Anne-Marie Slaughter Grasping at Straws in “Have it All” Article

by W.F. Price on July 2, 2012

In this month’s edition of The Atlantic, Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote a very long article explaining that women “still can’t have it all,” but should be able to if only we make the right changes. As is commonly the case with female writers, Slaughter devotes an enormous amount of page space to herself, assuring readers that she is indeed a very accomplished, professional woman, and that when she quit diplomacy, it was her choice.

Although the article struck a chord with women across the US and gained massive exposure online, the gist of the article – that women are not actually exempt from reality – is not new. We’ve been making the point on this site for quite a while now. But perhaps a woman with a federal imprimatur needed to say it to get women to pay attention.

Unfortunately, Slaughter can’t seem to see the issue through to its logical conclusion, instead clinging to the notion that more social engineering will deliver women into the magical promised land of limitless opportunity. She takes what could have been a helpful article putting things in their proper perspective for women who have to make a choice between family and career, and turns it into a feminist crusade for more power, more control, more everything.

The best hope for improving the lot of all women, and for closing what Wolfers and Stevenson call a “new gender gap”—measured by well-being rather than wages—is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.

So how does she propose creating this equal world? Well, her first idea is finding the right spouse. The husband has to acquiesce to being a kitchen bitch, and to support her in her career by shouldering the majority of the domestic work. Essentially, she’s calling for an Amazon society — not equality.

Sandberg’s second message in her Barnard commencement address was: “The most important career decision you’re going to make is whether or not you have a life partner and who that partner is.” Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, recently drove that message home to an audience of Princeton students and alumni gathered to hear her acceptance speech for the James Madison Medal. During the Q&A session, an audience member asked her how she managed her career and her family. She laughed and pointed to her husband in the front row, saying: “There’s my work-life balance.” I could never have had the career I have had without my husband, Andrew Moravcsik, who is a tenured professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton. Andy has spent more time with our sons than I have, not only on homework, but also on baseball, music lessons, photography, card games, and more. When each of them had to bring in a foreign dish for his fourth-grade class dinner, Andy made his grandmother’s Hungarian palacsinta; when our older son needed to memorize his lines for a lead role in a school play, he turned to Andy for help.

In order to implement her scheme, we’d have to find a veritable army of men willing to live life as a housewife to support all these powerful, accomplished women. If the army of men to do this can’t be found, then a lot (if not most) of these women are going to miss out on being mothers, and wasn’t the point of “having it all” that women could be both supremely powerful and mothers at the same time?

Timing of children.

If women have the kids young, she says, they can focus their efforts on their career by the time they are in their 40s. Not a bad idea. However, she goes on to say that women don’t want to do this any longer, correctly noting that young women don’t marry and have children while still young and at their peak in fertility for “understandable” reasons. You see, getting married and having kids early takes away all those wonderful opportunities for capitalizing on one’s sexuality in grad school and the early career. So she suggests relying on reproductive technology (oocyte cryopreservation) which, incidentally, costs about as much as a new car. This means a lot of women will put it off in favor of that new car, hoping they can still push out a kid or two before the ovaries fully shut down. This leads, once again, to the conclusion that a lot of them will not have a family and, therefore, not have it all.

Changing work culture.

Make it so that employers no longer favor people willing to put in long hours, or those who are “driven” in exceptional ways. Here she bizarrely argues that employers should see childcare as akin to hobbies such as long distance running.

Consider the following proposition: An employer has two equally talented and productive employees. One trains for and runs marathons when he is not working. The other takes care of two children. What assumptions is the employer likely to make about the marathon runner? That he gets up in the dark every day and logs an hour or two running before even coming into the office, or drives himself to get out there even after a long day. That he is ferociously disciplined and willing to push himself through distraction, exhaustion, and days when nothing seems to go right in the service of a goal far in the distance. That he must manage his time exceptionally well to squeeze all of that in.

Be honest: Do you think the employer makes those same assumptions about the parent? Even though she likely rises in the dark hours before she needs to be at work, organizes her children’s day, makes breakfast, packs lunch, gets them off to school, figures out shopping and other errands even if she is lucky enough to have a housekeeper—and does much the same work at the end of the day.

She leaves out the fact that long distance running is a hobby. If the job calls on you to miss a race or skip training a few times, it isn’t a big deal. However, you cannot simply tell your kids “mommy/daddy has to spend all weekend at the office, so you’re on your own until Sunday evening.” That’s called “criminal child neglect.” I grew up with a few kids whose parents treated them that way; one girl in particular was “forgotten” fairly frequently and would stay at school after hours crying until her mother “remembered” her.

Employers value people who are available not necessarily because of some driven quality, but because of their availability. When a problem comes up and everyone else is otherwise occupied, the available person will be called upon to handle it. Employers really don’t like letting these people go. They win through attrition — just like a distance runner.

“Redefining the Arc of a Successful Career”

Here Slaughter argues that because people now live longer, the traditional career peak of 45-55 is obsolete. This means, according to Slaughter, that women should be able to take breaks, switch roles, parent for some time, and then peak at some point after that. I’m sure this works for some people, such as judges and senators (assuming they rely on dumb luck like Patty Murray). But for the typical hard-charging career man or woman, stressful, competitive jobs require more from them than they want to – or are able to – perform as they approach retirement age. So why should they peak as high as those who can give it their all in their prime?

She’s ignoring basic facts of biology here. Surgeons, for example, are known to peak in their 40s, after which their abilities decline. Trial lawyers probably follow a similar trajectory. Professional athletes, of course, peak far earlier. The thing is, there are only a choice few jobs in which people can continue to rise past the age of 50. There’s a big difference between being adequate and being in one’s prime. If you spend a large proportion of your prime working years taking care of kids, you simply aren’t going to rise as high. It’s a trade-off Slaughter isn’t willing to acknowledge.

“Rediscovering the pursuit of happiness”

Here I can find some common ground with Slaughter. She admits that after years in Washington, she found herself longing to go home. And why not? Slavish devotion to “the job” is not most people’s cup of tea. Most of us work to live rather than the other way around. An afternoon on the beach with the kids almost always beats a day in the office.

But then she shows how absolutely ignorant feminists are when it comes to what motivates most men at work. She stresses that men are ambivalent about their careers as well, as though this is some kind of revelation that men only discover at the end:

Seeking out a more balanced life is not a women’s issue; balance would be better for us all. Bronnie Ware, an Australian blogger who worked for years in palliative care and is the author of the 2011 book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying, writes that the regret she heard most often was “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.” The second-most-common regret was “I wish I didn’t work so hard.” She writes: “This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship.”

This goes without saying, of course, but apparently women think that for all these years men were getting up and going to work because they were selfishly serving their own interests, only to discover on their deathbed that they wanted something else after all. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Men don’t work only for themselves, and we all know that. In fact, most of us work so that we can have a family. It is the very fortunate (and widely despised) man who can pull off having a family without working for it. Women have far more choice in this regard.

“Innovation” will do the trick

Here Slaughter reverts to the kind of bureaucratic language that tends to make my eyes glaze over, but there are a couple ideas I support. Amusingly, she interprets the issue in a far different manner, however.

In fact, while many of these issues are hard to quantify and measure precisely, the statistics seem to tell a different story. A seminal study of 527 U.S. companies, published in the Academy of Management Journal in 2000, suggests that “organizations with more extensive work-family policies have higher perceived firm-level performance” among their industry peers. These findings accorded with a 2003 study conducted by Michelle Arthur at the University of New Mexico. Examining 130 announcements of family-friendly policies in The Wall Street Journal, Arthur found that the announcements alone significantly improved share prices. In 2011, a study on flexibility in the workplace by Ellen Galinsky, Kelly Sakai, and Tyler Wigton of the Families and Work Institute showed that increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention, and employee health.

This is only a small sampling from a large and growing literature trying to pin down the relationship between family-friendly policies and economic performance. Other scholars have concluded that good family policies attract better talent, which in turn raises productivity, but that the policies themselves have no impact on productivity. Still others argue that results attributed to these policies are actually a function of good management overall. What is evident, however, is that many firms that recruit and train well-educated professional women are aware that when a woman leaves because of bad work-family balance, they are losing the money and time they invested in her.

Even the legal industry, built around the billable hour, is taking notice. Deborah Epstein Henry, a former big-firm litigator, is now the president of Flex-Time Lawyers, a national consulting firm focused partly on strategies for the retention of female attorneys. In her book Law and Reorder, published by the American Bar Association in 2010, she describes a legal profession “where the billable hour no longer works”; where attorneys, judges, recruiters, and academics all agree that this system of compensation has perverted the industry, leading to brutal work hours, massive inefficiency, and highly inflated costs. The answer—already being deployed in different corners of the industry—is a combination of alternative fee structures, virtual firms, women-owned firms, and the outsourcing of discrete legal jobs to other jurisdictions. Women, and Generation X and Y lawyers more generally, are pushing for these changes on the supply side; clients determined to reduce legal fees and increase flexible service are pulling on the demand side. Slowly, change is happening.

Some readers may be surprised to find that I am a big supporter of the “flex-time” and “family leave” policies corporations are adopting. Why? Because when women leave the workforce to have kids, men need to pick up the slack, and since the woman is to be retained, new hires will be either temporary or contractors. Due to government regulations and the decreasing flexibility of the corporate model, there are a lot of opportunities for individual men or small companies founded by men to take advantage of this need for labor. Working in a corporation is hell for a lot of men, not in the least because of feminist policy, but if you’re the guy to whom they’re outsourcing the work women won’t or can’t do, you’ll never be out of a job.

The real reason the family leave and flex-time policies are increasing efficiency is exactly this new flexibility in the male labor market. Men are picking up the slack as independent contractors, and women are free to come and go as they please. Women will often pass up more pay for leisure time, so there’s another reason profits are better. Give a woman an option to take time off without pay, and if she knows she can come back and work more when she needs the money, she’ll often do it. In the meanwhile, men are performing the work she left behind, and getting paid for it. Best of all, these men don’t have to work directly for the corporation or firm — they are working for themselves.

But isn’t this simply a way for women to have high positions only in name? Sure, but who cares? As long as men are getting paid for the work, it doesn’t matter what the woman calls herself. However, it does go to show how much of this debate about “having it all” depends on appearances rather than reality.

Force men to support women

Perhaps the most encouraging news of all for achieving the sorts of changes that I have proposed is that men are joining the cause. In commenting on a draft of this article, Martha Minow, the dean of the Harvard Law School, wrote me that one change she has observed during 30 years of teaching law at Harvard is that today many young men are asking questions about how they can manage a work-life balance. And more systematic research on Generation Y confirms that many more men than in the past are asking questions about how they are going to integrate active parenthood with their professional lives.

Abstract aspirations are easier than concrete trade-offs, of course. These young men have not yet faced the question of whether they are prepared to give up that more prestigious clerkship or fellowship, decline a promotion, or delay their professional goals to spend more time with their children and to support their partner’s career.

Even though she has a couple teenage sons, I don’t think Slaughter has a clue what young men are thinking. Most young men, by now, are fully aware that there’s absolutely no guarantee that they’ll even be allowed to parent their children, so of course they’re going to question whether it’s worth putting off bonding with the kids to provide for the mother. So, rather than struggling with the same “choices” female students do, the young men are asking themselves whether it’s even worth putting in all that effort if they aren’t going to get a family out of it anyway.

Men simply won’t sacrifice if they know there’s no deal involved. Today, men are pretty well aware that the old deal doesn’t hold any longer. In the old days, a man who knew he could count on his nice young wife to hold down the fort while he went out and sacrificed his time for the family’s welfare would have taken the clerkship, fellowship, promotion, or whatever. He’d do it in hopes that his family would be happy, and that in the future they’d all have a nice life.

Today, the young man is hedging his bet. None of the women his age are interested in marriage anyway — they’re all working on their careers. What’s more, they’re sleeping with his manager and being promoted ahead of him.

Oddly, Slaughter reverses the typical argument, praising young men for being less ambitious, whereas most pundits just call them “slackers.” But she’s only doing so in hopes that they will be women’s political allies in the drive for installing women in superior positions over them. It isn’t going to work, despite her efforts. It’s too obvious how she and other feminists see them: as fundamentally flawed.

I continually push the young women in my classes to speak more. They must gain the confidence to value their own insights and questions, and to present them readily. My husband agrees, but he actually tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women—to speak less and listen more. If women are ever to achieve real equality as leaders, then we have to stop accepting male behavior and male choices as the default and the ideal. We must insist on changing social policies and bending career tracks to accommodate our choices, too. We have the power to do it if we decide to, and we have many men standing beside us.

We’ll create a better society in the process, for all women. We may need to put a woman in the White House before we are able to change the conditions of the women working at Walmart. But when we do, we will stop talking about whether women can have it all. We will properly focus on how we can help all Americans have healthy, happy, productive lives, valuing the people they love as much as the success they seek.

Sorry, Anne-Marie, but we’re not on board. It isn’t men’s job to install a female president; she can get there on her own if she wants the job. We will not be “enlisted” in service of women we don’t know who want to be our masters. We may not have as many choices as women, but we do have the choice of who we will work and fight for, and it won’t be you.

There is nothing more telling about this article than that it both begins and ends with demands for support from men. That’s feminism in a nutshell: “We want it all, so you have to give it to us!”

Well, here’s a little dose of reality for feminists: we couldn’t give you all you wanted even if we tried. We are mere mortals, and we recognize that. Furthermore, we are starting to recognize that the more we give you the more you’ll want, and we’re getting tired.

Too bad Anne-Marie; this time you’re going to have to do it yourself. We’ll be out fishing, hanging out with our kids, making craft beer or whatever strikes our fancy in our free time. You can have your glory — without us.

{ 185 comments… read them below or add one }

Darryl X July 2, 2012 at 12:29

“In the meanwhile, men are performing the work she left behind, and getting paid for it.”

Well, for about one-third of adult men in the workforce, they aren’t getting paid as much for it because their wages are being garnished for child support. So, the woman is actually getting paid to take the time off. The pay is just coming from the man who is doing the work.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 2
ralph gorman July 2, 2012 at 12:31

This woman epitomizes what is wrong with feminism. All society should be reorganized so that women can have it both ways.The solution to this nonsense is called “family wage”. Hire men only, pay them a wage sufficient to support their families and put women back in the kitchen where they belong. Then: No more maternity leave disruptions, no more sex harassment and sexual hostility lawsuits, no more female bullshit.

If anyone is interested, Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed women equality in the work place and paid maternity leave. This cunt is straight out of Uncle Joe’s manual.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 92 Thumb down 11
Rebel July 2, 2012 at 12:38

Don’t marry career women. Forbes Mag. said it some years ago.

It is truer than ever.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 108 Thumb down 2
Turbo the Drycleaner July 2, 2012 at 12:43

how do women still not understand that having women in positions of power doesnt change ANYTHING except for those women?

do they imagine i can call my male senators, executives, etc., let them know im a man, and get hooked up with priveleges? that maybe if i happen to be a card-carrying member of the Old Boys Club I can waltz in to the white house and ask Obama for a personal bailout?

those who make it to the top couldnt give a shit about us. theyll vote for what keeps them in office and what lines their pockets and no more.

Women in power will play the empowered woman card to the hilt because that will secure all the female votes for them, but it would be a mistake to think the actual policies they make will serve anyone but themselves. Most feminist legislature like VAWA is proposed by very sad, very weak men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 79 Thumb down 1
Just1X July 2, 2012 at 12:46

She makes a common mistake of women activists; she thinks that offering men space on the victim bus with the women means that men will sign up for her ‘plan’.

Men don’t yearn for victim status because it isn’t a viable mating strategy for men; women prefer winners / alphas not victims/ losers. Men have been bred to want to win, achieve, earn.

Women as victims can work, it’s a cry of protect me, take care of me. Men (used to?) fall for that shit; I’ll take care of you little lady, where’s the marriage certificate, where do I sign?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 1
Matt July 2, 2012 at 12:54

The main flaw in her thesis, is that the women she is addressing would not be interested in the men she is talking about. So what she is really asking for is a Ivy League kitchen bitch, She wants the Alpha stud, but a beta mindset. Career driven women will never go for a man who makes less than she does, because he’s a loser, right?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 92 Thumb down 1
Towgunner July 2, 2012 at 12:57

The article only serves to underscore just how detached women are from reality. she’s literally suggesting to re-order everything and for what? So women can “have it all”? And why the qualifier of just women…why can’t men have it all too. Oh they have it?? Really, I have it all, I didn’t know that. For me having it all might include multiple houses averaging 4000 square feet in the choicest real estate across the world. Come one women, you’ll never have enough…this is futile. Words fail me to describe how ridiculous the concept of “having it all” is. For starters we live in a world of finite resources, hence, having it all is impossible and, worse, in order to get it all you must confiscate from others. How can a woman have it all when there are all the other women looking to have it all too? Also, why can’t someone see that ‘having it all’ has an inherently selfish ring to it?
To women – you can’t have it all….Number 1. I will not give you my share; especially since you don’t deserve it and you now look at me as inferior…wouldn’t you do the same. Number 2. You not having it all is not everyone else’s fault, it is yours and it reflects your limitations. Maybe, just maybe you don’t have it all because you suck. Number 3. women are not perfect, you are flawed like the rest of us. Never mind the racist, sexist undertones of your assumed superiority, which is the same thing white supremacists believe, this belief will always, without exception, result in you being disappointed. No one can have it all!
My God, throughout history we’ve firmly established this over and over and over again. The idea of having it all is a childish and immature idea. Real Men do not think like this as well as real women. Someone who has been repeatedly given the easy way out throughout their precious lives can hold such baseless beliefs. I have long since maintained that one of the more toxic aspects of feminism is how it reverses society. We used to cover this in year 5-6…remember the Stone’s song “you can’t always get what you want”. Unbelievable. These women are out of touch, they’re monsters, they’re out of control. Gents – this is why the female of the human species is best kept at bay. Having it all…what poppycock, I want to have it all too, good Lord.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 3
Towgunner July 2, 2012 at 12:59

Is it just me or does this just not make any sense? On that basis I really do think feminism has reached its peak.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 2
AfOR July 2, 2012 at 13:07

Bill, you need to take the attitude that I take to anything, such as books / fiction, written by wimminz…

Just don’t read it, it will all be psycho crap, and you can never get that time back…. far better to sit there and scratch your balls… at least that is pleasurable.. lol

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 3
dragnet July 2, 2012 at 13:10

The real marvel here is that you actually managed to stay awake long enought to make it through that entire article.

A masterful demolition job, Welmer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 1
Artie July 2, 2012 at 13:11

Because when women leave the workforce to have kids, men need to pick up the slack, and since the woman is to be retained, new hires will be either temporary or contractors. Due to government regulations and the decreasing flexibility of the corporate model, there are a lot of opportunities for individual men or small companies founded by men to take advantage of this need for labor. Working in a corporation is hell for a lot of men, not in the least because of feminist policy, but if you’re the guy to whom they’re outsourcing the work women won’t or can’t do, you’ll never be out of a job.

I have to take issue with this quote, because I’ve been that guy. The fact of the matter is as long as you’re working your ass off during her FMLA vacation, there’s still only her on the departmental budget, and only her workload that, right when she finally shows up again and suddenly has all eyes on her (hens of a feather flock together), is at its most efficient point ever. And now she’s the one who “needs the paycheck more” to support her newest bastard.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 3
Mojo July 2, 2012 at 13:15

Dalrock’s latest post begins with a quote that is just as fitting to this post …

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/will-betas-shrug/

The only way most men were kept in line, marching off to their dreary jobs, was with a Noble Lie, that it would make them honoured as heads of houses. You can make a man literally die for honour; but he won’t work himself to death for an ungrateful woman who regards him simply as somewhere between a joke and an oppressor.
–David Collard

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 69 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price July 2, 2012 at 13:17

The real marvel here is that you actually managed to stay awake long enought to make it through that entire article.

-dragnet

Wasn’t easy. But believe it or not it’s a lot better than what you see in academia these days. I think one of the reasons feminists are not criticized much is that nobody is motivated to sift through the garbage they produce.

Poester99 July 2, 2012 at 13:22

Unfortunately, Slaughter can’t seem to see the issue through to its logical conclusion, instead clinging to the notion that more social engineering will deliver women into the magical promised land of limitless opportunity. She takes what could have been a helpful article putting things in their proper

They keep hammering at that and continue to make it a social justice issue that women just should be getting what they have been denied by the oppressive yet carefully shadowy and ill-defied patriarchy. The thing is “men” as a group have NEVER had this, it’s a fantasy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
Lara July 2, 2012 at 13:27

You could give me a mansion by the sea, a stream of lovers, beautiful clothes, champagne and caviar, and I’d still find something to complain about.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 17
Ric July 2, 2012 at 13:28

I have to agree with the comments, basically that the kind of men Slaughter is asking for, are men who women normally hold in disdain. It’s interesting to consider because it would mean if we did what women are asking for, they would only resent us in the end, which is a huge motivator for simply not doing what they want and focusing instead on what they need, a strong able-body man who step up and do what is necessary for the betterment of his family and society. That is why Slaughter’s arguments for women having it all must be filled away in the “bogus ideas that prove career women are unreasonable and self entitled” section of the trash bin.

Having it all seems nice, except it really is a delusion because to most people this means being able to do what you want when you want and at other people’s expense if necessary. In this case men don’t even have it all, but does she address that or just spout out the usual banter of “men are privileged… ’nuff said”? When I describe how feminism lies through its teeth with its talk of equality, articles like this only prove my point because as any reasonably intelligent reader who exercises at least a slight degree of objectivity will see that Slaughter is not about equality for women at all, but power, and not just more power but all the power. Where would that leave men? Oh right, she doesn’t care.

I just feel bad for her husband who probably lives his life as either a slave begging for scraps, or a delusional nincompoop who is unaware that he is being used to satiate his wife’s self indulgent motives. He sucks it up because no one ever offered him the red pill. I mean come on, the guy is talking about trying to get guys to be more like women. Seriously? And he is raising their boys too to think like that. I weep for the future of that family, future minions to Slaughters ever increasing army of selfish and entitled women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 2
Paradoxotaur July 2, 2012 at 13:28

Was it Jack Welch who said: “There is no work-life balance, only work-life choices.”?

“As is commonly the case with female writers, Slaughter devotes an enormous amount of page space to herself, assuring readers that she is indeed a very accomplished, professional woman”

I went to a TEDx conference a few weeks ago and most of the female presenters spent most of their 20 mins. talking about themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 1
Brigadon July 2, 2012 at 13:31

What men have always had was horrendous responsibility, and barely enough privilege to make it possible to meet that responsibility.

glory feminists! you have taken the privileges that make it possible for a man to meet his responsibilities. You have taken the gun out of the soldier’s hands, the toolkit out of the mechanic’s garage, and the car out of the pizza guy’s posession. Exult as you drive around in that car and no pizzas get delivered, you brandish that gun and the soldier dies, you brag about that tool kit and no cars get repaired.

It was never ‘privilege’. It was the tools to do our jobs, nothing more. Greedy cunts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 1
Lara July 2, 2012 at 13:34

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 58
Lara July 2, 2012 at 13:35

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 51
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 2, 2012 at 13:39

Let’s take Anne-Marie’s idea and slaughter it, since we can’t slaughter her without becoming prison bitches.

I especially like the part about how long distance (let alone any distance) running is a hobby and not a freely-chosen responsibility.

I do not think it is any employer’s obligation to be “family-friendly.” How is an employer going to placate all of its employees’ (and their respective families) when, say,

1) one employee is an immigrant with no other family members in the United States;
2) one employee has extreme difficulty extricating himself or herself from a family that behaves as if it is the world’s most prominent family;
3) a third employee has been disowned by his or her family;
4) a fourth employee has no family within the same state as the employer
and several other family dynamics appear in other employees’ personal lives?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Lara July 2, 2012 at 13:39

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 50
greyghost July 2, 2012 at 13:46

We’ll create a better society in the process, for all women. We may need to put a woman in the White House before we are able to change the conditions of the women working at Walmart. But when we do, we will stop talking about whether women can have it all. We will properly focus on how we can help all Americans have healthy, happy, productive lives, valuing the people they love as much as the success they seek.

What the hell does that mean. Conditions of women working at Walmart. Last I have seen walmart is an air conditioned and heated building. What other conditions does she think there is? This is the bad thing or one of the bad things about having women in authority. There is no set ground to stand on. An example would be sexual heassment laws. They are deliberatly written for female authority such as “unwanted” sexual advances is a crime but not one that is wanted. Illegal behavior is determined by the gina tingle of the victim and not by law or any standard. here is a fill short to graphicly show what I’m talking about. http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/tom-brady-snl-sexual-harassment-psa/h7nIkQjgII_oYNH7gQfUpA

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Young Guy July 2, 2012 at 13:50

The phrase, “have it all” , has always annoyed me.

I always roll my eyes whenever I hear it. When I listen to these women who screech about, “having it all”, I think about the spoiled children in toy stores who throw temper tantrums when their parents tell them they can only get one toy, and not everything in the whole toy store. They kick, scream, and yell with the hope of getting their parents to give in and buy them everything they want. Children who throw temper tantrums in toy stores can’t comprehend that money doesn’t grow on trees, and having a sense of entitlement means they will never grow up, which is a bad thing.

The selfishness of modern women never ceases to disgust me. The well-being of men is never taken into consideration. Women like Anne-Marie Slaughter think the world revolves around them, and the world owes them everything in life. Women like her don’t understand that making sacrifices is a part of life for any mature and responsible human being. I have such an enormous problem with women’s sense of entitlement.

They expect to be paid for work they don’t do. They expect Prince Charming to just fall onto their laps. They expect to be given praise just for being born with vaginas. They expect men to just drop everything, put their lives on hold, and report to the nearest woman who claims to be unhappy. They expect to be given things in life they didn’t earn. They just take, want, and demand, while never giving anything back to men.

The “everything is about me” attitude couldn’t be a bigger turn-off. I am surrounded by women everyday who have this attitude, and I can’t stand being around them. I hope men ignore these women and let them become a generation of spinsters. Make an example of them to women who decide to be ego-maniacs and parasites. Somehow, I doubt women will change their ways. They will just keep on taking, wanting, and demanding, while giving nothing back to men.

Women need to hear, “it’s not always about you”, instead of ,”you can have it all.” Also, what is this nonsense about “options?” Men don’t have “options.” No one is going to help us in life. We learned at an early age no one is going to give us anything in life because we think we “deserve” it. We have to earn everything in life. Men are expected to carry their own weight in life, and it would be greatly appreciated if women would be expected to do the same. Instead, you get Anne-Marie Slaughter telling men to increase the size of the burdens on their backs just so women don’t have to shoulder any burdens in life.

As usual, women like Anne-Marie Slaughter never look at the bigger picture in life, and how the greater good of society comes before themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 2
Darryl X July 2, 2012 at 13:55

@ Poester 99 -

“Unfortunately, Slaughter can’t seem to see the issue through to its logical conclusion, instead clinging to the notion that more social engineering will deliver women into the magical promised land of limitless opportunity.”

It’s the same mentality and rationalization that compels feminists to believe that even though thousands of women’s shelters since 1970 haven’t helped reduce alleged “violence against women” but have actually reduced real violence against men (by giving violent women a place to go and project their own violence and lie about the alleged violence done to them), they believe that the solution is still more women’s shelters. What a bunch of fucking idiots. It’s like hoping to solve our problem of excessive debt with more debt.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Szebran July 2, 2012 at 13:55

“Martha Minow, the dean of the Harvard Law School, wrote me that one change she has observed during 30 years of teaching law at Harvard is that today many young men are asking questions about how they can manage a work-life balance. And more systematic research on Generation Y confirms that many more men than in the past are asking questions about how they are going to integrate active parenthood with their professional lives.”

I doubt this is even true. Its more likely biased research. Id say the biggest change in men over the last 30 years is their increasing negative views on marriage. Having a wife is no longer seen as a positive. Rather, its increasingly seen as a negative.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Just1X July 2, 2012 at 13:58

@Lara – the first comment was cool – I laughed. The rest just spoil the that brief joy. Less is more.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh July 2, 2012 at 14:07

Oh, I’m sure you can find enough men to support an amazon society (just look at the membership of reddit and somethingawful.com if you don’t feel like eating). Fortunately, most women don’t want to marry men like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 2, 2012 at 14:09

I have said it a thousand times but they won’t listen.

1) Nobody gives you work/life balance. You take it.

2) A man wants a wife, not a co-worker.

I would post as much on the Atlantic, but Elmer was unceremoniously banned after observing that their resident Black Journalist was insincere about his professed enjoyment of “rap” music.

Why does every femrag have a Black Journalist, talking about Black issues? Could you put them all in a room together and not have them come to fisticuffs? Like poets or something not wanting anyone else macking on their gig.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
The First Joe July 2, 2012 at 14:11

Great article Welmer!
Agreed!
Non serviam!

(I will not serve)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Lyn87 July 2, 2012 at 14:24

I read that whole dreadful piece a week or two ago. It makes me wonder how people who are world-class successes in one area can be so utterly delusional in EVERYTHING ELSE. But one thing struck me as I was reading the excerpts Bill pulled out: the people she chose to cite. Staring from the top:

1) Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook.
2) Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
3) Bronnie Ware, an Australian blogger and feminist author.
4) Michelle Arthur at the University of New Mexico.
5) Ellen Galinsky, Kelly Sakai, and Tyler Wigton of the Families and Work Institute.
6) Deborah Epstein Henry, the president of Flex-Time Lawyers.
7) Martha Minow, the dean of the Harvard Law School.
8) Her husband, the authoress’ kitchen bitch who “tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women.”

Of the ten people she chose to cite, eight are “Grrrl Power” women. Of the two men: one is a soft-studies guy who collaborated on a paper with two of the women (his name is listed after theirs, although that may be due to alphabetizing), and the other is her feminized and subservient husband. Lest anyone think this is not a representative sample: she wrote the entire article this way.

While acknowledging the need to steer clear of the Genetic Fallacy myself, it seems to me that she could have examined the analysis of at least ONE person who was not already in her ideological camp. (Warren Farrell could have explained this phenomenon to her in about 30 seconds.) Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article fails as analysis and even as decent editorializing – this is straight-up proselytizing for a doomed cause. It is doomed because what she wants can never be.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 3
Uncle Elmer July 2, 2012 at 14:40

The thing that this first woman Chief Stenographer of White House Policy Planning misses in her 6 pages of deconstructive writing (and I never read it because my dick wilted after the first dreary paragraph) is simply this : if you offer people work/life balance they won’t even take it. There are too many competitors willing to forgo it to get ahead of the pack and too many others cowering in their cube to even think about slacking a bit to enjoy life.

A friend of mine wanted a month off, unpaid, to travel overseas. “They” wouldn’t allow it. Reason : if we let you do that then everyone will want to do it.

Bullshit. If you friggin paid them they wouldn’t do it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer July 2, 2012 at 14:49

“In fact, while many of these issues are hard to quantify and measure precisely, the statistics seem to tell a different story.”

This gentlemen, is writing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Georice81 July 2, 2012 at 14:59

Ric wrote:

“I just feel bad for her husband who probably lives his life as either a slave begging for scraps, or a delusional nincompoop who is unaware that he is being used to satiate his wife’s self indulgent motives. He sucks it up because no one ever offered him the red pill. I mean come on, the guy is talking about trying to get guys to be more like women. Seriously? And he is raising their boys too to think like that. I weep for the future of that family, future minions to Slaughters ever increasing army of selfish and entitled women.”

Women who want it all need idiots like these to be their slaves. They usually are wimpy losers who are just happy that a woman like that pays attention to them.

My ex sister-in-law preached to me about what marriage is supposed to be. I was too much of a gentleman to throw how much of a wimp her husband was and that I would rather slit my wrists then to be married to her. While he was a short skinny dude their first born son was a tall strong guy. Definitely the son of some alpha dude. Any body with a mind could see what happened. She would take vacations whenever she felt like it. She wore a dress with her boobs hanging out to a party in spite of his protestations. She decided to go on their 10th anniversary by herself to Arizona. I can go on and on…

I have no respect for guys like this. In fact, they deserve such women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 2
atahualpa July 2, 2012 at 15:06

Damn, Price, I’ve been reading your stuff for years and this is one of your best articles.

“Most young men, by now, are fully aware that there’s absolutely no guarantee that they’ll even be allowed to parent their children…..Men simply won’t sacrifice if they know there’s no deal involved. ”

You hit the nail on the head here. I was having a discussion with my dad about these issues a couple of weeks back, and he was asking me to explain the herbivores in Japan. This quote above I think explains it all perfectly.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
ralph gorman July 2, 2012 at 15:17

CORPORATE SOCIALISM FOR BREEDING COWS

When women first entered the labor market in the late 1960′s they swore that they would never make babies on the company’s time. That would disrupt the work place and violate their own principle of equal work for equal pay. Women lied. In all the nonsense about maternity leave, alleged “temporary disabilities” and the “right” to reproduce on someone else’s time, these past promises are never brought up. The reader will note that the equal work half of the equation has simply disappeared. What women really want is corporate socialism for breeding cows. That way they can take year long sabbaticals to reproduce on the company’s time, as in England, or work half time for full pay (”flextime”) or assert that social work (taking care of babies on the company’s time) is the same thing as paid work or whatever clever rationale they can devise to justify their have-it-both ways think.

It is no different than the armored fanny plate Amazons in the military who wind up mysteriously pregnant whenever the bullets fly. Corporate socialism for breeding cows, not equal pay for equal work, is the real objective of feminism. Women are writing more and more articles confessing that this is their real objective. A Miss Slaughter has just written an article arguing that if women had half the Congressional seats they could legislate their corporate socialist utopia into existence. Employers would then have no rights, non-pregnant employees would have no rights and society would become a gigantic day care center for God’s Chosen Sex. It is worth remembering that in the 1950′s there were no such things as maternity leave, equal pay for unequal work, sexual harassment or sexual hostility lawsuits. These things did not exist because women were properly excluded from society outside the home. These words are odious to modern sensibilities but they need to be repeated. Women need to be excluded from society outside the home. The basic problem with women is not harassment. Harassment is a symptom; letting women intrude on male territory is the cause of the problems.

When the Viennese Jew, Theodore Herzl, conceived the idea of the Jewish state in fin-de-siecle Vienna, he did so on the explicit premise that Jews and non-Jews were and always would be incompatible. His solution was for Jews to depart Europe and segregate themselves in Palestine in their own exclusively Jewish nation. The traditional social structure of man earns the bread; woman raises the kids may be described as a kind of Sexual Zionism. Just as separating Jews and non-Jews eliminates tensions, so too segrgating males and females by function eliminates tensions. The driving of women out of the homes and into the factories as a means of dissolving traditional society was a modus operandi of the Communists after the revolution. The predictable problems of sexual harassment on the assembly line began shortly thereafter. The Communists instituted indoctrination sessions for men to train them to treat women as equals, to not make them feel uncomfortable or make derogatory comments, to not fondle their breasts and buttocks, etc. Factory managers were forced to give women maternity leave because Motherhood was service to the Soviet Socialist Motherland. These Communists had the same mentality and ethnicity as the Betty Friedan/Goldsteins, the Bella Abzugs and the Gloria Allreds of American feminism.

The corporate socialism for breeding cows state is Marxist gender utopia for America. No one dares call it by its proper name.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 5
Lyn87 July 2, 2012 at 15:20

Elmer, two questions. My experience is anecdotal and you’ve spent more time thinking about this than I have.

Like a lot of guys here, I worked very hard when I was establishing myself in my career. I had a realistic set of career goals and I put in the significant effort required to achieve them. I think I did excellent work, but I understood that, beyond a certain point, the returns would sharply diminish. Later on, once I had the ability to (mostly) control my time and my career was on track, I did my work in a way more conducive to the other aspects of my life. Then again, being in charge gave me the freedom to do that. — When I could exercise flexibility without harming my mission, subordinates, or career I did so.

Once I hung up my rifle and entered the private sector I chose a job that I liked that paid “well enough.” Another big selling point is that my schedule consists of some work that must be done at certain times, and a lot of work that can be done when it’s convenient. I mostly come and go as I please. — Once I had “enough” financial stability I worried less about advancing and more about quality of life.

Based on your July 2, 2012 at 14:40 post you imply that most people just plug away in service to the job with no regard for how it affects the rest of their lives. Here are my questions: are most working stiffs so beaten down that they wouldn’t rearrange things to their benefit even if they could? If so, is it a function of lacking the courage to try something new, fear of losing out to the other guy, or lacking the imagination to envision a different way?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
Opus July 2, 2012 at 15:20

Women can choose one of three lifestyles:

Work
Motherhood
Beauty – modelling, actressing, prostitution etc (paid)

Men have one life choice:

Work

Presumably Mrs Slaughter would have chosen to do all three, but on the evidence she made the wrong choice – her writing is unendurable. Perhaps as Uncle Elmer implies she is merely an upgraded stenographer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
Firepower July 2, 2012 at 15:20

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 24
Firepower July 2, 2012 at 15:22

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27
Keyster July 2, 2012 at 15:27

While she’s getting paid to wax philosophical about gender equality idealism and “work/life balance” issues, 24 million people are unemployed, our national debt approaches $16 Trillion and we’re in the midst of transitioning to a massive socialist health care system, that over half the country doesn’t even want.

But it has to be all about her and her cloistered little circle of Manahattan Elites, and how satisfied they’d be if only Patriarchy would make life more fair; as if everyone must be just like them.

There are no more “kitchen bitch” young men that want to be fathers than there are young wives who want to be mothers. Much like the SoCon contingent keeps insisting young men marry, but there are no young women who want to do it. These social analysts don’t live in the real world. One side thinks men have or should “progress” and the other thinks young women are still hip to a traditional life style. They’re totally disconnected from the facts on the ground.

Earth to the Great Social Commentators: There’s a Gender War happening. Men and women don’t trust each other and don’t like each other very much either. THAT’S the problem!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 3
Gamerp4 July 2, 2012 at 15:29

It is all women, all the time, in this whole sentence tell me how many times you read women, i READ 5 times,

(..I continually push the young women in my classes to speak more. They must gain the confidence to value their own insights and questions, and to present them readily. My husband agrees, but he actually tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women—to speak less and listen more. If women are ever to achieve real equality as leaders, then we have to stop accepting male behavior and male choices as the default and the ideal. We must insist on changing social policies and bending career tracks to accommodate our choices, too. We have the power to do it if we decide to, and we have many men standing beside us.

We’ll create a better society in the process, for all women. We may need to put a woman in the White House before we are able to change the conditions of the women working at Walmart. But when we do, we will stop talking about whether women can have it all. We will properly focus on how we can help all Americans have healthy, happy, productive lives, valuing the people they love as much as the success they seek…)

and ya only Women can create a better society after all who needs men, when we have aeroplanes, trains, boats, cars, computers, internets, facebook, twitter, parliament, senates, state institutions, armies, buildings, cubicles offices, iphones, cranes, roads, bio chemical weapons, automotive industries, gadgets, dishwashers, washing machine, microwave, refrigerator, heater, air conditioner & most important sperm banks.

(..We have the power to do it if we decide to, and we have many men stnding beside us…)

yes we have all the power girls “You Go Grrrl” we have the misandrist media, we have white knights, we have Manginas, we have pussy whipped males as kitchen bitch, above all we have OBAMA.

(..My husband agrees, but he actually tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women—to speak less and listen more. ..)

why dont your husband pay for his MTF operation basically we will save those boys from the biggest mangina and pussy whipped teacher of theirs, WOW how radical can this bitch ANNE and her Pussy whipped Husband be, they speak of women empowerment but are trying their best to emasculate young boys, well good luck for you boys but I WONT HELP WESTERN SOCIETY AND I WANT TO SEE IT CRUMBLE BEFORE ME, i wont even flinch my eye when that happens.

This is Equality Bros, Equality at the most extreme level, Give everything to womyn even your masculinity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Traveller July 2, 2012 at 15:40

How come they need men for they career and stuff?

Did not they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle?

Too late old cougar, the train is already passed and you will be forgotten.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4
Huck Finn July 2, 2012 at 15:41

Has anyone checked AMS for illegal drug abuse? It is unsettling that she has a job and some people take her lunacy seriously.

She claims that to create a fair society 50% of leadership needs females? Many males in leadership are biased in favor of females now. How about this idea for the Senate demographics: 33% support feminism, 33% support MRM, and 34% are neutral. I think that AMS and most feminist would be terrified of the idea of a truly fair representation advocating for each sex in a balanced way.

AMS’s call to fill the Senate by physical sex anatomies ‘to have fairness’ portrays her as a sexist since she does not see people having any allegiances or values beyond their own sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Raj July 2, 2012 at 15:44

Don’t believe what women say. They don’t really want careers. I’ve never met a woman who loved to work for work’s sake. Women join careers for social reasons.

What women want is men’s love. But for many reasons including having absolutely terrible attitudes, bad looks and failure to take care of themselves, they simply cannot find a man to love them. This frustration makes their personalities even worse and turns into a feedback loop.

This rejection from men creats a void that they then try to fill with shopping, career, travel, pets etc. Unsuccessfully.

Anything coming out of a woman’s mouth should be considered a lie/excuse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 5
ralph gorman July 2, 2012 at 15:48

Raj writes truth. Believe him.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Nico July 2, 2012 at 15:59

Feminist study proves that men are happiest when behaving like kitchen bitches:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165220/Men-happiest-sharing-housework-didnt-misread-ladies.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Rebel July 2, 2012 at 16:27

I think that Anne-Marie Slaughter is selling snake oil.

Google “Higher education bubble” and see that women’s future is not that bright except for a selected few who have opted for careers in the medical arena.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
fmz July 2, 2012 at 16:28

Having it all is greedy and typically self absorbed. She’d be happiest marrying herself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Epoche* July 2, 2012 at 16:34

Even public health administrators are beginning to notice the problems facing young men:
“We’re at risk of having a generation of young males who aren’t well-connected to the labor market and who don’t feel strong ownership of community or society because they haven’t benefited from it,” says Ralph Catalano, a professor of public health at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://jobtrakr.com/2011/11/08/special-report-young-men-affected-the-most-as-economy-struggles/
and we still have the feminists agitating for social change.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel July 2, 2012 at 16:40

I live in this demographic in a blue state and all I can say is I am sick of these people. They exist in their delusional SWPL bubble, totally detached from reality. No-one does any real work. Like Anne Marie-Slaughter with her endless Washington PowerPoints and high level meetings, they’re all engaged in slicing and dicing the wealth that comes out of the heartland. If they all disappeared tomorrow no-one would notice. They have no idea they’re standing on the shoulders of giants while they piss away this country’s treasure.

Two trillion dollars a year of deficit spending now, money stolen from the productive and from the future, all so Anne-Marie Slaughter can enjoy her little power fantasy while riding the Acela.

So much for Jefferson’s agrarian republic, populated by free men.

Masterful deconstruction, Bill. A tour de force.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 3
Matt July 2, 2012 at 16:45

“AMS’s call to fill the Senate by physical sex anatomies ‘to have fairness’ portrays her as a sexist since she does not see people having any allegiances or values beyond their own sex.”

That is because as a woman, she cannot think beyond her sex. Being female, determines all in her mind.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Keyster July 2, 2012 at 16:54

AMS’s call to fill the Senate by physical sex anatomies ‘to have fairness’ portrays her as a sexist since she does not see people having any allegiances or values beyond their own sex.

This is the “Equal Representation” canard. If the population is 51% female, then women should be at least 51% of political and corporate leadership positions. As if men have no vested interest in the welfare and prosperity of women at all, so therefore “we all suffer” when women don’t have more power.

The last group women should want in power for their own self-interest as a group – – is other women. Men will give them what they want. Other women know better. They aren’t afraid to say NO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Centaur July 2, 2012 at 16:56

@Keyster- Exactly!.. nuff said, this is it in a nutshell.
@Raj- Excellent point and great observation about the “feedback loop”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer July 2, 2012 at 16:59

“Here are my questions: are most working stiffs so beaten down that they wouldn’t rearrange things to their benefit even if they could? If so, is it a function of lacking the courage to try something new, fear of losing out to the other guy, or lacking the imagination to envision a different way?”

They are just cowed and terrified. The first job priority at Encorpera is self-preservation. Every decision flows from that. They could take some chances and try some new approach but most people want someone to hand them an assignment, a pat on the back, and generous benefits. That is the whole point of Ms Slaughter’s plaintive whine.

Worked for a guy making a high-tech product. He said “everyone wants to come in here and be told what to do and not make any decisions. I need a guy who will go out and find applications for my technology.”

That’s what I do and like you, come and go as I please. I work hard though, in the last few weeks busted my ass doing some design and marketing work, then went to a conference of Dull Men, some of whom were impressed with my modeling skills, to be described in the upcoming Tools for Trolls : Learn 3D Modeling

Later, me and Hermann took the train to Miami and lounged on the beach for a few days. Some nice Cuban asses but I rather missed my viet bride. She characteristically returned with a cooler full of seafood and some roast duck.

Maybe I’ll return to work tomorrow.

And here’s something about the womenfolk : it is thoroughly doable to have children early and enter the work force later. Their vaunted career validation is worthless compared to the joy of children. Rather than try to restructure society they should adapt themselves to the near limitless opportunities in this country.

Off-topic but noticed that all the cabbies in Miami were Haitian. Wonder if they are just willing to work hard or muscled the locals out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer July 2, 2012 at 17:02

Firepower July 2, 2012 at 15:22

Uncle Welmer

Why does every femrag have a Black Journalist, talking about Black issues?

Gee whiz – that does seem really unfair! Why is that??

——————————————–

Could they just write about some general-interest topic that didn’t bring attention to their blackness? I suppose if they did that the white femrags would have no use for them.

And stop calling me Uncle Welmer. It sounds ridiculous. I worked hard on putting together this persona…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Centaur July 2, 2012 at 17:06

@Uncle Elmer
As a person who grew up in Miami, I can answer your cabbie question.
In Miami cabs are low income. You spend alot of time shuffling people around So Beach for very little fair, or to the airport from the beach- again, with very little real fair.
Cabs are just not very lucrative in Miami, as everyone who lives there has a car. Everyone. Haitians do it because they are the most recent, and poorest , immigrants in Miami. For them it is an ok start. Very little english needed, all you really need are a drivers license and your in. But its not NYC, cabbies make crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
fmz July 2, 2012 at 17:12

Its a convoluted damsel-in-distress call.

They’re trying to resurrect chivalry.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Russell July 2, 2012 at 17:17

Once upon a time I thought it would be good to be a househusband or even just share work & family life equally with a women. Then I learnt how the woman would then treat such a husband with contempt. I recall the sad stories of men who before marriage, had agreed with their prospective wives to just this. Then when the children arrive all those well thought out plans are angrily rejected by the wife; who then claims it is her right to be a stay at home mom and he is responsible as the sole breadwinner. Remember, it is a woman’s prerogative to change her mind. All of his life’s plans are now unilaterally reversed whether he likes it or not.
Talking to female university students recently, they were all unanimous that the man MUST make more money than the woman. 10 minutes late they were complaining of the gender pay gap. Don’t marry.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 1
Matt July 2, 2012 at 17:20

Charles Martel, you do your namesake well. I really enjoy your posts. Esp 16:40. Brilliant insight, I wish I had your way with words! Kudos to Welmer for his column too!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Matt July 2, 2012 at 17:22

correction to above post, I meant kudos to Mr Price for his column

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price July 2, 2012 at 17:24

correction to above post, I meant kudos to Mr Price for his column

-Matt

Thanks, Matt. BTW, “Welmer” is still fine by me, too. I’ll probably use it on the books as a pen name.

sestamibi July 2, 2012 at 17:26

Why only 50 women US senators? Why not 100?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Ode July 2, 2012 at 17:28

Seeking out a more balanced life is not a women’s issue; balance would be better for us all. Bronnie Ware, an Australian blogger who worked for years in palliative care and is the author of the 2011 book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying,…

First women try to shame men and say we need to “man up”, put down the video game joystick so we can work more so women can enjoy the financial support.
Now women say we men need to be less ambitious, work less, become a kitchen bitch and have a more “balance life” .

Once again the female mind believes
A equals B
A does not equal B

Gentlemen don’t let the fancy academic credentials or the superior stamina some women have for verbal verbosity, the female mind is full of contradictions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel July 2, 2012 at 17:35

Matt
Charles Martel, you do your namesake well.

Thanks, Matt, though I’m really just riding Bill’s coat-tails.

I have no delusions of grandeur, btw. My purpose is for readers to google the name once in a while and discover the Battle of Tours. Europe sorely needs a new Charles Martel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Centaur July 2, 2012 at 17:35

If one adds up all the different aspects of womens nature, and feminist desires, a view of what a modern society as dictated by women will look like.
1.only extremely rich and alpha men will reproduce. Each one will have many children with many women
2.regular men will be held in contempt and force to work to pay for all the women and children.
3.women will have so many corporate and social welfare programs that they will, essentially, not need to work. They will instead simply enjoy traveling, having alpha babies, and taking care of their homes and themselves
4.men will not have an option to MGTOW, as their tax dollars and labor will be taken by force, by legions of beta males trying to earn a chance at reproduction
5.any men, alpha or beta who do not play along, will be jailed..in forced labor camps probably. Through rape/child support/debt laws.

Its the only outcome possible when women refuse to marry men who make less, hate men who arent alpha/rich, expect to make as much as men without work, expect men to do the housework, then detest them for it, and want special laws protecting them while claiming equality and expecting equal access to anything that would allow men to make more….
Every inch of “progress” women make amounts to yet another noose around mens necks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 2
Dalrock July 2, 2012 at 17:46

@W.F. Price

The real marvel here is that you actually managed to stay awake long enought to make it through that entire article.

-dragnet

Wasn’t easy. But believe it or not it’s a lot better than what you see in academia these days. I think one of the reasons feminists are not criticized much is that nobody is motivated to sift through the garbage they produce.

Her complete inability to get to the point is truly astonishing given her past and present positions. Here she is writing in a prominent magazine, and she rambles on for a full six pages. Can you imagine how inefficient she was at the White House. From her article:

the days were crammed with meetings, and when the meetings stopped, the writing work began—a never-ending stream of memos, reports, and comments on other people’s drafts. For two years, I never left the office early enough to go to any stores other than those open 24 hours…

From the OP:

Even though she has a couple teenage sons, I don’t think Slaughter has a clue what young men are thinking.

Given how she started the article off by throwing her 15 year old son under the bus my guess is it doesn’t matter. Even if she did know, why would she care? There is no girlpower there, no moxie, no glorious feminist victory, only a living breathing young man whose peers all now know his mom threw him under the bus.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
Eric July 2, 2012 at 18:43

Price:
As a collorary to MGTOW in society, more men should MGTOW from the economy. Work on your business and you don’t have to deal with clods like Ms.AnneMarie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Eric July 2, 2012 at 18:47

Raj:
Even more to the point, feminism teaches women to value power over men as a goal; and value themselves as superior to men in every way. ‘Having it all’ is not a lie/excuse: it’s a statement of their exact intent and purpose. Love means nothing to a feminised female; her first and only love is to herself—to the exclusion of everybody and everything else.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Eric July 2, 2012 at 18:50

Flower-Power,
‘Well I wish liberal magazines would write conservative articles. They should change their ways…’

Have you tried printing of your thoughts in ‘High Times’ recently? LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Uncle Elmer July 2, 2012 at 18:50

Dear Penthouse Letters,

Eighteen months into my job as the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, a foreign-policy dream job that traces its origins back to George Kennan, I found myself in New York, at the United Nations’ annual assemblage of every foreign minister and head of state in the world…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Eric July 2, 2012 at 18:56

Nico:
It looks like the ‘Daily Mail’ might have screwed up with that study. If the feminists actually start believing that men ENJOY doing housework; they’ll have to make it illegal for men to be in kitchens, laundries, &c.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Andrew S. July 2, 2012 at 18:58

More laws, more government spending, and men just being “nicer.” Awesome!!!! Of course guess who will keep footing most of the bill, and giving up most of their liberties so women “can have it all.”

Seriously America, you fucking suck.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Attila July 2, 2012 at 19:08

I am Woman, hear me bore
In numbers too big to ignore…..tra la la!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
TFH July 2, 2012 at 19:11

This is just yet another example of what I often say :

Feminism, far from helping women, has instead made the full extent of female inferiority (mental, moral, physical) far more visible than was ever possible before feminism.

Now we know why traditional customs existed in the old days, and women were pressured to appear ‘ladylike’…. it was to conceal the true nature of women, because if this was seen, far too few men would sign up for marriage (even Marriage 1.0).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 7
TFH July 2, 2012 at 19:12

Gentlemen,

The poll is showing numbers strongly in our favor. It is true there will be a selection bias, but even accounting for that, the results are going well :

http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html

If you have not voted already, check it out. Show them how great our numbers have become…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10
Attila July 2, 2012 at 19:14

Oh yeah …. check out the original Helen Reddy hit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmifO2sKT7g

Gawd – check out the fashions and the background vocals (oooh-aaah).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
TFH July 2, 2012 at 19:14

Remember that articles like this one, are just shit tests.

The concept of a ‘shit test’ is among the most valuable things a man can know, whether he wants to sleep with women or not.

That is why Game is of incredible utility even in everyday life.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 15
Rob July 2, 2012 at 19:21

Lol! I predict TFH will flog his ONE article for a decade before writing his second one… all the while criticizing those who do “nothing” and whining that they don’t fall in line at the General’s insistence when he barks out his prophetic directions.

What another shameless plug for yourself, TFH. Hasn’t that old article been flogged enough already? Get some class.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 17
Eric July 2, 2012 at 19:35

Rob:
It’s too bad that orangutans can’t read.

‘…among the most valuable things a man can know whether he wants to sleep with women or not. That’s why Game is of incredible utility in everyday life.’

Yeah, for women like Andrea Dworkin. But you have to at a monkey’s level for Julia Roberts-class ‘Game’. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
TFH July 2, 2012 at 19:36

Heh… I knew Rob waited all day to advertise his jealous loserdom…

Rob is still smarting from how I was able to convert the Carpe Diem blog (with Oddsock’s help) in just a week, while Rob could not do the same even in two years, such is his loserdom.

Oh, and Rob, PMAFT and I were discussing the zero-activism wing of the MRpM, and your name came up :

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/06/support-the-brian-banks-documentary/comment-page-1/#comment-4916

PMAFT also brands you as ‘one of the worst’ and a ‘conspiracy theorist’. And I fully agree.

Now go ahead, say your standard squeal of how ‘PMAFT is a nob0dy’, just like you said about Paul Elam, Chuck Ross, Christian Men’s Defense Network, Ferdinand Bardamu, and all the others who said this before. PMAFT is just the latest.

Activism. We do it. Rob envies it.

Heh heh heh heh

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 21
Rob July 2, 2012 at 19:42

Lol! What a crock of shit you pulled out of your ass – AGAIN!

You just make shit up at will. You’ve been doing this since you’ve shown up.

Lol! And I highly doubt you are so skilled to convert any blog in a matter of weeks. You can’t just pull maxims out of your ass at will and expect people to believe them without backing them up with something real.

But then again, you are the General of nothing but a “proto-movment,” – by your own definition – so who cares, eh?

What a clown.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15
Rob July 2, 2012 at 20:13

Oh, and TFH, exactly what kind of “activism” are you doing except for running around on the web “talking?”

Isn’t that why you declared everyone before you was just a nothing “proto-movement” who had accomplished “nothing?”

So you’ve become exactly that which you’ve criticized – you are 100% using the internet to promote men’s rights… but the people before you who used the internet as their medium to promote men’s rights were fools, because they didn’t have millions of men burning their gonchies in the street like the feminists did.

And, btw, I thought only you and Paul Elam were the “real” activists in the MRM. Where did all these other “real activists” come from… weren’t they here before you? Did they only become “real” activists after they supported “the General’s” orders?

How do you justify being a “real” activist while all you do is yap on the internet – and mostly in just comments sections too, aside from your ONE article? That is EXACTLY why you said the MRM was nothing but a proto-movement.

Stop lying and own up. You are nothing but a “proto-activist.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15
Anonymous age 70 July 2, 2012 at 20:30

>>Attila July 2, 2012 at 19:14

>>Oh yeah …. check out the original Helen Reddy hit:

It looked like the production staff was mostly male.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Eric July 2, 2012 at 20:38

Anon70:
It looks like the whole ‘empowered woman’ thing didn’t play out too well in the Mexican elections. They brought the Old Guard back rather than go with a successful party that promoted the ‘Strong Woman.’

The news is reporting that El Peje Lagarto still hasn’t thrown up the spounge—LOL just like last time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Rob July 2, 2012 at 20:51

When I first found the MRM, I showed up at SYG.

There was a guy there who called himself “Mens Rights Activist.”

He posted weekly pictures of his truck, parked in front of UCLA, with a pro-MRM slogan on a board in the box of his truck. He also claimed he was holding seminars inside the school, passing out MRM friendly flyers and the like… and he WAS the utmost MRA out there – and people told him such things often, they were so impressed.

After a while though, people asked, “If you are making such a ruckus at UCLA, how come your truck is always parked in front of an empty lawn, with not one single student in the background?”

Turns out, the guy was going to UCLA on Saturdays and Sundays, popping up his “activist boards” and quickly snapping a picture… he never actually dared to do it on days when there were multitudes of students around.

But yet, he bullied everyone else around, claiming he was “THE ONLY ONE” doing “REAL” activism.

He found his self-worth through gaining prestige in a limited online community, and was so pathetic as to doctor information to bolster his position.

It was all a lie.

TFH reminds me of this charlatan to a great degree.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 18
Eric July 2, 2012 at 21:35

Rob:
Looking at the Great Prophet’s link: it looks like another red-herring. LOL.

The whole thing is just a thread on a blog bragging about how superior he is to everyone else and more nonsense about postering toilet bowls.

It’s amazing how he can’t find any legitimate criticism that doesn’t promote himself at the same time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
TFH July 2, 2012 at 22:09

Rob,

Yawn….. more hysterical cowardice. Why don’t you address PMAFT’s accurate point (which I agree with) :

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/06/support-the-brian-banks-documentary/comment-page-1/#comment-4916

“Rob Fedders is definitely one of the worst, but he is by far not the only one. I have noticed that there is a great deal of overlap between being a conspiracy theorist and opposition to activism. (Rob Fedders is a good example of this.) This is not a coincidence.”

Address this point. Failure to do so means you agree with it.

Just like you failed to address the valid criticisms that Christian Men’s Defense Network, Chuck Ross, Paul Elam, and Ferdinand Bardamu have of you…

What a pathetic heap of cowardly jelly you are….

Heh heh heh heh

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 18
Rob July 2, 2012 at 22:13

TFH’s entire attitude changed after his posting of his “stinky note campaign.”

Before that, enyone who posted online was a fucking loser, promoting only a “proto-movement” that had not yet grown up from being mere “writers.”

And yet, all TFH has done is questionably post Stinky Notes directing people to the mere people he called nothing in the first place, and now he declares himself the utmost Activist in the fucking universe.

Nobody can even prove he’s posted stinky notes.

I cornered him once on In Mala Fide where he admitted the stinky note campaign was a failure because he was the only one doing it – nobody else pulled their weight (we told you!), but then a month later, he claimed he had hundreds of “young guys” doing it who were not part of the online MRM. LOL!

He’s also claimed I was banned from the Spearhead, In Mala Fide and countless other sites, when obviously I am not. He’s also taken it upon himself to speak for Zed and Angry Harry that they hate me so much they want nothing to do with me… but I know the two of them well enough that if they wanted to convey that, they would say it to my face, rather than let TFH say it for them. Yet, TFH lies again and again. And he gets away with it. It is sickening, this fraud within the MRM. Let’s not even get into his claims that Rob Fedders is worse for the MRM than Manboobz, which he was yapping at Dalrock’s.

The guy is a clown, and will lie to bolster his own position, and denigrate other’s postions… while doing little else than write ONE fucking article in his entire MRM career, and claim he is only one of TWO activists that actually exist.

Btw, according to TFH Maxim #12, only 1% of women and less than 20% of men will ever understand “game.” So… TFH’s saviour of humanity in a democratic society consists of convincing 10.5% of the population… Heh, good plan!

Also, the Misandry Bubble will burst in 7.5 years… so, what the fuck is the point of creating lobby groups and the like if it will all explode naturally in such a short time?

The guy has no idea how to attach his “maxisms” to plain logic.

He is here for ego. Period. And to entertain us as a clown until 2020.

But at least in 2020, he will write a second article.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13
Eric July 2, 2012 at 22:18

THF:
Oh can it, Blowhard. There’s no ‘legitimate criticism’ of Rob anywhere. Besides, if he’s ‘doing nothing’ why are you blowing so much hot air to prove it? If he wasn’t doing anything, you wouldn’t even notice.

BTW, what happened to your sidekick, Rmaxd? He’s been quiet lately since he was exposed as a fraud…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
Rob July 2, 2012 at 22:31

What I really despise about TFH is his feminine form of arguing. He throws out complete lies and then expects you to defend them… all the while calling you a liar for not defending a FALSE CHARGE!

That is exactly how I’ve experienced women in my life!

But, at the same time, the guy lies like a rug, and when you call him out with it on plain, provable logic, he distracts by saying you won’t answer to his charges.

He’s a clown. One with tits.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12
Eric July 2, 2012 at 22:36

Rob:
His alter-ego Rmaxd does the same thing. Throws out false accusations, repeats them, and wonders why you won’t answer them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
evilwhitemalempire July 2, 2012 at 22:36

But isn’t this simply a way for women to have high positions only in name? Sure, but who cares? As long as men are getting paid for the work, it doesn’t matter what the woman calls herself. However, it does go to show how much of this debate about “having it all” depends on appearances rather than reality.
————————-
so flex time, etc. is really back door subversion of affirmative action

of course it was bound to happen

the organic product of industry needing production on one hand but needing to appear to be ‘go team wimminz’ on the other

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire July 2, 2012 at 22:40

“These young men have not yet faced the question of whether they are prepared to give up that more prestigious clerkship or fellowship, decline a promotion, or delay their professional goals to spend more time with their children and to SUPPORT THEIR PARTNER’S CAREER.”
—————
fuck you bitch!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
TFH July 2, 2012 at 22:42

Yawn…. Rob,

Ignoring the exact quote from PMAFT, eh? Even if it is right in front of you.

Writing an entire wall of text that I won’t read, doesn’t rescue you from being cornered like that.

What cowardice. An actual quote from PMAFT, and you ignore it, just like you ignored the quotes from Chuck Ross, Christian Men’s Defense Network, Paul Elam, Ferdinand Bardamu, etc.

Pathetic.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 20
Eric July 2, 2012 at 22:46

THF:
Looks to me like you’ve done a good job of evading Rob’s arguments.

‘Texts of posts that I won’t even read…’ LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Rob July 2, 2012 at 22:52

Ignoring the exact quote from PMAFT, eh?

PMAFT has been a hiding little punk to me ever since I called him out on Hawaiian Libertain’s blog for being such a fucking cunt to him.

He’s doesn’t even come close to a grasshopper.

I haven’t read him in over two years. Why would I? He illustrated his jackassery in spades, got called on it, and wisely disappeared.

Yawn. If you think PMAFT is a bigger player than the rest, you’ve got somethign to learn!

I see Peter Andrew Nolan is a big supporter of your site, LOL! That’ll get you far!

You putz.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17
Rob July 2, 2012 at 22:55

By the way, I would LIKE to see the Chuck Ross and In Mala Fide quotes.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14
Rob July 2, 2012 at 22:56

Liar

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14
evilwhitemalempire July 2, 2012 at 22:58

Just1X July 2, 2012 at 12:46
She makes a common mistake of women activists; she thinks that offering men space on the victim bus with the women means that men will sign up for her ‘plan’.

———————
thing is that’s basically what’s going on with avfm

the crosshairs have so subtly been moved from fem supremacy to misandry (per se)

‘we are men, hear us roar LOUDER’ has long given way to disposable hero narrative

the draft hasn’t been around since the 60′s but if you listen to avfm radio you’d think the greatest threat to men these days is to be shipped overseas to get shot at

the gripe is all ass backwards

complaining about men not getting in to battered shelters instead of complaining about the dykes that run them

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6
Rob July 2, 2012 at 23:07
Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13
TFH July 2, 2012 at 23:09

Rob,

If you think PMAFT is a bigger player than the rest, you’ve got somethign to learn!

Well, he is definitely a much bigger player than you. And he is a Spearhead contributor (44 articles). He is certainly not ‘hiding’ from you. No one is.

Chuck Ross, also a Spearhead contributor, has said that the URLs @ Urinals campaign was the first grass-roots activism for Men’s Rights, which directly disproves your claim that it was done before. I showed you that link a few times, but you then claimed Chuck Ross is a nobody because you couldn’t argue against his point…

I could show you that same link yet again, if you wish..

In Mala Fide : Ferdinand routinely pointed out the lack of activism from many MRAs. Too bad his archives are gone, but you know about those comments of his, where myself and other commenters made you beg to be left alone (as is pretty easy to do).

Christian Men’s Defense Network : You also know about that.

Firepower : He is the harshest critic of the MRM of all. You are far too afraid to clash with him (and it shows). I dare you to take him on on the topic.

Save it, Rob. Every time someone points out your victimy opposition to activism (and opposing any activism to support Brian Banks is a new low for you), you just minimize the blogger and engage in projection in a desperate attempt to obstruct progress for Men’s Rights.

We get it, you oppose Men’s Rights, and spend all your waking hours on that. So why are you here?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17
Rob July 2, 2012 at 23:13

Lol!

Stuff it, urninal poster.

What a fucking clown you are.

I think it has to do with your race, to be honest. No white man would be so stupid to argue in the face of defeat like you do.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 20
evilwhitemalempire July 2, 2012 at 23:16

Lara July 2, 2012 at 13:39
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

And I’m sitting down with a glass of wine and a good movie or book.

————————–
lol, lara can’t tell if she’s reading a book or watching a movie

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Rob July 2, 2012 at 23:18

And, btw, I’ve been a big supporter of Firepower… just because he gets the juices flowing… and Firepower knows it.

I also rarely read Chuck Ross… not since he stopped posting here.

Christian Men’s Defence Network, LOL! Sounds like 1,000 other “orgs” made of twelve people that will explode within 2 years.

Do you think I showed up yesterday and these kinds of people never existed before?

Grow your brain, pre-grasshopper, and look to the people that have lasted the test of time, and then ask yourself WHY?

You have been in the MRM for, what, three years now?

Geez, everyone should take your advice, such a veteran you are.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 17
Rob July 2, 2012 at 23:30

TFH, when you REALLY arrive in the MRM, people linking to your ideas won’t suprise you so much as it does now, when you are a fraud.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11
Rob July 2, 2012 at 23:32

If I could link everyone who has linked just ONE of my articles, TFH, by your criterion, I would be God himself.

Don’t blow up your ego too much, chump.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
David G July 3, 2012 at 00:01

Slaughter (and almost all feminists) fit the criteria for a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder :

Source :wikipedia
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

-A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
-Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
-Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
-Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
-Requires excessive admiration
-Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
-Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
-Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
-Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
-Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
David G July 3, 2012 at 00:04

Guess what ladies, as a man I can have it all.
I simply take the red pill.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
migu July 3, 2012 at 01:27

I guess Bob Sides is just a fictional character. And backlash.com wasn’t around when 28.8 modems were state of the art. Then there is this thing called FEE that was hammering feminists and family courts in the 60′s.

Fred Reed. Another figment I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Kyo July 3, 2012 at 02:25

From the article:

“I sipped champagne, greeted foreign dignitaries, and mingled. But I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who … was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him. Over the summer, we had barely spoken to each other—or, more accurately, he had barely spoken to me. “

If I were a 14-year-old kid whose mother humiliated me — not just humiliated, but used my life as an opening hook for a long-winded article about how society should be better serving the needs of people like her over people like me — in a major national publication like this one, I’d probably “tune her out” too.

What could she have possibly have been thinking?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 0
Ode July 3, 2012 at 05:49

Rob

How do you justify being a “real” activist while all you do is yap on the internet – and mostly in just comments sections too, aside from your ONE article? That is EXACTLY why you said the MRM was nothing but a proto-movement.

One of the most famous examples of “activism” that we’ve all read about in high school history class was the Montgomery Alabama bus boycott which began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.
The most powerful way to voice your opinion is not with your mouth but with actions especially when it comes to your wallet, and that’s what the people of Montgomery did. They cut off the money supply to the system that ill treated them, starved the beast into submission and won rightfully so.

Getting back to the present day MRM, a man does not have to say a single word either online or in real life yet he can become a very powerful activist by letting his wallet do the talking. I consider myself a “real” activist yet nobody IRL knows about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Anonymous July 3, 2012 at 06:00

Did anyone else notice that the praised marathon runner was a “he” and the person demeaned by the corporation was a “she” in her ridiculous example?

She still has to assign gender roles in such an example to subtly accent her point through propoganda.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Danger July 3, 2012 at 06:05

When women start talking about a patriarchy, it does no good to argue with them.

One must use the same tactics that politicians use to incredibel effectiveness.

Accuse them of believing in conspiracy theories.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 3, 2012 at 06:19

In other news, a woman pushes a man too far; the man takes the path of least resistance…
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1220096–deadbeat-dad-flees-to-philippines-leaving-four-kids-without-support

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 07:15

OT.

This is just messed up.

Obese man ruled unfit for fatherhood
Judge orders adoption for two boys who have special needs

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Obese+ruled+unfit+fatherhood/6815648/story.html#ixzz1zZKVfUxs

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
dragnet July 3, 2012 at 07:25

@ TFH, Rob

“and opposing any activism to support Brian Banks is a new low for you…”

I hope this isn’t really true. WTF?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 07:34

I just found this article about Slaughters article on having it all.

Definately check out the comments. The writer talks about how she had to pay her ex husband in a few comments and he shows up and comments about it and even though he was nice it just makes her sound like even more of a bitch.

The piece and many of the comments are oozing with hypergamy. The way she brags about being accepted into the old white boys club by talking about how SHE has to pay alimony made my skin crawl a bit.

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-06-where-are-all-the-men-in-the-have-it-all-debate

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 08:15

OT.

Here we have a feminist single mother who spends most of the article talking about herself and lions and I don’t even know what the fucking point of the article is except…ummm, she sounds like a pain in the ass….something about kids in therapy, lions again, eating dessert before dinner, and daydreaming instead of facing reality or something…

http://www.rolereboot.org/family/details/2012-06-how-to-make-a-blended-family-work

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Steve_85 July 3, 2012 at 08:17

“Earth to the Great Social Commentators: There’s a Gender War happening. Men and women don’t trust each other and don’t like each other very much either. THAT’S the problem!” – Keyster

This. Right here. This is what’s going on.

I spent 8 years of my life chasing girls. Those 8 years were spent either in a relationship, (none over 6 months) or being told ‘no’ so many times that I was starting to think it was my name. I watched my neighbour destroyed by divorce, then sent to jail because he couldn’t pay the child support for his two children who were obviously not his. I watched my uncle dragged through the courts for 6 years trying to get custody of his children only to be denied (both children are now working for their mother’s pimp [yes, really]). Of my grandparents’ grandchildren, those two are the youngest two… and also the first to have children. And my best mate is about to be taken to the cleaners. He works in the mines in northern Western Australia. Earns a fair bit, owns 6 houses. She wants all the houses, both the kids and 70% of his future income. I don’t know if she’ll get all that… but that’s what she’s asking for. The best part? She admitted to cheating on him for almost a year. While he’s been up north doing 3 on 1 off, 14 hours shifts for 21 days straight… she’s been banging the surfer-dude down the road.

All this shit is going on, and you expect me to be next in line to put my head on the noose, and just pray that my ‘chosen’ doesn’t pull the lever? No thanks.

I feel robbed. I was told the whole way through my young life (I’m 26) that I would get married to a nice girl, have a family and be happy. Turns out all the girls are only in it for themselves, they have massive weight issues, and they are toxic company (only word I can think of for someone who spends 95% of their waking hours bitching about something). Its not even like I’m asking for a super model here. I’d be happy with average as long as she was pleasant and looked after herself.

Irony of ironies: Where have all the good women gone? I have a family shaped hole in my life where I should be able to find happiness… and there’s nothing there but bitterness.

Man up? How about someone give me a reason to? Please?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay July 3, 2012 at 08:34

Here is a great article on how the Obama administration squandered most of the stimulus on feminist demands:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=1

Just goes to show that the feminist claim that “equality” is good for both sexes is a blatant lie. Female jobs are a negative sum game for men. When men are doing good, females profits to. The reverse probably isn’t true.

Talking to female university students recently, they were all unanimous that the man MUST make more money than the woman. 10 minutes late they were complaining of the gender pay gap. Don’t marry.

Well yeah, it’s their man who has to make more than her, the rest can go fuck themselves as they aren’t worthy of her anyways. This is pretty typical thinking, they want something for society (or rather the sisterhood) as a whole and something better for themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Donkey July 3, 2012 at 08:34

Thanks the the new Dodd-Frank act passed by Democrats many mothers and fathers in the financial industries that used to work from home can’t anymore.

A financial firm I do business with had to lay-off all of their women employees who worked from home because of “oversight requirements” and provisions from that bill. (The men who were working from home just started hoofing it in, wasting hours of their lives in traffic.)

Even if we are just banging away on a keyboard, our masters in Washington DC, thought that these people should be cramped into cubicles like everyone else, for proper oversight of course.

Since Slaughter worked at the state department she probably wasn’t directly involved with writing those rules and requirements that took many women and mothers out of work or away from their families. But I bet it was people with a similar marxist/feminist mindset in the SEC were.

The head of the SEC is Mary Schapiro who was named Financial Women’s Association Public Sector Woman of the Year in 2000.

Going back to this Slaughter individual. She is so deluded about reality that she doesn’t realize that it is impossible to “have it all.” On top of that she had been a key shaper of US foreign politics. She even wrote a book entitled “New World Order.”

A summary of her book on Amazon:
“Global governance is here–but not where most people think. This book presents the far-reaching argument that not only should we have a new world order but that we already do. Anne-Marie Slaughter asks us to completely rethink how we view the political world. It’s not a collection of nation states that communicate through presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and the United Nations. Nor is it a clique of NGOs. It is governance through a complex global web of “government networks.”

Bow to your new feminist master.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Dalrock July 3, 2012 at 08:40

Kyo

If I were a 14-year-old kid whose mother humiliated me — not just humiliated, but used my life as an opening hook for a long-winded article about how society should be better serving the needs of people like her over people like me — in a major national publication like this one, I’d probably “tune her out” too.

What could she have possibly have been thinking?

It is amazing that she isn’t getting more heat for this. She wrote this under her own name, and it is referring to events which happened a year or two ago. Since she gives her son’s age everyone who knows him will know it was him. This was profoundly selfish and uncaring of her. If she is willing to treat him this way on the national stage, how is she treating him in private?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
"The One" July 3, 2012 at 09:00

She did throw her son under the bus. Feminist mothers are cold-hearted. You don’t realize until you grow up how cold they are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Ethical July 3, 2012 at 09:00

The article struck me as disingenuous from the first paragraph. The author raises the issue of having to occasionally come home to take care of some crisis involving her children, ostensibly because her husband can’t address the problems himself. Since the author doesn’t mention any constraints that prevented her husband from addressing the issues himself she comes across as making a very thinly veiled put down of her husband, or perhaps husbands in general. We later learn her husband has a full time job as well.

“But I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who had started eighth grade three weeks earlier and was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him. Over the summer, we had barely spoken to each other—or, more accurately, he had barely spoken to me. And the previous spring I had received several urgent phone calls—invariably on the day of an important meeting—that required me to take the first train from Washington, D.C., where I worked, back to Princeton, New Jersey, where he lived. My husband, who has always done everything possible to support my career, took care of him and his 12-year-old brother during the week; outside of those midweek emergencies, I came home only on weekends.”

Anyone can respect hard and humbling self-examination. But this first paragraph sets a disappointing tone for the level of honesty I could expect from the writer. True to form the article reached it’s end with little worthy of respect to be found. Yet the article was widely celebrated among women. No surprise. This kind of female self-deception is music to many women’s ears. Women and women’s families continue to suffer the consequences of women’s self-indulgent and feminist-inspired self-deception but without significant numbers of other women willing to shame then into responsible result-oriented behavior, the dishonesty and self-aggrandizing garbage continues to flow unabated.

The article reached it’s height of ridiculousness when the author made a call for outrageously dramatic quotas with no supporting evidence whatsoever tying the action to the desired outcome.

“The best hope for improving the lot of all women, and for closing what Wolfers and Stevenson call a “new gender gap”—measured by well-being rather than wages—is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.”

Is this kind of wishful thinking what a high level policy administrator comes up with? Time to bring in someone capable of a hard analysis of the issues. Women write nonsense like this article because other women will comfort them by telling them it’s true. Instead of getting satisfaction from hollow words such women should take real meaningful action so they can get the comfort of seeing their kids succeed.

So why do we only get to read these kinds of articles? Overwhelmingly the popular media only runs stories by women or feminists. Nothing is more common than to hear men’s rights paraphrased in the popular media by a feminist who neither understands nor agrees with any of the core MRA positions. So outside of the manosphere a great deal of men remain ignorant of the truth, not caring to go outside the popular media to get informed, playing the odds that feminism won’t hit them. If the truth could get out perhaps there might be a change. I’ve long struggled with how to get the message out to more men and women that the current feminist inspired social contract between the sexes is devastating to both sexes and needs to be revised. Because although the Spearhead is a shining bastion of unvarnished truth, I wonder if it preaches to the converted. Thinking out loud … I wonder if a documentary would get the message out, or whether when it comes to distribution that documentary would face the familiar de-factor censorship that shuts down the MRM in the popular media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Eric July 3, 2012 at 09:21

Kyo:
Notice how self-centered and self-serving the reference to her son was. I got the sense from that paragraph that she almost felt like her son wasn’t paying enough attention to her—or that he wasn’t being appreciative enough of her efforts. David G is right—it’s feminist narcissicism again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Eric July 3, 2012 at 09:32

Steve_85:

‘Man up? Somebody give me a reason to!’

I dropped out of the American relationship scene when I couldn’t come up with a reason to stay in it either. So far from the ‘bliss of romantic love’ I felt like I was in an endless war; watching men getting destroyed and going out into ‘No Mans Land’ to get shot to pieces for reason whatsoever.

Luckily, I also realized that Amerobitches weren’t the only women in the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 09:40

OT.

Feminists are stark raving mad and hysterical over this.
http://www.cityandstateny.com/marty-golden-teach-constituents-feminine-presence/

I couldn’t help but laugh my frakkin ass off.

Trololololololol0ol.

I think the senator is onto something. Western women sure have lost the ability to be feminine, most are the exact opposite of feminine and inhabit some hybrid state between man and she-beast.

Also, this probably would help women in NY because of large international presence of so many businesses men and women and political leaders from around the world and from such different cultures.

The funny thing is that women are NOT the ones hurting in this economy but it was going to be held specifically for women to get a leg up.

What really happened here is that this Senator tried pandering to women but failed miserably. Trololololololol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Eric July 3, 2012 at 09:42

Donkey:

‘A summary of her book at Amazon &c…’

That’s what feminists really mean when they talk about ‘having it all.’ The family unit is always a microcosm of the whole society. When these bitches talk about ‘not needing a man’ and being ‘a heroic single mother’ they are giving us a glimpse of what they think society should look like. It’s not surprising that they envision for a global ‘village’ run by ‘networking’ rather than actual nations with governments runs by laws. That’s another way of excluding men from their ‘new world order.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 10:01

OT.

I am tempted to be a troll on this post but it is something serious, even though I am pretty sure it is full of feminist lies.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/07/03/the-invisible-war/#comments

They even admit that more men are raped/sexually assaulted than women.

The first thing to figure out is what the criteria they used for sexual assaults is. Feminists love to inflate rape stats by conflating sexual assaults and sexual harassment as actual rape. They also love to dismiss false rape allegations while expanding the definition of consent to astronomical parameters.

All that aside, I do think this says a lot about women and about our military and about what feminists have in store for the military.

We have all these super strong and independent and empowered women capable of doing anything and everything as well as, or even better than, a mere mortal man…..but they can’t even protect themselves from their male comrades????

Not very inspiring, huh? Maybe the first step of prevention is to make sure they are either/or in their own womyn-only units and have the same physical standards as the men to qualify to begin with.

I do think it is interesting what feminists want to happen to the military. It sounds like they are trying to go the same way they went with business and schools/colleges. I really doubt it will work and I doubt even more that they will win any suits against the military.

Courts have held time and again that you can’t sue the military for damages after being injured cause you sign away your rights and freedoms by enlisting. They have held this to be true even in training and testing.

Now, before someone claims I am insensitive let me say this. I am sure there is rape in the military. The American military has a standing force of around a million soldiers or so and with that many people you will find bad apples of all stripes and even rapists. Some of their numbers might even be close to correct as far as rapists being attracted to the military. Aggressive and violent people tend to be drawn to professions where that is a plus and I have no problem seeing rapists as being violent and aggressive.

The real question is still: What is the definition of rape and how many false accusation occur v. how many women regret sex v. how many actual rapes take place and how can we root out all of it?

One thing I am certain of is that feminists are the last people who should be doing the job, cause they are sure to fuck it up like they fuck up everything else. Hell, you can probably blame all these rapes on feminism if you think about it. They are the ones pushing for women and gay to be in the military.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Darryl X July 3, 2012 at 10:04

@ Troll King -

“…hybrid state between man and she-beast.”

More “she-beast”. If there was any “man” in there, it’d be a good thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Eric July 3, 2012 at 10:15

Dragnet:
‘I hope this isn’t true, WTF?’

It isn’t true. It’s grandstanding and false accusation. Unfortunately, like all other movements, the MRM gets a few oddballs who are only in it for themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Eric July 3, 2012 at 10:26

Art:
‘…an article on how the Obama Administration squandered most of the Stimulus Package on feminist demands.’

More and more I’m coming to believe that both Socon White Knights and Liberal manginas have some kind of overriding masochistic or self-destructive element in their personalities. Sure, FDR put together a ‘stimulus’ too, with the New Deal; but its objective was to put MEN back to work. Whether anybody agrees with Roosevelt’s approach or not, at least he realized that the national interest required productive MEN to keep a strong country going.

When I read about these kinds of stories: feminising the military; capitulating to feminist demands at every turn; letting the feminists run schools, corporations, and churches—I can’t help but think that the males promoting and enabling such policies have some psychological impulse to implode whenever they’re around women. With some guys like Futrelle and Scalzi it’s an actual obsession.

I have a feeling we won’t see any research institutes look into though. But it would be an interesting theory to explore in more depth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Andie July 3, 2012 at 10:32

At no point in this meandering, close to pointless self-aggrandizing hagiography does Slaughter mention how her children feel about her fabulous “career”.

This is the probably the single most destructive thing feminism has achieved: teaching women that what their babies NEED and WANT and MUST HAVE to grow into functioning, productive members of society DOES NOT MATTER when compared to her own goals, needs, desires, ambitions, self-delusions.

Babies are born to be held, protected, fed, cared for and loved by their biological mothers. That is not always possible, and other primary caregivers CAN step in (including dads, aunts, grandmas, adoptive parents) but THAT IS NOT IDEAL.

Women have a profound responsibility to bear, nourish and care for infants and children. Feminism has taught women that oh wait, no actually, you don’t. You can hire some other woman to do all that work, or better yet, drop Junior off at an institution to be raised by a rotating number of different women, none of whom care for the babies out of love (they are there for a paycheck, no matter how meager).

How do children separated from their mothers, raised by strangers, and taught from INFANCY that mommy’s needs matter more than anything else in this word turn out?

The boys turn out to be the kind of kitchen bitches the feminists want. That a woman’s needs are ALWAYS more important than your needs is something they have learned since BIRTH. They have no other example – how could they think differently?

The girls grow up to think their OWN needs are always more important than anyone else’s for the same reason. More important than their children’s needs and certainly more important than needs of the lame-dick in the kitchen doing the dishes so Big Momma can continue to her ignore her despairing children and send out that next oh so fucking important memo.

The only bright spot in this human tragedy is that feminists have been SO successful at convincing other women that a career will always be more fulfilling than a husband, family and home that career women have very few children, leaving those of us who put our families first to raise the next generation of men and women who will realize that they have been sold a bill of goods/

Have it all? Absolutely you can. Women have the children, raise them and create a loving home. Men have careers. Perfect balance.

An individual woman doesn’t have it all – her FAMILY has it all.

All a woman needs is commitment, responsibility, persistence and maturity.

And therein lies the problem. Women like Slaughter claim that ONLY men need these things. Women just need to throw a tantrum.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 10:49

Here is a comment from the feministe thread on military rape, the one that claimed more men are raped in the military than women:

“8
Katya 7.3.2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
Frankly, for many women (and men) in the armed services, the military is a job, one of the best jobs they could get given their education and background. It is one of the few careers open to HS graduates that pays a decent wage and benefits. It’s how many people manage to afford college. No matter what your job is, having to put up with rape and rape enabling should never be a condition of it. And frankly, the military taking a real stand against sexual assault would be such a great thing in the fight against rape culture. For many people, soldier = real man (however problematic that image is), and if the military insisted that real men don’t rape, nor do they tolerate rape, that would be so powerful.”

Women seem incapable of caring about men or doing anything other than manipulating men and using them for the benefit of women as a group and as individuals. This is a perfect example of how not only do feminists foment strife and competition among men but use male insecurity to their own advantage.

Any time a women (or man) uses some form of “man up” or “real/good” men type of language they are trying to get you to do something that goes against your best interessts.

Oh looky here:

OzyFrantz(formerly ozymandias) from No Seriously What about Teh Menz, which is now being hosted at The GOOD Men Project, has a article titled:

‘Real Men’ Get Therapy

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-real-men-get-therapy

I don’t even have to read it to know that it is full of shit. I can tell you all, not like I probably need to, why men shy away from therapy. It is full of women who think they know everything there is but really just engage in seeing anything masculine as inherently bad while anything feminine is inherently good.

Why would men want to pay $100 bucks per hour to torture themselves with that shit? I got a lifetimes worth of that shit in my feminist oriented social conditioning academy, AKA feminist public school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 11:04

OT.

I don’t know why but this made me laugh my ass off for about a minute.

http://www.rolereboot.org/family/details/2012-07-the-moment-i-became-a-feminist

I think it was the mixture of feminist stupidity and the macabre details of the dying animal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 3, 2012 at 11:06

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22
Eric July 3, 2012 at 11:07

Troll King:
‘Why would anyone pay $100 bucks per hour to torture themselves?’

That’s what I mean about a masochistic element being present in these White Knights. Paying for abuse besides—just like Art’s link.

For example, yesterday, Futrelle ran a hit-piece on Zed, complete with a picture of smiling rat. Does this knothead really think that telling women that all men are pigs and that women deserve better is causing them to respect him (since they see him likewise as a male pig who’s not good enough for them)? What a doofus…

These guys are the ones who need therapy, but they can get it free by reading people who really understand what they’re about:

http://www.kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2012/05/where-do-white-knights-come-from.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Firepower July 3, 2012 at 11:09

Uncle Elmer
Could they just write about some general-interest topic that didn’t bring attention to their blackness?

Can a leopard change its spots? Can a SugarDream Unicorn prance on verdant Elf meadows?

Who cares. YOU are SUPPOSED to realize NO “femrag” is ever going to go Full Spearhead – wtf makes you think it ever will?

Quit fantasizing. If you ever learn to think past all this “it’s soooo unfair why don’t they like us!” taint – you might make progress.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16
Troll King July 3, 2012 at 11:15

OT.

Feminists want both the male and female role but now realize that they can’t handle juggling both at the same time so what to do?

Now they need men to step up into the female role so that women can work in the male role but men aren’t stepping up….lol.

Don’t worry, our old cuckolding friend Hugo is here to tell us guys to get our act together and to “call other guys out” and what not to save the paw paw overworked dearies:

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-06-dudes-get-it-together

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Matt July 3, 2012 at 11:18

Futrelle and AMS authoress of the waste of time we are commenting on, they should get together and play a nice game of Hide and Go Fuck themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Rob July 3, 2012 at 11:21

@ TFH, Rob

“and opposing any activism to support Brian Banks is a new low for you…”

I hope this isn’t really true. WTF? — Dragnet

I’ve never opposed anyone supporting Brian Banks, anywhere, EVER. In fact, up until today, I’ve never mentioned his name in either a comment nor an article. TFH regularly throws out false accusations and then expects his opponents to defend themselves against them, thus deflecting from the arguments he refuses to answer. It’s why I dislike the little weasel so much.

What TFH is angry about, is that some of us oppose the types of activism which will only invite more government intrusion into our lives. The Shared-Parenting movement, for example, will leave it that there should be mandatory shared parenting except in cases of abuse. So, hmmm… let’s see… we know that incentivizing divorce with cash payouts like chillimony leads to more women filing for divorce… so what do you think will happen when incentivizing false accusations of abuse is given as the only way to get sole custody and the chillimony gravy train – yup, you guessed it, the amount of men falsely accused of abuse will rise. Seems a pretty good reason to oppose it, doesn’t it, as shared-parenting will simply lead to more men finding themselves in Brian Banks situation.

Some of us are aggressively opposed to the types of activism that would have a Male Studies program at every university because, just like Women’s Studies programs, they will be incentivized to perpetuate the Gender War and actually make it worse, in order to justify their existence and the funding the government will funnel their way. Just say no to the White House Council on Boys and Men… haven’t men learned yet that government interference is the root cause of all of this crap we are experiencing? How, exactly, does giving the government more power over our lives make anyone like TFH think it will improve men’s lot in life?

TFH lies and throws out false accusations at will. He does it to deflect from the arguments he refuses to answer. Much like a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Matt July 3, 2012 at 11:22

sorry for the above, it is just my inner thug coming out…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eric July 3, 2012 at 11:33

Rob:
In typical fashion, the Great Prophet has been taking credit for a documentary depicting Brian Banks. Really, all the Fifth Horesman did was to advertise the project on some men’s blogs, and a few donations probably got raised that way. Not really much different, though, that what any other activist does by posting links. But nobody would have known about Brian Banks if Welmer hadn’t devoted a series of articles to it in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Rob July 3, 2012 at 11:42

@ Eric,

It’s his throwing out of false accusations that should make everyone question the other things he says – like his superior activism.

In nearly every exchange I’ve ever had with TFH he’s leveled a false accusation against me without even an inkling of truth linked to it – just like his recent Brian Banks accusation… or the Paul Elam sledgehammered me accusation… or the “Rob is banned from the entire MRM” false accusation… or the “Rob is mentally ill” false accusation.

If I had a dollar for every false accusation TFH has made against me since he’s shown up in the MRM, I could bail the government out of it’s current financial disaster AND fund a Brian Banks documentary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
troll king July 3, 2012 at 13:04

The Good Men Project has responded to this article through forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/goodmenproject/2012/06/28/these-are-the-stories-that-change-everything/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
TFH July 3, 2012 at 14:08

dragnet,

I hope this isn’t really true. WTF?

It is true. Go check out the link at PMAFT’s site.

It is not that Rob is specifically opposed to Brian Banks. It is that he is opposed to ALL activism, and when I came around to inform people of the Brian Banks documentary, Rob was quick to shoot down the appeal to donate to him.

It is not specific to Brian Banks. It is ALL activism he opposes.

If I had a dollar for every false accusation TFH has made against me since he’s shown up in the MRM

Then you would have zero dollars. Heh. I have provided links for every one of them (the Paul Elam incident was witnessed by all).

You are the one who has a weird obsession with me. You come out of the woodwork and start it each time (just like on this thread).

Projection, thy name is Rob Fedders.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11
TFH July 3, 2012 at 14:11

Oh….. and Rob Fedders to this day cannot produce a single link where I ever attacked him, at least prior to June 2012.

Where is the link that I ever attacked him?

He is always the one who attacks me. Usually to no effect. Heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11
California Boy July 3, 2012 at 14:39

So, my wife has taken me to counseling. She’s a spender, a nagger, a shouter. She wants me to make more money — and she wants to spend more than we make. We also have one small child. She has threatened to leave me, and has threatened divorce, among other things. Several weeks in with counseling, and she’s sweet as pie.

She knows I would never initiate a divorce.

What she doesn’t know is I plan on being prepared to live on my own, fight for my legal rights, and secure my financial future in the event she files

I’ve already set up my own bank account, cut the credit limit on all our joint credit cards (and will cancel them the moment she acts), and have a charge card in my name and only my name (so I can buy what I need in case of pre-emptive strike).

Now I need to find a good divorce lawyer. Any tips on finding one? My plan, of course, is to find the best one in the area I can to have ready to go.

And what else should I do to get ready for what I hope never happens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Eric July 3, 2012 at 16:08

Rob:
‘It’s throwing out of false accusations that should make everyone question the other things he says.’

A technique he shares with two of his admirers: Rmaxd and Boxer. Both of whom have been exposed as frauds, BTW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Darryl X July 3, 2012 at 16:40

@ California Boy -

I don’t like to make assumptions but generally women who are threatening divorce the way yours is are sleeping with someone else. Women don’t just leave a man. They leave one man for another one. They aren’t secure enough emotionally to just leave.

Also, most “councelors” neither promote marriage nor do they acknowledge a woman’s pathology. Neither is in their best interest. They make money off divorce and enabling a woman’s pathology. Not promoting a marriage or acknowledging that she has a problem. You are guilty until proven innocent and the “councelor” knows that and they will enable your wife and the courts to forcibly separate you from your children.

She has taken you to “councelling” not to help your marriage but to get professional support for her divorce of you and false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse against you. Chances are, if she has met with the “councellor” in private (without you), which is usually required in councelling, she has already made false allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse against you and the “councelor” will support her in court. Of course, they didn’t tell you this. This strategy of women and “councelors” is normal. That it wouldn’t work this way is an extreme exception.

They are conspiring to defraud you. It’s illegal but so are lots of other things these people do and no one cares. Especially the courts. They are going to make huge amounts of money off you in child support and the federal subsidies attached to it and in councelling each of you in the mess that they create, and in attorney and court fees, etc…

If your wife is already behaving this way, there is nothing you can do to change it. She has made up her mind to divorce you. Nothing you can do will appease her. Don’t think there is anything you can do. No matter how sweet she acts. My wife checked to see how the wounds in my back were healing a month after she stabbed me in the back with a pair of butcher knives and a day before she left me. I thought it was a kind gesture. She even hugged me and asked if they were OK.

Really, though, she wanted to make sure there were no scars that I could present as evidence of her attempt on my life. This kind of deceipt and manipulation by women are normal. She knows that what she did is wrong and she will do anything to distract everyone from her real crimes. She will point fingers of accusation at you to distract everyone. She will manipulate others with the public spectacle of her chronic victimhood. She is addicted to power and control and she wants to use your children against you to satisfy your addiction. She is evil. Your marriage is already over. Better you end it than her.

I don’t know what to advice because the entire system is rigged against you. My wife snatched our children from the house one day while I was at work and she stole lots of property. I came home and never saw either again. This development is common. If you can, I would try and get the kids away from her and file for divorce first. It’s your best bet. But not a great likelihood of success.

Obviously her behavior is abusive and that needs to be documented. Telling the “Councelor” will not do any good. S/he will not record or acknowledge what you tell him/her. Councelors are evil. If you ever want any chance of seeing your children again, I would make the allegations against her before she makes them against you. At least yours will be real and truthful. Hers will be lies.

I’m not telling you all this to be mean. I’m just telling you because I don’t want any other man or his children to have to endure what I have these past six years. These people are all evil. You are obliged to protect yourself. You owe it to you and your children. Don’t feel guilty about protecting yourself and your children from these evil people.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Rob July 3, 2012 at 16:51

It is not that Rob is specifically opposed to Brian Banks. It is that he is opposed to ALL activism, and when I came around to inform people of the Brian Banks documentary, Rob was quick to shoot down the appeal to donate to him. — The Fifth Weasel

Prove it! I’ve never even mentioned the guy’s name before today.

Put up or shut up, you liar!

You’ve been pulling tricks like this for years now, you fraud.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Darryl X July 3, 2012 at 16:54

@ California Boy -

Correction:

“She is addicted to power and control and she wants to use your children against you to satisfy your addiction.”

Should be:

“She is addicted to power and control and she wants to use your children against you to satisfy HER addiction.”

Also, chances are she already has an attorney. If she isn’t paying for her (usually a her), the attorney is free through the local women’s shelter or county public services or social services department. They are all femninists and hate your guts and everything else about you and if they didn’t want child support and other financial benefits from you, they would just rather kill you. Be careful, you wife may do that too despite all the benefits of keeping you alive. And when she does, she will just blame it on your alleged abuse of her. You won’t be around to defend yourself and no one will do it for you. They’re too scared.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Darryl X July 3, 2012 at 17:15

@ California Boy -

If you have guns in the house. Get rid of them. She will be inclined to use them. (She is completely out of her mind – do NOT underestimate the resolve with which cupcake wants you out of the way.) And no it will not be “assault” with a deadly weapon or murder. She is defending herself and your children against your alleged abuse.

Don’t go in the kitchen where she can grab a knife or another weapon. The most common ways in which women try to kill their husbands or elicit abusive (defensive) behavior from them is to threaten their lives with knives, guns and/or posion. It would be pointless to tell you not to provoke her because you probably already don’t and she behaves the way she does anyway.

But don’t do anything that she can present as evidence against you. Don’t yell. (I know that’s hard sometimes.) Don’t do anything threatening. Run. Get away if she starts provoking you. Watch out for tape recorders. They can be hidden anywhere. Women do that alot.

They’ll provoke you and provoke you and provoke you and finally after hours or days or months even of their abuse and harassment of you, they’ll turn the recorder on when you respond. The months of abuse you suffer by her before is irrelevant in the court. Only you yelling at her after the months of abuse by her matters.

If she abuses your children physically and leaves marks on them, she will blame it on you. If she tries to involve the children, like snatching them from your physical custody, that’s a hard scenario. Their well-being comes first. She’s very dangerous. The kids need to be protected.

Don’t let her snatch them from your physical custody. Don’t do anything violent, but do present yourself as a physical barrier between her and the kids. If she starts getting too violent and starts hurting you or threatens the well-being of the children (which women will do frequently), get you and the kids out fast. I would advise calling 911, but the police will likely arrest you. Not her. And then the kids will be in even more danger. The police are not helpful in these situations. They are funded by federal subsidies too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
California Boy July 3, 2012 at 17:23

@Darryl X. Thanks. Sounds like I need a lawyer yesterday. Anyone got any suggestions for identifying a good one? Spouse is also fast-tracking a home purchase. Is a lawyer guiding this? And yes, counselor has arranged a one-on-one meeting with the spouse. Any views on what this means?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
TFH July 3, 2012 at 17:23

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16
Sun July 3, 2012 at 17:28

@ Young Guy

“As usual, women like Anne-Marie Slaughter never look at the bigger picture in life, and how the greater good of society comes before themselves.”

That is because we living a very individual-centric society.

I do believe a certain type of individualism is good. Nietzsche is example of this, however the left sole focus is on ME and MY RIGHTS and well being.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Rob July 3, 2012 at 17:35

You know TFH, whenever anyone makes a WAY off base accusation…

You attacked me out of the blue less than a week ago!

I seen you were whining today like a little baby over at Dalrock’s today too, talking about the “anti-activists” who were opposed to Brian Banks. You know, not only do I know I’ve never opposed you on anything about the fella, but I haven’t seen anyone else do it either. You are lying, and pulling false accusations out of your ass – again! And then you are standing there promoting yourself as the saviour of the MRM who is being persecuted by these figments of your imagination.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
TFH July 3, 2012 at 20:02

“You attacked me out of the blue less than a week ago!”

OK, I did one, relative to your 100 or so.

So I did one, after you did about 100 before that.

Find one by me before June 2012. Go on now, find one….

And it has to be an ‘unprovoked personal attack’. You know, the type you do. Not a detached discussion about the lack of activism in the MRM (which, again, is the predominant opinion in the Androsphere).

So go on, find one before June 2012….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12
Rob July 3, 2012 at 20:26

Lol! I don’t have to run around sifting through mounds of posts for you. Why don’t you provide the evidence of me so viciously opposing you about Banks? You always demand I do it, but you never do it yourself. You should be able to find it and provide it easily, as it must be fresh on your mind if you are snivelling about it both here and at Dalrocks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Eric July 3, 2012 at 20:40

California Boy:
Darryl X is giving you some pretty good advice overall. I think that you might have bought yourself some breathing-room, if she doesn’t suspect that you’re on to what she’s doing (an advantage men have is that women reflexively presume all men are stupid).

I had a good attorney here in Seattle, but unfortunately he fell victim to a false accusation himself, so…

My advice would be to look through the Spearhead for commenters on legal subjects (a lot of men here are lawyers). Slwerner, Opus, and some others. They usually are active on mens’ blogs that deal specifically with legal issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Eric July 3, 2012 at 20:42

California Guy:
P.S. Another option might be to contact Welmer privately. He probably knows some people who could help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Darryl X July 3, 2012 at 22:22

@ California Boy -

An attorney may or may not be able to help you. Most are idiots and work for the courts. They represent the courts. Not you. They make more money if you lose against your wife. Not if you win. They will likely help your wife more than they will help you. They are more of a liability than an asset to your case. Better to represent yourself if you can. But if you can’t, then get a lawyer. (Sorry for any good attorneys out there but I have yet to encounter any personally but I’m sure there are some – if there are any good attorneys they likely won’t work in family law.)

But don’t pay him/her until they’ve actually done something. That’s how law is supposed to work. Today, they require such huge retainers and then when they don’t do anything, you’ve basically already paid them. They talk big talk when they’re alone with you in their office but when they get before a judge, they won’t help you. Never pay an attorney unless s/he has actually done something. If the attorney tells you that’s not how it works, find another one that does work that way. Not many do.

Because they all know that they are powerless in family court. Most attorneys do not have any clue about family law or paternal alienation or abusive women or basic math for calculating child support. Do not sign a contract with an attorney. If you do, the court can go after you for attorneys fees. If you do sign a contract, make sure that it specifies what your attorney is going to do for you. If there is no contract, a judge can’t order you to pay for breaking the contract. If s/he does (which they do frequently anyway), don’t pay. Never pay anything a judge orders you to pay. Make them take it. Judges and attorneys and other officers of the court will do all kinds of things to trick you. They are very dishonest. Family law is a racket and these are the thugs who run it. They will manipulate and cheat and lie to you. Yes, even the judge. These are very evil people. The only reason they are in this business is to satisfy their addiction to power and control. Anybody like that can’t make good decisions.

Identify a step by step process. It’s not hard. He should have some idea about what to do. Their general strategy is to drive costs up and make things as adversarial as possible. That’s a bad attorney. Especially if children are involved. Accept only shared parenting and do not agree to pay any child support (EVER). If you have a job, quit it. A judge can’t order child support if you don’t have a job. Once the child support is ordered, it can’t be lowered (Bradley Amendment).

You better be able to hold a job until it’s paid off. Otherwise you risk arrears and jail. If you have no job, no child support and no jail. Your wife and her attorney are much less likely to kidnap and hold the children hostage for ransom. If there’s no job with wages to garnish then holding children hostage is pointless. Understand that this is a hostage situation. It’s trafficking children and enslavement of you. The more assets you have, the more likely your kids are likely to get snatched.

It’s not about the money though. It’s about how they can use the money to hurt you and everyone else. The whole process is about abusing and hurting you as much as they can. The money and children are just means. Again, these people are evil. They are completely irrational. Think of trying to take cocaine away from an addict and what would happen. These people are very dangerous. They aren’t civilized. They really aren’t even human – that’s what some scientists who have done genetic studies on people like these. They are parasites. Not humans. They are pod people. Zombies. Robots. They simply will not stop until you are destroyed.

Fast-tracking purchase of a house is a common strategy for tying up finances to make it hard for you to fight her. Chances are her attorney advised her to do that. The attorney of my ex-wife advised her to seduce me into buying a house. So I did and got screwed. She forced me to dump tens of thousands of dollars into it, destroying our finances. She got the part of the finances that were left and I got nothing.

Purchasing a house seems to be a common strategy for wives and their attorneys for putting your assets in a position where they are vulnerable. Either she can get the house (because of the children) or it just makes it hard for you to afford to defend yourself against the attacks of your wife and her attorney. I don’t know if your wife is being guided by an attorney or not to do this. Women seem to know instinctively to do this. But so do the attorneys. It’s a common tactic.

I did not put my wife’s name on the house because she was threatening to divorce me. Which helped me. When her attorney found out about that, after trying to take posssession of it and having me thrown out, she was furious. (Apparently there were some miscommunications between my ex and her attorney – like when my ex lied to her attorney about her education and that I paid for it and that there wasn’t a prenuptial agreement – for what that was worth.) She ended up getting its value anyway but it took her more than two years. And not till after I sold the house. So she didn’t get the house. Only what I could sell it for.

Do not agree to do a pyschiatric evaluation. It’s expensive and even if you as a man are in perfect psychiatric health and your wife proves to be a raving lunatic (and she probably is), it won’t help you. It will only hurt you. Never talk to Social Services or Child Protective Services. Everything you say no matter how innocuous or benign will be twisted and used against you. All these people are evil.

If you have an attorney, make sure that s/he is the only person you talk to about this matter. But don’t disclose anything that the attorney can use to defraud you him/her self. They’ll do it. Do not talk to anyone else. No social workers, no law guardians (they are even more evil and deranged than councelors and social workers), no child protective service workers, no police, nothing. No one. They are all evil. The Divorce Industry is trying to destroy you through your children. There is nothing good about it. And your wife is conspiring with it to defraud you too. It’s what they do with more than half the marriages. Do not go to anger management classes. Don;t agree to do anything. Concede nothing. No matter how nice your wife behaves.

You were smart to keep finances separate and get a separate credit card. Don’t have joint credit cards or bank accounts. Don’t wait to act until she does. It’s better to act a year to early than a second too late. She already has the drop on you anyway and you’re behind. She can clean the accounts out or the courts can freeze them. Fighting for your legal rights is a good spirit to have. Unfortunately, you don’t have any legal rights. Most anything you will be able to do for yourself will be independent of any legal developments. The law is not there for you. It is there for her and her only. Do everything you can for your childre. But if and when you can’t do anymore, then you’ll have to let them go (if it comes to that and hopefully it will not – but it usually does).

Most important are the children. Children should have both parents. No matter how imperfect one or both may be. Just because your wife hates you enough to do all the things she is doing doesn’t mean she should hate her kids. But she does anyway. Women like this are incapable of love. Children are the most important weapons women and their attorneys use against good men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Dubcik July 3, 2012 at 22:53

Women nurses in the federal service demand they be paid the same as “mostly male” doctors and our government agrees? It’s a shame that the only way their greed will end is when there is nothing left to give them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/07/03/ottawa-nurses-in-public-service-win-150-million-dollar-settlement.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Eric July 4, 2012 at 00:03

California Boy:
I looked through a few of the archived posts here and Slwerner mentioned being active with the False Rape Society and the Community of the Wrongly Accused. I would guess those are sites probably filled with MRA attorneys, so might want to check them out and see if they have links, &c.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus July 4, 2012 at 03:00

Given the way this thread is going, I feel justified in revealing (as I guess it will not have reached America) that on Monday in the sleepy town of Devizes in the County of Wiltshire a man walked into the office of a lawyer and shot him in the head. He lives, however. Being intrigued and having my suspicions, I checked around and discovered that the lawyer practises in Matrimonial Law, (what a surprise) but whether the would-be Murderer is an agrieved Husband or an agrieved client I cannot say.

I once had a double barrelled shotgun pulled on me, and have of course endured various other threats. … and to think my mother assured me that Law was ‘a safe and secure career’.

Meanwhile I think I have found the Higgs Boson under my settee, so if Mr Higgs (of Oxford in the County of Oxfordshire) wants it back to accompany the Nobel Prize which is surely his next year, he can do so if he sends me a stamped addressed envelope.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Hermitcrab July 4, 2012 at 03:01

@Rob and TFH,

please shut up and take your arguments about “she said you said he said I said!” somewhere else. If you could muster that much courtesy for the rest of the audience, we wouldn’t have to suffer the noise of your inane, womanly bitching contest.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
Darryl X July 4, 2012 at 09:42

@ California Boy -

A “councelor” is meeting with your wife to identify her “issues”. Her issues will be false allegations that you are abusing her and your children. The “councelor” will encourage her to make false allegations if she is not inclined to do so already. If she doesn’t believe she is being abused before going to “counceling”, then she will after. “Councelors” are like women’s shelters and typically cooperate with them. They are there to indoctrinate your wife into the feminist cult of chronic victimhood.

Your wife is what the Bible refers to as a “silly” woman. Evil men like “councelors” manipulate silly women and silly women allow themselves to be manipulated by evil men. They both benefit from the relationship. The conspiracy. That’s what it is. They are conspiring against you. If the “councelor” asks to meet with you in private, it is solely to encourage you to “confess” to the crimes your wife has alleged against you.

He is keeping notes. It does not matter what you say, how much you deny her allegations. He will report that you “confessed” to the crimes anyway. That gives your wife “evidence” which she can present in court to get custody and child support. And to deny you any access to the children. That is all the “councelor” is getting paid to do (likely paid by you to add insult to injury). You are paying them to defraud you.

The “councelor’s” sole purpose is to help your wife defraud you. That is all. “Councelors” are not there to help your marriage. They are there to destroy it. That’s how they make their money. More than 75% of couples who go to marriage “councelors” get divorced while they are in “counceling” (read brainwash and indoctrination). More get divorced after they have been to “counceling”. Your wife is a malignant narcissist. The “councelor” is enabling her malignant narcissism. Her psychopathology. Her psychopathy.

It does not matter how much evidence you have of your innocence and your wife’s guilt. The “councelor” will twist it around to portray you as an abuser and your wife as a victim. That is the construct. The narrative and philosophy to which all these professionals in the Divorce Industry subscribe. They make their money by you being an abuser and your wife being a victim. There is no mechanism to accomodate the truth.

Enabled by the “councelor” (an authoritative professional), your wife’s malignant narcissism will likely expand. She likely will become more abusive and controlling and violent. She will likely become more dangerous. The councelor is convincing her that she is being victimized by you. In response, she is going to respond with more defiance of you and your marriage to her. She likely will become much more possessive of the children and use them as weapons. She will likely increase her alienation of them from you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Eric July 4, 2012 at 11:48

Darryl X;
I don’t know if this will work, but my ex-attorney told me of once of a divorce case where he outsmarted of these fake counsellors. He had the guy send the counsellor a letter that he was so happy that he’d decided to seek counselling, that he wanted to recommend the counsellor to a male friend to improve his marriage, &c. The whole thing was a ruse to the counsellor to say—in writing—that it was the husband’s decision to seek counselling to improve the marriage.

It worked in that case, too. The counsellor took the bait and the wife couldn’t use his testimony in court. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Highwasp July 4, 2012 at 12:50

@Eric July 3, 2012 at 10:26
In regards to this:

“More and more I’m coming to believe that both Socon White Knights and Liberal manginas have some kind of overriding masochistic or self-destructive element in their personalities…

—I can’t help but think that the males promoting and enabling such policies have some psychological impulse to implode whenever they’re around women…

I have a feeling we won’t see any research institutes look into though. But it would be an interesting theory to explore in more depth.”

I have a theory on that – Psychiatrist hat on: A Man who has internalized a devalued identity, who believes himself inferior and flawed, might come to believe that all people will devalue him. Everyone is a threat. Nobody is to be trusted… Self deprecation then is a solution for at least being in control of how, when and what kind of devaluation will occur. You see? A Shame based man will devalue himself before someone else gets the chance, thereby obtaining a modicum of control over the devaluation. He’ll insult himself before anyone else gets the chance.

Self deprecation can also act as a ploy of false humility – but that’s another story.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh July 4, 2012 at 13:45

Isn’t internalizing a devalued identity what the feminists accuse women who don’t agree with them of doing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Darryl X July 4, 2012 at 14:20

@ Eric -

“I don’t know if this will work…”

I hear ya. Yeah. Stuff like that works sometimes. Sometimes it doesn’t. My poistion is that when you start trying to play the game or beat them at their own game (reverse psychology, whatever) then you start being corrupted yourself. To me, my most important asset is time. Not money. (Don’t get me wrong, money comes in handy.) But time is the most important thing to me. I like to spend it doing the things I want to do. I don’t want to spend it doing things in response to stupid things someone else has done. But it does feel good to turn the system on itself. If that works. But it’s fire. And it doesn’t always work. Sometimes you can get burned. I prefer just not to play with fire in the first place. Let the pyromaniacs play. When they burn the house down, I can always build another one. Or I don’t have to. They can’t build a house. All they can do is play with fire.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Eric July 4, 2012 at 14:34

Highwasp:
I think that’s a part of it. Perceptions of reality always determine behavior, whether those perceptions are valid or not.

There’s probably a great degree of sexual repression present in these males too, possibly even a suppressed homosexuality. If a homosexual represses his sexual urges, it’s natural that he would identify with women (often feminised females with whom he feels no sexual threat) as well as lashing out at masculinity (projection of the hatred he feels for his own attraction to masculinity). That very well might be the case with the most ardent manginas like Fleming, Futrelle, and Scalzi.

A heterosexual repression is probably more typical of an average White Knight/mangina. The Anglosphere’s puritanical sexual mores, female pedestalization, and shaming of men for their natural sexual impulses probably get internalized and lead to a false guilt in these males. They feel sexual impulses, but also a need to be punished for feeling them since guilt and sex are related concepts to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Eric July 4, 2012 at 14:41

Darryl X:
‘My position is that when you start trying to play the game or beat them at their own game…you end getting corrupted yourself.’

This is one the main reasons why I think Game and PUA are dangerous for men to experiment with.

California Boy, though, is already dragged pretty far into the wringer; so men in his position are more or less forced to try and beat the feminists at their own game. The fact that he seems aware of his position shows that he realizes the corruption of the system and that might be proof against him getting contamined with it himself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Eric July 4, 2012 at 14:43

Gilgamesh:
The feminists are fanatics and will use any accusation or theory that suits their immediate purposes. Once in power, though, they never allow any of the same arguments, theories, or techniques to be used to criticise them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Darryl X July 4, 2012 at 15:16

@ Eric -

“California Boy, though, is already dragged pretty far into the wringer; so men in his position are more or less forced to try and beat the feminists at their own game.”

Agreed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh July 5, 2012 at 00:03

After reading some of the posts be commenters describing, in depth, how their wives bankrupted them and got away with acts of violence, I cannot tell you how furious I am at the thought that anyone in myfamily would want me to enter a marriage. I’m not going to even consider it until marriage becomes an entirely spiritual institution with no government involvement, divorce is recognized by the churches as adultery, and women leave the political sphere entirely. And the odds of any of those things happening aren’t good. And I’m supposed to be the bad guy for thinking this. Fuck everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
survivor July 5, 2012 at 12:45

California Boy,

As extreme as the advice you have recieved might seem, it is very good advice. The divorce system is truly evil and you could be at great risk of all the things that the other commentators warned about.

They are 100% right about not trusting you lawyers. All of mine tried to sell me out to my ex. The whole system will be geared against you if this goes to divorce.

The rushed house purchase is a HUGE RED FLAG. That will tie up your assets and ensure that you wife/ex gets them if you divorce. You should not agree to this even if she threatens divorce. At least you will force her to show her hand.

Try to get support from your family and friends (especially guys, almost all women will turn against you), You will need it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Darryl X July 5, 2012 at 16:48

@ California Boy -

Survivor’s advice of leaning on your friends and family is excellent and I’m embarrassed for not advising it myself. They will help you through this more than anyone. Lots of times, the people who you thought were your friends and even your own family will turn against you. And people who you didn’t even think you knew or may have read wrong end up in your corner. It’s developments like these that get people to show their hands, as survivor put it. As terrible an experience as this may turn out to be, it will an important learning experience. It’s always nice to know who your real friends are and who you can trust. It’s better to deal with a harsh truth than a polite lie. It’s good to take the red pill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Male Samizdat July 5, 2012 at 19:35

Aish HaTorah, a Jewish outreach site, examines the Slaughter article in The Atlantic: http://www.aish.com/jl/m/w/Women_At_Work.html

The quote that stands out to me: “No matter what work requires, my children come first.” I wonder if the corollary is: “…and my husband comes last.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
aaa July 6, 2012 at 11:53

I wouldn’t necessarily take her comments at face value — this could be just another career move by a career woman. That is, what many commenters are ascribing to gender-based narcissism and self-delusion may in fact be primarily a calculated form of self-promotion above any attempt to create sweeping social reform. I wouldn’t put it past her to include misleading characterizations of her home life or working life specifically to appeal to/influence her readership.

What is more interesting is that I recall hearing about a feminist activist in Italy, with its traditionally “macho” culture, attempting to create a movement to mandate 50% female representation in political offices. I forget her name, but I’m sure searching for articles on proposed gender quotas in Italy would bring something up.

And if I recall correctly, the same kind of “gender-based reform” is occurring in India — and may in fact have already been discussed on this website. In fact India is facing numerous kinds of radical social engineering proposals — it’s quite startling especially when compared to the typically American belief that radical feminism was an Anglo phenomenon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
mojohn July 6, 2012 at 14:13

From Ode July 2, 2012 at 17:28: “… the female mind is full of contradictions.”

Reminds me of dialog from The Changeling episode of Classic Trek. Note the perspicacity in the following exchange:

KIRK: That unit was my Chief Engineer. (silence) Lieutenant. Lieutenant, are you all right? (Uhura just gazes blankly ahead.)
KIRK: Sickbay. What did you do to her?
NOMAD: That unit is defective. Its thinking is chaotic. Absorbing it unsettled me.
SPOCK: That unit is a woman.
NOMAD: A mass of conflicting impulses.

True in the late 60s, perhaps even truer today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Brigadon July 6, 2012 at 20:04

I was watching ‘Hitch’ and I was watching that part with the ‘get in, get off, and get out’ dude and i was like, “This son of a bitch really knows the truth. He’s the smart one for avoiding getting tangled up with a basket case.” and all of a sudden I really really hated hitch, for his evil misuse of game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 9, 2012 at 19:41

Rob July 2, 2012 at 23:18

And, btw, I’ve been a big supporter of Firepower… just because he gets the juices flowing… and Firepower knows it.

Please contact me via my blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anoncoward July 10, 2012 at 19:15

Georice wrote:
While he was a short skinny dude their first born son was a tall strong guy
==================================

So basically short skinny dudes should die out instead of doing whatever is in their power to mate. Bearing also in mind that short is a relative term, they will always exist. Dont judge people facing dilemmas you will never face yourself.

I say this as a short asian dude whos had hot young caucasian girls come after him quite a few times (but no where near alpha levels) – because I have a good looking face. So I see the issue from both sides. Men basically want me dead, even ‘honorable men’. Many women want me dead as well – but a subset really like me – probably whatever set that values faces above bodies or whatever.

I know my personality would be even more f**ked up if I was ugly *and* short – because the subconscious desperation I would face would be immeasurable. Again, keep judging pal – you idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: