Force, Control and Responsibility

by W.F. Price on June 14, 2012

A pernicious point of difference amongst men concerned with men’s issues is the debate over violence, and how to approach it. There are those who point out that women are as violent as men in interpersonal relationships, those who scoff at this idea, and even some who condone some degree of violence within relationships (these sorts exist on both sides, of course).

The problem with the violence debate is that the issue of violence has been so thoroughly politicized that we have lost sight of what the argument is really about. Violence is force. Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. It pervades our society, and is how we – Americans in particular – keep people in line. The obsession with violence against women – a considerably smaller problem than violence against men – on the part of feminists is all about “who? whom?” (kto? kogo?).

We can’t honestly discuss violence without acknowledging that violence is a reality that overshadows our lives. Every time we see a cop with a gun, a patrol car, a prison and even a courthouse we are reminded that we are subject to the state’s violence if we incur its wrath.

Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law, which is why one of the founding principles of the American republic was that the use of force against the state is justified when it sets itself above the law and in opposition to The People.

If we are to follow the logic of the law, therefore, we must accept that we are all subject to violence if we behave in certain ways. Those who don’t accept this are by definition lawless. For example, if I were to steal from my neighbor, I would expect to be arrested and jailed if caught. To assume otherwise would be a sort of civic hubris.

However, there are certain classes of people for whom different rules exist. Children, for example, are subject to a different standard where force is concerned. To be sure, they are not immune to it, but in general violence against children is of a far milder variety, and usually involves little more than being shut in a room for a spell or dragged into the principal’s office. Even when the state deals with children different rules apply. A child who kills, for example, will generally not face the same sentence as an adult. Furthermore, the state delegates a certain amount of force to adults in the child’s life. Rather than have the police deal with every infraction, parents and other adult authorities are expected to use force as they deem appropriate.

The logic behind this is that children are not “equal” to adults. They have neither the faculties, judgment nor physical capability. They are therefore not deemed to be fully participating citizens, but rather “in custody,” which means that they are under the authority of adults.

Likewise, women are formally held to a different legal standard. In times past, they were legally in the custody of one man or another, and under his authority. Although emancipated women have always existed, they were rare, and I would argue that they still are, because the only serious attempt to make women equal citizens under the law failed spectacularly within a span of only about a decade (1970s).

In the old days, when women were considered to be wards of men, society expected men’s superior force to keep those in their family in line in much the same manner that the law uses superior force to keep men in line. This isn’t to say that force was always applied, but rather that it existed and could be applied, just as a bailiff exists in every courtroom. There was a chain of command that went like this:

Men are subject to the law

Women to men

Children to women

Each relationship was backed by some degree of force. As one goes down the scale, the amount of force deemed appropriate was less severe, but probably more frequent. For example, an arrest and a stint in prison is quite rare, affecting only a small fraction of the male population, but it is a severe punishment. A domestic squabble involving some use of force was also rare, probably affecting a minority of couples, but more common than incarceration (and still is if DV stats are to be believed) and inconsequential compared to prison time. Finally, children were punished relatively frequently, but mildly.

The old system was simple, but effective. It lasted up to about the 1970s, when domestic violence became politicized. We could point directly to feminism as the cause of the old system’s breakdown, but feminism was actually more of a symptom of other changes than the cause. Men’s authority in the home had been breaking down for over a century as urbanization and industrialization proliferated throughout the West. Women found themselves alone as the sole authority of the family when their husbands went to work at the factory or office. Many women also worked under an authority other than their husband or father. It no longer made sense to delegate authority over women only to one man in their lives. The private and public sector found themselves managing women as well as men, and as their authority over them increased, that of their husbands declined.

There was a reversal of this in the idealized 1950s, when a deep social conservatism, partly a result of the return of millions of citizen soldiers who were empowered by their victory, characterized society, but the relentless growth of capitalism guaranteed that this couldn’t last. The economy was growing, and more workers were needed. Women gradually returned to the workforce starting in the 1960s, and the process started again where it had left off.

Since then, husbands (and fathers) have lost essentially all of their old authority over women. However, this is not to say that nobody has any authority over them, but rather that it has passed into other hands. Today, there is still a struggle over who has claim to the women of our society, but it is between the private and public sector. Both presidential candidates understand this quite well, which is why, in pandering to women, one of them is promising state support and the other good jobs. It is almost amusing to see the public and private sector wooing America’s women like a couple of suitors singing to an undecided girl.

Both the public and private sector exert most control over women through economic incentives and punishments rather than physical force. A company keeps its females in line by threatening them with loss of income if they misbehave, which is called abuse or “contempt of court” when husbands do it. The public sector retains the option of using physical force against women – again, called abuse when husbands do it – and also provides (or withdraws) various goodies through bureaucracies.

The public and private sector have come to wield far more authority over women than the men in their lives. Men are ordered to provide for women in their lives no matter what, and never to use physical force on them, but the state follows neither mandate, and the private sector only the latter (which could be a powerful selling point for the Republicans). Given that very few single women make a living from their own businesses, most being dependent on the state or a job in the private sector, the proportion of women who could be said to be truly emancipated remains as low as ever.

However, despite the state and private sector’s current authority over women, a different standard is still applied. Not only a different standard as far as the use of force, but in terms of provision as well. Equality of men and women is widely assumed to be enshrined in law, but this is not the case. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass back in the 1970s, largely because women didn’t want it in its unadulterated form, and considering the Hayden rider there was nothing equal about it. For some interesting background on the fight to pass the ERA, see how, according to suffragette Alice Paul, NOW (the National Organization of Women) essentially killed it by supporting the Hayden rider.

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, originally written by Alice Paul, is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

However, the Hayden rider was added in the 1950s:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

This rendered it self-contradictory and not at all different from the status quo, yet it is the version supported by feminist groups, and that is why the amendment never passed. It was too much of a sham to make it through the full process of ratification.

So, according to US law women are still a special class of citizens, like children, who are afforded protections and benefits not extended to men. They are exempt from the draft, they are given special accommodation at work and school, their activities are subsidized at men’s expense (e.g. Title IX), and far more social welfare is directed their way.

Although the myth of women’s self-sufficiency and independence is widely repeated, it is ignored in practice, and contradicted by law.

Because women are acknowledged both by the law and custom to be a special class, and not fully equal citizens, it follows that others are responsible for ensuring that they are taken care of and kept in line. Because the state has arrogated the responsibility of managing women to itself and taken family choices entirely out of the hands of fathers and husbands, male citizens’ responsibilities toward women’s provision and care should likewise be removed.

If we are to remove individual male authority over the women in his life and replace it with collective authority over women, then we should remove individual male responsibility and replace it with collective responsibility over women, and be quite honest about it.

The same would apply to children, of course. Would it be just for the state to remove a child and terminate parental custody and then present a bill for doing so? [Actually, because the overwhelming majority of CPS removals are from single mothers, the child will frequently be placed with a foster family without any input from the father, and then he will be forced to pay child support directly to the state.]

One could view abolishing male authority over women as a liberating trend, because collectively managing females would spread the burden over a greater number of taxpayers, including women themselves, freeing men from so much individual responsibility. And rather than having to control women ourselves, we could allow the police and private business to handle them. The problem with this is that the state is running into problems with expense, and the private sector is starting to face the same issues itself. Because women are a special, legally-protected class with more needs and associated expenses, we simply cannot treat them as men. This is why Barack Obama and a number of other leftist politicians desperately want to collectivize birth control: because single mothers and their needs have grown into such an enormous drain on treasuries.

And here is where the issue of force and violence is bound to come up again. So far, the state has managed to use force mainly against fathers in a bid to maintain the politically convenient facade of female equality while balancing the budget. But it has reached the point of diminishing return. The cash cow that was middle-class American men is starting to dry up for a number of reasons. Young men are marrying at much lower rates, they make less relative to their parents, and a greater proportion of them is now working class or underclass than was the case a generation ago. The marriage issue is important because public expenses for single mothers are considerably higher than for those who live with a man. Even onerous child support guidelines don’t come close to making up the difference, and at this point increasing child support collection will simply start to eat away at tax revenue.

So, eventually the state will have to begin to turn the screws on women, and when the state sees people as a “problem” the treatment they get tends to be very unpleasant. People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them. Even married women who didn’t control their fertility were subjected to these measures. Women who had more than one child lost state support, and were forced into deep poverty, the likes of which most American women cannot comprehend. If that isn’t violence against women, what is?

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong. Leftist American professors in China studies openly endorse China’s birth control measures. The honest ones will tell you that they’d support doing the same here.

I doubt we’ll need to take as drastic steps as China in the foreseeable future, but changes will be made. Control over reproduction – the feminist holy grail – may be handed over to the state in our lifetime and taken away from certain classes of women (e.g. those on welfare). We could see women being forced to take birth control, and punished when they fail to do so. Women who defy the state on these matters will be dealt with forcefully — just like men. Women could well be coerced into being economically productive, as fathers are today. Single mothers who refuse to work could face some punishment, and as men’s wages decline even farther relative to women’s, married women will likely no longer have the choice to stay home and care for their children themselves. Furthermore, because men no longer have authority over their wives, they have none over their children, either. Ultimately, the state will have the final word on children, and tough luck if mothers disagree.

The Violence Against Women dialog was born out of a desire for throwing off the authority of husbands, but it doesn’t seem the feminists considered that women would only end up with another master. And this time it is a master that sees them as only one of millions — a mere number in a database. Also, a much stronger master that will not tolerate any deviation, and will apply force impersonally without any sentimental considerations.

“Violence” against women will therefore never cease, but only be applied by a different force. In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free. They imagined they would achieve a sort of blissful anarchy, like all utopian fantasies, and answer to none but themselves. However, they eventually find that the office manager, the case-worker, the policeman and the magistrate are less forgiving and caring than the typical husband, and far less concerned about protecting them.

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be needier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight. To be dependent is to be under another’s control, and to be under control is to be subject to some degree of force. Practically speaking, the party responsible for the subject is the one who should have legitimate authority.

The way we need to frame the debate concerning violence against women is in recognizing that the argument is centered entirely on who has authority and the right to wield it — not on the naturally repellent idea of a man brutally assaulting a woman. If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. I’m not sure that will ever be feasible, but eventually we will have to make a choice along those lines.

{ 116 comments… read them below or add one }

Mojo June 14, 2012 at 11:31

“People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them.”

‘Were’?

It’s still happening.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159178/China-forced-abortion-photo-Feng-Jianmei-abort-7-months-breaching-child-policy.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Traveller June 14, 2012 at 11:34

Nice post and deep analysis.

Unfortunately, we should not assume nor women nor state be rational deciders. State and women have no problem to enforce contradictions.
so we have women with every right and no responsability, and vice versa for men. State pretends so businesses pay good taxes in front of global competition while regulating and imposing bad employees with affirmative action.

In definitive, state and women do not possess abstract thinking and creativity. They are stagnant, communist state is static because it is the best of possible worlds in their limited mind. For women, we have not need for technological or scientific progress, simply because their brain can not get what it is, so they can not get what it is supposed for. Hence, they can not understand the idea of productivity.

Women are children, state is a very big spoiled bully child.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 6
Okrahead June 14, 2012 at 11:47

The hamsters will deny that this could ever happen to them until five minutes after it has already taken place. At that point the hamsters will place full blame on the men. And the state, ever the Alpha in the hamsters’ lives, will continue to be feted and serviced by the womyn who vote Demosocialist by wide margins, ensuring their own enslavement.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 4
Nemo June 14, 2012 at 11:47

The main reason why men are not striving to be productive citizens as much as they have in the past is that they can not keep the fruit of their labors, or even the fruit of their loins.

The modern welfare state has essentially nationalized the family unit. Men have less authority than ever before but are expected to conform to an ever-increasing list of demands. For example, simply raising your voice in anger is now misclassified as “spousal abuse” by a husband. One wonders how many wives would be in prison if the same standard was applied to them. Similarly, cutting up a joint credit card is also classified as “abuse” in at least one US state (New Jersey) and is treated as an act of domestic violence.

If men fail to conform to any of these demands, or if their wives simply opt for another man, then the men are treated in the same manner as criminals in the court system, minus the need for any proof of actual malfeasance. That’s what a “no fault” divorce is – he can lose his house, his car, his marriage, 40% of his post-tax income for life, and above all else his own flesh and blood – his children.

All at once, all for nothing more than inducing boredom in his wife.

What a deal. Sign me up.

Medieval serfs were treated with less severity than a divorced man is treated today. Back then the nobles were smart enough to realize that they wouldn’t last long if all of the serfs starved or produced just enough to surivive, with no surplus to be looted by the state.

Soon our own governments will relearn this lesson.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 79 Thumb down 1
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 12:03

Great article.

“then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever.”

Yes, but don’t think that it will make men footloose and fancy free and emancipated for very long.

You can be sure that MGTOW and the marriage strike will have repercussions from the state against men. Why? Because these activities shrink the tax base.

I for one think that because retirement ages are so high and tax rates are so high, new taxes and/or fines and punishments will be created by manufacturing more laws and reasons to throw men into prison for being “criminals.” This will be the path of least resistance because most people cheer when “criminals” are punished harshly.

For example, men who cannot pay their child support will be locked up and forced to work at 14 cents per hour until they pay their debt. If they cannot pay, maybe their organs will be auctioned off.

Here is an article that already describes how a family court judge recommends that men who cannot pay their child support, work at a waste removal company.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/135948413.html

It is only a matter of time before judges sentence men to 14 cent/hour jobs working in factories behind barbed wire fences.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/defense-industrial-base-defense-budget-defense/3/7/2011/id/33198?page=full

http://www.alternet.org/world/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_labor/?page=entire

More county and city governments are having men pay for their own incarceration. That means there is a vested economic interest to “lock em up,” especially if the sheriff and judge can receive kickbacks for supply slave labor to private industry under the guise of “job skill training.”

Another possibility is that states will increase their use of usury. This is a table of child support interest rates. Notice “published” interest rates as high as 15%.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art200301.html

Still another possibility is mandatory unpaid military service for all young and unmarried men. This would be a pretty easy sell to the masses.

The trends are ominous. Yes, in place of us men women will have “big daddy” welfare and the private sector, but us men are going to have an even crueler and sadistic slave master as our boss.

I think that MGTOW should strongly consider Going There Own Way right out the back door of America before it is too late.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 1
Notaprick June 14, 2012 at 12:04

Well reasoned argument. But one question: what will be the role of effective, cheap, long-lasting male contraceptive? I am thinking of RISUG, but others may also develop. One theory I have heard, which makes a lot of sense to me, is that much of feminism is rooted in the power women gained in determining when, where, how, and with who they became pregnant. Conversely, now that women have that power, men no longer have the ability to control women in society, since women are no longer unwillingly tethered to reproductive concerns.

My prediction: the demand for male birth control is so high, RISUG or another form must develop within the next decade. Effective, cheap, widely available male contraceptives will level the playing field. Women will not longer be able to control so many of the issues mentioned in the article, because men will also have an equally powerful control over their own reproduction. This, combined with effective, cheap, widely available paternity testing will bring feminism to its knees. Which is why feminists are so adamant about fighting both men’s contraception and paternity testing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 12:07

“Back then the nobles were smart enough to realize that they wouldn’t last long if all of the serfs starved or produced just enough to surivive, with no surplus to be looted by the state.
Soon our own governments will relearn this lesson.”

The government will clear cut the whole forest before they begin to reflect on what they have done. You can bet on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
AfOR June 14, 2012 at 12:11

“Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. ”

===========NO==============

Just fucking NO Bill.

Human violence is also the FINAL REFUGE against those who attempt to impose their will upon us.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 12:28

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 98
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 12:30

“Medieval serfs were treated with less severity than a divorced man is treated today.”

Yes, here is a quote.

“The serf usually had a separate hut with an attached garden and lived with his family. His marriage was a holy union, and married couples were not supposed to be separated.”

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2438684

As far as slavery goes, even during the cruelest slavery in the South, when men were severed from their children, they were not required to pay for them. The divorced man in America is lower than a southern slave.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 2
Mojo June 14, 2012 at 12:55

@ Jennifer

“Bingo. You do NOT have authority over women, and you’re not responsible for them either”

Except we are. Legal obligations etc.

That’s the whole GOD DAMN point of the MRM.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 2
Eric June 14, 2012 at 13:08

Price:
This brings up an issue that’s been often overlooked. The problem centers around the idea of ‘equality under the law’.

There are three distinct concepts involved relating to gender here: equality, polarity, and supremacy. The first is legal, the second is social, and the third is ideological. Feminism is gender supremacy, and by definition opposes both equality and polarity. But to make their radicalism politically acceptable, they disguise it by appealling to equality.

Equality and polarity are not mutually exclusive. Men and women can be legally equal, provided that the law recognizes gender polarity. For example, excluding women from the military doesn’t infringe on legal equality, it recognizes that women are constitutionally unsuited for military policies. Likewise, single men might have to pay a tax on educational subsidies which disporportionally benefit women, but again, that is not inequality. To point is to recognize gender differences and apply the law in a proper balance so that both genders mutually benefit from it—in other words, wherever there is an apparent inequality, a trade-off occurs.

Feminist ideology cannot tolerate the idea of polarity, so it attempts to impose its gender supremacy by employing the force of law. Without polarity, there can be no equality, except in the sense which the feminists REALLY mean it: androgeny. That is that women must become like men and replace men; or to put it bluntly, replace both men and traditional women with androgynous feminised Master Race. Since such a scheme is wholly contrary to the order of nature, it is politically and socially a revolutionary doctrine.

This where the whole matter of appeals to law and order fail; because feminism seeks to use these means only as a tool to supplant them later on and impose the New Order under an entirely different concept of law and order. THAT is their intention and goal. It’s not the intention of feminists to ‘have it both ways’ their intention to have it both ways until one way no longer serves their purposes.

The important thing is to recognize that, from first to last, feminism is a revolutionary movement. Recognizing that fact is when legal defences can be utilized with effectiveness.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Tim June 14, 2012 at 13:23

@Jennifer,

You missed the reason why Welmer included his paragraph on the Equal Rights Amendment. It did not pass. Women are not emancipated. They are a special class with special protections: they do not register for the selective service. In law, current law, women have special protections.

The whole point of the ERA was to eradicate discrimination based on sex – in its entirety, in toto. It did not pass because feminist organizations saw their perks being taken away (patriarchy, rape culture, vawa, etc etc).

The point is, most women like special protections, and you cannot call yourself emancipated until they are all done away with.

Men may not control you anymore, and that is a fact, but now the State does. In good times, the State is a gentle father, wiping your tears away when you cry. But Welmer is bang on – in bad times, the State is a tyrant. You just may have made a deal with the devil. When the state is broke, kiss all those office jobs in Human Resources away. No more daycare, either. All gone. But you could have had them if you chose a man for a husband instead of the state.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 2
Poiuyt June 14, 2012 at 13:33

The political swine that is feminism and their parasitic beneficiaries in females, aggressively seek for a selective equality whenever it suits them and also again, a selective superiority and special privilege whenever it suits them. Hence the genderist politicization of violence.

Suffice it to say the feminists and their handlers want neither of the consequent responsibilities nor the burdensome accountabilities that go and come with personal entitlements … responsibility and accountability being decidedly masculine loads and burdens to be borne in silence by men alone.

But compounding this wretched picture are the tools, fools and stooges of men as police, jurists, jailers, advocates and legislators whom blindly seek to enforce this shameless subjectivity on other men at the point of a gun, … Legitimate violence and intimidation in their warped minds being a natural instrument to control men but not women.

Now in these lands, there are no longer any structures left to civilise females nor moderate women, as all such previous attenuating structures have been declared to be greatly oppressive. So that women are today encouraged to be violent, aggressive, abusive and live dog-like lives of wanton flagrance and carnality as of personal right.

But to be sure and indeed candid, thanks to the cancers, lymphomas, immunodeficiencies, infertility, barreness and other viruses that their new found permissive behaviours, social and sexual,now begets them … As there would be absolutely nothing else restraining their most barbaric instincts and actions towards the existing men and children around them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Georice81 June 14, 2012 at 13:40

I don’t blame capitalism for the mess that we are in. The surplus value that women bring to the system is not really worth that much. There is a fix amount of goods that this country produces and which is needed for a good quality of life. The 50′s saw a very high standard of living in this country and rarely did mothers have to go out to work. When women did go out to work what happened was that the overall amount of necessary goods stayed the same while frivoulous goods increased. Even though family sizes decreased, houses grew in size. Instead of needing one car per family now there were two or even three. Clothing, eating out, perfumes, luxuries, etc increased and most of this was a direct result of female labor.

On the outside it appeared that per capita income and GNP were increasing because of women now working. Yet this increase in products and consumption was not needed for a nice quality of life. Instead it masked the rot that was ocurring behind close doors and which finally manifested itself in cancerous feminism. So yes, there was more “money” but associated with this were divorces, broken homes, increased social malaise and what not.

It was narcissims that made women go out to work when they did not. It was avarice and covetousness that started this cycle of destruction. It wasn’t capitalism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 4
dragnet June 14, 2012 at 13:55

This can all be boiled down to one thing: authority and responsibility go together. Where one is absent, the other must be as well.

This is one of your most thought-provoking efforts, Welmer. I enjoyed reading it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 14:21

Afor
I see your point. The Arab spring started by that army guy and wiki leaks whick showed the arab governments were a bunch of liars and the west was telling the truth. Syria is what it looks like right now.
I don’t think Welmers article was about getting there. When things get to the way Walking in Hell describe we will. With our guidance (MRM) we maybe able to show the government that the easiest way to dump the expence of women would be a male pill. I would much rather a government mangina or white knight have vision of headless goverment officials at bus stops. Than visions of kick backs from slave labour. The 2nd amendment and video of gadaphi screaming are good for political leaders. Thoughtful men like us can offer to take care of the problem with a birth control pill.
BTW welmer had an article about a town in Missouri I think it was that suspended enforcement of DV calls to save money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
American June 14, 2012 at 14:27

American law enforcement’s near refusal to apprehend violent women, is putting many of our nations children at risk.
Un-apprehended violent women have a tendency to take out their violence on the most vulnerable; the elderly, and children.
Violence begat s Violence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
AndrewV June 14, 2012 at 14:36

@Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 12:28
You do NOT have authority over women, and you’re not responsible for them either; it’s about damn time the world saw the obvious. The only thing that should “control” women is the law, the same as it does men. Husbands do not own their wives and sure as hell have no ingrained right to physically rule them.

Still here Jennifer? This is a very old story, the issue is that men are still being held responsible for women while lacking authority over them. Things have improved since 1865 but men are still not out of the woods yet.

See here on what used to be:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/11/26/periodic-table-of-swearing/comment-page-68/#comments
Astro
June 13, 8:59 pm

To be a MRA is to mitigate the importance of women’s rights, in their eyes.

card carrying feminists speak in half-truths and never tell the whole story. Even an old MRA article from 1856 mentions how feminist-inspired laws give women only more rights, but never the corresponding responsibilities.

Serial: Putnam’s Monthly Magazine of American Literature, Science and Art Volume 0007 Issue 38 (February 1856)
Title: A Word for Men’s Rights [pp. 208-214]

Today, the fashionable phrase is—woman’s rights. The women have discovered, or think they have, that they are, and long have been tyrannized over, in the most brutal manner, by society, the laws, and their husbands. Woman’s rights is now the watch-word of a new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution—the women, among other things, claiming to vote.

It must be confessed that such general outcries are not commonly raised, without some reason. They are the natural expressions of pain and unsatisfied desire. It was not without reason that America and Europe, towards the close of the last century, raised the cry of the rights of man; and so, we dare say, it is not without reason that the rights of woman are now dinged into our cars. Nor is this cry without a marked effect, not merely upon manners and society, but also upon laws. Almost all our state legislatures are at work, with more or less diligence and enthusiasm, modifying their statute books, under the influence of this new zeal. To that we do not object. Putnam is for reform. Putnam is for progress. Putnam is for woman’s rights; but also for man’s rights—for everybody’s rights; and, in that spirit, we are going to offer a few hints to our legislators, whose vaulting zeal, on behalf of the ladies, seems a little in danger of overleaping itself, and jolting on t’other side. It is well to stand straight, but not well to tumble over backward, in attempting to do so.

Those who go about to modify our existing laws, as to the relation of husband and wife, will do well to reflect that the old English common law on this subject, if it be a rude and barbarous system, little suited to our advanced and refined state of society—which we do not deny—is also a consistent and logical system, of which the different parts mutually rest upon and sustain each other. In the repair, or modification of such a system, it is material that every part of it should be taken into account. Changes in one part will involve and require changes in other parts ; otherwise, alterations, made with a view only to relieve the wife from tyranny and oppression, may work a corresponding injustice to the husband. Nor are the changes already made in our laws, partly by legislation and partly by usage, free from glaring instances of this sort.

The English common law makes the husband the guardian and master of the wife, who stands to him in the relation of a child and a servant. In virtue of this relation, the husband is legally responsible for the acts of the wife. If she slanders or assaults her neighbors, he is joined with the wife in the action to recover damages, and he alone is legally responsible for the amount of damages recovered, even to the extent of being sent to jail in default of payment. He is likewise responsible for debts contracted by the wife to the same extent that a father is responsible for the debts of his minor children. Even in criminal proceedings, it is he who must pay, or go to jail for not paying the fines imposed on his wife; and there are many cases, even cases of felony, in which the wife, acting in concert with her husband, is excused from all punishment, on the presumption that she acts by his compulsion, though in fact she may, as in the noted case of Macbeth’s wife, have been the instigator. Public opinion goes even further than the law, and holds the husband accountable, to a certain extent, for all misbehaviors and indiscretions on the part of his wife. Not only is he to watch that she does not steal, he is to watch that she does not flirt, and every species of infidelity, or even of levity on her part, inflicts no less disgrace upon him than upon her—disgrace which the received code of honor requires him to revenge upon the male delinquent not only m defiance of the law which forbids all breaches of the peace, but even at the risk of his own life.

The law and public opinion having anciently imposed all these heavy obligations on the husband, very logically and reasonably proceeded to invest him with corresponding powers and authority. Standing to the wife, as he was made to stand, in the relation ‘of father and master, the law very reasonably invested him with all the rights and authority of a father and a master. How, indeed, was he to exercise the authority and to fulfill the obligations which the law and public opinion imposed upon him, of regulating the conduct of his wife, unless invested at the same time with means both of awe and coercion ? Accordingly, the law and usage of England authorized the husband to chastise his wife—in a moderate manner—employing for that purpose a rod not thicker than his finger. The husband was also entitled to the personal custody of his wife, and was authorized in proper cases—if, for instance, she seemed disposed to run off with another man—to lock her up, and, if need were, to keep her on bread and water.

While the wife is thus rendered to a great extent independent of her husband, he, by a strange inconsistency, is still held, both by law and public opinion, just as responsible for her as before. The old and reasonable maxim, that he who dances must pay the piper, not apply to wives—they dance, and the husband pays. To such an extent is this carried, that if the wife beats her husband, and he, having no authority to punish her in kind, applies to the criminal courts for redress, she will be fined for assault and battery, which fine he must pay, even thought she has plenty of money of her own. or, in default of paying, go to jail! Such cases are by no means of unprecedented occurrence in our criminal courts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 14:39

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 45
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 14:42

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 38
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 14:44

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 35
MRA June 14, 2012 at 14:47

The life of Julia

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Pirran June 14, 2012 at 14:48

The end point of Hamster Rationalization?

I wonder at what point the state will stop supporting this…Good Grief.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2158987/Ill-trick-stranger-giving-child-says-desperate-mother.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Mojo June 14, 2012 at 14:49

“I can call myself emancipated when I refuse the Law’s handouts and act on my own, and I do.”

Why yes dear, of COURSE you’re so emancipated. And SUCH a BIG GIRL too!

And if you ever do anything naughty, big daddy state will have to tell you off! Because you’re a BIG GIRL now, and you can deal with that. (Your brothers will be put in cages for minor infractions.)

And if you ever have babies of your own, big daddy state will make sure YOU get to keep them if you get bored of THEIR daddy!

And so on and on … big daddy state will always look after his sweetheart and put her interests first.

But oooh no, of course you’re not a coddled baby. You’re a big, brave girl, aren’t you! YES YOU ARE! A big, brave, emancipated girl!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 7
Anonymous Reader June 14, 2012 at 15:07

Welmer, great article and deeply thoughtful. There is a typo near the end:

I’ll fix it for you:

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be greedier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 15:08

Mojo
I couldn’t have said it better. That women is suffering from some big time cock envy. She has been following around mens blogs all over injecting her self in everything. This article and subject here is just killing her. Because she knows she has nothing to offer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 5
Anonymous Reader June 14, 2012 at 15:19

Welmer, there’s a tension between the control of unmarried mothers of bastards and the state. Voting patterns show unmarried women more prone to vote for Party D and married women more prone to vote for Party R.

So on the one hand, keeping the unmarried wimmenz happy and increasing their number benefits Party D. But unlimited bastards is starting to tax the welfare system, as you note. Every month now it seems there’s another news story of some man who has 10 or more children by multiple women, and he’s never married to any of them. The amount of money collectable from these guys is essentially zero, so the bastards are pure drain on social programs. This is totally expectable side effect of current policies, yet Party D is shocked, shocked, shocked to find that paying wimmenz to have baybees means an ever increasing supply of lunkhead bastards who cannot be educated.

So ah feel their payne. But I don’t see how there will be any easy way to crack down on babymommas without a lot of flak from the various gynocentric branches of Party D (which includes most of it). Rock, meet hard place. Hard place, meet rock.

I wonder how many more Detroit-style urban bankruptcies it will take before anyone seriously considers cutting back on paying wimmenz to make baybees? Quite a few, I betcha.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd June 14, 2012 at 15:28

“Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law.”

Ironically all those immune to authority, & above the law, own all the barrels of a gun …

Which is precisely WHY our rules have no teeth …

Our society deliberately protects women & those who would do the most harm

& deliberately prosecutes those who do the most good

The barrel of a gun’s only as good as the person willing to wield it …

You know you’re screwed, when they start applying doublethink to freedom & liberty …

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
Beltain June 14, 2012 at 15:29

I cannot envision a turn towards controlling women in a Communist Chinese fashion ever coming about. In fact I am betting on the extreme opposite outcome here. After it has run it’s course who knows?

For one thing turning our Representative Republic into the mob rule mess is what opened the door to this nightmare we are suffering today. Women will never vote for a turn to any kind of control issue over their reproductive rights or endanger the cash cows of welfare, support etc.

What I see happening is the entitlement mentality simply breaking the whole thing to pieces and perhaps something more China-Like taking it’s place but no real control until then. As long as the women control the largest voting block they will be pandered to and get their way.

Before any police state type of government turns on women there are still a multitude of twists and screws to be thrown at the outvoted and therefore enslaved men. Forced work camps, bachelor taxes, etc etc. Perhaps after all those are tried they may begin turning on the women but my guess is it would all fall apart before they could.

Ultimately I agree it is not sustainable but it must be shattered apart before any type of female control can be assumed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
keyster June 14, 2012 at 15:32

If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever.

When Conservatives talk about ObamaCare being a transfer of wealth scheme, they don’t dare mention that it’s primarily meant as a state enforced vehicle for men to pay for women’s healthcare.

Because women overwhelmingly use healthcare services (especially if they’re “free”), ObamaCare seeks to better “balance” the costs across both males and females. The dozens of special provisions specific to women’s healthcare that ObamaCare mandates insurance companies follow, will be costs that ultimately MEN will bear.

Apparently allocating millions of tax dollars every year to subsidize Planned Parenthood (essentially a women’s healthcare charity), is not enough. They want to FORCE insurance companies to offer “free” healthcare for women as well. Men are given no such attention, even though men are more likely to die at a younger age, from heart disease, cancer or stroke.

Also, another favorite of the N.O.W. sisterhood is protecting Social Security benefits, because again, women live longer than men — and many more older women are single than ever before.

When there is talk of “redistribution of wealth” it’s code for taking money from men and redistributing it to women’s entitlements. From estate law to family court to healthcare to welfare — it’s taken from Men and given to Women via the government. This is why the majority of women are Democrat or members of the “Party of Women”.

Since middle class men are now essentialy disenfranchised from society, they’re checking-out. They see no reward in being a productive citizen…only RISK. As the bulk of the tax base shrinks, so do the entitlements for women. Once women figure they’ve been duped into thinking government would always provide and it suddenly stops, it will be a VERY rude awakening indeed.

The day of the Great American Default soon approaches.
It’ll make the Greece situation look rather quaint by comparison.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Shane June 14, 2012 at 15:42

There was a men’s workshop in my area yesterday that’s sole purpose was to give young men the same, old, tired speech about how to treat a woman. I am sure most of you know what these young men were told. Some baby boomer white knight did his best to indoctrinate these young men into becoming manginas. The male who lead that workshop just set up a lot of those young men up to fail. Some people are really out of touch with reality. Men can’t even defend themselves anymore without being arrested, beaten, or scorned. It is a sad state of affairs when men can’t even defend themselves without facing punishment. People like the baby boomer white knight I mentioned realier in my comment need to realize it is 2012, and not 1952. There is a wide disconnect between generations of men regarding their views on women. Women have become more like liabilities nowadays than assets. I understand why men are either isolating themselves, doing enough just to get by, or re-locating to another country. A society is only as strong as its men, and this society has done a real bang-up job sucking the life out of men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 15:48

It’ll make the Greece situation look rather quaint by comparison.
We own guns the Greeks don’t

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
keyster June 14, 2012 at 15:49

I wonder how many more Detroit-style urban bankruptcies it will take before anyone seriously considers cutting back on paying wimmenz to make baybees? Quite a few, I betcha.

California is in very desperate shape right now.
(It’s not being reported nationally by our news media because it makes Obama’s policies look bad.)
They are $16 Billion in debt and have oustanding IOU’s of another $60 Billion. It’s VERY serious. Governor MoonBeam is trying to get voter approval to raise income tax rates AGAIN, (it’s already the highest in the country) or they go into default and services begin shutting down next year. It’s a big mess and “Too Big to Fail” as they say in Wash DC.

It’s what happens to States dominated by Democrat political and economic orthodoxy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price June 14, 2012 at 15:53

I can call myself emancipated when I refuse the Law’s handouts and act on my own, and I do.

-Jennifer

Actually, Jennifer, I don’t doubt you. Plenty of women are self-sufficient, and such types have always existed. At this point in my life, I wouldn’t be interested in any other kind of woman (nor could I afford one), so far be it from me to deny that some women are very capable, competent individuals. However, this is not the case in general. Most women are simply more dependent than most men for a number of reasons, almost of all of them entirely natural.

This is really where the law is problematic. Where you or some other woman may be fully capable of taking responsibility for your actions and taking care of yourself, I could find two or three who cannot. With men the ratio is something approaching the opposite. The costs are quite clear. Social welfare expenditures on women dwarf those spent on men, and this is not because “the man” is holding these women down — quite the contrary. Women of more dysfunctional socioeconomic classes are promoted far above equivalent men, yet on the balance they remain more dependent and costly than the men they “outperform.”

Although it’s a difficult truth, we may have to accept that the gains certain of the more competent, ambitious and capable women have made have come at the expense of the majority. Perhaps there’s a solution to this, but it appears to be contrary to the feminist platform.

W.F. Price June 14, 2012 at 15:56

There was a men’s workshop in my area yesterday that’s sole purpose was to give young men the same, old, tired speech about how to treat a woman. I am sure most of you know what these young men were told.

-Shane

Hi, Shane. Could you send me the text or a synopsis of the workshop and its name? I’d be happy to look into it myself and write a critique.

Nemo June 14, 2012 at 15:57

You can bet that the week after the election, the MSM will suddenly ‘discover’ that California is bankrupt.

If Romney wins, he’ll be blamed for it, starting on January 20, 2013, even though the Dems have run the state right into the ground.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 15:58

Keyster
I have a relative that works in the court system in California. They are doing random days off(Furlows) without pay for about the same number of vacation days they have a year.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Crank June 14, 2012 at 15:59

Are you sure that the Hayden rider was included in the version passed in 1972? I can’t find any confirmation of that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Shane June 14, 2012 at 16:27

W.F Price,

I wasn’t ablt to locate a transcript, but the organization that conducted the seminar was “A Call To Men.” Basically, it consists of guys who are hardcore manginas. If you look up there website, especially in the “Who We Are” and “What We Do” tabs, you will understand right away what I am talking about.

The following sentence is the core belief of “A Call To Men.”

“A CALL TO MEN believes that preventing domestic and sexual violence is ultimately the responsibility of men.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
AndrewV June 14, 2012 at 16:42

Somewhat on topic. Perhaps some of you may want to think twice about migrating to Kanukistan?

We may look a lot like you guys in the US but trust me, it is only superficial. In may ways we may as well live on Mars as far as you guys are concerned.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/14/supreme-court-domestic-abuse-defence.html
The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday on whether victims of domestic abuse can hire a hit man to kill their partners, a controversial issue which tests the limits of the defence of duress.

The case involves a Nova Scotia woman, Nicole Doucet, who tried to hire an undercover RCMP officer to kill her husband Michael Ryan.

The high school teacher was arrested in March 2008 and charged with counselling to commit murder.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price June 14, 2012 at 16:55

@AndrewV

Oh man…

That is insane. Thanks for the tip.

Shane June 14, 2012 at 17:00

W. F. Price,

Even though I couldn’t find the exact text, I found a link to the press releases listed on the “A Call To Men” website:

http://www.acalltomen.com/downloads.php

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 17:15

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 38
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 17:32

See I told you it was killing her. “The only solution is to LET women function as fellow adults,and that includes the welfare system. Only if a woman has children should she receive benefits.
Women are and have always been capable of taking responsibility for their actions.”
you got that Price. “i’m a woman I’m 40 you don’t fuck with me, i don’t need nor want any stinkin welfare unless I have kids, and you tell that uppity ass greyghost the same.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 17:34

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 42
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 17:41

I got street cred now I just got offered some ass on the spearhead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Antifeminist One June 14, 2012 at 17:42

In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the state in its current incarnation the ultimate end-boss of ‘the patriarchy’? In which case, they wouldn’t ever be satisfied with any real government authority in place.

So I don’t see them ever giving up until they finally thwart their own breeding or the state views feminism as a problem which needs to be… corrected.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 17:43

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 37
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 17:52

GG, you do realize that means you’re responsible for your wife’s adultery?
If this wasn’t true there would be no need for a MRM and you wouldn’t have and nice guys to flirt with.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Rob June 14, 2012 at 17:52

Good article, Welmer… dare I say it? Yes, it is one of your best posts ever.

I don’t say that often, so…

Sticky it somewhere.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 17:56

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 30
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 18:02

Both

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 18:03

Why are you so invested in a lie honey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
AndrewV June 14, 2012 at 18:05

@Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 17:15

The only solution is to let women function as fellow adults, and that includes the welfare system; only if a woman has children should she receive any benefits. And women are, and always have, been capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Well, no offence meant while it sounds fine in theory, in practise what apparently has been happening up here in Kanukistan is that we have been to some consternation in certain quarters, in effect beengetting more of what we subsidize, so I would not be surprised at similar outcomes in the USA.

I learned to my surprise over thirty years ago, that social services in Canada would visit unannounced and inspect the bedrooms and bathrooms of women on welfare to see if there were any signs that there was a man living on the premises. If such was found, like a razor and shaving cream, the woman had her benefits cut.

Whatever the reason given for the above actions, the outcome would be the children of single mothers growing up without much male influence at home.

Now I currently have some idea as to how widespread the practise is, but I can not be arsed to find the link right now. You will have to settle with my claim that I personally know two women who deliberately got pregnant so that they could claim increased benefits.

Quite frankly, I may be reading too much into your words, but I am under the impression that you are a fairly privileged member of your class, and the fact that a substantial number of women have no compunction in utilizing the system to their benefit without feeling any obligation, has not even occurred to you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 18:14

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 32
freebird June 14, 2012 at 18:14

“Arrogated” should be “abrogated?”
Superlative writing and excellent reading.
Darn shame the politicians cannot bring themselves to this level of introspection.
It’s all pork and control at the top.
BTW,Lansing has a new bill being introduced that would defund abortion clinics in Michigan,the wymyns are protesting in pink shirts.

So I gotta wonder, if they want to defund abortion, are they gonna want to defund payments to bastards also?

Seems like ya gotta do both!

Make em responsible.(To big daddy govt.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
freebird June 14, 2012 at 18:21

Jennifer,you’re contradicting yourself.
First you say mothers with children SHOULD get benefits,then you complain about the welfare system.
You’re gonna have to do better.
Be specific.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price June 14, 2012 at 18:23

“Arrogated” should be “abrogated?”

-freebird

Nah, they are almost antonyms. I definitely meant “arrogated.”

greyghost June 14, 2012 at 18:26

Welmer
did you see the vicious personal attack. i’m outraged and I feel I’m bullied and treated unfairly by the Spearhead for standing by while be horribly wronged in public. i was just making innocent conversation with what I thought was an attractive woman.
Well i do apolagize to the spearhead for allowing a derailment from the subject of the article, which is outstanding.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 18:31

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 28
W.F. Price June 14, 2012 at 18:33

@Greyghost

Haha, it is the double standard in action.

You see, while feminists cannot tolerate even the slightest breeze around their skirts, I tend to assume that the men here are tough enough to handle even the most aggressive shaming.

I, too, hold men to higher standard. But only because I respect them. ;)

BTW, if you think Jennifer is bad you should see what I’ve deleted over the past couple days. It would be funny if it weren’t so repetitive.

In comparison, Jennifer is a gleaming pillar of reason in the midst of a fetid swamp.

freebird June 14, 2012 at 18:37

Well Jenn,since you won’t be specific I will.
Married couples should get a tax break for children,and unmarried mothers and fathers should also get a tax break but no welfare.
It’s called personal responsibility.
Also, you should not be able to get tax breaks past what you paid in,IE-a handout.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Rob June 14, 2012 at 18:40

Free, I said that only women with children should get benefits, not women alone, and that’s if they presumably actually need the welfare to begin with. If men on welfare have kids, they should get extra too. — Jennifer

And that is exactly why the nuclear family is being destroyed.

Welfare was originally set up after the First World War to provide for the widows and orphans of dead soldiers… which was responsible of society.

But to fund women for their changing choices, at the expense of either men or the taxpayer, is an abomination.

In civilizations before such laws, women would have had a tough time, and rightly frickin so. Unless, that is, they are children who should be sheltered from their bad decisions.

Then, a more responsible adult ought to be in charge of their affairs, don’t you think?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 18:42

Good to see you have a sense of humor Welmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 18:52

Don’t take Jennifer too serious because I sure didn’t. She was giving us the women are responsible talk and then made a qualifier for free stuff from the government.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Jennifer June 14, 2012 at 19:02

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 28
Eric June 14, 2012 at 19:12

Greyghost:
Reading over Jenni’s posts, all I could make out was the same old ‘grrrl power’ and ‘having it all’ garbage. She strikes me as being of the ‘Socon feminist’ stamp; that men are ‘nice to have around as long as they know their place and remember who’s in charge.’

Maybe it’s a good thing your flirtation didn’t work—you’d have wound up with a Mama Grizzly to deal with!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Eric June 14, 2012 at 19:16

Price;
‘you should see what I’ve deleted in the last few days.’

Thank you for mercifully sparing us that. Just out of curiosity: have you noticed an increase in those kinds of posts recently (say over the last 4-5 months)? Some of us have been noticing it here and on other blogs and are trying to figure out if it’s indicative of some kind of trend. I’d like to get your input on that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Firepower June 14, 2012 at 19:17

Violence used in a just way promotes order.
The power to wield violence is supreme.
It’s why people fear government.

It’s how governments are ultimately toppled.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
The Usual Suspect June 14, 2012 at 19:20

I am surprised things for men aren’t even worse. It seems like almost everyone is on the side of Team Woman. All these feminists, manginas, and white knights who spread these domestic violence lies are writing checks other men will have to cash. Men are starting to find themselves in such a deep hole that the thought of attempting to climb out of it seems mind-blowing. It is hard to accept that you, as a man, are alone in this world, but it is the truth. I typed in the phrase “violence against men” in Google, and almost every website that appeared on the first page were websites dedicated to telling men to end violence against women, but almost no websites were dedicated to telling women to end violence against men. That is how little men matter not only to women, but to men who believe feminist lies. Men need to be taught how to protect themselves in this feminist-friendly society, instead of being taught how to sacrifice everything for a group of people who could care less about them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Ode June 14, 2012 at 19:40

Jennifer

It’s time for the bullshit to end. I can call myself emancipated when I refuse the Law’s handouts and act on my own, and I do.

Young lady there is absolutely nothing unique about your declarations, it’s been said before. Back in the days When Female baby boomers reached their coming of age moment they burned their bras and loudly declared their “independence”. Fast forward to the present now they are in their 60′s with no savings because they blew it all away. They have nightmares of the possibility of big daddy government reducing (let alone actually eliminating) their social security / Medicare / subsidized food / energy and who knows what else…..paid for by beta male tax payers of course.

Your time will come Jennifer when you’ll have plenty of opportunity to prove just how strong you really are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn June 14, 2012 at 20:22

Jennifer wrote: “The only thing that should “control” women is the law, the same as it does men.”

There you go again Jennifer. “should’ in the article above and in life means that the law does not in practice control women as it does men. It would be nice yet that is not reality.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
AndrewV June 14, 2012 at 20:30

@greyghost June 14, 2012 at 18:26
did you see the vicious personal attack

It was so obvious to me what was going on I almost suggested that you two get a room.

And BTW, my social intelligence is so low the average aspie scores higher than I do.

http://www.questionwritertracker.com/quiz/61/Z4MK3TKB.html
Your Score 20
Total Possible 36
An average score for this test is 26.2, or 21.9 for an adult with Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
USN June 14, 2012 at 20:36

Jennifer said “and thank God; the professions of medicine, ministry, teaching, and numerous others need women.”

Do the professions of carpentry, plumbing, road repair, auto repair, coal mining, garbage collection, etc also need women?

Those professions, all of which are vital services in our society, are dominated by men. Have the feminist ever complained about men dominating those professions?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 14, 2012 at 21:19

what is a 32

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
keyster June 14, 2012 at 22:16

I agree. But I also think women are capable of being responsible, and you do not; you’ve argued that women are amoral voids without men and seek them to fill the big blanks.

Of course women are CAPABLE of being responsible, but a vast majority prefer not to be by choice, otherwise there would be no interest in this blog, not to mention the plethora of female specific entitlements and ongoing demands for yet more.

You speak of some IDEAL of what a woman should be/can be, but yet the dearth of these “strong, independent, empowered” women are the exception that proves the rule. They seem more prevalent only because our Media portrays women as such with deceptive frequency, both the select exceptions in reality, as well as in pure fiction/fantasy.

The day feminists decide women should stop playing the “gender/victim card” and blaming men for their innate shortcomings, is the day they will have deemed women truly responsible. The issue you’re fighting is that the “Women’s Grievance Industry” has become so large and so powerful that there’s simply too much at stake to give up, even if they have to “imagine” oppression and misogyny where none exists. Feminism is literally a Multi-Billion dollar a year 501C3 industry that employs thousands of lawyers, PR experts, social scientists and administrators.

If you have a problem with women’s reliance on the State (rather than themselves). Go tell it to a professional Feminist. There’s probably a NOW regional office in your city or state. I’d go talk to them myself, but they seem to be skeptical of anything a man says…not that they’re bigots or anything.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Ron June 14, 2012 at 22:45

@Jen

You want equality but you do not want equal treatment. What that means is, you want the same positive results that men get through their labor, but you want none of the responsibility or miserable treatment we endure.

A man is a human being, we have emotions and feelings. Wants and desires. But in case of divorce we have armed thugs and black robed lunatics take our children away from us. Why? Why are we any less fit or have any less right to our children than their mothers? If anything we are more capable, more responsible, not less.

Here is the truth – In case of marriage, the one who provides should have the children. In case of out of wedlock, all rights and responsibilities should go to the mother, the burden of providing and the privileges of providing should rest with her. Any woman who feels that she has a natural priority to her children can simply avoid marriage and take care of her children on her own. Thats what an actually fair system would look like.

But that would take away power from the black robed lunatics, the blue shirted animals, and the horde of “real men” whose seeming definition of being a “real man” is to be a dumb beast of burden.

I know few if any women will ever agree with what I wrote. But this comment is actually not aimed at Jennifer, its aimed at the other men at this forum. Im not a great writer, but this is my little drop in the bucket of consciousness.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire June 14, 2012 at 22:47

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong.
—————————-
this is why you mgtowers need to listen to guys like keyster

without some form of government representation you guys better pray that your john galting is unsuccessful

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
evilwhitemalempire June 14, 2012 at 23:18

jennifer
That’s because husbands ain’t employers, they’re supposed to be the other half of their wives’ flesh.
—————————————-

laydeeeeeeees and gen – tel – men, behind this curtain i present the 8th wonder of the world, jennifer!

the bisexual half man/half woman!

watch as jennifer touches herself at work and then files a sexual harrassment lawsuit against herself!

watch as the right half of her body slaves away while the other eats bonbons

watch as it argues with itself!
“you raped me last night! no you didn’t! yes, you did! i was in the mood last night, but now you changed our mind and decided that you raped us!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
JeremiahMRA June 14, 2012 at 23:21

I got a 31 on that social whatever test. It would have helped a bit to see the full face. The ability to read people is helpful in understanding how human beings think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
JeremiahMRA June 14, 2012 at 23:25

It’s quite clear that the only sane society is one in which men dominate women. All other structures lead to dysfunction. Technology cannot solve this problem. It is a result of human nature. Any man interested in solutions would look for ways to return to and maintain such a structure.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8
Robert June 14, 2012 at 23:49

Long day of placating crackheads to haul garbage so I ain’t absorbed all of the above but consider it on-topic to note ‘Stop Violence Against Womyn’ bumper stickers. Like, Excuse me Madam, but Brutus, my beloved Shih Tzu, feels that your statement acquiesces to harming pets, boys, girls (underage womyn), his deceased elderly Mummy and Daddy, late-term fetuses, Viet Cong, cops – shall we go on until you are an insignificant minority? Or shall we simply agree that violence is an undesireable action towards all?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Eric June 14, 2012 at 23:55

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire:

‘You guys better pray that your johngalting is unsuccessful.’

The problem with too many libertarians is that they believe in a predetermined outcome to events. Ayn Rand asked in one of her novels: ‘Choose between our minds or your guns.’ And in the story, the men of the mind won, because they were right.

I like Ayn Rand, but her thinking really shows that even an especially intelligent and well-intentioned female can only go so far and gets out of her depth in fields like government and philosophy, where men really belong.

I prefer Jacob Burckhardt. He said that, like it or not, the men with the guns make the rules and everything depends on whether those men with the guns are defending civilization or destroying it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire June 15, 2012 at 00:26

notaprick
Conversely, now that women have that [pill] power, men no longer have the ability to control women in society, since women are no longer unwillingly tethered to reproductive concerns.
———————–
i think there might be a grain of truth there

but, if anything, the pill didn’t empower women

it actually gave men power over women

why? because it meant a lot more sexual alternatives for men than a commited relationship

these wallflowers didn’t reject traditionalism because it was oppressive and mean

traditionalism [suddenly] rejected wallflowers because they could no longer win a mule -err man due to the increased sexual competition the pill created

and so they had nothing better to do than enter the workplace

they’ve been doing everything in their power shut down the fun ever since [no fault divorce, draconian rape/harrassment laws and etc. all intended to institutionalize blackmail as a means of getting their power BACK]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
"The One" June 15, 2012 at 00:33

This was quite a good read. Jennifer was hilarious. So child-like and dumb.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 15, 2012 at 00:33

robert
‘Stop Violence Against Womyn’ bumper stickers. Like, Excuse me Madam, but Brutus, my beloved Shih Tzu, feels that your statement acquiesces to harming pets, boys, girls (underage womyn), his deceased elderly Mummy and Daddy, late-term fetuses, Viet Cong, cops – shall we go on until you are an insignificant minority?
———————————
what those bumper stickers say is ‘stop violence against women’

but what they mean is ‘women [and ONLY women] are above an ass whoopin’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 15, 2012 at 00:40

btw i think that vawa is all part of that ‘get power back’ thing

to try a legislate the ‘never hit a girl’ thing that used to be part of traditional western culture but that got lost when the fems back then were busy making up a bunch of sour grapes and sweet lemons about not needin’ no man

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 15, 2012 at 00:56

eric

i’ve never actually read atlas shrugged (maybe i will someday)

i only know the basic idea behind it

but yes, a country that chose men’s minds over it’s own guns would prevail over other countries that chose the opposite

“I prefer Jacob Burckhardt. He said that, like it or not, the men with the guns make the rules and everything depends on whether those men with the guns are defending civilization or destroying it.”
———
there is another thing though, the issue of auto piloting

as technology continues to advance fewer and fewer men are needed to keep things going

we might reach a point where society no longer cares if atlas shrugs since atlas has made himself redundant

i am also inclined to think that this has a lot to do with the feminism problem since technology is better at replacing shoulders than wombs
[and that this puts them in the drivers seat. at least until the very end]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire June 15, 2012 at 01:19

Ayn Rand asked in one of her novels: ‘Choose between our minds or your guns.’ And in the story, the men of the mind won, because they were right.
———————
i reckon the rub here is whether or not all men’s minds are equal

sure they’ll be nice to the brightest but what about the majority of men who’s backs are more valuable than their brains?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 15, 2012 at 01:26

As far as slavery goes, even during the cruelest slavery in the South, when men were severed from their children, they were not required to pay for them.
————–
well, actually they did

through their economic output to the slaveowner

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Eric June 15, 2012 at 01:32

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire:
‘We might reach a point where nobody cares if Atlas shrugs because Atlas has made himself redundant.’

I think there’s a very strong possibilty that this could be in our future. It will depend on a number factors, but the way society is going, we’re witnessing a trend where the classes are separating in a way never seen before, because of technology like you mentioned.

The underclass is growing increasingly less educated and more violent. I think what we’re seeing is a new middle class that is tending to segregate itself in its own communities. As polarisation increases, the underclass will become increasingly feral, and the middle class increasingly isolated: maybe even to the point of walled cities again. But technology has actually made those kinds communities more feasible than in the Middle Ages.

The upper classes are going to depend on the middle more heavily and are going to be less likely to infere with us as they do now; and will have to concentrate most of its energies on the underclass. IOW, there will be a huge shift in the priorities of enforcing these laws, so that for the middle, most social engineering schemes will be largely irrelevant.

Whether or not that happens, though, devolves back onto what the upper class (the guys with the guns) are going to do. If they let events take their course, what I described will probably be the outcome; but if they fear losing their power and decide to impose their will on everyone indiscriminately, things will turn out much differently. That’s when it will be time to make a bee-line for the nearest border, rather than building a castle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Mojo June 15, 2012 at 01:34

@ Jennifer,

Fuck off, sweetie.

Nobody here wants to listen to your bitchings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
greyghost June 15, 2012 at 01:46

You can be as smart as you think you are but the guys with the guns call the shots. Do you really think the people in Egypt right now are the actual descendants of the people that built the Pyrimads. Don’t confuse the technical ability to make better guns with minds over guns.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
greyghost June 15, 2012 at 02:06

Notaprick is right about male birth control. It is such a powerful social game changer that it could even be sold as an illegal drug. Just like cocaine,Meth,and steroids,we can have birth control pills. That and over the counter fertility test kits if possible and DNA sample kits.
I wonder how many men each year have to drop out of college to work to pay child support. What percentage of professional athletes start their pro careers with CS orders in place. How polite will cock carousel riders be with a 3 to 4 year run of aged riders not able to get intentioanl single mommed due to the male pill. The empowered career woman past her fertility will work until she dies with no one not even her own child to fleece.
Knowing what we know the few that manage to knock some bitch up will get hammered so hard for resources that more men will go on the pill. Even marriage won’t be a sure bet for a bitchy woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Eric June 15, 2012 at 02:12

Greyghost:
The only problem with the male pill would be that the idiots most women seem to prefer for sex partners would never be responsible enough to use it. There’s really no way to stop the thugs from having sex, so the best prevention is to steer men away from the Amerobitch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 15, 2012 at 02:22

Eric
Good that will mean productive men are spare. also street thug types if given a chance to avoid legal problems do. If a dealer came up to a guy in the hood and sold “you can fuck all the pussy you want and never get nailed with child support”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbgvwNqTLVw
some times reality is best tacked straight on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Eric June 15, 2012 at 02:30

Greyghost:
That kind of plays into the social scenario I described above. The only marriage demographic in the US that’s actually going up is between American guys and foreign women: productive men + productive women. Meanwhile, the Amerobitches will keep knocking out half-savage offspring with bums; and we’ll be rid of both either way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
codebuster June 15, 2012 at 06:08

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures.

OT (sort of, but sort of related). Here’s a snippet of idiocy from the State-controlled land downunder:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/world/asia/australia-marine-reserves/index.html?hpt=hp_mid

And look at the follow-up comments from readers. Gawd liberals are stoopid. There’s only one reason why a gubmint can afford to “create world’s largest network of marine parks.” There is nothing to extract from them. Irrespective of gubmint initiatives, it’s not going to make any difference. And if, perchance, a wealth of minerals should be found at some point within said marine park, watch how easily commercial interests will have that proclamation overturned in the blink of an eye – or, at the most, 4 years, at election time. Here’s a tip for the Aussie gubmint: proclaim that 99% of the moon’s surface should prohibit all mining. That’ll really impress the liberals no end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Towgunner June 15, 2012 at 07:30

@ Nemo:

“The main reason why men are not striving to be productive citizens as much as they have in the past is that they cannot keep the fruit of their labors, or even the fruit of their loins.”

Good point, but I would also add that men have been marginalized by our culture. Look at how they’re portrayed on TV, movies and even ads. Since we know the true nature of women, I think men know they’re nothing to look up to or emulate. In the not so distant past, stoic and solid examples of excellence were there for men and, importantly, boys to look up to. Look at how the world is with more female “input”, depending of Greece’s election result on Sunday we literally could be facing an global economic meltdown worse than 08. And today’s culture literally does not compute for men. For instance, the typical “bad-ass” mossad women on ncis, apparently, can kick anyone’s ass. As someone who’s been in the military and has been in my share of fights, I know this is not true. Short men are to be feared and not underestimated. A women is feeble and the best of them easily overtaken. Men know this, but the constant unrelenting feed of media portrayals to the contrary takes their toll, if for no other reason that this feminine warrior makes no sense. And, why would they want to be that way if for no other reason to make some spiteful and malicious counter example to men? Moreover, the work place has been so PC’ified and the fawning of women so entrenched and, more importantly, their incompetence so openly revealed…this, again, has created a “does not compute” pseudo reality. Not to mention that men are very obviously a second class citizen and openly told that we’re not equal, even though that continues to be the stated goal of feminism? Bottom-line: under such incoherent and contradictory plus predatory conditions, why would men try to be productive? Personally, I don’t want this new world or new normal, why would I work to make it better or defend it…is it for everyone’s benefit, no. It’s for women’s benefit and if you look closely at the statistics, its mostly white women from upper class backgrounds. So, in this supposedly more compassionate and evolved culture…tell me what progress has been made if white upper class people still reign? Albeit just women though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Wilson June 15, 2012 at 09:26

Not sure that women have a problem with government coercion or violence against women as long it’s justified as benefiting the feminine collective. If it means keeping their benefits I doubt they would mind forced abortions, especially since they could argue that the abortions would be in the best interests of certain disadvantaged women themselves. Not that such a measure or any measure designed to hold women to account will ever happen under the current system, since they are the government’s best citizens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
ahamkara June 15, 2012 at 09:50

Violence wouldn’t have even been an issue for me, although I get the sense that you are defining “force” in a broader sense. If my ex-wife hadn’t been guaranteed a monthly income from me when she left, she would have put a lot more thought into whether she should leave or whether she should stay and try to work with me to make our lives better. I think that would have been enough to save our marriage, and our money (from the lawyers). The custody issue, of course, would have helped as well. If you can’t stomp your feet and say, “well if you don’t do things my way I’m taking the kids and leaving!” Then you actually find yourself having to (gasp) work out your problems with your partner so that you can move forward with your lives and your goals! What a concept!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price June 15, 2012 at 09:56

Violence wouldn’t have even been an issue for me, although I get the sense that you are defining “force” in a broader sense.

-ahamkara

Violence isn’t an issue for most couples. However, it tends to become far more of an issue during divorce, whether or not there was any during the marriage. Some of the first questions a divorcing wife is asked include “did you ever ‘feel’ afraid of him?” and the like. There’s a lot of hinting and suggestion, and she tends to get the clue really quickly that alleging abuse will help her case. Because perjury is never punished unless a wife is actually trying to run cover for her husband, there’s no drawback to lying about it.

joeb June 15, 2012 at 11:10

We used to have good sense , VAW laws are being disputed now because of the corruption and abuse of the laws by tricky Lawyers. What I think your saying is who will wheeled the sword.
Family courts have the right to introduce evidence that in some cases are not true , Like Temp orders being used as evidence of violence .
The truth is to introduce such evidence you would have to bring in Proof of A conviction of Assault( from a criminal court ). But in family court logic is dismissed and here say rules .
In my county the Criminal courts tried to move the Family courts into and merge as the same .the federal government had a Fit about it and it never happened
We have a Family court system running a mock without checks and balances . The lawyers will not piss in the pool and legislate the Matter of Logical proof in family Court because the cost to themselves would be to Great .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Troll King June 16, 2012 at 01:01

I know I am late to the party but here is a concrete example of useless womyn that Jenny claims doesn’t exist to any real degree.

http://thebillfold.com/2012/05/young-privileged-and-applying-for-food-stamps/#comment-4207

She has a degree in sociology, uses feminist buzzwords, and wrote a shitty article about how she is on food stamps.

So super duper empowered and independent, isn’t she?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba June 16, 2012 at 04:13

I noticed a lot of trolling/hogwash by a female commenter. Here’s my belief. Make anyone receiving free government money do work. Base difficulty and how many hours off how much money they are getting. Make it easy to get there with a lot of local sites. Just have them dig holes, then fill them or stack bricks then take them and stack them somewhere else, etc.. If they run to a doctor and get a medical excuse, give them alternative tasks and if the task is easier than the normally expected tasks make them work more hours. If they use medical excuses to get out of that, cut off their welfare. You have to give these women an incentive to stop stealing other people’s money or else things will never change and likely just get worse. I guarantee if this was ever enforced that, at least among the lower middle and below economic classes, women would get at least a little bit of responsibility and stop letting bad boy thugs (not a race thing….thug of any race or ethnicity) pump em and dump em cause they know new baby equals new welfare money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
The First Joe June 16, 2012 at 05:24

Excellent essay Welmer.

“…If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. …”

^Exactly.
Men may not employ coercion to get something they want from women. Therefore men should not be subject to coercion to provide something that women want from men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
The First Joe June 16, 2012 at 05:34

Nemo said: “The main reason why men are not striving to be productive citizens as much as they have in the past is that they can not keep the fruit of their labors, or even the fruit of their loins.”

^Yes. Agreed. This is, in large part, why I have no kids and work only as much as I need for my day-to-day requirements. Why would I work hard for a lifetime when it can all be taken from me in a flash?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The First Joe June 16, 2012 at 05:47

Jennifer said: “…now women are being treated like coddled children. It’s time for the bullshit to end. I can call myself emancipated when I refuse the Law’s handouts and act on my own, and I do….”

^If true, it’s a start. However, you can only truly call yourself emancipated when the law makes no special grants, prejudices or priveleges in your favour, just because you’re a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
The First Joe June 16, 2012 at 06:00

@Greyghost – don’t you believe it. There’s a LOT of guns in Greece. Especially in Crete.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 16, 2012 at 06:52

@ Troll King

From the link about the bitch who calls herself “young, privileged and applying for food stamps”:

“With a Bachelor’s in Sociology, ‘overeducated’ felt generous.”

Bitch, please.

Don’t forget to mention that you have no vocational training because of the fact that sociology courses at whatever school you attended were about indoctrination and not about vocational training.

I’m not even sure that sociology CAN include vocational training in any of its classes. Some liberal arts fields could conceivably include vocational training, but I’m not sure sociology is one of them

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 16, 2012 at 07:09

The bitch from the article about applying for food stamps (who lives in Brooklyn) claims that she cannot move back in with her parents in northern Minnesota because “of what it would do to her career.”

1) What, is she too good for northern Minnesota (not because of the anagram for “Minnesota”: “a snot mine”)?

and

2) Where she lives (Brooklyn) is not an immutable characteristic. She needs to stop treating it as if it were one.

New York City (and upstate NY isn’t much better) attracts people like her who are led to believe that they are better/more important/more special/more unique than everyone else. These people are like the turds that won’t flush.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 16, 2012 at 07:32

The First Joe
That is good to know. It is going to be really interesting see how the people there react to paying their own bills. It looks to me the baby boomer generation was a world wide bunch of spoiled brats that set up these socialist goverment controled utopias all over the western world. Looks like the last one The US has finally run out of other peoples money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
orecret June 20, 2012 at 22:09

Finally, a forum of sorts where I can present my experience and have it judged by a group of critical, yet mostly, respectful peers..

(I haven’t read all of the comments yet, so bear with me if somehow my experience and questions repeat that of others above)…

One of my last girlfriends was on the violent side (half a dozen episodes towards me in three years or so… and witness to violence against others in the period). A (somewhat alcoholic) woman in her early twenties, she became more violent as the second wave feminists in the community egged her on… (One of those feminists was my boss’ wife…)

She was quite physically strong, a horse trainer. She got it into her mind to train ME like a horse. I humored her and responded to her clicks and whistles as if I were a Pavlovian dog; I wanted to see just where she would go with this… (I like to give people a lot of rope in the beginning to see what they will do with it… a test of character that can be quite revealing). This went on for months; everyone thought I was nuts or wimpy or pussy-whipped or something.

Finally, she attempted to apply the coup de grace to me and grabbed me HARD by the balls.

Before I knew it I had thrown her up against the wall with my hands around her neck and her feet dangling off of the floor. My reptilian hind brain took action before my mammalian forebrain even knew what was going on. Momentarily, we are talking seconds (milliseconds?) here, my mammalian brain caught up and tempered my actions. I let go and walked away and sat in the car for a couple of minutes.

Then, I came back and proceeded to tell her that what she had done to me was unfair. She forced me into violence to protect myself. I had not had to do so for over 25 years and had vowed not to commit any more viloence in the civil realm.

The next day, I told her NEVER to do such a thing to a man again… that she was lucky that I didn’t truly hurt her beyond a sense of fear of my primordial power and brute strength and a few bruises around her neck. She drew out the animal in me and I had to protect myself. The only thought I remember during that episode was that she was going to make me sterile and that I was not going to allow it. … and then my hands were around her neck with her feet dangling above the floor…

She didn’t report me for domestic violence, even though she could have and had me arrested… completely within the terms of VAWA. I think that she knew SHE was guilty. She soon left our small town, but not before sowing dark rumors about my character amongst the community, especially amongst the feminists and their complacent “husbands.”

Her father, I think, had newfound respect for me, it seems. I think he was happy to see that a man had finally put his out-of-control daughter in her place. But, we never spoke of it outwardly. Soon enough he divorced the awful women of his family and is said to be happily MGTOW somewhere in the middle east.

What am I to think of myself in this episode? What am I to think of others’ judgements of me… especially as those judgements/condemnations are based upon her story… (I have never said a word about the episode to anyone and never speak of her since)??? I was taught never to take advantage of someone weaker than me, nor hit a woman/girl, etc.

I am not repentant. I acted in self-defense. … but, I am still the bad guy… the asshole… the one whose reputation is that he doesn’t respect women, is an asshole (have I said that already?) and is violent???

I am prepared for vitriol. Let it fly. I can’t be judged any worse than I already have been by feminists and their male supporters.

Spartacus, The Goat

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
orecret June 20, 2012 at 22:17

Incidentally, that relationship endedthe next day.

Now, I live alone upon a mountaintop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brigadon June 21, 2012 at 13:19

shoulda broke the bitches’ neck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: