it still wouldn’t be able to match systems where people fight in groups anymore than a bunch of Celtic Warriors who tried to fight one on one could suceed against Roman Legionaires who fought as a unit.
How did we beat the Germans? Immediate centralization. How did the North beat the South? Immediate centralization. It’s hard, I know. As Herbert Spencer said, ugliness is an inconvenient fact (many) that destroys a beautiful system.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
5
Read “Human Action” best book mises ever wrote. It really is an eye opener.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
“Such caring for your brother is absent from most Libertarian Ideology to say the least.”
The only difference is forced altruism vs. voluntary. The State forces/enforces altruism. The objectivist chooses whether to be or not.
You have to believe people will help other people, but it should be of their own free will. This system worked well for centries, until the government decided to collect money and redistribute it through “social programs”.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/1109336–douglas-kennedy-charged-with-harassment-child-endangerment
Sounds like some nurses automatically assume that a man carrying a baby is a kidnapper.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
AfOR
I totally agree, but to add to your comment. Before everything “resets” I believe there is an opportunity to profit from the decline or at least financially defend yourself.
Gold and silver will go up in price. I don’t know what the price will be next week or next month but I do know what the price will be 6 years from now.
Answer: more than what it is right now.
After I make my money, I’ll buy a “doomstead” (a small house fully paid off – no mortgage) and enjoy the scenery.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
gunn
You don’t have the ability to learn.
That’s obvious.
Stubborn fool.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
The reason why feminism is so big is because the Illuminati supports it and wants it to expand. The Illuminati want to destroy men. That is why the father’s rights movement has very little progess, because the Illuminati do not want it to succeed- it goes against everything they have tried to accomplish with their man-hating feminist agenda.
It’s all about total enslavement, in the end.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
keyster February 26, 2012 at 12:52
Feminists and Women’s Groups are not the challenge.
Powerful White-Knight men, who run corporations and hold political office, are the problem. They’re the enablers, the REAL leaders (ie-money) behind the pussy cartel….” They the pimps of every feminist and feminists might know it or just do not care. What do pimps call the women who work under them? What are women who work under pimps called?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
“…This system worked well for centries, until the government decided to collect money and redistribute it through “social programs”.”
How did the “government” get the power to do that all of a sudden, if the system worked so well? [note: It was the colonial expanse into a new world that prevented government micro-management earlier--nothing more.]
How will capitalism/libertarianism prevent “tyranny” if if didn’t prevent it the last time?
Now starts the tautology. Eg “we’ll adhere to the “constitution” next time.”
[fucking eyeroll]
…If the constitution works so well how come it wasn’t adhered to the last time?
And so on and so on with the tautology game of redefining *democracy* into a thousand and one semantic terms so as to avoid the painful epiphany that you all–your forefathers, veterans, pastors and political reps– have been wrong all along.
—
Someone recently here stated that if a man becomes successful –incurs a winfall or what have you–he abandons the MRM.
It is obvious why he would.
——
Also somebody posted a link to a case in Spain recently where a female was made to pay an ex for her spiteful vindictive t-shirt.
That would never never happened in america.
The difference is spain is leftist communist country(true) and america is the “conservative” opposition.
Learn.
It is going to take immense amounts of war crime and “tyranny” to root out the problem that dutch-anglo democracy/capitalism has done to us.
Learn.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
@SMC
How about you learn about the issues at hand, before spouting your inane stupidity
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Feminists were patient, laying stone upon stone until they laid the foundations for their movement, This process took many decades.
After the ears when western optimism turned to cynicism the feminists were ready to exploit the moral uncertainty that crept into western civilization.
Men’s rights will also take decades to implement, We have to build a vocabulary, construct a theoretical basis, educate society. and overcome deeply ingrained biases and instincts. All the while this will be done in the face of unremitting hostility by what is essentially the established state religion of feminism.
But it will be done. Many of us will not live see the full fruits of our labours, but we are motherfucking men, we are the makers and builders and doers and without us nothing of substance gets done. We’ll grind our teeth, and carefully lay stones of our own.
The inherent contradictions of feminism will bring about its demise, and when it does collapse the foundations we are building now will allow us to bring our ideals forwards.
Our time will come.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
OT:
In LA, two 11-year old girls physically fought over a boy. One died six hours later.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/27/10516286-girl-11-dies-within-hours-of-after-school-fight
That is another shining example of the benefits of today’s modern pro gender-raunch girl-empowerment society, open-borders, and non-assimilation: mostly all thanks to the influences of feminism and political correctness.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
jaego wrote:
“As a weapon against the Feminists and the Feds, I endorse Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Once they have effected their work of destruction, they must be shown the door…. Left to itself in hermetic isolation, Libertarianism would lead to a Medevial type world with private armies and vast armed estates. Maybe the Elite can make use of it after all? But they have mostly thrown in with the Socialists so I’ll stick with my first position.”
That is a very perceptive comment. You uncovered an insight that most people haven’t – the innate paradox of libertarianism – at least certain kinds. Ron Paul’s “open-border” type of libertarianism will insure a neofeudalist society with a nonexistent middle class. It is Paul’s principal flaw as a candidate (well, that, and his lack of charisma). But the main virtue of a libertarian philosophy is that is dismantles many statist mechanisms used by the elites to deprive men of their liberty.
“How did we beat the Germans? Immediate centralization. How did the North beat the South? Immediate centralization. It’s hard, I know. As Herbert Spencer said, ugliness is an inconvenient fact (many) that destroys a beautiful system.”
Fight Fire With Fire: it’s not a maxim for nothing! The Roman Republic was eventually corrupted, but it worked very well for centuries when its rules were strictly observed, such as consuls serving one-year nonconsecutive terms, and dictators also serving well-defined, limited tenures. What they lost was their vigilance against tyranny. We also lost our vigilance – and this is the strongest argument for a man to be involved – or at least apprised – of civic and political affairs. Said another way: guys, stop paying so much damn attention to football and basketball!!!
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
“I submit to every man here, if you were to strike upon significant wealth, would you honestly still give a shit about men and boys and Men’s Rights? Probably not. You’ll have other things to do.”
Keyster, for me it would be the exact opposite. If I suddenly had all current and future financial problems instantly solved, I’d be more likely to be able to live according to principle and devote myself to the struggles of others. Now there’s the nagging worry in the back of my mind that I might not be able to speak up against injustice; might have to sit through the corporate “diversity seminar” without protest; might not be able to speak my mind in public; might not be able to voice agreement with a man who speaks up for his gender — but not if I had enough money to live as I pleased! Then I know I could live principles-first and not be dependent on any company or institution.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
“Since the days of sufferage, across all western democracies women’s rights movements have made mad progress in promoting the rights of women.”
Where does the feminist promotion of women’s rights end, and Witch-Hunting Males begin? I can’t tell.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
quote- “increase their capacity to compete against other men”
This is something I’ve NEVER understood…allow me to say……..WHAT STUPIDITY…..
Most things are accomplished through co-operation.
Take finding a cure for cancer, for example, which would be one of the highest and nobles goals…That would involve co-operation amongst millions of scientists and others.
“Competition” is of some use, yes, but not much.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
I’ve lived my life looking at only my own accomplishments unrelated to what anyone else has done or does.
What good reason is there to live any other way???
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Where and when did this “competition” stupidity get started anyway?
When you think about it, it had to be from the elite who had nothing to worry about in life….After all, people of lesser means have to co-operate to survive, not “compete”.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
@Brian
The key to having the franchise, in my view, is skin in the game.
Either you are a net tax payer (and imo all public sector workers except the military should be exempt from the franchise, as they have a clear conflict of interest in voting for the best of the nation), or you are serving or have served in the Military where you must not have been exempt from front-line combat.
Having to be a net tax payer to have the franchise is not a new idea by the way: this wisdom was known to our ancestors, and they acted on it. They also understood that welfare recipients should never be in a position where the benefits they received made it easier for them to take this charity rather than work independently for a living. Somewhere we have lost these truths, and its created a dependent class that looks to government to supply its needs, at the cost of those of us who actually work for a living.
@those saying that libertarianism is a way back to medieval times
The reason for western civilisation taking off from the 16th century onwards is founded in libertarianism: in the rule of law (particularly property rights); in free markets that were to a large extent unregulated by government bureaucracy; in the right to free association so you could choose who to go into business with; in the creation of the concept of the company, allowing for easier investment into productive enterprises; in generally low levels of taxation, meaning that profits could be re-invested in successful companies; and in consumer freedom to choose where money was spent, without the coercion of government mandated spend.
Note that western europe at the time wasn’t the dominant global player – both India and China were far bigger and more advanced as civilisations at the time, but they were empires that did not have capitalism; ultimately, that was the reason the West won.
Whilst capitalism is often portrayed as ‘survival of the fittest’, as if whole swathes of humanity are left to die in the streets whilst a few prosper at their expense, the reality is vastly different – capitalism is what catapulted european productivity forward, such that even those on the poverty line in a typical western country by the start of the 20th century lived better than the most well off inhabitants of Africa or Asia.
The point is, nature and evolution are about survival of the fittest. As a species we are used to having to work for what we get, and to compete with others. What capitalism does is marshall our basic instincts to ends that ultimately improve our overall condition. Under pure capitalism, a man can only consume as much as he produces, so its up to him how much he wants to work for his own benefit.
Some aspects of capitalism that are also misrepresented:
i. the Marxist idea of class warfare. This is nonsense once you think about it. Marx based the idea of class on rigid caste systems, where one’s birth defined one’s whole life plan. Capitalism doesn’t do this, particularly when government doesn’t interfere – under capitalism, even the largest companies are subject to the tyranny of competition for consumers’ money, and if a new company does it better, the old companies die. In other words, capitalism reshuffles the deck based on how individuals are able to make the world better by servicing peoples’ needs better than their competition; by doing so, they find more productive ways to satisfy needs, and everyone in aggregate is better off. Under capitalism, the young generation becomes the destroyer of the old ways, and the system is set up to funnel capital to those individuals who are best able to meet the population’s needs in the present.
ii. more people impoverished under capitalism; on the contrary, the poorest countries in the world are socialist. Famine and austerity are rife in centrally planned economies (see Russia, China during their communist heydeys)
iii. the myth of government spending being the only way to supply ‘public’ goods. All ‘public’ spending is really coercive spending undertaken by the government, using taxpayers’ money to spend money ‘better’ than they would themselves. There are some valid central goods that government should supply: defence of the nation, enforcement of property laws, and enforcement of laws that prevent fraud, misrepresentation, or violence against individuals. Beyond this, whenever government wants to spend the peoples’ money, the first question should always be: what makes a bureaucrat, sitting somewhere in the capitol buildings, better able to decide how this money should be spent, than the local community or the individual affected by the spend? If a case can be made that the bureaucrat can do it better, then fine, but the burden of proof is on the government and on the bureaucracy to prove this case-by-case; it should never be assumed that the government is better able to spend our money than we can.
Finally, I realise that what I’ve written here may seem to be a different topic to the problems of feminism, but in reality feminism is a symptom of the welfare state. The welfare state, and socialism, have as central planks the idea that one must protect the impoverished who cannot otherwise take care of themselves. The feminists, by playing the ‘women are victims’ card, have established women as a victim class, who would be impoverished if not for government action to ‘empower’ them. From this, all the other ills flow.
Even if we got rid of feminism, as men we would still not be free of government tyranny so long as the socialist welfare state persisted. Why jump from the frying pan to the fire? Rather than just getting rid of the immediate ills that afflict society, we should look to fix the problems at source.
The irony is of course, that the remedies are nothing new; our forebears understood them, and created legislation and political frameworks to protect citizens from the tyranny of government. Its only because we deviated from that wisdom that we are in the mess we find ourselves in today.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Meistergedanken wrote:
“How did we beat the Germans? Immediate centralization. How did the North beat the South? Immediate centralization. It’s hard, I know. As Herbert Spencer said, ugliness is an inconvenient fact (many) that destroys a beautiful system.”
I don’t know much about the American Civil War (it wasn’t really a major focus during my eduction in the UK), but the reason for beating the Germans is being misrepresented in your comment in my view.
Going into the 2nd world war, Germany had been gearing up for years under the Nazis. The British (and American) industries were not geared to war efforts during this time, so they started late. However, its instructive that because of their starting capitalist base, they actually had better industrial infrastructure that they could repurpose to the war effort. By the end of the war, the ability of the British and the Americans production wise was far superior to the Germans, and this was a contributing factor to victory.
Yes, there had to be a temporary centralisation of effort, but war is a special case – when the nation faces an existential threat, it is incumbent on the government to repurpose production to the war effort. However, the key is that these should truly be existential wars, not misadventures based on empire building or political ideology.
One other thing to note: the primary reason why communist countries in particular seem more prone to famine is that the centralised planning bureaucracy tends to favour heavy industries that have potential military end-uses. In prioritising such industries, they often misallocate production away from areas that support the population day to day (e.g. agriculture and consumer goods tradeable to other countries) in favour of goods that do not help their populations but do maintain their military presence in the world. Under pure capitalism (i.e. not neoconservative corporatism that seeks to maintain the military-industrial complex), this doesn’t happen because military spending is not prioritised beyond that needed to stave off existential threats.
Finally, I’m not sure precisely what Ron Paul’s position is on fully open borders, but from what I have read, my understanding of what he’s saying is that the welfare state attracts people into the country, as they believe they will get something for nothing. If that didn’t exist, and people generally had to fend for themselves, sure America might still have immigrants but they would be people who wanted to produce more in a free capitalist society so that they could consume more; i.e. such people would be a net boost to US productivity, not a drain on its tax base.
America became what it was in at the start of the 20th century by embracing immigrants willing to work hard and produce goods and services that could be sold to their fellow citizens. Whats changed since then is that it no longer expects newcomers to work their way up from nothing; it gives them on a plate all sorts of welfare goodies that they couldn’t get in their own countries; if you offer something for free, are you surprised when people take you up on it?
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
What is the future of the MRM? Well, what are the problems facing men that will change soon.
Here it is, here we see that CS and Alimoney were only ever incentives to buy the female vote by providing welfare to women so they could sit on thier ever expanding Oprahfied asses, a size unknown before to human females, yet still is the envy of women the world over…
….these payments are simply a tax on men so women don’t have to work and vote as they are told by their pimp daddy your uncle Samual.
Here we see it in writting, men who were disabled and unable to pay to fun their kittens bon bons have to pay the government to run the program giving cupcake here cupcake money….these are the beaurocratic parasites the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 created, these men will recieve no income at all, despite paying into the system when they worked.
They are left to die with no food or shelter, no havens….many will pay the money by taking it from the very children that were supposed to benefit but never recieved anything…..mom did.
“Once paper checks are eliminated, about 275,000 people could lose access to all of their income, advocates say.
“It’s kind of Orwellian, what’s being set up here for a segment of the population,” says Johnson Tyler, an attorney who represents poor and disabled people collecting federal benefits. “It’s going to be a nightmare in about a year unless something changes.”
In many cases, the bills are decades old and the children long grown. Much of the money owed is interest and fees that add up when men are unable to pay because they are disabled, institutionalized or imprisoned.
Most of the money will go to governments, not to the children of the men with child support debts, independent analyses show. States are allowed to keep child support money as repayment for welfare previously provided for those children.
In some instances, the grown children are supporting their fathers.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/paperless-child-support-payments-cost-only-source-income_n_1303673.html
So keep working in the system, kiss your wifes ever widening behind and pay your taxes, you’ll punished for it later….when will men learn this is a prison without walls and one that kills the convicts when they can’t break stones any more.
A system worse than 17th century europe designed and paid for by highly educated women who hate men and see them as less than animals.
Fighting that is the future of the MRM, it is global, and like any other organism will adjust and flourish no matter how they try to screw us over….only if we learn, and adapt.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
“Either you are a net tax payer (and imo all public sector workers except the military should be exempt from the franchise, as they have a clear conflict of interest in voting for the best of the nation), or you are serving or have served in the Military where you must not have been exempt from front-line combat.”
If you are including WOMEN within your group of “net tax payer[s]” who would be permitted to vote, I don’t disagree with this idea.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
The problem is political and it’s why our once constitutional republic was so unique and maintaining it was so important. A common misconception among everyone today is that America is supposed to be democracy, not so; it was designed as a republic. This distinction is critical because democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Simply, mob rule means a group of people can vote away another group’s “rights”…along with their property, income, wealth and labor. Sound familiar – women have a “right” to practically anything whereas men have seen their rights as defined by the Bill of Rights and Constitution steadily eroded…i.e. confiscation of our land, wealth and income. Mob rule looks like this – lobby the government to make it a law that you have to hire so many females to an investment bank or to admit so many females to medical school – reference frank/dodd and obamacare – but this has be going on for decades. Consider that women are 1/2 the population, a natural majority, worse that the male population is already divided. Never mind the shameless subterfuge that feminists engage in to see their agendas through, woman have successful formed a multi-cultural voting bloc, which can’t be countered so long as men remain divided – and unaware. Also, consider that woman do out-live men, on average, and have been the beneficiaries of trillions of inherited assets. That’s important, because these jealous tarts have funding, which they use to reward their man for giving them all their money and wealth they ever made in their lives not to mention everything they did when alive only to have many of these women make donations to institutions that hate these very same men? This is on top of all trillions they vote to themselves via the government and via they taxpayers. Plus, the media brainwashes people in a scientific, mass-produced manner. So, it’s because of mob rule, money and brainwashing that we have feminism. But gents, though it’s tempting to say feminism has been very successful consider the following:
1. feminism has also destroyed the world’s best working political system and morphed it into a elite-run socialists country.
2. feminsts spent their own inherited fortunes and drained government’s coffers to the point where the system is bankrupt e.g. they also destroyed the world’s best economy.
3. Lied to everyone about their true intentions by putting us all in a media-based spell. And if you’re a boy and you call Bull they medicate you until you’re drooling or if you’re a man create a new crime and throw you away.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Gunn, the quote you mentioned was not written by me; I was citing the previous commenter jaego. The point I was merely making was that sometimes we have to adopt the same tactics the enemy uses in our fight against them.
“Yes, there had to be a temporary centralisation of effort, but war is a special case – when the nation faces an existential threat, it is incumbent on the government to repurpose production to the war effort.”
If war is a special case, then there are an awful lot of “special cases” over the span of history! And yes, the Powers-That-Be always frame the conflict as an existential threat. How is the population supposed to determine that – based on what the media tells them? Please no. I still remember Clinton insisting that bombing Serbia was of “vital national interest” to the U.S. Seriously Bill?
Upon closer examinsation, you will determine that your viewpoint is closer to mine than it is different.
“America became what it was in at the start of the 20th century by embracing immigrants willing to work hard and produce goods and services that could be sold to their fellow citizens. Whats changed since then is that it no longer expects newcomers to work their way up from nothing;”
What’s ALSO changed is that back then we had only around 100 million people and now we have 300 million. The needs of the nation change. We can’t use 19th century solutions [ for problems of labor shortage] to solve 21st century problems [of shortages of everything else].
As for Ron Paul:
“As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be ANY immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” – said during 1988 campaign [emphasis mine].
I don’t think I can sign onto that…
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
A strong and fair government is one based on balance, while remaining flexible enough to shift along the spectrum as need arrises. The problem is that it’s hard to bring balance back to something once it becomes too tilted, thus the government should have resets that are locked in. We have checks and balances, but the checks have been bribed and corrupted by money. We need a stronger reset than just new elections. The tax code should have to be re-written every 10 years maybe. Law should be simplified and re-codified every 40 perhaps. Why do we have dead laws on the books and an arcane tax code? Don’t even get me started on buearocracies. Evil intentions are often hidden in complexity. The devil is in the details. We need things to be simpler first. Without a simple mechanism to work with, repair becomes unproductive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its a constitutional crisis situation, and a very, very, very slippery slope to allow American law enforcement to use protocol perversion and semantics games to manufacture faulty statistics, and then cash in these faulty statistics for federal pork bloationg dollars.
Not only is it a slap in the face to the concept of free enterprise (pork bloating and expanding burocracies is charecteristic of comunism), but many innocent men are getting their lives ruined.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
The difference in visibility and success of MRA and feminism can be explained by te empathy gap. Studies show that women have a bias to help other women before they help a man. Men do not have a bias to help men before women, in fact they have a bias to help women before men as well. Our female leaders are only looking out for women while are male leaders do nothing… or look out for only women’s interest. It is going to be a tough fight for us to make any progress.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
^^^^
Right now, the two political parties fight over which group of women will vote for them – the D’s appealing predominantly to single women, the R’s to married women. Men are locked out, just as they are from the mass media — which, being driven by advertising, is driven by women accounting for 85% of discretionary spending.
Men dropping out of this system can only bring about its collapse. When only “the woman vote” matters, men shouldn’t bother caring at all.
Real Men DON’T Vote!! pretty well does it for me. When it’s a girl’s game, only manginas, manholes, white knights, other pussy beggars give a shit about participating in politics. Don’t vote – it only encourages `em! Supporting the status quo only strengthens the status quo.
Eventually, someone will figure out that “the man vote” is the low-cost vote to appeal to, because no one else is competing for it. But they’re really going to have to earn it, to make up for decades of male oppression. With any luck, this will happen before the goose laying all the golden eggs has been entirely strangled to death. I’m not holding my breath.
So, if not, at least it was an interesting experiment before it went off the rails, but complete system failure was the best outcome for such a flawed structure. Maybe USA – Take Two will be better designed.
Remember, Thomas Jefferson believed the Constitution should be torn up once a generation and a new Constitutional Convention held. With the current pace of change, the arguments are even more strongly in favor of this basic idea. We should be on about USA v.10 now, not v2.2.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Look at Boston’s Big Dig: a race to the bottom as companies bid lower and lower and finally delivered the inevitable – shoddy workmanship and inferior concrete. That’s Capitalism apart from values; profit and nothing else. We didn’t get this far doing this. Something has changed.
Captialism (and no values) brought in the illegals. Capitalism (apart from all else) shipped our jobs overseas. The invisible hand has bitch slapped us. I want our Country back – not more of the same.
All of Asia wanted to come here and take our jobs – competition! Undercut us and sleep underneath their own counters. We told them to go to hell. That’s what having a country means. Capitalism would let them in and we’d have the right to become coolies to compete against other coolies. How can people be so foolish?
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
“In some instances, the grown children are supporting their fathers.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/paperless-child-support-payments-cost-only-source-income_n_1303673.html
The comments to that report made really depressing reading.
What smug, ignorant, soulless self satisfaction. These people are marching in lockstep right over the cliff. There is no hope.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yeah as long as you don’t fall in the designated victim categories, even though your suffering is every bit as real, you get no love from the lefties.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Reading that article, it seems like A LOT of commenters just have complexes due to being spawned from a Babymomma and a thug.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
In some ways the future is here for the MRM. We have activists in most states and are finding successes.
It seems that this week, due to some degree to lobbying by Fathers and Families and against the stated position of NOW, Florida seems ready to abandon lifetime alimony.
This evil was identified at the turn of the last century and finally, 100 years later, men are at the table and women will have to….
…..GET A JOB.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=23191
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
“Since the days of sufferage, across all western democracies women’s rights movements have made mad progress in promoting the rights of women. Sensitivity towards the rights of women and girls is now enforced rigidly in the workplace, as well as now being taught in schools right from kindergarten on up. Decidedly feminist messages have even become a mandatory part of television, radio, and all other media. The Father’s rights movement is like an under-performing bastard step child in comparison. The movement’s been around since at least the 1950′s, a quick survey of your friends will likely confirm your suspicion that few men know anything about the issues behind it.”
Women’s rights movements are everywhere in the mainstream media. In comparison, men’s rights movements are almost unheard of.
Why?
Because women whine (stridently!) a lot more than men do.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Guys – let’s not forget that “women’s rights” is an abominable term contrary to the very essence of what this country was founded on and in itself supportive of the case I laid out in my previous post. It should be just “rights” with no qualifier ahead of it. In other words, rights for all, not just women, gay or any other group, is what we should be promoting. But wait, the framework was laid out in the Bill of Rights and Constitution already, so what more needs to be done? I mean we reconciled any problems a long time ago with extending these rights to minorities and allowing women to vote, etc. Well, looks like that wasn’t good enough, because contrary to the essence of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness…women and other groups want that to be guaranteed! In this world of finite possibilities and resources what we see is a zero sum game when one group demands more of the system because it must therefore take it from others whether its money, resources or even rights. And that’s why women are just pathetic, they take (steal) and then claim they’re now better than the rest of us…many times calling themselves morally superior to boot! And it’s not just making outlandish claims such as being a new species; its rubbing others noses in it. It’s childish, pathetic, immature and frankly makes the case to take this back from women…why, because they have proven to a proverbial child that was reluctantly given too many toys. So, this child (women) made a huge mess because they are too irresponsible to handle it. Take the Canadian women’s hockey team that won in the Olympics and their drunken charade after the game…I mean this is what we’re supposed to consider as excellence, look up to, emulate??? Even funnier is that had it not been for the stupid TV and their schools egging-on these girls I would venture to say that most of them would have never willingly wanted to play hockey in the first place…if not any sports at all. But that’s another one of their declared “rights”…think how absurd that sounds “right to play sports” ?? I digress, this is the problem, we need to get back to a dialogue that rejects blank rights and focuses on protecting rights for all. If we do that guess what happens, rights for all will include men and the balance will start to come back.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Meistergedanken
Apologies for the misquote.
Re: existential war – I agree, this could be a slippery slope. I see existential war as an enemy coming to invade your homeland. Anything else is pretty much military adventure. I guess the quintessential example of existential war was WW2.
Per the US constitution, my understanding is that Congress has to declare war, this might help somewhat in avoiding conflict if it was enforced.
I’ve also seen libertarian arguments that war spending / production can be directed via market forces by imposing a (very) heavy tax, with the money obtained used by the government on war-related products. The idea being that the massive reduction in people’s income would force them to consume only the basics. This might work I guess, and keeps the profit/loss drive to improve productivity around the war effort.
@the other comment re: womens’ suffrage
Yes, I have no problem with womens’ franchise provided they are net taxpayers and not employed in the public / government run sector. Women imo should not get the franchise from being in the Military, as despite all liberal protestations to the contrary, they are not really front-line and subject to anywhere near the same risks as serving men.
The simple fact is though that very few women would be net taxpayers, in the absence of government sponsorship and stacked employment laws.
Also, note that net taxpayers are those whose tax payments exceed the total of all benefits received (e.g. child support, disability, tax credits etc, and possibly education costs pro-rated per child). In the case of the UK for example, most families at the median income level are not in fact net tax payers, once you account for all the public services they receive. I imagine the US is similar.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“It is going to be a tough fight for us to make any progress.”
It will entail “oppression of the people.” A fundamental change in them.
…One does not make an omelet without breaking eggs.
———
Gunn is making a typical capitalist argument in that he explains, accurately (and long windedly) the _mechanism_ for dutch anglo society’s growth as though that itself is accurate evidence about how it stops some deemed social ill (eg feminism or immigration). It is a kind of bait and switch.
Nowhere but in capitalist democracy has feminism occurred. Even in leftist communist countries, the double-standard privileges for female don’t occur (nor does mass immigration). It might be too difficult to explain why that phenom is happening (though I’ve made headway for years) but the FACT that is happening should not be denied.
And this “”true capitalism” hasn’t been tried yet” is tautology. “True capitalism” hasn’t happened yet because for humans it can’t. Humans are troop-based sharers. What does happen instead though are the *devil’s compromises* which have led to one gender double standard after another –and that is feminism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“Because women whine (stridently!) a lot more than men do.”
Correct. And it is instinct.
How is capitalist democracy culture dealing with this instinct?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
> ” the problem with men’s rights is… that all their lobbying efforts and interests are dedicated to furthering their interests in ways that will increase their capacity to compete against other men.”
Depends. Boy Scouts, VFW, Shriners, Masons, etc. are all FRATERNAL orders that help males. So guys cooperate, too.
In fact, men (like most humans throughout history) cooperate far more than they compete. But like good news, it’s not popularized because those in power think it won’t “sell” (limited as they, themselves, are in seeing reality).
Howard Stern has had a long career. However, Mr. Rogers had a longer one. And it’s not like no one has ever heard of Harry Potter.
> “Women simply are far more motivated to contribute to social causes that require cooperation in the interests of other women.”
Nah. Even at the beginning many women opposed the women’s movement. And it’s not like we haven’t heard of catfights.
I think the problem is men being raised to…
…stuff feelings of pain (so they don’t air grievances);
…think other men are the enemy (despite raising barns together);
…think emotions can only be shared with females or one is gay;
…not hit back when females hit them;
…believe women don’t like sex as much as guys do;
and so on.
Women said they were angry. Being allowed to emote, folks listened.
They also said men had no problems. What guy was going to stand up and say he was powerless?
Guys also knew if they challenged a woman on “gender issues” her legs would snap shut and she’d go off to bone a bad boy for spite.
Men also found other men fighting them, “white knights” who believed doing so would gain them entry to “Poontangville.”
There are more “reasons,” but the result is the same: Feminists have an entrenched standing army while men have a few rag-tag militias.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
> The MRM is severely underfunded. Our enemies have billions of dollars, lobbys, PACs, the power of the media, etc.
Why? Because men failed to act. They could have more money and impact, but they refused to do what was needed.
How many men’s groups requested money from, say, Playboy? Or government agencies? Or the Ford Foundation? Or rich male celebrities who were reamed by courts?
ZERO! They do nothing to raise funds, then complain about having no funds.
It’s like someone who complains they never see sunlight who refuses to open the unlocked door and go outside.
It’s like the scene in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST when the protagonist learns all the guys who’ve been complaining about the “intolerable” mental ward VOLUNTARILY keep themselves there.
You can’t help a movement that’s filled with men unwilling to move. You can’t make the willfully blind see.
The average MRI (men’s rights inactivist) believes Martians came down and gave money to women’s groups. It’s not that men’s groups refused to master the arts of mass media, No, no. It’s that Martians prevent them from doing so.
For example, most knuckleheaded “leaders” of men’s groups think reporters cover “issues” instead of news. So they occasionally call up a reporter and say this or that isn’t fair, putting the reporter to sleep. That convinces the leader “media” aren’t interested in men’s issues.
Meanwhile, feminists get 10,000 women to march on Central Park. When reporters show up to cover that NEWS, that EVENT(!), the group THEN sends out 1 0r 2 media-savvy, sound-bite providing spokespeople to provide contexta. They do it concisely, too, stating why the event is happening.
Ergo, the female “story” makes it on nightly news while the men’s gets scuttled. Why? Because the men who created media aren’t the boneheads leading most men’s groups. It’s like watching a blind landlubber trying to lead an armada.
There’s no mystery why women’s groups win. They do what works. The MRM, on the other hand, does nothing but talk online, complaining that no one heeds what they never do.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
> “Men’s rights will also take decades to implement, We have to build a vocabulary, construct a theoretical basis, educate society. and overcome deeply ingrained biases and instincts.”
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
I heard this same excuse 40 years ago. FOUR EFFEN DECADES later and guys are still unwilling to act. What did they do during all that time? Very, very, very little.
Oh, except for watching a ton of sports shows.
And drinking beer.
I knew back then that the MRM would never move because it had no passion, no fire-in-the-belly. There was no sense of urgency. A bunch of disgruntled loons sent faxes from their basements from time to tome, somehow expecting to rock the world.
It was pathetic.
Men acted like their movement didn’t matter and the world listened.
It wasn’t Martians that kept the men’s movement from growing. It was men themselves. They chose not to act.
The MRM gives itself infinite time to “begin.” It’s a perfect excuse for failure: “Er, we’ve not had enough time to defend ourselves, much less counter-attack.”
Funny stuff.
Guys will do anything but act when upsetting some women somewhere, sometime might occur. They are content to watch their children be taken from them, just so long as females don’t call them (dads) “names.”
Sure, some bluster online, but so what? It don’t mean shite to a tree, much less feminists. Yet guys think they’re “doing” something.
The women’s movement didn’t just started. It’s been chugging along, in it’s latest incarnation, for half a century. Yet men act like it’s something new, something they will have to ponder another 50 years, before beginning to act in, say, the year 3050.
Makes you wonder: Can modern boyos find their own butts using both hands?
The main group for women is called…NOW!
Then main one for men? Er…WHENEVER.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Big government, whose reach extends beyond the essentials of national defence, enforcement of property rights, and enforcement against fraud, misrepresentation or violence to individuals, is essentially anti-capitalist.
The reason being that such overreach takes society down a socialised path, where regulations and government bureaucracy start coming into play.
Feminism is one example of an ‘equality’ movement, which looks to regulate (through government force) transfers of resources and power to women. This is why it is inherently socialist, and anti-capitalist.
The confusion that many seem to have is that when you have corporatism (which is NOT capitalism), large companies often benefit from pandering to the groups in society that are beneficiaries of wealth transfers. Therefore, you see large corporates supporting feminism, which leads to the incorrect conclusion that feminism and capitalism are linked.
Finally, the reason I see the way forward for the MRM as being a move to smaller government and a purer form of capitalism is that this is the action that is aimed directly at the cause of feminism. Actions aimed at individual laws are useful of course, but they offer symptomatic relief only, and will not cure the underlying problem.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Auntie Pheminizm
You are right about the timescales and the lack of funding around the MRM, but I think you fail to understand why.
I’ve recently been catching up on some reading, and what strikes me is that you can take books from 25, 50, 75, or even 100 years ago and they all paint the same picture – the growth of a sprawling socalist government machine in the western world.
The context for feminism, and the MRM backlash, is this growing socialisation of the west. Quite simply, you won’t cure or correct feminism until the underlying government machinery is dismantled. Feminism has offered government too many ways to further regulate society (in particular, the family and marriage, and reproductive and related health issues), and the bureaucracy created to serve these new tools of control is difficult to remove unless government itself is streamlined.
What we’re seeing in the modern day, which is different to say 30-40 years ago, is the imminent financial collapse of the west. If this does come to pass (and its looking more and more likely under a rabidly socialist US president who is looking to increase government reach and spending day by day, which makes it almost certain that the dollar will lose its reserve currency status in the next few years) then the most likely outcome will be totalitarianism imposed in most western countries.
To avoid this catastrophe, society, and men in particular, need to understand and change our current trajectory. The MRM are in a way the canary in the coalmine; I think the men involved in it or aware of the issues raised by it are the ones who understand just how dysfunctional society today is and whats causing it. But we’re past the stage where simple repeal of feminist inspired laws will fix things; the real problem is deeper, and must be faced as quickly as possible.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@ Auntie Pheminizm:
Don’t agree with everything, but you’re making some good points above. Here is where I differ. I actually don’t like the moniker of men’s rights or activism…I use “MRA” out of convenience more than anything else. The MRA could very easily follow the same path as WRA’s and leverage foundations, celebrities, NGOs and the state. But what will that leave us with…another pathetic aggrieved group calling themselves victims and looking for a hand-out/entitlement. That’s not the Man I want to be nor was it the kind of Man that my Grandfathers were (escape the Czar WWII etc). As it stands, we’re already bankrupt as a nation from placating 1/2 of our population with endless entitlements. I do suspect that the state and its ancillary toadies i.e. NGOs and foundations etc, love to be the central distributor of all things whether its resources (money) or “justice”. In the end it not only validates their existence but ensures their survival. So, here is what I advocate: I do not want an MRA in the NOW sense. I want to return to a Constitutional Republic and to have a vastly smaller government at all levels. This will accomplish everything that the MRA is calling for. Why, because the government has arbitrarily picked who they want to win and its women. It stands that without the state things will come back into balance on many things to include male and female relationships. You even noted how many women rejected feminism. Between oprah, infotainment (news), tv and movies we can’t even think for ourselves and as a result we see very odd things happening like ‘women on top’ or ‘gays make better parents’ etc. All I ask is for “the system” to allow people to think..guess what will happen if they do – things will return back to normal. Although, we’re not seeing poster boards in Zucchi Park (sp?) calling for MRA etc, we are seeing a very dedicated grass roots movement calling for a smaller government and a return to a Constitutional Republic. And, yes, the Tea Party isn’t flying the MRA banner either…but it doesn’t matter. The Tea Party is in line with our call to end state-based oppression of men. If the Tea Party is successful, we’ll be successful too. So, AF, we actually have a large movement going on here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Gunn: “the growth of a sprawling socalist government machine in the western world.”
Kee-rist. Guys forever complicate things, the better to avoid taking action. Forget all the “isms. ” People, for the most part, want to improve their lives. It’s pretty simple. They want peace, security, and enough income/food/savings to enjoy life. If you call attaining that “Fartism,” so what?
Talk about socialism is just a distraction. Forces are in play that are taking real men’s real children from them. The male response? To study ever-more arcana and/or offer critiques of various governmental systems.
Total equestrian excreta.
Young boys know, instinctively, the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad. They know intuitively if something is fair or not. However, they then get socialized to suppress said awareness. By the time they are 45, you can pimp slap them and, instead of fighting back, they’ll start blabbering about vectors forces impacting mandibular joints, etc.
That is, they now think chicken shit IS chicken salad.
We don’t need to waste more time “analyzing” feminism. Nor do we need to wait patiently for it to self-destruct and/or destroy society. It’s time to take ACTION.
In simple terms, we need to FTSU. ASAP.
Feminists have never-ever-EVER met male counter-punches. When they do they will quickly cave. The problem is that instead of fielding forces to fight fembots, men forever insist on more “library time” to study issues and parse death sentences and generally avoid conflict.
As if men’s refusal to fight hasn’t encouraged MORE fembotulism!
Where, in goddess’ name, are men of action today? It’s like men have become the lost-soul wimps feminists say they are.
In 1776, “real men” didn’t insist on “endless thinking.” Instead, they formed the Continental Army. Even then, that wasn’t enough. Left to their own devices, they would remained militias that ultimately formed circular firing squads. Each entity would have insisted it alone had the right answer…albeit one that would take 100 years to enact.
Instead, Washington wisely called BS and stopped the bickering. He compelled the militias to “shut the fuck up” and submit to uniform drills per Baron Von Steuben (and also Marquis de Lafayette).
Why? Because it was WAR…like we have now per feminism.
George knew he couldn’t face an army like Britain/feminism with undisciplined troops. We need to follow his example. We will never defeat NOW with a hundred 50-man “groups” who think counter-attacking means shooting -farting-ranting in an uncoordinated fashion online.
Keerist, but you’d think the male gender would, at this late date, get with the program. Surely men have “studied war.” Yet that seems to matter now when the enemy has a vajayjay.
> “The context for feminism, and the MRM backlash, is this growing socialisation of the west.”
Yawn.
Snooze.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
Who gives a shite? We can’t stop women’s groups, yet expect the “gummint” to collapse on its own?
> “…you won’t cure or correct feminism until the underlying government machinery is dismantled.”
Why stop there? Why not end bovine flatulence, too?
And exterminate yetis.
And make sure cows fly to houses bearing chocolate milk in their udders, thereby sparing dudes from having to walk to convenience stores.
And teach dogs to sing.
And….
Yeppers. I bet in another 3,000 years men should be just about ready to “start” rebutting arguments used to steal their kids and cash.
> “What we’re seeing in the modern day, which is different to say 30-40 years ago, is the imminent financial collapse of the west.”
Dream on. That’s just another excuse for not acting: “Hey, I was just going to get off the sofa and start counter-attacking feminism, but what’s the point? The world will end in 2012. The Mayans promised me. Personally. So why risk taking any actions? Now where’s that TV remote controller?”
Like I said, modern males will do anything to avoid publicly calling out females.
> “men in particular, need to understand …our current trajectory.”
I’m sure millions of “understanding” men terrifies NOW.
> “we’re past the stage where simple repeal of feminist inspired laws will fix things…”
How convenient! Guys can continue doing nothing. They just have to wait in their Lazyboys, drinking beer, until Mr. Time and Senor Booga-Booga arrive on the scene to fix things.
And some say women are the sex that believes in fantasies!
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
> But what will that leave us with…another pathetic aggrieved group calling themselves victims and looking for a hand-out/entitlement.”
Oy!
What’s more troubling: the FACT that men ARE victims…or that some men having a problem admitting that?
Too many males bought into the feminist belief that “real men” are never victims. Now men worship that same idol.
Such self-shaming kills the MRM.
Men still believe any man who can’t make it on his own is “pathetic” and a “victim.” It’s the same mentality that thinks a “true” militia should be able to defeat army regulars.
To wit: insane.
Feminism succeeds, for the most part, because men stop other men from fighting back. It’s like watching crabs in a slow-boiling pot keep each other from escaping.
This is how wimpy modern men have become: they let others (male and female) stop them cold by calling them…wimps.
Imagine: supposedly rough/tough macho men unmanned by “name-calling”!
Listen to all the cowards hectoring other men to keep quiet about their pain, lest the cowards themselves be called “whiners” by feminists.
The MRM is chockablock with kapos riding herd on other men in the service of feminism.
Trust me: most of the old farts telling men what to do are terrified (absolutely scared shitless!),of showing any feelings. They’d rather face a firing squad and die than cry and feel and be alive.
They are neither men, nor human, but mere robots. They often let their own flesh and blood be taken from them and do nothing.
Why listen to them? They will teach you to lose like they did.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
> “That’s not the Man I want to be”
WTF does that mean? Feminism has been on the hoof for 4-5 decades. What has your type of “Man” done about it?
> “my Grandfathers…escape the Czar WWII, etc.
What? You mean they didn’t just sit around typing on the Internet?
> “we’re already bankrupt as a nation from placating 1/2 of our population with endless entitlements.
What did men do so as not to “placate”?
Western males act forever confounded when one group actively presses for something, and another does diddly-squat, and the former prevails.
It’s like bazillions of guys joined “Stupid-R-Us.”
>” I do suspect that the state and its ancillary toadies…love to be the central distributor of all things….”
Again, oy!
Let me see if I understand Modern Manthink:
(1) Guys see others “loving” to be, say, central distributors.
(2) Said boyos disagree with that stance.
(3) Those same dudes then do NOTHING to stop central distributors.
(4) At the same time, the men act perplexed when the thing they chose not to oppose prevails.
Modern men forgot the distinction between thoughts and deeds.
Unfortunately, feminists did not.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@ Auntie Pheminizm:
Hey, assuming you’re with us to destroy feminism, I’m not disagreeing with what you said. I do see western men as eunuchs. Indeed, we should amp the fight up. So what do you recommend we do?
“placate ½ the population” I meant we appease women with entitlements…women being ½ the population. Since that’s ~ 150mm people in the US that requires a lot of resources and money and judging by our enormous deficit plus unfunded liabilities it has led us to bankruptcy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Auntie Pheminizm
You quoted me: ”all men’s lobbying efforts and interests are dedicated to furthering their interests in ways that will increase their capacity to compete against other men.”
You responded: Depends. Boy Scouts, VFW, Shriners, Masons, etc. are all FRATERNAL orders that help males.
My response back: These aren’t influential lobbying groups that compel the government to pass laws furthering their interests.
You said: In fact, men (like most humans throughout history) cooperate far more than they compete. But like good news, it’s not popularized because those in power think it won’t “sell” (limited as they, themselves, are in seeing reality).
My response back: It’s not that men don’t cooperate, it’s that we tend to cooperate on things that don’t include men’s social issues.
You quoted me: “Women simply are far more motivated to contribute to social causes that require cooperation in the interests of other women.”
You responded: I think the problem is men being raised to…
…stuff feelings of pain (so they don’t air grievances);
…think other men are the enemy (despite raising barns together);
…think emotions can only be shared with females or one is gay;
Men also found other men fighting them, “white knights” who believed doing so would gain them entry to “Poontangville.”
They also said men had no problems. What guy was going to stand up and say he was powerless?
Guys also knew if they challenged a woman on “gender issues” her legs would snap shut and she’d go off to bone a bad boy for spite.
My response back: Doesn’t everything you said above agree with my point about competition? Your points all equate to other men being a threat we can’t show weakness in front of because in some primal sense they’re potential competitors. That other men will undermine us and take our mates if we speak up about this feminist bullshit.
You said: Women said they were angry. Being allowed to emote, folks listened
My response back: The expressions: “man up, stop being a pussy, stop crying like a girl, don’t get mad get even” … say it all. Both men and women accept women “emoting” and expressing vulnerability while generally preferring men take direct action rather than expressing any emotion at all.
Men are not very forgiving of other men’s weaknesses, and don’t tend to bond by crying and commiserating unless bonding in preparation for WAR. Even then most of us would prefer to choose a hard ass as our brother in arms over some bawling EMO who might surrender and plead for sympathy rather than protecting our back when the going gets tough.
There’s a reason we’re by and large not descended from men who act like women. There is a reason that instead of all rushing home to bake and watch The Woman’s Television Network we sometimes linger at the pub on Monday nights to drain a pint, watch football, and tell war stories about our glory days.
Evolutionary Psychologists would say all these things likely indicate historically greater evolutionary pressures against the survival of men who do otherwise. In other words men who were pussies and asked for sympathy rather than fighting for an advantage tended to die out … because there was no sympathy out there to get.
My point is we can’t win equal rights by becoming women and crying for it or expecting other men to see us weeping in family court and want to reach out and help us. That’s contrary to our natures and just won’t work. Instead we have to show guys on the sidelines they will all face misandry at some point, and that much badder men than they are have gone up against this invincible system and have had their nuts handed to them. We have to show middle aged men that they personally are in danger of having their children, their assets, and their future labor taken with only a very thin veneer of due process of law and point out direct action they can take to protect themselves. I don’t know how to mobilize young men. These messages might not resonate with them because at that age they’re immortal and risks don’t apply. Their ears perk up only for stories about terminator ninja secret agent superheros who’re living examples of practical everyday strategies for being invincible. Young men don’t need to take the time to learn about potential pitfalls other men have faced because when the time comes they’ll handle it differently than all those whining Men’s Rights pussies. None of that shit will ever happen to them. Nothing is WAY out of their control. This isn’t a knock on young men. It’s this same recklessness that’s been responsible for most of innovations during all of human history. Still somehow young men have to be mobilized into men’s rights just like young women are all mobilized into feminism. Their lives depend on it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Auntie Pheminizm
Hey another thing too. We differ on how feminism started. First, I completely agree with Ethical that men cannot be expected to stand at the altar of entitlements and cry injustice…like women do every day. feminism may have been here for decades now, but, the genesis of the movement coincides with the rise of statism. And, as we continue to drift away from being a Constitutional Republic and become more despotic and loose our freedoms etc we see the so called accession of women. Why? Simple women basically vote-in their own success, whether it’s quotas for medical school admissions or grants for businesses only owned by women. The Founding Fathers foresaw this and tried very hard to design a system that would prevent this from happening. The constitution says nothing about the president’s office for women and girls or NGOs of any kind like NOW. So, because feminism is an artificial construct (it doesn’t occur naturally) it’s dependent on constant government intervention to keep it going. You see, feminism = big oppressive government and big oppressive government = feminism. That said, men don’t need legions of MRM activists, but we do need to take action but the target isn’t necessarily feminists. Again, I support the Tea Party. I know that if we’re successful in restoring our Constitutional Republic feminism will go bye-bye because we’ll kill the beast that feeds it. In fact, many women have joined the fight to destroy statism. Mrs. “momma bear” Palin masquerades as a t partier, but, she knows if we win we’ll start hearing about women on descent. You give too much credit to feminism, once you peel back the onion and see the vast apparatus of training wheels it’s really nothing to be frighten about. If women were such a formidable foe why do they need so much help? Yeah, things are very dark but a little revolution now and again is a healthy and natural thing. On our fiscal and monetary problems, I encourage you not to dismiss it so readily. Do some research; learn about the real process that creates money. It will enlighten you even more on why things like feminism are happening.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0