Daylighting Manosphere Ideas

by W.F. Price on June 9, 2012

Chuck Ross, who has grown into an effective and tenacious young journalist, uncovered a telling article published in Slate’s Double-X women’s magazine. It brings up the years-old manosphere idea that if women have the right to choose via abortion whether or not they want to support a child, so should men.

It’s fairly obvious that it’s inherently unfair that women have choice about the “oops” results of their sexual activity, whereas men do not. Author Katie Roiphe presents the idea reasonably, without resorting to shaming or blaming men, which prompted Chuck to label the piece as “radical.”

It’s kind of strange that such a concept is “radical,” but these are strange times in which people who were raised during an entirely different era still have a great deal of influence over policy. Abortion was only fully legalized when people turning 40 this year were born, so those older than that tend to view the issue in terms of giving women a break, while those of us who are younger are left to wonder about whether we had brothers and sisters who never made it.

I’m a bit ambivalent about seeing the idea come up on what is, for all intents and purposes, a feminist site. On the one hand, I’m glad to see people talking about it, but on the other I’m aware that without people like Paul Elam pushing the issue on sites such as The Spearhead and A Voice for Men without pulling any punches, it would have been ignored in perpetuity.

To me, this vindicates the approach the manosphere has taken over the last several years. Being nice and trying to appease feminists wasn’t working, despite decades of effort. All they’d do was turn up the dial on shame and blame and push for yet more criminalization of fatherhood. It’s unfortunate that we had to resort to being ungentlemanly to make a difference, but sometimes shit-tests like feminism demand ungentlemanly responses.

It’s a positive development to see these ideas propagating throughout our culture. Chuck’s got a great nose for this stuff, and I’d recommend readers subscribe to his RSS feed.

{ 147 comments… read them below or add one }

JeremiahMRA June 9, 2012 at 21:50

“To me, this vindicates the approach the manosphere has taken over the last several years. Being nice and trying to appease feminists wasn’t working, despite decades of effort. All they’d do was turn up the dial on shame and blame and push for yet more criminalization of fatherhood. It’s unfortunate that we had to resort to being ungentlemanly to make a difference, but sometimes shit-tests like feminism demand ungentlemanly responses.”

Nah. Paul Elam has started to take a more moderate stance to attract women and get more money from his audience. And there’s nothing wrong with being masculine at all, I don’t care about being “ungentlemanly”. The problem here is that sites like AVfM work to appease women and manginas. None of these problems are solved except by men taking back power. Women only know how to abuse their power. Every single one.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 44 Thumb down 41
JeremiahMRA June 9, 2012 at 21:56

This lovey dovey feel good let’s join hands stuff isn’t going to glean any results for men. You don’t really believe this, do you? “It’s unfortunate that we had to resort to being ungentlemanly to make a difference” All that tells me if you haven’t learned your lesson. The lesson is that it’s not good to filter men’s actions through women’s approval (and the approval of their mangina allies), which is what you are doing by referring to them as “ungentlemanly”. Fail to learn that lesson and nothing changes. Males will remain “bitches”, not Men: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/planet-of-the-bitches/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 13
TiredGuy June 9, 2012 at 22:10

“The problem here is that sites like AVfM work to appease women and manginas.”

I have not read enough of that site to comment on it in particular, however, those that believe in appeasement are misguided.

The only way to rid a society of feminism is to stop appeasing, stop picking up the check, stop fixing up the problems created by feminism. This will not be easy as we all have mothers, however, we should stop being enablers to these ‘addicts’.

The only way to rid someone of their addiction, whether it be to drugs, alcohol or feminist entitlement mentality, is to let them suffer the consequences of their actions. When they have had enough, let them ask for help. Let them work to fix the problems they have caused.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 2
dhanu June 9, 2012 at 22:23

@JeremiahMRA “The problem here is that sites like AVfM work to appease women and manginas.”

I’m a regular reader of AVfM and can confidently say that the above is untrue. For proof, all you need is read some articles over there.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 15
Eric June 9, 2012 at 22:27

I haven’t read Elam’s site in a long time, but I’ve used his same arguments about ‘male choice’ to pro-abortion feminists—mostly just to show them the hypocrisy of their own positions.

The only sure way to stop abortions is to stop getting American women (who are the ones who think an abortion is some kind of heroic deed) pregnant in the first place. The more American women are avoided, the fewer abortions (and divorces and other social problems) will occur.

Embargoing the Amerobitch is the best response. The one thing they cannot defend against is passive resistance and voluntary male marginalization. They won’t have abortions when nobody wants to have sex with them anymore.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 3
Brian June 9, 2012 at 22:34

You push a man enough, he’ll start pushing back. Count on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 0
Poester99 June 9, 2012 at 22:54

Very good commentary over there.

What keeps coming through, is that liberation from biological roles is for women only, men need to not apply. In fact they need to stop whining and man up and do as they’ve always done. Which, in this day and age, is support, financially or otherwise anything the new entitled women wants to do, willingly or at the point of a gun by the order of a judge.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
Turbo the Drycleaner June 9, 2012 at 22:57

AVfM definitely doesnt go hard anymore. posts like “how we kill johnny” are a thing of the past. now all the posts seem to be about how we should all join hands and sing kumbayah, of course with our “sisters in arms” and “friends on the left” in tow.

that having been said, every third post or so is pretty good so i still read the site. AVfM is making MRM ideas more mainstream and is actually doing something, so although i groan at most of the posts i still support it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 9
will June 9, 2012 at 22:58

You are gonna love this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFhA_sL38c

he says women should not vote.

LOLOLOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Poester99 June 9, 2012 at 22:59

Embargoing the Amerobitch is the best response. The one thing they cannot defend against is passive resistance and voluntary male marginalization. They won’t have abortions when nobody wants to have sex with them anymore.

This is seriously NOT happening cause we are hugely outnumbered. The good news though is that this massive pool of men that are still doing tricks for a shred of attention, seem to be much older, just in general.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
wobbegong June 9, 2012 at 23:01

@JeremiahMRA “The problem here is that sites like AVfM work to appease women and manginas.”

Not true. AVfM frequently uses strong language to get it’s point accross, read some of the articles.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 15
evilwhitemalempire June 10, 2012 at 01:16

sorry about the double post

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire June 10, 2012 at 01:21

have you checked out some of the latest episodes of AVFTBAGWW (a voice for typhon blue and girl writes what) radio

“hello, i’m your token white man john the other (no shit sherlock) and with me are my two mouthpieces typhon blue and girl writes what and today we’re goin to be talking abou- ……….. wait i think typhon blue wants to jump in”

they constantly interupt jto and one of them has recently started insulting him

they use communist language there all the time

one time i distinctly heard one of those girls say we need to ‘deconstruct’ male identity

can you say CO-OPTED?

wait, i think typhon blue wants to jump in

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 13
walking in hell June 10, 2012 at 01:38

“Embargoing the Amerobitch is the best response. The one thing they cannot defend against is passive resistance and voluntary male marginalization. They won’t have abortions when nobody wants to have sex with them anymore.”

It is nothing personal or vindictive; it is a question of doing the right thing for oneself as a man and for any potential children.

If measured against the “virtuous” woman ideal given by the great books of wisdom i.e., the Bible, the Quran, and others, the majority of American women, especially “Christian” women would measure up as the opposite of anything virtuous. Therefore, they are unfit for wifehood and/or motherhood.

As a father, by bringing children into the world through these women, you are bringing children into a world where the woman will cheerfully sever your children from you; the children will suffer as bastards, and you as a father will suffer a hellish existence of isolation, vilification, destitution, desperation, and degradation.

If they are male children, you are bringing them into a world that is actively hostile against them and wants to marginalize and incarcerate them; strangely enough, their own mothers will support the pillars of marginalization and incarceration.

Don’t believe that the MRM will change anything except to raise awareness of the issues. There are simply too many entrenched financial interests that profit from the marginalization of fathers and men and will want to maintain the status quo.

So do the right thing for yourself and any potential children. Don’t marry and don’t have children. And be very careful about revealing your position because a sadistic American woman will look upon you as a challenge to bring down.

By being an American man you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
walking in hell June 10, 2012 at 01:46

“You push a man enough, he’ll start pushing back. Count on it.”

When?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
walking in hell June 10, 2012 at 02:00

“It’s unfortunate that we had to resort to being ungentlemanly to make a difference, but sometimes shit-tests like feminism demand ungentlemanly responses.”

For those of us who are older and already lost our children and financial future, no difference has been made. In fact as the states and country get more strapped for cash, things might get worse.

Perhaps the best hope is to save the younger generation of men by educating them.

Though MGTOW is not a happy solution, it is less worse than the alternative of slavery, losing their children, destitution and/or incarceration.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Paul Murray June 10, 2012 at 02:48

“Being nice and trying to appease feminists wasn’t working, ”

Doesn’t work on creationists either. Gradually, the good guys are learning to treat the other side like the liars they are.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 19
freebird June 10, 2012 at 02:56

Still waters run deep,and most men are not talking.
We’re in the eye of the storm.
You think the inner city gangs are bad?
Wait til the white man gets his ‘freak’ on.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
walking in hell June 10, 2012 at 03:20

“Being nice and trying to appease feminists wasn’t working, despite decades of effort. ”

Better start working harder and faster. Male suicide is really hitting the younger males. Check this out: a seven year old boy committed suicide by hanging himself. His parents had recently separated (mom probably threw the dad out) and the was being bullied for being the only boy in the house. Notice how the article downplays the separation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-25/detroit-child-suicide/55200606/1?csp=obinsite

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
David G June 10, 2012 at 04:04

Why are posters here attacking AVfm? We’re on the same side.
I enjoy both Spearhead and AVfM.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 11
JFP June 10, 2012 at 04:19

“It’s unfortunate that we had to resort to being ungentlemanly to make a difference,”

It was inevitable. They’re not playing by Victorian chivalrist rules, its the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The feminists have owned the narrative for a couple of decades now, playing on their field gets you nowhere. You can’t have your moderates (like glen sacks et al) without the ungentlemanly extremists. The moderates alone will just be demonized as extremists.

I woke up from my mostly moderate stances (we can talk/hug it out) around 07-08 when it was pointed out that, if Clinton’s blowjob scandal kept the feminists in line cause he was their guy and they could still toss out the basic anti male shaming lines (and laws), they’re not going to be reasoned with through talk and compromise. You have to go after their funding and throw their arguments back at them with logic and be ungentlemanly.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
greyghost June 10, 2012 at 05:54

JeremiahMRA
This website was started at about the time Glen Sacks ended his dite for comments. He was a “fight Fair” kind of guy. The work of moderating his comments was kicking his ass. At about that tiome I was looking around and found the Spearhead. At the time This was a complete free fire zone. Globalman was here then. Women were refered to with any term you wanted ( I used blood clot once or twice) Men said a spoke on articles what they felt and with out any concern for the feelings of some cunt doing the typical shutting down of the gathering of men. My favorite night the article was about a believe a British officer that was disable and his wife was openly abusing the guy and getting away with it due to the usual misandry. The place was rolling like a chat round with near instant replies to comments and a small group of women were here trying to squash the male emotions that were of the nature of “fuck you bitch” It was awesome to see men speeking out loud on an international manner without any censorship and they told the truth. Free beta males tell the truth.
This blog has made a huge difference. It is one of the few places feminist are aware of and leave along. Individual women come here to troll and are usually gone in a couple or three articles. The only place this gets mentioned it seems to me is on is on mangina sites. Femminist don’t want any more men knowing about blogs that men speak freely. Other blogs like Dalrock have Spearhead type commenters on his site that keep his female commenters in check. Even women that are trying to be suppoertive need to have the team woman,blue pill residue slapped out of them accasionally.
So relax and enjoy being a part of history. If things are not going fast enough go to off topic sites Yahoo articles that have comments are a good way to make MRA type comments. Some get it. Some women get it, I have been replied to as a “bitter loser’ twice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 5
Craig June 10, 2012 at 06:03

The problem is we need a birth-control pill for men. Vasectomies are an option for older men but in this country probably no doctor will give one to a man under the age of 30. Condoms? Might as well not bother with sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
greyghost June 10, 2012 at 06:07

Craig
That would be something we need to as a sphere to push for. A male BCP combined with the red pill would change history overnight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
dragnet June 10, 2012 at 06:15

@ JeremiahMRA

You’re 100 percent wrong about AVfM—please site specific examples about how those guys have gone soft.

Links or STFU.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 20
FFP June 10, 2012 at 06:24

The best way is to just keep it in your pants. If you have sex, be ready to have a kid. And in every culture and society you will be expect to care for your kid. Otherwise, you’re not a human.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 21
Uncle Elmer June 10, 2012 at 06:39

“You push a man enough, he’ll start pushing back. Count on it.”

When you get pushed, commenting is like breathing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Tom June 10, 2012 at 07:01

AVfM has gone soft??

Really? I don’t know what you are smoking (or maybe yet another astroturfer)

Paul Elam, John the Other, Girl Writes What and Typhon Blue are awesome. If you don’t like what they are doing, get off your lazy bum and start your own site / radio show / activism..

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 19
Jim June 10, 2012 at 07:27

What should be asked is why are men CHOOSING to engage in sex in the first place when they have no CHOICE in the matter of paternity or child support? Men want to hedge the outcome of sex to their future in this nation with the laws squarely against them are in fact promoting everything that goes against them. Think long and hard about that because the modern excuse where we are using “animal” instincts is in fact why civilization is crumbling. Either you are men or animals but you can never be both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8
dragnet June 10, 2012 at 07:53

@ Tom

Exactly. It’s hilarious to read these keyboard warriors railing against actual activists like Paul Elam and the rest of the AVfM crew.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 12
Craig June 10, 2012 at 07:59

greyghost:

“A male BCP combined with the red pill would change history overnight.”

Maybe that’s why there isn’t one? A lot of people and institutions have big $$ and power invested in the system as it is. Fewer births means fewer taxpayers to fund this Ponzi scheme they’ve shackled us to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer June 10, 2012 at 08:02

example :

Should You Ask for a Raise with Your Mani-Pedi?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2012/06/09/should-you-ask-for-a-raise-with-your-mani-pedi

elmer :

I am shocked to find this essay in ForbesWoman after my recent expose’ about human trafficking in “Women’s Day Spas”.

As if that weren’t enough, most of the workers in these establishments are Vietnamese, yet another underpaid and marginalized minority being exposed to deadly toxins to serve the vanity of privileged white females.

ForbesWoman should stick to reviewing scientific studies proving that older males are mean to women and should be driven out of the modern workplace.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Jim June 10, 2012 at 08:08

You guys have got to understand that you are the cause of your own situations. I don’t understand why men rally around a male birth control pill, cry foul at forced child support, expect women to see how unfair their treatment is, claim that sex is animalistic and use it as an excuse for entitlement and the resultant abuse they get yet don’t realize that the problem begins and ends with them. Sure the system is unfair but the question still remains, why do you choose to keep it going? Especially when one has the ability to overcome it. It’s in my BEST INTEREST to ensure that I make it before any offspring is it not? Then why would I engage in activities that are detrimental to it? Especially with women who have been PROGRAMMED to believe they are innocent of all matters. The longer men continue to act out of impulse and think in the herd mentality of fitting in, the longer the misandry continues.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 18
greyghost June 10, 2012 at 08:15

Jim where the hell have you been the last 10-20 years. Infact are you some “sarah” or worse ” jennifer’ thinking you are going to get one past the knuckledraggers? Don’t you worry about the system, we got this dawg.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Soapwort McFuggletoes June 10, 2012 at 08:16

The article itself has the sound of hand wringing and overt rationalization for the status quo. I don’t hear any intent to change a thing. Rather it seems the manifest effects of a systemic bias are just getting more difficult to simple ignore and dismiss.

From the article:
>> There is the possibility that a woman who has a baby against a man’s will should in some moral, if not legal universe, claim financial responsibility for that child.

The author tries to impose a false separation of the legal and the moral. Legal impositions are themselves morally guided. Thus, it is the moral thing that women take financial responsibility just as seriously as any man.

Curious how the author is ready to call men ‘deadbeats’ and the disavowment of financial obligation as a type of abuse. Where is the equivalency for the women? Oh, yeah, that’s the part where they get to commit infanticide just so long as the umbilical cord has yet to be cut…clearly, not abusive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Ryan June 10, 2012 at 08:18

I can see why men choose to go their own way. There are too many people who have hidden agendas, and you don’t know who is genuine. People will tell you they have your best interests at heart, and they are going to make everything better, but they usually are just trying to control you. It is important to take everything with a grain of salt, and to not allow yourself to become just another Kool-Aid drinker. A man who thinks for himself and calls other people on their bullshit is a dangerous man because he cannot be controlled. Each website seems to be a tribe, and anyone who questions anything about the tribe is banned from the tribe because they didn’t toe the line, even if their concerns or questions were genuine.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Attila June 10, 2012 at 09:15

Just have anal/oral sex– how do you think the b*tches are going to react to that? LOL!

No mo’ v@g sex!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Attila June 10, 2012 at 09:17

What the fembots say doesn’t matter — they will always complain so you might as well do what your conscience/inner daemon tells you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Tom936 June 10, 2012 at 10:02

FFP June 10, 2012 at 06:24
The best way is to just keep it in your pants. If you have sex, be ready to have a kid. And in every culture and society you will be expect to care for your kid. Otherwise, you re not a human.

That benighted opinion has been shot down so often in the manosphere that it seems like it must be a troll.

I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. Women aren’t expected to. Not just in “every culture and society”, in this one, the society you’re living in and posting from. So you are saying that women aren’t human, a radical opinion which I have not heard voiced in the manosphere before.

So I bet that was just aimed at men.

We see the double standard, even if you do not. So if you think about it, you are actually making Katie and Chuck’s point for them.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Raj June 10, 2012 at 10:29

Idea that solution is for men to just keep it in their pants is both cruel and dishonest when its ok for women do everything they can to take it out.

Its just like the Slutwalk protest. “I will do everything to provoke a rape to occur but its the men who are bad” Its simply dishonest. Also unrealistic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
keyster June 10, 2012 at 10:37

This is a slog; a War, not a Battle.
Everything anyone is doing on the internet today is better than doing nothing at all. You just keep pushing forward and adapting the narrative as needed. It’s an asymetrical “New Media” insurgency that keeps probing the zeitgeist for weakness, deconstructing the Feminist narrative with it’s own language and data.

The Mainstream Media is just now showing signs of breakthrough. They’ve been stubbornly ignoring “Men’s Issues” because they’re 90% Leftist/Feminist. And overlorded by Feminist media watchdog organizations that will unleash their torrent of PR threats to ANYONE that criticizes feminism or women as a group.

Rule of Thumb: If you’re going to talk about feminism/women in a critical fashion tread VERY lightly, or you will suffer financially. They’ll see to it.

Track the comments on any news website about gender issues and they’re quicky overloaded with anti-feminist sentiment. It’s working. Building awareness takes time, especially when you have nothing but a a few websites to promote it. Eventually a major newsroom editor or publisher will have no choice but to cover “anti-feminism” or Men’s Rights. It’s just a matter of who’ll be the first to take the plunge and how they handle it.

Both here and the AVfM team posit thoughtful and well-reasoned (and relentless) arguments that can’t be ignored forever. It’s gonna pop, you can sense it coming. Those who criticize ANYONE’S efforts are useless distractions, whose only contribution is finding something wrong in everything.

Putting up stickers in public places, You Tube videos, Blog Talk Radio, women/blacks/gays/left/right/transexuals – – matters not, as long as there’s perpetual effort.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 9
FFP June 10, 2012 at 10:43

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26
Nehalem June 10, 2012 at 11:06

Raj:”Idea that solution is for men to just keep it in their pants is both cruel and dishonest when its ok for women do everything they can to take it out.”

Its worse. If you suggest that a woman keep her legs together you hate women. Which would seem to make it clear that by their own logic feminists hate men

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
keyster June 10, 2012 at 11:22

They won’t have abortions when nobody wants to have sex with them anymore.

Eric – Call me crazy, but I don’t think convincing men to avoid having sex with women is a viable strategy. Maybe a few million here or there already are, by choice or otherwise, but getting a Billion men to not have sex with women might be a tough sell. Just sayin’…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Eric June 10, 2012 at 12:53

Keyster & Others:
Of course, we’ll never convince men not to have sex. But men can be more selective about whom they have sex and children with. We know the attitudes women in our culture have, and what they do to men. Avoid sex with them.

The feminists tell us that ‘women are the owners of sex and reproduction.’ But that doesn’t mean that only feminist women have a monopoly on either. Men have some power too. We can give sex or make babies with women who value sex with men and think children are great, not just a ‘piece of tissue’ to be disposed of at will.

This is one of the main issues I have with Game/PUA. I think it lowers men to the level of our feminist Slut Culture. Men should seperate themselves from the feminist Slut Culture and reward deserving women (non feminist/sluts) with things like sex and children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 13:48

“AVfM is making MRM ideas more mainstream and is actually doing something”

But just “doing something” isn’t actually accomplishing anything. AVfM does not focus on results but on feeling good about “doing something”. Unless you focus on long-term results with a solution in mind, you aren’t doing anything, really. And AVfM does not focus on long-term solutions. Mostly they just focus on complaining and pointing out problems, but not actually looking for genuine ways to solve these problems. Why? Because the solutions to these problems are not pretty, especially to manginas and women.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 13:54

@evilwhitemalempire

I don’t listen to AVfM Radio anymore since they took the focus from talking about meaningful stuff to just complaining endlessly and inviting women in to teach men how to be men. :/ But I can’t say I’m at all surprised. Any movement that looks to women for direction and guidance can never benefit men, as women are programmed to think only of themselves. I sparred with typhonblue a couple times on Reddit, and she has some serious issues regarding men and women; she seems to genuinely think we are exactly the same. GWW is pretty good for the most part, but she can’t seem to help blabbering about how her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband deserves to die (misandry). Women, even the “best” of them, can never seem to get past their jealousy and hatred of men. It’s sad yet true. This is why any group that welcomes women into positions of power is doomed to failure, as the entire problem is that men voluntarily gave women power they only know how to abuse. The only goal we ought to have is to restore men to power and remove women’s power. Their right to vote, their power in the home, etc. A society and a home only function with men in charge and women subordinate. But a lot of people don’t like to hear that, and so they shy away from that truth and use shaming language to attack anyone who says that. That’s is exactly what AVfM does now.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 14
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 13:58

“You push a man enough, he’ll start pushing back. Count on it.”

Yes, a MAN will push back. But most males today aren’t really MEN. They were never taught how to be men. They don’t know how to stand up for themselves, to assert authority. They’ve been raised, like cattle, to be obsequious. A male today does not even have authority in his own home, because only women have power in the home today. A woman can abuse her man physically and verbally as much as she desires, and if a man ever stands up to it, she can either get her family or the authorities to take him away. So most males just take it, and give up. The few MEN who stand up to them, well they’re either in prison for defending themselves or dead because they killed their abuser and offed themselves.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 11
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 14:01

“Why are posters here attacking AVfm? We’re on the same side.”

Not really. I’m on the side of getting results so that we have a functioning society again, which means reinstating male dominance in society and the home. AVfM is not interested in getting results; they prefer to retain female dominance in society and the home. They aren’t allies, they’re pretenders. I find more allies in the alternative right scene than at AVfM because many of them at least seem to understand what being a man means.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 16
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 14:08

Remember fellas, Angry Harry is right when he says women are the schemers, the phonies, and the frauds: http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenandChimps.htm?note

Any so-called MRA who doesn’t understand this will NEVER help men in any lasting way. You can’t institute real change without really understanding the problem.

“The problem is we need a birth-control pill for men.”

Actually that’s not a solution at all, since men who use birth control will reproduce much less than men who don’t. A better solution (well, part of it) is to virtually eliminate birth control for women. As usual, putting power in the hands of women is bad for everyone, and the power to reproduce should never be in their hands.

@dragnet

I’ll just quote Jack Donovan. He is referring to AVfM and sites like it:

The Men’s Rights movement wants men to have equal rights to women, who get a government rights subsidy. You seem to be proposing that some rights or roles exist for men alone. Do you think the MRM is barking up the wrong tree?

The MRM is a feminist movement. The poor bastards just don’t know it yet. Equality between the sexes is the stated goal of the feminist majority. However, feminists are humans, and because they are human they will ultimately protect and further their own interests, and that will lead to inequality. The MRM recognizes that feminism is creating inequality, but refuses to deal with the reality that equality is an impossible goal. It dooms itself by following behind feminism, shouting the same slogans and carrying the same signs.

“Equality! Equality! Equality!”

Further, the MRM seems to take the female view on happiness, meaning that happiness the result of security, plenty, and health. The MRM seems to accept a bizarre fiction — that men were the true victims of patriarchy. They base this on the idea that men had a lot of responsibility, and that they were forced to fight wars and sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It seems absurd to me that men would have lived like that for all of human history if they didn’t want it.

Men had more power throughout history because they had the ability to take it, and I think they made the world in their own image.

Women today are remaking the world in their own image.

My question to men is: “Do you want to live in that world? And if not, what are you going to do about it.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 14
Eric June 10, 2012 at 14:10

Uncle Elmer;
LOL we’re going to have to get a fishbowl set up and start taking bets on whether you or Greyghost is going to get banned from Forbes first!
I looks like you’re both giving the Sorority Grrrlz something to talk about at their ‘salon conferences’ LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 14:12

“It’s hilarious to read these keyboard warriors railing against actual activists like Paul Elam and the rest of the AVfM crew.”

Pfft, the idea that you can’t comment on a strategy if you aren’t doing something yourself is ignorant, a logical fallacy. Nevertheless, I’ve donated hundreds of dollars to AVfM, written articles for them, and helped guide their strategy in the past, you ignorant fool.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 14:15

“Everything anyone is doing on the internet today is better than doing nothing at all.”

This simply isn’t true. Promoting the equality myth is COUNTER-productive to men’s rights. This is what AVfM does. They are certainly not helping at all, and probably harming men in the long run. You need to think long term, not short term false gains.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 19
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 14:31

Addendum to my last comment.

Would you rather be raped in the ass with a pineapple (feminism), with a cucumber (AVfM), or not be raped at all (reinstating male dominance)?

Keyster calls being raped in the ass by a cucumber “better” than being raped in the ass by a pineapple. I don’t really see a significant difference between the two. Both feminism and AVfM want to embrace female power over men (see the Jack Donovan quote above).

Me, I’d rather not be raped in the ass at all.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 21
keyster June 10, 2012 at 15:38

Mostly they (AVfM) just focus on complaining and pointing out problems, but not actually looking for genuine ways to solve these problems. Why? Because the solutions to these problems are not pretty, especially to manginas and women.

What pray tell are these “solutions” of which you speak?
And please include a trigger-alert if it involves violence of any kind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Craig June 10, 2012 at 16:29

“Actually that’s not a solution at all, since men who use birth control will reproduce much less than men who don’t.”

Some of us don’t want to reproduce at all, but we would like to have sex occasionally. Have a kid? In this culture? What, I’ll work 80 hours a week at a job and have two hours a week with my kids, while MTV has forty hours a week with them? No thanks. A lot of us believe that starting families in this climate is a no-win situation. And I’ve found that those who harp on the reproduction meme do not have my best interests at heart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Emma the Emo June 10, 2012 at 17:37

JeremiahMRA,
I think you’re confusing equality of outcome with equality of legal rights. The former is what feminists want – they always say we need to do more, to use more money on getting more women into STEM and into top positions. The latter however, is extremely important. If you’re against that type of equality as well, then you might as well say that when one person enslaves another (because they are able to, like you said), it’s all good, it’s just how nature is. Of course, the rights I’m talking about are the bare basics, and where they can’t be equal due to different anatomy, they will have male and female equivalents (BC pills legal for both, abortion vs male equivalent of abortion legal or illegal for both at once). These don’t in any way guarantee equality of outcome on a large scale.

If you don’t accept the necessity of equality of basic rights, then what do you accept? Might makes right?

Also, if you insist men don’t really need a right to not be forced to kill or die in war, what’s the bad thing about giving them that right? Since they wouldn’t be killing&dying in war all these 100s of years if they didn’t want to, there’s no real need to force them to do it.

I also think that patriarchy wasn’t really a “male power” organization of society. Even today, when feminism is everywhere in the west, most leaders are still men. Doesn’t make it a “men in power” society. It’s most likely simply an organization that is most stable.

Another thing – when outlawing pills, you know what usually happens, war on drugs is a good example.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 10
Rod Van Mechelen June 10, 2012 at 18:04

I forget who, precisely, first floated the idea of “legal abortion” for men, but it was at about the same time that Katie Roiphe’s first book, The Morning After, came out. Generally, she hails from the same side of the intellectual tracks as Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, Camille Paglia and, more recently, GirlWritesWhat and Typhonblue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
YB June 10, 2012 at 19:07

Radical reflections on relationships in the 21st century:

* women have no need for a man
- they have their own careers
- they earn their own money
- they live in their own homes
- they are capable of aborting unwanted children
- they are quite capable of raising their own children

* men have no need for a woman
- they have their own careers
- they earn their own money
- they live in their own homes
- they are not needed in the raising of children

* therefore
- there is no need for dating any more (especially the man paying – very archaic)
- there is no reason for marriage any more (just an excuse for him to meddle)
- women are quite capable for themselves
- women are quite responsible for themselves

If women choose to give birth and bring up a child, that is their business. Any anonymous (and currently, often near-involuntary) sperm-donor man will do. She does not require any help from the man in any way: she is not a helpless child, she is a strong and independent woman, quite capable of coping well with all the problems that life can send her way.

He has no say on if she wishes to bring a child to term or if she wishes to abort said child. Similarly, since he has no choice in the matter, then he is not responsible in any way for the woman and her child. This is simple common-sense. After all, she has no real need for a man: he’d simply be a pain in the arse, always underfoot and causing problems.

Since he has no say or input into the life of the woman and the life and raising of the child, there is no responsibility towards either the woman and child. After all, the woman is totally independent: she doesn’t NEED his input in any way. And would most definitely resent any intrusions from the man into her life.

Given the complete lack of desire for his meddling in the life of the woman – and she most certainly has her own career and life and all – then there is no need for the man to provide anything for the woman and child. If he DID, then that opens up a huge can of worms. It opens up her life to the scrutiny of someone who may not have her best interests at heart.

So, any type of support payments: no.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
evilwhitemalempire June 10, 2012 at 19:49

They base this on the idea that men had a lot of responsibility, and that they were forced to fight wars and sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It seems absurd to me that men would have lived like that for all of human history if they didn’t want it.
*******************************

the basic argument of ‘non-partisan’ mrm is that men should all just get fed up with being the chauffer for women thus (ultimately) letting them take the wheel

which is exactly what feminists want!

while it is true that that chauffer drove the female more or less where she wanted to go throughout history he STILL had the wheel (and that gave him at least some control over his destiny)

but what do you honestly think will happen when the man tries to get in the back seat for a change?

wait a minute, i think typhon blue wants to jump in…….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Eric June 10, 2012 at 20:21

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire:
What these guys always forget is that feminists don’t want men in the back-seat, they want us out of the car altogether.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Tom936 June 10, 2012 at 20:37

FFP June 10, 2012 at 10:43
Women aren t expected to.

Excuse me,

No, as a matter of fact, I do not excuse you. What you just did was dishonest and I’m calling you on it.

I quoted what you said in full, but you snipped like a Feminist so that you could twist my words. Let’s restore the context so everybody can see what you tried to do. You originally said:

The best way is to just keep it in your pants. If you have sex, be ready to have a kid. And in every culture and society you will be expect to care for your kid. Otherwise, you re not a human.

So we’re originally talking about abortion, and you say that in every culture and society, everybody who has sex is expected to care for a resulting child. That is obviously false. Everyone who has ever heard of Roe v Wade knows that.

But after your snip, you pretended that you had never heard of abortion and that only child-rearing was at issue. That’s dishonest.

but who is raising your children in America?

So if we take your comment at face value, but not forgetting the context like you hoped we would, you are saying that women in America are raising the fetuses they aborted. Whatever you’re smoking, cut the dosage way down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Poester99 June 10, 2012 at 20:41

entitlement and the resultant abuse they get yet don’t realize that the problem begins and ends with them

yes, I happen to agree, but men are much less likely to herd and think with one group mind like women. So it’s to be expected that there will be many men will be stubborn and will end up being at least partially responsible for their own predicament.

Aside from education of fellow men we need to push to get it so the damage caused by toxic femininity is not magnified by law and left over customs from an old world based on some fundamentally different paradigms.

That, and the “man up” old men set need to be kicked in the ass with reality a little more often. Their wealth tends to shield them from seeing what actually happening out there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Poester99 June 10, 2012 at 20:49

So, any type of support payments: no.

ahh… logic, logic and fairness… how quaint.

*She* wants him to both pay *AND* have no say in the rearing of the child!

With *She* being the “royal” she, that is, feminist governance and individual women who will often accept that which is taken by force for their benefit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
LastCrucible June 10, 2012 at 20:53

@JeremiahMRA

I look forward to your comments. Two words. On point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
evilwhitemalempire June 10, 2012 at 20:53

What these guys always forget is that feminists don’t want men in the back-seat, they want us out of the car altogether.
**********

which is why letting them take the wheel (not ‘maning up’) isn’t really an option is it?

ever notice how “i refuse to man-up and support this misandric society!” rhetoric invokes a gut positive reaction in us without really thinking it through first? (we’ve all done it, felt it. i know i have)

also note how the crosshairs have been so subtly moved from female supremacy over to misandry (per se)

we suddenly find that the republican’s war on drugs with it’s disproportionate incarceration of blacks and hispanics (i.e. a race issue) is actually a female supremacist issue!?!?

that’ll keep the mra’s busy for a while! let them do the naacp’s fighting for it. that’ll take the heat off us fe-

wait i think typhon blue wants to jump in

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Poester99 June 10, 2012 at 21:06

Would you rather be raped in the ass with a pineapple (feminism), with a cucumber (AVfM), or not be raped at all (reinstating male dominance)?

cute… you seem to miss the point that “true” equality that is rights balanced with all the natural consequences that go with them will be extremely painful for them to swallow. That is a good strategy, and may actually lead to workable solutions to the benefit of all, without inflicting massive additional harm.
You, obviously prefer plan B.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire June 10, 2012 at 21:15

so long as the mrm remains ‘non-partisan’ it will only be a matter of time before avfm and others become virtually indistiguishable from lezabell, femifisting, etc.

“But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

-end of animal farm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 21:56

@Craig OBVIOUSLY the point is that those who reproduce create the next generation, and when men don’t reproduce and manginas do, the next generation is full of manginas. Again, someone who doesn’t have the ability to think beyond their next mouthful of food.

@keyster

Ask like an adult rather than a fairy princess and I may answer, fag.

@Emma

My quote of Jack Donovan already explained this. And all you have to do is look at the world around you to see what the result of pushing “equality” is.

“What these guys always forget is that feminists don’t want men in the back-seat, they want us out of the car altogether.
**********

which is why letting them take the wheel (not ‘maning up’) isn’t really an option is it?”

Yep. This is what I’m referring to. When men lead and women follow, AKA patriarchy, we have a thriving, vibrant society where men and women are both treated fairly. When men foolishly give women power, women take over the reigns, forcing men to follow, and society begins to unravel because women are incompetent leaders, short-sighted, and selfish. It happened to Rome, and it happened to us. Equality cannot be because women are not equal. Men must be educated to understand this again, and to lead. That’s part of the solution.

“so long as the mrm remains ‘non-partisan’ it will only be a matter of time before avfm and others become virtually indistiguishable from lezabell, femifisting, etc.”

Mmhm. The answer to our problems is conservatism i.e. patriarchy i.e. rationality (masculinity). The liberal (feminine) idea of equality i.e. women as superior is a false one, and the enemy to men. The alt right understands this. Sites like amerika.org.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18
Eric June 10, 2012 at 22:12

Keyster;
‘It’s gonna pop, you can feel it coming.’

I haven’t read enough of Voice for Men to comment one way or another on it: but I wanted to address this point of yours, since it’s not discussed enough.

I regularly frequent a few men’s blogs, much smaller than the Spearhead or AVfM. We were having a discussion on one recently about how Fleming, Futrelle and other anti-MRM bloggers have really ratcheted up their rhethoric lately; and some of these smaller blogs have seen a noticeable increase in troll attacks, hate mail and threats during the last six or so months. I don’t know about AVfM, but we all know that The Spearhead has been especially singled out by Futrelle and we’ve had a good share of troll attacks and similar mischief here recently.

The point is, I think that there’s a bigger backlash against feminism going on in the Anglosphere than the pundits want to admit, and that our enemies are increasing the counter-attack accordingly. If the last six months are any indication of what the next six are going to look like; I think that we are going into an ideological/cultural ‘war to the knife’ with the feminists and their allies a lot sooner than many people think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
greyghost June 10, 2012 at 22:46

JeremiahMRA
You are being one of those guys that derails shit. Just to make yourself sound and look superior to everybody else.
Lets talk about a real goal or Ideal. Equality how do you define equality. If you define equality as everyone enjoys the same outcome then yeah you are right that is some fuckin bitch shit. Now you define equality as under the law reguardless of outcome the then lets come up with a solution.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 22:47

“If the last six months are any indication of what the next six are going to look like; I think that we are going into an ideological/cultural ‘war to the knife’ with the feminists and their allies a lot sooner than many people think.”

Not really. Little will change until some form of collapse occurs and men and women are forced into sensible roles again. How to make that transition and restore patriarchy should be the focus. Anyone who does otherwise is merely wasting time.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 17
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 22:50

@greyghost You go for the personal attacks like a little girl. Grow up.

The goal is already clear: patriarchy. You have a goal, now look for solutions.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17
JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 22:53

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18
Eric June 10, 2012 at 23:14

JeremiahMRA:
‘Little will change until some kind of collapse occurs and men and women are forced into sensible roles again.’

What guarantee do you have that ‘a collapse’ is going to bring that about? It seems just as likely that a social, political, or economic collapse could be used to force men into even greater subservience to feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
greyghost June 10, 2012 at 23:18

Patriarchy is a default condition. When things are normal men will naturally be incharge due to female aversion to responsibility. Equality under the law will get us there. The rest of this shit from discussing mens issues,MGTOW, expatting,not marrying, Becoming players and PUA, actively seeking a male birth control pill are all directly and indirectly effecting the beaste with resorting to open warfare. Women have the vote. The childish little bitches need to some how suffer enough to vote out laws of misandry in their own self interest. Changing that part of female nature is senseless. This cultural non shooting war involves all of it.
JeremiahMRA patriarchy is not a goal it is a label cunts that called themselves femminist used to justify the laws of misandry we have today. I just want that bitch held to the same stantards under the law as any man. The rest of that shit from marriage to social and cultural misandry I don’t care about at and don’t need to.
These men you talk shit to and about are doing the job of changing the society for you and your son.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
Emma the Emo June 10, 2012 at 23:44

JeremiahMRA,
We’re pushing equality, but again, it’s the WRONG equality we’re pushing. We give women extra stuff. Don’t you think that giving people equal rights (like right to try any work, go to school of choice if they will have you), eliminating extra help (like affirmative action), stopping protecting people from consequences of their actions, and letting nature take its course, would pretty much recreate rather a lot of patriarchy? Nobody would be able to afford to make so many mistakes anymore, if no marriage meant no financial help. There would be very few women in powerful positions, because of no AA or political correctness. You would be welcome to try to get there, but if you couldn’t, you wouldn’t. It was pretty much how things were in the past, except women were banned from a couple of teaching places and birth control methods were more limited. Oh, and in some periods, it was illegal to have sex outside of marriage and prostitutes were punished physically. Undoubtedly, those things preserved patriarchy and order, but might be a too high price to pay for it. And the end doesn’t always justify the means. I know that saying no to certain artificial restrictions means a weaker patriarchy (but a patriarchy nontheless…), but if cutting off women’s ears and men’s noses created a superstrong patriarchy, I’d rather have a weaker one and not have to endure the maiming or enforce it on others.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5
Eric June 10, 2012 at 23:49

Greyghost:
Just as an example of the cultural impact, I read a census report recently that nearly 1/4 of married Asian-born women have an American-born husband. I doubt that (except for Uncle Elmer) many of those husbands are active in the MRM. But they’ve still taken a stand against feminist culture—saying ‘no’ to the feminist Amerobitch, and that’s important point.

These trends are well underway by themselves. The MRM is like adding N2O to the fuel. We’re teaching men that it’s OK to go against the feminist tidal wave and how much better it is for them that they do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Eric June 11, 2012 at 00:07

Emma:
I think part of the problem is that he’s confusing ‘equality’ with ‘polarity’. As long as gender polarity is maintained in a culture, equality is never an issue. Most countries have ‘equality’ and feminism is not a problem. It becomes a problem when gender-polarity is broken (like in the Anglosphere) and one gender becomes dominant to the point where it defines the entire culture. The Anglosphere is feminine-dominated; most of the Arab countries are masculine-dominated. Both cultures are suffering decline because of this lack of polarity (which is also part of the reason why they’re at war with each other).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
dhanu June 11, 2012 at 00:43

@JeremiahMRA The goal proposed by you is okay, but the situations or the means needed to achieve it are impractical. The damage that has been done by feminism during the last few decades is enormous, so much so that there seems to be no practical way to get out of this mess and back to the goal proposed by you. Hence your expectation of some miracle that would change the course for good (which, by the way, is uncertain as well). We cannot depend upon the possibility of such an uncertain and unlikely solution, which would be devastating and unwanted by most people; can we?

Therefore, what needs to be done is engage in gradual changes that would undo the effects of the similar (but opposite) feminist changes rolling over from past few decades. Some of these changes are happening naturally as people see wrong things happening around them; the MRM accelerates these changes. Some of these changes are much needed but not happening naturally to a large extent because most people are ignorant (part of the reason being the feminist controlled MSM and academia). The goal of MRM should, therefore, be to spread awareness about these much needed changes and continue to encourage the favorable changes that are already happening (like the increasing number of men staying away from marriage, etc).

Patriarchy is a broad word. There’s no mantra that we’ll utter like “Let patriarchy be” and there it is. We need to understand what constitutes patriarchy, and then need to (re-)establish those constituents, one by one or in parallel. As said, this is a long and gradual procedure, and we cannot expect to reinstate it within a short period as a result of some sudden unpleasant change. Feminism took many decades to shred those constituents. Re-establishing them is going to take at least as much time. MRM is just getting started.

And we need more people on our side: from all walks of life. Excluding someone is one thing, not refusing to include is another. Personally, I think AVfM is doing the second – it allows people (whatever sex, sexuality, color, country, etc) to join if they want to join. It also corrects them periodically if some of them seem to be going off-track. What you’re implying is, exclude some people who want to help us. While we might do without those people, the spread of MRM is going to be that much slower and limited without them. Yes, do not let them take over – that is obviously a strategy to failure (just look at anything around us). And I don’t see that happening at AVfM or here. Our allies, in any shape or form, are good for us. Okay, look at the feminists themselves. Who did the most damage? It wasn’t feminists or women; it was (and for the large part still is) their white knight enablers and mangina supporters. Because they’re the only ones who can fight with the patriarchy. And so they were eager to help feminism and they did it. In the same way, if some of the women feel that they can help us, why not let them? They might have their own reasons for doing this, plus, they have a voice at many a place where people want to hear them but not the rest of us.

As for the personal views of some of these helpful women about their ex’s, that doesn’t matter. The main thing is their activism and what they’re bringing to the table.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 02:59

“What guarantee do you have that ‘a collapse’ is going to bring that about?”

I have no such guarantee, but there doesn’t appear to be any other alternative that doesn’t take hundreds of years. We are extremely dysfunctional today and unless there is a collapse that forces men and women into proper roles again, it will take ages to slowly re-educate generations on how to be good men and women again.

“It seems just as likely that a social, political, or economic collapse could be used to force men into even greater subservience to feminism.”

Quite true. A collapse is necessary but not sufficient for restoring patriarchy in a reasonable amount of time. I actually don’t believe we’ll be successful at restoring patriarchy on a large scale, but in small groups in times of strife it will spring up, and those who understand what it means to be a man may be prepared.

“When things are normal men will naturally be incharge due to female aversion to responsibility. Equality under the law will get us there.”

Not even close. When things were normal we had patriarchy, before equality under the law. When we got equality under the law, women took over. You cannot have patriarchy and equality under the law because when women gain equal rights they abuse them, gaining superior rights and continuing to use their own superior status in non-legal matters to abuse their power. Equal rights for women is anathema to a stable, patriarchal society.

“And the end doesn’t always justify the means”

Yes it does. That is liberal thinking. Conservative, rational thinking is the solution. Not something women are capable of. A patriarchal society where women wear burqas and honor killings ensure women’s obedience would be FAR superior to our modern society where women do whatever the hell they want.

“The Anglosphere is feminine-dominated; most of the Arab countries are masculine-dominated. Both cultures are suffering decline because of this lack of polarity (which is also part of the reason why they’re at war with each other).”

Not at all. Patriarchal societies are successful; matriarchal societies are self-destructive. The proper civilization is lead by men, with women in subservient roles. It is proper because it is stable, fair, productive, and lasting. That is, until it becomes so successful that women (and to a smaller degree manginas) gain leisure time through technology and begin to assert their evolutionary survival strategy in the larger public sphere, which is selfishness and emotionality. Liberalism/feminism/egalitarianism ensues, and the destruction begins. It happened to Rome, it has happened here. Potential solutions to prevent a future patriarchal society from devolving are to somehow instill in men the truth that women are inferior so much that they NEVER forget, or perhaps to limit technology so that there is no opportunity for women to ravage the family and society. More likely the rise and fall of civilizations will continue to follow this pattern again and again. Or perhaps the globalist Leftists will be successful in slaughtering billions and resulting in a society much like this one, stagnant and dysfunctional.

“Therefore, what needs to be done is engage in gradual changes that would undo the effects of the similar (but opposite) feminist changes rolling over from past few decades.”

It doesn’t work that way. Either we go forward to collapse and begin anew, or we remain virtually where we are now, stagnant. Somewhere in between is where we have a decline but perhaps not a full collapse, and we are slightly better than now, but still extremely flawed as a civilization. You cannot reverse the damage that has been done in the same way that liberals caused the damage. The victim ideology cannot work for men because men are not viewed as victims. Nor would we want that, since the victim ideology of Leftism is the problem in the first place. Like I said before, I’d rather not get fucked in the ass at all than settle for a cucumber. There’s no guarantee I won’t get fucked in the ass anyway, but I’m going to try, which means not settling for the cucumber like you. Your gradual changes cannot work because liberalism cannot be reversed so easily. They will very soon stop short at solving the problem, only delaying actual solutions.

“Patriarchy is a broad word. There’s no mantra that we’ll utter like “Let patriarchy be” and there it is. We need to understand what constitutes patriarchy, and then need to (re-)establish those constituents, one by one or in parallel. As said, this is a long and gradual procedure, and we cannot expect to reinstate it within a short period as a result of some sudden unpleasant change. Feminism took many decades to shred those constituents. Re-establishing them is going to take at least as much time. MRM is just getting started.”

It’s simple. Men as head of household with full authority over their wives and children, women in the home where they belong, liberty without government intervention. Without that, we’ll remain right where we are, living in a matriarchy. And the only way we can get there again is through collapse because it’s the only way men (and even women) will remember their proper roles. A conservative society will become liberal as long as luxury is there to allow for it and measures are not taken to prevent it. A liberal society cannot learn to be conservative again unless forced to because human beings are stupid and generally prefer to take the easy route. The easy route is not having to think about these issues, or to follow liberalism and feel lovey dovey about this idea of equality.

In order to restore patriarchy, you’d have to eliminate all the laws that give women power over men and teach young men how to be men. The only way this will happen is if there is a collapse, and women are forced to allow men to take charge once again, and men are forced to do the taking charge. Within a generation most our problems would be solved, albeit temporarily.

“And we need more people on our side: from all walks of life.”

Not really. We don’t need useless people, as they accomplish nothing. Nor will anyone who refuses to acknowledge reality.

“As for the personal views of some of these helpful women about their ex’s, that doesn’t matter.”

Of course it does. It only proves that women cannot lead us to patriarchy, only men can. Women on some level all hate men, and it shows. They envy us, they loathe that they depend on us because we are superior, and they know that their being angry motivates us to give them what they want. What do these women in the “MRM” want? They want to be equal to men, even though they are not. In other words, just like feminists, they want special privileges. GirlWritesWhat wants the privilege of being able to ponder murdering her ex on The Good Men Project, but doesn’t want men to have the privilege of pondering doing the same about women. And she doesn’t want this because it makes sense, and it’s good for families and society, she wants it because she is selfish, and she wants what makes her feel good. Same with TyphonBlue. Same with all women, really. They can’t help us other than in a supporting role, in supporting men as leaders and women as subservient. And they’ll only do that when forced to.

You keep talking about feelings rather than results. I don’t care about including people who don’t actually want to solve anything just so we all feel good. Feeling good doesn’t accomplish anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 03:09

And yes, dhanu, you’ll claim again that these people actually want results, they want to find solutions, and that your strategy of slowing fighting feminism and misandry is going to work somehow. Well, you’re absolutely wrong. First, if these people actually wanted results, why do they refuse to talk about solutions? I’ve asked the fellas at AVfM a few times now to talk about solutions. They never do. It’s because they are afraid of the solutions, and they’d rather just feel good about doing something, even if that something is a waste, even if it is actually harmful in the long run. There aren’t many people who can fully let go of the conditioning they’ve been exposed to in this Leftist dysfunctional society, who can fully recognize their own cognitive dissonance, and even though plenty so-called MRAs “get it” in a lot of respects, their refusal to connect the dots with the overall picture and with Leftism proves they really aren’t interested in solutions at all.

We can’t reverse liberalism through changes within the dysfunctional system. It’s just not possible. The system itself must be scrapped, through revolution or collapse. Since there aren’t enough people willing and able to revolt, a collapse is necessary for real change.

I will provide some links to sources regarding the decline and why liberalism can not be reversed through words in the next comment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
freebird June 11, 2012 at 03:29

The real problem is the legal caste system,where the rich man,the judge,cop,and lawyer think it’s a great idea to try a man on whimsical accusation,because they are largely immune to such prosecution themselves.

How to roll back Unconstitutional laws and fight against an obligarchy fueled by corporatism funded government?(fascism)

The wymyns rights issue is a red herring,they are useful idiots in the furtherance of a burgeoning Police state.

What to do, what to do?
Has any populace EVER regained personal liberty by begging their “masters” for their God given (Now State given) rights back?

The whole point of having lefty women running the schools is to obliterate the lexicon and thought process of freedom Animal farm style.

This generation zero has never seen freedom as the older boomers once knew it.It is alien to them, that is why the discourse always goes in useless circles of Hegelian dialects.

That is why the media ramps up the
“Grand Wurlitzer.”
Bread and circus’
Yeah, the greatest ongoing mission is to change the language and ‘frame’ to an inert emasculated estrogen fueled
politically correct double speak.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 03:34

Yes, freebird. The Constitution, individualism, liberty, masculine values, and patriarchy go hand in hand. Destruction of the Constitution, communism, fascism, feminine values, and matriarchy go hand in hand. A few key milestones on how we got on this path, are:

1789 when people decided that they could do without specialized leaders: http://www.amerika.org/globalism/undoing-modernity/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 03:36

And the mid-1800s when Lincoln wiped his ass with the Constitution and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men to force a more centralized government: http://www.amazon.com/review/RURCCTOVVOSII/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0761536418&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 03:42

Oh, and 1913 when the US government began stealing our incomes with the 16th amendment, took us further toward democracy (tyranny of the masses) with the 17th, and really set us on the path toward destruction with the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote and leading to the gynocentric welfare/nanny/police state we live in today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
freebird June 11, 2012 at 04:15

Good work there Jeremiah.
Here’s my flipping the gender in Dworkin’s rabid fem-spewings.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/in-their-own-words.html

“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations – for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right – these institutions are real and they must be destroyed. If they are not, we will be consigned as women to perpetual inferiority and subjugation.” — Andrea Dworkin.

“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations – for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on mother-right – these institutions are real and they must be destroyed. If they are not, we will be consigned as men to perpetual inferiority and subjugation.”

“Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it–only then will we know what it is to be free.”

“Only when feminism is dead–and it will perish when ravaged masculinity no longer sustains it–only then will we know what it is to be free.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
freebird June 11, 2012 at 04:25

We live in a police state where every man is deputized. . . . In the United States, violence against women is a major pastime. It is a sport. It is an amusement. It is a mainstream cultural entertainment. And it is real. It is pervasive. It is epidemic. It saturates the society.

We live in a police state where every woman is deputized. . . . In the United States, violence against men is a major pastime. It is a sport. It is an amusement. It is a mainstream cultural entertainment. And it is real. It is pervasive. It is epidemic. It saturates the society.

“Marriage is a legal license to rape.”
Marriage is a legal license to steal.

“Marriage is just like prostitution,except you make a deal with just one person”
Ditto.

Well that’s enough examples.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
dhanu June 11, 2012 at 06:01

@JeremiahMRA “I have no such guarantee, but there doesn’t appear to be any other alternative that doesn’t take hundreds of years. We are extremely dysfunctional today and unless there is a collapse that forces men and women into proper roles again, it will take ages to slowly re-educate generations on how to be good men and women again.”

Since there’s no practical way to bring about that collapse (let us not forget that it must be worldwide, just as the feminism is), this is a wishful thinking (a feel-good way, if you will). If not, how do we plan to bring about such a collapse, and would the consequences be overall positive? Can we afford to ignore all the negative impacts it would have?

“Quite true. A collapse is necessary but not sufficient for restoring patriarchy in a reasonable amount of time. I actually don’t believe we’ll be successful at restoring patriarchy on a large scale, but in small groups in times of strife it will spring up, and those who understand what it means to be a man may be prepared.”

No, this is way less serious a thinking for such a grand change. What times of strife? Is there a particular date/time you’re waiting for? I’ll chalk out a way how this ‘collapse’ would take place. Read on.

“Potential solutions to prevent a future patriarchal society from devolving are to somehow instill in men the truth that women are inferior so much that they NEVER forget”

And the exact opposite is currently happening, which means the feminism is on the right track for its own goals.

“or perhaps to limit technology so that there is no opportunity for women to ravage the family and society”

Nope. Technology itself is just a means. The usage depends upon its users. Limiting technology is not the solution; it’s a backward thinking. Using it properly for our own benefit is the solution. Consider the Internet, for example. Whatever MRM is, most of it exists only because of this technology. Limit it and MRM is non-existent. Feminism is kinda a religion. All kinds of delusional people can get affected by it and become the followers, no matter they have free time or not. You can find all kinds of feminists: Rich, poor, working, non-working, home-makers, students, teachers, engineers, doctors, politicians, etc. Technology is not to blame; its wrong usage is. Feminism can be there even when there’s no technology; the state is the enabler. And as long as the state is not interfering, progress of technology doesn’t in itself cause feminism to grow, because it enables all the people (it makes the lives of men easier without women just as it does the other way round). It’s the government that makes the shift of resources one way (taking its part during the transfer). We need to make technology one of our weapons and friends, not avoid or despise it. In fact, as the STEM enrollments show, and as has historically been the case forever, technology itself is a man’s area and its friend. It fully depends upon scientific and logical thinking. The feminists desperately want to push women into it in order to dilute it or (the more radical ones) end it. The reason is clear: They know they get their power through the state, not technology.


It doesn’t work that way. Either we go forward to collapse and begin anew, or we remain virtually where we are now, stagnant.”

See, you suggest a collapse but no means to achieve it and no guarantee that it would be favorable. Let me explain what the gradual changes mean and how they can achieve a real and favorable ‘collapse’. You’d agree that for the collapse to happen, all the men must stop supporting the police state and bowing to its tyrannical policies. Right? Because otherwise, even if a collapse happens, the government can always shamelessly impose all the burden of making it back up on to the men (just like it does in case of wars etc). This will continue unless most men are not even aware of the tyranny that they’re living in. The first step to stop this is awareness. Today, a handful of people are aware of the problems faced by men; tomorrow there will be more; and so on. When a very large segment of population is aware of the problems, they’ll start to oppose the rulers and find the solution.

Okay, consider an example. When there’s a case of something wrong happening to a girl in a school, the whole system opposes it claiming discrimination etc. People oppose it because they’ve been made aware of the problems women face, be it real or imaginary. But, when the exact same thing happens to a boy, there might not even be a news story published about it. OTOH, the boy gets lower grades or is expelled from the school. And nobody complains. Why? Because people are not aware of the problems faced by the men in general; they consider it to be a particular case and do not view it in a larger perspective.

Next, consider an area where there are men fully aware of the discrimination being done against them by the system. In such an area, if the same wrong thing happens to a boy, people will gather in groups and demand justice, or they’ll take the law in their hands. When such things become a routine, more people become aware of the issues and it becomes gradually impossible for the government to continue its unjust ways. And then the laws and rules start changing. The beginning of the ‘collapse’ of the feminism. A sure and practical way (the awareness phase is long and hard, though; once it’s crossed, everything is like a downhill journey).

Right now, we’re in the beginning phase (making people aware and getting more of them on our side). Because, no collapse or revolution is possible by a handful of people; the tyrannical government will crush them, setting a negative example for the others who wanted to follow along.

“You cannot reverse the damage that has been done in the same way that liberals caused the damage. The victim ideology cannot work for men because men are not viewed as victims. Nor would we want that, since the victim ideology of Leftism is the problem in the first place.”

Our rights have been snatched and we’re being enslaved, and everyday we’re being subjected to harsher rules, laws, and penalties – to the point of being ridiculous. If we’re not the victims now, I don’t know when we will be. It doesn’t matter we want to be viewed as victims or not; we are. And fighting for our rights is not the victim ideology. Victim ideology comes into picture only when demanding special powers and benefits on the basis of being the victims (true or false). Fighting for our rights is not the same as demanding special rights. All the wrong things are happening to us and we ARE victims and public at large needs to know that. Just because it involves the word victim doesn’t mean it becomes bad. Being victims is not bad in itself (nor under our control); playing the victim card for the special rights and powers is. People need to be made aware of our victim status, it’s the truth. What do you think is the ‘red pill’ we continue to hear about? Once people at large are aware of the truth (who is the true victim), only then a revolution is possible. You’ll be surprised to know that most men have no idea what can happen to them if they allow their girlfriend to stay at their house! They continue to think that the house has been bought in their names and so the woman cannot have any share in it, just like it would have been had it been the woman’s house. How do you expect such people to oppose the rules and laws or rally against them when they don’t even know them?

“Your gradual changes cannot work because liberalism cannot be reversed so easily. They will very soon stop short at solving the problem, only delaying actual solutions.”

What are the actual solutions, then?

“It’s simple. Men as head of household with full authority over their wives and children, women in the home where they belong, liberty without government intervention.”

Yes, that’s just the definition. What I meant was, what are the factors that result in achieving this? And how do we get them? The first requirement is rooting out the discriminatory laws. For that, a large scale public backlash is necessary everywhere. And for that public need be aware of those laws and their ill effects.

“In order to restore patriarchy, you’d have to eliminate all the laws that give women power over men and teach young men how to be men. The only way this will happen is if there is a collapse, and women are forced to allow men to take charge once again, and men are forced to do the taking charge. Within a generation most our problems would be solved, albeit temporarily.”

We coincide at the first point (eliminating bad laws). However, we differ at the solution. But it’s not all or nothing. We can continue to try our own methods, as long as they all lead to the same thing. I think you shouldn’t call all other methods wrong simply because they differ from yours.

“Not really. We don’t need useless people, as they accomplish nothing. Nor will anyone who refuses to acknowledge reality.”

They make the votes. Votes are political power. Right or wrong, this IS the case.


Of course it does.”

Without knowing anything about her ex, we cannot conclude anything. Maybe he really was bad; maybe she’s over-reacting; whatever. The thing is, I didn’t even know of this thing until you said it here. So what? It’s a particular supporter’s personal matter and doesn’t affect anything. We cannot throw the baby with the bathwater. We don’t know about her ex but even if this is one problem, I think it’s not logical to ignore or refuse all her valuable contributions. Again, it becomes a feeling thing. What someone says about an ex is one’s personal feelings. What one is doing in the activism is the real thing. We can have the sense to ignore what’s fluff and accept what’s substantial. What you’re suggesting is an all black-or-white approach. No one is perfect. We cannot strive for a group of people who are absolutely perfect at everything.

“It only proves that women cannot lead us to patriarchy, only men can. Women on some level all hate men, and it shows. They envy us, they loathe that they depend on us because we are superior, and they know that their being angry motivates us to give them what they want.”

We can ignore those ‘feelings’, as long as they’re contributing positively.

“GirlWritesWhat wants the privilege of being able to ponder murdering her ex on The Good Men Project, but doesn’t want men to have the privilege of pondering doing the same about women.”

So we’re not forced to adopt that idea of hers, and we can make her aware of our stand. If she complies, okay. If not, write her off. Sometimes, you might have a different opinion and another man can have different. So this becomes more of a fuzzy case. This is possible with anyone’s views.

“And yes, dhanu, you’ll claim again that these people actually want results, they want to find solutions, and that your strategy of slowing fighting feminism and misandry is going to work somehow. Well, you’re absolutely wrong. First, if these people actually wanted results, why do they refuse to talk about solutions?”

I cannot decide until you tell me what those solutions are, and why they’re the only ones or the best ones.

“We can’t reverse liberalism through changes within the dysfunctional system. It’s just not possible. The system itself must be scrapped, through revolution or collapse. Since there aren’t enough people willing and able to revolt, a collapse is necessary for real change.”

Since there’s no viable means of collapse, gathering enough people for a revolution might be another strategy. No? At least it cannot hurt and can go along with your plans of a collapse, however you might be planning to bring one about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Emma the Emo June 11, 2012 at 06:34

“Yes it does. That is liberal thinking. Conservative, rational thinking is the solution. Not something women are capable of. A patriarchal society where women wear burqas and honor killings ensure women’s obedience would be FAR superior to our modern society where women do whatever the hell they want.”

“Ends justifies the means” is obvious feminist thinking, as they always want to ensure group equality of outcome, no matter what. Increase number of accusations of rape that lead to conviction, no matter what. What you’re suggesting is only slightly less morally wrong.

Some things remain wrong, even if they lead to a result you want. You simply do not get to decide for another adult person, unless they give you permission to decide for them, verbally or otherwise. Slavery and subjugation is wrong unless they wanted slavery and subjugation. But I’m afraid our conversation will get nowhere, as you clearly have a completely different set of ethics and values than me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Craig June 11, 2012 at 06:45

Very interesting discussion:
1. some men want to save Western civilization.
2. Some men just want a happy fulfilling life.

If men concentrate on (2) then (1) will take care of itself. Does anyone else think it obvious that feminist societies reproduce less?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Towgunner June 11, 2012 at 06:52

@Tiredguy:

From your first post, yes yes and yes. Let them fall on their faces. Right, we all have mothers. My mother has nothing in common with today’s women and the feminist creatures that lead them. So, I can confidently leave her out…it is that easy. Ergo, there should be no stopping men from letting wynmen fall flat on their faces. Frankly, when you take away the cowardly illusion of passive aggression, you see clearly the malice of intent on the part of women vs. men. If anyone needs more clarity, I suggest turning on the tv and try to watch anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
GS Jockey June 11, 2012 at 07:53

Note the disconnect:

@ JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 21:56
“keyster, Ask like an adult rather than a fairy princess and I may answer, fag.”

Followed less than an hour later by:

@JeremiahMRA June 10, 2012 at 22:53
“From now on if you wish to converse with me do it with a respectful tone. That means Keyster, don’t be condescending, and greyghost, don’t use ad hominems.”

Hello? Pot calling the kettle black here? Who is the one using ad hominems? Why is it that some men like Jeremiah appear to have commentary to contribute that is useful and relevant to the discussion, but then fumble the ball and piss away their credibility by resorting to childish name-calling? In point of fact, Keyster is a long-standing and respected member of this community, and anything but a “fairy princess” or a “fag.”

My recommendation to Jeremiah and others is to remember that it is possible for reasonable men to disagree. Breathe through your nose, people. Have a conversation like men instead of teenage boys. Stay on fucking point.

GS Jockey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
keyster June 11, 2012 at 08:07

I think part of the problem is that he’s confusing ‘equality’ with ‘polarity’. As long as gender polarity is maintained in a culture, equality is never an issue.

Eric – That’s an accurate statement. Men and women are equal in VALUE to humanity. Women becoming men, by cultural and/or government force, otherwise known as Feminism – – is the problem. “Gender roles” mean something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
dragnet June 11, 2012 at 08:23

@ Eric

“I think part of the problem is that he’s confusing ‘equality’ with ‘polarity’. As long as gender polarity is maintained in a culture, equality is never an issue.”

‘Equality vs Polarity’…I’ve never heard it put this way, but I like it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 10:21

A sampling of links regarding topics discussed. I took out the http headers so they’d show up.

Regarding the decline and its roots in misandry: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

More general description of the decline and similarities to Rome: books.google.com/books?id=bSbgh4YN4dgC&lpg=PA25&ots=8aii7pw4Vo&dq=steyn%20%22after%20america%22%20drugs%20fda&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

Defining conservatism: http://www.amerika.org/politics/blight-wing/

Today we are infected by slave morality: revoltagainst.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/taken-the-rejection-of-slave-morality/

Read the Dawkins section here regarding how to combat liberalism: moldbuggery.blogspot.com/

How women manipulate men’s power: http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenandChimps.htm?note

Women are less principled than men and bad at guiding nations: heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/women-are-less-principled-than-men/

What will it take to rebuild fatherhood? Repealing the 19th Amendment: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/laqqc/what_would_it_take_to_rebuild_fatherhood/c2r6yhw

The Garden of Eden scenario seems to play out again and again: fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2010/02/evil-spilling-over.html

Leftism vs conservatism in the MRM by Brett Stevens (had to use a Google cache link since Ferdinand Bardamu the mangina sellout douchebag deleted it): webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:atyVGdhSIjoJ:www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/12/06/no-i-dont-care-about-your-feelings/

What is feminism? “a demand that women come first, using the justification of equality, at the expense of men.”
http://www.groin.com/feminism/

Demonspawn on why equality is impossible and will always lead to female superiority: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hegw4/if_you_wanted_to_be_treated_equally_girls_that/c1uwh67
Demonspawn: “Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument.”

I’ll stop here. I have thousands more links. But let’s face it, no one here, and especially not you, dhanu, is going to read all that. Because you’d rather take the easy route, as many human beings do. And ignorance is bliss.

It’s all really very obvious, if you’ve done the research, have a certain level of intelligence, and don’t lie to yourself. Men must have power over women, not vice versa, or bad things happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 10:58

I posted my links in a Reddit post since they never showed up here: http://www.reddit.com/r/NoBS/comments/uwgmc/sampling_of_links_regarding_women_misandry_and/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Sun June 11, 2012 at 11:00

I’m on Jeremiah’s side.

MRA are just the male version of using victimization argumentation, slave morality, as its basis to push for equality (masking for passive supremacy). It pushes for equality both which is unattainable and foolish. It galvanizes based upon sex and to create class struggle for indivilistic purposes with full disregard to how this will effect society (both men and women together) as a whole.

Some have argued peddled back to equality of rights which is still a stupid idea. If people are not equal why would you give them equal rights? The only thing that can be argued is that it is “morally right (which is arguable).” That is just a code word for It FEELS good to advocate for IT, regardless of the consequences that may ensue.

By simply giving “equal rights” women now can go into careers which in turn either outright or decreases the chance of having children–from a survival standpoint.

Or “equal rights” for child custody, which creates an ambiguous systems where parents have to fight it out in courts to “prove” they are the best. That doesn’t create the best nor effective system.

Equal rights led more women into the army which in large numbers could spell doom for a society should there be major losses. The reason as too why most societies (smartly), as a whole, decided against the notion was because women produce children the future for a society whereas men are better fit for the rigors of battle and are more expendable due their reproductive capabilities. Men don’t physically produce children, and no amount of egalitarian language is going to change that reality.

We could give equal rights to child, by reducing them to the lowest denominator (i.e. they’re “human” thus they “deserve” the same “rights”). Children can be soldiers (and often are in African failed states). But it is not smart nor effective. Women can serve but it is not smart nor effective. Men can serve and further more, it is smart and effective for a society to do so.

By having gender specific roles, society operates more effectively (as what has happened over thousands of years), due to evolutionary psychology and biology. We as humans are more socially accustomed to it as it is has primary evolved in most societies that way for thousands of years. “Conservatives” tend to look at things holistically.

“Liberalism” simply doesn’t work in the long run because it defies nature with tenets like egalitarianism. The sexes will never be “equal” and to treat them as such spells disaster. This disaster will serve as a launch pad into new era that doesn’t work on the foundations of egalitarianism.

“Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.”–Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 11:01

“You’d agree that for the collapse to happen, all the men must stop supporting the police state and bowing to its tyrannical policies. Right?”

Not at all. The collapse is a natural phenomenon that will occur because the current system is unsustainable. All we can do is prepare for it and continue to educate men how to be men. Your strategy, and the strategy of sites like AVfM, is instead to teach men how to be women and hope that somehow things change, which is quite foolish. I provided some links above, they may help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 11:03

“My mother has nothing in common with today’s women and the feminist creatures that lead them.”

If you really think that fella, your eyes aren’t open. Feminism is merely an extension of female psychology. Every single woman in existence is a feminist to some degree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 11:06

@GSJ My response was in response to keyster’s initial attack, using the phrase “praytell” sarcastically in an attempt to marginalize my view without actually arguing against it. Just like you are trying to do. I respond to attacks in kind, like any man should. Note that keyster never responded to what I had to say other than with sarcasm, because he doesn’t wish to discuss the content. Like the fellas at AVfM, he is scared of it. In the land of pussies….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 11:10

The amount of passive-aggressive female-type attacks against me only proves my point. Y’all aren’t men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 11:48

@dhanu FYI I’m not referring to you, unlike some others you are at least trying to have a conversation instead of just ignoring what I’m saying and attacking me. I whole-heartedly disagree with pretty much everything you said, however. :) I suggest reading the links I posted as a starter for increasing your knowledge base which may help you draw the proper conclusions. Oh, and again, when GirlWritesWhat makes light of women murdering men, but would never make light of men murdering women, it makes it quite clear that she’s on team woman, right alongside the feminists. It reveals an insight into her true purpose, which cannot be ignored. It means she will compromise in order to better women at the expense of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 11:53

Also note the discrepancy in the AVfM manginas’ reaction to GWW laughing about murdering men vs. their reaction to my making the simple statement that men ought to discipline their wives when they misbehave. GWW’s behavior is rooted in emotion (hatred), while my statement is rooted in the fact that women only respect violence and that if a man does not discipline her wife the home is unstable. Yet I am attacked for making and defending a rational point, while GWW is given a free pass for wishing to murder men. A double standard showing quite clearly that even in the so-called “MRM”, manginas run rampant, manginas who continue to promote female supremacy while pretending to be on men’s side.

Here’s an article explaining why domestic violence is necessary to keep women in line. Note that almost all the comments are supportive because the argument is valid. Contrast that with the large number of manginas in the “MRM” who react emotionally and white knight for women. This demonstrates quite clearly why the alt right blogosphere is on the right track, while the “MRM”osphere continues to promote ideas that can only result in more subjugation of men. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qi5QsndxTWYJ:www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/02/27/the-necessity-of-domestic-violence/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8
Towgunner June 11, 2012 at 12:06

@JeremiahMRA:

“If you really think that fella, your eyes aren’t open. Feminism is merely an extension of female psychology. Every single woman in existence is a feminist to some degree.”

Hmmm. That statement was an RE: to Tiredguy’s first post, he made reference to men not rejecting feminism because we all have mothers i.e. a level of sympathy for women. I wanted to give men the idea that they can reject feminism and still love their mothers. But I see your point.

Back to some of your other comments. I use the MRA or MRM out of convenience. I think the worst thing the MRA can do is be like the NOW. The ‘now’ are a bunch of sniveling little cretins who’s “power” is derived from being weak. women today are a dependent class and for every rah rah cheerleading orgasm over some perceived barrier broken or ceiling shattered, the reality is they are pathetic because the hammer breaking through is not them it’s the government. Men do best when we’re on our own with no help. women cannot meet that standard. And why should we become like ‘now’…to do what, petition the government to help males? Wouldn’t that be great for the statists, and then they’ll have us all on the doll.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
greyghost June 11, 2012 at 12:17

JeremiahMRA
“The amount of passive-aggressive female-type attacks against me only proves my point. Y’all aren’t men.”
So not agreeing with you on tactics to use to defeat feminism is not being a man huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Sun June 11, 2012 at 12:51

@ JeremiahMRA

“If you really think that fella, your eyes aren’t open. Feminism is merely an extension of female psychology. Every single woman in existence is a feminist to some degree.”

I disagree. I believe it is a warped form of female psychology.

But hey, we can all agree to disagree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Sun June 11, 2012 at 13:36

@ JeremiahMRA

“The Constitution, individualism, liberty, masculine values, and patriarchy go hand in hand. Destruction of the Constitution, communism, fascism, feminine values, and matriarchy go hand in hand. A few key milestones on how we got on this path, are…”

I really disagree with this.

While I’m not a fan of the binary political spectrum, this is just is not true.

The “Enlightenment” started in the 1700s (most say 1789) which is the birth of classical liberalism–the idea that all men are created equal and this is unalienable rights. These “natural rights” are irrefutable and have existed since the dawn of man. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were the most prominent intellectuals that espoused this. This had direct impact on the soon to be written Constitution for America.

To make the long story short, this egalitarian notion eventually expanded since then. And every notion is a direct consequence from that time period and existence. From equality of rights, to outcome, to genesis/origin, and finally sameness.

Patriarchy is not an egalitarian, but a direct hierarchical system where class collaboration is valued. Its a master morality reigns and everything has a place and purpose within the system. Men, who make the decisions, do so, because they are the most capable of doing so (the builders of civilizations, inventions, destroyers through war, advantages with physical and mental attributes, etc) having the interest of everyone (women and children in mind).

So what would be more patriarchal during that time period would be monarchy where the the king (or queen) rules over his subjects with the best notions and everyone has a place and role. However, still with Egalitarianism (along with Mediocracy) being in its infancy, the family was still highly built around the old system. Now the family isn’t.

A unbridled Meritocracy is somewhat incompatible with the pure traditional method (traditional depends on the historical context), but it is often times believed by those as also being a patriarchal system in which hierarchy is imposed by the best among us, who have prove their manly worth. That man who has earned his place can assert his will rightly. The form of meritocracy practiced even in early America was centered around economic success which revolves itself around materialism, another liberal based idea.

Often an ideology doesn’t show its true nature until a much later time, because it is still in its infancy and panders to the dying cultural order until it reaches the numbers that it doesn’t need to pander and rides on the economic and social benefits of what came before. Later on the effects of such ideas eventually take hold and the consequences eventually ensue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Eric June 11, 2012 at 13:52

JeremiahMRA:
‘Today we are infected with a slave morality.’

‘Men must have power over women or bad things result.’

‘The collapse is an inevitable natural phenomenon because the current system is unsustainable.’

‘Every single woman in existance is a feminist to some degree.’

If you reverse the genders phrases like these reference, you have Marxist-Feminist arguments. For someone who opposes these philosophies, you’ve certainly accepted a number of their premises.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 15:35

@Eric Logical fallacy. What I said is true. What feminists say is not.

@greyghost “So not agreeing with you on tactics to use to defeat feminism is not being a man huh?”

No, fool, but refusing to argue rationally and instead resorting to personal attacks without any content is unmanly. I already explained why you are being childish while dhanu on the other hand is behaving like an adult by actually making an argument instead of merely attacking me without any content. I’m still waiting for you to make a counter-argument, if you’ve got one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 15:40

Anyone perceptive who has lived with a woman recognizes her innate leaning toward feminism. Feminism is women’s personality writ large, as Alcuin has stated. And I quote:

Feminism is woman’s personality writ large, put into political context. It reflects what women truly are like.

Women are perpetual moral children unable to be responsible for themselves. They need to hide behind perpetual victimhood.

Women use men and other agents, such as the government, for their own selfish ends, and have no sense of reciprocity. Men are tools. The government is a tool, not an idea of how to govern in a just or proper way.

Women are never at fault. Everything can be explained away.

Male suffering can, must, and needs to be explained away. Never address it in a compassionate way.

Emotions reflect reality. The way a woman feels about something is what gives truth or reality to it. Logic and reasoning have no role here. Men are less than human – robotic, in fact – for applying reason to everything.

Sentimentality is important for women. Even if nothing gets done, if some sentimentalizing gets done, something got done. Something very useful for women.

Sex is used to manipulate men. It is not primarily about intimacy or relationship-building, but ascribing it as such helps to instrumentalize men. Sex is a tool women use to get their way. That’s all it is.

It’s all about the woman.

“Civilization” is one of those big analytical, unfeeling, cold words used by men. It doesn’t mean anything to women. Use it in an argument with a woman, and she’ll zone out. “What is he talking about?” she’ll mutter.

Belonging to an alpha’s harem is more important than marrying a beta.

Men are obstacles, not partners, when they refuse to be instrumentalized. A man is a partner when he is a tool, in other words.

Female behavior, however evil, selfish, and ruinous to another person, can always be justified, especially through emotions.

Men are always to blame.

Any institution, however venerable or sacred, can be used for short-term, childish, selfish goals. When the shit hits the fan, it’s the fault of men.

Men are there to move the furniture.

When western civilization collapses, move on to the next one, even if it’s Islam. Especially if it’s Islam. Strong men to move the furniture. Strong men to boss around and manipulate.

What women call “patriarchy” is really the result of the female status-seeking nature and manipulative ways. These two traits are the cause, not the result, of “patriarchy”.

“Feminists” and “western women” are the same, and are intentionally conflated at this blog.

All western women are as guilty of the sins of feminism as all 1946 Germans were guilty of following Hitler. There are no innocent women and there were no innocent 1946 Germans. Yet when the civilizational shit hits the fan, western women will claim that they hated feminism all along.

Feminism is the face of western imperialism at the moment. It seeks to export abortion and ruinous family policies to every nation on earth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 15:51

Honestly I have dozens of links regarding women’s flaws. Probably the most important thing for men to know is that women are inherently flawed and inferior to men. We used to know this, but we became deluded through the notion of “equality”. Here are a few comments on the topic of women’s flaws.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/lessons-from-nature-primal-masculinity/comment-page-1/#comment-87492

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 15:52
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 15:53

Even an article from only a month ago at The Spearhead: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/16/decoding-the-behavior-of-american-women/

You guys really have no excuse to not know this, to delude yourselves into thinking NAWALT. A necessary condition for a stable patriarchal society is that men and women both understand their status, men as superior and dominant, women as inferior and submissive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Anonymous age 70 June 11, 2012 at 17:12

Okay, I think I got it.

Britney comes here and spews insults and personal attacks on participants, with very large numbers of postings.

Jeremiah comes here and spews insults and personal attacks on participants, with very large numbers of postings.

Check. Got it.

Britney called us all sorts of nasty names because we did not agree with her beliefs.

Jeremiah calls us all sorts of nasty names because we do not agree with his beliefs.

Check. Got it.

Jeremiah’s approach to men has been tried before, and has never worked. Though he does not know it, there has been a Men’s movement for most of the last 50 years. It accomplished exactly nothing, just as Jeremiah’s highly pseudo-intellectual ideas will accomplish exactly nothing, and pretty much for the same reasons.

The same old grandiose ideas, how real men could completely change things almost instantly, simply by taking power from women. People like Jeremiah won’t actually do any such thing, just as it is virtually impossible he has ever done anything except generate said pseudo-intellectual ideas. He might try to get others to actually implement his grandiose ideas, thus the SWAT team bullets enter their brains, not his.

In fact, the MRM/MRA groups are accomplishing more than all the men’s movement over the last 50 years. No one even noticed the movement most of the last 50 years, because men were still doing what the system wanted them to do.

Now, that it is noticeable that men are not doing what the system wants them to do, the attack on the movement is growing daily. It’s called desperation.

So, Jeremiah suggests we do what has been tried for 50 years,and assumes because he is here now that it will work. Hee, hee.

In my ten years of public activism we saw a steady stream of Jeremiah’s. We called them Destroyers, because that is all they ever accomplished.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Eric June 11, 2012 at 18:27

JeremiahMRA:
‘Logical fallacy. What I say is true. What feminism says is not.’

If you use the same premises as they do, your conclusions are no more valid.

The idea that breaking the gender polarity towards the masculine will produce a stable society can be illustrated by cultures who practice it: the Middle Eastern Islamic Theocracies. Sure, they’re stable countries. But let’s look at them a little more closely: governments dominated by hereditary monarchies and tribal warlords; almost no economic mobility; science under the thumb of the priesthood; fine arts are nonexistant. That’s what kind of stabilty you would achieve with no gender polarity in a patriarchy.

This has been the whole problem with your argument. You keep conflating ‘equality’ with ‘polarity’.

The polarity is broken in the Anglosphere, too, to the feminine side. We have exactly the opposite problem that the Arabs have: government driven by opinion-polls and special interests; radical shifts in economic mobility; science occupied with meaningless studies; the fine arts are non-objective and dependent on welfare subsidies.

The problem with both cultures is not ‘gender equality’ but the complete lack of equality.

Stable societies exist in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Women have full political and legal equality, but they also recognize a gender polarity. That’s the secret to their stability. Men and women are free to rise to the highest potentials within the limits of their respective genders. Equality works. Patriarchy and Matriarchy don’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Ted June 11, 2012 at 20:03

“You guys really have no excuse to not know this, to delude yourselves into thinking NAWALT”

Who around here thinks NAWALT?

If someone like GWW puts the case better than we can, to an audience larger than ours, does it matter what her own internal reasons are?

————–
“men as superior and dominant, women as inferior and submissive”

Wrong.

Should be “men as dominant, women as submissive”. The AH piece on chimps argued cogently that in the world of manipulation, the girls have it. They’re the superior ones, and we won’t see it. Millions of years of evolution has seen to that. Us lads might as well get used it it

There is no going back to the old balance. Technology is out of the bag and won’t be made to go back in. We need a new balance; I can’t see what it could be though. Maybe the younger generation can come up with the ideas… in fact, it has to be them.

And as for chimps, well, they annoy me. Sure, you can use them to illustrate some broad principle or other; but we’re *not* chimps. There are rather more of us for a start; and we’re the ones that put them in zoos.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 20:24

AA70, did you become senile since you were 69? I didn’t spew any insults except at those who first insulted me. I also did not ever say that we could magically instantly fix things. You’re attacking a straw man. I value truth over delusion.

@Eric

“If you use the same premises as they do”

I don’t.

Equality does not work. It never has. Equality results in the breakup of the family. Male dominance results in a stable family with proper gender roles. You’re giving examples that are not reflective of reality. History of western culture shows us all we need to know about what happens when we value equality over reason: destruction of the family, widespread societal dysfunction, and economic and social collapse.

“If someone like GWW puts the case better than we can, to an audience larger than ours, does it matter what her own internal reasons are?”

As already stated, yes. Actions provide insight into internal motivations. Internal motivations predict future actions. A woman who loathes men on the inside will never remain an ally to men, anymore than a politician who has no principles will ever remain an ally to liberty, no matter how well he starts off. This is elementary.

Men are superior in every wholesome way. Women are inferior in every wholesome way. You say that women’s manipulative nature makes them superior? Not in the least. It proves their innate inferiority. It’s yet more indication that when men are in power, wholesome values dominate society, while when women are in power, hedonism rules. You can see the results of men giving women power right now. Yes, men were foolish enough to grant women power in the first place, which is why it’s important for men to remember this lesson. Will they? Perhaps not. Men are flawed, too, just not nearly as much as women. Ninety-nine percent of human beings are blithering idiots, which is obviously a huge problem.

There will be no new balance, as we are the same human beings we were 10,000 years ago. Technology is not a solution. The misandry bubble will pop. Why are you discussing these things when you haven’t even read / understand The Misandry Bubble? Come on. And then you’re going to dismiss Angry Harry too? You sure talk a lot for all your ignorance. “Wrong.” You don’t get to use that word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 20:36

By the way AA70, the destroyers aren’t guys like me stating opinions that reflect reality, it’s the guys who don’t listen, who continue to push the status quo, and resort to personal attacks and straw man attacks instead of actual argument, just like you did. It’s the guys who don’t want the truth, but just want to *feel* like they’re doing something. Much of the “MRM” is composed of such folks, who will accomplish precisely squat. If you feel like acting like a man rather than a child, feel free to actually argue against what I said in a reasonable tone, instead of arguing against a straw man in a sarcastic one. If not, you’re just part of the problem pops.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 20:40

Good article and comments here regarding feminism in the Middle East:

http://theantifeminist.com/feminist-slut-walk-in-cairo-ends-badly/

Here’s one of the comments:

I lived in the Muslim Middle East for 4 years. Of all the aspects of Western civilization that Muslims hate hate and hate, the worst is this: feminism.

They rightly attribute our sleazy, slutty, filthy culture and its disposability of fathers and husbands to feminists. Our women are stupid, conceited whores in their eyes and they know their women will follow suit because women do whatever other women do.

Those screaming idiots who proclaim “Islam will dominate the world.” They’re right, it will, because Western society hasn’t a molecule of self-respect anymore.

Totally agree. If you guys want to embrace a genetic dead end, keep promoting western culture over a traditional patriarchal one. You’re ensuring your own genocide.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Ted June 11, 2012 at 21:08

“Internal motivations predict future actions. A woman who loathes men on the inside will never remain an ally to men,…”

A rational woman will, if it’s in her own interests.

Consider a family unit. It’s in the interest of both parties to support each other if that support contributes to the health of their common interest, the family. They are both better off from it, including the woman. Changes in society have interfered with the balance within the family, unfortunately.

“You say that women’s manipulative nature makes them superior? ”

I’m saying that women’s manipulative abilities *are* superior; it’s where their weight is in the overall balance.

“we are the same human beings we were 10,000 years ago. ”

Not altogether sure about that. Our environment is different – mostly from our own efforts – and this has influenced our behavior I think.

“Technology is not a solution.”

It could be a solution, I hope.

“And then you’re going to dismiss Angry Harry too? ”

No, no, AH made a number of points about humans and chimps that I agree with. I think you can go too far with the chimps though. AH even confused a photo of one with his missus, if I remember correctly.

“You sure talk a lot”

Rather less than you do, Jeremiah

” for all your ignorance. “Wrong.” You don’t get to use that word.”

I did use it though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Eric June 11, 2012 at 21:37

JeremiahMRA:
‘I don’t.’

Yes you do. You’ve so far told us that every woman is born a feminist; that a class-struggle exists between the genders; that it’s historical determined fact that one gender (class) will inevitably dominate the other; that true is equality is impossible unless one gender reigns supreme; and that one gender needs to unite against the other to bring about a universal harmony. The direction I think that you’re taking this argument is that, since Western culture has historically recognized a gender polarity, this gender-supremacy needs to be imposed by revolutionary means.

You’ve outlined the entire program of Marxist/feminism and only substituted the genders involved.

This is the problem, men have to reject feminism before it can collapse; and it’s not going to collapse by using the same arguments on men. Men have to see through the feminist charade and reject women who believe in it. There’s a lot more to this problem that the simplistic Marxist paradigm of oppressed vs. oppressor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh June 11, 2012 at 21:49

Jeremiah, I agree with most of what you’ve typed and I was already suspicios of TyphonBlua and GWW, but I want a link to that video where they talk about wanting to redefine masculinity. Can you do that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
dhanu June 11, 2012 at 22:21

@JeremiahMRA “Not at all. The collapse is a natural phenomenon that will occur because the current system is unsustainable.”

And the authorities on top will try their best to stop it. You know who the main victims are going to be – men. Suppose the collapse happened. Then? What magical power do you think will restore the correct system? The top authorities will be mostly unaffected; it’s only the common people that suffer. At the most what’s gonna change? One political party for another (barring the possibility of an external attack). What are the chances that they’ll restore the constitution rightly, that too in a time of total chaos? Not much; actually they won’t be interested in the first place. How do we know that? Because the economical collapse is so obvious and they’re still keeping a blind eye toward it. That is, as long as their selfish motives are being fulfilled (that is, they’re making money), who cares about the nation? It’s pure evil. They’re knowingly ignoring the constitution because doing so is in their own best interest. And they’ll continue to think that way after the collapse too. Keep in mind that the collapse we’re talking about is an economic one, not a natural disaster like a big flood or earth quake. People will remain as they are; only with more taxes, harsher rules, and such imposed on them in the name of emergency. You know which portion of the common public will be pressed the most – men. That’s because we don’t speak. We simply do not have a political platform or representation (say, a National Organization for Men) to speak from. So the situation is bad now, and it will be worse after the collapse. Because it’s the politics that would always govern the people. The solution is to have a say in the politics so it remains fair and balanced. Once we have a political representation, we can make our voice heard before, during, and after the collapse. Otherwise the things are not gonna be very different even after the collapse. For the political representation, we need people on our side; it cannot be achieved by a handful of red-pill people from a particular walk. We need support from everywhere, of everyone. And people will support us only when they’re aware of our need for support, when they’ll see the reality of the actual victims.

In other words, the goal of MRM should be a collapse of feminism, not a collapse of everything that’s been accomplished so far, for those accomplishments benefit everybody (including us) if used properly.

“All we can do is prepare for it and continue to educate men how to be men.”

This is a catch 22 situation. Tell me if a man is already feeling himself to be a complete man because of what his blue pill environment has taught him, don’t you need to first make him unlearn that his concept of manliness is wrong? And for teaching that, you need to teach him that fighting for men’s right is not something to be ashamed of (because he has been taught that the men are privileged and therefore he must only fight for the women, because men, except him and a few others, are always the big evil superpowers). This is where he needs to be shown who the evil superpower is, so that he feels no guilt about standing up for the true victims. But you’re not ready to accept this idea, calling is a victimhood ideology even when it’s the truth in our case. So my question is, how do you continue to educate the men how to be men when he has already taken the blue pill? Thing is, your goal is alright but the means to achieve it? Not practical or probable.

“Your strategy, and the strategy of sites like AVfM, is instead to teach men how to be women”

No, it’s showing the truth (that is, how the discriminatory policies are hurting the men and how the MSM is spinning the issues to say something totally false).

“and hope that somehow things change, which is quite foolish. I provided some links above, they may help.”

I’m guilty of not going through the links, this time as well as the last time. (But Angry Harry I’ve had already read.) The articles tend to be long. I agree they must be quite informative, but it’s better if you could quote the relevant phrases here in brief. But if you’re short on time, no problem. I admit that I might not understand your position clearly until I read them.

“Also note the discrepancy in the AVfM manginas’ reaction to GWW laughing about murdering men vs. their reaction to my making the simple statement that men ought to discipline their wives when they misbehave.”

Maybe because the situation (and most people) is not in our favor and therefore such a stance could harm the reputation of the website (or the MRM), thereby labeling us as haters and turning people away from us? And if we’re haters, what’s the difference between us and the feminists? Just this: They have the power (of media, politics, academia, etc) and support (of people, funds, organizations, etc); they don’t need to play it safe. They can make mistake and still it’s us who have to pay, BY LAW. Why is this so hard to get? We’re not in a position to make any mistakes. Your stance would have been taken out of context and had the commenters supported you, the site would have been signed off as a haters’ collective. So what would have you achieved?

“GWW’s behavior is rooted in emotion (hatred), while my statement is rooted in the fact that women only respect violence and that if a man does not discipline her wife the home is unstable. Yet I am attacked for making and defending a rational point, while GWW is given a free pass for wishing to murder men. A double standard showing quite clearly that even in the so-called “MRM”, manginas run rampant, manginas who continue to promote female supremacy while pretending to be on men’s side.”

Why do you think that InMalafide article on the necessity of violence you linked is in the Google archive instead of being up? MRM currently resides in the websites like that. With the approach you suggest, all those sites will soon be traceable only in the Google archive. That’s the end of MRM even before it became a kid from a baby. What good does this do to anyone?

“[If someone like GWW puts the case better than we can, to an audience larger than ours, does it matter what her own internal reasons are?]
As already stated, yes. Actions provide insight into internal motivations.”

But you’re sticking to one particular (that too personal and feeling-based) action of hers and ignoring all others.

“Internal motivations predict future actions. A woman who loathes men on the inside will never remain an ally to men”

She loathes one man. Why generalize?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 22:40

Hey guys, remember when women used to refer to themselves as “Mrs. James Smith”, showing respect for their husbands, acknowledging their submission to him, back when families were intact? But some folks apparently want “equality” AKA career women who don’t even take their husbands name instead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 22:44

Guys, if you don’t understand the arguments, or are going to make ridiculous claims that I’m taking a Marxist stance but with the sexes reversed, nobody can help you. There is no anger in stating the fact of male superiority. Read the material I provided, educate yourselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 22:54

“This is the problem, men have to reject feminism before it can collapse”

And men do reject feminism, and not because of the flimsy MRM but because they feel it in their bones. But if all they ever do is reject feminism, nothing changes in the long haul, because feminism isn’t the problem. Failure to understand the nature of the sexes is the problem. Women are selfish, fickle, and hateful creatures. On the other hand, men give women too much credit, and are far too willing to sacrifice for them. Until men understand women’s nature en masse, nothing really changes. Complaining about feminism on the Internet doesn’t help very much at all. It could slightly hasten the collapse but not significantly, and in the end it doesn’t matter at all. It’s going to collapse any way. The real problem is finding a way to make sure it doesn’t happen again, which involves teaching men the truth of women’s nature. If we don’t do that, it will just all repeat again, men will give women power over them, and women will abuse it. So unless you’re educating men regarding the truth of women’s nature and their own, you are wasting your time. The only net benefit of the MRM that I see is that it can act as a catalyst to enlighten a few exceptional intellects like myself who are capable of understanding these issues, and attempt to educate men so that they don’t make the same mistakes again. Bringing the dumb masses on board to donate money, who continue to buy into this inane idea of equality, does nothing at all to help men. There’s no point, other than to feel good, feel like you’re actually doing something. At least the alt right talks about real issues, while the majority of the “MRM” ducks their heads in the sand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
JeremiahMRA June 11, 2012 at 23:02

Addendum to my second to last comment. I’m not at all like feminists/Marxists. I don’t envy women. I don’t want to tear them down. I don’t want power because I’m greedy. I don’t want a war between the sexes. I want a stable, thriving, just society, with requires a strong family unit and masculine values as ideal, men as head of household, men in power. This is just the truth, you don’t have to like it. Fantasies about Leftist egalitarian utopias are nothing but naive dreams. I used to have them, then I grew up and educated myself. The only thing I am guilty of is anger, anger toward ignoramuses who willingly blind themselves to the truth. That’s about 99.99% of human beings. But I keep trying because I value the truth, and I am thankful that a very small percentage of human beings see the truth as well. It means there’s hope for this race, no matter how slim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Towgunner June 12, 2012 at 06:37

Hey Gents:

I’m having some trouble here…I think JeremaihMRA is making some very good points. Equality does not exist, period. The sooner we reconcile this and move on the better. Men and women are different. I can’t emphasize how important this simple truth is to the MRA – it should be the bedrock of our movement, again, men and women are different. Right now, there is a deliberate and seemingly effective media-blitz to portray women as superior to men. We see the fallout here on The Spearhead and other places. This is just not true. Men are superior to women in many (most) things, kindly look around you again and out the window – men did all of that, not women. So, you be the judge, methinks men > women. Frankly women are in the midst of having “their turn”, in fact, they are at their peak, and look at things…the West is bankrupt, the US is a banana republic…we have drugs that turn people into cannibals, we have tv shows with kids sucking on huge dild*s. It costs ~ 200K to get a BA education only so you can turn around and spend another 75k – 120k on MORE education that might…finally (when your late 20’s or early 30’s) get you a job that pays enough to actually get by? And most people don’t even know what year the US got its independence. You say women are equal to men in every possible way…really, then why now? Why wait 30,000 years or however long Homo sapiens have been around? If women were truly superior in everything, why didn’t feminism occur a very long time ago? Answer: women aren’t superior, they are, like it or not, inferior. We can’t have this dreary defeatist attitude amongst the MRA…we just can’t. If we allow this wet blanket kind of attitude then the feminists are right…bunch of sniveling little boy-men. But I know that’s not true, I think JeremiahMRA knows it’s not true too. Right now 37,000 high schools across the US just graduated their 2012 classes…all those boys have been medicated and indoctrinated to believe that they’re flawed and despite what their eyes and bodies demonstrate that 98lbs waif with concave shoulders and knees who can’t even lift a gallon of water is not only far superior intellectually but has his strength 3 times over. And it’s not what they observe in reality it’s what they see on TV and what their teachers tell them. Is there any surprise that Americans consume 2/3rds of all the psychotropic drugs in the entire world? This is insane. We owe it to these young men, whose futures have been compromised if not entirely stolen to start telling the truth once again…and all this feminization is to fulfill some abstract emotionally laden and extremely selfish prioritization of just female “self realization”. The madness is almost too much to handle…why…why can’t we include boys realizing their full selves too? We can’t…why, because (enter feminist sound bites), which translate to boys are inferior. Hey, apparently, the Jews, Blacks, the Irish, the Slavs…they were all inferior also. You call this progress, nice morality from women eh?
It would be one thing if men were truly inferior to women. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of men, I have trouble even addressing this perverted issue. It follows, this is a tragedy of historical proportions and it’s the highest and most obvious evil imaginable. Our entire stock of future men, truncated, stunted, dulled, medicated, brainwashed, belittled, humiliated, twisted, melded…castrated and emasculated, ALL…ALL due to political reasons, which are derived out of spite and envy. Equality? All I see in the faces of women are looks at men, even in passing, with a pre-judgment of their superiority and our inferiority…pre-judgment = prejudice. We just created a new class of supremacists, whose position is so unfounded and undeserving it’s enough to drive you crazy…that alone is the hardest part. Welcome to the back of the bus.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Mikediver June 12, 2012 at 07:49

I read a proposal not so long ago that may point us in the direction of how we can effect change on the political system. It has enough “equality” camoflage to make it sellable. It is, make all legislatures half men and half women, but the sneaky part is to allow only men to vote for men and only women to vote for women. I think this might actually put someone in politics that is concerned for men’s rights because they need men’s votes. At the present time no politician gives a fig for men’s votes as we dont vote in a bloc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner June 12, 2012 at 13:01

Hey Gents:

I’m having some trouble here…I think JeremaihMRA is making some very good points. Equality does not exist, period. The sooner we reconcile this and move on the better. Men and women are different. I can’t emphasize how important this simple truth is to the MRA – it should be the bedrock of our movement, again, men and women are different. Right now, there is a deliberate and seemingly effective media-blitz to portray women as superior to men. We see the fallout here on The Spearhead and other places. This is just not true. Men are superior to women in many (most) things, kindly look around you again and out the window – men did all of that, not women. So, you be the judge, methinks men > women. Frankly women are in the midst of having “their turn”, in fact, they are at their peak, and look at things…the West is bankrupt, the US is a banana republic…we have drugs that turn people into cannibals, we have tv shows with kids sucking on huge dild*s. It costs ~ 200K to get a BA education only so you can turn around and spend another 75k – 120k on MORE education that might…finally (when your late 20’s or early 30’s) get you a job that pays enough to actually get by? And most people don’t even know what year the US got its independence. You say women are equal to men in every possible way…really, then why now? Why wait 30,000 years or however long Homo sapiens have been around? If women were truly superior in everything, why didn’t feminism occur a very long time ago? Answer: women aren’t superior, they are, like it or not, inferior. We can’t have this dreary defeatist attitude amongst the MRA…we just can’t. If we allow this wet blanket kind of attitude then the feminists are right…bunch of sniveling little boy-men. But I know that’s not true, I think JeremiahMRA knows it’s not true too. Right now 37,000 high schools across the US just graduated their 2012 classes…all those boys have been medicated and indoctrinated to believe that they’re flawed and despite what their eyes and bodies demonstrate that 98lbs waif with concave shoulders and knees who can’t even lift a gallon of water is not only far superior intellectually but has his strength 3 times over. And it’s not what they observe in reality it’s what they see on TV and what their teachers tell them. Is there any surprise that Americans consume 2/3rds of all the psychotropic drugs in the entire world? This is insane. We owe it to these young men, whose futures have been compromised if not entirely stolen to start telling the truth once again…and all this feminization is to fulfill some abstract emotionally laden and extremely selfish prioritization of just female “self realization”. The madness is almost too much to handle…why…why can’t we include boys realizing their full selves too? We can’t…why, because (enter feminist sound bites), which translate to boys are inferior. Hey, apparently, the Jews, Blacks, the Irish, the Slavs…they were all inferior also. You call this progress, nice morality from women eh?
It would be one thing if men were truly inferior to women. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of men, I have trouble even addressing this perverted issue. It follows, this is a tragedy of historical proportions and it’s the highest and most obvious evil imaginable. Our entire stock of future men, truncated, stunted, dulled, medicated, brainwashed, belittled, humiliated, twisted, melded…castrated and emasculated, ALL…ALL due to political reasons, which are derived out of spite and envy. Equality? All I see in the faces of women are looks at men, even in passing, with a pre-judgment of their superiority and our inferiority…pre-judgment = prejudice. We just created a new class of supremacists, whose position is so unfounded and undeserving it’s enough to drive you crazy…that alone is the hardest part. Welcome to the back of the bus.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Notbuyingit June 12, 2012 at 18:36

@ JeremiahMRM

I can understand not being in agreement with aVfm or any other MRA website Sir, maybe there methodology, a tiff with Paul or John- the other or whom eve & even if you have a better way of approaching our cause (MRA)!! Fine all the power to yout Jeremiah & I mean that.

What I don’t understand is way such hostilities? ?

The simple fact is even if u think he is fighting the wrong wayfarers! ! He is with you in the same trench plus you could aim all that hostilities towards the feminazi & there allies & advocates! !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ted June 12, 2012 at 22:08

“JeremaihMRA is making some very good points.”

*Some* of his points are good.

“Equality does not exist, period. ”

Umm…

“Men and women are different.”

Right. They have different attributes in different amounts. Measuring along each attribute, you can say one or the other sex is superior. But how do you combine the attributes? You always get this problem when trying to project a high-dimensional situation to a lower dimension. If you are going for a one-dimensional “is A greater than B” question, then you can make the answer come out however you want just by the way you weight the attributes.

“Right now, there is a deliberate and seemingly effective media-blitz to portray women as superior to men.”

Yes, in every conceivable way, too. Obviously this is crap.

“This is just not true. ”

Agree.

“Men are superior to women in many (most) things,”

Agree with “many”; not sure about “most”.

“women are in the midst of having “their turn”

This whole idea – payback for thousands of years of oppression – is so senseless you couldn’t even say it was wrong. It doesn’t stand up to more than a moment’s thought. So how come it’s a generally accepted truth? Couldn’t be that we were told it – very persuasively – by women, could it? Couldn’t be that *that* is one of those attributes where women are superior to men?

“You say women are equal to men in every possible way…”

Nope.

“We can’t have this dreary defeatist attitude amongst the MRA”

Listen, Towgunner. It doesn’t matter whether or not it feels dreary or not; we need to get it *right*. That way, the chances are better.

“…we just can’t. If we allow this wet blanket kind of attitude then the feminists are right”

No they aren’t. This has been a public service statement from Wet Blanket Land.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
JeremiahMRA June 12, 2012 at 22:11

I quite enjoyed your rant, Towgunner. It’s nice to know there are a few men out there who get it, but I hope you’re prepared to act on it when the time comes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
JeremiahMRA June 12, 2012 at 22:19

Why such hostilities? Because while I was trying to educate the males at AVfM, they instead chose to throw me under the bus, denying reality and giving me a big fuck you because I told the truth even when it isn’t pretty. And all such folks do the same. People who prefer to delude themselves absolutely hate those who seek the truth, like me, and therefore we can never get along.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price June 12, 2012 at 22:30

Why such hostilities? Because while I was trying to educate the males at AVfM, they instead chose to throw me under the bus, denying reality and giving me a big fuck you because I told the truth even when it isn’t pretty. And all such folks do the same. People who prefer to delude themselves absolutely hate those who seek the truth, like me, and therefore we can never get along.

-Jeremiah

J, it’s also about simply being tactful. People tend to respond to aggressive words by either fighting back, leaving or hunkering down. The truth of a message doesn’t always matter more than how it’s delivered. You could look at this as a bad thing, but there are sound reasons for it.

One thing I’d recommend is trying to cultivate a sort of detached conviction. Speak in measured tones and people will listen. Interestingly, this tends to anger opponents even more than when people get angry and shout, because it works better.

I’ve been a bit absent from comment moderation over the last couple days, but I hope we can calm things down here a bit. It certainly doesn’t make things easier for me when people are at each other’s throats.

fmz June 13, 2012 at 00:15

More peter pan bad boyz without any means and living off welfare, knocking up single momma empowered princess matriarchs, will bring it all to a grind… very quickly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Towgunner June 13, 2012 at 07:48

@ Ted:

Good feedback. Thanks.

TG

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JeremiahMRA June 13, 2012 at 11:31

“The truth of a message doesn’t always matter more than how it’s delivered. You could look at this as a bad thing, but there are sound reasons for it.”

The reason is we live in a matriarchy full of effeminate males who don’t know what it means to be a man. And acting like them isn’t going to solve anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
JeremiahMRA June 13, 2012 at 11:36

The other part to that is that the type of people who actually will listen don’t care how the message is presented. It’s just the weenies who want to shut their eyes and remain in ignorance that pretend to take offense so that they need not think. There’s no reason to gear my message toward the weenies who won’t listen regardless, and every reason to promote speaking like a man rather than a weenie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Sun June 13, 2012 at 19:54

Women do have their uses, no doubt. However through most of society (except certain individuals) they have played a supportive role.

Lest no one think that just because I don’t believe in equality mean that women aren’t important, etc.

In fact, women are more important, and here is why.

Women serve as the backbone of society (and traditionally the family). Meaning, without women there is no society. Women have the most important role which is to produce the next generation.

This cannot be stressed enough. Even in Sparta where women had unprecedented rights in Ancient Greece, there still was a duty by such women to be mothers first, above all else. “To be a mother for the Glory of Sparta.

Women also play a psychological and supportive role by supporting a man. A man gains value when women recognize such things he does. That is why men are constantly trying to impress women by flowers, money, love letters, tools to make their lives easier, etc. Women’s disapproval can often times set a man to do the right thing.

Without a strong woman there is no man.

However, the mean and women are not equal in totality nor equal in validity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Sun June 13, 2012 at 20:28

@ Ted

“Right. They have different attributes in different amounts. Measuring along each attribute, you can say one or the other sex is superior. But how do you combine the attributes? You always get this problem when trying to project a high-dimensional situation to a lower dimension. If you are going for a one-dimensional “is A greater than B” question, then you can make the answer come out however you want just by the way you weight the attributes.”

Yes both sexes have their advantages and disadvantages.

You could then say arbitrarily that one is better then the other or none are better then the other (equality of totality).

However, when a certain reality is established it becomes very hard to refute such advantages.

One could say women are superior because they are less violent and more cooperative. Men are in occupy jails more and cause most, if not all the wars (at least directly). Realistically this is true. Women also have physiological advantages such as better balance (wider sciatic notches for hip bones) and higher longevity rates due to stress as well as body proportations to the heart, etc.

One could argue that men are superior due to their aggressiveness allows them to take more risk, etc. Assuming that it isn’t all socially constructed (laughable concept), their greater intellect allows gave product to inventions and tools we see constantly around us. Physically they are faster, stronger, and have more endurance.

However even with regard to these different attributes, one sex is the dominant and one sex isn’t.

This same can be said for most animal species that are not asexual .

For example, for the Praying Mantis, the female is the dominant sex. A male praying mantis does have advantages over the female. For example, by being smaller and quicker, it [the male] can avert danger better; however, that advantage isn’t enough to compensate for being the dominant or even equal sex. The female mantis is bigger, stronger, and more aggressive the male. The female mantis will often times eat the males head (thank yourself that that you’re not a mantis and only deal with feminist…not every organism has it lucky). By most scientist the female is thought to be the dominant sex.

The same can be said for lions, elephants, hyaenas, chimps, wolves, ants, etc.

If what you say is true (about all it is subjective based on a certain criterion), then how do you rationalize dominant sexes in other animal species? Or do you reject such notions as well?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Sun June 13, 2012 at 20:54

@ Ted

And before you say it, of course we are more sophisticated (0r complex) then other animal species, that doesn’t disqualify because we are still animals.

Even with more complex animals, a pride is still run by a (or couple of brothers) male lion.

Sexual dimorphism is found in many animal species, including mammals (us), and generally lead to one sex taking the more dominant role. This is found in any basic evolutionary, evo psyh, bio, class.

But in your case, since all attributes are arbitrary due to depending on unique conditions, there can’t be a dominant (superior) sex.

So my question still stands.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Ted June 14, 2012 at 03:07

“since all attributes are arbitrary due to depending on unique conditions, there can’t be a dominant (superior) sex.”

Sorry for not making my point clear.

I distinguish between “dominant” and “superior”. I’m using “dominant” to mean “leading” or ” in control”; and “superior” as a measure of a quality. I have no doubt that a man-woman relationship goes better when the man is dominant in it, and that this is the natural state of affairs.

However, what point is there in forming such a relationship? I say that the major point is that the total is greater than the two parts separately; that a family unit has an edge over the two individuals separately. They need it too, because they have to support children in addition to just themselves.

For the whole to be greater than the sum of the two parts, there has to be a difference between the two parts, otherwise you just get twice as much of everything. Where differences exist, however, you get the advantage of division of labor. Each party can play to its own strengths, and you get more than twice the bang.

Another way to look at it is is a trading situation. For there to be a trade, there must be at least two differences, otherwise there is nothing to trade; and that means that one party has to be superior in one of the things that is different, and the other party must be superior in the other. The obvious trade is the woman’s birthing capability for the man’s support and resources, but I believe there are others as well. One of them is the man’s leadership abilities – thus for a good trade he must be “dominant”. I believe women look for this quality in a prospective partner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
JeremiahMRA June 15, 2012 at 00:38

@Sun

A man does not need a woman to be whole. Take Dick Proenneke for example. He was a man, and he lived the last 30 years of his life in the Alaskan wilderness without any snatch nearby.

A woman, on the other hand, isn’t a woman by herself. She never can be, because she doesn’t have a capacity. A woman only becomes a woman by having children. They know this. It’s the reason why women feel successful only when their children are successful, and it’s the reason they feel so terrible when they don’t have children or grandchildren. Women are simple in this way. A man doesn’t need to have children to be a man, and he won’t suffer serious psychological disorders from not having them, like women do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
JeremiahMRA June 15, 2012 at 00:40

Note also that women need men to satisfy their need for children, and therefore they need men to be complete. On the other hand, men only require women for sex, which is a luxury, not a need. Men do not require women to be complete, whereas women are never complete without the aid of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sun June 16, 2012 at 17:18

@ JeremiahMRA

I have no idea how this relates directly to the topic at hand.

“A man does not need a woman to be whole.”

This could be a language barrier due to our different perspectives of what it means to be “whole.”

I agree, yet disagree. Ultimately, I disagree.

I agree in the sense that there is much that can come from depending upon yourself.

However, we are not isolationist animals. It is the very reason why we are alive today.

Men need women and women need men.

And yet, Dick Proenneke is born from the “snatch” that you claim wasn’t near.

Men find bond through a woman’s beauty, intellect, femininity, as well as having his masculinity admired and is valued as important to her. Not to mention men are driven to have sex–some try to break that through strength and will, others embrace it. Wisdom is found in both paths.

Girls are born. Women are forged.

Boys are born. Men are forged.

Behind every great man, there is a great woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: