Another Idea on Feminist Men

by W.F. Price on July 13, 2012

If you observe genuinely feminist men, there’s something a bit off about them, and it’s tempting to chalk their feminism up to a result of some flaw or aberration in their character. Normal men (aside from those whose paycheck depends on it such as politicians and men who work for feminist-dominated institutions) simply don’t go in for feminism unless it gets them sexual gratification, but those days are pretty much over, so the remnants tend to be an assortment of freaks and guys who have a chip on their shoulder.

So what are these guys really getting out of it?

I think I’ve come up with a nice explanation. The men who support feminism are exactly those men who would be on the bottom of the totem pole in a male-dominated environment. It’s about relative status. If there truly were a patriarchy and male dominance in society, these men would be the “losers” that other men look down on for whatever reason. So it’s in their best interests to use feminism to dismantle any masculine institutions or power wherever possible, as this gives them more relative status and power.

For them, using feminism to “deconstruct masculinity” is a way to put other men down, and to prop themselves up. Male feminism truly is about envy, perhaps even more than the female kind.

This is yet another reason that fostering and preserving male spaces is essential, as these creeps will use the rigged game of female empowerment to put us at a disadvantage, and they will have no compunction about using that leverage to do us harm. In a male space, they’ll have to rely on their own merits, and that will definitely give us the upper hand.

{ 236 comments… read them below or add one }

!!SPARTA!! July 13, 2012 at 00:19

Genesis of Feminism: Envy or jealousy of the Alpha Male

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 5
Zorro July 13, 2012 at 00:23

You just might be onto something.

Hugo S has got LOSER written all over him.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 2
Zorro July 13, 2012 at 00:25

…actually, I think I meant David Futrelle.

Losers, all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 2
TFH July 13, 2012 at 00:32

Schopenbecq had a series of articles how a cluster of manginas were getting giddy about the idea that humanity to evolve into women only (with all governments being 100% women in 20 years), and that most men would need to be exterminated for the greater good.

Of course, these dumbshit manginas thought that THEY would be the men who are spared, when in reality, if women really were deciding which men to keep and which to eradicate, these manginas would be the first to be culled.

Plus they didn’t give much thought to who would do the exterminating.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 100 Thumb down 8
TFH July 13, 2012 at 00:33

The men who support feminism are exactly those men who would be on the bottom of the totem pole in a male-dominated environment.

It might be something even simpler.

Having lost all hope of having sex with women, these losers have decided that at least they will settle for proximity to women, and being male feminists enables them to do that.

What losers….

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 10
Eric July 13, 2012 at 00:36

Price:
That’s an interesting analysis. I’ve been musing a lot of this subject and hadn’t considered the ‘envy’ angle. What is apparent is that they share the same deep-seated hatred of men that feminists do.

Kurt Koffka did an intensive study about the ego-relationship to a hostile environment back in the early 60s. His findings were significant in that perceived anger easily developed into narcissicism if allowed to continue unchecked. It’s the same effect everyone feels on a smaller scale when we’re around people we find distasteful—we tend to withdraw upon ourselves. In cases of malignant narcissicism, the ego has withdrawn upon itself to such a degree that, to use Koffka’s eloquent phrase, sees the surrounding world as ‘an undifferentiated hostile field.’

Women educated under feminist ideology fit that profile perfectly.

It very well could be the case that these loser-men objectify other men in the same way, through envy moreso than education. Which actually would make their hatred of men even more dangerous than feminist hatred—if that thesis is drawn to its logical conclusion. Their attitude would be summed up as: ‘If I can’t be a man, nobody can!’

Still, examining the backgrounds of Socon White-Knights and Liberal manginas, a strong case could made that they essentially are misfits in a world that calls for masculine assertiveness. Most of them seem to have come from backgrounds where they were social pariahs among their peer-group. Probably they were extremely jealous of other men’s success with the opposite sex—hence feminism and sexual repression would naturally draw them into its orbit.

It would interesting to hear more discussion on this topic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 4
AfOR July 13, 2012 at 01:01

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 61
Eric July 13, 2012 at 01:07

AfoR:
Go away, please. This comment thread is for grown-ups only.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 23
VitaminD July 13, 2012 at 01:15

Male feminists are like the clever animals who sneak into the alpha male’s harem and impregnates some of the females behind his back. Unluckily for male feminists, human females subconsciously consider them cowards and are repulsed by this sexual strategy. LOLOLOLOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 3
jaego July 13, 2012 at 01:19

Among the Elephant Seals, there have evolved a small number of small males much smaller than the huge bulls. They don’t fight and compete with other males for harems. Instead, they sneak in amongst the females and mate with them. The male guarding his harem doesn’t realize what is happening.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 9
Mojo July 13, 2012 at 01:27

Aka Ressentiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Nasquam Humanitus July 13, 2012 at 01:44

Follow the money! – Evolutionarily low status males make good money kissing ass in the feminized corporate hierarchy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
Eric July 13, 2012 at 01:49

VitaminD & Jaego:
There could be a sexual component involved as well, but that doesn’t explain why they would identify with dominant women and project such great hatred for males. Masochism seems to be the dynamic here.

Since that sexual anger, though, is projected inward (rather than at females) it implies that a latent homosexuality is really the target of their anger. That can’t describe all male feminists: but it likely does describe a number of them. The key to watch for are the ones who hate gay men with the same intensity that they hate straight men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6
Traveller July 13, 2012 at 01:58

True, and this does not only apply to feminist men, but to the communist people too. They are unable to do anything productive so they hate production, free market and enterprise and so on.

They favor taxation because they have nothing to be taxed. They favor immigration because they have no property to protect from crime, and they enjoy the destruction of their neighbour property.

They are without value, so they sell themselves to the dominant elite, at least they obtain a job as teacher or journalist.

Of course they are not alone, the local elites are sold and until now they are protected (ie the leftist whites who claim immigration but live in all white town and send their children in a private white school).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 3
Muhr July 13, 2012 at 02:20

Off topic, but I think you all will find this interesting. Several weeks ago a number of blogs and news sites reported on a study touting that men with stay at home wives (traditional marriage) are less likely to recommend a woman for a job opening when compared to a man and as such are sexist. However, unless I’m hallucinating, the graph on page 50 shows that men with wives who work full time (modern marriage) are less likely to recommend a man vs. a woman. Here’s the study, just head to page 50.

http://www.west-info.eu/files/SSRN-id2018259.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire July 13, 2012 at 02:28

For them, using feminism to “deconstruct masculinity” is a way to put other men down, and to prop themselves up. Male feminism truly is about envy, perhaps even more than the female kind.
——————–
“white humans who use to die all the time throughout white history now live and thrive. These new strains are the liberals”
“in a group based species like ours, the males cap each others’ sexual displays”

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-and-why-feminism-happened.html

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
Just1X July 13, 2012 at 03:12

There’s clearly something broken mentally in a man that believes that he’s a heartbeat from raping or opressing someone. Perhaps they should get some more time among healthy men, stay away from the delusional feminist types?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 2
Theo P. July 13, 2012 at 03:24

I knew a guy in his early twenties who grew up in a single-mother, negligent/abusive serial monogamy household who, despite being more emotionally and financially stable than every woman around him, still flat out said, “Women are better than men,” on more than one occasion. I wouldn’t call him a feminist, and he wasn’t a bit angry (though he told me that he was angry all the time in high school),but maybe some things are learned so early that it’s near-impossible to unlearn them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
Theo P. July 13, 2012 at 03:25

To clarify: he didn’t the creepy, imploded demeanor of a male feminist, despite occasion voicings of that opinion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
DCM July 13, 2012 at 03:27

“Just1X July 13, 2012 at 03:12

There’s clearly something broken mentally in a man that believes that he’s a heartbeat from raping or opressing someone. Perhaps they should get some more time among healthy men, stay away from the delusional feminist types?”

It’s a delusion that makes them feel powerful because (1) they believe they actually could rape and dominate females and (2) they imagine they are mentally strong enough to control any urge to do so.
Healthy men, without intending to, would make them miserable by contrasting with the reality of the manginas.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Just1X July 13, 2012 at 03:59

@DCM

okay, think you may be talking sense there.

“Inside I am the incredible hulk, I’m just really good at controlling my rage…hear me squeak!” Dave Futrid

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Rocco July 13, 2012 at 04:02

OT, kinda

David Brooks at the NYT’s thinks we are ruled by an Oligarchy. He thinks this has changed from a “patriarchial” protostant one to a meritocracy that denies it is in countrol…..do you think he means PC feminisms.

He can’t see the elephant in the living room. He’s blind as the sheeple he writes about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html?_r=1&hp

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
andybob July 13, 2012 at 04:25

Most male feminists are frauds. Only the tiniest percentage men could possibly be so unhinged by self-loathing that they genuinely embrace the man-hating swill that is the bedrock of feminism.

The rest of them are just nervous. That’s why most of them seem “a bit off” – to red pill men, that is. They’re playing a role for reasons too humiliating to confront and can sense that a red pill man is likely to see through it and call them on it. But why masquerade as a feminist in the first place?

Mr Price makes a compelling argument that many of them, for whatever reason, can’t quite cut it among their male peers. They may be nerds, socially awkward, sissy-gay, annoying or just plain weird. So, they take the soft option of hanging out with girls – usually the type who naturally repulse boys: feminists. It’s a trade-off. Embrace the ideology, and they can hang out with actual people, even if they are only feminists.

I am intrigued by the final paragraph of the post in which Mr Price suggests that this supplication is a complex form of manipulation. Perhaps some of them are using feminists to out-maneuver their competition – other men. It’s like a perverted form of Anti-Game. Most male feminists I’ve met could easily pass as sociopathic enough to be into this. David Futrelle seems to fit this profile. Surely he can’t really hang around all day with those demented cretins who inhabit his site because he actually finds them interesting. They must be a necessary evil to fulfill a greater goal, whatever that may be. Or maybe he really is just a big old girl’s blouse mangina.

There are other factors at play. Never under-estimate the overwhelming compulsion many men have for female approval. It starts with our mothers and continues through our elementary teachers and often continues into adulthood. Most women instinctively know this and exploit it ruthlessly. Many red pill men have told me that the day they ceased to care what women thought of them was the apotheosis of their lives.

Whatever their motives and compulsions, male feminists have made their deals with the devil. I wish them an eternity in hell sucking the puss out of the boils on Andrea Dworkin’s bum.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 83 Thumb down 4
Alex F July 13, 2012 at 04:50

Good article; could this “flaw” that identifies them as not very masculine be as simple as low T-count? Don’t know if you’re familiar with “the ring finger theory”, but it’s been proven that a reliable way of identifying high-T men is observing the ratio between the index and ring fingers. A longer ringer finger indicates unusually high testosterone, and is a common marker in professional sportsmen etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/success-isnt-written-in-the-stars-its-in-the-length-of-your-fingers-1334251.html

I would be willing to bet no male feminists have the longer ring finger (Futrelle for example is overweight; low testosterone tends people towards weight gain). Low testosterone would disable these men in all sorts of obvious ways, making them unappealing to men and women alike. Hence, they adopt feminism to compensate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
dejour July 13, 2012 at 05:15

I think there are many reasons. This article hits on one major way.

I think there are some like Hugo S. that are generally not good men. Attempting to murder your girlfriend while she is passed out is not acceptable. Maybe he rationalizes this by saying that all men are evil, and that he is not particularly bad. Supporting feminism is an act of atonement.

Another might just be personal experience. If you grew up in a household with an abusive father and non-abusive mother, a lot of feminism will sound right to your gut. So you don’t think about it too much. I don’t think it’s coincidence that MRAs often come from homes where a mom or wife is abusive. If the feminist story contradicts your personal experience, you’ll tend to dig deeper.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Darryl X July 13, 2012 at 05:15

“…there’s something a bit off about them…”

There is NOT something a “little off” about feminist men. There is something WAY off. They are malignant narcissists and psychopaths. Career con-artists who manipulate women and men to satisfy their addiction to money and sex and power and control. They do not suffer from a mental illness. Their criminal disposition is the result of bad choices they have made and lies they have told throughout their lives. After you lie enough, you start believing the lies and then you can no longer tell the difference between them and the truth. Feminism is evil and it is a choice. It is not a “little off”. It is the single most evil thing a human can be. Feminism is the most fundamental threat to civilization, an affrontery to God and personally offensive to me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 2
wavevector July 13, 2012 at 05:19

@Muhr,

I looked at the study and you are correct. The conclusion is “men in traditional marriages are more likely to deny qualified women opportunities for promotion at work”. What they omit is the opposite: “men in modern marriages are more likely to deny qualified men opportunities for promotion at work”.

But this is standard feminist fare. Feminists are for gender equality – except when men are disadvantaged. Discrimination against men doesn’t count.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
sestamibi July 13, 2012 at 05:48

“The men who support feminism are exactly those men who would be on the bottom of the totem pole in a male-dominated environment.”

I don’t know if I buy into that theory. I was always on the bottom of the totem pole myself, but I’ve always hated feminism and blamed feminists for competing with me for the positions just on the next step up. Sometimes I even fell of the pole completely so that cunt married to men making $150K could self-actualize with a job that paid $50–one that I needed to be able to continue to eat.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
dhanu July 13, 2012 at 06:11

@sestamibi “I don’t know if I buy into that theory. I was always on the bottom of the totem pole myself”

Just a bit of clarification. The author means, most of the manginas (male feminists) are at the bottom of the hierarchy; not that most at the bottom of the hierarchy are the manginas. As a way of an analogy, all ores are minerals, but not all minerals are ores.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
codebuster July 13, 2012 at 06:35

I think WFPrice is on the right track, for the most part. My impression of the likes of Futrelle is that they do get it that there is something wrong going on with feminists, but they are so disdainful of having been bullied in the past that they would rather side with women than their “traditional” enemy. It’s not so much about getting laid as it is bitterness, methinks. What they do not understand is that the women from whom they seek validation probably hate them more than their high-school bullies ever could. Women will cheerfully maintain the charade so long as he keeps doing them favours, and so long as he keeps his distance.

Where I disagree is that lumping these manginas in with losers is probably a stretch. Women often prefer and choose defectives and degenerates as morally unthreatening yet exciting, preferring to keep manginas at a safe but convenient distance. Manginas are useful in ways that degenerates are not. But the degenerates at the bottom of the gene-pool are much more exciting, and much more likely than manginas to become the fathers of their children. So much for validation from women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
Opus July 13, 2012 at 06:35

It’s a lovely theory, and for a few minutes I was nodding in agreement, but then, I remembered the name of the man who is the biggest Feminist of all; yet this man is also uber-alpha, by reason of his position, his rather cute wife, and Hugh Grant-like looks. His male-hating, female-pedestalising Tweets can only come from someone who is either keen to Out-Futrelle’s even Futrelle himself in self-loathing mangina-ism or is so cynical that he can lie his head-off in appearing to support each and any demand a woman can make and to the detriment of men and of society (which according to one of his predecessors does not even exist). Consider his outpouring of nine or so Tweets on Wednesday assuring women that no one other than themselves has any say as to their decision to give birth. I replied ‘My body, my choice, your wallet’ – but to no obvious effect. Today its ‘forced marriages’, but I replied that with a 40% divorce rate the west was hardly in a position to lecture the east on the best path to a successful marriage. Personally, I am sure that the Feminists will eventually eat him alive as they tend to do such men, but by that time I suppose he will have taken the money and run. So much for British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
Peter South July 13, 2012 at 06:40

I don’t know if I buy into that theory. I was always on the bottom of the totem pole myself, but I’ve always hated feminism and blamed feminists for competing with me for the positions just on the next step up.

I he means these guys are at the bottom of the totem pole in masculinity.

There are plenty in DC government who make good money who are total losers.

Without government to prop them up and give them jobs doing nothing they’d be nowhere. They advance through conformity to the PC/feminist environment rather than merit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Russ July 13, 2012 at 06:51

I think I’ve come up with a nice explanation. The men who support feminism are exactly those men who would be on the bottom of the totem pole in a male-dominated environment. It’s about relative status. If there truly were a patriarchy and male dominance in society, these men would be the “losers” that other men look down on for whatever reason. So it’s in their best interests to use feminism to dismantle any masculine institutions or power wherever possible, as this gives them more relative status and power.

– Price

Spot on. These are the guys that hated gym class and often found themselves being stuffed into lockers in high school.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 29 Thumb down 24
The Contrarian Expatriate July 13, 2012 at 06:52

There is a difference between feminist men and manginas.

Feminist men: Think, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” These tend to be homosexual men or heterosexual men who have effeminate affectations. These men essentially have bought into the “female as the noble and superior sex” through years of conditioning in the home and the classroom. Feminist men actually emulate females in behavior and women (feminist and non-feminist) socially reward them as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Manginas: These are men who are motivated by the prospect of sexual favor. They are also manipulated men because rarely does chivalry result in anything more than voluntary servitude and subservience to women.

Manginas are men who are inexperienced in the ways of women, whereas feminist men know women well and have bought into the gender bias this society encourages. Feminist men are that way by way of core character, but manginas are there due to strategy albeit a bad one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 07:15

@Russ

It seems to me that you are endorsing the cruel and needless behavior of stuffing kids into lockers, and implying that they deserve it. Is that the case? If not, please clarify.

If so, you’re really not making a good case for male dominated spaces or society.

In fact, if the majority of the interaction with other men and boys these guys got as kids was being stuffed into lockers, I think their becoming feminists is pitiable, but understandable. If that’s the case they are just attempting to find a less abusive group to be with, and winding up with a group that abuses in different ways instead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 8
slwerner July 13, 2012 at 07:20

Josh the Aspie – “It seems to me that you are endorsing the cruel and needless behavior of stuffing kids into lockers, and implying that they deserve it.”

I did not get that message from Russ’s post at all. I took it to be that he was only trying to describe what sort of guy’s might grow up to resent and hate men who are more masculine (and therefore more sexually successful) than themselves.

As I took it, Russ was simply employing an example which would be easily identifiable to most readers. Nowhere did I detect any assertion form him that the abuse was either deserve red nor to be commended.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9
slwerner July 13, 2012 at 07:22

Geez! I need more coffee!

That last sentence was supposed to read:
“Nowhere did I detect any assertion from him that the abuse was either deserved nor to be commended.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
anonymous July 13, 2012 at 07:24

@Opus,

Bliar

Bruin

Camoron

ChurchHill

Pick one alpha… who would as effectively replace ChurchHill to lead GB in WWII… except ChurchHill himself? Iron Lady appears to be more alpha than the three…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
AfOR July 13, 2012 at 07:31

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 35
Hf July 13, 2012 at 07:33

Interesting.

However I’m going to go with good ol’ ignorance as being the primary factor in why a mangina is a mangina.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
The First Joe July 13, 2012 at 07:47

@Opus – almost all our UK politicos are spineless fuckbags to a man. The only reason Cabbage Patch Cam-Ron (“Hugh Grant looks”!? my arse!) looks “alpha” is in contrast to the servile Clegg and that utterly pathetic bed-wetter Milliband. I have sperm in my nutsack that have more statesmanline poise than either of those total twonks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
The First Joe July 13, 2012 at 07:47

“statesmanlike!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 07:49

Certainly there are plenty of guys who were cast adrift from childhood into the modern Western Sea of Feminism. Guys who just don’t know any better because they’ve never learned anything else, like the unfortunate friend that Theo P wrote about earlier in this thread.

But I’ve been giving some though lately to a trend I have observed first-hand, and this thread seems like a good place to bring it up. There’s another group I’m thinking about: guys like the ones I work with. I work almost exclusively with men – I can go months without professionally interacting with a woman in anything other than an administrative role. These are guys like me: retired military, often with one or more combat tours, 45-65 years old, politically conservative or libertarian, most are religious to some degree. All the guys are married, usually to their first wives, and really seem to enjoy where they are in their lives. This is the demographic group that got married and stayed married (the 2010 study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia showed that the divorce rate among educated middle class and upper middle class couples was less than a third of that among the general populace). So admittedly they are not a representative sample, but I see things that make me scratch my head.

What makes me curious is this: none of these guys are feminists per se, and none of them are sexless drones (some were real “players” when they were single), and all have held positions of significant responsibility and leadership, yet there’s not a red pill guy among them. ALL of them defer to their wives as a matter of routine. Maybe even that doesn’t capture the essence of what I see: they reflexively defer to their wives. They don’t have unhappy marriages: most will grouse about their wives for trivial matters once in a while, but all of them are content – even happy – with their domestic situations. Good money, wife-&-kids, leisure time, etc. But the degree to which they defer to their wives is stunning to me. And they have no problem admitting that their wives are in charge of their households – as if that is not only normal, but the way it MUST be. Furthermore, they admit that it keeps the peace: and they’re okay with that.

I don’t classify these guys as feminists, and they would not classify themselves as such ether. These are good guys, many have shown courage under fire, but in some ways they act like men who have internalized the feminist zeitgeist, for lack of a better term.

Thoughts by my fellow Spearheaders?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Suz July 13, 2012 at 07:50

Josh,
“It seems to me that you are endorsing the cruel and needless behavior of stuffing kids into lockers, and implying that they deserve it. ”

I re-read Russ’ comment and found no judgments in it, only observation. What did he say that implies some kids deserve being stuffed into lockers? Did he “endorse” such behavior by merely mentioning it?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 7
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 13, 2012 at 07:59

OT but I thought it might give hope to us

Fucktrelle/Flabtrelle/Mangina worthy of being treated like a corporate hog farm boar admits to times being lean on his own site (I know you’d have to go to his site to see for yourself)

Could this be the end of his attempts, albeit pathetic, at mocking misogyny?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) July 13, 2012 at 08:00

In ancient times, when one group of men conquered another country, they would kill the men and take their women and children.

Today, they take the women and have the women take the children, who are then placed in corporate-state control, as they are drugged up and dumbed down.

As the bankers conquered the country, they took the women early and often in college, buttcocking and desouling them, converting them into vehicles of wealth transfer, and programming them to go forth and tempt and take from men via divorce, alimony, and corporate-state sexual harassment entitlement programs.

And so the women missed out on becoming wives, mothers, and grandmothers, as the bankers used them for mere personal pleasure and profit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 10
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 13, 2012 at 08:00

or at least the beginning of said end

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Suz July 13, 2012 at 08:00

Sorry to give you a thumbs-down Hf, because ignorance is a factor. The bigger issue is the refusal to cure ignorance. Males who are actively feminists, as opposed to garden variety White Knights, defiantly cling to and fight for their misinformation. They’ve considered the issues and chosen the myth, rejecting objective truth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Suz July 13, 2012 at 08:13

Lyn87,
I think the men you describe are old school White Knights, who learned chivalry back when women deserved chivalry. They still believe it’s their duty, but they’re unaware of the way society has influenced and changed their wives over the years. Once upon a time, there were some advantages to occasionally letting a managing wife have her way, and besides, “Real Men” don’t sweat the small stuff. These men simply haven’t noticed that “occasionally” has evolved into “always,” or that “I can count on her to make good decisions,” has evolved into, “She no longer acknowledges that I can make good decisions.”

I think their wives have become spoiled. Feminism has taught them to demand a mile when offered an inch, so they do. And they keep getting away with it.
Just a theory.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 5
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 08:16

Suz, Josh, Russ, et al,

At the risk of unleashing the downvote brigade: the guys on this site look pretty harshly at feminist guys. I know I do. But Russ makes a good point: the guys who got bullied have been taught that interacting with more aggressive males is hazardous, and thus have developed a view based on their experience, that aggressive (“manly”) men are d-bags. And who can blame them? It is very common for big guys to use words like “wimp” and “pussy” to describe other guys due to nothing more than an accident of birth.

It goes back a long time – the physically dominant males used that genetically-random asset to keep other men away from the women. It is the mating strategy of the dominant male. You can hardly blame the other guy – the one who cannot dominate physically – for coming up with a strategy that works for him. A man can’t mate unless he is in proximity to females – and if the only way to do that is to cater to them, he’ll still get more action than the small guy who won’t do so as a matter of principle.

It’s pretty disingenuous for physically dominant men to assert their physical dominance over their smaller peers to give themselves a mating advantage, then complain when those guys pick a strategy that they perceive to be in their own interest.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 11
Russ July 13, 2012 at 08:20

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 38
Mr. J July 13, 2012 at 08:21

I have another theory.

Some men have been sickened by the know-it-all, selfish narcissist type of Alpha and turn completely to the other side without enough thought.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4
gdgm+ July 13, 2012 at 08:22

Or ‘feminist men’ are also deluded:
What About the Men? Why Our Gender System Sucks for Men, Too

The tools of feminism can also be applied to the damage and deformation that men suffer in our sexist society.

Uhhhh… riiiight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Thomas Tell-Truth July 13, 2012 at 08:30

For the militant feminist male, feminism is just a strategy to get laid. Oh, they might believe in thier own BS to some degree, but when you are the onlu man in the room you are the alpha male by default.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 08:33

Male Feminists drank the Leftist/Progressive/Gender Egalitarian Kool-Aid. Feminism just happens to be the branch they chose to cling to, for exactly the reasons W.F. Price stated.

They fancy themselves white-knights who’re trying to “rescue” women from oppressive traditional female roles. The more androgynous men and women become, (the more “gender roles” are blurred), the better for women and society. Hetero-normative, White Male dominance is unjust, and it’s time for men to step back and allow women to be more like men. Feel the GUILT and SHAME!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11
Russ July 13, 2012 at 08:35

You can hardly blame the other guy – the one who cannot dominate physically – for coming up with a strategy that works for him.

–Lyn87

Even if that strategy destroys your society and makes it harder or even impossible to maintain a birthrate that will ensure the existence of your people?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 26
WillieMaize24 July 13, 2012 at 08:37

Lyn87,
I think what’s going on there is that a, the guy has learned he can trust his wife on those things, which is a lot different from believing that women generically are superior, or abused, or whatever the feminist line of the day is, and b, the guy often just wants to be left alone on the domestic front, so if the wife is handling domestic things okay, then he thinks she’s probably doing a better job than he would because she sees nuances that he doesn’t.
There’s no inconsistency in what you describe. The guys you mention might be deferring in an area to a women who’s shown that she can handle that area better than they can (or maybe they can but don’t want to put in the effort that it takes to do it well). That’s not a contradiction it’s not unprincipled, and it doesn’t make them manginas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 08:41

It’s pretty disingenuous for physically dominant men to assert their physical dominance over their smaller peers to give themselves a mating advantage, then complain when those guys pick a strategy that they perceive to be in their own interest.

Male Feminists are the genetic remnants of the more fragile males that would stay behind with the females, while the stronger courageous males would go off to hunt for meat. It’s no wonder that strains of their DNA are still with us.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 16
Ethical July 13, 2012 at 08:43

Having spent a long time pondering why a successful, good looking friend of mine is so feminist, and having deconstructed why I myself was feminist for so many years, I’d like to offer an additional reason for men becoming that way. In a nutshell it’s “self loathing”. It starts in childhood with the significant female influence in their formative years. Whether or not she says she “loves men” if you’ve grown up saturated with stories of men being “no good deadbeats”, “abusers”, or generally “no good” she was a “man hater”.

For many men brought up by single moms, and even some brought up by two parents, a significant female influence who casts men in an overwhelmingly negative light naturally brings them to hate other men that even vaguely resemble those weak male stereotypes they grew up loathing. For that matter they will even hate any aspect of their own character that reminds them of those negative male stereotypes.

Add to that hatred the burning need for the approval of that ball-busting or emotionally manipulative woman (usually a mother) in the feminist man’s life, and you have an unbalancing mix. The mothers are un-please-able. The need to please them combined with not being close enough to any of those supposed “deadbeats”, abusers, or “no good” men to hear the men’s point of view, can result in the young men having no empathy whatsoever towards other men. Or perhaps those men truly met those stereotypes. In either case hatred leaves no room for understanding or empathy.The young men grow up to be pathologically self-righteous feminists.

This is a form of self-hatred because it can lead to those men refusing to protect themselves from ruthless feminist women, jumping in as white knights and putting themselves in a position to be victimized by those women’s unreasonable demands. The men have grown up believing women are always victims to be protected from men and they’ll bend over backwards to condemn other men because they hate admitting being wrong, but also because they haven’t yet suffered enough from their views to have any empathy, and because they’re addicted to the attention they get from women when they bash other men.

Though feminist men hate admitting it, real decent men are sometimes forced into playing those stereotypically negative roles due to the surprisingly unsavory actions of women very much like the mother figure they believed to be a saint. The feminist men may may never see this. As Price said there is something a little “off” about them. They’re addicted to the attention they get from women and that addiction puts blinders on them. What’s “off” is that deeply unbalancing need for women’s approval. I truly believe manipulating a boy into developing such a pathological need is a form of abuse that hampers a young boy’s growth into manhood. A man shouldn’t need women’s approval so much.

Not so strangely my feminist friend ended up with a real ball-buster himself. The more successful he becomes the more she finds her strength in denigrating him. He sees this as her being a “strong” woman. His last significant relationship was similar. I don’t speak to him so much these days but I don’t imagine much has changed. I wonder if the dots will ever connect in his mind. Meanwhile I’m sure he continues to spread the message of feminism and self-hate to other young men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 08:47

Even if that strategy destroys your society and makes it harder or even impossible to maintain a birthrate that will ensure the existence of your people?

I see your point, Russ, and I admitted that I’m harsh on feminist men. My point is different. Individual men who have no stake in the future – due to being excluded from the mating pool by physically dominant men – have no reason to worry about the the future “existence of (their) people.” If I’m a small guy and the big guys use a genetic accident (greater strength) to keep me away from the women, why should I care about the future of a society that excludes me from that future?

And the “alpha” men are doing the same thing in a different way. By exploiting the advantage they have to exclude smaller men, they are also damaging the future viability of society by restricting the gene pool. And they have even less excuse for their behavior than the small men who follow the only path left to them, since they are more likely to sire descendants who will live in the dystopian world they actively create by their actions.

tl/dr; Dominant men can set the rules. If they don’t like what happens when less dominant men adapt, they should change the rules so as not to exclude them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 4
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 09:00

Still, examining the backgrounds of Socon White-Knights and Liberal manginas, a strong case could made that they essentially are misfits in a world that calls for masculine assertiveness.

Masculine assertiveness (to protect and defend women as delicate little creatures requiring a leg up) is the very definition of a Socon White-Knight. Liberal manginas consider themselves equal to, (if not less than) women, and are therefore in alliance with feminism as “equal”
participants.

Of course there’s some overlap, but generally speaking that’s what differentiates the two fronts against MRM. Socons want women to remain feminine, (but still independent, strong and sassy) and men to MAN-UP. Whereas the Liberal mangina wants men to MAN-DOWN, so women can at least appear to look equal. – – so as to temper their white male guilt.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 09:12

Dominant men can set the rules. If they don’t like what happens when less dominant men adapt, they should change the rules so as not to exclude them.

Women set the rules for mate selection and procreation. I agree that male feminism is inherently a mating strategy/adaptation against stronger, athletic alpha males, (much like Game). It’s manipulation of the female’s transient sexual desires…beyond raw physical appeal.

Every now and then a smaller bucks slips one in during the rut, while the alpha bull isn’t paying attention.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15
Raj July 13, 2012 at 09:16

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -
Edmund Burke

The real failure is on the part of “masculine” men in keeping p***ybeggers in check.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 09:23

Fucktrelle/Flabtrelle/Mangina worthy of being treated like a corporate hog farm boar admits to times being lean on his own site (I know you’d have to go to his site to see for yourself)

He’s a parody of himself because he has no opinon, other than carrying the same old rancid Feminist Water…and he’s not even very good at that. Feminist talking-points coming from a male, are still feminist talking-points. He has no original thoughts, just finger wagging and ad hominem ridicule.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Emanon July 13, 2012 at 09:23

When the US Supreme Court was considering the case Brown Vs. Board of Education, it heard testimony from experts on the effects of segregated school systems on young children. One expert described an experiment where he gave girls black dolls and white dolls and watched them play. Both black girls and white girls preferred the white dolls. When asked why, they said that the white dolls were better. They had internalized racism at a young age.

Someone repreated the experiment a few years ago with female dolls and male dolls. Both genders of youngsters preferred the girl dolls. When asked why, they said that girls were better. They had internalized sexism at a young age.

I think that male feminists have been essentially brainwashed by a male-hating educational system. It’s much harder to unlearn hatred – even self-hatred – that is instilled in your youth than it is to learn a new field of study or a new technology. These men need to learn how to “unlearn”, AKA unplug or take the red pill.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Huck Finn July 13, 2012 at 09:26

There is definitely something off and weird about feminist men. I find progressive mangina feminist men even somewhat more off and brainwashed than the social-conservative feminist men. Some people are born with a temperament to live obediently to their socialization process or the outside values given to them, others to rebel or not accept, and some are born middle road. In modern America with many conflicting cultures and values intermixing, and the presence of technology to further access ideas, refute others, share events, etc some true and others false it must be interesting times for cultural anthropologists. One thing I do know for sure is that most people are not nearly the free and independent being they imagine themselves to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 09:28

Great discussion so far!

Women set the rules for mate selection and procreation. I agree that male feminism is inherently a mating strategy/adaptation against stronger, athletic alpha males, (much like Game). It’s manipulation of the female’s transient sexual desires…beyond raw physical appeal.

Absolutely Keyster, I couldn’t agree more. Now that we live in a society where “marriage for life” is considered the ideal (although that is rapidly losing traction), big men no longer keep smaller men away from the women by direct force. But as you noted, women are the gatekeepers of sex, and because they are hypergamous they “unconsciously conspire” with the more physically dominant men to exclude the smaller guys from the mating pool anyway.

Thus a man who is less naturally dominant needs a different strategy. His options may be to 1) learn “Game,” 2) give women what they want so that he at least has a shot to breed, or 3) be celibate.

Since few men choose a lifetime of celibacy, that leaves the other two options. So you are correct (and thanks for the epiphany): “Game” and male feminism are two sides of the same coin – different means to the same end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Andie July 13, 2012 at 09:35

I see them as collaborators.

Like all the French women who realized that fucking Nazis was their best chances of survival. They were willing to sacrifice their identity, their future, their children’s future, their nation for their own personal survival.

Seems like a logical extension of fetishizing the individual over the family. Had the Nazis triumphed, the French whores would have been at the top of the food chain.

But the Nazis had a few little run-ins with some American boys at Omaha and it didn’t end very well for the Nazis. And those French women ended up being marched down the street with their heads shaved and a lifetime of shame awaiting them.

Oh wait. That’s not how it happened. The French women were VICTIMS. Evil Nazis FORCED them to betray their own people. They were ABUSED. They had no choice.

Except to die, of course, like thousands did making sure the Nazis weren’t the winners. But those were mostly men. So they don’t count, right?

Who will think of the POOR ABUSED WOMEN????

/sarcasm

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 10
Ethical July 13, 2012 at 09:36

Lyn87 said:

“All the guys are married, usually to their first wives, and really seem to enjoy where they are in their lives. This is the demographic group that got married and stayed married (the 2010 study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia showed that the divorce rate among educated middle class and upper middle class couples was less than a third of that among the general populace). So admittedly they are not a representative sample, but I see things that make me scratch my head.

What makes me curious is this: none of these guys are feminists per se, and none of them are sexless drones (some were real “players” when they were single), and all have held positions of significant responsibility and leadership, yet there’s not a red pill guy among them. ALL of them defer to their wives as a matter of routine. Maybe even that doesn’t capture the essence of what I see: they reflexively defer to their wives. They don’t have unhappy marriages: most will grouse about their wives for trivial matters once in a while, but all of them are content – even happy – with their domestic situations. Good money, wife-&-kids, leisure time, etc. But the degree to which they defer to their wives is stunning to me. And they have no problem admitting that their wives are in charge of their households – as if that is not only normal, but the way it MUST be. Furthermore, they admit that it keeps the peace: and they’re okay with that.

I don’t classify these guys as feminists, and they would not classify themselves as such ether. These are good guys, many have shown courage under fire, but in some ways they act like men who have internalized the feminist zeitgeist, for lack of a better term.

Thoughts by my fellow Spearheaders?”

Sigh … These men are certainly onto something. It’s the wisdom in conceding certain battles strategically. But you have to know that your opponent will be satisfied and stop with that victory inside the home. I guess that means choosing a wife more wisely (or being lucky). If I had to do it over again, knowing how vulnerable men are in family court and how ruinous divorce litigation can be, I’d be quite a bit more flexible where I could be. And I’d probably discover a whole lot more ways and means where I could be.

I imagine that although these men may care very much about outcomes concerning their homes and children, they can feel comfortable deferring to their wives both because they know (rightly) they’ll never win support from anyone in that battle, and perhaps because they’ve been raised by a mother who gave them absolute faith in a woman’s desire and ability to take care of the home front. Many men just couldn’t be bothered with much that goes on at home. They’re too busy conquering the world. And though some men may wish their wives would do things differently in the home, or wish their kids were educated differently, or wish their kids received different religious instruction, I guess it boils down to abandoning any notion that you can control your risk of negative outcomes for hearth and home by in any way controlling what your spouse does in those areas. Maybe instead in today’s world you control your risk of being devasted by a negative outcome by learning to forgive most things and to care less about everything else.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
ahamkara July 13, 2012 at 09:39

As a guy who used to believe in feminism, I think for a lot of feminist men it is self hatred, caused by a dearth of good male role models. I was conditioned by the women around me to believe that women wouldn’t approve of me unless I were feminist, and I honestly didn’t understand why women usually chose the “jerks” over me. I figured I just wasn’t being feminist enough. It is a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Once you get into divorce court, the smoke and mirrors all fade away and it is quite a wake up call.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Suz July 13, 2012 at 09:41

Lyn87,

“Individual men who have no stake in the future – due to being excluded from the mating pool by physically dominant men – have no reason to worry about the the future “existence of (their) people.” If I’m a small guy and the big guys use a genetic accident (greater strength) to keep me away from the women, why should I care about the future of a society that excludes me from that future?”

VERY intriguing point, which opens a can of worms about conscience, justice, self sacrifice and morality. Would these “lesser” men be more inclined to accept their role as lesser if “greater” men would treat them more honorably (by including them and respecting what they CAN contribute?) Maybe, but in the end I think it’s women, more so than “greater” men, who refuse to give them credit.

“Dominant men can set the rules. If they don’t like what happens when less dominant men adapt, they should change the rules so as not to exclude them.”

I think that without feminism trying to undermine all men, most of the less dominant men wouldn’t be excluded. In patriarchal societies, less dominant men still have a useful role. However with feminism threatening all men, that role becomes “cannon fodder.” Isn’t that how battles are won? The primary enemy is feminism, and the men who are to be sacrificed must weigh their options. Many of them defect, turning against other men, but it’s women who attacked in the first place. In order for the defectors to be successful, feminism must win the war.

So who’s to blame for the Lesser men being forced to take sides in a fight for survival, the Alphas who would throw them under the bus, or the women driving the bus? And what are the chances these men will survive either way?

You dig deeper, don’t you, and show what’s beneath the surface?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 7
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 09:50

…and because they are hypergamous they “unconsciously conspire” with the more physically dominant men to exclude the smaller guys from the mating pool anyway.

To be clear it’s not necessarily “physical”, but can be social rank and/or status as well, that women are drawn to…such as entertainers, executives and politicians. There are some big men that are very small (failed atheletes), and some small men that are very big and powerful, (Bloomerg, Cruise, Beiber).

“Stature” in a woman’s eyes means many different things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
Andie July 13, 2012 at 09:55

@Lyn87 – ALL of them defer to their wives as a matter of routine.

Defer to them about what? Certainly, domestic affairs are MY domain. My husband defers to what I want regarding how our household runs because I’M THE ONE RUNNING IT.

Also, he pretty much doesn’t give a shit where the laundry goes, which shelf the eggs go on, how much soap to put in the dishwasher or any of the other hundred things I do everyday.

He puts away the groceries for me sometimes. I tell him where the eggs go. He does it.

But I defer to him on different issues. We recently renewed our house insurance.

Number of policies I read and considered? Zero
Number of policies he read and considered? No idea, but probably a lot

He brought me the policy. I know what it says, more or less. I know how to trigger it if required. I know the effect on our budget.

Mortgage
Paying bills
Banking
Savings/stocks
Car purchase
Home maintenance
Emergency planning

All things my husband is in charge of. And I have an MBA, so believe me, I could get involved in all those things too, if I wanted to. But I don’t. He is the Captain of the ship, in charge of the mission. I am the First Officer, in charge of getting that mission accomplished.

As an aside, you should hear women scream when I describe our relationship like that. It’s OK for Spock to be First Officer, but everyone else is just STUPID if they don’t want to compete for the Captain’s chair.

So anyway, yeah, if you walked into our house, it might look like my husband defers to me automatically. He does. And I defer to him, but those things are not necessarily visible to outsiders. We have very clearly delineated roles and we respect each other’s talents and contributions.

We don’t compete. We have a great marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 13
"The One" July 13, 2012 at 10:05

Status among females is a contest to showcase feminine virtues. This is basically a beauty pageant and a popularity contest, with the most powerful man being the ultimate judge.

Leadership among men is not a beauty pageant nor a popularity contest either. He who is the most feared and admired, rules. Being feared is at least as important as being admired.

Feminist men are neither feared nor admired. Such men are fools and scoundrels. Feminism is primarily the domain of the most cowardly men and the women most lacking in virtue.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 10:09

So who’s to blame for the Lesser men being forced to take sides in a fight for survival, the Alphas who would throw them under the bus, or the women driving the bus? And what are the chances these men will survive either way?

Simple.
Feminism equivocated women politically, socially and economically with “lesser” men. What better way to cull the herd, revealing only the “better” alpha males? This is exactly why women have become so much more competitive with each other by doubling-down on sexual appeal, (the urban slut look)…and sexual availability to select males.

The population of truly worthy males (better than her in status and/or wealth) has diminished to “there are no good men left”. What woman would marry a man less than her in status and wealth? Because of Hypergamy there can NEVER be equality.

The male feminist is projecting a different, if not temporary value to certian women. He’s trying to appeal to her sense of equality and fairness, not even comprehending that she doesn’t view him as a man or even a mate at all, but a temporarily useful, if not utter fool.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6
Anti Idiocy July 13, 2012 at 10:27

I’ve thought about this quite a lot — what turns a male into a feminist. Several posters, as well as Price, make some fine points.

Men who submit to man-hating feminists, especially men who are in intimate relationships with such women, are in abusive relationships. They suffer from deep psychological problems. They turn to their abusers for support in dealing with the suffering that comes from those very abusers.

In other cases, though this is probably less common, they have been abused/bullied by other males and are attempting to deal with that.

In any case, male feminists are profoundly, psychologically disturbed. They are mentally ill. Though I despise their hateful ideology, I pity the men who adhere to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 10:28

@Russ, et al.

If that’s not how you intended it, then I’m cool with what you said. I wasn’t sure either way, but that was the impression that I got.

I was aware that the impression I got could be wrong, and so asked for clarification. It wasn’t a demand, it was a request. I did say “please” after all.

Rather than waiting for an answer that might never come, I also posted a response predicated on the idea that it was indeed correct.

Since some people asked, I’ll explain how I got the impression.

In the past, the majority of the time I have heard about a guy getting stuffed into his locker in his past, it has been attack on the person’s masculinity and worth. In the rare occasions it wasn’t an attack on the man’s worth, the guys doing the stuffing were typically criticized, or some other qualifying statement was made.

So my impression was formed by past experiences. That said, I recognized that my impression could be false, and asked for clarification. I also pointed out that the rest of my post was made based on an impression… one which I acknowledged was possibly false.

If I was unclear in my qualification, I apologize.

Russ, if I offended you, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Are we cool?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Justinian July 13, 2012 at 11:28

Bikini-clad Ohio woman is begging for boobs on Akron street corner

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bikini-clad-ohio-woman-begging-boobs-akron-street-corner-article-1.1113787#ixzz20WphMKrK

It’s boob job or bust for a bikini-clad panhandler who has been stopping traffic in Ohio.

Chrissy Lance says she needs $5,000 to grow her girls so she’s staked out a busy street corner in Akron and has been holding up a sign that reads, “Not homeless. Need boobs.”

The smiling and svelte — but somewhat flat — brunette told a local TV station that she was inspired by other beggars — and made sure to get the required panhandling license from the city.

“I see people panhandling every day, so why not panhandle for boobs,” said Lance, 37, who lives in Rittman, Ohio. “It’s original. I’ve never seen anybody do it.”

A single mom and college student, Lance said the money she makes as a barmaid pays the bills, but it’s not enough to pay for implants.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bikini-clad-ohio-woman-begging-boobs-akron-street-corner-article-1.1113787#ixzz20WpoHTOb

At 37, its a little late to be worried about a boob job.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay July 13, 2012 at 11:30

Just look at Schwyzer for some clues. He’s an alcoholic, drug addict, attempted murder and there is the chance that he abandoned his child to be raised by another man (with that man paying for it). Add to that the company he must have kept back in his boozing days and I can understand a contempt for men. And it’s of course easier to shift the blame for his bad choices to all men and just think of all men as inherently and severely flawed and evil. Oh and by some feminists definition he’s also a rapist (banging his students)…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
akmaniak July 13, 2012 at 11:48

This has been going on in the mainline churches for decades. It’s a bunch of feminized men + headstrong women running these denominations into the ground.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Gamerp4 July 13, 2012 at 12:07

For me there is no point in beating a dead men, I call those Male Feminist and Mangina’s “Dead Men” their soul and their mind are dead, their thinking, their feelings, their emotions are dead, Just like feminist women they have oath to sought revenge on Patriarchy (Which was the reason that civilization went ahead and humanity was preserved), their Self-hate, Self-Marginalization, Self-Indictment for something that doesn’t even exist shows How they are charming and grooming themselves for a Matriarchy, which surely is not gonna happen in another 200 years, but apart from that I dont wanna piss their plan for “Going with the River Current, Where the River Current takes them”, the real men well “He fights the River Current, To Pave the way for Humanity to survive the WATERFALL”, and I & many in MRM are those Real- Men that are fighting the RIVER CURRENT to pave way for Humanity “of Men Especially”(If I mean Humanity of Men, its because we in these 40 years have lost our humanity because of feminism’s blame, society see’s us as Aggressive Beast) to survive.

My advice would be to Just Stay on the course, their isn’t a point that “All” men in this world will fight for a just cause, there will be some who would join the enemy but there is no point beating the “Dead Men” because he lost his soul, and his ability to “Think Like a Men”.

End.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Peter South July 13, 2012 at 12:10

At 37, its a little late to be worried about a boob job.

Let’s apply reverse gender test:

“Not homeless, need bigger penis.”

Conclusion: loser

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Ollie July 13, 2012 at 12:22

Several reasons come to mind, but they fall into a series of archetypes:

1. The Sensitive New Age Guy (SNAG)
Examples, Hugo Schwyzer, John Scalzi, Will Wheaton, Josh Weldon, Anthony Weiner.
This guy is often angling to use sensitive new age guy (SNAG) game to get himself a soft harem, and secure/maintain/enrich his employment. These guys will often plug the fembot party line because it is instrumental to the persona/career they have created. A sizeable portion of their readership/fanbase comes from a leftist audience and so, it is quite necessary for them to toe the party line. If you write SWPL oriented sci-fi for a living, it really makes no sense to rock the grrl-power boat. Doing so is about as dumb a move, career-wise, as a country-western artist penning a song that disparages NASCAR, Jesus or both.
Nevertheless, deep down these guys have a raging libido just like the rest of us. It’s just that they have figured out that this libido can be fed (in part) by occasionally stabbing other men in the back.

2. The Closet Transgender
Examples: Julia (Former name?) Serano, Robert (now Raewyn) Connell, Larry (now Lana) Wachowski
These guys, while they are still guys, are ardent feminists, because they know in their heart of hearts (as soon as enough money/time for the hormones and surgery arrives) they are going to be playing for Team Woman someday, so they had better ingratiate themselves now. Unfortunately, they often tend to go overboard and pile on the misandry. To see this in action, just examine Connell’s body of work. The fact that they have this mindset makes sense though, because they probably see (their and others’) masculine identity like a junky used car they can’t wait to get rid of and accordingly could care less about whoever gets to be in it next.

3. The Gay Leftist
Examples: Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage. (although the idea that these two are feminist is becoming less and less true as of late, thankfully)
The men in this category (which also includes the closeted) support feminism inasmuch as this support is something of an ideological tithe to another component (feminists) of the leftist coalition/army fighting the greater culture wars. Much like the Taliban and the Northern Alliance played nice with each other when fighting the Soviets, the fembots and the men in the gay community are relatively allied. However, at times when the culture war tips largely in their favor, that lovey-dovey relationship can and will break down. Why? For all their embrace of leftist causes, gay men are still men, all chock full of testosterone and um, male privilege (whatever). What’s more, they’re not exactly driven to be sympathy-filled white knights. Meet the new and improved “Evil Patriarchy” (TM).

4. The Socon (Social-Conservative)
Examples: Glenn T. Stanton, Mark Driscoll, William Bennett
These guys are a lot like group one, willing to stab their fellow man in the back to get a paycheck, and perhaps a little more (wink, wink).
The key differences are:
1. They do it under the guise of conservatism and/or religiosity.
2. They are ruthless white knights, waiting to saddle up on that steed at the slightest provocation (restraint and thoughtful analysis be damned)
3. Much like RINOs, they will follow the major tenets of feminism, but never, ever admit to it, heaven forbid they lose some precious street cred in front of the Limbaugh/Hannity/Falwell crowd.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Muhr July 13, 2012 at 12:29

After making my comment I realized it wasn’t necessarily off topic and I’m surprised no one saw the connection to Welmer’s post.

Men with full time working wives are probably more feminist than other men.

Welmer is arguing that feminist men are trying to break down the hierarchy to improve their relative placement.

The study I posted shows that men with full time working wives (likely feminists) are more likely to hire a women than a man and I suggest do so in order to reduce the number of competitive people (men are more competitive than women) in their mist and thus improve their ability to advance in the workplace.

Moreover, the feminist men prefer a work environment with more women than men whereas regular men are less concerned either way (go to pages 48 and 49).

http://www.west-info.eu/files/SSRN-id2018259.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ollie July 13, 2012 at 12:31

5. The Desperate Guy
Examples: David Futrelle,
This guy is a lesser beta/omega and he is essentially begging for attention. The worst part is that to a certain extent, this ploy for attention works, and the Desperate Guy then proceeds to double down on the fembot activism in hopes that it will lead to greater emotional rewards. As time goes on, this type of guy has more and more of his ego invested in this gambit, to the point where he would rather kill himself than end the attachment to such a poisonous ideology.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Georice81 July 13, 2012 at 13:11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish

The Anglerfish is the dream species as far as the feminists are concerned. The males are reduced to small frail appendages that are attached to the females. They are completely dependent on the females for everything. They don’t think. All they do is provide the female with sperm. In addition, the female may have several males attached to her thus providing constant polygamous sex.

This is the feminist utopia!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Mr. J July 13, 2012 at 13:12

@ Peter South

Wouldn’t that just be a hoot to stand next to her with that sign??

LOLOLOLOLOLzzzzzzzz

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 13:16

Suz, Russ, WillieMaize24, Ethical, Andie,

Thanks for the well thought-out responses to my original question.

As for your question, Andie, the type of deference I am observing among my peers is far beyond what you wrote about. You and your husband have divided your shared life into different spheres of responsibility. You make the decisions on the some areas, your husband makes decisions in other areas, and I’m sure you decide collaboratively in other areas as well. That is laudable, and a sign of a good relationship, since each of you trusts the other and can concentrate on your own areas of responsibility without having to second-guess each other all the time.

What I have observed among my peers at work is that they defer to their wives about everything that is not specifically in their sphere, and the wives have veto authority within “their” spheres as well. That is quite different than the arrangement I have with my wife, or that you describe as having with your husband. It’s not that they disagree with their wives all the time (or even very often), but that these guys are very open about the fact that the wife gets the final say in whatever areas she wants – even important areas – and the husband goes along with it to keep the peace (piece?).

Again, these are good guys, and not “manginas.” They are certainly not feminists. They are happy in their domestic situations – but when I expressed surprise that they would readily admit to being subservient to their wives as if that was the natural order of things, they looked at me like I was nuts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Eric July 13, 2012 at 13:38

Lyn87 & Rus

On the other hand look at an example like President Theodore Roosevelt. He was a pampered, sickly child, who after getting ‘stuffed into a locker’ turned his life around and became an example for all men to follow.

I remember reading somewhere too that Sgt. Alvin York—the WW1 hero, performed his most famous exploits after being shamed by other soldiers for cowardice in battle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Eric July 13, 2012 at 13:43

Art:
‘Look at Schwyzer for some clues’

He looks like a good example of self-hatred projected onto all males. He reminds me of the street scum who hate anyone who works. Most of those thuggish men are totally (despite all their mock bravado) extremely feminocentric and in many cases utterly dependent on female enablement just to survive. Schwyzer just seems to be a more cunning specimen of that personality type.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Patriarchal Religious Girl July 13, 2012 at 13:51

I think your explanation of male feminists is spot-on and the same reason why feminist women hate the patriarchy: they would have low-status in it and would be shunned as insane by most patriarchal men. It’s social reasons, not ideological ones.

Male feminists have three reasons why they’re feminist:

- Achieving more status
- Sexual conquests
- Lazy and don’t want to be providers (they want feminist sugar mamas)

I think there’s generally very few idiots that would believe in the egalitarianism, diversity, progress and autonomy crap. Not even white liberal men believe in their own diversity crap: they insulate themselves through their wealth and prefer whites, high asians and jews over blacks, hispanics and low asians in their lifestyles and do their best to get more minorities in the lower classes and less in the elite camps. We have a couple of exceptional blacks and hispanics but remember they’re few, not average of their races and exceptions to the rule are just that: exceptions. They shouldn’t be used as a pole to disprove that most people are this or that. If anything, they’re proof that generalizations are usually true because generalizations are for most, not all. They’re statistics, not caricatures.

Ideological male feminists are even crazier than social male feminists and are basically the true essence of liberalism. They’re the true believers and non-convertable. The social male feminists can still be converted in some regards because how many actually deep, deep, deep down believe that gender is a social construct and that there are no sex differences whatsoever?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 14:01

I would not call either of the Roosevelts men that are examples to follow. Theodore ran for an illegal 3rd term presidency under the Progressive Party banner, which was re-named to the Bull-Moose Party for that run- in order to capitalize on his good PR.

Most people remember him as a rugged individualist. Well, he was rugged, and he did have some good individualist quotes. However, he was very much in favor of several of the Marxist ideals that were pushed by Feminism and allowed it to gain a foot-hold.

Progressivism and Socialism are both ideologies that give more credence to the desires of the state than the right of the individual. Progressivism tends to flow from the concerns of intellectual elites. So do other branches of Marxism, but many of them, most particularly socialism, are often hailed and championed by the masses.

This occurred in Russia, giving rise to the USSR, and also occurred in the US. The ideas of socialism were so popular that they wound up being called “populism”, a binding of the terms strong enough that this implication on the term “populism” continues to this day.

Both progressive and “populism” are highly concerned with the state of the woman, granting her privileges even when they are to the detriment of basic rights of the man.

While I will not claim that Theodore Roosevelt did not have valuable qualities, or that he can not be used as an example of those positive qualities in some ways… I do not think that he should be a touch-stone of masculinity, or a hero looked to by those in the Men’s Right’s movement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Eric July 13, 2012 at 14:13

Andybob:
You’re right in that the essence of all male feminists is fraud—or, more accurately, self-deception. One of the reasons I mentioned Koffka and his school is because, unlike most psychological theories, they understood that actual human motivation comes from a variety of causes: but the underlying determinant of actions is fundamentally the same. People act towards their environment based on how they perceive the nature of the environment.

With feminists and manginas, for example, they have been taught to hate men and will treat men accordingly. That’s an invariable constant. Their motivations for hating men are variable. The point is that, in interactions with them, understanding the constant is the important thing. Too many people make the error of asking, ‘WHY are they like that?’ instead of ‘HOW are they like that?’ Knowing the ‘how’ is the best defense against them, because that is predictable—the ‘why’ is not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Mr. J July 13, 2012 at 14:23

Heres another thing:

The stupid/wrong things men do are much more visible than the stupid/wrong things that women do so the “squeaky wheel” gets the hammer…That, along with the fact that men have been much more apt, historically, to openly brag of their wrongdoings although that may be changing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Eric July 13, 2012 at 14:25

Josh:
On Theodore Roosevelt: it wasn’t illegal for a president to run for a third term in 1912. The term-limit amendment was ratified in 1948.

It’s also kind of dangerous to apply Roosevelt’s policies to their utility today in our political/social environment. A lot of ‘Progressivism’ of 100 years ago was really more reactionary than revolutionary. For example, his environmentalist laws were designed for an era when entire species were being wiped out, and pollution and deforestation were much worse than today. The same with some of his economic policies. Like many laws, a lot of them are still place today—even though they served actual purpose decades ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Stan July 13, 2012 at 14:43

I like the way Russ is trying to drive a wedge in here and subtly undermine the MRM by portraying “real-man” MRAs as brutes and bullies. Well played, sir or madam, well played.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7
keyster July 13, 2012 at 14:45

It’s just another color in the Man Brand spectrum.
He has to somehow differentiate himself (short of physical attributes) to gain market-place awareness among females in his sphere.

The Woman Brand is easier and more superficial. It’s pure sexual allure; clothing, make-up, scent, pumps and push up bras. Even the least attractive woman has veneer and illusion at her disposal.

(There was a time men were attracted to traits such as modesty and chastity, until feminists convinced women to behave more like what they thought men were like. Hyper-sexuality of women was then necessary to compete with each other, because they had no other virtue/value to offer.)

The Man Brand is much more challenging. He has to be respected by other men, accomplished, confident, composed, affluent, stylish and wreaking of success in the endeavor of his choice. He has to be a man of substance and character.

His work to be more attractive to women can take a life time, her work to be more attractive to men can take an hour in front of the mirror.

Please note: Becoming a successful MRA is NOT advised as a Man Brand/value proposition to women. More often than not they’ll be catagorically repulsed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 14:45

@Eric

Ah, true. FDR was the second of the two Roosevelt presidents, and he was the one to hold 4 terms, resulting in the limit being put in place after he left office. My bad.

And I disagree that his policies should have been put in place at that time. Any and all of them, if they needed to occur, should have been put into place at the state level, not the Federal level. Creating new agencies not allowed by the constitution was an unconscionable federal power grab.

Further, a large number of environmental stats have been over-stated for quite some time. I don’t have access to the stats that I’d like to cite at the moment, but I’ll try to remember to post them later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Russ July 13, 2012 at 14:46

Individual men who have no stake in the future – due to being excluded from the mating pool by physically dominant men – have no reason to worry about the the future “existence of (their) people.”

–Lyn87

I agree completely. I’ve written many times, in these pages, about the value of monogamy in giving sub-alphas a stake in society.

My original comments — that the feminist men Price describes were the types of guys who hated gym and got stuffed in lockers — stand on their own as obviously true. I pointed to causal factors to show that these guys aren’t doing what they do solely to access pussy, but also for revenge.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 14:49

@keyster

I’d rather BE a good man and servant of God than be assessed as one.

In the current age, it seems that requires being an MRA. If that means no woman will ever want me… or that I am ground to dirt for the benefit of the flock, and the future of humanity… then so be it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Russ July 13, 2012 at 14:56

Josh,

You seem like a nice, thoughtful, bright young man and I hope you stick around, you could go places.

I have a rule that I never offer advice, unless asked for, and then I still don’t do it, but I’m going to break that rule and offer you two bits of advice.

1. Stick with the web design stuff, in fact, you should consider getting a CS degree.

2. Don’t worry about being “cool” with everyone — it’s an overrated quality. ;)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14
keyster July 13, 2012 at 14:58

Heres another thing:
The stupid/wrong things men do are much more visible than the stupid/wrong things that women do so the “squeaky wheel” gets the hammer…That, along with the fact that men have been much more apt, historically, to openly brag of their wrongdoings although that may be changing.

That’s only partially true.
Men have simply done more “things” throughout history.
“Things” women have done are by comparison infinitesimal.
Even today men are busy doing more “things” – while women shop and gossip and talk about men. The more you do, the greater chance the odds will catch up to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
keyster July 13, 2012 at 15:22

A lot of ‘Progressivism’ of 100 years ago was really more reactionary than revolutionary.

Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist, (in the spirit of Belfort Bax). It was gaining traction up until Woodrow Wilson and the Russian Revolution when it lost steam and then was re-constituted by FDR.

FYI – The Roosevelt Institute was the very first benefactor of women’s rights organizations in the US, and they fund the better part of Feminist, Inc. to this day under the guise of “human rights”, which is code for “women”.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/

Another Roosevelt fun fact:
The family owns an island off the coast of Chile, with a large villa/plantation and enough provisions to last a century. A Lear Jet is kept at JFK Airport ready to scramble at a moment’s notice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Centaur July 13, 2012 at 15:53

Maybe I can give some insight here. While I never considered myself a feminist I have considered myself left leaning and still do.
I grew up in a more or less traditional family, strong father, feminine mother.. they were conservative BTW.
The reason I supported feminism, in theory if not ever in name, was that it appealed to my younger sense of fairness and idealism. Being young and inexperienced I heard “more rights” and “treat everyone equally under the law” and I thought that was what feminism was about. And it appealed to me because I found those to be an ideal worth living up to. It appealed, as I said, to a sense of justice and reason.
While I still believed (thanks to my parents, in hindsight) that men and women were different, I saw what I believed was a just and fair desire.. a reasonable argument if you would.
It wasn’t until I get to late high school/college that I heard some of the more virulent feminist ideas. But I figured that was all fringe stuff no-one would ever believe, right? As time when by I saw the trends in the courts, friends got married, older co-workers and family got divorced.. I started to see that what I was sold as “feminism” was BS. There was no intention of fairness, or justice for all, etc. There was only hate for men and unfairness and injustice.
So although I never identified as a feminist, I easily see how many guys just end up not knowing any better until they get more information and experience. Problem is, for a lot of guys, that information and experience comes long after they have formed an opinion, and identity and a life-style..so they buy the excuses and bad reasoning of feminists because to abandon it means abandoning too much they have invested in.
Looking back, what saved me most, was that I never bought the one thing I had to to go all in on feminism- I never thought male and female could ever be the same. My eyes, my ears and my body told me there was a major, fundamental difference between me and a woman so I never bought that lie. it was the chink in the armor that allowed me to always be a bit skeptical of claims being made by feminists.. and once I saw the reality of my friends, family and coworkers lives, I knew it was all just a big mass of BS. By the time I hit my mid 20s, I was anti-feminism.
I think you are going to find a million and one reasons for men who identify as feminists. Treat them as individuals. Labeling them pussies or weak may just shut their minds off to reason. and I really think that to men- young men especially- appealing to reason, logic and a sense of justice and idealism will get you farther than self aggrandizing theories.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Anacaona July 13, 2012 at 15:56

I didn’t knew were to link to this but I read it and I wanted to bang my head on my desk, I think you will find it…oh well tiresome, same old rape hysteria with a scientific term!
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Russell July 13, 2012 at 15:59

I suspect there are a number of reasons for male feminists. I’m reminded of a group called something like Men against Violence against Women. These men look like the biggest, meanest THUGS on the planet. They have no problem with violence against men; only against women. It is as if they are now reformed violent offenders who excuse their previous violence on women not as a personal failing but seek to blame it on an imagined misogynistic society; as per the feminist script. No, they are just thugs but too cowardly to confront their own nature and past.

Then there is the mangina type who will decry how men hate women whilst excusing himself as one of the few good guys. It has always seemed me that if these guys agree with feminists that men hate women, then being men who relate to the doctrine, they should apologize and then leave the room; rather than fingering every other man for what seems to themselves so obvious.

We accuse others of what we are guilty of ourselves. Projection. At least some of these men are of poor character who rather than confront their own human failings, project it onto other men. In this way, they compete for status.

Also, Keyster once mentioned that men get a hormonal high (dopamine) from protecting women. If so, then this is depressing. I hope we are not so biologically programmed as to protect those who wish us harm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Russ July 13, 2012 at 16:00

I like the way Russ is trying to drive a wedge in here and subtly undermine the MRM by portraying “real-man” MRAs as brutes and bullies. Well played, sir or madam, well played.

–Stan

Weasel.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20
greyghost July 13, 2012 at 16:02

Male feminist are men with no soul. They have chosen to be PC to raise their status in society. Like paying a bully to not beat you up and then being the bully’s friend and acting like the bully is his friend and carrying his wimpy self around like has power.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Ted July 13, 2012 at 16:03

“The reason I supported feminism, in theory if not ever in name, was that it appealed to my younger sense of fairness and idealism.”

Exactly. Then you find out the reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Russ July 13, 2012 at 16:11

It has always seemed me that if these guys agree with feminists that men hate women, then being men who relate to the doctrine, they should apologize and then leave the room; rather than fingering every other man for what seems to themselves so obvious.

–Russell

That reminds me of the 1970′s head of the Sulzberger family (owners of the New York Times, Boston Globe, and other papers around the country). When he decided to take his papers in a decidedly misandrist direction, he claimed that his reason for doing so was that he had seen the light and all men truly were the violent rapists feminists claimed them to be. It made me wonder how many women he had raped.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 16
Classic Joe July 13, 2012 at 16:17

I figured that out when I was still a fetus. It’s wierd how different paths and aptitudes lead us to figure out things in different orders. You must’ve led an amazingly sheltered/narrow life before the rug got pulled out from under you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
"The One" July 13, 2012 at 16:18

Josh the Aspie wrote “If that means no woman will ever want me… or that I am ground to dirt for the benefit of the flock, and the future of humanity… then so be it.”

Josh, your altruistic sentiments sound a bit misguided. The best reason not to base your identity on the approval of women is out of self-interest and self-preservation.

If the masses of humanity would grind you down, the rest of society doesn’t deserve to benefit from your pathological altruism.

At the very least, you should have everyone else’s undivided attention before making a statement which uses self-sacrifice as your soapbox. Even then, it’s a flash in the pan. People will probably get over it quickly and forget about you.

MRAs are often the wisest among men in terms of enlightened self-interest and self-preservation.

Sure, a lot of Feminists, both male and female will stab you in the back, but the more we persevere, the more insignificant their betrayals become.

The upside is that you don’t live in fear and you might be able to live a good life on your own terms. The alternative is a life of cowardice and misery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Russ July 13, 2012 at 16:42

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 28
"The One" July 13, 2012 at 16:49

It should be noted that many of the most powerful men have been kicked around. This happened to Genghis Khan in his youth.

The question is not whether or not you have been bullied. Every man knows what it’s like to be treated badly by an older, stronger rival. Every man knows that women can bring down the wrath of other men.

It’s partly a question of who is perceived to have been more unfair – male rivals with direct aggression, or women with passive aggression.

The real question is how you chose to react. Some men react by condemning men and masculinity, and seeking to elevate women to be the arbiters of fairness and virtue.

Other men react by condemning women and femininity, seeking to elevate men above women as much as possible.

Lesser men have always used unscrupulous women to help them cut down better men than themselves. However, it’s not always the weak man and the ugly woman who are serving the agenda of Feminism.

Ultimately, Feminism isn’t about weak men or ugly women. It’s about treacherous personalities, betrayal, dishonesty, and corruption.

Hugo Schwyzer and David Futrelle are opposite on the spectrum of popularity and social status, but similar in that they are both treacherous. Each one serves Feminism in his own way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
ode July 13, 2012 at 17:24

VitaminD

Male feminists are like the clever animals who sneak into the alpha male’s harem and impregnates some of the females behind his back.

I disagree.
You have a much higher opinion of these feminist males.
Here’s how I see them.
Have you ever seen those action movies where the Evil Boss has a loyal servant? In the end of the movie when the servant has outlived his usefulness the Evil Boss abandons his servant. The useful idiot ignorantly thought his loyal service would be rewarded but instead he gets tossed underneath the bus.

And that gentlemen is why you should NEVER put the pussy on the pedastal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Eric July 13, 2012 at 17:49

Russ:
‘Hazing’ and ‘bullying’ have been elevated by feminist-dominated culture almost to the status of a ‘hate crime’. The underlying idea here is that any boy who’s shamed by other boys for a lack of masculinity should be seen as a ‘victim’. Of course, once a boy internalizes the ‘victim’ mentality, he seeks protection from women against the other boys; never grows up to be a man, starts envying the guys who did—like Price said—and then a vicious circle starts and they become like David Futrelle.

It is revealing that Futrelle has an icon on his site of a picture of himself as a boy; while depicting adult men as negatively as possible.

The stories about President Roosevelt and Sgt. York are by no means unique.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
Laura Grace Robins July 13, 2012 at 17:57

“Male feminism truly is about envy, perhaps even more than the female kind.”

This reminds me of a comment I saw by Jesse Powell at Thinking Housewife. He said:
“The purpose of male chivalry is not female approval but men’s honor. Men impose the chivalrous obligation upon other men; women are not the ones who determine what chivalry consists of or what the chivalrous duty entails.”

This made me see chivalry as a sort of male-on-male shaming tactic. A way to to get leverage over other men. Those men who identify as being chivalrous and hold to this “code of honor” can feel better about themselves in comparison. They might not be all alpha like, but gosh darn it, they have honor!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 10
Eric July 13, 2012 at 18:09

Laura Grace:
I think that’s very true of modern chivalry. In the past, chivalry also required women to be worth defending and fighting for, hence today it’s a caricature of its former self.

Probably a lot of the White Knight types—especially the younger ones—observe the proclivity of modern women to pursue the lowest and most dysfunctional males and assume wrongly that their chivalry is offering women a better alternative. If women’s minds weren’t poisoned by misandry that would be a logical assumption, but unfortunately for these guys women see White Knights as ‘male pigs’ too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Eric July 13, 2012 at 18:22

Russ:
LOL now I have to tell a story.

When I was 9 yrs. old, I remember being bullied by a gang of older punks, whose leader had a ponytail. I got jumped and beaten by them of couple of times. I was really into American Indian lore and remembered reading how Indians used to ambush larger and more numerous enemies.

So, one afternoon, I got them to chase me, dramatically acting scared for effect, until I led them to a large tree where I had stashed a good heavy stick. Ponytail went down with one blow to the head; the others ran off as I started towards the next bigger one.

Bullying problem—solved. I didn’t get messed with too much after that by anybody.

However, I did carry the Indian thing a little too far—cutting off the guy’s ponytail and taking it home as a ‘scalp’ did occasion a stern lecture from the authorities and confiscation of my prized jack-knife for two weeks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 18:43

@Russ

Thank you. I know I can’t be “cool” with everyone. But I do try to make ammends and patch over hard feelings when possible.

Actually, I currently make my living off of my computer skills. I just haven’t had time to work on my website as much as I’d like, between pursuing an advanced degree, shooting practice, the job, etc. The update to a new version of WordPress for my blog was the most recently done work, and that’s mostly behind-the-scenes stuff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 18:54

@”The One”

Ah. I’m afraid I was a little bit unclear. I did not mean that the world would grind me into dirt. Rather, I intend to do what I think is best for the flock, and the world, even if the end results include my being ground into the dirt by the feminists I oppose.

Of course, my prefered result is that I live a long, happy, healthy life, and tell my many Grand-children about the strange and insane feminists and marxists, and warn them all against the dangers they represented, and how I was there for the fight. Ideally this would be under a huge apple tree I had planted on my own large plot of permicultured land. And, of course, that when I die, I be gathered back to the father.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 18:55

Russ July 13, 2012 at 14:46

Got it. We were in agreement all along I think – just talking about different aspects of the same topic.

As for your comment about the difference between bullying and hazing:

Russ July 13, 2012 at 16:42

I think there’s a fundamental difference. Here’s my take on it: although I was about a decade ahead of my age-peers in maturity and cognition as a child, I’ve been a bit on the small side my entire life. I wasn’t bullied much at all (so it’s not like I’m working out deep psychic scars), but when your I.Q. is four standard deviations above the norm AND you’re small, some of that is practically inevitable. I find no redeeming qualities about bullying: as far as I’m concerned bullies deserve whatever fate befalls them. Some kid who has spent years being mercilessly tormented comes to school and blows a bully’s brains out with a 12-guage? Yawn. Pass the chips, please. I view it as undoubtedly tragic, but as long as no innocents are harmed it does not strike me as being particularly unjust.

As the saying goes, “The aggressor should not expect proportionality.” If you don’t want that mousy kid to snap and splatter your head all over the cafeteria, don’t stuff him in a locker every day for five years.

Hazing, by the definition I’m most familiar with, is something else. I went to a military college by choice. There was definitely hazing involved. I knew it going in and I accepted that as part of the “rite of passage” to join a specific community of men. It was neither malicious nor personal – it was a gauntlet I chose to run for the specific purpose of earning my way into the group. When it was my turn to initiate the next group of adult volunteers I did it with gusto – not out of malice, but because acceptance into the group required candidates to prove themselves worthy of it. If a guy wanted to quit and go home (MANY of them did), the treatment stopped immediately: if they weren’t going to continue with the program any further harassment WOULD have been bullying.

Undergoing hazing as a rite of passage for initiation into a group can be valuable. Bullies can die in a fire.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
Uncle Elmer July 13, 2012 at 19:04

Lyn87 : Thoughts by my fellow Spearheaders?

Refer to my recent comment : The Boss wants to go to Costco now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
The Whammer July 13, 2012 at 19:14

“Male feminists are like the clever animals who sneak into the alpha male’s harem and impregnates some of the females behind his back. ”

I doubt it. Those harem girls who were used to the best were not going to shag some omega Futrella. They’d shout for the eunuchs that guarded them and the omega mangina would get his balls cut off :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
The Whammer July 13, 2012 at 19:16

* btw, a futrella is like a mangina only fatter, dumber and more pussy whipped.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 19:20

Uncle Elmer:

I’ve seen some references to a “boss” wanting to go to “costco”. I can guess until I’m blue in the face at what this obvious inuendo is, but unless it’s explained, or more hints are given, I’m afraid I won’t know what you mean.

There’s one particularly likely meaning, but I’m only at about 40% on my confidence level there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Eric July 13, 2012 at 19:40

Keyster:
‘{Futrelle} is just a parody of himself because he’s offering no opinon, just carrying the water for the feminists..&c’

What always struck me as doubly ironic is that Futrelle’s female groupies don’t seem to realize that they needed a ‘man’—even one as pathethic as Futrelle—to spread their message and do all the blog-work for them. If it wasn’t for the manginas, they couldn’t even handle it by themselves!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Russ July 13, 2012 at 19:50

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 33
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 19:52

Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 19:20

Josh,

A lot of guys refer to their wives as “the boss.” Costco is a big-box store. Elmer was making a joke that he wasn’t going to be around to comment for a few hours because his wife wanted him to go do something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
imnobody July 13, 2012 at 19:53

I don’t think there is one reason to be a male feminist, the same way there isn’t one reason to be a red pill man. Some men are red pill because they have endured a nasty divorce, some because they have become players and have seen the female dark side, some because they were betas and they saw women fucking alphas and so on and so forth.

About 15 years ago, I was a male feminist. My reasons?

- Being rejected by men, because I was a nerdy sensitive guy so I was excluded from the group.
- Looking for companionship I ended up with girls (my female cousins, my sisters, etc).
- Being raised by a feminist mother by a feminist school in a feminist country, I bought the feminist ideology hook, line and sinker.
- I longed for female approval.
- Being raised as a Catholic by a shaming mother, I felt guilty of absolutely everything. I was a sad guy and I always felt guilty, ashamed and unworthy.

The path to the red pill was long and painful, as usual. I remember the first spark arising while reading a Brazilian manual to be more attractive to women (I did not know Portuguese but still). A sentence caught my eye:

“Don’t be afraid to look women when you are in the street. Relish in it. You don’t have nothing to be ashamed about. Você é um homem (You are a man). It’s natural for you to like beautiful women”.

This was like a hammer. It made so much sense. I was a man. It was normal for me to love beautiful women. There was nothing to be ashamed about it so why I felt so ashamed by my natural inclinations?

Você é um homem Unforgettable when the truth is so simple and you wonder why you haven’t realized before.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Russ July 13, 2012 at 19:53

@Josh,

Good luck with your studies.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 16
Russ July 13, 2012 at 20:04

This was like a hammer. It made so much sense. I was a man. It was normal for me to love beautiful women. There was nothing to be ashamed about it so why I felt so ashamed by my natural inclinations?

– imnobody

That reminds me of the word girls usually apply to guys who eyeball them that they (the girls) don’t find attractive: Creepy.

The only thing creepier than a teenage girl dressed like a slut, seeking male attention, who then feigns disgust at that male attention is the bizarre middle-aged mothers that create these monsters.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 25
American July 13, 2012 at 20:07

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 28
Josh the Aspie July 13, 2012 at 20:14

@Lyn87

Ahh. So I was reading too much into it. I’m aware of the grocery store, and the moniker, but one of the times I saw the line “costco” was in quotes.

Given the nature of Uncle Welmer’s other posts, I assumed he was saying that he was going to go have some kind of sex with his wife, and that “costco” was a previously established euphamism I wasn’t in on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
American July 13, 2012 at 20:20

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 32
American July 13, 2012 at 20:30

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 28
American July 13, 2012 at 20:30

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 29
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 20:45

Russ July 13, 2012 at 19:50
Lyn87,

I didn’t make any comments about the difference between bullying and hazing.

I understood your point. I was expanding on your theme. As for the rest, we have to part company, as you write things like this:

The racial flooding of White countries (and the consequent promotion of hate and contempt for Whites in the non-Whites coming to our countries), feminism, affirmative action promoting less qualified women and non-Whites over us, the promotion of “polymorphous perversity” (including homosexuality), the extreme anti-White man bias in the media are all designed to prevent heterosexual White men from achieving wealth, power, and status.

and this:

“And they know non-Whites, women, and homos are inferior and can not challenge them (although they are beginning to fear the homos).”

Alas, I have to confess to being a member of one of those inferior races: I am a mulatto. Worse yet, I married a white woman, so I guess I’m guilty of both Conspiracy-to-Subvert-the-White-Race and miscegenation.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 10
Ted July 13, 2012 at 22:02

“Conspiracy-to-Subvert-the-White-Race”

Chapter meetings every other Wednesday, You Know Where.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 8
Ted July 13, 2012 at 22:09

@Classic Joe July 13, 2012 at 16:17

“I figured that out when I was still a fetus.”

What was it you figured out, Classic?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Eric July 13, 2012 at 22:15

Ted:
‘Chapter meetings every Wednesday.’

I hope not next Wednesday. I have a date with a nice Asian girl that night LOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5
andybob July 13, 2012 at 22:20

When will white nationalists get it into their thick skulls that the men’s rights movement is not their free ride to mainstream relevance? Like every WN who has ever goose-stepped onto ‘The Spearhead’, “Russ” cannot go the length of a whole thread without revealing that he is an ignorant pinhead.

No matter how cogent their initial arguments, their urge to devolve into hate-spewing bigots always proves too great. Why are they even here? Why pretend to care about men’s rights when you don’t even seem to like them? Click on “Russ” and you’ll find his reference library of recommended reading. They include such edifying screeds as:
“The International Jew”
“The Jews and their Lies”
“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”
“Mein Kampf” (no, seriously)
“The Rising Tide of Color”
“White Power”
“The Hidden Power Behind Freemasonry”
Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t find “The Bullies Handbook for Stuffing Jews, Homos and Non-whites into Lockers”, so you may need to go to Amazon.com for that.

What stands out about white nationalists is the fact that they don’t really give a shit about men. Unless you’re a straight, white, Baptist, racist, homophobe who is too big to stuff into a locker (and is onto those inscrutable International Jews), “Russ” won’t even consider letting you into his clubhouse. Just as well since he only bought enough beer for him and Ryu anyway (Firepower will stick to his pills).

The MRM draws strength from its diversity because feminists love to dismiss us as a bunch of angry, white guys. Proving them wrong undermines and unnerves them. Leave your other identities at the door because it is our lives as men that matters here. Everything else is secondary. Stop with the man-up rhetoric and let men define their own masculinity for once – one that serves their own interests as opposed what benefits women and those who pander to them.

Mr Price has the kind of comment policy that I applaud. It respects freedom of speech (and allows people to condemn themselves when they insist on writing rubbish). Playing into the hands of those who accuse the MRM of being a hate movement (the SPLC to name but one) is irresponsible and dumb. Grow up, wise up and stop pandering to your WN princesses by bashing other men. This movement isn’t just about you, no matter how hard you try to convince us otherwise.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 11
Eric July 13, 2012 at 22:23

Keyster:
Too many people, in both political parties, try to revise history and apply policies of the past to today’s problems. The real issue is that most of these policies have long outlived any useful purpose. For example, people decry Teddy Roosevelt’s creation of the EPA, without realizing that the environment was in much worse shape in 1907 than today. Roosevelt also supported the Endangered Species Act; most of the species still on the original list aren’t even endangered any longer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Eric July 13, 2012 at 22:30

Andybob:
The thing I can understand about these white-nationalist types, is that none of them seem to realize that white women are largely—if wholly responsible for the decline of the whites within the Anglosphere. What is a white guy supposed to do? Bow down to the White Goddess because it’s our duty? LOL

‘polymorphous perversity’

I’ve mentioned having a transgendered relative, and her take just how ‘gay-friendly’ the feminists really are (that is, to gay men and pro-male transgenders) is significantly different from Russ’ observations. Somehow, I think she’s in a better position to know.

PS> She’s a lot closer to a ‘white goddess’ than most other women LOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 8
Ted July 13, 2012 at 22:35

@Anacaona July 13, 2012 at 15:56
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

Thanks for the link, Anacaona. A very entertaining site. I was struck by the attention to detail. The sidebar even had a couple of books advertised: “Lessons from the Fat-O-Sphere” and “Screw Inner Beauty”.

The Guest Blogger was no less entertaining. She discusses the first thought that occurs to any woman when approached by a man: “Will this man rape me?” She has some good advice for this man too: “Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE”. Well, I can agree with that.

The comments though, were disappointing. Some of them even seemed to be taken in by this obvious spoof. Cassandrasays said

“There should really be a special by-law that says women are allowed to kick anyone wearing a rape-is-funny tshirt in the balls. We could maybe sell it as pre-emptive self-defence?

“The most offensive tee I ever saw IRL was one with IT’S NOT GOING TO SUCK ITSELF and an arrow pointing down. Looking the dude up and down, smirking, and going “with your striking good looks and charming personality it’s going to have to, isn’t it?” was one of my proudest moments.”

This reminded me of one of PAN’s comments. PAN often told us how he was putting the Australian government on trial, and how his juries would wreak vengeance on the unjust. Then he describes getting together with ten of his mates, going to a bar, and *demanding they only be served by males*.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
Eric July 13, 2012 at 22:39

Lyn87;
I guess we both should have figured that a thread with a subject like this was bound to get trolled.

uh…oh…I sense Futrelle getting ‘nervous’ again…something in the wind…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
andybob July 13, 2012 at 22:43

You are absolutely correct, Mr Eric (you usually are, mate!)

The white women who drove feminism so its present state can never be condemned by the WN brigade (being white and perfect and all). So they must look elsewhere to cast blame. Must be those darned coloured folk and ‘International Jews’. And Mexicans. And heathens. And homos. And trannies. And….

Your trans-gendered relative is certain to have a better take on the gay/lesbian-feminist-’alliance’ than “Russ”. It’s crumbling as we speak. More on it later.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 7
Keyster July 13, 2012 at 22:46

Problem is, for a lot of guys, that information and experience comes long after they have formed an opinion, and identity and a life-style..so they buy the excuses and bad reasoning of feminists because to abandon it means abandoning too much they have invested in.

Feminism/leftism indocrination begins in our schools and in the media with populist sentiments of “social justice” and notions of egalitarian utopia where the world is “fair” for everyone by government decree.

It’s not until you get older, more mature and begin thinking for yourself rather than “with” the group, that you realize it’s brainwashing, a scam packaged to young idealists, women and minorities that government is a benevolent entity which always has the best interests of the citizenry at heart – – if only you’d allow it to get bigger so it can do more for you.

You wouldn’t be the first to take this journey of enlightenment and self-discovery as to what socialist governance (and the special interests and movements they co-opt) is really all about. It’s Karl Marx refined and repackaged into a more user friendly and accessible format.

Whisch is why:
Liberals think Conservatives are mean, and Conservatives think Liberals are stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Eric July 13, 2012 at 23:03

If the Anglo-American ‘race’ is to survive at all, only intermarriage with non-Anglo/American women is going to save it. That’s a self-evident fact. White women are wholly incapable of motherhood and reproduction.

“American men make the best husbands and American women make the worst wives.”

Civilizations are built and sustained by men; so their choices of wives depend only the fitness of the women to reproduce and sustain civilization and culture. Feminist women, by their own admission, hate white men and everything they stand for. You won’t build a civilization with that kind of material!

Take a lesson from the Romans. Their Founding Fathers raided the Sabines for wives when their own were insufficient for the future of the Roman civilization. Those guys knew the score and built the greatest civilization in our history.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 9
andybob July 13, 2012 at 23:22

One of the most influential gay blogs in America is ‘Towleroad’ (GLAAD’s “Blog of the Year). Over the past few months, the comments section on their political posts, have revealed an increasing hostility between gay men and lesbians. Here is an example:

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/07/wealthy-influential-lesbian-activists-form-super-pac-lpac.html#ixzz20SfASCgT

Gay men are calling lesbians on their radical feminism. How can a man-hating feminist possibly be an ally to any man – gay or straight? Surely there’s a conflict of interest. For example: “…keep in mind that, before anything else, a lesbian is a woman. She will do what women always do – ie exploit double standards…” (Jason).

Lesbians are responding with heaps of gay-shaming (“Russ” could take lessons). Gays are not impressed. Here’s one of my responses:

“Most gay men identify as men first, and gay second. All lesbians embrace the radical end of the feminist spectrum. This has been a disaster in undermining our trust in lesbians. Why would any man, gay or straight align themselves with an anti-male hate movement whose principal agenda is to undermine the rights and welfare of men and boys?

Jason is correct. Women and gay rights are incompatible. When I was a teenager, the gay rights movement was known as GLBT. It didn’t take long for lesbians to take over, change it to LGBT, and make the movement all about them. Gay men were welcome to stay, providing they sat silently in the back of the bus – the new coloured folk.

Gay men have left the movement in droves, preferring to align with the men’s rights movement instead, which advocates for the rights of all men, including gays. How typical that Jason is accused of misogyny for daring to suggest that lesbians are not exactly sympathetic towards men. Can’t imagine where he got that idea from.

You’ll have to do better than rely on wheezy old shaming language if you want to have credibility among gay men. We’re very familiar with that tactic. Does anyone actually have a serious response to Jason’s valid concerns, or is this just an anti-male echo chamber?
Lesbians have been foolish to alienate so many gay men. Their failure to criticise the violent rhetoric emanating from radical lesbian websites such as the RadFemHub (male genocide and eugenics enthusiasts) is shameful.

It is time for lesbians to be honest for once and either openly declare that they have no concern for the rights and welfare of gay men, or have enough respect to address the issue of their obvious conflict of interest. Lesbians are long overdue for some good old-fashioned introspection. Stop the man-bashing. They are our brothers, fathers, partners and friends – and yours.

It seems that Jess just couldn’t help herself. This gay-men-are-fags shaming is typical of what we have come to expect from our lesbian ‘allies.”

[You see “Russ”, there are more important things at stake than your own personal issues. Are you with us or not?)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 5
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 23:29

Ted July 13, 2012 at 22:02

“Conspiracy-to-Subvert-the-White-Race”

Chapter meetings every other Wednesday, You Know Where.
I’ll be there. It’s my turn to bring the chips, right? I’m the ideal agent of infiltration: I look white enough to pass unnoticed at a Klan meeting, except that I have most of my original teeth and I use a lot of polysyllabic words. I’m a mulatto in the “Spaniards-conquered-the-Meso Americans” sense: half white and half light-skinned Mexican, and the older I get the more I favor the European side of my ancestry. (In my pictures from grade school I look quite Hispanic.)

The irony is that I really am a cultural chauvinist – and it has nothing to do with bloodlines. The history of Western Civilization is remarkable – nothing else comes close to matching it. When my wife and I landed at the airport in Athens, Greece to tour the battlefields of the Greco-Persian Wars I told her, “I finally made it to the home country.” She asked what I meant since I have no Greek blood in me, and I told her that Greece was the cradle of Western Civilization, and thus my ancestral home, whether my physical ancestors had ever lived there or not.

It’s too bad: Russ and I were having a great discussion – I had no idea he was a White Supremacist. He obviously assumed I was 1) fully white and 2) in agreement with white supremacist ideology. Was it my fault he thought so? Is it because I “talk white.” Should I return my Masters degree? Despite the fact that all my professors thought I was all white, no dumb-@$$ wetback halfbreed like me could possibly have earned an advanced degree on merit. ;-)

Oh well: it’s 0130 and I’ve derailed the thread. One last thing before I go for the night:

The blue sparrow flies by the light of the crescent moon. I say again, The blue sparrow flies by the light of the crescent moon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 8
Masculist Man July 13, 2012 at 23:30

PUA’s/gamers started in with this crap: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/search?q=pua

So why should we trust them?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 5
Lyn87 July 13, 2012 at 23:32

Edit to last post: the blockquote was supposed to end after the phrase, “You Know Where.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Russ July 14, 2012 at 00:54

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 58
Eric July 14, 2012 at 01:07

Russ:
‘We are the future of that movement…’

Explain to us how you’re going to accomplish this without white women to reproduce the white race.

‘Either a Jew…&c’

Most of the Jews’ history has been inflated—mostly by anti-Jews—well out of any porportion to their actual contributions. Western culture is Graeco-Roman based.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 8
Russ July 14, 2012 at 01:20

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 53
Eric July 14, 2012 at 01:24

Russ:
Would you care to let us all in on the secret? Most white grrrlz I know hate men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 10
andybob July 14, 2012 at 01:35

“Your spastic attempts to marginalize and demonize WN has failed in the men’s movement. ” “Russ”

You have marginalised yourselves by being a hate movement, just like feminism. You have utterly failed to comprehend that men are sick of being hated on and dictated to. Your disrespect for the fundamental civil liberties of others will always repel the overwhelming majority of MRAs because it is our concern for human rights which attracted us to the MRM in the first place.

You can never be the “future” of the MRM because your Jewish Conspiracy Theories are anachronistic throwbacks to a time and place that no right-thinking person should ever wish to return. Your “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” rhetoric is an emarrassment to our cause.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 7
evilwhitemalempire July 14, 2012 at 02:03

Jason proves lesbians are level headed. They can play baseball and organize a Pac as profitable as any man. Gay men can only pretend they are women, and make lousy excuses for men. These will be your parents? Two “men?” Yikes… “Put away that baseball glove, no catch today son.”

Posted by: Jess | Jul 12, 2012
———–

andybob
comments like these should be collected and used against the fems and dykes to turn even more gay men to the mrm

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 2
Eric July 14, 2012 at 02:19

Yep. Right on cue:

http://www.manboobz.com

Discussion of the MRM as a ‘hate movement’.

You and Russ wouldn’t know each other, perchance, would you, David?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price July 14, 2012 at 04:23

Everything I write in these pages is written with the understanding that at least 1/2 the audience here is either a Jew, a non-White, or a homo, or, even worse, some poor White twit who is so dumbed-down that he actually thinks licking the boots of his oppressors is going to gain him their “love and understanding.” (The rest of us know how foolish that is.)

Your spastic attempts to marginalize and demonize WN has failed in the men’s movement. We are the future of that movement, for the simple reason that White men (and others) who see through feminist lies see through it for a reason. They are, for whatever reason, capable of recognizing truth. And they can see that we are telling them the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But don’t let that stop your fear/hate mongering.

-Russ

So, coming onto another person’s site ignoring the comment policy and insulting his readers is how you propose to advance your cause? Good luck with that…

ode July 14, 2012 at 04:39

Keyster

It’s not until you get older, more mature and begin thinking for yourself rather than “with” the group, that you realize it’s brainwashing, a scam packaged to young idealists, women and minorities that government is a benevolent entity which always has the best interests of the citizenry at heart – – if only you’d allow it to get bigger so it can do more for you.

While at work in the break room during lunch time, I was minding my own business or at least that was the impression I was hoping to advertise. In reality I was keenly observing everybody in the room. There was a stack of newspapers on the table with a bold title on top, “Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County”
One of my co-workers, a Black lady, had a look of complete digust on her face when she read the newspaper. Oops I guess she’d make a poor poker player. This conforms my theory that Black people only advocate “Liberal” government spending so long as it’s Whitey that’s footing the bill and it’s Black people getting the welfare. Black people don’t want their taxes going to other people.
The Hispanic lady sitting next by said nothing but she obviously saw the look on the Black lady’s face. The Asian guy sitting to my left had his earphones set on high while listening on his ipod. He NEVER said much of anything while in the breakroom but I’ve always suspected he had plans. I never liked the guy, he always acted like he was too good to be around everyon else. Next month my suspicions were validated, he got a new job and left but didn’t tell anyone until literally his last day on the job. It seems this Asian guy likes to take the advice of Sun Tzu, “Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

You’re right Keyster there’s a whole lot of brainwashing that goes on in college. My self hating white college professor believed that non-whites thought of themselves as belonging to some type of rainbow coalition because they all shared a common history of supposedly being oppressed by white wickedness. This professor may be book smart but when it comes to street smarts he’s an idiot who knows nothing. There is no multi-culturalism black, latino, asian, non-white coalition.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Buddy Guy July 14, 2012 at 04:54

“Your spastic attempts to marginalize and demonize WN has failed in the men’s movement. ”
– Russ

Hey Russ, you know what? Fuck Hitler. That’s right, I said it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 12
Opus July 14, 2012 at 05:07

I’ve just noticed that at 7.24 on the 13th I am asked by Anonymous to pick one leader who would have been better than Churchill in the second world war. I had better attempt an answer (though I am not sure why it is being asked).

I am no fan of Churchill and in ones alternative history, ww2 might have been over by 1940 to everyone’s advantage. In those circumsatnaces however may I recommend that most underestimated of British Prime Minister’s Neville Chamberlain, the man who declared war on Germany in 1939. If that is not a good enough answer then how about the Deputy Prime Minister Clement Attlee who had the good sense to send his daughter to my Mother’s old school and is coincidentally with Panjit Nehriu a member of my own Inn (inner temple).

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7
Buddy Guy July 14, 2012 at 05:24

Russ, concerning the war between YOUR Hitler and MY United States of America, how did your side go so wrong? It seemed like you and Adolf(enemy of nearly all White people) were going to have the upper hand.

I must say that a part of me sympathizes with you. I don’t know what it’s like to have my favorite author be a suicidal artsy vegetarian leather-fetishist hobo childless wifeless tubby nerd-rage dude who failed so abjectly, despite the extra motivation from the suicides of his dog and ex-girlfriend.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 16
Art Vandelay July 14, 2012 at 05:39

Your spastic attempts to marginalize and demonize WN has failed in the men’s movement. We are the future of that movement, for the simple reason that White men (and others) who see through feminist lies see through it for a reason.

You are on the way out. You can’t increase your ranks through reproduction alone because there aren’t a lot of white women in your movement, so many of the groups you hate (except maybe those Jews) are outbreeding you. That’s why you are trying to get on top of topics that other groups (esp. conservatives) are too afraid to touch, like men’s rights or immigration (in Europe).

Most people I know don’t feel threatened by homosexuals or Jews or blacks or the Illuminati (if the stories were true I’d ask where I can join them) or whoever. So why take on those groups when you already got one big enemy to concern yourself with (feminism). when many of them are facing the same problems?

Feminism was mainly created by white women to gain even more privilege.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 11
Art Vandelay July 14, 2012 at 05:45

The Guest Blogger was no less entertaining. She discusses the first thought that occurs to any woman when approached by a man: “Will this man rape me?”

Well the comments are closed there, and I didn’t read a lot of it because I don’t want to vomit without a night of boozing beforehand.

How can she be so paranoid? Maybe don’t go out with sex offenders or thugs, the likelihood of getting raped is far lower then, although it’s not as thrilling.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6
American July 14, 2012 at 06:15

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 34
Russ July 14, 2012 at 07:55

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 40
Lyn87 July 14, 2012 at 07:58

Your spastic attempts … don’t let that stop your fear/hate mongering.

Cool! Nobody has called me a “spaz” since 7th Grade. It’s like I get to relive my youth.

And I get to be called a fear/hate monger by a guy who thinks “Triumph of the Will” was an unbiased documentary. Oh the delicious irony of it all!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 10
The Whammer July 14, 2012 at 08:03

Discussion of the MRM as a ‘hate movement’.
You and Russ wouldn’t know each other, perchance, would you, David?

You and everyone else should probably just ignore Futrelle and not even mention his name. He has a handful of wackos who post on his blog and there’s no point in wasting time arguing with any of them or trying to refute any of his dopey comments about the MRM that he cherry picks from around the net without even knowing if the commenter is some troll or agent provacateur. If you’ve ever read the comments on his blog they are from the same handful of lesbians,females who ride the fatmobile at the food store and are “depressed” (about being fat lol) and think they are entitled to disability, females who have no idea what sex they are and refer to normal people as “cis”, and pussy whipped sissies and manginas. Not exactly a cross section of opinion here when you consider that lesbians are like 1 in 200-300 and transsexuals are between 1 in 50k and 1 in 100k.
Little David will also erase and ban any comment that doesn’t fit into the stupid groupthink there and believe me these girls are dumb as rocks. Even when these “girls” try some humour or sarcasm it sounds like something from a 5yo and falls flat. David apparently has no life or anything else to do so he reads every comment and will ban those he doesn’t like. Price allows anyone to post but this sometimes permits people to write things that will discredit the MRM which little David will then pounce on and use as an example against the MRM. Personally I think that Welmer should delete comments from people who write things that may discredit the men’s movement and also those that just ramble on in some long confused post that makes no sense. These are private blogs and the owner may do anything he chooses.
I noticed that Futrell (if it’s the same person) has written some articles for Money magazine. Money is sort of a quasi “financial” magazine for the proles akin to Reader’s Digest but even here the comments under any of his articles are like 10-1 against what he has written.
David should just be ignored and relegated along with his weird readers to the lunatic fringe.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 4
Dudeist Priest Applicant July 14, 2012 at 08:16

“and believe me these girls are dumb as rocks.”

Your negativity isn’t helping their self-esteem. It’s already under heavy attack(by paranoia,) so you’re now offering yourself as an easy target to blame all their problems on. I would rather say these girls are as smart as rocks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
The Whammer July 14, 2012 at 08:33

@ Buddy-you and this guy Russ seem to be obsessed with Hitler and things that happened in the past. Hitler’s been dead for 70 years and Nazism collapsed immediately.
So I wouldn’t expect tosee any monster rallies with guys in blacck uniforms playing Ompah music anytime soon lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
The Whammer July 14, 2012 at 08:58

@ Russ-who’s stopping you from living where you want to? Or forming a club where you can choose its members?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
The Whammer July 14, 2012 at 08:59

I would rather say these girls are as smart as rocks.

I stand corrected :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
The Whammer July 14, 2012 at 09:22

Would you care to let us all in on the secret? Most white grrrlz I know hate men.

Eric, I don’t know where you live but you may want to associate with a better class of females if you believe that. I’ve never experienced any hostility from females just because I’m Male.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
American July 14, 2012 at 10:03

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 31
Josh the Aspie July 14, 2012 at 12:26

You know, all this talk about whites vrs jews… I find it confusing. I thought jews were white, along with the Irish, Itallians, the Spanish, and Russians, among others.

As far as conenctions between modern secular Jews and Socialism, that seems more plausible to me. Even for folks sympathetic to the cause of the state of Israel, and the continuation of the Jewish race, there is a fair amount of evidence.

Alan Dershowitz argues in “The Case for Israel” that the Jews who went on to re-found Israel were a combination of two groups. The first was Sheperdic jews who, as communities, had continued to live in that land since before the Roman occupation. The second were a group of idealistic socialists, coming back to Israel from the remainder of Europe, fleeing persecution.

Israel seems to be a rather socialist nation, supported not entirely, but in in large extent by money coming in from the diaspora. Otherwise I doubt it could sustain it’s military strength.

Secular Jews in America also vote overwhelmingly for the democratic party, which has largely been defined for quite some time now by progressivism, facism, and socialism.

I’m really not sure why modern secular Jews seem to so strongly prefer socialism, but the link does seem to be there.

That said, I do not intend to treat people of other races as my enemies based on the color of their skin. But there are idealogs that hold unreasonable sway among some other racial groups, who need to be called out and fought, just as we need to fight idealogs like the feminists. Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson (sr and jr), the Black Panthers, and La Raza all come to mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Russ July 14, 2012 at 12:41

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 36
Suz July 14, 2012 at 13:21

No Russ. I think it’s more that you’ve lost your credibility among people who DO care about everybody’s rights. Then you made it worse by backpedaling with a line like:

“Nationalism is simply the traditional, age-old idea that most people prefer to live among people of their own nation — and that they have the right to do so.”

Riiiiight. Just like feminism is simply the means by which women try to gain the same rights as men.

Do you really think you’re fooling anyone?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 12
Russ July 14, 2012 at 13:40

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 32
Eric July 14, 2012 at 13:42

Whammer:
‘You and everyone else should just ignore Futrelle.’

A lot of people say so, but consider this:

1. In today’s mass-media corporate culture, men like Futrelle don’t rise to positions of prominence without a strong streak of ruthlessness.

2. A fair percentage of clowns have been known to wear masks for reasons other than entertainment.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Eric July 14, 2012 at 13:45

Whammer:
‘I don’t know where you live…but I’ve never experienced hotility from females just because I’m male.’

Instead—tell me where you live! I’ll start looking for a moving company and look into real estate there!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Eric July 14, 2012 at 13:49

Russ:
Your hero Hitler played this victim card and divide-and-conquer game just as much as the Marxists do. Hegel, Marx, and Engels were all Germans and invented the whole technique. Hitler was better than most of accusing his enemies of doing what he was doing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 9
Russ July 14, 2012 at 13:53

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 38
Eric July 14, 2012 at 14:00

Russ:

‘…in exactly the same way that Men’s Rights Activists hate women.’

Nice baiting job. You just gave away the game that you’re a feminist plant.

See the trap here, everybody? ‘We’re really no different about race than you are about gender, are we?’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 9
W.F. Price July 14, 2012 at 14:03

White Rights Advocates hate non-Whites in exactly the same way that Men’s Rights Activists hate women.

-Russ

That’s where you’re wrong, Russ. Most of us don’t hate women (some do), but rather feminism. In fact, most of us have women in our lives that we love.

This is a really big difference between the two causes.

But anyway, no more proselytizing white nationalism. Just got back from hanging out with the kids, and don’t want to see any more of it. It doesn’t belong here.

Suz July 14, 2012 at 15:05

“White Rights Advocates hate non-Whites in exactly the same way that Men’s Rights Activists hate women.”

…and the wide-eyed innocent ones who, gosh, don’t hate non-whites at all, tell the rest of us, “That’s not what it’s about! I’m a NICE White Rights Activist!”

Some of the rest of us are smart enough to look at the leadership.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 11
Eric July 14, 2012 at 15:15

Suz:
What Russ was doing was triangulating. First, he poses as someone sympathetic to the MRM to gain attention. Then, announces he’s a white supremacist. Then, he tries to draw everyone into a discussion about how racism and the men’s movement are supposedly similar.

I’ve seen feminist trolls do this on other blogs. One recently elsewhere was running the same ploy—then suddenly advocated that men should be allowed to have sex and marry pre-pubescent girls. When he got called on it, he tried to argue that men who liked younger women were ‘really no different’ than what he was proposing.

It’s a scam these people run to discredit the MRM. The kind of effort involved in things like this just show how concerned anti-MRM elements are about us.

It’s

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 8
Suz July 14, 2012 at 16:14

I’ve seen it too, Eric, and I figured it was just kooks and outliers looking for coattails to ride into legitimacy. You make a good point though, about using the tactic to discredit the MRM. Thanks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 10
Russ July 14, 2012 at 17:38

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 31
W.F. Price July 14, 2012 at 17:56

@Russ

Dude, Jews do not rule you. If you think they do, you’ve got to get some perspective. Give me a break…

As for Jewish involvement in media, it’s because they were motivated to get involved. Most white gentiles could give a damn about what’s on TV.

If you really want to add to the discourse, start your own media business, and make it palatable. BTW, palatable does not include insane rantings about Jews and blacks, and creepy overtures to “beautiful Aryan women.”

Now why don’t you go find a Jewish guy you can talk to? You know, if you’ve got so many questions about Jews, why not go to the source and ask them yourself? That’s what I do, and I’ve found that for the most part I get along with them fine, and I don’t have to kiss ass. Jews are not weird supernatural beings. They are – believe it or not – pretty normal guys when you get down to it.

Russ July 14, 2012 at 18:16

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 36
Eric July 14, 2012 at 18:28

Price:
This guy is throwing out so many corny stereotypes, he doesn’t even do a credible job of posing as an anti-Semite.

Who do you think put him up to this? LOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 11
Russ July 14, 2012 at 18:44

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 36
Eric July 14, 2012 at 19:01

Suz:
I forgot to mention the fourth part of the pattern: as soon as the moderator clamped on the other troll, out came the mock indignation and ‘you people think you’re so good’ ploy.

These guys are totally predictable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 10
Suz July 14, 2012 at 19:36

That’s some serious paranoia right there. Is this the Twilight Zone?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 11
JoshtheAspie July 14, 2012 at 19:44

I personally find the evolving branch of the conversation to be quite saddening.

In general, the political eliete try to establish, and maintain controll. Jews may have managed to penetrate that circle, but that doesn’t mean that such a circle is made up of, or dominated by Jews. Further, the every day, average jewish man is probably about as likely to suffer at the hands of feminism as is any other man. If the Jews, as a whole, were responsible for feminism, then that’d have to be a pretty dumb and masochistic move to make.

That said, there are extreme similarities between what is happening to men at the hands of Afirmative Action, and what is happening to white people at the hands of Afirmative Action including the jews. In both cases, it is socially acceptable, and even mandated by the government that white people and men be discriminated against in favor of other groups.

Prejudice against any group, mandated by the government, is a pretty crappy policy to hold. I wouldn’t support a government policy that black people had to give up a seat on a bus to give deference to white people. But I also am not going to support a government policy that a white person has to give up his seat at a college in order to give that seat to a black person, or an asian person. Nor a man (black or white) have to give his seat in a math classroom up in order to give it to a woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 7
The Whammer July 14, 2012 at 20:55

@Eric

“Take a lesson from the Romans. Their Founding Fathers raided the Sabines for wives when their own were insufficient for the future of the Roman civilization”

They always refer to this as the “Rape of the Sabine Women” but in reality that’s not what happened. As usual with females it took a little bribing. Before the Republic there was a Kingdom and the king went to the Sabines and offered the females marriage, citizenship of Rome, property etc.

“OK girls this is what we have.Nice running water so you don’t have to haul it from the well;hot tubs and baths so you don’t have to freeze your arse off in winter up here in the hills washing at the river; good wine and food and not that porridge you’re living on; this new stuff called silk they we got from some Mongol trader so you don’t have to wear that rough burlap anymore; this stuff we call makeup that we got from some Syrian that you put on your face to make yourself look hot ; nice handmade Italian sandels for the Summer and these things we all sockus to keep your feet warm in winter; and these shiney stones called diamonds you can wear. And that’s just some of the stuff we have.
Girls, you going to love Rome.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
andybob July 14, 2012 at 21:30

“We don’t have anything against Jews…” Russ

Is that a quote from “Mein Kampf”?

I’m sure the KKK didn’t have anything against blacks either – they just thought blacks looked more picturesque hanging from mimosa-covered oaks than as unmolested members of a free society. Nothing personal.

Surely he must have heard radical feminists claim that they don’t have anything against men. It’s one of their favourite lies. That is how bigots deceive themselves that they are righteous. Mr Eric has laid out the pattern of trollish behaviour. The final stage is to acuse everyone else of being the’real’ bigots before melting in a puddle of indignation (indigwhitenation?)

Most Spearhead commenters come here precisely because it not an echo chamber. The commenters I respect the most are those who don’t deceive themselves. They consider different viewpoints fairly and admit when they’re wrong. This is a grown-up venue where BS gets called out very quickly (Rob, Crella, Ted, Eric, Suz, Opus, Darryl X, Lyn87, Just1X, Rocco, Charles Martel and Mr Price himself are world-class BS detectors – good luck getting past these guys).

Attempting a variety of tactics to sell snake oil – the triangulation suggested by Mr Eric – looks desperate and shady. Just say what you mean, and mean what you say. Stop trying to peddle and pitch.

How ironic that, by the end of the thread, it was Mr JoshtheAspie who gave “Russ” the best lesson in how to make a valid and reasonable argument against anti-white policies. He points out that AA is a policy that disadvantages whites and has no more credence than policies forcing non-white people to sit in the back of buses.

Mr JoshtheAspie is entirely correct. He made the kind of point “Russ” was probably trying to make, but couldn’t because he kept tripping over his own bigotry (against Jews whom he has nothing against). Mr JoshtheAspie didn’t have to pretend that didn’t have anything against anybody, because he doesn’t, and his comments reflect this.

By accusing Mr Price that he is too “immature” to handle the “truth” about ‘Jewish Power”, “Russ” has shattered his credibility beyond repair. With the wealth of various opinions and insight offered on Mr Price’s site over the years, the only idea that”Russ” has picked up is that “MRAs hate women”. He is very eager to claim that we are fellow haters in order to justify himself – or perhaps he just hasn’t been paying attention.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 11
Russ July 14, 2012 at 22:34

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 30
Eric July 14, 2012 at 22:43

Russ:
‘Two important media events occurred.’

So much for Jewish control over the media. lol

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 7
Eric July 14, 2012 at 22:47

Whammer:
True, the Romans embellished the story a bit—but the point is that if foreign girls were good enough for the Romans, they’re good enough Americans too.

We should do our part to live up to the legacy of Rome LOL

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
Eric July 14, 2012 at 22:53

Andybob:
‘The triangulation looks…desperate and shady.’

Especially the shady part.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6
Creek July 15, 2012 at 06:56

andybob said:

With the wealth of various opinions and insight offered on Mr Price’s site over the years, the only idea that”Russ” has picked up is that “MRAs hate women”. He is very eager to claim that we are fellow haters in order to justify himself – or perhaps he just hasn’t been paying attention.

I think you’ve missed the point Russ was trying to make. He was simply comparing the way MRAs are characterized by their opponents as “misogynists” (and thus stripped of credibility can then be safely sidelined and ignored as hateful lunatics) to the way WNs are typically described – and therefore similarly silenced and dismissed – as “racists” or “Nazis”.

Read what he said again:

The White Rights Movement is trying to regain rights for Whites in exactly the same way the Men’s Rights Movement is trying to regain rights for men.

And just like the Men’s Rights Movement we have to deal with the same powerful enemies who, through their control of the media, are able to convince others that we are “haters.”

White Rights Advocates hate non-Whites in exactly the same way that Men’s Rights Activists hate women.

“White Rights Advocates hate non-Whites in exactly the same way that Men’s Rights Activists hate women.” In other words, they don’t.

Pretty obvious, I thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
Art Vandelay July 15, 2012 at 08:03

How can she be so paranoid? Maybe don’t go out with sex offenders or thugs, the likelihood of getting raped is far lower then, although it’s not as thrilling.

David Cross also has some worthwhile advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh4I1Yqq7EM&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Professor Woland July 15, 2012 at 09:02

Men are achievement oriented while women are status oriented. Men who cannot achieve, and hence secure an adequate place on the dominance hierarchy, are reduced to in essence to playing from the ladies tees. To win in this ersatz league, manginas are forced to compete for status which is always a zero sum game. But unlike the big leagues, they can gain by another man’s loss just as easily as by their own accomplishments. So for instance, it makes perfect sense to support a progressive income tax because not only to you get more free stuff but your competitor has less.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
David F. July 15, 2012 at 09:12

Russ,

If you were working for the SPLC or ADL and your goal were to make racially concerned whites look like obnoxious fools, you could hardly be doing a better job than you are now.

Plenty of readers of the Spearhead understand the issues you raise very well. We just don’t want to read Stormfront-style rants that have no relevance to the topic at hand and needlessly alienate readers and potential allies.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6
Mikhael Varpole July 15, 2012 at 11:24

Have any of you spent time in Boobzland’s comments section? I urge you, if you find yourself with a spare hour or two, to check it out. It’s a drop-dead hilarious collection of pseudointellectuals and cringing toadies who offer choruses of “yeah!” to back up said psuedointellectuals.

They’ve all spent way too long patting each other on the back and knocking down easy targets (the only trolls Futrelle allows are obvious kooks, because we can’t have any substantial challenges, now can we). It’s actually kind of fascinating; an echo chamber with a specialized chute to allow the occasional strawman in. They’ve become so puffed up in their own sense of awesome self-righteousness that they’ve become a parody to any rational onlookers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Classic Joe July 15, 2012 at 14:18

@Chris

That feminist men wouldn’t have the status they do if they weren’t feminists. This is a very specific example of generally observable human nature. Why are so many academics commies? Because in that setting academic types run the show. They’re smart enough to realize that it isn’t some noble humanitarian urge that makes them support communism. It’s just what’s best for their group. I tend to think that the Republican/Democrat distinction is made mostly by what clique you were in when you were about 12. This is how people work. Not many people care what is true or fair or in the best interest of humanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
JoeS July 15, 2012 at 14:35

There are two kinds. Those raised by single mother or in female dominated households where they are taught to hate men. Then there are the powerful types who cynically promote feminism out of hatred of most men and hatred of the traditional model of family life. It’s from the latter group that impetus for feminism is coming from, it’s from the former group that popular support comes from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Classic Joe July 15, 2012 at 15:09

@Chris, @Ted, what’s the difference? Clearly I’m not clear on it. Who is Chris? Why am I addressing him? I don’t know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
Classic Joe July 15, 2012 at 15:46

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 22
Ted July 15, 2012 at 18:38

“@Chris, @Ted, what’s the difference? ”

Chris has one more letter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Ted July 15, 2012 at 18:45

@Professor Woland July 15, 2012 at 09:02
[Men compete]
” But unlike the big leagues, they can gain by another man’s loss just as easily as by their own accomplishments.”

I think this is it. Also, you can choose the sport you compete in, which in this case is the Big Man supporting the Little Woman. On one side, both items can be manipulated – the Bigger the better, and the Littler the better. On the other side, competing men can be talked down as deadbeats, child molesters, rapists, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Eric July 15, 2012 at 19:08

Classic Joe:
99% of supposed Jewish power has been bestowed on them by anti-semites. The only reason the Jews seem influential at all is because they were better at preserving their traditions than other ancient cultures.

If you read Tacitus objectively, it’s obvious that by the time of Trajan, the majority of Roman scholars were not even agreed on the history of the Jews. Even Josephus admits that Jewish literary output was pathethically small compared to other ancient authors. By Domitian’s reign, there were more Christians than Jews in Rome.

During the Middle Ages, the Jewish Diaspora was mostly confined to urban ghettos in Europe and isolated communities in the Moslem countries.

Even today there are more Jews living in New York City than living in Israel. The Jews are just barely a majority even in Israel right now. That country is not even close to a world ‘superpower’.

That’s the point. The Jews have NEVER been a world power. Never. To argue about a Jewish world-government is about as plausible as arguing that the American Indians are planning to take North America back from the white man. It’s not even mathematically possible.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7
Russ July 16, 2012 at 05:49

David F. July 15, 2012 at 09:12
Plenty of readers of the Spearhead understand the issues you raise very well. We just don’t want to read Stormfront-style rants that have no relevance to the topic at hand and needlessly alienate readers and potential allies.

I could write volumes on why you’re wrong, but, instead, I’ll just say this: There’s a group of folks who have employed the failed “wait and hope for the enlightenment of our enemies” strategy, you suggest, for more than half a century now — they call themselves Republicans.

I’ll paraphrase Edmund Burke, the man many consider the father of modern conservatism on that strategy: All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to say nothing.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17
Firepower July 16, 2012 at 08:11

andyboob: The MRM draws strength from its diversity because feminists love to dismiss us as a bunch of angry, white guys.

That Diversity’s really workin’ out for ya.

You guys really tear up the Legislature and Media with all your colored pals.

Keep up the good work.
Great Job!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15
Peter South July 16, 2012 at 10:21

That’s the point. The Jews have NEVER been a world power. Never. To argue about a Jewish world-government is about as plausible as arguing that the American Indians are planning to take North America back from the white man. It’s not even mathematically possible.

Get real man, all our politicians are vetted by the Jewish lobby. You have a very hard time getting elected if you’re not on board with that agenda.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11
Eric July 16, 2012 at 13:22

Let’s look at the history of the Jews:

Outside of non-Jewish writings, they are barely mentioned until after their return from the Babylonian Exile. Herodotus doesn’t mention them. They were a small kingdom, under the vassalage of Egypt and Assyria. They were deported by the Babylonians, resettled by the Persians as a tributary province. Then, they were conquered by the Greeks, then the Romans. In 71 AD, they were dispersed until 1948. Since then then, they’ve fought five wars to mainatin their independence and make up about 65% of the population of their own country right now.

Jews make up less than 1% of the world’s total population. There are cities in China alone larger than the entire population of world Jewry combined.

Tell us how they are going to take over the world? This is starting to sound on about the same level as the Mayan Prophecy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Russ July 16, 2012 at 15:27

@Eric, Lyn87, Suz, andybob, Buddy Guy, the Whammer and others who rushed in at the mere mention of Jewish Power to create an irrational echo chamber intended to deny it’s very existence, I ask you this:

Since we know that the establishment is promoting feminism at the expense of men, if it turned-out that Jews do dominate the establishment and therefore are responsible for “empowering” the feminists, would that be alright by you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15
W.F. Price July 16, 2012 at 16:19

Since we know that the establishment is promoting feminism at the expense of men, if it turned-out that Jews do dominate the establishment and therefore are responsible for “empowering” the feminists, would that be alright by you?

-Russ

Sigh…

Russ, because they are more educated than the general population and concentrated in large cities, Jewish women are disproportionately feminist. However, guess who pays the heaviest personal price for this. Is it you? Is it me?

Why, no, it is Jewish men and children. Of all the men I’ve known whose wives left them for women (there was a lot of this when I was a kid in the 80s), taking their children in the process, the majority were Jewish. Given how few Jewish people there are here in the NW, that’s really saying something. Feminism has absolutely devastated the secular Jewish community, and looks like it will eventually annihilate it. So, if you really hate Jews, you should applaud the rampant feminism in the Jewish community.

When a crappy ideology like feminism takes hold in the Jewish population, they are at least as affected by it as gentiles. Don’t think when you see some ethnically Jewish a-hole like Michael Kimmel taking potshots at men in general that he is doing it “for the Jews” — in most cases these guys are doing it for themselves. They are charlatans, not “mensches.”

Eric July 16, 2012 at 18:20

Price:
A lot of people focus on the Jews without realizing their history and apparent successes have been common to other races as well. One ancient culture had a movement during the 1920s and 1930s for recovering its homeland in the Middle East. The British partitioned the land; gave them their home, and they fought wars to insure their independence. Their leaders are among the wealthiest and most influential in the world today.

Am I descibing the Jews? No. I’m describing the Kuwaitis. Iraqi propaganda claimed too, that Kuwait was part of an ‘international conspiracy.’

This is an example of how these theories can spun against any group for any reason.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Eric July 17, 2012 at 02:45

Flowerpower writes:
‘That diversity’s really working out for ya.’

You jokers all seem laboring under some kind of delusion that once the MRM is ‘purified’ things will straighten themselves out. White women are not reproducing with white men in the Anglosphere. The mathematics alone ought to tell you that the white race (in our cultural demographic) is NOT sustainable.

You need to be worrying about purifying white women, because as things stand now, no self-respecting white guy wants anything to do with them.

Are you guys trying to reverse the feminist model, that if there are few enough white guys around, the white goddesses are come flocking back to us? Dream on. It won’t happen and they’re not worth it anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
American July 17, 2012 at 07:01

I believe the that the Empowerment of the white gender-raunch community (at the expense of basic legal protections for heter0-males), will only go so far.
Many countries (China and Russia) will wander how a small group of the White Gender-Raunch community got so powerful over other groups in the US???
I will tell the truth here, and the truth is revolutionary…The White gender, gender-raunch community got so powerful in the US by “Inflaming” their way to empowerment by the strategic use of faulty and inflammatory agitation propaganda promoted at the University level.
American Gender, Gender-Raunch feminism “took steroids” so to speak, when they created their manufactured statistics Alliance with American law enforcement 25 years ago. The question is, how “Empowered” are US gender-Raunch going to get, at the expense of the basic legal protections for NON gender-Raunch., And is this manufactured statistics Alliance between gender-Raunch and US law enforcement constitutional???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12
American July 17, 2012 at 07:03

wow price, it seems that many here want to censor the truth as much as possible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11
American July 17, 2012 at 07:12

How convenient that the white gender-Raunch community who have near complete hegemony over American Universities and main stream American media, can create a widespread broken black (and now white trailer park) matriarchal underclass communities , and blame it on “patriarchy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
Russ July 17, 2012 at 08:57

Come on kids, it was an easy question.

We know you don’t want White women running White countries, and I’m with ya there.

But is it ok for Jewish males to run White countries?

How ’bout black males? or brown?

We reserve Asian countries to Asian peoples and African countries to African peoples, but White countries are for everyone — is that fair? Over the last half century or so — despite the fact that “diversity is our strength” — Whites have been forced out of the leadership of Asian and African countries, while at the same time promoted into the leadership positions of White countries, again, is that fair?

This is important to the MRM, because it shows that there is a connection between the “empowerment” of non-Whites and the “empowerment” of women. Since that connection is a shared enabler, it would behoove us, in the MRM, to understand who that enabler is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11
Peter South July 17, 2012 at 11:42

We reserve Asian countries to Asian peoples and African countries to African peoples, but White countries are for everyone — is that fair?

How dare you, white people can’t be allowed to have their own countries and control who gets in just like everyone else does that’s preposterous.

No more of that filth from you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
Peter South July 17, 2012 at 11:54

Jews make up less than 1% of the world’s total population. There are cities in China alone larger than the entire population of world Jewry combined.

Tell us how they are going to take over the world? This is starting to sound on about the same level as the Mayan Prophecy.

Except that they control the US and Israel and by extension most of the nations in the UN since combined they can veto any resolution condemning Israel.

Where are the UN inspectors for Israels nukes everyone knows they have but are off limits to talk about? Yeah.

That’s how weak they are, control most of the media and control the world. Where are all the news stories calling for inspection of Israels nuclear facilities? In the garbage bin, along with the career of any journalist who dares breathe a word about it.

Not to mention anyone who questions the official holocaust story gets thrown in jail in some countries. Yeah they sure are powerless.

Your nonsense about numbers is a straw man. It doesn’t fool anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9
Eric July 17, 2012 at 13:39

Peter South:
But going back to what I mentioned, can’t everything you just said be just as applicable to Kuwait? What happens to anyone in the media who dares question whether or not the Iraqi War was justified?

A huge percentage of shares in the US media (19% of Newscorp) is owned by an Emir in the UAE who’s related to the Kuwaiti Royal Family.

I don’t believe there’s an ‘International Kuwaiti Conspiracy’, but do you see that one could be made by the same standards you’re holding the Jews to? Things aren’t always how they look on the surface.

And going back to China—do you think the Chinese government is the least bit concerned with ‘Jewish Power’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Russ July 17, 2012 at 15:07

Eric,

Your analogies are growing more desperate each post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10
Eric July 18, 2012 at 01:31

Russ,
LOL so is your trolling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Russ July 18, 2012 at 08:11

The truth is never desperate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Jack Donovan July 28, 2012 at 23:12

Exactly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan July 28, 2012 at 23:16

Where does this “tools of feminism” meme come from? When I was talking to someone from the Good Men Project, this came up.

Feminism has no “tools.”

Men make “tools.”

(Occasionally — actually often — men ARE tools)

Feminism offers paths of submission and compromise. Its “tools” are various ways to accept defeat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: