The Wisdom in Not Arguing With a Woman

by Featured Guest on May 11, 2012

By Ethical

After reading hundreds upon hundreds of comments on both feminist sites and men’s rights sites like The Spearhead and A Voice for Men, I noticed the clear pattern that men and women argue differently. Men tend to try to understand what their opponent is saying in order to point out the flaws in his argument. Women on the other hand tend to try to show that nothing about their opponent’s argument is understandable at all. As soon as she determines a person’s argument is contrary to how she feels, rather than confront her opponent’s reasoning she’ll use ridicule or derision to dismiss the argument entirely.

The great many men visiting feminist blogs to confront what they see as faulty logic is proof men look to engage and attack any weakness in their opponent’s argument. It’s also apparent when the odd women shows up on a men’s forum. No matter how insulting or far off topic she is there’s always a surplus of men ready to engage.

On the other hand when men come to women’s forums to debate the issues they’re banned from commenting if they say anything the women don’t agree with. This is proof women look for reasons not to engage their opponents argument. Furthermore unlike the many men who troll feminist forums, women rarely show up to debate men’s rights with men, though this is no loss for them since women don’t need the opposition present to have a debate. Though they didn’t permit their opponent to make his argument they’ll agree amongst themselves on what he probably would have said and then ridicule that misrepresentation among themselves.

There are exceptions of course. Aside from the fact that his site is intentionally satirical, Manboobz relies on ridicule while refusing to address any relevant points, exactly like a woman. However I haven’t seen a picture of him so I’m still not convinced he isn’t one, in which case he’s not an exception. On the flip side I’ve also read at least one woman’s blog on men’s rights that was more methodically logical than most men’s writing. These exceptions are extremely uncommon.

It’s not surprising then that in the gender rights debate neither side is convincing the other even in the slightest, and that raises a good question: If men can never be convinced because women don’t engage men’s rational arguments, and women can never be convinced because men ignore their feelings and bully them with the excuse that their feelings aren’t rational, then how can the sexes ever compromise? Compromise relies on a belief in the “common good” and requires a common understanding of the issues. There’s no “common good” if both parties have conflicting agendas, and there’s no common understanding if both parties have different ways of reaching a conclusion.

I believe there may be a solution. To achieve compromise men may need to take the initiative and address arguments that make women feel differently about men being treated unequally; that is demonstrate that the devastating consequences of men being denied equal rights in areas like false accusations and family law will in the long run be more painful for the majority of women than individual women no longer being able to get away with as much when the systemic injustice against men is exposed. Whether false accusation, unfair child support or alimony, unfair division of property, or unfair custody and visitation, more women in the man’s family are hurt by an unjust court ruling than the single woman who benefits. The man’s mother, sisters, aunts, daughters, and new significant other may suffer terribly because he suffers, and because they’ll stop at nothing to support him.

Stop at nothing may be what they need to do because it’s clear that the battle to end discrimination against men can’t be won without their help. Men are designed for war against neighboring villages not for defending ourselves against our “helpless women” whom we find it difficult to hold to account for anything.

We can’t even learn from the hard lessons learned by other men because part of being “manly” is refusing to pay attention of common difficulties men face in our dealings with women. Consequently when men are confronted with gender inequity in divorce, false accusations etc. they’ll face it alone and lose. Being “manly” means he’ll take responsibility for his defeat in this system that’s so rigged winning is impossible. As a result he and other men will be ashamed to share their stories. With all the injustice so invisible he’ll get no sympathy from the legions of other men who haven’t had their eyes opened by their own struggles, and who haven’t taken the time to become informed. They’ll just look down on him as being weak for having lost. On top of this women will band together to heap on scorn and abuse for him defending himself against a woman. They won’t relent until the man is forced to accept his defeat. All this makes it difficult for men to come together to make a change. We men may have left our ancestral villages to conquer nations and may have subdued the unknown perils of the ocean to discover the new world, but facing the shaming circle of the village’s fishwives we have always conceded victory.

Surprisingly I agree women should continue to have the privileged social position this lopsided situation demonstrates. Men’s chivalry and protection of women has been around for much longer than feminism and will likely be around long after feminism is gone. Under most circumstances where men have some leadership role in the relationship both men and women feel positively about the man putting his duty to protect and provide for women and children before his own needs and safety. It’s probably a natural state of affairs because any society that did otherwise is extinct. But a man taking responsibility for putting women first goes with empowering men to disabuse themselves of women who behave badly or fail to support him. We ‘re at a warped point in history in which the feminist state has so deeply involved itself in relationships it has broken the contract between men and women. Where men would simply leave a bad wife, refuse to take responsibility for a loose woman’s child that in all probability wasn’t his, or ignore a woman who drunkenly agreed to sex and then cried rape the next day from shame and regret, men today are now completely blocked from acting in our own interests to solve our own problems. We’re forced to appeal to the feminist state which has effectively decreed men are always wrong in any dispute. We’ve become so disenfranchised that the rewards for taking on the chivalrous “leader and protector” roles men always aspired to are vanishing. In marriage for example the only recourse men have is to play the odds of getting reamed in divorce if it doesn’t work out, to endure a completely emasculating and unsatisfactory marriage, or to opt out of marriage or cohabitation altogether.

Societies still rely heavily on men, and no society can prosper if men are so disenfranchised. Men aren’t asking for special status as “victims”, we don’t need help, we just need the law to stop actively enslaving us to women. If weren’t so shackled by the law that we can’t act in our own self-interest we would’ve corrected feminism ourselves as we’ve always solved our own problems. But where we are now is needing women to allow the state to give us equal rights in our relationships with them. For that to happen we need to show women AND feminist men that allowing men equal rights is in women’s interest too.

This shouldn’t be a difficult argument to make because wherever one woman may benefit many more women on the man’s side suffer, and because even that single women who benefitted is being adversely impacted by anti-male laws. As an example, though women primarily benefit from no fault divorce that are commonly interpreted as “no fault” means “his fault” , it’s no fault divorce that’s reduced lifetime alimony and made being a homemaker such an uncertain occupation that women feel they have no other choice than to keep a career. Women openly acknowledge that as a result they now work too much, face criticism from all quarters for neglecting their husbands and families, complain their husbands don’t do enough at home, then divorce in greater numbers than ever to end up living life alone. Rather than being happier women are now unhappier than ever.

So the MRM may have started with the many well constructed points we men have gathered like big sharpened sticks for the coming gender war. But a great many women aren’t vulnerable to such hard logic. We have to broaden our strategy to include some carrots to lull them across enemy lines as in reality it’s less of a gender war we’re confronting than it is a challenge facing both men and women. We’ve always needed each other too much for complete victory in favor of either sex to lead anywhere but towards mutual destruction. Feminism is winning but it will be the end of marriage when men are forced to completely surrender and this is not a victory for women. The destruction of marriage will be followed by the destruction of innovation and economic prosperity as marriage is not only an incentive for men to pursue both, but it’s also the best environment to nurtures children to have these qualities. To avert the end, somehow we need to help women understand that women need men to have the right to be men for women to fully realize their right to be happy being women.

{ 222 comments… read them below or add one }

Uncle Elmer May 11, 2012 at 07:06

Lady commentators also say “fucking” a lot.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 9
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 07:07

Good luck.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 07:12

Uncle Elmer

“Lady commentators also say “fucking” a lot.”

What about ” Feckin” ?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16
Uncle Elmer May 11, 2012 at 07:20

I posted a comment on “Time Magazine” politely informing them that their cover shot of a woman breastfeeding her kid was attention whoring in a desperate attempt by “Time” to stay relevant, and that nobody cares that women breast-feed.

Promptly deleted.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 115 Thumb down 7
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 07:30

Uncle Elmer

Maybe if you had asked how the women were feeling before making your comment would have made the difference. You know? Check what mood they are in and explained to them prior to your comment that it will be in the interest of women that you be allowed to comment. Hey, you never know, maybe one of them would have given you permission ?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 7
Peter South May 11, 2012 at 07:41

Arguing in any form doesn’t work with anyone, you win by your actions.

Ignore them, vote them down, ridicule them, blacklist and ban them. Start your own organizations and make the rules.

You don’t need to convince them, you need to make them feel the consequences of their actions. Don’t like men? Don’t agree that we have valid claims? Great, see ya.

Let them figure out what’s wrong.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 131 Thumb down 4
Einhard May 11, 2012 at 07:56

Trying to save society at this point from its continued feminization, and therefore untimely death, is like trying to remasculate the churches. Good luck. You’re more optimistic than I am. Look at the churches now – the empty Episcopalian and the mostly-female evangelicals etc. Talking about their feelings all the time and shaming men. That’s our society of now / the future. MGTOW / Herbivore men (a la japonais) is the only solution.

Fuck ‘em.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 84 Thumb down 3
Einhard May 11, 2012 at 08:01

Speaking of the churches, check this out. Best ever.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Topic: How liberal women are building a shameless society

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
Suz May 11, 2012 at 08:03

I love everything about this article! This is a much needed reminder to focus on the heart of the issues; it’s easy for even the most logical thinkers to be led into tangential arguments, especially since it looks waaaay too easy to annihilate a troll’s fallacies. I admire TFH’s policy of not engaging trolls until they’ve stayed around for 3 days (but I sure lack his discipline!)

“… address arguments that make women feel differently about men being treated unequally…”

This point about strategy is excellent. Manipulating women’s “feelings” may seem less noble than appealing to logic, but it’s the most effective way to undo decades of feminist manipulation. “Rules of war” are pointless against an opponent who doesn’t follow the same rules. I have spent most of my adult life as an apolitical introvert; I only became interested in men’s rights when my son became an adult. Being a young Marine overseas, and relatively uninterested in marriage-and-children, he’s currently somewhat safe from the major pitfalls of our female-centric culture, but eventually he’ll have some truly dangerous decisions to make. (Yes, I see the irony there.)

As rational as I can be, make no mistake: I will gladly kill and die to to protect and support his rights.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 37
Justinian May 11, 2012 at 08:25

I believe there may be a solution. To achieve compromise men may need to take the initiative and address arguments that make women feel differently about men being treated unequally;

If western civ existed in a bubble and you had enough time, then maybe.

That bubble does not exist, and the victors will be the ones who have the balls to keep their boots firmly planted on their womens’ necks. Population replacement by you know who.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 3
Lavazza May 11, 2012 at 08:25

I also don’t see any point arguing with feminists (or most women), if there aren’t any people who have not made up their mind around. You will never reach the feminist. TFH has a theory that women come to MRA sites to argue to get gina tingles from being beaten down by male logic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 5
Szebran May 11, 2012 at 08:32

I think “Men’s chivalry” is fading away. Maybe not with the 50+ crowd but the younger generation of men is definitely not chivalrous. I also think the idea of “protecting women” is fading away. Younger men are less likely to “protect women” than a man who is 50+.
Its kinda like an unreported gender revolution in the way men view women is underway.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 76 Thumb down 0
confused May 11, 2012 at 08:33

“Surprisingly I agree women should continue to have the privileged social position this lopsided situation demonstrates. Men’s chivalry and protection of women has been around for much longer than feminism and will likely be around long after feminism is gone. Under most circumstances where men have some leadership role in the relationship both men and women feel positively about the man putting his duty to protect and provide for women and children before his own needs and safety.”

I rarely disagree with you but i think this is exactly what needs to change. Women are getting something for nothing. They aren’t doing their part in acknowledging the contributions of men. And the only way to wake them up may be to shake their all important “feeling of safety” provided by the “good men” they are so willing to actively hurt or passively ignore the pain of.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 2
greyghost May 11, 2012 at 08:39

We are almost there. Good article Ethical BTW. I like Peter South’s attitude and approach. women do not and just plan cannot think about anything but themselves. Just punish women with consequences for their own actions. when they comeplain, ignore them. Younger women will change their tune.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 8
keyster May 11, 2012 at 08:43

Appealing to the female sense of sympathy by pointing out how “men are victims too” has been, and still is a non-starter. Women and children are the protected, men the protectors. Men sacrifice themselves so women and children (humanity) can live on.

You’ll NEVER get Feminist women to acknowledge the plight of men and boys today. Afterall, this is merely penance for injustices of the past; at least according to “Herstory”. All those centuries of “white male privilage”.

The women who are most passionate about the Male are conservative women with children, especially boys. As they see their children come of age they recognize what affect feminism has had on the mating and marriage culture. They view it from a mother’s perspective, not as activists willing to organize for a common goal. It’s going to have to get much worse for that to happen. Right now they simply don’t know what to do with their unmarried 20 something son or daughter still living at home. They don’t have their finger on the pulse of the gender zeitgeist; only on their individual children.

Mothers are the only ones who will organize and motivate en masse. Fathers will never and can never do it. ESPECIALLY fathers with daughters. They’re the worst offenders and the biggest defenders of “independent” young women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 17
Lavazza May 11, 2012 at 08:45

greyghost. Yeah, let the few sane women flourish and the many stupid women perish. That will have good consequences even if not a single woman wises up.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
Suz May 11, 2012 at 08:47

@ confused:
(Mmmm, yeah kinda sorta maybe…)

You’re right, BUT…

The male inclination to protect women is instinctive, and feminism has shown that disaster results when we try to pretend instinct doesn’t exist. So it must be addressed and channeled productively. Otherwise, the white knights will continue to justify themselves. They have to learn that the instinct itself is pro-civilization, but their current application of it IS NOT. They can’t help wanting to “do the right thing,” they just need to understand what is actually “right.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 19
Ethical May 11, 2012 at 08:47

Oddsock wrote:
“Maybe if you had asked how the women were feeling before making your comment would have made the difference. You know? Check what mood they are in and explained to them prior to your comment that it will be in the interest of women that you be allowed to comment. Hey, you never know, maybe one of them would have given you permission”

LOL … I got a good kick out of the friendly sarcasm. But I also have to respond because addressing a woman’s feelings isn’t about enslaving ourselves to women’s crazy emotional demands, it’s (as Suz said) about manipulating her emotions to bend HER to OUR will. This isn’t a bad thing because acknowledging her emotions gives women the validation they crave, while our focus on the real issues gives us the progress we need. In fact when done for a good purpose it’s not even manipulation. It’s leadership. Most women will agree that when men lead both parties are happier.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 9
revver May 11, 2012 at 08:49
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Ethical May 11, 2012 at 08:56

keyster wrote:

“Appealing to the female sense of sympathy by pointing out how “men are victims too” has been, and still is a non-starter. Women and children are the protected, men the protectors. Men sacrifice themselves so women and children (humanity) can live on”.

@keyster
I agree entirely. A good example is how women never care about men dying in war, but they will care about losing son’s or husbands. What I was saying was that we have to show women how THEY will suffer if their son’s or brothers suffer or if their husbands suffer at the hands of their ex-wives. Every female MRA I’ve communicated with has been “turned” this way. Obviously it works. Later in your comment you acknowledge this when you wrote:

“The women who are most passionate about the Male are conservative women with children, especially boys. As they see their children come of age they recognize what affect feminism has had on the mating and marriage culture. They view it from a mother’s perspective, not as activists willing to organize for a common goal. It’s going to have to get much worse for that to happen. Right now they simply don’t know what to do with their unmarried 20 something son or daughter still living at home. They don’t have their finger on the pulse of the gender zeitgeist; only on their individual children”.

@keyster
We don’t disagree at all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 6
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 09:00

No probs Ethical

With respect, I suspect you are still of the same mindset and awareness level as Keyster.

There is not and never going to be any mass support or uprising by women. To think otherwise is simply pissing in the wind. Ok you may manage to manipulate a few to allow you to make your point but, perhaps its just a variation of game you are suggesting ? To be blunt, who feckin cares what womens feelings are. They will change when and only when they start to suffer the consequences and by that time who knows what state society will be in.

Interesting article nonetheless.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 10
Eric J Schlegel May 11, 2012 at 09:06

I think “Men’s chivalry” is fading away. Maybe not with the 50+ crowd but the younger generation of men is definitely not chivalrous. I also think the idea of “protecting women” is fading away. Younger men are less likely to “protect women” than a man who is 50+.
Its kinda like an unreported gender revolution in the way men view women is underway.

Most certainly, as this new gen coming of age is taught specifically “Do not perform or absorb violence in any woman’s behalf. Do not open doors and do not pay for meals. Keep your seat on the bus and do not speak up against sexual harassers.” I have hammered this into my son, drawing the anger of my daughter, for over 10 years now. I have done my best to set an example and can only hope he raises Masculism to greater levels.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 4
meistergedanken May 11, 2012 at 09:18

Ethical commented: ” A good example is how women never care about men dying in war, but they will care about losing sons or husbands.”

Most women can’t grasp the abstract because by its very nature it is NOT personal. We have to lead them down the path and connect the dots, I guess.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
Ethical May 11, 2012 at 09:29

“confused” wrote:

“I think this is exactly what needs to change. Women are getting something for nothing. They aren’t doing their part in acknowledging the contributions of men. And the only way to wake them up may be to shake their all important “feeling of safety” provided by the “good men” they are so willing to actively hurt or passively ignore the pain of”.

@confused:
I completely agree. Individual men should be very judicious in choosing when and with whom to be chivalrous so they reinforce women’s positive behaviors, and we shouldn’t think twice about walking away or otherwise punishing bad behavior with negative consequences. But as long as men LIKE being chivalrous and women like being the object of it chivalry will never completely die.

In terms of society as a whole we have some responsibility to protect the weak … and in many circumstances that means women. Yes society is completely misandrist. Yes women have totally manipulated our protective instincts. But our protective instincts and responsibility to protect the weak won’t go away. Don’t get me wrong as saying that men should be treated unfairly to protect women. What I’m saying regarding marriage for example, is that if by entering into the contract a man undertakes to protect and provide for a women then the law should (as it does) ensure she is provided for and protected. Where the law goes wrong is that the woman should also be made to be more responsible for doing right by the man who’s undertaken to protect and provide for her.

My humble opinion.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 19
Jacko May 11, 2012 at 09:45

REV. JESSE LEE PETERSON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Travis May 11, 2012 at 09:58

Mother’s Day is Sunday. How about posting some messages on Websites and Blogs with Mother’s Day articles, to the effect of:

Mother’s: Do you love your sons?
Did you know that-
Boys are x times as likely to commit suicide
x times as likely to be placed on medication
x times as likely to end up in prison
x times as likely to loose custody of their children in the event of divorce
x times LESS likely to graduate high school
x times LESS likely to attend college
x times as likely to die on the job
x times as likely to die in a war
etc, etc, etc…

And then end with a link to an MRM site.

Just a thought. I actually have mixed feelings on whether or not it’s productive to try to recruit women. Personally I think we need to spend more time trying to reach young men. If we do that, I’m of the opinion that women will eventually follow. But who knows, it might be worth a shot…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 2
LysanderSpooner May 11, 2012 at 10:02

The only way to argue with is a feminist, or a mangina, for that matter is:

1. Laugh in their face.

2. Get the eff away from them and then Ignore, Ignore.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 2
LysanderSpooner May 11, 2012 at 10:10

To Lavazza:

“TFH has a theory that women come to MRA sites to argue to get gina tingles from being beaten down by male logic.”

Now that was worth a chuckle…lol.

It is the old, ” No Don’t, STOP !!!, No, No, Don’t STOP, Don’t STOP”.

Effn tards, whoops, I meant empowered 3-5 year olds, whoops, I meant strong, powerful, assertive, strong, dominant wimminz, never seem to know what they want, constantly change their flippant minds and never seem to bear or care about the consequences, yup tards they are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 4
Somniloquist May 11, 2012 at 10:19

-Yes women have totally manipulated our protective instincts. But our protective instincts and responsibility to protect the weak won’t go away.-

I don’t believe that males have a protective instinct. I believe that it is taught. You may feel a deep need to protect women but that can be programmed into males. I do not feel that I should be responsible for the protection of females. Violence against females does not bother me any more than violence against males.

The socialisation of boys teaches them that the safety and well being of females is the most important thing. Even if it costs male lives to make sure females are taken care of. Look at the hero archetype. It saturates media directed at boys.

For myself, my lack of protective drive towards women proves either that protective “instinct” is learned. Or that if it is instinctual it can be overridden like any other self-destructive behaviour.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 3
keyster May 11, 2012 at 10:22

I agree entirely. A good example is how women never care about men dying in war, but they will care about losing son’s or husbands.

I was going to mention that as well in my comment.
I think we can all agree women are innately passionate about defending their children. Until they start realizing that the only solution is a collective rather than individual response, they will not organize. More of their children will have to become adults for this to happen.

There is not and never going to be any mass support or uprising by women.

For the benefit of men, no there never will be.
But for the sake of their children, disenfranchised from marriage and long term relationships and the possibility of grandchildren…they are just now starting to understand the essence of the problem.

Mothers (and fathers) want their children to mate and be happy. It’s upsetting to see them alone. We’re WAY ahead of the curve here. Societal awareness is slowly catching up.

Be aware FATHERS like the fact that their daughters are not married and pregnant at 23. They WANT their daughters to be head-strong careerists at least until they’re 35 (just like a son might be). But who will these daughters marry? They’re not doing the basic math. Mothers are just now starting to do the math.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 10
Traveller May 11, 2012 at 10:28

“On the flip side I’ve also read at least one woman’s blog on men’s rights that was more methodically logical than most men’s writing.”

Oh really? TOGTFO as they say.

It seems to me the whole post is the classic beta way to try to win women.

That is, being nice deferential considerate etc.

This NEVER worked if not in appearance, “think in the long run” NEVER worked with a woman exactly because she’s not rational and obviously because they are taught they can have this and that, no trade offs.

This whole post is the classic pedestalizing of women.

Do we want to win? Let’s men GTOW, and stop once for all the shaming language a man is “manly” is he tolerates feminists, “man up” we have heard too many times to have an effect here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 5
jaego May 11, 2012 at 10:33

Nah. Power is neve granted but taken. And since we are denied it in public sphere, we must maximize it in the personal. Love yourself and your brothers intensely. Any woman who can’t fit in with that is nothing, she doesn’t exist. You can have all the zeroes you want, but they don’t matter unless there’s a one in front them. Men are the ones, women are the zeroes. They are nothing without us. Know that deeply enough and they will have to admit it too. Have relationships on that basis. Build a Culture on that basis. Chivalry is a form of mercy, and mercy is only appropriate once the foe is defeated.

Is there enough time to rebuild? No, the previous poster is correct. Societies aren’t hermetically sealed. And they have only so much leeway to make mistakes. We have far exceeded our limit. So these precepts must form the backbone of the Next Western Civilization – if any. In the meantime, it’s to be Warrior Bands and then Tribes as Jack Donovan explains. They will be based on race and ethnicity – Of Course! And if there is to be a West, we will have to defeat the Southrons be they Mexicans or Muslims. And the Easterlings perhaps as well. If we fight well, then perhaps we’ll win ourselves a Home – and a future.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 12
greyghost May 11, 2012 at 10:51

Until they start realizing that the only solution is a collective rather than individual response, they will not organize. More of their children will have to become adults for this to happen.

Women are team women first and for most and then are in individual compitetion. Abortion is an easy one as an example. Women are generally for abortion as a right for womenindividual women will then claim I would never get an abortion to give the appearance of virtue. That same women in could pureness will not actively campaign for abortion but will never ever vote against it.
No woman in todays female herd social climate will do a damn thing that even hints of benefiting men. Sounds to much like cow towing to men. (female logic) Empowered man Takes care of wife and kids and society,empowered women is empowered by husband, kids and society taking care of her. Argueing a point with women with the goal she is going to take action for her male members of her family is forgetting that children are to serve their mothers with social status of motherhood ,hostages against the childs father, and as a source of income. A woman will take team women over her own child every time even your own mother. (don’t be alarmed or offended it is normal)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 5
Suz May 11, 2012 at 10:54

Mercy is one of several aspects of chivalry. True chivalry (not today’s bastardized version) is pretty much everything innately good in men. It is actually honorable and chivalrous, to ignore or condemn anyone of either sex, who’s dishonorable.

Modern “chivalry” doesn’t have the balls to do that.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 33
dejour May 11, 2012 at 10:58

I think there is a difference between male and female arguing styles, but it probably isn’t as stark as you suggest. The Myers-Briggs finds that 60% of men are thinkers and 40% are feelers. And 40% of women are thinkers and 60% are feelers.

http://www.counseling.mtu.edu/myers_briggs.html

It is probably true that there is a bigger discrepancy if you compare MRAs to feminists. I think that taking the red pill involves overriding one’s feelings and looking at things dispassionately and objectively. Thinkers are more likely to do this.

But it also probably true that we remember feeling arguments from feminists with more distaste than feeling arguments from MRAs. When I see an illogical “feeling” argument from a feminist I point out the problem. When I see an illogical “feeling” argument from an MRA, I sort of brush it aside and ignore it. Why point out the problem if I agree with the conclusion?

Anyways, I agree that some new approaches are warranted. Using feelings to make a point is a valuable skill. But it sometimes leaves you vulnerable to a logic-based counterargument. We need to hone and use both types of arguments. Different arguments will be effective for different people, so a variety of styles will convince most people.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13
greyghost May 11, 2012 at 11:08

For the benefit of men, no there never will be.
But for the sake of their children, disenfranchised from marriage and long term relationships and the possibility of grandchildren…they are just now starting to understand the essence of the problem.

Almost there Keyster. They will only do anything for their own sake. MRA’s have got to remove any sense of female virtue from our thoughts and thinking. We are not living in a civil society we are changing the western world.
Overall this is as close as I have seen a mens blog to actually being to point of having a solid bases for taking action.
Involuntary Childless Spinterhood the nuclear NO! Will adjust female “behavior” before any female concern for anybody, always keep in mind abortion is legal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 11:14

Greyghost

Tut tut

You just don’t understand mate, we have been doing it all wrong, we need to use persuasion something similar to the PUA’s and then we will convince millions of women that giving men back some of our rights will benefit them. I mean once we get their permission to actually discuss our rights with them. Obviously not wishing to upset them. Gotta be real nice or at least pretend we are nice.

We need to realize, as keyster say’s, we are just ahead of the curve and women just need to be coaxed and reasoned with to play nice. Lets face it guys, if you ignore the millions of abortions every year, globally that is, ooh and ignore all that has been said over and over and over on here and all the other male friendly websites books and yourtube vids, oooh ooh and ignore all the warnings and female character descriptions that have been written in just about every holy script available across time.

Women are really caring and unselfish creatures, it must be those conservative republican type women as according to Keyster.

Amazing women someone get me one please. I read somewhere these women fart gold dust! Is that true Keyster ?

Sorry can’t type anymore for laughing. If I had any cringe left I would be in hyper cringe right now.

Good grief beam me up scotty purleeeeeze!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 14
Suz May 11, 2012 at 11:30

Greyghost, that’s true today only because most modern women have never experiences the death of a child. Most of us can afford to take our little status symbols for granted. Mothers like me, whose children are in harm’s way, have experienced a very primal fear that can alter our perspectives in huge ways. Hundreds of thousands of us are re-learning what we were born knowing – that our children are treasured human beings, status be damned. We are all extremely aware of the flag-draped coffins that separates “blue star mothers” from “gold star mothers.”

A mother who smugly shops for the safest car-seat she can afford, will be totally and irrevocably humbled years later when she knows her son might come home in a box. There are a lot of women out there RIGHT NOW, who will do anything for their young adult sons. Believe me, I am not unique. It would be foolish to discount this demographic; we’re vulnerable, and more open to influence than any other group of females in the West. We’re also often married to former and current military men, who have a pretty good understanding the real and vital nature of male dominance.

In fact, after I move east and establish a new blog, I’m planning to actively target the parents of current and former military. They are hurting for their children, who are being screwed by society (not to mention the government) after risking all to “do it right.” And unlike ordinary victims of divorce rape, they are already united.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 31 Thumb down 26
Evelin Olívia Fróes May 11, 2012 at 11:34

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 36
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 11:35

Traveller

Thank feck for your comment. For a moment there I thought I was in the twilight zone or had wandered onto feministing.com by mistake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
greyghost May 11, 2012 at 11:39

Suz not to pick on you but this is something I just come across on the way to work
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/calculate-much-owe-mom-giving-birth-164807197.html
Suz If you can’t change a woman heart try to change the mentality of the herd. Right now women are considered liberated to be as they are today. Wouldn’t be nice to define a strong women by how well she funds her husbands retirement account. I hope you fully understand what something like that would mean in real terms for a women to even think like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 11:42

Suz

No, total bollocks. What is happening is simple, a few women are now starting to realize the S is about to HTF and pretending to understand or wanting to help us. Pretty standard female behaviour seen across history, along with the closet pussy beggars that jump out of the woodwork. The type that would serve a guys nads on a silver plate for just a hint of female praise. Usually mr macho I am ex military hard as nails pussy whipped numpty.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 11
LastCrucible May 11, 2012 at 12:28

Ethical said the following:

The man’s mother, sisters, aunts, daughters, and new significant other may suffer terribly because he suffers, and because they’ll stop at nothing to support him.

I say:

Hahahahahaha! Yeah, right.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4
LastCrucible May 11, 2012 at 12:37

Ethical said, “For that to happen we need to show women AND feminist men that allowing men equal rights is in women’s interest too.”

Incapacitating one’s opponent is the proper course of action. Disabuse yourself of this notion that what women and feminists need is ‘gentle reasoning’. Women loathe when men attempt to reason with them. Women expect potency and action from men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
LastCrucible May 11, 2012 at 12:41

Ethical said, “To avert the end, somehow we need to help women understand that women need men to have the right to be men for women to fully realize their right to be happy being women.”

Okay, Keyster.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Eric May 11, 2012 at 13:01

Suz:

The reason most feminists, and feminised women generally, can’t argue logically is because all their arguments are premised on a hatred of men. Since, though, they’re also in denial about their misandry, they evade any logic in argument that would expose that fact.

If anyone wants to test this experimentally, post what I just wrote above on a feminist or female-dominated forum and read the defensive reactions you get.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 4
Eric May 11, 2012 at 13:13

Keyster:

‘Mothers want their children to mate and be happy.’

LOL, is this a serious comment? Most women today think that abortion is a ‘right’ and motherhood is an ‘obligation’. They resent children imposing on their ‘independence’ and ‘grrl power’ just as much as they resent men. Day-cares and abortion mills are just as big an industry as divorce courts and relationship counseling.

‘I think we can all agree that mothers are innately concerned about protecting their children.’

No, I don’t agree. Women, in our culture, believe that they are the ‘owners’ of sex and reproduction; just like sex is a ‘matter of choice’ and men are expendable, so is the ‘option to have children’ and the kids are expendable too.

‘Women are just now doing the math’

Unless you mean counting the profits from child-support or welfare payments, no.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 6
Suz May 11, 2012 at 13:14

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 49
Guardial May 11, 2012 at 13:25
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Eric May 11, 2012 at 13:29

Lavazza:
I don’t think that women come to MRA blogs because they enjoy being beaten down or because they get sexual excitement from it. It’s more of a psychological problem; there’s an ego-conflict in most women between their biology and their feminist indoctrination. They’re driven to read and post on sites like these because they need ego-reinforcement. The fact that any hated ‘male pigs’ aren’t bowing to their feminism drives them insane, but the logic they encounter here affects their subconscious with the truth, so a vicious circle starts.

IOW, they subsconciously know we’re right, but they also hate us for being right, because that conflicts with their feminist-instilled Superiority Complexes. That just drives them to try and convince themselves even harder that they really ARE superior to men; the more they try, the less they succeed; and it becomes more and more of an obsession because their egos can never reach equilibrium unless they accept a reality which they’ve been taught to hate. Which is also ther reason why a relationship with a feminised woman will never work out because the same dynamic is in play. I would wager that any divorced guy here can trace exactly that pattern in his former marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 6
Eric May 11, 2012 at 13:31

Suz,

‘A certain percentage of the population is sociopathic, but that is not a gender-specific trait.’

It is gender-specific when one gender is deliberately educated to be sociopathic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 6
Suz May 11, 2012 at 13:43

greyghost,
I think we need to try to change both the hearts AND the herd. Women aren’t born hating men and taking them for granted, we’re taught it from infancy. The “men’s movement” must shout down the teachers as a group, and teach the girls as individuals – the exact reverse of the process that led to the current situation. Like feminism and every other form of social engineering, it won’t happen overnight. There’s no one method to accomplish this, but we’ve seen progress in different ways: Game improves sexual relationships. MWGTOW are ignoring women (and you KNOW that doesn’t sit well, even while they whine about sour grapes.) The news media is starting to acknowledge that “Gee, something seems to be amiss here…” SPLC put us on the map. Married men are now able to find networks of pro-male divorce lawyers. The Manosphere is growing at an impressive pace.
The only hope for rolling back feminism is a balanced mix of public-and-private activism. It’s slow going, but none of this was happening ten years ago.

(And by all means, challenge my logic! I don’t feel at all picked on, it makes me THINK.)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 30
JeremiahMRA May 11, 2012 at 13:48

Women are selfish and fickle. We don’t to convince them of anything. All we need to do is convince men, and women will follow suit if they know what’s good for ‘em. The males who act like women are called manginas, and they aren’t men at all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 10
JeremiahMRA May 11, 2012 at 13:50

“I think we can all agree women are innately passionate about defending their children.”

No, I can’t agree to that. Most women would rather use children for their selfish desires than actually do what’s good for them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 11
Huck Finn May 11, 2012 at 13:55

“Surprisingly I agree women should continue to have the privileged social position this lopsided situation demonstrates.”

Nope. I don’t agree. This provides fuel to keep the entitlement fires of female special privilege and male-hatred burning.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
Suz May 11, 2012 at 13:57

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 38
Annonymous May 11, 2012 at 14:17

But Ethical …

Why would a man, least of all a mens rights activist, give the slightest damn or thought to any of the things you say we should be concerned about at all ?

Giving a damn and trying to correct things is what has gotten good men to this existing state of living beneath contempt and belittlement. And you still say we should work harder reformulating our arguments to better serve a hostile society and a sneering womenfolk.

Ethical, can’t you see that we are the honourary new niggas ? That’s right … The new niggas upon whose inferior treatment this society feeds and prospers itself. And that is what makes us free … meaning we owe this godammned society absolutely nothing in return for the insult.

You will get more traction here Ethical, advancing discussions and proposals on the ways and means we men are better able to avoid all responsibility for anything and everything.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
WRB May 11, 2012 at 14:41

Everything you need to know about women can be summed up as follows:

If she dislikes you, she will disagree with you, even if you’re right.
If she likes you, she will agree with you, even if you’re wrong.

(bu the way, this is a good test: does she always take your side in debates?)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
zimmy May 11, 2012 at 14:52

Arguing with a woman is like a fish needing to ride a bicycle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tom936 May 11, 2012 at 14:52

If men can never be convinced because women don t engage men s rational arguments, and women can never be convinced because men ignore their feelings and bully them with the excuse that their feelings aren t rational,

And you were doing so well up to here. I don’t know if it’s simply a misguided attempt at parity, but the second half is false.

First, “bully” is just wrong. The notion of men bullying women sounds like one of those things that people “learn” by watching TV. It’s one of those cheap shots that really means “about a man”.

A man is “bullying” if he argues with a woman, just because he’s a man arguing with a woman. A woman is never “bullying” a man, because he should be able to take it, and what is he, some kinda wimp, so again it’s just because he’s a man.

I’ll spare you my feelings about that.

Second, feelings really aren’t rational. It’s not an excuse that we made up. That doesn’t mean they’re bad. But what women forget is that we have feelings too.

And third, what is an excuse is “because men ignore their feelings”. That’s not why women won’t listen. For decades I’ve watched some MRAs go the feelings route and achieve nothing. At best, they get insulted a little less passionately than they would otherwise.

And it’s a stupid route to take. We have feelings too, and quite frankly, we have far more justification for feeling strongly about the situation than women do. Paying attention to their feelings while they are ignoring ours is just a recipe for getting jerked around.

then how can the sexes ever compromise? Compromise relies on a belief in the common good and requires a common understanding of the issues. There s no common good if both parties have conflicting agendas, and there s no common understanding if both parties have different ways of reaching a conclusion.

The point about conflicting agendas is right. They don’t think they have to compromise and we non-elites can’t make them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 14:54

Oh for fecks sake that arseole Brittney is back and with support this time.

Welcome trolls, I’ve been expecting you, you’re late,lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
bruno May 11, 2012 at 14:54

Arguing with women is a total waste of time.

They will never ever give up their privileges, unless a large enough group of men say: enough with this madness.

Even when a million men die on the battlefield, and not one woman gets hurt, they will still say: “women are the first and the biggest victims of war”.

How’s that for a eye-opener about the true nature of women?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 3
Boxer May 11, 2012 at 14:56

Dear Einhard:

Speaking of the churches, check this out. Best ever.

Thanks for this one. It’s rare I catch a glimmer of hope for the future. Posting your reference for everyone else…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NeFhA_sL38c

I might differ with the preacher on a minor point. Women are not newly degraded, and they’re not “taking over”. Women have always been degraded. It’s their natural state, and they’ve always been skanks. The only difference now is that they no longer need to hide their true natures.

Best, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11
Jennifer May 11, 2012 at 14:56

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 34
Boxer May 11, 2012 at 14:58

Oddsock sez:

Oh for fecks sake that arseole Brittney is back and with support this time.

The zen tact suggests that not responding is the most effective response. Bend like a reed in the wind, and all that. ;)

Best, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 15:04

Ha ha ha ha. Here you go Keyster a few of those women that are going to be understanding and on our side etc have turned up. Oooh oooh, be careful though mate, they could be cultural marxists disguised as republican or conservative women.

You just could not script this shit, lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 15:06

Boxer

Master Oddsock says woman upside down in airplane have crack up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 15:12

Boxer

“I might differ with the preacher on a minor point. Women are not newly degraded, and they’re not “taking over”. Women have always been degraded. It’s their natural state, and they’ve always been skanks. The only difference now is that they no longer need to hide their true natures.”

Well done grasshopper, you have learned well.

Zen master oddsock says; Man walking through airport turnstile sideways probably going to Bangkok.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
keyster May 11, 2012 at 15:16

Women are really caring and unselfish creatures, it must be those conservative republican type women as according to Keyster.

Amazing women someone get me one please. I read somewhere these women fart gold dust! Is that true Keyster ?

You’re being hyperbolic, as usual when someone hints that a woman somewhere might be good.

I know how difficult it must be as a former liberal turned “feck the whole system” nihilist to admit, but Feminists are predominantly liberal/leftist/cultural Marxist/Democrats. Their #1 issue being abortion/contraception, otherwise known as “women’s health”.

Conservative women are predominantly pro-family/anti-feminism and pro-life. They like men and they like being women.

If you had to choose which side would back something called “men’s rights”, which one would you expect to do so?

And try not to launch into your left/right paradigm myth diatribe. I’m talking real world here, not illuminati fantasies.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 14
Eric May 11, 2012 at 15:28

Suz:
‘A sociopath can’t be cured, but an intentionally ignorant bigot can.’

Intention implies will, and if women are intentionally bigoted, how can they be cured? It’s only the ones who are willing to face the reality that feminism is a LIE and that everything they’ve been taught about men is wrong, who can be cured.

‘Sociopaths are born and made.’

I doubt that they are born that way; but even so—our culture doesn’t put an especially high premium on anything other than narcissicism and amorality. In fact, there are social disincentives to behaving like a responsible, civilized human being.

‘It’s not gender-specific’

All things being equal, that’s probably true; but women are far more culturally-influenced than men are. That’s why the Marxists invented feminism; because they realized that they could never compete if their doctrines were debated among educated men. Since feminism has grown to saturate our culture, it has hugely disporportionate appeal to women and women believe that be against it is to be against women.

The anti-male strain in Feminism has evolved independently from original Marxism, which was still mildly ‘patriarchal’. It openly encourages hostility towards men while holding to the Marxist tenet that ‘the ends justify the means’ and the delusion of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ The difference is that the original Marxist utopia was a union of working-men and a union of dedicated mothers; whereas the feminist utopia is an androgynous one where men are no more than drones in a beehive, at best.

How could an education based on a philosophy like that produce anything other than sociopathic and amoral women? Throw into that toxic mix the nonsense about ‘patriarchy’ and ‘payback’; and you’ve got a powder-keg of hostility and resentment ready to explode on the first luckless man who encounters it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 7
walking in hell May 11, 2012 at 15:29

Guys, the West is dead. You cannot find a wife here. You cannot even find a female friend. The way the scenario will play out is massively declining birth rates except among Muslims and “real” Catholics. No amount of subtle reasoning is going to change a Western Woman’s core values which are simply the values of the culture. On the surface she will appear to change; but it is a lie. When she becomes unhappy, and she will at some point, all her pro-men’s rights beliefs will go right out the window as she heads to the courthouse and files for sole custody and claims emotional abuse, steals your children and makes you a slave.

If you want to spend your time productively, travel to countries where the divorce rate is low and men’s rights are high. When you are back in America, concentrate on yourself and making yourself financially independent. Keep physically healthy. Once you are financially independent, emigrate to your favorite country that you discovered during your travels; and then and only then, have a family.

There is no reason to engage with the women of the West; and there are many reasons not to engage with them; even on a friendly basis.

Take it from someone who had this emigration plan and effed it up. When I was 26 years old and just before I was about to go to Saudi Arabia and make $50,000 per year tax free, I met a very sweet girl who changed my mind about American Women. “I will never meet anything better,” I thought. “She is perfect, and even a virgin,” I thought.

I married her and had a child with her. Ten years later she took my son, destroyed my career, and left me with a huge monthly child support and alimony bill. Seven years later, my life is still destroyed.

If I would have stuck with my original plan, I would be rich, happy, living in a family-friendly country, married, and surrounded by my own natural children. Instead I am destitute and a slave.

Fairness and optimism occurs naturally in a man’s heart; so it is natural for a young inexperienced man to think he can have some influence over some women. But the females heart is mostly amoral. Here beliefs are usually nothing more than a shallow product of her environment. She cannot even comprehend higher states of natural and moral law; her law is the law of “what her friends think.” Remember, today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy and even the most healthy fish will become ill when thrown into a poison lake.

Don’t waste your time and energy on these Western Creatures called women. Don’t engage; I repeat, don’t engage. Take it from someone who did, and is now old, destitute, burned, and tired.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 7
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 15:43

Keyster

“Conservative women are predominantly pro-family/anti-feminism and pro-life. They like men and they like being women.

If you had to choose which side would back something called “men’s rights”, which one would you expect to do so?

And try not to launch into your left/right paradigm myth diatribe. I’m talking real world here, not illuminati fantasies.”

See thats what happens when I try and guide you, edumacate you.

A little sad to see you constantly stoop to kiss female hoop but you’re still a good laugh though.

Oh, meanwhile, what do you think of this recent development ?

Chinese bank for the first time in US history given approval to take over an American bank. Meh, at least you can blame the democrats I suppose. Those feckin cultural marxists again !

Mind you they do actually own America so you can’t blame them. Funny how that happened under the republicans and the democrats over many many years. Meh, don’t forget though I am just a conspiracy nut.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/05/10/china-given-approval-to-take-over-a-u-s-bank-for-1st-time/

Remember young skywalker, you cannot read so much truth without it affecting your true self. You are trying to unring a bell.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 15:50

walking in hell

Sad but very common story. You should have talked with Keyster first mate, he would have sorted you one of those conservative republican type woman. They even fart Gold dust, so I believe.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 11
Eric May 11, 2012 at 15:51

Keyster;
‘Conservative women are predominantly pro-family/anti-feminist and pro-life. They like men and they like being women.’

Now that I’ve stopped laughing, I’ll try to comment on this.

Dude, even that Socon toad, Dalrock, admits that the divorce rate among conservative Christians is nearly 40%. Since that demographic is supposedly anti-divorce, I would assume that a large percentage the remaining 60% of those marriages aren’t exactly holding together out of ‘mutual love’.

Besides that, conservative women hold many of the same nonsensical feminist premises about the supposed inferiority and expendability of men. Their attitudes toward men is about like farmer’s attitudes towards his livestock.

Since you listen a lot of conservative talk-radio, you should tune in Dr. Laura’s show, and listen to the endless litany of ‘tradcon’ females bleating about what a tedious burden they have to bear; doing household chores for some ‘male pig’ who’s supporting them and having ‘put out with sex’ just to keep him happy. Then, there’s the endless rhapsodizing among them about the good-old-days when they were banging thugs and getting boozed with the grrrls. And then there’s Dr. Laura’s sage advice: ‘Yes, I know. We should be on pedistals; and yes, we move the world; and yes, we don’t need men. But aren’t they kind of nice to have around sometimes?’

Man, I’ve got to get out of this country soon. Reading the last two weeks’ of commentaries here are bringing back bad memories in spades! LOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 9
Eric May 11, 2012 at 15:55

WalkinginHell;
All very true. Self-centered, thug-chasing, man-hating, cold-blooded bitches—all of ‘em!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 8
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 15:57

Eric

I am yet again, very impressed with the ease in which you blow these trolls out of the water and with such eloquence.

Are you sure you are not an Englishman?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8
Suz May 11, 2012 at 16:20

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 32
Suz May 11, 2012 at 16:36

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 49
Rmaxd May 11, 2012 at 16:46

So teaching men how to handle these emotional socio-pathic infanticide, child murderers, not a good thing then?

Instead as Ethical obviously incorrectly suggests, supplicate to them, play on their emotional levels … shows a massive ignorance of how women really work …

Supplicate to a woman in ANY shape or form, pedestalise her & her emotions, & you will get the entitled self absorbed, women we see today

The ONLY way to lead a woman is to lead, & dominate

Women DO NOT respond to emotion, they respond to THUGS, criminals, low lifes, & STRONG PEOPLE WHO LEAD & DOMINATE

The ONLY way to persuade women is to get a REAL message out there, fill your blogs with facts & authentic tribulations of man

Wars are never won by inauthenticity, theyre won on real facts & authenticity

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 10
Oddsock May 11, 2012 at 17:01

Eric

Wow just wow ! You not only managed to blow her out of the water you also managed to get her to spit her dummy out ( at great velocity)into the bargain and all within a couple of posts.

J are you watching this poetry in motion ?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9
Jean Valjean May 11, 2012 at 17:04

I’ve also pondered the idea that women might respond better if they realized that their sons would have to suffer under bigotry and unfair laws inspired by feminism.

The I remembered that history is full of women who made choices to send their sons to war so their daughters could stay home. Women have always sacrificed their sons which is the whole point of male disposability.

We will never get women to side with men so long as they perceive that women might not get some privilege down the road.

As for the commenter that said we need to punish women by shutting them out of our lives and going our own way–I totally agree. However, it seems clear with every news article about the decline of marriage that they will reframe men’s unwillingness to marry based on discriminatory laws as “women’s choices to pursue career” or “women feel men aren’t good enough” or “men aren’t stepping up”.

As always, society is organized around women’s choices and men’s obligations.

Along with countering the feminist argument we should be creating our own voice to speak about issues outside the lexicon of feminist narrative.

Along with saying child support laws are unfair we should ask that women have obligations to fathers. Along with saying that men have no reproductive rights we should also say that women have an obligation not to make babies that they cannot support or with men who cannot support them.

In our society women have no obligations they cannot disregard on a whim. Along with equal rights we should focus on equal obligations. If women expect men to be obligated to them then we should expect reciprocal obligations in return. I think that’s a message that any man, MRA or not, can get behind. Nobody gets something for nothing and certainly not men. Women shouldn’t either.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
Suz May 11, 2012 at 17:20

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 37
DrX May 11, 2012 at 18:07

(Off-Topic)

FYI: 100% of SS Benefits Can Now Go To Back Child Support
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/02/les-miserables-social-security.html

DrX

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Eric May 11, 2012 at 18:15

Suz,
Keep talking. Nothing strengthens the MRM like women opening their mouths!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 7
TFH May 11, 2012 at 18:16

TFH has a theory that women come to MRA sites to argue to get gina tingles from being beaten down by male logic.

Of course. We see this happen at Dalrock’s all the time. This is a very basic element of female psychology – provoke men into anger so as to get turned on if it happens (or to filter out men who grovel and apologize).

The Christian women are the worst in this regard.
_____________________________

This article is valuable, and I hope men reading this learn not to waste their valuable time arguing with some slut over the text medium.

The same time and energy, if you must devote it to anti-misandry causes, should go towards the practice of Game. The same effort, but a better result and more useful utility of time.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 21
TFH May 11, 2012 at 18:19

Suz,

I admire TFH’s policy of not engaging trolls until they’ve stayed around for 3 days (but I sure lack his discipline!)

Thanks. That filter eliminates 99% of them. Note how in that 1000-comment thread ‘Good Sex, Bad Sex’, exactly zero comments were from me. Sure enough, that troll vanished within the expiry window.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 14
Eric May 11, 2012 at 18:23

Oddsock:
Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Condi Rice: specimens of socon pin-up girls. Three aging spinsters and dominatrix with a dysfunctional family.

LOL, let’s hope that’s ‘liking men and being women enough’!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
TFH May 11, 2012 at 18:53

Ethical,

that is demonstrate that the devastating consequences of men being denied equal rights in areas like false accusations and family law will in the long run be more painful for the majority of women than individual women no longer being able to get away with as much when the systemic injustice against men is exposed.

This will not work, since women do not understand cause and effect very well.

Even if we ignore the harm done to men, the harm that feminism does to women is obvious. TV shows that indicate that a divorced woman of 37 can still marry easily are harmful to women. But where is even the *small* group of women protesting this?

Expecting women to connect the dots of cause and effect is expecting too much.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 13
TFH May 11, 2012 at 18:57

Eric,

Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Condi Rice: specimens of socon pin-up girls. Three aging spinsters and dominatrix with a dysfunctional family.

Interesting note – Ann Coulter dated the same man who Laura Ingraham was also engaged to.

Dinesh D’Souza. He went on to marry a third woman. Side note : So much for white nationalism making inroads in the Republican Party, when two of their leading blonde women were involved with the same Indian dude (again, Ingraham actually being engaged to D’Souza).

Ann Coulter, among those mentioned, does in fact slam feminism to the proper extent, and speaks out against the oppression of men (at least occasionally).

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 10
Eric May 11, 2012 at 19:09

TFH;

I also overlooked another socon goddess, Michele Bachmann.

In seriousness, could anyone imagine waking up married to any of those five ‘hotties’? The thought alone makes me want to make a bee-line for the nearest border!

I didn’t know that Ann was making on Laura’s dude knowing that he was engaged, too LOL. So much for Socon ‘NAWALT’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Ahem May 11, 2012 at 19:13

Greyghost said
“Abortion is an easy one as an example. Women are generally for abortion as a right for women….”

Actually, the division of prochoice/prolife is pretty neck and neck with only a few precentage points dividing the women who are opposed to abortion as a right and those for it. Incidentally, the same holds true for men. A summation of the 2011 Gallup poll on abortion states, “Men and women are nearly identical in their views about the legality and morality of abortion, as well as in the percentage labeling themselves “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life.”” Nearly half of all American women and American men are pro-life. Additionally, 61% of men and 60% of women think abortion should only be legal in limited situations or never.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Rob May 11, 2012 at 19:14
TFH May 11, 2012 at 19:27

I also overlooked another socon goddess, Michele Bachmann.

Well, she in fact is married, and adopted a lot of kids, so perhaps is actually not as selfish as most other women.

In seriousness, could anyone imagine waking up married to any of those five ‘hotties’?

In fairness, they should be judged on how they looked in their youth, not at age 50+. The Republican men praise these women on looks now are pedestalizers and a pathetic reminder of SoCon goddess-worship.

I have met Condi Rice in person, back in the late 90s. While her face was not attractive, from the neck down, her fitness level was on par with a woman half her age. Again, to be completely fair.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8
CubanGuy May 11, 2012 at 19:30

Women are pretty draining —even when there is no argument.

The best thing one can do is to walk away from them physically and mentally.

Every time I talk to one – I feel like my energy level is going into a greedy black hole.

Do any of you guys ever get the same feeling?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 2
Rob May 11, 2012 at 19:31
fakeemail May 11, 2012 at 19:33

Argue with women? Reason with them? That’s the problem right there! Women shouldn’t have the *right* to argue with a man over existential civilizational issues. Because they are stupid little girls who didn’t create or fight for a damn thing!

This country can *only* be saved by a benign dictator who repeals the 19th amendment, boots women’s fat asses out of the workplace and into the kitchen, and closes the goddamn beaner border.

Nothing less will do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 7
codebuster May 11, 2012 at 19:48

@ walking in hell

Count your blessings dude. At least you’re not living in Australia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Raj May 11, 2012 at 20:27

Since everything women have is just given to them by men, arguing with a feminist is like telling a kid not to accept too much pocket money and earn it instead, or like telling a minority to walk away from an affirmative action job. You are arguing with the wrong party, wasting your own time as well as entertaining them. Its not women who are being illogical, you are.

Women are being completely rational. Why would anyone willingly give up power and free stuff? Not gonna happen.

Life is way too short to spend saving society. Live well, save own yourself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 4
BSimpson May 11, 2012 at 20:47

Ive always said that a stable full of men on your side in an argument is not as good as 1 or 2 women if you are trying to convince a mixed group of your plight. Always have always will. And much to this article, I have been ostresized for saying as such by other men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
codebuster May 11, 2012 at 21:06

Women are being completely rational. Why would anyone willingly give up power and free stuff? Not gonna happen.

This is an important point. Which brings us up against the big questions relating to integrity. The fact that women are willing accomplices does say something about their lack of integrity and their primal predisposition to tyranny. But ultimately they are only doing what men in our cultures would also be doing, really… if the law permits it, it’s fair game. In a sane society, women would not clamour for the grab-bags of unearned freebies, law or no law. In a sane society, neither men nor women would regard immoral laws as license to live by them. This is a culture problem, and in this regard I think Rob’s agenda appears to be spot on the mark.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Eric May 11, 2012 at 21:56

Codebuster:
‘they are only doing what men in our culture would be doing…&c’

Unfortunately, a lot of men are. I was pointing out earlier that our culture really offers no incentive for men to be men. We might despise thuggish street-vermin males, but what good is shaming them when people throw money at them, women throw their bodies at them, and they don’t have to give anything in return but abuse? Who can blame them for being scum when it pays to be one? On the other hand, men who are responsible and respectable are treated with the contempt that should be reserved for the bums.

I came to this realization recently during a discussion on another blogspot. Our culture is so deeply misandryist that the only men it can recognize or reward are the ones who are of the LEAST value to it. Any successful or responsible man is a living contradiction to feminism and therefore, isn’t socially valued. (This is actually a wider social collorary to the so-called ‘Bad Boy Syndrome’ among women).

I think that you’re right, Rob’s agenda, or some variation of it, is going to be the way to go in the near future. We’re going to have to start thinking about saving our own skins becoming a high priority.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3
Brian May 11, 2012 at 22:38

Feminism and misandry are parts of the overall move towards tyranny and misery. Benjamin Franklin astutely observed, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Unfortunately, people have been voting themselves money for a couple generations already, including all kinds of government handouts for women. As we can see today, those handouts (I mean pretty much all of them) have produced, and continue to produce, deplorable social and economic results. Fellas, we’re watching America burn down right now. It’s just that the burning is slow and very spread out so that things are disintegrating piece by piece. I’m more doubtful than not of the efficacy of any solution short of rigorous constitutional safeguards, but that’s almost certainly a pipedream. I think the best men can do now is wake up, become informed, and do their damndest to avoid legal deathtraps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
codebuster May 11, 2012 at 23:26

OT, but relevant to this thread is the comment I just tried to post to the False Rape Society:

I want to emphasize, underline, underscore and point to it with bold, red arrows, the point about dictators. There is more to the presumption of guilt than unintended stupidity and the risk of error of judgement. The most insidious aspect of presuming guilt and laying the burden of proof on the accused is that neither governments nor agencies can be trusted. With their backs to the wall, they WILL deliberately fabricate evidence and apply the presumption of guilt to nail their enemies. This is non-trivial. This is not incidental nor merely a risk, but the very foundation upon which tyrannies are built. The presumption that even erroneous judgements, at their base, will always be made with the best of intentions is dangerous, naive and ridiculous. There might be points in time when laws and authorities operate with the best of intentions, but I don’t think that what we are entering into is one of them. Did Nifong operate with “the best of intentions”, trying to nail people he presumed were guilty, or were his motives deliberately more dishonest and less well-intentioned? If not him, someone else will act more deliberately. You can count on it. Placing the burden of proof on the accused is not only stupid and grotesque, but very, very dangerous.

If anyone thinks that at least in democratic societies governments can be relied upon to be motivated by the best of intentions and that deliberate malfeasance is the exception and not the rule, then they have not seen what I’ve seen. It’s one of the dangers of armchair activism… until you go out and actually try to hold people to account, you won’t realize how deliberately ill-intentioned they can be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Jacta est Alea May 11, 2012 at 23:40

I’m not sure this is a reflection of gender difference. It might just be the difference between having a good case and a bad case. The more clever feminists know very well that their ideology is based on lies and deceptions and is contradictory to justice and right reason. Naturally they don’t want to get into too pointed an argument, that could reveal these flaws for the world to see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead May 12, 2012 at 00:57

I disagree, Oddsock. If women we’re inherently selfish, our species would never have survived. -Suz.

Jesus wept. How wrong can one be in a sentence? It is precisely because women are selfish, and totally self-obsessed, that we survive as a species. No one disputes this.

It is our survival as a civilisation that puts us with odds with female selfishness. They lie, deceive and manipulate for no better reason than it assures their animal survival – we, as men, pit ourselves against this innate behavior because as higher thinking primates, we actually want something better than mere survival. We want more than what every chicken, mouse, ant and sparrow manages for itself without even thinking.

We want a deliberate life – an existence that evokes more in us than “oh, hello, is that the sun up again? What a miracle!”

We want an intellectual life, and a cogent one. We want to see principles prosper as well as protoplasm. It is the same self-delusion that wants ‘love’ to exist, for poetry to resemble beauty, and for hope to be married to dreams.

Men know what this means, women know how to exploit it.

But this does not mean we men are wrong.

If women were right, and all our male romantacism were nothing more than a selling point to be taken advantage of, how would the world, or any of us, benefit from there being more human protoplasm than that of jellyfish?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
George May 12, 2012 at 01:07

Fuck compromise. I want Victory.

What you describe seems to be yet another way of bending over backwards for women.

Well, I’m tired of this. I want independence, freedom and sovereignty (all of which I already have and am already practicing).

I say MRA’s should go their own way, go off-grid (google “living off grid” and “resource based economy”), starve the system, unite and lobby for laws. Spend your life “getting on the in”, the same way the feminist lunatics made it their life’s goal to get on the in, to change the system from the inside.

MRA’s who lawyers should form law firms and sue the shit out anything they don’t like, e.g. misandry in the media.
Make suing and reforming the system profitable.
Somebody once said you can’t achieve social justice / change / reform if you can’t make a living out of it.

If a man playing with his kid in the park is harassed by a woman who calls the police on him because she thinks he may be a pedophile and she wants to be on the safe side, then sue her for harassment. Bend the laws, exploit every loophole, everything that’s open to interpretation interpret it. MRA’s are too nice and playing too much by the rules. MRA’s should drop the gloves and fight dirty.

If the law is against you, then be a Pirate / act In Male Fide. Do everything you can get away with.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 01:54

Piercedhead. Not sure if you have listened to this before? An excellent explanation of what you mentioned above. Especially interesting is the female POV in the interview. It takes a while to get going but well worth listening to the complete interview.

What men know that women don’t; The world of women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QHM41jKJpk&list=FLHF51ALgoLXm57LemWE8Ksg&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
piercedhead May 12, 2012 at 04:59

I’m still on dialup old chum. Apparently it will take 15 hours to download that YouTube thingy. Thanks for the thought though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Rod May 12, 2012 at 05:43

Excellent article, and I regret joining the discussion so late. I don’t know how many times I’ve had arguments with women that go something like this:
WOMAN: “You just don’t understand!”
ME: “I understand, but I don’t agree.”
WOMAN: “Then you just don’t understand!”
It seems that an entirely different meaning is attached to the word “understand.”
I agree with what others have pointed out: rational argumentation will not win the day against feminists. And neither will trying to draw attention to male disadvantage. In their minds, that translates into “whining.” (Of course, since the dawn of time women seem to have carte blanche when it comes to whining; a prerogative of their sex, it seems.) The only reactions that might have some effect are: impassive indifference to their caterwauling; ridicule (though if this is too mean-spirited, it will only end up making martyrs of them).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
freebird May 12, 2012 at 06:34

It’s always been abut the furtherance of a Police state.
The tree of Liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants.
Yes there will be conflict,as always it will be man upon man.
(Down vote all you like, it’s the truth and you know it)

The one female said : “It’s Marxism,”
because she sees the cash, I say Police State because of my experience..

Those two depend upon each other!

How else do you (steal) and not reap the consequences?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
David D. Davidson May 12, 2012 at 07:03

Anarchy (the pro-private property kind) seems to be a good solution; without a coercive state full of parasites, production and profit will become bigger issues in the “public sphere” again. Plus Libertarians/Anarchists have been show to be less empathetic, and more rational, and I’ve even seen it in the women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Suz May 12, 2012 at 07:16

@ piercedhead:
“It is our survival as a civilisation that puts us with odds with female selfishness.”
Very true. It also puts us at odds with male selfishness. The difference is that men, being more rational and better able to think through a progression of consequences, usually do a much better job of restraining their selfishness. In a larger civilization, men make far better use of surplus resources than do women. My point was not that female selfishness is “good,” but that it serves the same purpose as male selfishness. The reason I brought it up is that I occasionally sense echos of fem-speak on men’s sites; whining that “Women are worthless bitches,” is a lot like whining that “Men are filthy pigs.”
It’s cathartic but it’s not very productive.
What I respect about the Manosphere is the “Let’s rationally define the problems so we can come up with workable solutions” mentality. That’s how men think. Unfortunately I see a number of good discussions get bogged down by a small handful of men who have no interest in seeking solutions, but seem to prefer to perpetuate their victim status instead. That’s the kind of BS which allowed feminism to take over civilization. Demonizing one’s opponent makes them a mortal enemy. Men and women are bound to be opponents because we think and function differently, but we were not designed to be enemies.

God knows it’s not women who will turn sex differences back into something stable and productive – a fair and friendly competition rather than a war. It will be men, if it can be done at all, and I question the wisdom of using women’s divisive, irrational and dishonest tactics, which serve to escalate the conflict instead of molding it back into something manageable. What’s the point of winning a war if you end up sleeping and raising children with the enemy, in a social wasteland no less?

Sounds a lot like, “Why can’t we all just get along?” doesn’t it? The thing is, males and females were designed to “get along.” “Xenophobia” is a natural human trait, but misogyny and misandry go against our normal instincts.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 19
Suz May 12, 2012 at 07:20

@ Rod:
“It seems that an entirely different meaning is attached to the word ‘understand.’”
A-freakin-men!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13
Glenn May 12, 2012 at 07:23

I have been trying to tell men for years that we need to stop trying to correct the behavior of women. For one, these females know full well they are evil. Like Ayn Rand said so many years ago: “In any negotiation between good and evil, EVIL ALWAYS WINS!”

This topic does not disturb me as much as other men, mostly due to the fact that I see the success of the MRM that others cannot, or will not, see. I personally feel that the MRM has achieved stunning, monumental benchmarks. Marriage Rates are the lowest in the history of our civilization, feminists are beginning to panic openly, the economy is on the verge of collapse, and foreign bride visas are growing by leaps and bounds.

I defer to the general MRM in one regard, and that is to maintain a cautious stance. I do agree that if all the guys in the MRM thought the way I do, the steam would ebb away and we would lose effectiveness. So, haters gonna hate and all that, but I think it is good to stop and smell the roses a few times a year. We certainly deserve it after all we have accomplished.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Attila May 12, 2012 at 07:42

They are a waste of time …. never felt better after dealing with one of them – including relatives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 12, 2012 at 07:44

Ahem the last line made my point
“Nearly half of all American women and American men are pro-life. Additionally, 61% of men and 60% of women think abortion should only be legal in limited situations or never.”
As I was saying it is legal and my choice under very special sitiations but she is also prolife and would never get one.

Always keep this in mind when in any discussion with women on anything. Women will always demand sacrifice from men openly always have. It is the same for children too just not openly. (That is where this comment comes from “I disagree, Oddsock. If women we’re inherently selfish, our species would never have survived.” -Suz. the truth of what is normal looks bad and destroys the illusion that her survival depends on it is normal) Back on point- Of the 1,496 people that perished with the Titanic, 73.3 percent of the women and 50.4 percent of the children survived compared to only 20.7 percent of the men. Push comes to shove that kid is dead. So now tell this same woman how bad you have it and she needs to make a sacrifice not of her life but entitlement and priviledge to be fair to a man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
keyster May 12, 2012 at 08:28

Blatant misogyny in the MRM is the inherent problem that will always keep it lingering on the fringes with other “radical” social movements like the White Nationalists and NAMBLA.

I posit that conservative women (who regularily skewer feminism) are the most likely allies and liberal MRA’s say “No, they suck too!”.

Then what is good enough? What exactly are the qualifications needed to meet with your approval. “NO WOMEN, PERIOD!” How’s that working out for ya? Men will NEVER do shit to organize for men and boys against women, it’s gonna take women, and it’ll proabaly be conservative women. It’s a conclusion I’ve reached by interacting with MRA’s for over 7 years. Skywalker has learned all right!

I’ve found that MRA’s (being the curmudgeonly misanthropes we are), have this nasty habit of finding something negative about EVERYTHING somebody says or does to advance the movement. The “circular firing squad” as Zed alluded. The “destroyers” as Anon 70 alluded.

If you have a blatant disdain and distrust of all women, you’re not an MRA – – you’re a whiner and complainer. Activists are more wily, agile and pragmatic in their approach.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 21
greyghost May 12, 2012 at 09:04

Keyster
At a social level you are right women make for real popular voice That may have some listeners due to them being women. Now look at SUz comments here and she is a supporter. I know she is with us and wants to be here for young men. Look at her comments she instinctively falls back onto team woman. She can’t help it.
I like your ideas and can see the merit as a public occuppier of the discourse. I don’t see it as a strategic foundation of the MRM. It is a part of it just as The PUA, MGTOW, and the grass eaters. The goal is not to change the inherit nature of women (not going to happen) but to change what the definitions of selfish behavior is. Herd status,hypergamy,and the gina tingle. That is where real change is made. The best use for women in the MRM is to define what herd status is. Make the definition something stable and sustainable like personal accountability and consequences for actions and choice.
I like Dalrock and what he is doing he is redefining the status of being a christian woman and shining light on the lie. Hypergamy and gina tingles are powerful individual motivaters of behavior but both are heavily influenced by status within the herd. A woman can like anything the herd has come up with that is desirable. The easiest example is a mans sexual desirablity is highly tied to his desirabilty to other women. It is part of the PUA and game and the billions of dollars wasted on the lasted fashion and harstyles for these worthless cunts.
If you want to take a leadership role in formulating a platform for the MRM lets do it. Take into account all of the different types of men with the motivations and desires they have at the various stages in their lives. All men are included from gay to married with children,from 12 years old to 70,from white to black, from patriotic to expat if I left out someone put your type on the list. The point is there is a red pill and a blue pill way to do business in every area.
We can start with a definition of a goal of the MRM for all men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Suz May 12, 2012 at 09:19

greyghost,
“the truth of what is normal looks bad and destroys the illusion that her survival depends on it is normal”

It’s natural, not normal, as is male “selfishness.” Calling it “normal” would justify its results. If I had “the illusion that her survival depends on it is normal,” I would be a feminist, wouldn’t I? Or at least really careless with words. When I encouraged you to challenge my logic, I meant for you to challenge what I actually said, not what you think I meant.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 09:39

LMFAO

Monty Python would struggle to write better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel May 12, 2012 at 09:40

Suz
Unfortunately I see a number of good discussions get bogged down by a small handful of men who have no interest in seeking solutions, but seem to prefer to perpetuate their victim status instead. That’s the kind of BS which allowed feminism to take over civilization.

No, it’s democracy that allowed feminism to take over our civilization. Male politicians pandering to female voters in order to advance their own interests.

You’re no dummy but you’re way too opinionated. You have no original thoughts. “Man up” you say, and present this as something new.

Feminism will end the same way it always has. When the centralized authority that imposes it collapses and women can not walk alone in the streets.

“Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”…….Sir John Bagot Glubb, describing the end of the great Arab Empire.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 09:53

Come on Charles you could tattoo the proof and evidence on any womans head ( Including those conservative slappers Keyster talks about ) what we have all been saying for years. Its not going to make one iota of difference. John Cleese in this clip is a perfect example of a female troll and what its like trying to talk sense with these arseoles, especially the ones that pretend to be on our side. Mind you, as always, its the pussy beggar men that are the ones to keep your eyes on. Horrible sneaky little shits that they are.

Enjoy

Argument clinic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Migu May 12, 2012 at 09:57

Unfortunately I see a number of good discussions get bogged down by a small handful of men who have no interest in seeking solutions, but seem to prefer to perpetuate their victim status instead. That’s the kind of BS which allowed feminism to take over civilization.

Feminism didn’t take over civilization? Are you serious?

Feminism is the effect part of the equation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 12, 2012 at 10:04

Suz
I call it normal so men do not make the mistake of making a rational arguement with women and expect results. Most if not all that I speak of here in a mens blog is focused on men. At this time the MRM is still trying to find solid ground to base action on.
You asked this question ……I would be a feminist, wouldn’t I? The answer is yes if your desire was female herd status. You have chosen to be here the motivation from what I gather is a male family member you are concerned with. You are still a woman if you wrote your name as Hank It would still be “you”. Once you have decided to join The MRM (remember you joined) As a women you have a lot of things you need to give up comfort and priviledge is the first thing. When men have through years of debate and dicussion have come to the conclusion of truth it is not something you should debate but something you should add to a a foundation to come up with a solution. As black man I have had words with other black men here that would have me shunned by the black community. But the man is still here and is sharp and I like the guy. You choose to be a leader or a defender of female virtue. The question you ask is not to be answered make a choice and stick to it and be an MRA or some women that comments on a mens blog. Make the choice and I’ll shit test you to see where your head is at. Hint: don’t try to be a simulated man be a truely good ally to the MRM and your family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 12, 2012 at 10:08

Suz
As you can see you will not be accommodated as it should. Get used to it that is reality. That is the world your husband father and son live in every day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel May 12, 2012 at 10:09

Oddsock
Come on Charles you could tattoo the proof and evidence on any womans head ( Including those conservative slappers Keyster talks about ) what we have all been saying for years.

I know it. Their brains just aren’t capable of grasping it. It’s not their fault. Relentless self-interest is a favorable reproductive adaptation – for females. Though as with all genetic traits there are a few outliers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Brigadon May 12, 2012 at 10:22

Why even bother arguing with a woman? To hell with equal rights, There are maybe 3 women on the planet that deserve to be treated with the deference due men, and two of them have an extra chromosome.

Seriously, despite Ethical going on about ‘true equality’, what woman has EVER done anything to deserve equal rights with men?
Every Man in america (with a few exceptions) has earned his rights. The minute they sign their selective service card, they have offered their lives.

Women are selfish, and self-centered, and basically incapable of creating or maintaining a civilization. Every single right, every single privelege, every single modern convenience since the days they squatted in their own shit to squeeze out larvae, has been provided by males.
I am not even talking about simply the past. The present day, every building they exist in, virtually every labor-saving invention, medication, convenience, has been created, in whole or in part, by men, building on the developments that men before them have made.
The Culture that they spread feminism in, is created by men. Hell, feminism itself is primarily created and maintained by men. All women do is talk or cry or sit down in front of gates. (and even the sit-down strikes were mostly organized by men). The information networks over which they spread their ‘girl power’ was created by men.

Argue? I argue with my intellectual or social equals, I would sooner argue with my dog, because he is trained and well behaved.

Feminism would be wiped out in a single day if all men got off their dead asses and decided that it was neccessary. It is NOTHING without the support of men, just as women are nothing without the support of men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
Rob May 12, 2012 at 11:23

Feminism will end the same way it always has. When the centralized authority that imposes it collapses and women can not walk alone in the streets. — Charles Martel

Yup, it’s what happened to the Suffragettes, whose political power peaked between the end of World War One and the beginning of the Great Depression. Once the Great Depression started, followed by World War Two, there was nary a peep from women about their “rights.” It didn’t start again until a generation after this period of difficulty, when we again began to prosper, and feminism picked itself up and kept on marching.

In fact, during the Depression, it was women who drove other women out of the job-market. Angry Harry discusses this in Women – Weak and Pathetic? I’d have to look a little closer, but I know somewhere on his site there is a government survey from the 1930′s illustrating that the vast majority of women were in favour of women being paid less than men, as women thought it was “right” that a woman shouldn’t be paid as much as a man, since it took away a man’s job – which ultimately meant that other wives were deprived of a work-horse bringing in the bacon. Women thought it was selfish for both a husband and wife to have a job while the neighbour lady’s husband had no job and they were starving.

One thing that we have to understand is that women are society. What women want, society wants. What women think ought to be a moral value, is what society morally values. Men are on the outside of society. It really is correct to think of society as a “herd.” Herds are made up mostly females and their children. When the males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant alpha-bull for breeding rights. Women don’t really give a shit who the alpha bull is, when the old one gets dethroned, they happily accept the new one… but what happens to young bulls who fail to become the dominant one? They leave the herd and exist outside of it. This is the lot of men. In the past, men controlled the laws and the workplace, but women have always (and still do) control society’s values and social mores. Society is a “herd” consisting almost solely of women, while men are on the outside looking in.

In some ways, Keyster is right, it will be women who end up saving us, because only when society (women) decide that it is in their benefit for men to be treated fairly, will society (women) make it worthwhile for men to become re-involved in their lives.

This is why Men Going Their Own Way is the political solution for men.

Change your own damn oil, ladies. And it is up to you ladies to come up with a plan that makes it worthwhile for us men to want take on the troubles of having one of you trouble-makers around in lives.

So long as we keep begging them to help us, they will be our masters. Screw that, let’s Go Our Own Way and make sure they suffer the consequences of their behaviour. Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. They cannot exist without us. If we leave, they will follow. Let’s Go Our Own Way until society (women) figure it for themselves how to make it worth our while to support them again.

I really do hope that we face some economic hardship in the near future – I do believe economic collapse is coming, it is inevitable. We can no longer continue to sustain a system by racking up the credit card of our children’s futures. Plus, I don’t think that us younger generations are responsible to pay for the Boomer’s retirement pensions and medical bills, while they are the richest generation that has ever lived, and for the first time in Western history, the generations that come after them will have a declining standard of living.

Let it all go broke. It may be a time of hardship, but we will emerge stronger and healthier than propping up this sick system, which offers men no rewards, but only spit in the face.

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” — Thomas Jefferson

Let the Boomers pay for their own retirement and medical bills. If the birthrates hadn’t been decimated from 3.9/couple in 1970 to 1.5 today, it would be tenable (though still wrong) for the younger generations to provide a social system for the elderly… but it is impossible for a smaller population to support a larger one without driving us into an 80% or 90% taxation rate.

Perhaps every boomer woman who has had an abortion ought to be euthanized once she becomes a “useless eater”… after all, if they had had that child, it might support her in old age… also, the whole premise for bringing in abortion was that no woman should be forced to have a “parasite” living off of her. (Some abortion fanatics even argue infantacide ought to be legal, so long as a helpless infant is a “parasite” upon its mother – seriously). You want to see how quickly abortion would become illegal if that argument about “parasites” were taken to its logical conclusion? Women would back-peddle so fast about abortion, they could get jobs entertaining us at circuses.

The only thing that worries me is if the West collapses, all the ninnies will run to the United Nations and demand Global Socialism to “solve” the problem. Then we are in real trouble, as a Global Police State will emerge, and there will be no outside power left to oppose it, except for the Martians.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 5
Eric May 12, 2012 at 11:29

Keyster:
‘I posit that Socon women are the most likely allies the MRM has &c.”

Part of the problem is that you’re not distinguishing between Socon rhetoric against feminism (which is political); and conflating this with misogyny. To use your cultural Marxism analogy: the difference between the two is like the difference between Stalinism and Leninism.

For example, consider the liberal positions on things like foreign marriages; or even things like legal pornography. The feminist social positions on gender issues are indistinguishable from the Socons. True, one can point to the abortion issue as a difference. But Socons firmly believe that women have a monopoly on ‘reproductive rights.’

Take the example of another Anglo country, Britain. Did the Socon Margaret Thatcher do very much to advance mens’ rights? Or did feminism accelerate during her term in office? The ‘Iron Lady’ was another archetype of the ‘strong, superior woman’ and just because she favored a different economic system than Hillary Clinton, I don’t think their contempt for everything male is much different.

Also, this point you keep repeating about misogyny is another feminist lie that the Socons have adopted. Everything against the American cultural ideal of (American) female pedestalization is considered ‘misogynist’. So why don’t these Socon women favor things like foreign marriages? These foreign women are ‘traditional’, right?

It’s because the root-misandry is common to both feminists and socons. American women, regardless of political orientation, are terrified of sexually-empowered men because without sexual power, American women have nothing. That’s why they universally support female political power and puritanical social codes at the same time. The political platforms are just the window-dressing, hatred of men is at the bottom of their motivations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel May 12, 2012 at 11:34

Suz
When I encouraged you to challenge my logic, I meant for you to challenge what I actually said, not what you think I meant.

Oh, yeah, just what we need. Another “helpful” woman telling us what to think.

Here’s what I think. If woman weren’t pandered to, like children, and were held to the same standards of conduct under the law, we wouldn’t have this problem, would we?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Eric May 12, 2012 at 11:47

Martel:
That is one of the most sinister aspects of gender-feminism and politicising genders generally. Marxists and other variant feminist leaders are generally educated people and they are FULLY aware of the biological and psychological traits unique to women. They use that education and knowledge against the culture, like a weapon, to corrupt one gender in order to cripple the other. Then they take advantage of the ensuing chaos by offering stability in exchange for submission.

People in the Middle Ages believed that if a human being had reached an incurable state of evil, his soul descended into Hell and a demon inhabited his body until natural death. Most of American Academia makes one wonder if Mediaeval people weren’t wiser than we think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Eric May 12, 2012 at 11:48

Greyghost:

Amerobitch anger is the barometer of truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 12:06

Rob

Now then, your post above more or less covers all points and regardless of what politcal party any of us suppport or oppose, what you outline cannot be denied, the evidence is all around us.

If ? We ever get past the dummy spitting and point scoring arguments we might just be able to hammer out a general MRM standpoint from which we can all use as a bench mark.

Rob. I will gladly support your attempts to do such a thing but please keep the cultural marxism stuff to a minimum. To me and I am sure many others, political labels matter not a jot. It doesn’t matter what party has been pissing up the back of men for years. All of them have done it. We can even say it was the Illuminati the elite the banksters or even the the feckin darkide. We are still pissed on regardless.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
Rob May 12, 2012 at 12:20

Oddsock,

I will not succumb to you demanding that I not talk frankly about what is going on. Furthermore, it IS the system we are dealing with. It has been researched extensively. Zed talks about it, as I’ve previously shown to you, and so does Angry Harry – Cultural Marxism and Feminism

Furthermore, I only bring it up when it is relevant, as if you ask around the web, as far as the MRM goes, I am considered one of the “authorities” on it – which is why in Zed’s articles, he always refers to me and my site to get a more complete picture on it. In fact, the reason I started studying it so much was because Angry Harry once suggested that there needs to be someone who really delves into it… so, once I started learning a bit about it, I really delved into it, and tried to simplify it so that it was easy for others to understand it without having to wade through the miles of confusing crap to sort it out. Btw, someone should similarly delve into the Suffragettes… lol, but what they will find is a movement heavily fueled by Socialist thought. But someone should become an “expert” on the Suffragettes, so as to dispell this “noble suffragette” bullshit that keeps getting tossed around – they were just as wicked and evil as 2nd wave feminists.

You, however, complain about me talking about Cultural Marxism even when I am not discussing it… so who is it really that is always bringing it up?

And, as I’ve said before, I won’t be PC’d out of the debate. I’m not some dummy, I know what I’m talking about. I think you are being totally unfair, and in fact, somewhat of a totalitarian by demanding what we can and can’t talk about simply to suit your personal agenda. Frankly, I don’t care for threads getting derailed by your endless joking around about inflatable sheep and other such nonsense related to your “sense of humour,” but I don’t stomp my feet and demand you stop doing so, even though it irritates me.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10
Brigadon May 12, 2012 at 12:23

Rob, I disagree on principle. I think that the MRM, the PUA’s, and the MGTOWS are all skirting the edges of the solution, but all of them are afraid, for various reasons, to look at the true core of the problem and willingly give themselves to the solution.
MRA’s want “things to be fair”. This presupposes that equal rights with women is a desirable state. First of all, Women are incapable of keeping up a fair system, so no matter what changes you make, they will eventually get trumped. In addition, MRA’s think in terms of victim identification… They are, more than anyone else, the true victims of the blue pill… since they assume that the only way to ‘win’ is to use blue pill tactics.

MGTOW’s want to turn their backs and pretend that the problem does not exist. This is… reprehensible. Men, REAL men, FIX things. We do not turn our backs on problems, potentially civilization-destroying problems. We do not ‘walk away’. Bullies are not beaten by ignoring them, and assuming that they will is thoroughly feminized thinking. They will keep picking on you whether you turn the other cheek or not.

PUA’s, especially the hard ones, have more of the truth than the others… but instead of using the red pill to change things, they use it in the selfish pursuit of personal happiness. This is basically just another form of MGTOW only with Pussy. The ultimate in bread and circuses. They are actually accelerating the destruction of civilization.

so, for argument purposes, only the PUA’s know what they are doing. MGTOW’s let the woman win, MRM’s argue like they are women, and PUA’s turn the argument back on itself turning it into an excuse to fuck the woman in the ass. None of these things address the real problem and the real solution.

How did america win the revolutionary war? By sending petitions about how unfair things were to the King? (They tried, it did not work) by trying to bring political pressure to bear? (tried again for decades, did not work). They eventually realized the one truth that people in the MRM and MGTOW keep trying to skirt out of fear: Violence was the only answer.

for decades, feminists and social engineers have been trying to shove the meme that ‘violence solves nothing’ and ‘violence is never neccessary’, and ‘there is never a winner in violence’. This is patent bullshit. Violence is the ULTIMATE answer. It is not the most elegant solution, nor the solution that involves no one getting hurt, but a problem solved with violence STAYS solved.

It’s like professional card players say… “If you ain’t cheating, you don’t want to win hard enough”

The point I am trying to make is that MRM and MGTOW are both short, pathetic, lopsided attempts to slow down feminism… and they are doomed to fail miserably, because they are bailing a leaky boat.

The “War on men” has turned. It is no longer a cold war. It is time for the fucking war to get hot, and for ALL of us to stop acting like victims. I know people are frightened of going to jail, or frightened about getting shot by the nazi stormtroopers we call ‘the police department’. it is time to put aside your toys, your belief in the basic fairness of the universe. It is time to act like an adult, and put away childish things.

MEN ARE DYING IN THIS WAR ALREADY! Men are dying in prison, or killing themselves out of desperation and cognitive dissonance. Their lives are being destroyed. Refusing to recognize that a state of war exists is doing nothing but turning every MGTOW and MRM pussy into a walking victim with a big ‘shoot me’ sign on his back.

I am not talking about figurative war here, I am talking about killing and dying in a real war. Some politician approves VAWA, an act designed to send more men to die in prison? He is the ENEMY. He needs to DIE so that he cannot kill further men.

This is civil war. It’s time to pick your side.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 12
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 12:30

Charles Martel

“Suz
When I encouraged you to challenge my logic, I meant for you to challenge what I actually said, not what you think I meant.”

“Oh, yeah, just what we need. Another “helpful” woman telling us what to think”.

Oh come on Charles, do try and keep up mate. Obviously nobody asked her how she was feeling and what mood she was in before asking for permission to ask her a question. Er,, or maybe it was nobody asker her permission to ask how she was feeling and what mood she was in before asking her for permission to ask her a question ?

Feck me. I need to up my medication, that actually made sense to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 12:38

Rob

Reel your neck in man. I am trying to support you and you will not gain much other support if you keep flying off the handle and have tizzy fits over minor points and blowing them out of all proportion. Was this not the exact same problem I pointed out to you on numerous occasions on the other sites we frequented a few years back ?

You really need to take a chill pill dude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7
Rob May 12, 2012 at 12:52

Brigadon,

MGTOW was never about the marriage strike, quitting fighting for men, or anything else.

It is/was about:

1: Instilling Masculinity in Men
2: Instilling Femininity in Women
3: Working Towards Limited Government

These are the “right” principles to follow. It is easy to acknowledge the truths about game, since game is about displaying masculine qualities that make women attracted to them, thus making women more feminine.

It is about limiting government, thus taking away everyone’s “right” to vote on other people’s affairs. Government is actually the one that has been screwing men the worst. Women just are as women are, they will be as they are after feminism is defeated too. We can’t change human nature.

Since we are dealing with a form Marxism (oops, sorry Oddsock), the political solution to stopping the Marxist Dialectic is to step out of it – thus, it translates politically to Men Going Their Own Way.

I can’t stand the “equality” argument – drives me nuts. Equality is not achievable. One must lead the other, and it matters very much which one leads. (1+1=2) must lead (1+1=3) if we are to have a civilization. However, part of (1+1=2) is stopping all this Utopianist thinking that we can somehow alter human nature – rather, we must accept the Truth of it, and work with it.

“There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth.” — Spinoza

Men dreamed of flying 1000′s of years before the Wright Brothers… but it was the Wright Brothers who acknowledged the Truth, studied the laws of physics and completely re-wrote the “lift equation” (despite the fact that they were high-school drop-outs and previous lift equations had been falsely theorized by “academics.”)

You are right that men “do” things – but “doing things” only works for men when they acknowledge the Truth – even the unpleasant ones.

Think about how men got to the moon. The biggest problem was always gravity. There was never enough fuel they could store on a rocket to fly to the moon and back – they could not overcome gravity/create a vehicle that would hold enough fuel. However, by studying “the problem” frankly and acknowledging its Truth, they discovered that they could actually use the earth’s gravity itself to propel a vehicle to the moon. This is how men “do” things. They acknowledge the Truth, and work with it rather than against it. If women had been in charge of the moon project, they would have insisted we don’t discuss the problem of gravity because it makes people feel bad and it is unpleasant to talk about such “problems.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7
Rob May 12, 2012 at 12:54

Oddsock, why do you keep showing up like this and pulling this stunt?

I’m tired of discussing it with you. Your “support” is conditional on you ruling over what I may or may not discuss.

Please go away and leave me alone.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8
Boxer May 12, 2012 at 12:56

The only woman who would come to a blog like this and start fighting and arguing is a useless cunt, and an attention whore. I don’t see Bill Price’s euro-galpal here, starting shit. The woman I was with last night would have no interest in this place, and the woman I’m about to go see would likewise not be interested. That makes any woman here instantly suspect of being totally worthless to talk to.

The thread is entitled “the wisdom in not arguing with a woman”, and here is everyone, feeding these dumb trouts attention.

Suppose a stray dog showed up at an intersection near you and started barking incessantly. You could pet the dog and it would not quit barking. You could give it a hard kick in the mouth, and still more barking.

Think of these women in the same way. They are not here to learn from us, nor are they here for any other useful purpose. As the original author adeptly pointed out, men argue to hone their skills and discover weak points in intellectual positions. Women argue to pass the time.

With all this in mind, I think you guys should quit talking to these idiots. But, hey, far be it for me to tell anyone else what to do. I’m just one fella with an opinion.

Regards, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 13:01

Rob

Wow. Same old manic Rob. I will gladly leave you alone dude but I will not stop calling you out on your eratic behaviour and posts. Deal with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 13:04

” feeding these dumb trouts attention.”

LOL. That made me grin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
Rob May 12, 2012 at 13:16

Wow. Same old manic Rob. I will gladly leave you alone dude but I will not stop calling you out on your eratic behaviour and posts. Deal with it. — Oddsock

I don’t see how my behaviour is being manic. But I do see you insist that I am not allowed to discuss certain things, and then calling me names when I refuse to succumb to your demands.

I have been very polite to you during this discourse, even though you have constantly insulted me over and over again on several threads now. It was not me showing up in this thread to pick a fight with you, but the other way around – again! And then you start throwing out insults when I don’t agree with you.

By the way, Marxism is not a “political party,” it is a system designed to bring about totalitarianism and alter society.

If George Orwell himself showed up here and discussed 1984 or Animal Farm, would you would shoo him away by calling him names too?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
Rod Van Mechelen May 12, 2012 at 13:43

How true. Last Saturday I was a member of my tribe’s tribal council. This was my 10th year on council. I added a topic to our agenda regarding our DV program. As DV programs go, it’s good in that it offers counseling for male victims. Last year they helped something like 8 quadrillion women and 2 men. A large disparity, I’ll grant, but still better than most. However, the program is now in the process of joining the mainstream’s “men need to shape up” chorus. This, they are going to do by encouraging men to fulfill the traditional male role models of warrior and protector. Were they to try to encourage women to fulfill the traditional female role, the uproar of protest would make national headlines. Hence, that means the program is promoting a sexist double standard. Also, of course, the whole meme that men but not women need to behave themselves is sexist. So I made a motion for council to direct the program to make this element so it is not sexist and does not promote a double standard; failing that, to return the grant money. While most of the men on council sat out the discussion, several women on council as well as several women in the audience got up to have their say. Did they criticize my premise? No. Did they counter anything I said with facts? No. Everything they said could be summed up in one single word: Feelings. Following which, my motion was utterly defeated: the vote was something like 18 against, 1 for, 1 abstaining. Then, the chairman’s sister–who has been looking for revenge ever since I exposed her lying–demanded my recall from council. This would have stripped me of most of my rights as a citizen of our tribe. In that regard, it would be worse than a felony conviction. Disgusted with the corruption that has been creeping in as the feminazi faction gradually takes over, I had wanted to resign last summer. So, I preempted the recall effort by resigning. The feminazis celebrated. Let them. It won’t last.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
freebird May 12, 2012 at 13:53

“By the way, Marxism is not a “political party,” it is a system designed to bring about totalitarianism and alter society. ”

How can you say that,and also claim Brigadier is incorrect.
I’ve thought long and hard about this topic since being subjected to the insane star chamber, and force is the logical answer, the sooner the better, no amount of pleading or arguing is going to affect change.

It’s long past time to grow a pair.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
freebird May 12, 2012 at 14:05

*Brigadon*
Pardon the misspelling.
Right now it’s only %10 of the men getting the false accusations, I wonder what the % has to be to ignite the blaze of solidarity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rob May 12, 2012 at 14:17

How can you say that,and also claim Brigadier is incorrect.
I’ve thought long and hard about this topic since being subjected to the insane star chamber, and force is the logical answer, the sooner the better, no amount of pleading or arguing is going to affect change. — Freebird

I didn’t really claim that Brigadon was incorrect – only that his definition of MGTOW is not what MGTOW originally was intended to be. I believe, and was part of, the “original” MGTOW. I’d like to see those principles restored. So, I believe his characterization of MGTOW (which has been adopted by many people claiming the banner of MGTOW) is not in the same spirit of what I was trying to bring across.

And you are right, ultimately, all power and “rights” derive from the muzzle of a gun.

But, as Zed has pointed before on this discussion of violent uprisings, even if men could somehow manage to co-operate and create an uprising of, say, 10,000 men… in the morning, there would be the blood of 10,000 dead men in the streets.

Certainly, places like America were founded upon “might is right,” but it also did not have 100% popular support. It took the Founding Fathers some effort to convince a large enough portion of the populace to support them – and even then, if I recall correctly, it was still only something like 60% of the populace for revolution – meaning that large amounts of people were opposed. And also, they made an effort to “stick together.” — If we don’t hang together, we will hang separately.”

Men are nowhere near this level yet. However, the culture is starting to change, and people are starting to realize more and more about the “organisms” which are affecting our lives in a negative way.

One of the problems we have with being men against women’s bad behaviour that is different from the likes of the American Revolution, is that we are also dealing with something deep within human-nature. Men naturally do not wish to see harm come to women, just like we don’t like to see harm come to children – no matter how much of brats they are. It certainly is a double standard that women are treated better than men, but it is one that is rooted deeply within human biology and has existed for thousands of years. This makes it an entirely different ballgame that merely opposing a corrupt government which is stomping on people’s freedom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Suz May 12, 2012 at 14:26

@ Charles:
“Male politicians pandering to female voters …”
And why do they do this? Because they buy into (and then re-sell) the myth that women are victims. No? Is there another reason? And where did I say, “Man up?” You’ve read me on other sites, and you already know “Man up” isn’t in my vocabulary. Nice try.
“Oh, yeah, just what we need. Another “helpful” woman telling us what to think.”
Really? Where? An example would be nice. Please?

@greyghost:
Exactly where and how did I fall back into Team Woman? Because I pointed out an (almost irrelevant) objective truth? Does a man who says anything almost-but-not-quite positive about women automatically become a member of Team Woman? I do not defend female virtue, because there’s no such thing as female virtue. Or male virtue. I HAVE virtue, but it’s unrelated to my sex.
I also don’t expect to be accommodated, as you may have noticed on other sites – I take my lumps as well as any man (and better than some.) Feel free to shit test me all you want, but if I fail or succeed, it won’t be for your sake. I became interested in the MRM out of concern for my son. I joined it because it is telling me the truth like I’ve never heard it. It makes sense. I’m sure you can relate.
Incidentally, I have considered posting under a man’s name to avoid this “having to prove myself logical-and-intelligent enough” phase when I start actively commenting on a site. I guarantee most of my opinions wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if they weren’t attached to a feminine name. But I chose not to, in order to test the likes of you; I wouldn’t be interested in conversation with people who automatically coddle me because they assume I’m “one of them.” That crap leads to self-perpetuating delusions and “Groupthink,” or whatever they’re calling it this decade.

@oddsock:
Is your real name Michael Kelso? ‘Cuz really, I’m just waiting for you to say “Buuurrrrrn!”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 17
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 15:04

Rob

You tit

I simply asked you keep the marxist stuff too a minimum. I did not demand I did not try and silence or PC you or offer conditional support I said “If we”. Learn to feckin read you plant pot. No feckin wonder you have so little support. Its the same old reason myself and quite a few others have tried to tell you many many times and this goes back years and on many other MRA sites. You caused all sorts of flame wars and upsets with your unbelievable outbursts, usually when someone, anyone just asked you a simple question.

Rob for someone that likes to portray himself as an ” Authority” on issues effecting men and society. You come across same as you always did as a child like blethering idiot that goes into melt down at even the hint of someone being more knowledgeable on any topic, especially politics. Feck knows why but you obviously crave conflict, you always have and for years, and also ruined many a good MRA site. I have my deep suspicions about you Rob, certainly not to be trusted by any measure.

Judas priest, and I thought I was the only unhinged poster

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11
Rob May 12, 2012 at 15:05

@ Rod Van Mechelen,

Yup, it seems that whenever women get involved in anything pertaining to men, it always ultimately comes down to serving women’s needs, while completely ignoring men and logic in general.

Anonymous70 sometimes relates a story about a divorce support group who he was part of years ago… when it was both men and women together, any complaints made by men were shouted down by the women. Not All Women Are Like That… You should “man-up”… you should “keep trying” (to find the Tootsie Roll in a pile of turds) ad nauseum. The result was male suicides happening. Once they separated men from women during these support groups, the suicide rate dropped significantly.

We now see the same things happening with many women “helping us” in the MRM or the Shared-Parenting movement. Lots of them are second wives who are pissed off that the first wife is draining so much of her current husband’s income, so they want that to stop.

Or we see grandmothers getting involved because now they can’t see their grandchildren from their divorced sons… only when it personally affects women, do women really care about the condition of men.

I remember one lady I had a short argument with a few years ago. She was talking about false rape allegations, and she knew they were real because her own son had been falsely accused of rape… however, she said, she didn’t want to become involved in fighting false rape accusations because she also had a daughter, and felt doing so would take away her daughter’s rights.

If I was that son, I tell you, when it came time for “mom” to be old, into the old-age home she would go… and I wouldn’t slow down the car when I dropped her off either.

As Angry Harry once said, “Having a woman help with the Men’s Issues is like having a five year old help you help you put up wallpaper. No Thanks!”

Btw, Rod, your site was one of the first I read through years ago when I got introduced to the MRM. Thanks for putting it up and maintaining it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 7
Rob May 12, 2012 at 15:07

@ Oddsock,

Who is calling who names here?

Just leave me alone and do your own thing instead of following behind me and hounding me, for Christ’s sake. I’m sick to death of talking with you. It’s hard to soar like an eagle when you’re surrounded by turkeys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 15:09

@oddsock:
Is your real name Michael Kelso? ‘Cuz really, I’m just waiting for you to say “Buuurrrrrn!”

Ha ha ha

Are you watching J ? The troll has Gina tingles for oddsock.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 15:14

Feck me gently I think even Rob is getting Gina tingles for oddsock.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10
Ted May 12, 2012 at 15:47

Keyster: “I posit that conservative women (who regularily skewer feminism) are the most likely allies and liberal MRA’s say “No, they suck too!”. ”

Liberal or libertarian?

Listen to the interview with Girlwriteswhat by Angel Clark:

http://www.spreaker.com/user/angelclark/girl_writes_what_on_the_angel_clark_show

- it starts about 63 minutes in. Girlwriteswhat is as interesting as ever, but what really interested me was Angel Clark’s statement – repeated several times – that she knew how badly men were treated all along, without really knowing it. When she saw Girlwriteswhat’s video she had an epiphany. How many other women are in this state, and just need to hear the word?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Suz May 12, 2012 at 15:59

Ted,
One or two at least. A few manginas too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12
American May 12, 2012 at 16:06

Arguing with gender-feminists when they have framed the question themselves, is simpleton, futile and noneffective.
The heavy hitters ( the most effective) in the MRM understand this principle, and act accordingly.
Whatever the gender-feminist question is, men must stubbornly revert to some of our own framework. If gender-feminists want to talk about trivial shit, (that they are fully prepared for and you are not), we must somehow bridge or segway the conversation into our own framework. For instance you say to them…” if violence violence is patriarchal as you say, then why do 85% of repeat violent offenders currently in Americas prisons come from from the segment of society with no fathers”???.
Guys.. don’t feed the pigeons by trying to debate gender-feminist nonsense. Change the question to a relevant question, then give them the answers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
American May 12, 2012 at 16:11

Ted, I personally believe that some conservative women are going to be the first women to join the MRM. Some conservative women rightly understand that Gender, Gender-Raunch feminism is not yer mothers “Equality feminism” of 30 years ago, and are rightly saying WTF??? who stole feminism???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9
Ted May 12, 2012 at 16:16

They are starting to realize that feminism isn’t in their own interest, after all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
American May 12, 2012 at 16:26

oddsock.
Here you go again oddsock, attempting to speak for all MRA’s again.
“Its the same old reason myself and quite a few others have tried to tell you many many times and this goes back years and on many other MRA sites. ”
Bro, maybe you can’t help yerself, as you honestly may be so blinded by youre inherent pride that you are; well; to a certain degree “blind”.
I don’t like to pick on other MRA’s, but bro you gotta check yerself before you start arrogantly speaking for all MRA’s.
Again i find it distasteful to engage in what Keyster would call the “circular firing squad”, but just try checking yerself every once in a while when you feel that prideful arrogant urge to speak for all MRA’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6
American May 12, 2012 at 16:40

Freebird, Im an American,and believe in free enterprise.
The current Gender, Gender-raunch establishment are so perverting the financial system, the law enforcement system, the health care system, ect, ect, that the only way out of this mess will be a massive state solution…. (communism).
I don’t believe the upper white Gender-feminist establishment wants communism, but they are the ones at the steering wheel of America for the last 25 years, that have watched the financial system get de-regulated to the point of utter collapse, so they are responsible for whats coming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
Brigadon May 12, 2012 at 16:42

@rob-

If you are really, truly pushing for MGTOW, and if there are others pushing for MGTOW, then how come I am not hearing about fundraising to purchase like…an island someplace?

On the other hand, Texas sold more guns in the last two years than in the prior ten, almost universally to men. Many of those to the wacky ‘sovereign citizens’. I do not think that sovereign citizens are entirely screwed into the socket correctly, but i do have to respect what they are trying to do… and the fact that the ones in texas are DOING it, instead of talking about it.

Frankly, I am willing to DO what I preach. I am already prepared. I am no timothy Mcveigh, with random destruction or whatnot, but I AM going to live my own life, I DO run my household exactly the way I want to, and I WILL shoot anyone that tries to take away my children, accuse me of rape, or force me to do anything I do not choose to do. Laws are unjust, and should be opposed, when they start telling you what you MUST do, or what you are ALLOWED to do, instead of what you must NOT do.

I swore an oath when I joined the military, and I take it very seriously.

I, [My name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I am not going to repeat the constitution, but I am in a bind… I swore to support it against all enemies both foreign AND domestic, and our current government has stomped all over it. Therefore, My WORD and HONOR demands that I oppose our government with all of my strength, heart, and mind.

I agonized over this for nearly ten years, and finally turned to the very first oath I ever swore as a child.

“I pledge Allegiance to my flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. One nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Now, the second sentence of that pledge is simply a meaningless qualifier singing my country’s praises. Liberty and justice for all cannot be imposed by an outside force… which makes sense, since the damned thing was written by a socialist. in addition, ‘under god’ and ‘indivisible’ literally conflict with the original constitution, and were added as almost an afterthought by the writer of the pledge.
But the very first line means that, The constitutional republic that I swore my oaths to demands that I act in it’s best interest. If that meant I cry myself to sleep every night as a eunuch in service to the united states of women socialisms, I would do it… but it does not call for that. My Oaths simply tell me to defend the constitution and the republic of the united states of america.

It could not be more clear. And my oaths also demand that I not succomb to the seductive call of MGTOW or PUA. It is not Moral, or manly, to stand aside and wait for change. That is ‘womanthink’ and victim logic, and I am not, and never will be, a victim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7
Oddsock May 12, 2012 at 16:46

American

Oh, do you mean this I addressed to Rob ?

The bit about “myself and quite a few others” You seem to have misread or is it misrepresent as Oddsock speaking for all other MRA’s

Strange that, Rob has the exact same problem as you. My I must have really upset you both. lol.

“Its the same old reason myself and quite a few others have tried to tell you many many times and this goes back years and on many other MRA sites. You caused all sorts of flame wars and upsets with your unbelievable outbursts, usually when someone, anyone just asked you a simple question

I swear I have been transported into the twilight zone !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9
Brigadon May 12, 2012 at 16:52

Oh, and Rob?

Men did not get to the moon by acknowledging ‘The Truth”. They did it by ignoring conventional wisdom and going crazy with the creative urge. They did it by pushing like hell together and running roughshod over naysayers. Just like almost every great accomplishment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Rob May 12, 2012 at 17:06

@ Brigadon,

You are correct in what you are saying. Much of what is going on is blatant treason… for example, how can Obama or Hitlery Clinton swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution, while at the same time advocating for a “living Constitution” that is changeable? It defeats the purpose of the Constitution itself, and is treason.

I am not American, btw, I am Canadian. In my country the same thing has already happened – we threw out the original Articles of Confederation in the 1970′s & 80′s under Trudeau, and replaced it with a watered down “living” version that is highly malleable. It was treasonous, and it centralized government in Ottawa, while taking away the sovereignty of our provinces… now we are dealing with the aftermath of it.

When the economic crisis hit in 2008, our former Prime Minister, the Right Dishonourable Paul Martin, made frickin’ tours across the country trying to convince Canadians that we had to “give up some of our sovereignty in order to make the world work.” That is blatant treason, and nowhere in any constitution anywhere in the world are there allowances for giving up any amount of sovereignty. Treason is the only crime that is higher in seriousness than First Degree Murder, yet it is happening right in front of us, on the Tell-A-Vision, yet no-one even notices, or cares.

Every single time some crisis happens, ALL the major world leaders quickly start chirping about forming a Global Governing Body to “solve the problem.” Anyone with half a brain would know that this is the exact WRONG thing to do. Obviously, there IS something going on. The push is on for Globalism and a Global Government that controls all of the countries underneath it, and our “leaders” are obviously all onboard with it.

Btw, “Global Governance” was thought up by Marxists – it wasn’t Tin Foil Hat conspiracy theorists who invented the term. The goal of Marxism is to create a Global Government, ultimately ruled as Communist and by “the elites,” and then to “collapse” all of the states beneath it.

The reason why I am trying to bring up the MGTOW angle is because, after studying Marxism, the only real way to stop its manipulations is to “step out of it” and return to the Truth – thus, why I think that MGTOW could be taken to “level two” and used as a counter-move to Marxism.

But you are absolutely right, treason is happening, and it is happening all around the world – at least in the West.

If I had an army, I would do something about it… but I don’t. So I can only do what I can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
Attila May 12, 2012 at 17:30

I end up regretting about 90 percent of the conversations I have with women.

There are exceptions — today for instance – I ended up having a very nice chat with
an older lady from Colombia. And then a warm and friendly exchange with some Egyptian ladies at the Islamic Women’s Bazaar (awesome felafel) held at the main mosque- and then with a younger, full-blooded African woman from The Kongo who beamed when I brought up the name of some of their Afro-pop musicians. My antennae did not pick up the slightest trace of “The Amerikunt Disease” aka androphobia in any one of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Suz May 12, 2012 at 17:32

Brigadon,
You are correct, and it’s not just Texas. Nearly every state is selling record numbers of guns, and to both sexes. Also, for better or worse, record numbers of (mostly conservative) women are taking firearms training classes.
Thank you for your will to uphold your oath.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19
Anonymous May 12, 2012 at 20:06

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17
Eric May 12, 2012 at 20:23

Attilla:
I’ve noticed the same thing whenever I’m in another country or around immigrant women here. There’s a normality and openness about them that makes a man feel safe to reciprocate. Amerobitches, on the other hand, radiate their hatred men. Even reading the female flatheads who’ve posted here recently reminds me of the Amerobitches I used to have as ‘girlfriends’.

Every time I get stuck going to some social event where there are single American women around, I feel like I’m trying to sheer a boat around a mass of icebergs LOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Eric May 12, 2012 at 20:31

Rob;
That was an interesting observation about the Amazons. In late Republican Rome, there was a demographic problem leading to a shortage of women, which gave the Roman women a huge social power. One of the things women were tacitly doing was committing female infanticide on a wide scale to increase their own social value, which they (like today) abused with adultery, abortion, and open contempt of men. It got to be such a problem that, when Caesar Augustus reorganized the government, he declared the state of gender-relations a national emergency and brought a serious crackdown on such practices. Thanks to him, Rome survived another 500 years, whereas the proto-feminists and mangina Senators were the downfall of the Republic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Eric May 12, 2012 at 20:47

Boxer,
You’ll notice how the debate too was also carefully steered from the discussion of ‘Socon female allies’. Notice that neither Keyster nor the Tradcon Lady Ga-Ga want too much investigation into the fact that Socon-controlled Congresses gave us things like VAWA and IMBRA. Or does anyone remember Junior & Cheney back in 2000, promising to undo all Clinton’s policies to feminize the military? LOL What happened to THAT one? Or that, according to Bush Jr, we had to invade Afghanistan because women were forced to wear burkhas and couldn’t go to school? Or what about Junior’s campaign promises to root feminist political-correctness out of public education (which largely came from policies implemented by his dad, Bush Sr.)?

Flag-waving versions of the Futrelle-bots: that’s about all one can say of the Socons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Rob May 12, 2012 at 21:06

@ Eric,

I looked into the rising divorce rates of Rome once before – a long time ago, so forgive me, no links, this is from memory. One thing they used to say was that women married to divorce, and divorced to remarry.

What I found out about Rome was the changing of “dowry laws.”

It began in the beginning, that a woman came with a dowry, but if she divorced, the husband kept the dowry.

Then it changed to that if the woman divorced, the dowry would return to her father, and her next husband would get the dowry.

And finally, when divorce went really rampant, it was when women would divorce and be able to retain the dowry themselves. Then it became out of hand.

But this is only from memory, so don’t quote me on it.

But, the same notion was mentioned by Aristotle in
The Spartan Women. Inheritance laws, he speaks of.

This, of course plays into Briffault’s Law.

(You might be interested in the second link in Briffault’s Law, Eric, as it directly relates to foreign women).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
keyster May 12, 2012 at 21:45

Pro-equal rights and yet very liberal, a card carrying Democrat, I’d never even consider voting for a Republican and I vote I every election….

If you’re “Pro-equal rights” you’d be against ObamaCare because it overwhelmingly discriminates in favor of “free” women’s health care, and offers nothing to men. Also, VAWA specifies protecting women from domestic violence and offers nothing to men, I could go on and on…but like most feminists – – “Women are – more equal than – Men”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Attila May 12, 2012 at 21:54

Would be great if someone could come up with a meme that only infected Amerikunts – something like the mental equivalent of AIDS- and render them harmless.

Either that- or maybe men need to take up some stronger male memes that won’t cave in at the slightest opportunity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
keyster May 12, 2012 at 22:19

At a social level you are right women make for real popular voice That may have some listeners due to them being women. Now look at SUz comments here and she is a supporter. I know she is with us and wants to be here for young men. Look at her comments she instinctively falls back onto team woman. She can’t help it.

I prefer to think of it as pro-humanity.
Saying “Feck All Women!” is never doing to have broad appeal among young men. Unfortunately this isn’t so obvious to many MRA’s.

I’m not promoting a SoCon agenda, I’m merely prognosticating. I’m saying that if and when the Break-through to the mainstream occurs, it’s going to come from the Right and more than likely it will be women and/or mothers.

When Camille Paglia (a Libertarian) was making the rounds in the early 90′s the media listened. She was a woman against feminism and a provocateur. She was both charismatic and compelling.

Problem now is that Feminism has lost it’s luster and, other than abortion or equal pay dust-ups, it’s virtually as engrained as air. Phyllis Schlafly still jumps into the fray, but she’s ancient now and her protege niece doesn’t seem to have the will, (she’s busy raising kids).

It would be grand if WE MEN would be motivated enough to organize and devote ourselves to the cause, but it’ll never happen. We’re too divided politically to be real activists. Liberal MRA’s despise SoCons/Republicans more than they hate Feminists. Their priorities are “Fecked”, and therefore so are we as a movement.

I’ll never understand the Liberal MRA because they can’t explain themselves to me; just invective and obfuscation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Journey May 12, 2012 at 23:13

quote “If men can never be convinced because women don’t engage men’s rational arguments, and women can never be convinced because men ignore their feelings and bully them with the excuse that their feelings aren’t rational, then how can the sexes ever compromise?”

I didn’t like the way you include the word bullying when talking about the men’s behaviour towards the women. You didn’t include it in women’s behaviour to men. It just felt like even from you the terminology of our western society is man behaviour = bullying, woman behaviour not. Don’t use their language about us. The only bullying, abuse, violence, brutality, indifference and hate is from the feminist state onto men. I know you are intensely personally aware of this so I’m not trying to lecture you but please drop the word bully when talking about us. That’s from ingraining their attitude about us into yourself. They’re doing the bullying.
Not engaging us while happily hammering us is as bullying as it gets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price May 12, 2012 at 23:33

@Keyster

Personally, I think putting women in charge of men’s rights and interests is a kind of insanity.

Does it work in marriage? No.

Does it work on the job? No.

How could it possibly work in politics?

I understand the contemporary appeal, but I reject it, because the contemporary situation is so awful that there’s no reason to draw any lessons from the status quo in terms of gender relations other than “it’s all fouled up.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
codebuster May 12, 2012 at 23:50

Liberal MRA’s despise SoCons/Republicans more than they hate Feminists.

Speaking for myself, I despise the SoCons/NeoCon/Republicans’ interpretation of right because it reminds me too much of Crocodile Dundee politics and the George Bush/John Howard partnership that, I have reason to believe, is ultimately responsible for the trashing of the US constitution and the situation that we find ourselves in today.

The only version of right, I think, is the one that was intended under the US constitution. It must contain a moral objective. The current derivative of neoconcervatism is repugnant for its absence of a moral framework. This is why the topic of culture needs to enter the debate. Morality has no meaning in the absence of culture. When neocons advocate for the assassination of troublesome truth-sayers (insofar as we might include Julian Assange among them), then you know that “right” as we once knew it has morphed into something quite grotesque. Believing in neither god nor culture, this sterile beast’s directive is nothing other than its own growth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Suz May 13, 2012 at 01:21

Amen, codebuster. Liberalism is openly relativist to the point of amorality. Social Conservatism pretends its amorality is moral. The US Constitution isn’t perfect, but it’s the best tool in history for protecting the most rights. But only when it is actually applied.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15
Brigadon May 13, 2012 at 07:04

and that’s why I support Ron Paul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 13, 2012 at 07:29

Republican and Democrats are both variations of as Left wing style ruling elite politics. Both are immersed in feminism and both want to control peoples lives and direct their behavior to what they thing it should be. Femminism couldn’t survive any other way.Left on their own most people in a constitutional society will default live a conservative lifestyle. Men will naturally look out for their wife and kids. Unsustainable behavior dies out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
American May 13, 2012 at 08:16

oddsock, so now you think Rob is me??? Yer brain must be awash in a tornado like swamp of hysteria, confusion, and paranoia, all resting on a solid bed rock of irrational and unsustainable pride, the type of PRIDE that only the myopic and ignorant can muster.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
Suz May 13, 2012 at 08:41

Ethical’s article is right. There’s little point in arguing with women. While it’s always good to TEACH an educable woman, most women don’t want to learn anything they don’t already “know.” Since you’re not a woman, you can’t possibly comprehend the experiences which define a woman’s existence. Basically, she will see you as a blowhard who hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. Since her goal is to dismiss you out-of-hand, she feels no need to even attempt to reason with you. She therefore uses arguing tactics that would get her kicked off of a 7th grade debate team within the first week. Here are a few of those tactics.
First, she will distract you and dissemble, so it takes you a while to figure out what she’s actually saying. You don’t even have to disagree with her; you could simply make a statement qualifying, clarifying or expanding her point. She won’t bother to show that your statement is untrue or even unlikely, probably because she didn’t even hear, read, or understand it. If she did hear it, she made wildly erroneous assumptions about your meaning AND your motivation (probably your character and your mother’s footwear too.) She will then launch into an angry tirade reiterating her point, and adding details (relevant or not) with which you pretty much already agree. Yet you suddenly find yourself being treated like the enemy. How the hell did that happen?
Another one-on-one tactic is shaming. She’ll express dour disapproval that you not only have an opinion, but that you have the unmitigated gall to express it. Again, you can’t possibly know what you’re talking about, so you have no business talking to her.
Some tactics are used in a group setting, where she can publicly discredit you. So much more fun. One is to misquote you in a passive-aggressive parenthetical aside, dismantling an argument that you didn’t make, to someone else. This one is highly manipulative (oh, those feminine wile!) because it puts you in the position of deciding whether to risk sounding defensive by correcting her “mistake,” or to let her lie stand (and essentially take ownership of it.) Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Raise your hands, gentlemen, if no woman has ever pulled this sleazy stunt on you. Two of you? That many! My, you’re young! Are you still in school? Oh. You’re homeschooled. I see.
Another group “tactic” is one the primary woman herself (queen bee?) doesn’t have to actually do, so don’t even think of blaming her. It’s her sycophant cheering section, backing her up. They never say anything substantive (they probably can’t, which is why they’re followers) they just create hostile white noise – heckling from the nosebleed section, so to speak. You know, snide one-liners, sneering insults – “mean girl” stuff.
Women can use up a whole lot of words and time using such tactics. It’s so tiresome because as you’ve probably noticed, there’s never any logic or reason involved, just a lot of straw men and convoluted sentences. You try to have reasonable and thoughtful conversations, but they simply can’t do it; they get all emotional and go ballistic, shamelessly losing their already-tenuous grasp on reality. Why would you waste your time engaging anyone who behaves like this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Migu May 13, 2012 at 09:43

Why would you waste your time engaging anyone who behaves like this?

Penis/Brain blood flow valve. A young man will yield positive control of this function to a woman, some older men never regain control.

It’s just a fact of life. Nothing less than what you described above.

The whole post was a triple punch. Nicely done, but it only furthers the desecration. Why not just say, “Women, if you use your temporary control of the Penis/Brain bloodflow valve to destroy a man, then your sons will destroy you.” it seems that would get the message across more effectively.

So why did you bait the post? It kind of invalidates the point you are trying to get across no? Or have you engaged in battle? Conflict is the problem, compromise is the problem, cooperation is the answer.

Those words mean very different things. Compromise is defeat. Cooperation is winning. Think about it. The two words ought to be listed as antonyms, yet they are not. A compromise is an obstacle to be overcome. You overcome obstacles by cooperating not compromising. If you are compromising you are dealing with an enemy not a friend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Suz May 13, 2012 at 09:59

Migu,
That was a gracious and tactful chiding, which is more than I deserve. Yes, I abdicated my dignity and played dirty, not to (hypocritically) show my superiority over cretins, but to show that I too, am capable of being small and petty. I suspect there are those here who believe I consider myself above it all, smug in my spoiled, insular femininity. I’m not; I’m subject to the same irrational emotions that they are, but I work to keep those emotions out of serious discussions, where they don’t belong. I have been reading MRA sites for a year now, and contributing comments for about half of that time. I HAVE been cooperating because I agree with your statement, “You overcome obstacles by cooperating not compromising.”
Some welcome my cooperation, and some would rather continue squabbling. I’m capable of playing that game, but ususlly I don’t bother. It’s tiresome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
keyster May 13, 2012 at 12:08

@Welmer

@Keyster
Personally, I think putting women in charge of men’s rights and interests is a kind of insanity.

Heaven forbid ANYONE should be “in charge” or there be any actual leadership over men’s rights! There certianly aren’t any men willing to be or even accepted to that position; which was my previous question…

“Then what is good enough? What exactly are the qualifications needed to meet with your approval?” (for MRM Leadership)

My point was it will happen organically as the Misandry Bubble bursts. Women are the only ones that can speak out FOR MEN and have anyone listen…AND select women (probably Right leaning) will be the only ones to do it.

It will take an articulate woman of passion, charisma and looks to bring awareness to the plights of men and boys. Not a “leader” necessarily, but a figurehead/spokeswoman of sorts – the “face” and “voice”.

No doubt there will be remnants of the misogynist online MRM community that will be suscpicious of her intentions and doubt her every word, because she’s not quite “PURE” enough, whatever that is.

It shouldn’t matter.
Compromise happens.
Expediency for a cause is messy business.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10
keyster May 13, 2012 at 12:28

The only version of right, I think, is the one that was intended under the US constitution. It must contain a moral objective. The current derivative of neoconcervatism is repugnant for its absence of a moral framework.

“Moral framework” is found in Judeo-Christian principles, otherwise it’s “relative” according to secular-progressives. LEGAL framework is found in the Constitution. Morality was left out on purpose.

What find interesting is that Liberal MRAs heap scorn on Conservatives for not fighting feminism enough! …as if they had/have a choice given single women are the largest Democrat voting bloc.

How does one effectively argue the narrative “If you’re against ANY benefit specific to women, you must be against women”. Republicans gave it their best shot at the last VAWA hearings however. Did you know that?

And we’re not talking Neo-Con here. “Neo-Con” or “new” by definition is a predominantly Jewish anti-Stalinist political ideology. I know saying “NeoCon” is cool for liberal street-cred and everything, but as a movement they weren’t involved in feminism. They were involved in helping anyone who’d listen – – topple the Soviet Union.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
Eric May 13, 2012 at 13:32

Keyster:
‘Moral framework is found in Judeo-Christian principles, otherwise it’s ‘relative’ according to secular progressives.’

What about the numerous scientists and philosophers who have defined a moral system independent of organized religion? Many of our founding fathers, for example, were Deists, but they certainly were not ‘moral relativists.’

‘Legal framework was found in the Constitution, morality was left out on purpose.’

This contradicts everything you’re arguing. It’s the Progressives who argue that the Constitution is amoral and needs to be interpreted in relative terms. Besides that, how is possible to formulate legal concepts without a moral premise?

‘It will take an articulate woman of pssion, charisma, &c…to bring attention to the plight of men and boys’

Can you give us a historical precendent when women rose up to defend the rights of men?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Eric May 13, 2012 at 13:40

Greyghost:
And you notice that STILL nobody wants to talk about which president signed VAWA and IMBRA into law. I don’t hear many Socons advertising all the advances in mens rights or reversals of feminism that must have occurred between 2001-2009 when the ‘conservatives’ held all three branches of the federal government. BTW, did those ‘pro-life’ Socons repeal any abortion laws during that time? LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Anonymous May 13, 2012 at 15:02

“I believe there may be a solution. To achieve compromise men may need to take the initiative and address arguments that make women feel differently about men being treated unequally; that is demonstrate that the devastating consequences of men being denied equal rights in areas like false accusations and family law will in the long run be more painful for the majority of women than individual women no longer being able to get away with as much when the systemic injustice against men is exposed. Whether false accusation, unfair child support or alimony, unfair division of property, or unfair custody and visitation, more women in the man’s family are hurt by an unjust court ruling than the single woman who benefits. The man’s mother, sisters, aunts, daughters, and new significant other may suffer terribly because he suffers, and because they’ll stop at nothing to support him.”

Are you kidding?? They all play for Team Vagina, and their loyalties are far greater to each other than to their male relatives. This has been pointed out on this board many times before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Suz May 13, 2012 at 15:52

@ Eric:
“And you notice that STILL nobody wants to talk about which president signed VAWA and IMBRA into law….”
Why don’t you expand on the topic? You probably won’t get much debate, because most Manosphere readers are already fairly well versed on the motivations of their political “leaders,” but you might reach a few newbies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Eric May 13, 2012 at 19:04

Suz,
Well, the answer of course, was Bush Jr. Also, they could look through the whole history (1995-2007) of the Republican-controlled House and not find a single law repealing abortion, protecting fathers’ rights &c. I haven’t seen much out the Tea Party, yet, either than their boasts of having fielded more female candidates than the Democrats.

Also, Keyster’s idea of ‘a strong conservative woman’ coming in to save the country has been brought up before—Socon pundits like Limbaugh, Hannity & others say it all the time. Actually, when these guys talk about gender-relations they don’t say anything different than Futrelle or Fleming routinely say.

Since you brought up the 2nd Amendment elsewhere, that’s another area that Conservatives get too much credit for defending. Bush Sr. introduced the ‘Brady Bill’ in 1992. Congressional Republicans passed the ‘Assault-Weapons Ban’ in 1996, and signed on to other anti-gun legislation during Clinton’s term. Our ‘most pro-2nd Amendment President’, Bush Jr, didn’t repeal a single gun law during his term. In fact, he tried to impose gun control laws in Afghanistan.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Suz May 13, 2012 at 20:11

Eric,
Ain’t it the truth. Having once been a young Democrat, I could brag that I despised SoCons before it was cool, but then I’d have to admit how long it was before I learned to despise the Democrats as well. Washington will cheerfully throw anyone under the bus, and it’s getting worse fast. I might trust the Tea Party if it can become independent of Republican money. Good concise analysis.

I agree with your point about “a strong conservative woman.” Any iconic figure would be too easy to discredit. As men figure out what is happening, they will fight, and individual women will mostly just fight with individual men. We few female MRAs are preaching primarily to a very small choir. Nobody else is listening. The best I can hope for is to be prepared when more women are ready to listen. It doesn’t even matter to me what their motives are, rare compassion or (eventually) naked self-interest. I care about the results. I’ll concede to Keyster that it will most likely be morally conservative women, not liberals or SoCons, who will lead other women away from feminism. But they won’t be on TV.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7
Eric May 13, 2012 at 20:45

Suz,
I remember awhile ago that Hestia and Kimberley tried some anti-feminist blogs and they always had more male supporters than female ones. All their criticism came from women.

Laura Grace Robbins and Crella have mentioned this several times too. I think an anti-feminist movement among women would be a positive thing; I just don’t think there are enough women to put a movement like that together and make it viable. The feminists gang up on dissident women even more ferociously than they do men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Suz May 13, 2012 at 20:50

You’re right, there aren’t enough of us yet. As feminism fails more and more women, I hope our numbers will grow, but women will never “lead” much of anything in the MRM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Rob May 13, 2012 at 22:44

Eric,

I was wondering if you could shoot me an e-mail at robfedders(at)yahoo.ca

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
fmz May 14, 2012 at 00:23

Any form of enagement (arguementative, rational or otherwise,) is surrender.

To GYOW, permission is not required. Stop expalining and negotiating. Stop with the engagment. That is mangina territory and what they excell at. Dont let them drag ya down to that level.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Red0660 May 14, 2012 at 07:03

“To achieve compromise men may need to take the initiative and address arguments that make women feel differently about men being treated unequally; that is demonstrate that the devastating consequences of men being denied equal rights”

Correct, you can only engage women to care about men’s issues as men’s issues relate to the desires of the gynocentric self and it’s interests. However, getting women to reason is not an endeavor that will bear fruit. Women are subjective by nature. All “reason” extends from the gynocentric self. Any argument made toward women must be presented as what it will do for them…this is what women want to know. How will the male serve my interest better in this order that you present better than exploiting the male to meet my interests.

This is a hard argument to win. Women have found it easier to serve themselves by exploiting the other half of humanity, this serves them better in the short run. Getting women to see the objective picture of how it ultimately will not benefit them is a lost cause. This would take objective reasoning and logic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ethical May 14, 2012 at 07:33

Journey said:
I didn’t like the way you include the word bullying when talking about the men’s behaviour towards the women. You didn’t include it in women’s behaviour to men.

@Journey
Good point. The sentence was intended to summarize what women feel rather than the objective truth. I could have prefaced it with “women feel” to be more clear.

On another topic the fact that this very healthy debate has managed to tolerate so many different viewpoints which directly confront issues that are extremely sensitive to many commenters is proof positive of our uniquely male gift for logical, rational discussion. This type of discussion can only make the MRM stronger. I know the feedback has been invaluable for me in refining my positions on core issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Ethical May 14, 2012 at 08:01

Eric said:
“I remember awhile ago that Hestia and Kimberley tried some anti-feminist blogs and they always had more male supporters than female ones. All their criticism came from women”.

@Eric
fyi: the message I’m proposing would not be perceived as “anti-feminist”. It would be perceived as “pro-mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts … etc”.

fmz said:
“Any form of enagement (argumentative, rational or otherwise,) is surrender.

To GYOW, permission is not required. Stop explaining and negotiating. Stop with the engagment. That is mangina territory and what they excel at. Dont let them drag ya down to that level”.

@fmz
I support MGTOW as I support any enemy of feminism that alarmed feminists might perceive as STICK. My proposed strategy to convince more women to support MRA issues is more of a carrot but it’s just one more strategy in an expanding arsenal. This kind of indirect approach may be the only one possible for reaching a larger audience as currently there’s an almost complete mainstream media blackout on men’s rights issues. This means that the only version of the MRM message you’ll get in mainstream media will be as paraphrased by feminists and others or others who either don’t understand or are actively hostile to MRM positions on the issues. I completely understand and support those who choose to fight by refusing to engage, because there’s value in every contribution. Spreading whatever awareness of MRM issues that I can is mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Red0660 May 14, 2012 at 08:11

“Conservative women are predominantly pro-family/anti-feminism and pro-life. They like men and they like being women.”

Women only like “being women” when it suits them. Women only exhibit this behavior when it is to their benefit and when it is not they are feminists…Read the below article…it will be an eye opener for you my friend.

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2012/05/government-husband-vs-actual-husband.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
keyster May 14, 2012 at 08:26

Can you give us a historical precendent when women rose up to defend the rights of men?

No, but I can’t give you a historical precedent when men rose up to defend the rights of men, and men only, either. There are no precedents for men rising up against women.

What about the numerous scientists and philosophers who have defined a moral system independent of organized religion?

What about them? Judeo-Christian principles have guided cultural morals of western civilization for millenia, and the USA since its inception. The “numerous” others are noise relatively speaking.

Besides that, how is possible to formulate legal concepts without a moral premise?

Fair enough, but the American IDEA was that Individual freedom from tyranny (Monarchy in this case) was the correct moral imperative. Progressives want to “adapt” the Constitution to placate and identify special interest “groups”, which defies the original intention.

And you notice that STILL nobody wants to talk about which president signed VAWA and IMBRA into law.

And can you imagine the shit storm that would have ensued had he vetoed it? Both Bush’s were the “compassionate conservatives”. Neither one was a conservative. Both spent too much money. They thought the Right was losing the populist narrative and shifted to the left to win Independents. Both of them sucked, almost as much as Nixon.

If you think there’ll ever be a MALE politician that will stand up and publicly proclaim a stance for Men’s Rights, your dreamin’. The Feminists are simply too loud and too powerful. You saw what happened with the Susan B Komen and Sandra Fluke dust ups. Politicians are scared shitless of the feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Migu May 14, 2012 at 09:05

I HAVE been cooperating because I agree with your statement, “You overcome obstacles by cooperating not compromising.”

So you won’t bait anymore?

I’m capable of playing that game, but ususlly I don’t bother. It’s tiresome.

So am I. Chess is a game. People are real.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 14, 2012 at 09:24

I am an athiest, but I definitely agree with keyster that a moral framework with the ‘strength’ of judeo-christian principles is the only thing that gives the ‘common’ soft-headed human the will to uphold morality in the face of temptation to discard civilization and return to no0thing but self-indulgence and anarchy… both of which are the bane of human’s ability to work together for a greater good.
All non-religious ethical frameworks have always been ‘soft’. Good for an intellectual minority of strong-willed individuals that understand that civilization is a worthy goal in and of itself, but without the ‘force’ to encourage not-so strong-willed individuals to conform to a social framework that promotes the evolution of society instead of it’s stagnation.

And every attempt to institute such ‘soft’ logic-driven efforts at ethical controls have failed.

They have failed for two reasons:

1. Sooner or later some idiot ‘white knight’ empowers females, assuming that they are capable of the logical abstraction neccessary to maintain an ethical structure in the face of their own selfishness. Every society that has done so has failed spectacularly.
2. Basically the urge to ‘kill others and take their stuff’ seems more appealing than some philosophy that may or may not help the selfish individual. Giving the dumbass the ability to ‘vote’ on issues that they have absolutely no interest in without a strong, scary moral structure like “If you are countersociety (evil) you are going to burn in hell for all eternity”.

Essentially, the cultural death throes of nearly every strong society are centered around socialism, universal suffrage, and militant atheism.

Once you take away an individual’s personal stake in upholding society, you kill that society. That’s one of the reasons I despise both democracy and ‘militant atheism’, because humans are NOT born with inherent morality… That has to be taught to them, by their parents and their society, and scary religion is usually the only tool strong enough to impact children’s grasp of morality. And if you impose a ‘secular morality’, the minute you take away society’s ability to impose that morality, any fear of countersociety behavior is only contingent upon the presence of of an authority. The moment that authority vanishes, so does any pretense at morality.

And athiest democracies are always tainted by those who wish to ease the burden of morality, and are willing to vote for laws to that effect.

society cannot be upheld by those that only respect society when that authority is physically present. It always devolves into a cycle of more and more restrictive authority trying to keep people behaving ethically at all times, which leads to that authority restricting the individual freedoms of ALL, even the ones that are moral through logic, which leads to more and more people bucking that authority when it is not physically present, until you are left with only two options. Police state or rebellion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Doc May 14, 2012 at 10:02

Arguing with a woman is a waste of time – women are meant to bring a man pleasure. It really is as simple as that – if she isn’t doing that she’s not worth your time, so you’re better off moving on to one who will engage in more useful practices.

I know a lot of women will complain about that, but I am up-front in my opinions and never lack for female company. So I take that as acceptance that I am right – at least with the ones that matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Journey May 14, 2012 at 11:29

Quote “Ethical May 14, 2012 at 07:33
Journey said:
I didn’t like the way you include the word bullying when talking about the men’s behaviour towards the women. You didn’t include it in women’s behaviour to men.

@Journey
Good point. The sentence was intended to summarize what women feel rather than the objective truth. I could have prefaced it with “women feel” to be more clear.

On another topic the fact that this very healthy debate has managed to tolerate so many different viewpoints which directly confront issues that are extremely sensitive to many commenters is proof positive of our uniquely male gift for logical, rational discussion. This type of discussion can only make the MRM stronger. I know the feedback has been invaluable for me in refining my positions on core issues.” End quote.

Thanks for your reply. I get where you’re coming from but it just grated so I had to say something.
But thanks for contributing with your article and hopefully your approach helps the overall problem in some way. Personally I think appealing to women on the grounds of what they’re losing runs into them clutching tighter to what they’re winning…. namely total control of the kids. Grans might hate losing touch with their grandkids but compared to a mom not having total control regarding the cildren after divorce it’s weak. All women choose the control of their own kids power even if it endangers their power in relation to their grandkids.
For women there is no more powerful imperative. Thing is for the majority of men losing their kids is unbearable and unlivable, but the women couldn’t care less.
I like that you have a fresh approach but as with every approach you’re facing people who like having all the power while in their official victim position of being opressed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster May 14, 2012 at 12:01

@Brigadon

The USA was founded on the constant struggle to moderate between left and right, to the point (like now) where there’s no governing at all, (not necessarily a bad thing).

Jefferson and Adams had a long standing feud over the size and place of government in peoples lives, (Adams leaned left).

This debate IS the USA in all it’s glory. Back and forth every other election cycle as one side excersises too much power over the other, and the electorate becomes nervous – – we’re either becoming too much like Nazi Germany or too much like the former Soviet Union.

This is what American democracy has evolved into. Perpetual political tension, compromise and cynicism about the “process”. A battle of will and ideas. There can never be an ideal solution or perfect viable political candidate. We muddle along and somehow it kinda works most of the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Craig May 14, 2012 at 13:01

You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into.
- Jonathan Swift

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 14, 2012 at 15:28

Actually Keyster, we are becoming too much like BOTH Nazi Germany and the soviet Union. Once you peel away a thin veneer of Dogma, Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Russia were EXACTLY the same. socialism giving rise to a single political party, and a practical police state born from the supposed ‘will of the people’.
When democrats and republicans were oppoosed to each other, we generally HAD the balance that kept it from happening… it was a clever move on our forefathers part, and it lasted right up until the establishment of democracy.
The moment idiots started voting, all political parties changed to ‘what is most popular and will get me elected?” That means that republicans and democrats are virtually identical now, and so America the beautiful has become Amerika the police state under a single political party, with a repressive government that throws it’s people bread and circuses while the important issues of freedom and justice merrily burn in the background.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Suz May 14, 2012 at 16:20

No, Migu,
I won’t bait anymore. I hate being a bitch.

I’ve been reading this blog for a while, and I came into the conversation knowing I would be presumed a troll, and challenged. This site is definitely worth the trouble of engaging in a battle and baiting the baiters.
But it’s not something I enjoy, especially among people with whom I am fundamentally allied.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Attila May 14, 2012 at 16:36

I’ve found just grabbing your stuff and walking away without saying a word works wonders.

It saves valuable “chi” energy – and gives no opportunity to get further entangled.

Then make sure you block the phone number and e-mails with autodeletion.

And go back to your interesting and edifying hobbies.

Life is good!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Brigadon May 14, 2012 at 16:44

@Attila-

If you do that, she calls the cops. and you spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender, convict, and bum.

If it were that easy, this site would not exist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Sam May 14, 2012 at 16:58

I get your points, but I don’t agree. It’s like saying, we have to kiss their asses, put up with their childlike behavior, then lay our lives down to put them first. Fact is, they are NOT children and with their narcissistic attitudes, (They will only help a man, if you convince them not doing so with hurt women) who they hell needs them!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Craig May 15, 2012 at 03:04

“If you do that, she calls the cops. and you spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender, convict, and bum.”

I’ve never been falsely accused of a serious crime, but if I were, and if I were ever released from prison, I’d … well, let’s say I have an extremely high sense of personal justice and honor, and an overly-developed sense of vengeance. (Someday it’s going to get me into trouble.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 16, 2012 at 14:41
John May 18, 2012 at 05:09

”The male inclination to protect women is instinctive, and feminism has shown that disaster results when we try to pretend instinct doesn’t exist. So it must be addressed and channeled productively. Otherwise, the white knights will continue to justify themselves. They have to learn that the instinct itself is pro-civilization, but their current application of it IS NOT. They can’t help wanting to “do the right thing,” they just need to understand what is actually “right.”

Is that so? It seems that brain-washing and those silly biological imperatives can be defeated if one tries enough. As a young man going to college, I am inevitably surrounded by young, attractive women all day long. I’m bound to see a case or two of bad behavior from men, especially as women of that age are majoy teasers and guys are flowing with hormones.

I do nothing. One time I observed a man beat up his girlfriend. I suppose I could’ve intervened. But why would I? My physical integrity could be damage and I’m not seeing the sex that doesn’t even want to pay for it’s half during dates pay up my medical bill, LOL.

In another case I was exiting a mall. Some teenager girl, apparently excessively attractive as the younger males behind me were all making a bunch of noise, was expecting me to hold the door for her as she yapped off her cellphone life expectancy; I didn’t hold the door and it closed with it’s full power on the girl’s nose, breaking it and staining the glass.

I am not a white knight. I do not care about ridiculous, ” what if she was your sister? Would’ve liked if some dude did the same?”

I only care about one person. Myself. Women aren’t interested in the plight of men, even when they see an Alpha male, date him, marry him; he’ll be dumped when the bigger, beter deal comes along.

As for the purpose of this topic.. HELL NO. I don’t want the sexes to compromise. Marriage and relationships are the chains women use to guarantee men don’t turn their backs on them. Sex is pointless. A drug, something that can be easily ignored and avoided, leaving the man free of stds, drama, obligations, responsabilities, and parenthood.

As much as I appreciate this forum the truth of the matter is that the flag-holders of MGTOW are the men coming from the grass-eating culture which had it origin in Japan. Consume inordinate of porn; it will kill your sex drive, make you immune to the charms of women.

Enjoy a lifetime of freedom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
John May 18, 2012 at 05:15

Attila May 14, 2012 at 16:36

Or you can do it like me. First day in colllege, sitting in a bench outside of the buildings. Some chicks approach me obviously look to establish their beta-orbiters(like they had in High school) fan club. First they asked me for my phone number. ” I don’t have a phone.”

Then they asked for my email adress.

”I don’t have an email adress”. I don’t see the point of asking for a MSN adress if you don’t have an email-adress, but ask they did, lolz. Same response. Not wanting to give out – There weren’t many beta males in the school’s grounds at the moment – the finally asked me where I was living.

”In a cave with my wolf.”

And off I went, never to be bothered by the females. The word gets around when you’re not interested in becoming the women’s ego-booster and shoulder to cry for when they’re pumped and dumped by the Alpha males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
DruidV May 20, 2012 at 10:19

Shunning is the only way to deal with these abhorrent genetic defects known as Ameriskanks. If you attempt any other tactic you will fail;

Top quote of the day:

Me: That feminazi is out there!!! It can’t be bargained with! It can’t be reasoned with! It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear and it absolutely will not stop-EVER- until you are dead!!!

They: Can you stop it?

Me: I don’t know… With these weapons…I don’t know…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 20, 2012 at 10:27

If it makes you feel better, they are killing themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Anonymous July 23, 2013 at 23:16

I have a confident analytical attention designed for details and can foresee problems prior to these people
occur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Truthful Nacho August 12, 2013 at 07:01

Our author needs a name change.

Women are treated like fuckholes and breeders. This is fact. We need liberation (not “equality”). This is fact. There is no arguing with it just because some writer says dude brains work better. Lol. We ALL know that is not true and that men have a lot of cognitive difficulty. They need to make a hypothesis and plot it out and do tests and say “correlation donut imply cauzashion!” before determining that the sky is in fact blue.

Yeah well women can just look around, give a CONSTELLATORY assessment, and what do ya know. Our conclusions explain a lot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
wedontcare March 22, 2014 at 23:46

I recently had an experience that blew my mind up and sent me straight into this “manosphere.”

Here’s what happened: I got into an argument with a woman with whom I live and with whom for certain reasons I have to maintain reasonably good relations. She recently got a nice new job & bought an apartment, and she developed an incredible attitude. She now only opens her mind to contradict or to play captain obvious. Sometimes when she tries to justify her contrarian statements, her eyes roll up, and she – I kid you not – just makes up shit on the spot and immediately accepts it on faith and defends it the way the the Red Army defended Stalingrad. It’s unbelievable.

So we started arguing about something, and she made a few statements that were news to me, but sounded suspicious. I replied with making semi-related statements I had checked very carefully. Now, she did not know what she did not know, and I knew what I knew. But knowing nothing, she assumed that I, like her, was parroting stupid bullshit heard from the TV – but she just thought it was the wrong kind of bullshit.

Eventually I ended the argument by bursting out in laughter at one of her more ridiculous statements. Later, I checked her statements and they were flat out wrong. Not just wrong, but the opposite of the truth. One can’t argue with this shit…

Then I reflected some more, and I came to the following realization: I have absolutely never, EVER, had a serious conversation on any complicated non-everyday subject with a woman. And in particular I mean philosophy, history, and politics. (Some women know a bit of literature.) And I’ve been to various schools and so on, I’ve been around extremely educated women with lots of diplomas and shit… The moment you raise a philosophical or historical subject, their eyes glaze over. It’s unbelievable, until you think about it and see it should have been obvious.

So yeah. There’s no use in arguing with a woman. Just laugh at her. Judging by the “negging” phenomenon, if you do it properly she’ll even like you better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Aaron March 23, 2014 at 04:26

Literally just had an argument where we were both a perfect fit of the stereotype. I argued the gaps in her argument. She called me names and told me I was moody all day yesterday. My only worry is that you are a guy writing this article and that the point you made can be totally poo-pooed by that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: