More Necessary Than Ever

by Elusive Wapiti on August 7, 2012

Feminist blogger and professor Hugo Schwyzer, writing about the three men who died shielding their girlfriends from a killer’s bullets during the Aurora Century 16 Theater shooting, suggests the reason why men should be willing to die for women is because women sometimes die for men in childbirth (HT: TrollKing):

The reality is that these sacrificial gestures, as impressive and touching as they are, belong to a tradition that dates back to an era when far more women died for men than vice-versa. Until the advent of modern medicine, childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women; a conservative estimate places the historic rate of maternal mortality at 1 for every 100 births. Even now, at least 800 women die worldwide every day as a consequence of childbirth.

Throughout human history, more women have died giving birth than male soldiers have died in war. As a result, in many places, women had shorter life expectancies than men. The ubiquity of “wicked stepmothers” in old fairy tales is a subtle reminder of these high rates of maternal death. From a purely demographic standpoint, it was women whose bodies were more vulnerable and disposable.

Every woman who dies in childbirth dies as a result of sex with a man. Vaginal intercourse with a man was—and in many places still is—one of the riskiest activities in which any woman could engage. Though the pleasure in the act may have at least occasionally been equal, the risk never was. Throughout Western culture, when women died in childbirth they died not only as a direct consequence of sex with men, they died giving life to children who would carry their husbands’ name. While even in more violent eras, relatively few husbands would be called upon to lay down their lives for their wives, every pregnant woman knew she stood a fair chance of dying so that her husband’s family’s name could go on. If we look at all of recorded human history and ask “Who died more often for whom?” the evidence is that women made the ultimate sacrifice more frequently.

From an historical context, the kind of male gallantry we saw in Aurora is both compensatory and rarely required.  When they reacted heroically to the start of the shooting, McQuinn, Blunk, and Teves surely weren’t thinking “I’m covering my girlfriend with my body because of the risks she might take in childbirth.” But the reason why we celebrate their undeniable bravery, the reason it strikes such a chord in us, may well be because it appeals to an ancient, partly-buried sense of fairness. In other words, perhaps on a subconscious level we still cling to the idea that men should be willing to die for women not because men are worth less, but because women have died so much more often for men.

For starters, Mr. Schwyzer’s fundamental premise, that more women historically have died from giving birth to the next generation of humanity than men did in warfare is false.  His statistic regarding the worldwide historic rate of maternal mortality–1%–appears to be far lower–on the order of an order of magnitude or more–than the historic rate of male mortality due to violent conflict. An easy mistake to make, if for no other reason than the modern world is much less violent than it used to be, but a mistake nonetheless. Thus, while the mortality rate for men in war has fallen in the last 100 years (despite the horribly efficient lethality of modern warfare), the advent of penicillin has slashed the mortality rate for mothers comparably more in the last century.  This is evinced by the death toll of women in childbirth cited by Mr. Schwyzer–800 women worldwide, per year–a number so low relative to the number of men killed in inter-group warfare each year around the world that I won’t even bother to research a precise figure.

This brings me to my next critique of Mr. Schwyzer’s essay…he implies a duty for the men of a developed country–in this case, the United States–to willingly sacrifice their lives for that of American women, using maternal mortality numbers from un- and under-developed countries as justification.  Trouble is, these regions of the world are places where life for both men and women is much more nasty, brutish, and short.  With all due respect to Mr. Schwyzer, this attempt at apples to oranges comparison does not pass muster.  At most, Third World maternal mortality may be used to browbeat Third World men into “manning up”, as it were, to notions of Western chivalry.  Yet as the Third World is literally littered with the graves of men who die for their families and societies, there is little need for Mr. Schwyzer to goad them further.

Third, Mr. Schwyzer exaggerates in his account of why women conceive and bear children.  He seems to think that women go through childbirth as a favor to men, that somehow women volunteer to risk their lives, so as to bring children into the world for the sole benefit of men.  Yet we see that, in a world with various methods of birth control and, failing that, abortion of the inconvenient, there are not many places in this world where a woman brings a child to term that she herself does not desire. Whatever benefit men secure from childbirth–parallelling the input they have in the decision that their child lives or dies in utero–is merely peripheral under this calculus. As a consequence, I suspect that childbirth, grueling and painful as it can be, is as much for the mother-to-be as it is for the father, and is probably more so.

With these three critiques–false maternal/male warfare mortality data, applying Third World maternal mortality data to justify first world male behavior vis-a-vis first world women, and selfish, rather than magnanimous female rationales for childbearing–Mr. Schwyzer’s thesis quickly flames out.

Shifting gears toward the socio-political angle, one thing I found interesting about Mr. Schwyzer’s essay hitching Messrs McQuinn, Blunk and Teves’ act of self-sacrifice to the Lifeboat Feminism mule-cart, is how their very selflessness undermines the sort of equalitarianism to which Mr. Schwyzer subscribes. For these three men’s sacrifice is evidence that, despite the multiple generations-long feminist campaign to eradicate masculinity and bring about a shiny happy androgynous matriarchal society, the instinct of the male to protect his woman and family is still very much alive.  It is written on the hearts of men to protect their mate, family, tribe, and home, and that the three unrelated female companions of these three men are still alive today are a testament to that uniquely male drive. (I note here no Aurora woman shielded their boyfriend or husband from the shooter’s bullets).  Contra Mr. Schwyzer, just as women give birth out of self-interest, a man’s instinct to protect has very little to do with a subconscious sense of cosmic fairness. It is instinctual. Not automatic, mind you, but a strong predisposition nevertheless, and most certainly not a social construct.  For if it were, due to the social engineering efforts of Mr. Schwyzer’s ideological fellow travellers, in a society that boasts a sub-replacement birthrate (1 in 5 women will never have children), epidemic female serial monogamy, and easy divorce with cash and prizes for choice mommies, these men would likely have never given a second thought of sacrificing their lives to protect women who, odds are, will not hold up their end of the grand social bargain. Rather, they would have abandoned these women to the fate that equality demands…every person for him- and herself.  Like this guy, who I note was roundly denounced by both men and women.

I also note that this latter fellow, this equalitarian guy, remains alive to propagate his genes, and is scheduled to marry later this year the woman and children he left behind in that dark theater.

This brings me to my last point, the hoary notion of the disposable male.  While Mr. Schwyzer is superficially correct that societies on the edge of survival must protect their womenfolk, once a society achieves a certain number of breeding pairs, the need to protect the women at the expense of men falls away.  After that population level, men and women are both resources to be conserved in equal measure.  This is because, while the need for women as gestators of the next generation is obvious, the need for men wrt follow-on generations is less clear but no less necessary. A society cannot easily suffer the widescale loss of its men, be it by violence, incarceration, dissipation, or disenfranchisement.  Each man, the carrier of civilization by dint of his created nature, is, today more than ever, necessary. Particularly those well-socialized men inclined to husband their women, children, and families. Specific to us as Americans, what do we need more of at this moment in time? More women whelping children irresponsibly? Or men interested and willing to right our capsized civilization?

As I wrote two years ago in my post “They Were Expendable”:

[T]o those–particularly men–who think that men are expendable and that a society can well withstand the loss, either through death, warfare, or social ostracism/incarceration of a large proportion of its men, I suggest that the data speaks otherwise. The example of the urban ghetto should demonstrate to all that a society that loses large proportions of its men is a society with its future very much in jeopardy. For it is men and men alone who bequeath the gift of civilization to women and children. The society that loses its men faces many of the same challenges that a society that loses a large segment of its women–the inability to propagate and socialize the next generation of society.

The equalitarians want you to undervalue your male lives and overvalue the feminine. You are disposable to them, because, well, you are disposable to them. They wish to appropriate your labors–and even your lives–in service to the matriarchy, and discard whatever shell remains. I say the opposite…you, my brothers, are not disposable. You are more necessary than ever…and the next generation of girls and boys desperately needs your contribution.  How are they to know civilization without you? So ignore the reductionist scribblings of the likes of Mr. Schwyzer–your life is not worth less than a woman’s and is certainly not fodder to ensure an ungrateful matriarchal society keeps stumbling downward toward its eventual mud hut destiny.

In short, exhort you, my brothers, to be quite selective about whom you invite under your protective covering. No one is entitled to your sacrifice by mere virtue of their plumbing or proximity to you when disaster strikes.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 83 comments… read them below or add one }

Ralph Gorman August 7, 2012 at 14:01

I like to refer to Hugo Schwyzer as Hugo Shit Head – for, as his essays demonstrate, that is what he truly is. As for the real perpetrators of violence, that is the women who kill 45 million unborn babies each year, world wide.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Balzac August 7, 2012 at 14:12

Hugo Schwyzer: “Even now, at least 800 women die worldwide every day as a consequence of childbirth.”

800 women per DAY, says the good doctor.

Not 800 women per year, as the Elusive Wapiti would have it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fidel August 7, 2012 at 14:21

Ah,
The forever blathering Hugo Schwyzer.
The amount of female approval he needs is humungous.
EW, a very good article, and thank you, but giving this lowly omega a platform for his approval-seeking pleats is not the done thing.

EW, as I said, great article, just please ignore the cockroach in the future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
NWOslave August 7, 2012 at 14:27

Ahhh, but you forget the golden rule of the modern age. Women can only be portrayed as angelic, victims or oppressed.

If women are angels, it must be in comparison to devils, which are men.

If women are victims it must be in comparison to their assailants, which are men.

If women are oppressed it must be in comparison to their oppressors, which are men.

Unless you follow these three simple rules of the modern age, you’re a misogynist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kyo August 7, 2012 at 14:30

How many men die on the job due to industrial accidents and overwork?

They’re probably more likely to be working to support a wife and children than soldiers are.

Should all on-the-job deaths be counted as “dying for women” in the same way that Hugo counts deaths during childbirth to be somehow “dying for men”? It seems more legitimate than Hugo’s reasoning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
djc August 7, 2012 at 14:41

There are few worthy of dying for. Or even date.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bane of the twits August 7, 2012 at 14:46

“Oh PLEAAAASSEEE Missus feminazi, please don’ kick ole Hugo to da curb. I is a GOOD slave, I promise. I even wrote dis here to show what a good mangina I is.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
djc August 7, 2012 at 14:47

The last statement from him is just plain wrong. Many more men have died in battle through the ages than women in childbirth. The man is an idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster August 7, 2012 at 14:48

1 in 100? Uh, no. The twit doesn’t have his facts straight.

As of 1915, about 1 in 16 women in America giving birth died. Over the last century this has been reduced by a factor of ~75, laregly as a result of male science, public health infrastructure build-out, etc.

In prehistoric times it may have been as bad as 1 in 4 or 5. Evolution has pushed brain/head size to the limit, and we’re all born premature. In a no-contraceptive/antibiotic primitive world, when average life expectancy was barely 30, probably about half of all women died in childbirth. Just as about half of all men probably got taken out on the hunt, or in war or bar fights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cynical Youth August 7, 2012 at 14:58

That whole men are expendable meme really falls apart when you start looking at any other factor of human existance other than pure reproduction. The simple fact that we don’t operate like many other species of large animals with a herd of females lead by an alpha male with the rest of the males living solitary lives means that men have some sort of innate value to the group, simple as that.

Anyone who trots out this meme is either sociopathic or a blue piller who’s obsessed with getting laid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
namae nanka August 7, 2012 at 15:06

“Until the advent of modern medicine,”

Dehumanization of men. “progress of technology” “wonders of science” Or maybe he thinks that the witches would have dreamt up a more potent brew if only patriarchy hadn’t slaughtered them off?

“childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women”

so they can now serve men till kingdom come.

“but but now women lose their husbands, boyfriends by living longer than them.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gay State Girl August 7, 2012 at 15:44

Not sure what you’re attempting to get at here, sir.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 7, 2012 at 16:17

Since world wide women live 7 years longer than men, I believe men give enough to make up for the elevated mortality rates in undeveloped countries:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs334/en/index.html

That is enough to turn Hugo’s thesis on it’s head. Maybe women should be encouraged to volenteer to be meat shields for their boyfriends by reversing Hugo’s argument.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Buddy Guy August 7, 2012 at 16:25

Hopefully this unsuccessful murderer continues to be a leading feminist voice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti August 7, 2012 at 16:27

“Hugo Schwyzer: “Even now, at least 800 women die worldwide every day as a consequence of childbirth.””

Thanks Balzac. Seems I misread that. So I stand corrected on this minor point: maternal casualties are just shy of 29,000 casualties per year. Still below what happens to men worldwide in violent inter-group conflict, just not as trivially so.

@ Common Monster
“In prehistoric times it may have been as bad as 1 in 4 or 5. “

Doing research for this article, I stumbled across some data that suggested that male mortality rates in prehistory “warfare in tribal warrior society, produces casualty rates of up to 60% “.

Even the War Between the States in the US, “8% of all white American males aged 13 to 43 died”.

One key thing about ancient warfare that is important to keep in mind is that when a tribe or society was defeated in warfare, the adult men were often put to the sword. The women and children were enslaved. This tradition continues to this day, in the sense that society still bends over backwards to shield women from harm while leaving the men to fend for themselves.

This entire thesis that men should sacrifice ourselves today because women long ago bore substantial (but still less than men) risk in childbirth just doesn’t carry water.

Buddy Guy August 7, 2012 at 16:28

He seems to think that women go through childbirth as a favor to men

feminism = antinatalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Turbo the Drycleaner August 7, 2012 at 16:44

we are not a borg. if some woman halfway across the world dies in childbirth, why is it my obligation to die for some other woman?

Even if women died far more in childbirth than men died in war why should I care?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 August 7, 2012 at 16:52

What a pathetic cretin!

Balzaz was correct, 800 per day, that is 292,000 a year out of a population of 7 billion, a rate of .00004171, or so it said in the article. But in a society where it is claimed 1 in 4 women are raped who knows? This is probably one of those wild estimates we so often read. Do small towns in the jungle actually report birth related deaths?

Since rape is punishable, even in many cases when it does not happen, we can assume women who die in birth wanted sex, period, end of debate. Not our fault. Just life.

And I suspect most of those real or imagined deaths occur in primitive places.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 August 7, 2012 at 16:53

>>maternal casualties are just shy of 29,000 casualties per year.

Ahem, Strike Two, Wapiti.

800 X 365 = 292,000

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 7, 2012 at 16:59

Manginas are doubling down….. as I have said since the start of 2010….

That is a good sign, because it means they are getting desperate, and their doubling down is more likely to get normal guys pushed into the red pill zone…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 7, 2012 at 17:14

So, wait, I thought pregnancy was a woman’s choice? Their body, their choice, amiright?

Also, these women owe the soldiers for privilege to die in child-birth rather than in some camp at the hands of some megalomaniacal dictator.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 7, 2012 at 17:23

“This entire thesis that men should sacrifice ourselves today because women long ago bore substantial (but still less than men) risk in childbirth just doesn’t carry water.”

Well, Marxists are all about current groups paying for sins and crimes of like-groups long dead. Example: Slavery Reparations in the USA. So, why should it be any different when it comes to men and women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical August 7, 2012 at 17:26

Really well written article. With the continued great content on the Spearhead the MRM is increasingly speaking out far too loudly for even the most rabid feminazis to ignore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kyo August 7, 2012 at 17:45

“As of 1915, about 1 in 16 women in America giving birth died. “

Common Monster, I hate to be “that guy”, but do you have a source for this? It seems like an outrageously high figure for a developed country and in an era whose babies are still walking the earth.

Even 1 in 16 babies being stillborn sounds a little high for America in 1915, but it’s more believable than 1 in 16 mothers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
namae nanka August 7, 2012 at 17:49

“But in a society where it is claimed 1 in 4 women are raped who knows? ”

It’s not mere society, consider this zinger that I came across a year earlier and found no (concrete) reply to:

“While women represent half the global population and one-third of the labor force, they receive only one-tenth of the world income and own less than one percent of world property. They are also responsible for two-thirds of all working hours.”

“It has been used by legislators in South Africa, international universities, feminist NGOs, journalists, humanitarians, activists, sociologists, economists — and, amazingly, UN organizations such as UNIFEM and UNDP, speaking today in the present tense.”

and today I found one.

“Why is this thing, which never had many legs to stand on, so pervasive even today, 33 years after it was devised?”

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/stop-that-feminist-viral-statistic-meme/

more links here:

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/women-and-climate-change-good-point-coupla-bad-facts/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Metsfan August 7, 2012 at 17:50

Hugo Schwyzer desires to be the male face of feminism in America. He wants to be this generations Alan Alda. This is his Shtick. It is all fake, a put on. He quit writing for The Good Men Project website after they had an article critical of women. Hugo writing that women are martyrs dying in childbirth is ironic and hypocritical in a way. Hugo made a speech in LA encouraging women to be sluts at the Slut Walk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHEQtp1ozVA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon August 7, 2012 at 19:16

Is he saying:

Men should *NOT* sacrifice for post-menopausal women!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky August 7, 2012 at 19:21

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-unhealthy-mentalities-internet-turned-into-movements/

I cannot wait until validation one day, when everyone will claim to have always been pro men’s rights. But the internet will remember who stood against our movement of justice and fairness. They will not be able to erase the memory of the internet so easily.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jim August 7, 2012 at 19:45

He should show us all how it’s done first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MRA August 7, 2012 at 19:53

Hugo Schwyzer claim about more women died in childbirth than men is very refutable, is very easy, with simple calculation.(he also does not give/cite research or census to prove this).

Women are pregnant for about 7-8 and 9 months before birth (considering premature childbirths) the number of men dying in war was about 5, 6 and 10 for small armies, for big armies was up to 100 and 200, many times thousands per day, so before 1 woman dies during childbirth, thousands of men have die for every day she was pregnant.

Even using his men-own-it-to-women-because-the-past, women own to men more, considering that give birth is a natural thing for women, going to war for men wasn’t,even poor women could give birth in places more comfortable than a foxhole, and not women was alone during it, even slave women were assisted by midwife (usually an old slave women), And why they were fighting for? to protect their women for invasion. what doe Hugo thinks they were doing? enjoying it like paintball?

Mortality for men has decrease in modern, developed countries thanks to technology that allow powerful nations to send drones and other non-tripulated artillery to kill from thousands of miles away from the danger, kill other men of course, in countries like Somalia where there is not such thing is the same as 1700 in USA or UK.

Women did not gave birth to please men or as a favor, women always have been the one whom want to have kids, as the women are still the one whom want to get married, the evidence is clear when women went to colleges to get a husband and not a carer (this is still common in countries like India) this is a attempt to blame men for the anti-feminism choice women did.

“This brings me to my last point, the hoary notion of the disposable male. While Mr. Schwyzer is superficially correct that societies on the edge of survival must protect their womenfolk, once a society achieves a certain number of breeding pairs, the need to protect the women at the expense of men falls away. ”

Yes but not as many think, the lack of genes diversities in the population brings many diseases and malformations, take an island and fill it with 5 men and 50 women, let them to reproduce without reproducing with outsiders, withing 5 generation asthma and Dawn syndrome will be the most common, for just name a few.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky August 7, 2012 at 20:17

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/

Stats and more stats about families.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GT66 August 7, 2012 at 20:44

Uhm, sorry but I was not there and certainly had no say in my conception and even if in some weird alternate reality it were possible, it is STILL, her body her choice. So what say would I have had? So guess what? I owe women NOTHING just because one bore me. She did that for herself as the “my body, my choice” rule reminds us. Women seem to think that simply squirting out a kid encumbers a lifetime of indebtedness from that child. Sorry, no. Eternal slavery to the almighty vagina is not my birthright.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pirran August 7, 2012 at 21:21

A week ago, I left the following comment on that post. He modded it out for some reason, although I thought it in keeping with most of the other comments (apart from the manginas and frothing fems obviously). He seems to be getting more sensitive since his rad-fem mistresses turned on him:

“The cognitive dissonance required to wade through this driveling ordure is too unspeakable to mention. Women having babies is a sacrifice to men?? Seriously ??? It’s not about their own reproduction, then; if it was up to women they’d just bud off in the changing room via the parthenogenesis that is their want? It’s only ’cause of the EVEEL Patriarchy that they put up with sexual reproduction in the first place (tsk).

Hugo, as usual, can be relied upon for this self-loathing, vapid irrationality (even as the rad-fems desert him in droves – how’s that going, BTW, Hugo? Still in the mansplaining doghouse?). In this nauseating paradigm, so beloved of rad-fems and manginas alike, men are patriarchal if they jump in front of the bullets and cowardly scum-bags if they leave the wimminz on the ferry. Whatever they do, they’re being insensitive to wimminz needs. Don’t you dare die unless it’s N.O.W. approved.

“First, it’s time to let go of the myth that men have traditionally endured more physical danger and suffering than women”.

Tell you what, Hugo, I’ll let go of that “myth” when men cease to make up 97% of workplace deaths, four times the rate of suicides and 95% of the homeless. I’ll let go of that “myth” when the same amount is spent on the healthcare of men as it is of women. I’ll let go of that “myth” when Hollywood focuses the same attention on prostate cancer as it does on breast and cervical cancer. I’ll let go of that myth when women are required to be eligible for the draft just to vote the same as men.

Somehow, I think I’ll be retaining that “myth” for quite some time to come…

http://www.safetyservicescompany.com/blog/men-victims-of-97-per-cent-of-workplace-deaths

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 7, 2012 at 23:21

1) I can imagine that there are some women who are worth protecting, and dying for. In almost all my experience in America, I found the women, and their behavior to be atrocious; certainly, no man should die for women like this.

2) The narrative of three men who died for their women is probably a fairy tale propagated by the media to provoke men to care more about women who are not worth caring about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean August 8, 2012 at 00:48

Once again it comes to pass that that which is most ethical is whatever privileges women best.

That said, males are genetically programmed to defer to women as well as to sacrifice themselves for that which they love best; be it their women or their country or their buddies.

This is not a deliberation on their part. These men in the theater did not think about it they just reacted instinctively. This is a product of 1,000,000 years of selective breeding on the part of women willingly and eagerly reproducing with males who serve them best and doing everything they can to eliminate the genes of men who were more egalitarian.

In doing so women have created the most perfectly engineered slave ever devised. Males not only serve women but we go to extraordinary efforts to serve them and our sense of self and even pleasure is contingent on successfully doing so.

We have no concept of the domination that women have over us and yet we get on our knees and beg a woman to allow us to serve her while plying her with transfers of wealth. We allow them to exploit us for a lifetime while offering few reciprocal obligations in return and should she feel stifled by the arrangement to denude us further of assets and reduce us to a life of peonage via the family court system.

Even men who have suffered the very worst that a woman and the courts have to offer are incapable of recognizing the full treachery of it all. If a man betrayed them half so much they would have beat and killed him, but a woman can get away with just about anything.

Males are so well bred that most will laugh (right along with women) at the sexual mutilation of a man at the hands of an abusive and vindictive wife. The default logic being that “he deserved it”.

Who deserves such horror? Slaves do. Slaves can be beaten, branded, chain, and forced to work themselves to death for a master and no matter how harsh and unjust their treatment the only true crime will be if the slave rises up and strikes his master.

Never hit your master for the penalty will always be far more severe than the act itself.

It’s important to look at the male/female relationship dynamic in this way. Our chains were forged by selective breeding. One will never remove them with a key but only with his own self realization and rejection of the system that oppresses him.

And we are oppressed. Part of our genetic programming is to think we aren’t oppressed. That our service is strength. Disposability is value. That masculinity is defective when women are competing against it and a necessity when a woman wants to exploit it. And probably the worst of all is that we must earn respect and self-worth instead of being entitled to it by our very existence.

What is man? He is shit. An animal. Subhuman. Until he serves others. Until he builds his status as worker, athlete, soldier and ultimately a husband and servant to his master.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hisoj August 8, 2012 at 01:13

1 in 16 mothers? that’s a worse ratio than the animal kingdom, and they have NO advanced medicine, nor linguistic communication. it’s almost like it’s a total falsehood or something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King August 8, 2012 at 01:55

Awesome, I got a H/T…I feel important and validated.

OT.

I have been LMFAO for the last five minutes over these female olympians :

http://gawker.com/5932427/an-appreciation-for-womens-shot-put-is-your-mesmerizing-video-of-the-day?tag=londonolympics

I suggest you turn the volume down a bit, although their retarded sounding screams is what made me lol. They sound like street cats mating.

Oh, and The Atlantic is launching a Lady Blog called The Sexes and a feminist is upset about it:

http://jessicavalenti.tumblr.com/post/28920766928/the-atlantics-new-ladyblog-hasnt-launched-yet

I think we should invade the comment sections on the first day and hopefully derail the blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King August 8, 2012 at 02:58

OT.

I thought this was interesting. Apparently Michelle Obama threatened the POTUS with divorce instead of comfort:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/609751

Glad I am never getting married.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft August 8, 2012 at 03:55

The mens movement will be saving tens of thousands of lives by discrediting the main force behind aggression – white knighting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 8, 2012 at 04:05

This is my brain

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hugoschwyzer/6344903886/in/photostream

This is my brain on feminism

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_physics/336279872/

He’s me trying to get lucky with fugly looking sluts

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hugoschwyzer/5846735790/in/photostream

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andie August 8, 2012 at 04:35

I wonder how Hugo accounts for the fact that approximately 105 boys are born for every 100 girls in human societies that do not mess with reproduction? By adulthood, that number has pretty much evened out.

I guess all the little boys who die don’t count, eh?

Yes, childbirth is and was quite deadly. Know what else is pretty deadly?

hunting
ploughing
building
cutting down trees
digging up coal
fighting fires
fighting famine
fighting wars

being born a male

Simple math suggests that far more men have died than women.

5 boys dead for every 100 girls
50 boys dead for every 1000 girls
500 boys dead for every 10 000 girls
5000 boys dead for every 100 000 girls
50 000 boys dead for every 1 000 000 girls
500 000 boys dead for every 10 000 000 girls
5 000 000 boys dead for every 100 000 000 girls

And that’s before they reach adulthood.

That’s a lot of dead little boys. :( Women need a maternal death rate of at least 5 per 100 to even break even.

All those lives lost. And yet we still have the Sistine Chapel and a flag on the moon and iPhones. Because women made all those things, right?

Disposable, indeed. Without men, we would not exist. Is that really so hard to see?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Höllenhund August 8, 2012 at 05:26

The white-knighting useful idiots of Cracked are at it again:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-unhealthy-mentalities-internet-turned-into-movements/

It’s hilarious how Cracked seeks to attract readers who thing outside the box, reject the bullshit of the mainstream media etc. and then pander to the gynocentric, misandrist impulses of average women and manginas by posting crap like this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay August 8, 2012 at 05:41

Starting a discussion on who is more worthy of living is bound to get rather messy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta August 8, 2012 at 06:52

Common Monster wrote:
1 in 100? Uh, no. The twit doesn’t have his facts straight.

He’s definitely a twit, but this time he’s not that far off the mark. Wikipedia cites a “natural” maternal death rate of 1500 in 100,000 births. That’s when absolutely nothing is done to prevent maternal death. Humans have evolved coping mechanisms for this risk – even in the most primitive societies women rarely give birth unassisted.

As of 1915, about 1 in 16 women in America giving birth died.

References?

Over the last century this has been reduced by a factor of ~75, laregly as a result of male science, public health infrastructure build-out, etc.

The current maternal death rate in Western countries is about 10 deaths per 100,000 births, about a factor of 150 below the “natural” maternal death rate. As I stated before, even primitive societies rarely allow nature to take its course.

In prehistoric times it may have been as bad as 1 in 4 or 5.

I doubt that seriously.

Evolution has pushed brain/head size to the limit, and we’re all born premature.

That much is true, although average brain capacity is slightly lower than for prehistoric humans. I’m not sure whether that means we’re less intelligent than them or if we have a more streamlined, efficient brain that can perform equally well.

In a no-contraceptive/antibiotic primitive world,
when average life expectancy was barely 30,

The biggest factor in low average life expectancy is high childhood mortality. Young adults and seniors usually did much better.

probably about half of all women died in childbirth. Just as about half of all men probably got taken out on the hunt, or in war or bar fights.

Now you’re up to 1 in 2 women. It’s a bit hard to see how the human race could have survived with casualty rates that high.

John Hawks has an article on Hunter-Gatherer mortality rates. There’s no mention of maternal death rates being a leading cause of mortality.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/aging_evolution/hill_2007_hiwi_mortality.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
V10 August 8, 2012 at 07:00

Hugo implies first world men have a duty because third world women have a raw deal…

Sooooooo, if we man up and marry third world women (who make better quality wives anyway), are we cool bro?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thos. August 8, 2012 at 07:29

His argument is arithmetical nonsense. If more women were dying in childbirth than adult males we’d not be here as we’d be below population replacement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thos. August 8, 2012 at 07:36

Troll King I hate to tell you this but the men don’t sound any better.The male shot putters bellow like they’re suffering hemorrhoids attacks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Creek August 8, 2012 at 07:43

Good piece and great thread.

I left a comment on that article after Troll King originally linked it, asking if the author talking about self-sacrifice was the same Hugo Schwyzer who admitted trying to kill a former girlfriend in a failed murder-suicide some years ago, and suggesting therefore that perhaps he wasn’t the most credible authority on the subject.

BTW, if anyone has seen that comment, could they please return it to the website where they found it, because it mysteriously disappeared about five minutes after I posted it and I’m starting to worry. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King August 8, 2012 at 09:07

OT.

This is just awesome. I keep telling you guys that us younger guys have had it up to here *holds hand above head* with collectivism and feminism.

Well….some dude made a tumblr:

http://childrenwithprivilege.tumblr.com/

This is just great:

The latest post has a picture of a young,blonde-haired, white boy holding a mickey mouse doll and a barbie and he is licking the barbie. the text reads:

Merciless white male terrorizes and objectifies woman while forcing Mickey Mouse to watch. Horrifying.

And is tagged: This is male privilege

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft August 8, 2012 at 11:00

How can feminist reconcile the fact that they are pro-abortion on the one hand, and are railing against maternal death on the other?

Either they are concerned for all life, or they aren’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel August 8, 2012 at 11:17

Andie
Disposable, indeed. Without men, we would not exist. Is that really so hard to see?

Do you know why your point of view is so different to that of the vast majority of women? Is it only a result of your mother’s behavior? Growing up on a farm with brothers? Or is there more to it than that? I’m genuinely curious to know what’s different about you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Androgynous August 8, 2012 at 12:58

The truth of the matter is that men protect women so that women can be around to protect children. Love and resources usually run in that direction because children are the ultimate and most precious resource of any community or society – well at least it used to be.
Similarly, the love parents and grandparents have for children is far greater than the love any child can ever have for a parent or grandparent. Again, love and resources flow down the generations, not up. It takes a lot to eradicate this very very strong basic primieval instinct to protect children – just look at the animal kingdom – in a herd of wilderbeast or impalas or whatever, the young stay in the middle of the group, surrounded by the females, then the dominant males, then the lower ranking males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BigRed August 8, 2012 at 13:13

I can never figure out why a sacrifice is required of me because something happened to someone else before I was born…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Buddy Guy August 8, 2012 at 15:57

So how many more men does Hugo want to drop dead until he is satisfied?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ralph Gorman August 8, 2012 at 16:46

Lovekraft is absolutely right. Women claim that men waste life on the battlefield – then women kill 45 million a year at the abortion clinic – and claim it does not matter because women can always make more. A sex that thinks like this can’t think about anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila August 8, 2012 at 16:50

Just came back from the Whore Foods upper-class food store – and want to say that the chances of yours truly risking ONE fingernail to help any of the gyn- and fembots that were strolling around – hysterically pounding on their gadgets as they attempt to crack the glass ceiling (or the glass floor- thanks to obesity)= is asymptotically zero!

God it feels good to be able to say that whole-heartedly!

Helping ONE American gynbot = enabling her to continue on her path of destruction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andie August 8, 2012 at 16:53

@Charles Martel

Personally, I think my views are different because I grew up on a farm with three brothers and no sisters. For most of my childhood, my parents ran a home-improvement business in town, and we all worked as a family nights and weekends to be self-sustaining. We had chickens, beef cattle, honey bees, a vegetable garden that produced enough food for our family of six for the whole year, turkeys – it all required a tremendous amount of work and as kids we pitched in from our earliest days.

I have no sense that I am “owed” my living. I grew up thinking food is something you grow yourself.

The fact that I was the only girl allowed me to avoid some of the hardest work – I churned butter or kneaded bread or swept floors while my brothers mucked out stalls, or carved wax off bee slats and extracted the honey or carted manure down to the garden. And I was HAPPY to be relieved of that work. I thought I had the better part of the deal, by far.

By the time I was ten, I am pretty sure I had more domestic skills than an average 40 year old North American woman. And I loved the work. I loved being clean. I loved being in the house, warm and dry.

And I knew the reason I had those things was because of Dad and the boys. In my early childhood, my mother and I were happy in the house.

Around about when I was 10, it all fell apart. My mother wanted to go to university. To move to the city. She was “unhappy”. Unhappy being pampered and warm and having all her needs taken care of by her husband and sons.

My father capitulated. We cannot discuss why. It is too painful for him and he has lost his three sons. I do not press the issue. But I am curious.

The big black spot in my childhood is that my parents were very violent evangelical Christians. They were very strong believers in corporal punishment and went WAY too far with it. My mother was the worst offender, by far.

So I suppose I also grew up seeing women as violent and dangerous. Because Ma certainly was.

So my mother went to university, discovered feminism, tore our family to shreds, successfully brainwashed her sons to hate men and almost succeeded with me.

The capper: she is a CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST

I am not kidding. The irony is just cruel.

When I met my husband and he made it clear that he loved my domestic skills, my desire to create a home, my eagerness to be a First Officer and let him be Captain – it was like all the stars in the universe lined up.

I know my views are a bit different. I also know that the general attitude from younger women is shifting, very slightly. I NEVER used to encounter women who thought my life was worthwhile or even very interesting.

But I now notice that both men and women are looking at me with a TINY degree of respect. Men more so than women. I know that it is very dangerous for men to marry and agree to support an adult woman. I know that. I also believe that it is a lot of men’s most heart felt desire.

The problem isn’t with men’s desire. It’s with women who have no skills, no sense of responsibility, no concept of obligation, no desire to create a home filled with love and respect and admiration and gratitude (going both ways) and perplexedly, no grasp of the reality that when you create a wonderful home, YOU LIVE THERE TOO.

Feminists say they don’t hate men. But it seems obvious to me that hatred of men BEING MEN is at the heart of the ideology. I lived it.

So thanks, Ma. Thanks for making sure I could see what was right in front of me.

And thank you Dad, for never giving up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
WRB August 8, 2012 at 16:56

A simple response:

Is being a woman heritable?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun August 8, 2012 at 18:06

“Thos. August 8, 2012 at 07:29
His argument is arithmetical nonsense. If more women were dying in childbirth than adult males we’d not be here as we’d be below population replacement.”

Well, he is retarded. What did you expect?

More likely, the human specie would have probably became extinct, especially during paleolithic times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella August 8, 2012 at 18:09

‘no grasp of the reality that when you create a wonderful home, YOU LIVE THERE TOO. ‘

Bingo. The women in my family were huge complainers of how bad they had it, how they weren’t paid for the work they were doing….they lived there too…..

‘So how many more men does Hugo want to drop dead until he is satisfied?’

Dunno, but I’m tempted to say ‘You first, Hugo’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun August 8, 2012 at 18:09

Besides, I the last person I want to hear a left wing take on a traditionalist argument is him.

Maybe he can lead by example. After all, all those men oppressing women in the past must truly make him, as a noble champion of the weak, to PERSONALLY take charge and die for the sins of man.

I won’t hold my breath.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 8, 2012 at 18:21

Andie: I found your story very touching. Thank you for posting it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun August 8, 2012 at 18:30

“This entire thesis that men should sacrifice ourselves today because women long ago bore substantial (but still less than men) risk in childbirth just doesn’t carry water.”

Are you saying that biology has stopped n the modern era? Modernity is a social construct. There are still risk, they are less prevalent due to technology in the 1st world.

Not to mention, regardless of the ideas of equality, women cannot work during their time of pregnancy and post labor (at least not that well or efficiently). This hasn’t changed as much. Men do have to provide and protect in order for society to survive.

I have no qualms about the expected standards of both men and women, what I don’t like the is the double standards that supposed egalitarians and feminist espouse.

While I may not agree with all of it, it is still a great article that sheds light about why such roles where put in the first place and why they are maintained. I commend the author (no, not you, Hugo).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 8, 2012 at 18:32

no grasp of the reality that when you create a wonderful home, YOU LIVE THERE TOO.

This!

Every time I encounter the word “empower” these days, I cringe. And, I see or hear it several times per day. Who “empowered” you to plant that garden, tend it, and harvest its produce?

You did.

I’ve long maintained that the biggest divide in people’s thinking is not male versus female, but agrarian versus urban. Farm people know that they are in control of their lives, and that the quality of those lives depend on what they create.

Only an urban or suburban dweller could possibly believe that she could wait until August and not plant anything, and then get a lawyer to sue the garden into producing fruit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MPL August 8, 2012 at 18:44

If anyone wants a quick laugh, go to the front page of AOL.com and look at all the anti-male articles.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 8, 2012 at 20:29

Although moderation has its good sides, one problem that manifests itself is the growing difficulty in having discussions between members.

As far as women dying in births is concerned, perhaps the artificial uterus will be a welcome invention. Both men and women should certainly acclaim that one, although for different reasons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 8, 2012 at 21:01

“MPL
“If anyone wants a quick laugh, go to the front page of AOL.com and look at all the anti-male articles.”

All I have seen there is small talk. Non-news, non-relevant articles. Boring stuff at the very best. I nearly fell asleep. Does anybody really read some of the stuff?

What-a-waste-of-electrons. And a waste of my precious time.

One has got to be completely bored to read such crap.Only women could want to read such stupid stuff. AOL is dumbing down its readers.
No wonder zombies are on the rise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cooterbee August 9, 2012 at 00:07

It must really burn Hugo’s ass that here we have all these women who died in childbirth only to watch me re neg on the sacred pact to throw away my life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steve_85 August 9, 2012 at 00:25

“I say the opposite…you, my brothers, are not disposable. You are more necessary than ever…and the next generation of girls and boys desperately needs your contribution. How are they to know civilization without you?”

They’ll have to learn without me. I’ve seen the ‘thanks’ we men get for trying to contribute. I’ll let some other sucker push that wheelbarrow. As Heartiste is fond of saying, I’ll be the guy lighting a cigarette on the burning ashes of civilization, and enjoying the decline.

The longer I’m alive, the more conviced I become that my input isn’t wanted.

Let it burn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DG August 9, 2012 at 05:20

@Andie

The problem isn’t with men’s desire. It’s with women who have no skills, no sense of responsibility, no concept of obligation, no desire to create a home filled with love and respect and admiration and gratitude (going both ways) and perplexedly, no grasp of the reality that when you create a wonderful home, YOU LIVE THERE TOO.

Exactly, except I’ll add that I think it’s this lack of a sense of obligation that is at the root of the perceived inequalities that lead them to be miserable. They see the “cool” stuff guys do, they don’t see the hard work guys do, or the sacrifice, the injuries, the lives lost. They don’t see that along with the privilege of making many of those decisions, men have to pay up for the consequences of screwing up, where women often don’t.

And from personal experience, while I’ve known (and cherished) some women that were willing to shoulder the load, for the most part, god forbid you hold them accountable. The more that they want to play at being men, the more they usually think it’s all anybody’s fault but theirs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel August 9, 2012 at 07:56

Andie
Feminists say they don’t hate men. But it seems obvious to me that hatred of men BEING MEN is at the heart of the ideology. I lived it.

Andie, you’re an excellent writer. With your other comments, I have a complete picture. All it takes to overcome the prevailing feminist misandric culture is a perfect storm of anti-feminist influences.

1. You lived on a farm where you were able to directly observe the utility of male labor.
2. Your mother was violent.
3. Your mother put her own needs first and destroyed your functional family.
4. Your father remained loyal to his children despite having been viciously betrayed.

This is not an original thought, but male technology and specialization of labor has been a huge enabler of feminism. It’s oh so easy to be strong and independent when you can heat your house or apartment in the winter by pushing a button on the wall. The whole strong and independent routine is a lot less appealing when keeping warm in the winter requires cutting trees, chopping, carrying and stacking wood and feeding a fireplace or furnace. You saw this first hand when your brothers were outside hauling manure while you were inside churning butter. How many girls have that kind of experience now? Very, very few.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter South August 9, 2012 at 10:06

Let’s face it Hugo, women are not doing us any favors with the childbirth, they want kids so lets cut the nonsense.

Women of America – I dare you not to have any kids. Keep your legs closed, I’d love to see it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joeb August 9, 2012 at 12:13

Of coarse there where some Men shielding some of there women . The question is why only three and where there any women shielding there children. I’m sure there where men shielding there children . Do we draw some weird conclusion from that also .
Dose this policy of protecting the womb end with age.Do old men still need to protect the womb or dose it have less value then .
The bloated idea becomes more and more idiotic .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andie August 9, 2012 at 12:21

@Charles Martel

How many girls have that kind of experience now? Very, very few.

This is something I really struggle with, because I have two daughters and a son and they are growing up thinking you get heat by pressing a button on the wall.

My husband and I mitigate against that by observing a division of labor based on gender with our kids. My littlest girl (3) has her first chore, which is to help her sister set the table for meals and clear away after. I don’t discourage my son from helping in the kitchen, but he is not required to. He has to help his Dad take out the garbage every week and wash the pails out, wash the car, help cut the grass and he is learning to use a hatchet to cut kindling for the bonfire pit we have in our backyard (not that weird – everyone has a bonfire pit here).

On the one hand, I want them to grow up thinking men and women have different, equally valuable roles to play. On the other hand, I worry that I am making them dependent on a future spouse. It’s a hard act to balance.

I’d be interested to know how some of you feel about that. I am teaching my daughters, mostly through example, that there is something very sacred about the work women do in the kitchen. Making food is a profound act of love and it knits a family together. I want them to know how to do that. I am also teaching my son that his strength is an asset that he can use to care for us, and in the future, his own family.

I catch a lot of flack for these gender specific chores. A lot of men think Tom should know how to cook just as much as the girls do. I can see their point, and I always welcome him in the kitchen. He just doesn’t seem very interested. The girls on the other hand do not have to be asked. The minute they hear clattering in the kitchen, they are right there to help.

I want them to know how to work, but I don’t want to FORCE it on them. I want to capture their inclinations and teach them that work is a joy. My girls don’t WANT to chop wood. My son gets a gleam in his eye when he sees his Dad with an axe and a strop to sharpen it.

I’m glad we live in a fairly rural part of the continent. We’re north of Minneapolis, for those interested.

But I wonder if we are doing them a favor by letting them focus on only one skill set. Should we be encouraging them to be more well-rounded? We also don’t want to teach them that men and women are just interchangeable parts with no particular role to play. That seems to be a bad decision, too.

It’s very difficult. My husband thinks a doctrine of separate but equal is the best decision. Most of me agrees.

What do you think?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Mighty Bob August 9, 2012 at 13:33

How does Thos know so much about hemorrhoids?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wilson August 9, 2012 at 13:50

Teach some basics, but divide the labor mostly by inclination? A man is going to have to cook and do laundry for himself at some point, not sure if a woman will need to be handy with a hatchet, but it wouldn’t upset the natural order for her to know how to operate a mower or wash a car. Of course life has a way of teaching what is necessary, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur August 9, 2012 at 15:56

@Andie: “I want them to grow up thinking men and women have different, equally valuable roles to play. On the other hand, I worry that I am making them dependent on a future spouse.”

What do I think? I think both your daughters and son are miles ahead of the unskilled masses of girls who literally couldn’t cook an egg and boys who wouldn’t know which end of a hatchet to use. I also think that there’s a lot of cross-over and the self-confidence that comes from knowing how to do some things helps children try (and be successful at) new things. Another way to look at it- will your daughters, knowing so many traditionally women’s skillz, be any more dependant on a spouse for doing traditionally men’s stuff than other, unskilled young women? They’ll also have a competitive advantage, and your son is more likely to appreciate that he really doesn’t need a woman to microwave a frozen dinner for him, knowing what his sisters can accomplish in a kitchen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 9, 2012 at 17:43

I stand corrected, the Fatboy actually got 40 seconds of fame.Starts at 7.04 mark.That’s it, the girls then pushed him aside and did all of the talking lol

Those cat pictures on the wall are really nice :)

http://manboobz.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila August 9, 2012 at 18:01

MEN ARE PEOPLE TOO (TM)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 9, 2012 at 21:22

Wilson

Teach some basics, but divide the labor mostly by inclination? A man is going to have to cook and do laundry for himself at some point, not sure if a woman will need to be handy with a hatchet, …

Since Feminists have won the culture war for the past half century they have completely re-written the history books and have portrayed men as the ones most against taking on domestic chores like cooking and laundry. The truth however is that it was women who were most against men taking on such chores.
why?
Simple, if a man was capable of not just bringing home the bacon but also cooking it and keeping a house tidy then he would become independant. What good would a woman be for other then for sex? A man might as well get himself a prostitute instead of a wife, it would be cheaper for him. That was what women of previous generations feared most…..men taking the red pill. If men learned to become independant then women would have to learn to get a real job outside of the home supporting themselves and for 90% of society that would be an unglamous job.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba August 9, 2012 at 21:35

Right now there is a maggot writhing around in sh*t that is stuck to some bubble gum that is stuck to some fat sweaty lady’s shoe thinking, “Jezus, does this Schwyzer guy not realize how pathetic he is ?!?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 August 9, 2012 at 21:56

From the original article:

For these three men’s sacrifice is evidence that… the instinct of the male to protect his woman and family is still very much alive. It is written on the hearts of men to protect their mate, family, tribe, and home, and that the three unrelated female companions of these three men are still alive today are a testament to that uniquely male drive.

When I was single I was out walking with one of my then-girlfriends. We happened across a goose, which I thought was cute – I had never seen one up close before. The goose started going nuts. I thought it was frightened of us but I wanted to get a closer look, so inched slowly towards it out of curiosity when my girlfriend (who grew up in a rural setting) seemed a little alarmed and said that they could be very aggressive. Immediately I realized that all the flapping and squawking was not fright but fury bouncing around his tiny little avian brain. I intuitively understood that a bird could not be a serious danger to two adult humans, but our little outing suddenly had the possibility of at least a little bodily harm. Utterly without thinking I yanked my girlfriend behind me so as to interpose myself between her and the goose. (I really don’t want this to sound overly dramatic – it was just a big bird, after all – and I wasn’t worried about being seriously injured. My point is not to insinuate that coming across a pissed-off goose is comparable to deliberately taking a bullet, but that the male instinct to be a meat-shield for women seems to be ingrained.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mark Minter August 18, 2012 at 00:43

The Southern Poverty Law Center has the manosphere reaction to this topic as its lead story. Hamsters spinning very fast. You guys can bullets for women. I’m not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: