The Feminist Paradox

by W.F. Price on September 18, 2012

While thinking about the issue of the undervalued Siberian girls (relative to American women), I realized that there is probably a direct correlation between the wealth of a society’s men and the value and power of the society’s women. That is, the richer the men in any given society are in aggregate, the more wealth and privilege accrues to its women. The flip side of that is that the poorer the men are, the worse off and less valued the women.

So, any policies that impoverish men, even if they temporarily benefit the women, cause women’s status and value to decrease over time.

It’s really pretty obvious if you think about it objectively, but it tends to escape notice because these days people don’t think of these things in terms of a symbiotic relationship between men and women, but rather an oppositional one. What they do is compare men and women, and argue that men’s wealth is somehow “oppressive” to women, because that’s how modern, liberal democracies work; each group sees itself in opposition to others.

Here in the West men have been very wealthy by world standards for quite some time. We still are, but this is changing. What’s been happening is that the younger generations of men have steadily lost wealth, while the older folks have managed to hang onto a fair amount. Part of the reason for younger men’s decline in wealth (although by no means all), is feminist affirmative action and “positive discrimination,” as well as confiscatory policies designed to give the female group an advantage over the male. These measures have been effective, and have contributed to the declining wealth of the Western male in both relative and absolute terms.

As the younger, poorer men come of age, and are still significantly poorer than their predecessors, this will begin to impact women of their cohort as well. I believe this process has already begun, but the effects have some lag; perhaps ten years or so. When it becomes readily apparent that living in a country full of poor men is no picnic for women, feminism will be discredited, but not until then. Using the recession as the starting point, I’d give it about five years until it can no longer be ignored.

So, given that women’s status is a result of male wealth, it looks as though feminism may actually turn out to be self-correcting, as it strips men of resources that could be used to further empower women. Maybe human society has a mysterious way of correcting itself, and the natural balance between the sexes is restored even through counterintuitive processes such as feminism.

{ 125 comments… read them below or add one }

Skeptic September 18, 2012 at 09:06

Logically given current trends continuing I can see it will get to a point where the feminist serving gubmint ponzi scheme is funded mostly by women because by then they out-earn men.
Flip forward ten years when the male birth control pill is in widespread use by men.
Then hear the wiminz howling and watch out for the bitch-fighting that’ll go on then!

Just imagine it – Joanne Normal in ten years time -

“I’m paying all these goddam taxes for government bloat I don’t need AND I’m STILL left on the shelf, barren”

Meanwhile Joe Normal is enjoying slacking with his buddies relative to previous generations of men and sport sexing.

Ah, feminism……….the perfect storm on the horizon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Nemo September 18, 2012 at 09:33

Average family incomes for the US have dropped to their 1989 levels.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-incomes-fall-1989-levels-did-happen-001100141.html

The cumulative effects of inflation, globalization, the recession, the deliberate redistribution of wealth away from working men, etc. have already set families back by 23 years.

We ARE the lost generation, guys.

Women don’t realize the full force of this yet because they are getting bigger and bigger slices of a shrinking pie. Once the pie runs out, there will be chaos.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 18, 2012 at 09:37

I have to admit that my first thought upon reading the title of the article, The Feminist Paradox was, “There’s only one?”

Seriously though, great insight. Feminism – along with a lot of ‘isms – is ultimately self-correcting. Nothing that relies on progressively disrupting sustainable circumstances can last forever, and the more disruptive something is to the natural order the sooner the requisite conditions must end, taking the disruptive behavior with them.

I have posited that feminism is part of the overall secularization of Western society (a symptom of our culture, not the ultimate cause of its problems) and that is what is unsustainable. If a sustainable society emerges after all this, PUA’s and skanks will go to the pillary together, while most women assume their traditional roles as wives and mothers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
meistergedanken September 18, 2012 at 09:39

“That is, the richer the men in any given society are in aggregate, the more wealth and privilege accrues to its women. The flip side of that is that the poorer the men are, the worse off and less valued the women.

So, any policies that impoverish men, even if they temporarily benefit the women, cause women’s status and value to decrease over time.”

What you have described here is the relationship between a parasite and its host – and indeed, Nature has ways of correcting itself so both species can continue.

So really, you should have titled this post: “That Feminist Parasite”.

This raises the question, however: what level of diminished quality of life will women accept, so they can maintain at least a semblance of their current domination? Pride can make them (and therefore us) suffer needlessly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 September 18, 2012 at 09:57

I understood many decades ago that one cannot make major changes in a successful society, and expect the society to still be successful. Any changes will in the long term cause problems that harm the society.

Yet, the same smart aleck types over thousands of years think they can make a better society, by stealing from those who work and give to those who do not work.

Malthus is known for his theory that population will increase to the point of starvation. Though delayed by Borlaug’s work, Africa has proved his theory.

But, Malthus should be better known by his documentation in great detail in the Essay which proves that “poor laws’ (what we today call welfare) will always and ever produce more poor, not less.

Borrow his ESSAY ON POPULATION from a library and read for yourself. This was written a very long time ago.

It is “kind and compassionate” women who will use their vote to insist that poor people, mostly women, be protected against want, by taking more and more from men to give to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Pirran September 18, 2012 at 10:00

@meistergedanken

Yeah, you got there before me. Parasitism explains the whole relationship between radical feminism and society. As we approach the point of parasitic overload, the host organism starts to stumble and fall. Sadly the way Nature has of correcting such an imbalance is to shrug and let the vultures clean up.

I don’t think acceptance comes into it. That would presume a level of awareness in the public sector parasite that it does not possess. Hence doubling-down (whipping a dead donkey) and endless shaming. They really can’t understand why it doesn’t work anymore.

I’m not arguing that we should be resigned to despair, merely that this model has to die before something better can arise. In the long term, I’m quite optimistic; ultimately it wasn’t the ethical arguments against slavery that caused it’s demise, but the economic ones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 10:02

@ Skeptic re September 18, 2012 at 09:06 -

Unlikely since most of the taxes that men are currently paying fund the excessive lifestyles of women. The taxes women will pay will never fund the excessive lifestyles of men. Of course and then again maybe you are right as men do all the work and women do little or nothing. And if the men aren’t getting paid they will not work voluntarily and slavery is a very inefficient way of coercing labor from men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thos September 18, 2012 at 10:02

Unfortunately, this reduces the problem to a single cause; albeit an interesting one and the focus of this web site.

Unfortunately, there is a question of confusing correlation with causation.

Where did all the good jobs go? Why can’t a man support a family? Here’s a hint: you’re reading this on a computer screen. Where did all of the office boy and mail shop room jobs go? These basic white collar jobs began to go away in the 1980s as micro computers became cheaper.

Similarly in manufacturing, the 80s recession was worsened by power assist on assembly lines. Then in the 1990s even more complete robotics came in to major manufacturing so the US government decided to deregulate housing so that blue collar men cold have jobs. Fifteen years passed and basically all the buildings America needed for the foreseeable — and more — were built and the shoe collapsed.

Meanwhile over in white collar jobs, networked computers tore through industry, killing off whole industries of middle-men. Travel agents, catalogue printers, intermediate distributors, all have been vaporized by the web. (A materials engineer standing next to me is whispering that materials themselves also changed a lot during this period (polycarb, et cetera) and so generations of craftsmanship were rendered obsolete. On-board sensors and computers also helped make diagnosing mechanical systems slightly less of an archane art.

My advice is to get used to it. I’ve seen floor and bathroom-tile finishing robots being demo’d along with climbing Waldoes for girder work on construction sites.

If you can do it with your hands, consider changing jobs. No, really. As got myself, my job is predicated on human foolishness and impatience so I’m set for life but if you’re not in the STEM sector, then basically I have no advice for you. As it is, STEM is pretty much a meritocracy despite the corporate politics that bedevil any workplace. The code compiles or it doesn’t. No room for feelings her.

Back to my point, however, is that feminism rose along with the computer revolution. I think that the latter did more to alter the workplace than feminism because of my position as technocrat. Your mileage may vary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself September 18, 2012 at 10:03

“what level of diminished quality of life will women accept, so they can maintain at least a semblance of their current domination?”

Whatever level that will test the limits of their tolerance, and remember, “tolerant woman” is close to becoming an oxymoron (if it isn’t one already).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 10:04

@ Nemo re September 18, 2012 at 09:33 -

I like the way you wrote that sentiment. Spot on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy September 18, 2012 at 10:07

“Here in the West men have been very wealthy by world standards for quite some time.”

True to an extent, but also men and women of the west have been living well on borrowed money, and the bills are coming due.

Our “recovery” is largely a mirage of the gamed stock markets — the FED buying toxic assets from banks, whose gambles went bad, and those banks putting the money into the stock market and commodities. We’re probably headed to another crash like we saw starting in 2000 with the collapse of NASDAQ.

Feminism is a parasitic movement; it exists off of government largesse, borrowed government largesse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster September 18, 2012 at 10:13

The Working Woman Era is what contributed to the boom cycle of the 80′s and 90′s. She earned and she ravishly consumed. If she married, her husband’s income paid the mortgage, while she furnished the McMansion, bought the luxury SUV, paid for day care and other non-essential goods and services.

The Working Woman ran up debt, borrowed from her home’s equity to pay off credit cards, got more credit cards, borrowed more money to trade down to a Prius or Suburu, maybe even filed for bankruptcy. And now her daughter is leaving college in debt for years from student loans, and little hope of finding employment or a viable husband that can support her.

The Working Woman gained untold spending power and this was good for the economy until she started to borrow money she couldn’t pay back. There were some heady feel-good times for a while, but now corporations seem to be doing fine with trimmed, more efficient work forces; no need to create EEOC “make-work” positions. Off-shoring is not just for manufacturing anymore. It’s engineering, finance and even marketing. Corporations keep a few token “workers” around at HQ just for appearances. Pretty soon even they’ll be replaced with stock photo models.

They don’t even bother to ask “Who will my daughter marry?” anymore. Now it’s “Where will my daughter work?”. Young men can always find something because they’re strong, resiliant and willing to sacrifice themselves. Young women can become waitresses, maids or prostitutes. Young Women of the Future will be limited.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andie September 18, 2012 at 10:47

@ Lyn87

If a sustainable society emerges after all this, PUA’s and skanks will go to the pillary together, while most women assume their traditional roles as wives and mothers.

Interesting article in the Daily Mail a few days ago – 75% of new mothers said the ideal family was a male breadwinner and a stay at home mother. The perfect family configuration.

Even more interesting is reading the comments. The most highly voted ones point the finger at feminism and it seems that both men and women are starting to understand that female “empowerment” has come at great expense. When men can no longer earn a wage to support their family, everyone suffers. Women are much worse off under feminism, and many of them are coming to see it.

The upcoming election will be an interesting one. If Romney takes it, it will be in large part because voters are starting to get that the whole liberal feminist fairytale is leading the country over a cliff.

We shall see.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199539/75-new-mothers-stay-home-bring-child-afford-to.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Andie September 18, 2012 at 10:52

Some examples from the Daily Mail article:

This article contains nothing new except the fact that feminists have been lying their heads off, claiming that women wanted and demanded to be in the workforce. As with every fad and indoctrinated effort, it always gets exposed and yet those responsible will continue to make those same old, last decade claims, that mothers don’t want to stay at home. It really shows how much those feminists have lied.
- whatmenaresayin, Melb., Australia

The Government have deliberately destroyed the ‘British family’ by pushing the viewpoint that women should be working rather then raising a family. Today British women work and possibly have an only child later in life. Result reduction of British population size and aging population giving the Government a reason for mass immigration.
- AndyC, Wakefield, 6/9/2012 21:04

And if 75% of mothers could stay at home we’d have less dysfunctional feral kids ruining their lives while trashing ours. When will government get this? Being a mother is a full time occupation, a career actually much more important than any other, it seems to me, as they produce the next generation of workers and citizens. It would be nice to think that a new generation could be raised in the best way they could be and hopefully put a stop to the madness that seems to inflict many youngsters. Of course there always will be bad parenting, but maybe that’s because young people haven’t got a clue how to raise a family.
- Mrs Britain, wilts, United Kingdom

Feminist told women they could have it all work and raise a family.Many mothers today now realise that was a lie.
- NoEU4UK, Manchester, United Kingdom

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay September 18, 2012 at 10:55

Our “recovery” is largely a mirage of the gamed stock markets — the FED buying toxic assets from banks, whose gambles went bad, and those banks putting the money into the stock market and commodities

If you are referring to QE, the Fed is not buying toxic assets, the Fed is buying US government debt and now also AMBS, which are guaranteed by the US government. The effect of course is similar, yields are going down for safe investments so people chase other assets – which is a side effect, as the general thrust of the idea was to lower interest rates so people would borrow/refinance and thus spend more, specifically with now targeting mortgage rates. It’s going to be interesting to see if it works this time, after failing so miserably (QE2 and Operation Twist).

For me at least, the Fed inflating financial asset prices means that I buy more financial assets instead of spending money on consumption.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pirran September 18, 2012 at 11:31

@Art Vandelay

“For me at least, the Fed inflating financial asset prices means that I buy more financial assets instead of spending money on consumption.”

That’s a big bubble, Art. Not so sure I want to be high up in that balloon when in pops.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 18, 2012 at 11:36

One element is strangely missing: young men’s loss of ambition.
This is an important reason for their empoverishment.

Most school drop outs are boys and young men. The pool of suitable males is, as a consequence, diminishing.

How will that turn out for the future is anybody’s guess, but I think that a stage of equilibrium will be reached and our society, as a result, will fragment into casts, not very unlike what we see in India.

Civilizations have come and gone and that has never been a big deal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost September 18, 2012 at 11:46

I was kinda hoping we could acheive the same thing through our own MRA actions from MGTOW,PUA,grass eaters and peter pans etc. Any one of those guys can be worth millions and the women around them be worthless.
Fuck that lets do it anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster September 18, 2012 at 11:58

Our “recovery” is largely a mirage of the gamed stock markets — the FED buying toxic assets from banks, whose gambles went bad, and those banks putting the money into the stock market and commodities. We’re probably headed to another crash like we saw starting in 2000 with the collapse of NASDAQ.

Bernake’s “printing” $40 Billion a month to buy back toxic assets will be looked back on as the straw that broke the camel’s back. Liquidity is NOT the problem. Corporations are sitting on a Trillion dollars in cash waiting for the results of the next election. If it’s Obama it will stay parked for another four years; too much uncertianty, too many executive decrees without Congress, and then the effects of ObamaCare along with a $20 Trillion debt (we’re borrowing/spending 1.2 Trillion more a year than we’re taking in).

Once the sidelined money starts flooding the markets into once delayed re-investment initiatives, the value of the dollar will drop and inflation will grow out of control. I see the 2020′s as being rather dire no matter how you look at it. There will have to be a major frackus; Iran nukes to terrorists, China-Russia vs Japan, North Korea, etc. The world has been at peace for far too long. You can feel the tensions building.

Much like ancient Rome, the USA has stretched it’s resources too thin throughout the empire and can no longer contain all the other cultures from revolting against our “oppression”. It’s all far too complex and unwieldy to manage anymore. We can’t simply pay despots off to keep the peace. They want global financial power and access to the same resources we have. Trying to appease our enemies through contrite speeches has obvioulsy not helped any either.

The USA is tapped out and the world knows it.
We also have no demonstrable leadership, domestically or in world affairs. We have an excellent campaigner and speech maker; a celebrity, a rock star, as our President. He’s sexy and suave and most women are enraptured by is aura. He’s their collective Husband – in -Chief.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 12:08

@ Andie re September 18, 2012 at 10:47 -

Your post implies that feminism is promoted mostly by liberals and conservatives are a better alternative who have not promoted feminism. This conclusion is incorrect as both liberals and conservatives throughout the developed world have promoted feminism. They just did it in different ways. The liberals by creating victim classes which are used as an excuse to transfer vast amount of wealth from responsible men to women. The conservatives by allowing women or the men with whom they are associated to borrow vast amounts of money from the Federal Reserve and forcing responsible men to pay of the debt and interest. Regardless of the mechanism, the result is the same. And women are not coming to any realization that the feminist fairytale is leading any country over a cliff. Women and feminists are opportunists. They are just looking for the next opportunity of which they can take advantage since the last one is yielding diminishing returns. They realize nothing because realization requires short- and long-term cost benefit analyses and they are not capable of that.But worse than that, they have bitten off more than they can chew and now are looking for someone else at whom to point fingers of blame and cast aspersions and pick up the tab as they now understand that responsible men have nothing left to steal. They’re just looking for the next host on which to parasitize.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 12:16

@ Anti Idiocy -

“True to an extent, but also men and women of the west have been living well on borrowed money, and the bills are coming due.”

True. But since these people borrowed so much money that they can’t pay off, they are going after responsible men who did not borrow money to pay for their debts and the interest for. Our entire economic system has been reengineered to steal from our most productive and responsible men. Discouraging responsibility in the future. And since it rewarded irresponsiblity, the new system is only promoting more irresponsibility. None of this is going to end well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 12:22

@ lyn87 -

“If a sustainable society emerges after all this, PUA’s and skanks will go to the pillary together, while most women assume their traditional roles as wives and mothers.”

Most women ARE skanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter South September 18, 2012 at 12:40

At some point it all comes down because the work women do isn’t productive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
universe September 18, 2012 at 12:48

W.F. (good comments, btw)
Part of the reason for younger men’s decline in wealth (although by no means all), is feminist affirmative action and “positive discrimination,” as well as confiscatory policies designed to give the female group an advantage over the male. These measures have been effective, and have contributed to the declining wealth of the Western male in both relative and absolute terms. (good comment, btw)
– And viewed no less as desirable, necessary and as a measure of success. There’s the paradox of feminist and female power, or rather, the supposed lack of. Appearing as the weak perpetual underdog yet turning complete cultures 180 degrees.

Skeptic
Logically given current trends continuing I can see it will get to a point where the feminist serving gubmint ponzi scheme is funded mostly by women because by then they out-earn men.
Just imagine it – Joanne Normal in ten years time – …

– …”I’m not paying for for the ‘date’ “. The ‘date’ being the female taxed to provide possible future services designed for men to reach parity of the women who once thought they were deserving of the services demanded by feminism regarding things that men never had before feminism.
Before the advent of big industry and taxation, and some time into it, the working man lived quite distant from safety net programs. The feminist movement demanded safety net workforce programs for women before entering the workforce without women actually working in and under the same conditions as most common men.
“Equality” to feminists and followers means attaining a similar outcome (acqusition, employment, degreed learning, respect, etc.) but without similar effort and using the accrued wealth of those whom they thought earned it at the expense of women. The early wealth of the industrial nations were manually built in the ditches, sweat factories and a host of other infrastructures relying upon years of manual labour – devoid mostly of immediate female involvement. (Many should know all this by now but bears repeating. Consequently, feminists need a history lesson).

Nemo
The cumulative effects of inflation, globalization, the recession, the deliberate redistribution of wealth away from working men, etc. have already set families back by 23 years
– Uh-huh.
Globalization – international free trade zones, increased commodity production, corporatism, military interventions, and common social and legal structuring to eventual corporate interest, to describe but a fraction of this envelopment.

But let’s have a look at the social arm of globalization in the schema. The social wing assisted in the redistribution of wealth from men to women (palimony/alimony where neither are necessary, perpetual CS and, yes, AA programs, among others). U.N. General Assemblies assist in this, and more. A whole host of other factors bring it into mundane existance (social services, state attorneys, family court judges, police, journalists, ‘women’s studies’ waifs, peer pressure, etc.).

Got to also bring women into the workforce to facilitate in the production of goods and services to service the industrial and capital base. GIVE them an unearned leg up in all matters by utilizing the earned resourses of the unorganized, the least overall valued – the individual common man. His taxes go toward the cultivation of mass disinformation while big money saves theirs yet reap the benefits off both. It appears as though this process is easy pickin’s. First convince any female she alone has been cheated. She forms insecure cohesion with the like-minded and merrily they go about wreaking unrestrained havoc upon an unprepared populace, busy working to support it all. The rest becomes historical.

Lyn87
Nothing that relies on progressively disrupting sustainable circumstances can last forever, and the more disruptive something is to the natural order the sooner the requisite conditions must end, taking the disruptive behavior with them.
– Once the old ways are strangled out of existance new ways are introduced without great fuss. Some people won’t be bothered to rally back with what they believe is proper and just will go along with the current stress inducing measures leveled upon them now (unjust child custody/support, blatantly unfair hiring/social preferences, preferential arrest targeting, etc.). Knowing it to be unfair many give up trying to maintain a semblance of just and proper. Why bother? Then enters the new plan – better than we ever had.
Ri-i-ght.
This ain’t over yet.

Anyway, back to being the patriarch. It’s a dirty job but… One can even do this without a family. Ask any uninformed feminist. They’re the specialists in knowing not of what they speak. Hasn’t the world been shown enough of this already?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anti Idiocy September 18, 2012 at 13:49

“If you are referring to QE, the Fed is not buying toxic assets, the Fed is buying US government debt and now also AMBS, which are guaranteed by the US government.”

Those agency mortgage backed securities are the toxic assets that the FED is buying. This channels money to investors, the idea being that the investors will loan the money to companies and individuals to spur the market economy. Unfortunately, much of the money is being invested in the stock markets and commodities — hence the spikes in those markets after the FED’s announcement of open ended QE to the tune of an additional $40 billion a month.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Thos September 18, 2012 at 15:34
keyster September 18, 2012 at 15:44

This little screencast lays it all out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EW5IdwltaAc

Truth is it’s a bipartisan issue. Income tax needs to be raised to 50% AND medicare/medicaid need to be cut in half. The only one in Wash DC sounding the alarm and who’s even close is Paul Ryan, and even his plan is far from realistic.

How do you convince voters to vote for you after you tell them they need to make major sacrifices now, to avoid insolvency later? At least half our adult population can’t even comprehend a TRILLION of anything as a quantity, let alone 25 of it by 2020. But they will notice our Prez is rather dashing and has a great smile, while he hob-nobs with a Late Show comedian sporting a bro-mance erection in his Worldwide Pants. OMG! I hear he might even get up and sing some Al Green with the band!…you know like Clinton playing the saxophone.

Damn Femocrats always have the sexiest presidents!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cassidy September 18, 2012 at 15:44

It is important for men to be debt-free, self-reliant, and willing to pick up and move at a moment’s notice. The way I see it, men choosing to not invest in the future, the feminist future, is a good thing. It is clear the gravy train is going to fly off the rails sooner, rather than later. When people put all their eggs in one basket, they make themselves slaves to that single path.

I will use college debt as an example.

A lot of young women have decided they are going to be the sassy career gals, just like the women of Generation X. They spend several years pursuing a bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD, only to find themselves up the creek without a paddle. Most of their degrees don’t translate when they try and enter the workforce. They usually end up in office jobs doing busy work, and are stuck with all that debt from college. It is going to take them a long time to pay off all that debt because they didn’t get the six-figure income jobs they thought they were entitled to just because they graduated from college. They usually spend their 30s/40s in debt up to their eyeballs, slaves to their jobs, and can’t find a man who will somehow save them from their past mistakes so they can go Eat,Pray, and Slut It Up.

While men don’t have anywhere near the money compared to previous generations of men, their wrists and ankles aren’t bound by shackles. Some young men realize planting roots in their 20s limits their options regarding their futures. One thing I love about being a man is being able to think outside the box. This used to be a trait which was celebrated, but not much anymore. When I graduated from high school several years ago, about half the men decided not to attend college, while almost all the women decided to attend college. The school administers didn’t care because all they cared about was the success of the female students, but a lot of the parents of the male students were very displeased. A lot of my friends and I heard, “You need to go to college.” When we would ask for more clarification, they said, “Well, you just need to go to college, because that is what you are SUPPOSED to do.”

When I look around me, I see some interesting things. I see a lot of women who aren’t going to get off the gravy train, and are going to keep doing what popular culture and the media tell them to do. I see some men, not a lot, who understand if they aren’t careful, they are going to be left holding the bag filled with all the damage caused over the past half decade. When you peel away all the hyperbole, you see more and more men who are choosing to not invest in a feminist utopia. Men like me don’t want to live in a woman’s world/mother culture.

Things do have a way of correcting themselves. Feminists are going to dig themselves into such a deep hole, they won’t be able to escape. When they call for help, men like me aren’t going to bail them out. Let them rot, for all I care.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 18, 2012 at 16:02

Simpler just to say that even in the modern economy, the ‘real’ output is driven by mens’ participation in it. A myth of the ‘service economy’ has been created that posits that $1 of manufacturing output is worth just as much as $1 of service output, when in reality the manufacturing output is like a tribe finding a new food source whilst the service output is like a bunch of primates sitting around grooming each other. (and arguably, grooming is actually more worthwhile than some of the ‘service’ industries that exist today – ironically, it at least removes some parasites from the recipient)

Womens’ suffrage has broken the link between a wealth earner and his family (by having some of his provision crowded out by government), and additionally accelerated the rate at which resources are stripped from men and given to women in order to meet said provisioning requirements.

In the short term this benefits the women but in the long term disincentivises the men who create the ‘real’ output. This is what we’re seeing now.

And it’ll never stop as long as we have full ‘representative’ democracy. Just see the fuss created recently by Romney’s private remarks about the 47% of people who will never vote for him because they suck at the teat of government. He’s now being hounded for possibly the first truthful and basically correct thing I’ve ever seen him reported to have said. He even nailed the fact that people will never accept they were wrong [in the context of getting back some of the votes that swung to Obama last election]. Just as he’s right about them, you can bet your last dollar that feminists will never accept that the reason for societal decline is their insistence on ‘fair’ wages and equal democratic representation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Andie September 18, 2012 at 16:03

# Darryl X

I don’t think it is fair to treat Woman and Feminist as synonymous. Even when Betty Freidan was churning out her nightmare Feminine Mystique, there were women like Phyllis Schlafly fighting her. Phyllis and the many women who supported her DEFEATED the Equal Rights Amendment. To this day, the US Constitution does NOT contain an ERA.

I think you are not accounting for the fact that it is very, very tough for women who are NOT feminists to speak out. Female aggressiveness against other women is devastatingly effective. We are silenced by some very loud voices.

To be clear, I am not equating the aggressiveness non-conformist women face from other women with the institutional aggressiveness men face from a system designed to force them to support women’s choices, no matter how bad those choices are. I am simply pointing out that non-feminist women are invisible because of the censure we get from other women. And those women can take out their displeasure on our husbands rather too easily.

It only APPEARS that all women are skanks and feminists bent on destruction. But that is not true. There are many women who are simply afraid to speak out because the consequences can be so terrible. My husband is a professor at a liberal university, in a more conservative faculty. I cannot call out his female colleagues on their blatant misandry (which they call “conversation”) because they would destroy his career, or at least try to.

One of those women once called me a “freeloader”, to my face, because I am a full time stay at home mom and wife who makes every meal and does all the housework and puts all my intellectual energy into advancing my husband’s career so that he can continue to take care of us.

That stung. Really badly. And I had to smile and swallow it and let it pass and my husband was so wonderful to me that night, because he knew how much it hurt to have every single thing I value and care about dismissed like so much garbage by women who could give a fuck about their husbands, children, dog – anyone but themselves.

It’s not a matter of conservative versus liberal; it’s a matter of loving men for BEING men. Feminists love men who act like WOMEN. They insist that ALL men MUST act like women and they will drug the shit out of little boys basically from birth to make sure that happens.

Loving men for being men is culturally unacceptable. I am treated as some kind of Stepford fembot drone of the patriarchy because I weigh the same now after three children and 14 years (12 of them married) as I did the day I met my husband. I comb my hair before he gets home. I get him a beer and listen to him talk about his day before launching into whatever bullshit trauma the washing machine caused me.

But I have to hide all that. I have to hide that I LOVE my husband for being a man. It’s only acceptable to love him for being a woman. But he’s not.

The only place I have ever seen it be acceptable to outright adore men for being men is on a military base, and only the non-enlisted wives seemed to do it.

I still wouldn’t dare say a word to the women my husband works with, as I listen to them complain about what losers men are, all the while shoveling food I have prepared into their giant mouths so their asses can get even bigger.

We’re invisible. But we exist. Women who are NOT feminists. And we’re not parasites or freeloaders, either. We are wives. We are help-mates. We are First Officers. We are the mothers of the next generation, who will hopefully put this terrible social experiment in its grave.

Unless of course we work together and bury it first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
qx11984 September 18, 2012 at 17:05

As the younger, poorer men come of age, and are still significantly poorer than their predecessors, this will begin to impact women of their cohort as well. I believe this process has already begun, but the effects have some lag; perhaps ten years or so. When it becomes readily apparent that living in a country full of poor men is no picnic for women, feminism will be discredited, but not until then. Using the recession as the starting point, I’d give it about five years until it can no longer be ignored.

So, given that women’s status is a result of male wealth, it looks as though feminism may actually turn out to be self-correcting, as it strips men of resources that could be used to further empower women. Maybe human society has a mysterious way of correcting itself, and the natural balance between the sexes is restored even through counterintuitive processes such as feminism.

Mr. Price I would concur.

As a poor man I’m barely able to do for other and in truth I’m often not able to do for myself as I should.

That’s a hard pill to swallow- however I think that sooner or later most people will realize that the great mancession (including the marriage strike) isn’t directly caused by the economy and can’t be entirely solved through it either.

Many of us are simply suffering from a loss of personal power and no longer have the ability to do for others. Whether that be from loss of financial power and or loss of social and legal powers.

I have no idea what long term impact this will have on the nation but I do know that powerless men are despised by all and are considered dangerous by every government on this planet.

In my humble opinion we’re heading for some kind of major conflagration.

If not a world war then certainly a civil war.

Perhaps it’s a bit to soon to state the obvious though? If so, I’m still glad I have the ability to come here and say it.

Thanks Mr. Price for keeping this website up and running. I don’t think you know how much it means to guys like me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 September 18, 2012 at 17:06

Some months ago, I read a statistic that said women control something like 85% of all the money in the US. If that is the wrong number, feel free to correct it.

At the time, I did some calculating, and concluded that meant women spent all they personally earned and also around half of all male income, including single men. Oh, me; oh, my! Such deprived hogs!

So, of course, when men aren’t employed very well, women will have less to spend. This posting certainly makes sense.

That makes me wonder if the recently publicized reduction in average family incomes by $4000 is directly attributed to a reduction in male income.

This also affirms the MGTOW idea of men working only enough for their own needs, and contributing nothing to women and kids, by avoiding marriage, and working no more hours than needed.

I have long thought that men avoiding marriage as such would bring women to the negotiating table, but this reduction in male incomes may have greater force.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
greyghost September 18, 2012 at 17:08

For those of you that think we need women in the MRM. Andie just told us how women can be most effective. Guiding the herd. We don’t need a female MRA with the hopes that “they will listen to a woman if she tells them how bad it is for men”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 18, 2012 at 18:48

“I have long thought that men avoiding marriage as such would bring women to the negotiating table, but this reduction in male incomes may have greater force.”

The first assumption was delusional, as we have seen. The second assumption is delusional as well.

Women (I should say feminists) will never negociate: they never did.

There are other means of extracting money from men. Emprisonment, slavery, forced labor, to mention only these three.

Let me throw in sex strike as a bonus..
lol!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zorro September 18, 2012 at 19:07

“… the richer the men in any given society are in aggregate, the more wealth and privilege accrues to its women. The flip side of that is that the poorer the men are, the worse off and less valued the women.”

Hanna Rosin is a brain-dead cunt. Fuck the whores for the whores they are. Just don’t get one pregnant, and don’t get an STD.

Matriarchies all die. Only females give birth. And females mate hypergamously. The female of the species mandates patriarchy. We don’t.

Suck it, fembots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Will September 18, 2012 at 19:22

While taking environmental engineering classes at college I was often confronted with environmental science women. They would often blather on about how they were going to change the plight of sub-Saharan countries by helping only the women of those blighted lands. When I asked if she was ethically okay with discriminating against people based on their gender they would give me an angry look and respond thus:

“The UN reports that by improving the plight of impoverished women, they will help build better communities and alleviate poverty!”

Which makes me wonder if the UN is simply full of it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jaego September 18, 2012 at 20:29

An interesting meditation. There have been (are?) many tropical societies both in Africa and South America where the women did the hard constant work with the garden and children while the men more or less loafed. They would hunt of course – which they enjoyed. And also do some of the heavy work of clearing the land as well as helping with the harvest. But most of the time…..

We didn’t ask for this and it’s not our Culture, but for those of who have been put in this situation might as well as enjoy it while it lasts. Things are going to get bad enough soon – for other reasons. And these reasons (war, peak oil, etc) might bring on the readjustment much quicker and completely.

Of course the powers that be want men to feel guilty about being unemployed or underemployed – as if it’s all our fault and they didn’t ship away our jobs and bring in tens of millions of brown men to under cut us here at home. Some have said that this kind of “Protestant Work Ethic Guilt” has taken the place of any real sense of sin. In any case, it’s largely bullshit under the present circumstances – but oh is it a good way to divide men from seeing their common interests.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 20:55

@ Cassidy -

“While men don’t have anywhere near the money compared to previous generations of men, their wrists and ankles aren’t bound by shackles.”

Actually a very large proportion of men are shackled. They are jailed arbitrarily and their passports are suspended and their driver licenses suspended or revoked. Governments are cracking down aggressively to shackle men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 18, 2012 at 21:18

@ Andie –

“I don’t think it is fair to treat Woman and Feminist as synonymous. Even when Betty Freidan was churning out her nightmare Feminine Mystique, there were women like Phyllis Schlafly fighting her. Phyllis and the many women who supported her DEFEATED the Equal Rights Amendment. To this day, the US Constitution does NOT contain an ERA.”

It’s not a matter of fairness. Typical woman. Still trying to portray practical arguments as emotional ones to absolve women of any responsibility for their misbehavior and crimes. No. You’re right. There is no ERA. But since, there has been every law created such that there is a de facto ERA (misnomer that). So big failure there. Again, it illustrates the short-sightedness of women. Win the battle but lose the war. All women are feminists because all women (without a single exception) have benefited excessively from the legal, political, social and financial machine that feminists have created. And those benefits have all come at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of men and children (in the US alone). When all my financial resources and children which women stole have been returned to me and all women are living on the street to pay for it only then will there be fairness. All women are feminists but not all feminists are women. Some are men.

“To be clear, I am not equating the aggressiveness non-conformist women face from other women with the institutional aggressiveness men face from a system designed to force them to support women’s choices, no matter how bad those choices are. I am simply pointing out that non-feminist women are invisible because of the censure we get from other women. And those women can take out their displeasure on our husbands rather too easily.”

If women don’t have any more sense of conviction or responsibility or courage or initiative then they should not vote. The system does not force women to support the choices of feminists. It forces men. Women are not forced. Not even close. The participation in the system from which a woman benefits at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of men is a choice. She is not forced. It is deliberate. She is condemning innocent men not necessarily so she can enjoy a greater standard of living than men but to satisfy her addiction to power and control. The lives and livelihoods of men do not need to be sacrificed for a woman to enjoy a greater standard of living. That is just the excuse she uses to condemn men. The ultimate goal is not a greater standard of living. It is condemnation of men. Feminism is a hate movement. It is a campaign of hate against men and children. And all women are evil until feminism has been destroyed and every women pays back repairations with interest.

“We’re invisible.”

Yup

The experiment isn’t going to be put in the grave until I have been reimbursed for all that was stolen. You can never give my children back and you can never undrug him. You can never give him back his mind that you stole. This is a war. And it will end only one way. The complete utter destruction of feminism and the women who participated in it and/or who sat by passively at let it happen. I have absolutely no sympathy and will demonstrate no mercy for any woman until I and other men have been compensated and women and feminists have been punished for their egregious crimes against humanity (preferably with death sentences). This is a war that women started and it will not end until every one of them has paid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
biff September 18, 2012 at 21:18

Good discussion on here. I particularly appreciate Andie’s input. Would be great to get more women on here and involved.

As to the discussion re: poorer men causing feminism to falter, my perspective is slightly different. First, if you look at countries like Japan and Korea, they are relatively rich, but still preserve a lot of important gender distinctions. However, they also have pretty even distributions of wealth.

What is happening globally is the rise of an upper class. The American middle class has been gutted, and this is largely a a result of globalization (and the technology that has supported it), but a billion Chinese have been lifted out of dire poverty at the same time. Remember all those great Chinese goods we got so cheap? Anyway, unless the U.S. had tried to implement strict protectionism (which would have its own very negative consequences), this was pretty much unavoidable. It is still ongoing and its effect on American society will be immense.

What happens when there is more wealth stratification, as is happening in the U.S. is that women become even more focused on finding a man who is successful, even if he might already be married. You can look to China, Latin America or the Middle East for a hint at what is to come in the U.S. in terms of gender relations. Actually, it’s a more traditional society in the sense that many men won’t be able to support a family. This isn’t good for women generally or for men generally, either. It will, however, benefit the successful men who can position themselves as Alpha Males. It will also increase the trend of single mothers supported by the State, which will become increasingly controversial as it becomes more expensive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alex September 18, 2012 at 21:38

Rebel September 18, 2012 at 18:48
There are other means of extracting money from men. Emprisonment, slavery, forced labor, to mention only these three.
Let me throw in sex strike as a bonus..

I know some men feel like hunted animals, but I’m not one of them. As long as you avoid contracting with either the state or women on general principle, you’ll be fine. Even as corrupt as the system is in its treatment of men, there must be some kind of opening for them to sink their hooks into you. Avoiding marriage, and in some places cohabitation, and behaving lawfully in the rest of your life, denies them that opening. I’ve never had any major problems in my life, by following those tenets.

As for a sex strike, there are legions of women looking to give it away every night all across the globe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh September 18, 2012 at 22:47

Of course the UN is full of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay September 19, 2012 at 01:07

@Pirran

That’s a big bubble, Art. Not so sure I want to be high up in that balloon when in pops.

Well you gotta know how to play it. I’m not someone who loads up on equities and then just sits around, and it seems a lot of average market participants aren’t really believing this either, looking at the outflows in equity mutual funds particularly, they believe the game is rigged. Which it of course is with central banks all over the world manipulating the yield curve on a scale that we haven’t seen in the history of the market (with Japan as an instance where it already happened once).

If you got some money you pretty much gotta play that game, there is no return to be had in cash or short term bonds.

@Anti Idiocy

Those agency mortgage backed securities are the toxic assets that the FED is buying.

I’m saying these assets are not toxic crap, they are pretty standard securities and rather safe because they are insured. We are not talking about nefarious things like synthetic CDOs here…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Native Swede September 19, 2012 at 03:49

“So, any policies that impoverish men, even if they temporarily benefit the women, cause women’s status and value to decrease over time. ”

You assume women care about future outcomes. The empirical evidence for this is… well, let’s be kind and say weak. Whatever benefits momma right this now is going to happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Walking in hell September 19, 2012 at 04:05

American women will never be brought to any bargaining table. As American men become more poor, American women will leave to seek out wealthier men, or import them. Possibly American women, having expropriated most of the wealth, will import poor men into America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno September 19, 2012 at 04:12

Hillary Clinton’s reaction (speaking to her entourage, and caught on camera) after hearing that Gaddafi was murdered:
” We came, we saw, he died! HAHAHAHAHAA ! “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Apollo September 19, 2012 at 04:28

@Daryll X

This is a war. And it will end only one way. The complete utter destruction of feminism and the women who participated in it and/or who sat by passively at let it happen. I have absolutely no sympathy and will demonstrate no mercy for any woman until I and other men have been compensated and women and feminists have been punished for their egregious crimes against humanity (preferably with death sentences).

If you’re assigning equal blame to women who didn’t actively resist Feminism as you would to actual campaigning Feminists, what blame do you assign to all of those men who have stood by as Feminism gained ground? Do you give any amnesty to those (men or women) who were born into an already Feminist environment, and who may have remained aquiescent because they didn’t realize the full damage Feminism was doing, or because of an all too human desire to fit in and not rock the boat? What specifically do you think that those who sat passively by while Feminism took control should have been doing? Were you doing this yourself?

Those are all serious questions. If you’re going to claim people who weren’t actively promoting Feminism are somehow individually responsible for it then presumably you have ready answers.

I saw a certain NAWALT self serving rationalisation in Andies post, and it didn’t move me to deviate from my plan to never marry, or father children with a western woman, but I’m not yet seeing a reason to personally blame her for all of the ravages that Feminism has inflicted on our society. And other than maybe cursing out those Feminists who insulted her, I don’t see that there’s that much more in this regard that could be reasonably expected of her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andie September 19, 2012 at 06:24

@ DARRYL X

“The experiment isn’t going to be put in the grave until I have been reimbursed for all that was stolen. You can never give my children back and you can never undrug him. You can never give him back his mind that you stole. ”

I understand your rage, Darryl X, I really do. I would like my childhood back. I would like my father back. I would like my family back. Those things were stolen from me, not by my wife, but by my mother.

I am one of the children raised by a feminist who destroyed her family and taught her children to hate men. And I would like her to pay dearly for that. The damage she did to my three brothers is incalculable. I want all the women who take advantage of unfair laws to pay for their crimes. Destroying a family and poisoning a child’s mind against her father is a fucking CRIME. And it should be treated as one. Drugging a little boy simply because he acts like a little boy is a CRIME, and it should also be treated as one.

“This is a war that women started and it will not end until every one of them has paid.”

I’ve already paid. I missed 20 years of my father’s love thanks to my mother.

And as for sitting passively by, you are correct to point out that men pay for the consequences of feminism. What good would it do for me to actively speak out against institutionalized feminism when it is my HUSBAND who would pay for that? What good would it do to destroy his ability to support us? How would that help?

The most important contribution I make is to lead by example. I live a life that is in direct conflict with the fulfilling life feminism promises. I am dependent on a man, in a long-term heterosexual marriage, I am raising our children, my principle aim in life is to care for my family and my own needs are secondary to that (and it turns out that my own happiness revolves around caring for others – so EPIC WIN there!).

I am not dismissing your rage and thirst for vengeance. I am telling you that I share it. I didn’t have my children stolen from me by a woman. I had my childhood stolen instead.

I’m part of the first generation of children raised by these women. And we are angry at what our mothers were allowed to do to us. We want them to pay. We will never put our own children through that kind of hell. We would like to see the laws reflect what horrors women are permitted to inflict on others in the name of ideology, by making those things as illegal as they are immoral.

There must be a part for the fatherless generation to play in this. Even when the fatherless are women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 08:06

@ Andie -

“I understand your rage, Darryl X, I really do.”

There is no rage here. Stop trying to portray things emotionally. Stop the hyperbole. There are no emotions here. It’s all a matter of pragmatism. The evil people and those who enabled them simply must be stopped. I don’t get emotional about these things. It’s a bad trap to fall into. Unless these people are discouraged from their wicked practices and those who enable them are discouraged too, then things will not change. This is a war. The worst thing that can happen is for men like me to internalized these things emotionally. No rage. No anger. Just objective analyses of the facts so they can be used to understand the problem and identify a solution.

“I’ve already paid. I missed 20 years of my father’s love thanks to my mother.”

Yes, but your mother didn’t pay. And you didn’t pay either. Your time without your father doesn’t compensate your father for his losses. It’s just an excuse for not repaying to him what was stolen. And you may have lost something by being forcibly separated from your father but you also benefited considerably from it. At his expense. It’s not just about punishing those women who sat back and let this happen or those who actively participated. It’s about extracting that which they stole from innocent men and giving it back to the them plus interest. I don’t care anything about the lives of my ex or my children. I only care about my life and what was stolen from me and getting it back so I can live my life without threat of imprisonment and out of poverty. My ex and my children took up with the government. Their fate is with the government. I didn’t take up with the government. My fate lies solely with compensation. That is the only way for me and many other men to recover and get out of poverty.

“I am dependent on a man”

No you aren’t. You can pack up and steal the kids and stick it to him anytime you want with no consequences and considerable reward. You are not dependent upon him at all. And he lives with that realization, knowing all the time that his relationship with you is tenuous at best and that he can be defrauded on your whim. And he has no legal or practical recourse. He is your slave. And the children are your hostages. That will remain true until every feminist law has been eliminated and all women who have defrauded all men during the past forty-four years have paid back what they stole. And if that means them dying or living on the street, that was what they deliberately and for no reason chose to do to the men. So they deserve it.

“I am not dismissing your rage and thirst for vengeance.”

I do not want revenge. I want justice. There is a big difference. Stop ascribing qualities to my motives that don’t exist. Especially emotional ones. That’s solipsism. It’s manipulative. Your feminine mind works perfectly for distorting intentions and twisting reality to suit your own desperate pursuit to relieve yourself of guilt (maybe for what happened to your father). I am not about seeking revenge. My motives are practical. Revenge is the Lord’s. I seek compensation. Justice. Revenge has no objective frame of reference. Justice and compensation do. Revenge is pursued without intent. Without purpose. Just to hurt someone who has done something wrong to you. I pursue justice. Compensation for that which was stolen and punishment of those who stole it so as to discourage anyone else from doing it again. I would suggest rehabilitation, but psychopaths can not be rehabilitated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster September 19, 2012 at 08:28

@DarrylX
Then and even now, it’s a majority of men that gleefully support Feminism. They are liberal “social justice” men and conservative fathers of daughters. It’s these men that are truly the backbone of feminism. It can’t continue to succeed without their financial, moral and public support. These men are corporate executives, politicians, entertainers and quite likely your next door neighbor.

These are the men you need to rail against, not women in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 08:29

@ Apollo re September 19, 2012 at 04:28-

Most men were not benefiting from feminism as it was gaining ground. Only about twenty-percent were active participants. But yes, many men sat by passively and should have known what was happening. The only thing necessary for evil to proliferate is for good men to do nothing.

There are two sides to the feminist coin. Those who profit at the expense of others by identifying themselves with a particular victim class. Then there are those who borrowed money from the Central Bank or stole money in other ways and at the expense of others by making them pay for the debts. Not on the feminist coin are those men who did neither.

I’m neither. I have never been in debt, never received any public assistance. Never identified with a victim group. Spent my entire life below poverty. Men like myself represent a small minority in the US. I am one of that small minority who can cast the first stone without much concern about fingers being pointed back at me.

The men who have suffered the most and also have contributed and sacrificed the most must be compensated the most so as to discourage irresponsible behavior and victimhood and borrowing that which can’t be paid back (except with other people’s money) and to encourage responsible behavior. Otherwise circumstances will continue to disintegrate. No one is going to behave responsibly if responsible behavior is not just not compensated but actively punished.

And the answer is yes I have been actively fighting feminism for more than thirty years. I have racked up quite a list of those who have made the mistake of getting in my cross-hairs. The last thing you want to do is flaunt the spoils of your feminist pillaging in front of me. Many a feminist federal employee and university professor have watched their careers and their lives come apart after picking a fight with me. And I invest the time and effort to make sure things stay apart for them. I don’t have television or cable or internet and cell phone or land line or refrigerator or microwave. Hunting feminists is my hobby. It’s my entertainment in the absence of any other dimension to my life. Sad really. But fulfilling. There are many more productive things I and other men could be doing beside wasting time on this nonsense. And I’m not alone. My success is not achieved indepenently. There are others like me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 08:49

@ Apollo -

“I saw a certain NAWALT self serving rationalisation in Andies post, and it didn’t move me to deviate from my plan to never marry, or father children with a western woman, but I’m not yet seeing a reason to personally blame her for all of the ravages that Feminism has inflicted on our society.”

Yes, the hamsterization wheel was spinning at full tilt. She’s a woman. She benefited from feminism more than any man. Even if she represents 20% of women who are not psychopaths, she must be compelled to take an active part in the destruction of feminists and feminism. Her short-sighted perspective that if she does something they may retaliate betrays her complicity in feminism. She must pay for her complicity more than she would pay for her cowardice in refusing to condemn feminists and feminism in a meaningful way and endure their retaliation. The consequences of her failure to stop feminism must be greater than the retaliation by feminists. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for women to help men. This is a war. If you aren’t fighting feminism and feminists, then you are helping them. Stopping feminism is fundamental to maintaining civilization. It’s something that everyone should be doing all the time. They shouldn’t even be thinking about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 08:54

@ keyster re September 19, 2012 at 08:28 -

I understand and appreciate the sentiment of your post but women first. They drive the waste of resources and the corruption of men. I would not agree that it is a majority of men. About 20% actively. Maybe another 40% passively. But definitely more women than men, active or passive. Defeating feminism will require condemnation of women and their behavior, their manipulation and enslavement of men. Most men don’t have many options. Most women do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andie September 19, 2012 at 09:05

@ Darryl X

Well, you are a bigger person than me if your reaction isn’t emotional. Mine sure is. I’m all rage at what my mother was able to get away with. I’m all rage at what women around me do to their children without a moment’s thought for the pain and trauma they are causing. My response is very emotional.

Agree that “justice” is a better word. It’s what I meant.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say your children took up with the government. Your ex, yes, obviously. But your children? Did they have a say? Were they given a choice? In my situation, we were given no choices, and I am so thankful my father understood that and came back to us when we were older and more capable of understanding what had happened.

“Yes, but your mother didn’t pay. And you didn’t pay either. Your time without your father doesn’t compensate your father for his losses. It’s just an excuse for not repaying to him what was stolen. And you may have lost something by being forcibly separated from your father but you also benefited considerably from it.”

This statement I don’t understand at all. How did I benefit? My mother banishing our father was a grievous loss for all of us children, and we were left with a legacy of emotional pain and grief that took many years to untangle and move past. It was a terrible, terrible experience. I don’t see a single upside at all.

I’ll try to abstain from assigning emotional states to you in the future, but at the same time, I will gladly claim them for myself. My response isn’t cool or rational. My actions ARE but my feelings are unapologetically in the rage spectrum.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alex F September 19, 2012 at 11:05

@ Daryl X

Rather surprised at your position that female children who are stolen from their father “benefit enormously from it”. Countless studies and academic research (e.g. Norval Glenn, Bradford Wilcox, Elizabeth Marquardt, Paul Coleridge etc etc) have shown consistently that girls who experience parental divorce and / or are raised by a single mother are far more likely to drop out of school, get into drugs and alcohol, experience teenage pregnancy and abortion, fall into crime, unemployment, and poverty as adults, get divorced themselves, and experience a whole host of psychological problems ranging from anorexia to suicide.

A woman who becomes mentally ill and incapacitated as a result of decisions her mother made can hardly be said to have “benefited enormously” from feminism, even if the feminist state is kind enough to pay for her medication and institutionalising.

You argue, correctly, that feminism has waged war on men and children, but then state that all women benefit from feminism. Aren’t half of all children girls? Your position that Andie’s suffering is irrelevant because her father wasn’t “compensated” adequately is frankly bizarre. Andie’s father’s pain isn’t qualitatively more important than hers simply because he is male. In fact, I would argue the opposite – her suffering was more important, as she was a child, and inflicting pain on an innocent child is more morally repugnant than doing it to an adult. Children do not have the emotional tools that adults do. They don’t have the benefit of life experience or maturity. They have no autonomy and no voice. Any civilised society views the suffering of children to be worse than the suffering of adults, and this is the correct stance. When we hear of a little girl who has been beaten or starved or tortured, we don’t think “oh well, at least she wasn’t a boy”. Child abuse is child abuse. You may argue that more boys are suffering as a result of feminism than girls, and this may well be true. However, this doesn’t mean that girls aren’t suffering, nor that their suffering doesn’t matter, nor that their suffering is somehow “cancelled out” because of the pain their father feels. Females are not one collective consciousness.

Furthermore, the MRM berates women for trying to be like men, by being opinionated and assertive etc, but then when someone like Andie expresses the difficulties she runs into as a “traditional” woman – being demure and deferential etc – then you berate her for that, too. Not for the first time, I find myself wondering, “what does the MRA actually want?”.

I don’t think, and hope, that many MRAs really agree that the suffering of men is worse, and more important, than child abuse. If they do, then they need to get a grip. Feminists are often vilified, correctly, as having a “victim mentality”, but I see more than a little of that creeping into the MRA, too.

For any movement to be effective, it needs to be extremely clear on what it stands for, what it is against, and what it is trying to achieve. The MRA is coming perilously close to just being an unending, increasingly irrational, rant against females. All females, even little girls.

Unless we plan to exterminate half of the human race, then men and women are going to have to work out a way to exist together. There’s no point in demonising all women as “if they’re not part of the solution, they’re part of the problem”, as what exactly are non-feminist women supposed to do? Lobby the government, the courts, the schools, universities, employers, and just about every feminist-influenced organisation in the country, demanding they reverse their policies? Well, that’s very time-consuming, and if you want women like Andie to dedicate her time to doing this, then obviously she would be doing it at the expense of her other duties – i.e. her husband and children. Which is exactly the kind of feminist lifestyle you claim to want to prevent. Or maybe she should have spent 10-15 years lobbying BEFORE marrying and starting a family? Also feminist.

This “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” attitude helps no-one. Women who do the right thing should be encouraged. Not belittled and undermined no matter what they do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 12:00

@ Andie -

“Well, you are a bigger person than me…”

No. I’m a man and you aren’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 19, 2012 at 12:17

Andie:
We’re invisible. But we exist. Women who are NOT feminists. And we’re not parasites or freeloaders, either. We are wives. We are help-mates. We are First Officers. We are the mothers of the next generation, who will hopefully put this terrible social experiment in its grave.

Unless of course we work together and bury it first.

I assume you are using the royal “we” here. ;)

If you are invisible, and not doing anything about the situation, then it really doesn’t matter whether you exist or not.

Andie:
What good would it do for me to actively speak out against institutionalized feminism when it is my HUSBAND who would pay for that? What good would it do to destroy his ability to support us? How would that help?

LOL, your slip is showing.

Even when Betty Freidan was churning out her nightmare Feminine Mystique, there were women like Phyllis Schlafly fighting her. Phyllis and the many women who supported her DEFEATED the Equal Rights Amendment. To this day, the US Constitution does NOT contain an ERA.

Do you know what Schlafly’s organization to oppose the ERA was called? STOP – Stop Taking Our Privileges.

“Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by women.”

The specter of a female inclusive military draft, and unisex bathrooms was enough to make the old SoCon males shudder.

I’m not sure what your point is in being here – bragging on what a wonderful wife your husband got – unless it is trying to keep men signing up for a losing game. Whatever your purpose is, your endless bragging on how lucky your husband was to end up with you, is becoming really tiresome.

Younger men will in general just not have the economic success to be able to support a wife who is not employed outside the home, and some of us older guys have seen enough carnage go along with marriage that it seems like being exhorted to spend $1 on a lottery ticket with the maximum jackpot of 50¢.

I don’t think this “social experiment”, as you called it, is going to die. First, it really isn’t an experiment – the people driving it are absolutely committed to destroying the family, and I think they have. We are going through a “social transition” of the same magnitude as when we went from horse-drawn conveyances to automobiles powered by internal combustion engines. The fundamental infrastructure which indoctrinated men into the “protector, provider” role has been completely dismantled. None of the guys working in the local food court – most of them between 25-35 – will ever make enough to support a SAHW.

When I was a small boy, back in the 50s, my old man would kick me out of bed at oh-dark-thirty in the morning so we could go hunting – because we “had to” provide for the family, it is “what men do.” Young men today do not have that sort of indoctrination. Any hint of inherent masculinity they end up showing is beaten out of them by the school system.

The social values which drove men to appreciate a wife like you claim to be are a thing of the past. Women make every bit as good cubicle drones as men do, and if reports on current incomes are accurate, women in their 20s out earn the average man in his 20s.

And, the bottom line to the whole melodrama is that women’s happiness has declined since the 1960s, both in absolute terms and relative to men. Being beasts of burden killed a lot of men relatively young, and made life suck for many of the rest of them.

Phylis Schlafly may have held on to “gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by women” for one more generation, but that generation ended up eating the seed corn. Women are going to be carried on the backs of an ever decreasing number of White Knights and manginas until they collapse under the load.

Recently, the US passed the milestone that more than 50% of all births to women under age 30 happened out of wedlock. That is pretty much crossing the Rubicon of the gender war.

The strangest paradox of the gender war is that women will end up losing, by winning, and men will end up winning, by losing.

If women want their old privileges back, they are going to have to do something more than stand around silent and invisible.

Time marches onward. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 12:29

@ Andie -

“How did I benefit?”

Look around you. All of the trappings of civilization that you enjoy were paid for by the lives and livelihoods of innocent men, many of whom did not receive the same benefits even though they contributed disproportionately more to the programs from which you benefit but they do not. In order for you to have benefited excessively, those men had to be denied any minimum standard of living. Any that were not denied did so only by borrowing vast amounts of money and making other men pay off the debt. Those are the two sides of the coin. Women stole and then other men were forced to steal to compensate. But only from other men. They could not steal from women. There was no mechanism. And your lifestyle in the US (or wherever you are) is the single most luxurious and excessive in the history of the world. There’s plenty to go around but it has been denied many innocent men. And there was no reason for it except addiction to power and control. It’s nothing but institutionalized sadism. Honestly. How did you benefit?

“I don’t understand what you mean when you say your children took up with the government. Your ex, yes, obviously. But your children? Did they have a say? Were they given a choice? In my situation, we were given no choices, and I am so thankful my father understood that and came back to us when we were older and more capable of understanding what had happened.”

Why did he have to come back to you? Why didn’t you go to him? Until recently, the opportunities for children to learn the truth were rare. Things have improved a little. Still, the probability that children will learn the truth and do something to help their fathers out of the poverty (or worse) for which they were used as excuses to visit upon their fathers is very limited. I am hopeful but not optimistic. But even if they do come back to their fathers, it doesn’t make up for all the lost years of the lives of those fathers. The poverty and pain and suffering. Although I hope someday my children will understand the truth, it is hardly a concern for me and many other men as we are more concerned with the immediate prospects and necessities of survival. And other serious losses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bharatiyaa September 19, 2012 at 14:10

What I predict will happen is that both American men and women will downsize and downscale their lifestyles and there will be a return to a more frugal, simpler way of life. We won’t see nearly as much consumerism as we have these past 4 decades.

W. F. Price, you said on the other thread you were shocked by seeing Russian women up for sale in I believe it was Hong Kong night clubs. What do you mean by this? Do you mean they were prostitutes who propositioned potential clients in the club?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno September 19, 2012 at 14:20

The true sadistic evil face of the white knights.
Security guards secretly dance from happiness and euphoric sadism after the room maid told them that DSK “raped” her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMXhDY6zoCQ
starts at 3.16

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cyclotronmajesty September 19, 2012 at 15:03

I see this paradox as well, in fact i think its a measuring stick for periods of history. i think this sort of thing has happened before. I think its in the collective unconscious for both men and women. I think this is why the feminist consciousness has tried to emotionally armor themselves in advance by insisting: “we dont need men” and going to the furthest extremes while attempting to passionatly express this as fact…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 19, 2012 at 15:24

Andie: I wrote a long reply to yourself (and Darryl X), but most of it was then made redundant by the time I’d finished.

Suffice to say that [and I'm not wearing a scrap of white] I value your contributions, and hope that you continue to defend your point of view here; *never* succumb to the temptations of ‘Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb – f*ck ‘em!’; and that you continue to non-capriciously stick to your righteous course in life.

On the other hand, when I read your ‘invisible’ lines, I also immediately thought of the Parable of the Invisible Gardener, I’m afraid:-

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

… my biggest gripe about womyn being their public surrender of their individuality and voice to the dark Sisterhood’s hivemind, when they should be nailing their colours to the mast and speaking out. If you don’t speak out as an individual, then you’re damning yourself to, rightly, being lumped in with the other womyn not-individuals, and treated as a homogenous bloc, right?

That you might feeeeeel guilty about it, and secretly hate the harridans, is of no use to man nor beast. What will you do when one of them drops a (what you know to be) slander/false accusation campaign (just for laffs and drama) on some poor guy?

On the other other hand, your husband’s career is the perceived cudgel hanging over your head; and you’re fighting your secret maquis fight deep within the heartland of enemy power: Which would be my answer on your behalf to Zed’s:-

“I don’t think this “social experiment”, as you called it, is going to die. First, it really isn’t an experiment – the people driving it are absolutely committed to destroying the family …”

But Andie is equally (within her lesser means) committed to preserving the family, so she is fighting the good fight, no?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dale September 19, 2012 at 15:36

@Andie

Wow, sorry to see so much blind hatred directed your way.

No, I do not know Andie, and therefore cannot affirm that she has not consistently been acting to destroy men. And I also cannot affirm that I know she has not acted that way, instead acting to support her husband. And I rather suspect that everyone else here (save her) is equally ignorant.

I fail to see what benefit there is in attacking a woman who claims she actually supports her husband. Even if you think she supports him for selfish reasons, so what? Isn’t mutual support supposed to be a key point of marriage? “I provide a home, food and clothing to you, and you provide sex and a beautiful wife to me.” Oh, and “a wife who will not betray me for financial gain”.

I know Andie is not perfect, because save for one man, no one is or has been perfect. But if she consistently lives a life serving her husband and his children, that should count for something, yes?
(Yeah, I said “HIS children”. You didn’t expect me to not put at least one shot in there, did you? :) )

Dale

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 19, 2012 at 16:59

Andie,

Keep it up. I’ll join others here who want to hear what you have to say. Yours is the adult voice of the girl whose childhood was demolished by feminism, who learned to hate and reject it. I thought that one of things the MRM cared about was the damage done to kids – and not just half of them.

One of the greatest crimes that must be laid at the feet of feminism is the damage done to children when they set out to dismantle the family. Both boys and girls are grievously harmed when fathers are ejected from the home. Although they are harmed in different ways, each is harmed – and being raised by a vindictive single mother may be as damaging to girls as it is to boys. Maybe worse: the boys often become jaded as grown men, while the girls often become monsters as grown women.

This is the internet and anyone can say anything: you may be a morbidly obese 50-something male transvestite in prison for armed robbery for all I know, but if what you say is true, I suspect your husband is a lucky man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
djc September 19, 2012 at 17:12

‘keyster September 19, 2012 at 08:28

@DarrylX
Then and even now, it’s a majority of men that gleefully support Feminism. They are liberal “social justice” men and conservative fathers of daughters. It’s these men that are truly the backbone of feminism. It can’t continue to succeed without their financial, moral and public support. These men are corporate executives, politicians, entertainers and quite likely your next door neighbor.

These are the men you need to rail against, not women in general.”

Absolutely! Don’t blame women for being women. Blame men for letting them get away with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 17:50

@ djc -

Women have choices. If they want rights and privileages, then they must have responsibilities. Presently, women vote. But they are not held accountable for the consequences of their choices when they vote. Most men have no choices. If they want to live. Women are not women today. They are whores. Big difference. Holding men accountable for the misbehavior and crimes of women is enslaving men. If women want equality, they must be held accountable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 17:56

@ Lyn87 -

Actually, boys are harmed much worse than women. When those boys grow up, their persecution by the system continues. They are impoverished with no safety nets and no opportunity. When girls grow up, they benefit from feminism and public assistance and the slave labor of men and the boys with whom they grew up. Is there that little understanding of the problem here? I don’t disagree that girls are grievously harmed as are boys by their malicious mothers. But girls are taken care of in adulthood by the government as compensation for that grievous harm. Boys are not. They become victims of the same system that destroyed the lives of their fathers and forcibly separated them from one another in the first place. Does any of this make sense?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 18:00

@ Dale -

Get over yourself. There is no blind hatred on my part. Just exposing the rationalization hamster and holding Andie accountable for her crimes. If she were a real woman, she would deny herself all the benefits of living in society that she would get from public assistance, etc… in addition to what she gets from being married and allocate them to a man from whom she stole them. No double dipping. It’s no more complicated than that. Simple math actually.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 18:03

@ Diogenes’ Lamp -

“But Andie is equally (within her lesser means) committed to preserving the family, so she is fighting the good fight, no?”

No.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 18:17

@ Alex F -

Sorry for the confusion on my part. Yes, all children are damaged. And that damage is practical. Not just emotional. But our feminist governments compensate girls when they grow up. With the same system that benefited their mothers. They do not compensate boys. But instead punish them further with the same system which was used to punish their fathers. Despite fate of the children, the fathers are still screwed to the wall. By disabling the boys further into adulthood but compensating the girls, the boys who need to develop relationships with their fathers are unable to. And the fathers who are dependent upon the care of their sons can’t get it because the boys have been further disabled into adulthood. The girls have no need for their fathers when they grow up because like their mothers they have the government to take care of them. And certainly the girls are incapable of helping and supporting their fathers any more than their mothers or any other women were/are. And girls more than boys in adulthood are more likely to adopt the misandrous philosophy of their mothers as both benefit from it. Hope that clears up my position.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 18:25

@ Alex F -

“Females are not one collective consciousness.”

Actually, they ARE one collective (although I would not write “consciousness”). Women are herd animals. I think most men on this site and throughout the MSM and adrosphere came to that consensus a long time ago. Girls are much more likely to adopt the misandrous philosophy of their mothers and other women than boys. That’s the goal of the government in continued oppression of men AND boys (boys in our education system). Women are much easier to control and manipulate than boys because of their lacking analysis and herd mentality. Boys have to be drugged. Girls come pre-drugged. Did I miss something?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 18:45

@ Alex F -

“what does the MRA actually want?”.

1) Emancipation of all men in jail for child support
2) Cease and desist jailing men for child support
3) Reinstate all passports and driver licenses suspended for child support
4) Repatriation of all children
5) Cease and desist garnishing wages, social security, medicaid, medicare, tax returns, travel reimbursements and every other form of income for child support
6) Withdraw suffrage from women
7) Divest women who collected child support of all property
8) Withdraw all federal funding of VAWA
9) Recall the Bradley Amendment
10) Emancipation of all men from prison for false allegations of rape (they’re easy to spot – they’re the ones for which there is no evidence)
11) Prosecution of all false allegations
12) Financial compensation for all men who have been ordered by a court to pay child support
13) Financial compensation for all men who have been in prison for child support
14) Elimination of all sexual harassment and discrimination laws
15 ) Default shared parenting in all divorces (so no child support unless a woman complains too much about her husband and then the man can be awarded custody and the woman ordered to pay child support)
16) Eliminate all affirmative action

That’s a reasonable start.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 18:50

@ Alex F -

“Furthermore, the MRM berates women for trying to be like men, by being opinionated and assertive etc, but then when someone like Andie expresses the difficulties she runs into as a “traditional” woman – being demure and deferential etc – then you berate her for that, too. Not for the first time, I find myself wondering, “what does the MRA actually want?”. ”

That’s why in a civilized society, women are to remain silent in matters outside the family. The MRM and this site are outside the family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 19:00

@ Alex F -

“Feminists are often vilified, correctly, as having a “victim mentality”, but I see more than a little of that creeping into the MRA, too.”

The “victim mentality” to which you refer is also often referred to as chronic victimhood and is a pajorative expression for people or populations who portray themselves as victims even though they really aren’t but are instead actually those who are victimizing someone else. They are psychopaths. Today in the US, many men have died, been condemned to poverty, falsely accused, forcibly separated from their children, exiled, etc… They are really victims. Please do not confuse those portraying themselves as chronic victims with real victims. Failure of our government to distinguish between the two currently is at the foundation of our problems and has resulted in the current collapse of our economy and civilization. Currently our government is using the public spectacle of the chronic victimhood of women to satisfy its addiction to power and control and impose even more upon and continue to abuse real victims – men. It’s an addiction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 19:48

@ Dale -

“Wow, sorry to see so much blind hatred directed your way.”

Extreme hyperbole that. Your white knight is showing. I discourage you from enabling a woman’s chronic victimhood. Every time a man does, it makes our circumstances worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 20:23

@ Diogenes’ Lamp -

“But Andie is equally (within her lesser means) committed to preserving the family, so she is fighting the good fight, no?”

As a woman, Andie has many more means than any man. She has a vast legal, political, social and financial machine that no man has.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 19, 2012 at 20:38

Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 17:56
@ Lyn87 -
…Is there that little understanding of the problem here?…
…Does any of this make sense?

It’s not that I don’t understand you. It’s that I don’t agree with you.

Not all of it, of course: I generally like the list you provided to Alex, but surely you realize you didn’t answer his question. He observed that no matter what a woman says, some guys consider it to be wrong. If she supports feminism she’s wrong, but if she hates feminism she’s still wrong. If she’s a carousel-riding slut she’s wrong (although PUAs think she’s great), and if she’s a faithful, demure wife and mother she’s also wrong. Alex was asking a rhetorical question: what do MRAs want – if they won’t even take “Yes” for an answer?

What is a woman whose childhood was destroyed by feminism to do? Your answer to Dale at September 19, 2012 at 18:00 amounts to demanding that Andie and others like her go live in a cave. I suspect her husband may not be as keen on that idea as you are. What about his right to live with her as he pleases? Or are you willing to sacrifice his family life to make your point? You accuse her of having stolen the benefits of public assistance and marriage without the slightest evidence that she has done either (her mother taking welfare when she was a child doesn’t count – boys raised by single mothers eat government cheese too).

Does she have female privilege now? Of course she does. All women do. No argument there. The salient question is this, “Has she refrained from using it?” It seems she has – good on her. We all have the power to do evil: not everyone misuses it. Women have a lot of that kind of power now (FAR too much, in fact), but that doesn’t mean that every adult female who doesn’t become a hermit is a harpy.

I’ve been around here long enough to have established that I’m NO friend of feminism or defender of a writer because she’s female, (I’ve taken plenty of females to task – no white-knighting here) but your hammering away at Andie seems wildly disproportionate to anything she has written.

Some of us want the war of the sexes to end with a sensible reordering of society – not a mass grave. Wars of annihilation tend to hurt both sides.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 19, 2012 at 23:01

Darryl X: I chuckled at your ‘girls come pre-drugged’ comment. Also doesn’t help that TV more or less closes down the left hemisphere and forces the right hemisphere wide open – no wonder we’re in zombie hell.

I certainly agree with your overall description of the big, general problem, but I’m not really seeing how much of it relates to the specific case that is Andie (assuming that what she says is true). I’m asking because I’m interested (the symptoms of the disease are slightly different over here in Blighty), but with a hint of credit where credit’s due too (despite Andie being a womyn… or maybe a woman?.. can’t have everything).

Looking at your posts and list of MRA wants: if we were to avoid hanging Andie for potential evil that she *could* do, rather than what she actually *has* done (we can always hang her later if she transgresses :P ), then we’re left with: any tax-payer assistance that she may get (does she?), which she should give to men who’ve been robbed by the system; she should damn well speak up [heartily agreed], though her voice does actually need to be heard outside of the family – in public, where it’ll make a difference (in this phase of the war, at least); she shouldn’t have the vote, but since she has then what should she do with it (not vote? Always vote the same as hubby?)?

Suppose that she vowed to exactly follow your guidance in being an actual good woman, but from where she and we are now (rather than some better, idealised starting point), what *specific* advice would you give? In good faith, what can she do to measure up, and gain your respect?

My ‘fighting the good fight’ point, Re Zed’s comment, is that taking the Kantian ethical view that everyone should live (rather than just yap about) as if they were the model that everyone else is following; the top of the ‘To do’ list of whomever’s behind all this darkness is:-

1 Invert all meaning, reason and truth;

2 Destroy traditional gender roles;

3 Destroy the family;

4 Destroy Christianity.

If I’m recalling Andie’s posts from a while back correctly (Re #4), then she’s resisting three of those four tooth and nail. The jury’s out on #1 (IMO), though even here she seems better in this regard than most wimminzzzzzzzzz.

In this respect, she’s certainly doing better than me [the war I was put on this Earth to fight was #1, and f*ck everything else, since everything else flows from there ultimately].

Anyway, I’m worried that my black and red armour might have a chip with some white showing through – I’d best go and kill some puppies. :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay September 20, 2012 at 01:14

This thread went batshit pretty fast…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 04:20

@ Diogenes’ Lamp -

“Anyway, I’m worried that my black and red armour might have a chip with some white showing through – I’d best go and kill some puppies.”

I’m away from a computer for most of the day but will get back to your questions. I have to go kill some puppies. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 04:23

Lyn87 -

“Your answer to Dale at September 19, 2012 at 18:00 amounts to demanding that Andie and others like her go live in a cave.”

Yes. Since the solution for the past forty-four years was to kill and impoverish and exile and imprison men and steal their kids, I’d say sending women to live in a cave is a generous trade.

More later. I have to go kill some puppies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 04:31

@ Diogene’s Lamp and Lyn87 -

OK I have a little time. All women benefit excessively and financially from tremendous amounts of public assistance. They also benefit financially from marriage. Most men I know do not benefit at all from marriage. There are no benefits. They are slaves in marriage or out. And most of any finances from a man working while married goes to the woman anyway. That’s true up through retirement even when they aren’t working. Most men I know after they are divorced, any public assistance they might have received at some point in time in their lives is just erased by exessive child support, alimony and property settlements. That’s one third of all adult women and men (in the US). If women are married, they should not be allowed to collect public assistance AND receive the financial beneftis of marriage. If they are divorced. They should not be allowed to collect any benefits from marriage. Only public assistance. Men out there are living in poverty while too many women are double dipping into the system and having their cake and eating it too. That needs to stop. Women have to stop having it both ways. And women are perfectly allowed to speak within their families. They just can’t speak outside of them. More later. Gotta go.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 06:11

Lyn87:
I’ve been around here long enough to have established that I’m NO friend of feminism or defender of a writer because she’s female, (I’ve taken plenty of females to task – no white-knighting here) but your hammering away at Andie seems wildly disproportionate to anything she has written.

Some of us want the war of the sexes to end with a sensible reordering of society – not a mass grave. Wars of annihilation tend to hurt both sides.

@Lyn87-
You are a military man, so maybe this analogy will put the issues in a perspective which you can relate to –
when you are in the middle of a firefight, is not the best time to be discussing philosophy.

Darryl is in the middle of a firefight – quite literally the fight of his life, and a fight for his life. He’s losing ground.

I had a buddy who got drafted and sent to Vietnam. Ten years later, if he was asleep and someone wanted to wake him up, they knew NOT to walk over to him and give him a little shake – that would get them hurt.

None of us who were his friends would stand there and lecture him on how he was overreacting. We knew what he had been through and understood the effects it had on him.

Out of respect for him, what he had been through, and for our friendship, we learned his triggers and how to avoid them.

I take the same approach with Darryl. I don’t agree with some of the things he says, and some of them piss me off a great deal. However, I know that arguing with him is not going to change his mind, but is simply going to agitate him further. I don’t read much of what he writes, because I think I have a pretty good idea of where he is coming from, and I certainly don’t pour through it looking for something to argue with.

Darryl is a guy who has lost everything to the gender war. He is a refugee. Andie may have had a sucky childhood due to feminism, but it is over. That makes her a member of a very large club. At least she got the chance to get born, unlike over 55,000,000 kids of the last few generations.

Now she is safely ensconced in a nice comfortable marriage – provided to her by a guy who is probably like what Darryl used to be like.

So, the question in my mind is why Andie is getting so much sympathy for what she went through years ago, and Darryl is getting so little for what he is still going through.

And, that is a rhetorical question – men always get “man up and get over it”, while women always get “there, there, poor dear.” That’s just the way it is.

Alex observed that no matter what a woman says, some guys consider it to be wrong.

There is an interesting paradox here, particularly with all the religious types hanging around. Devout traditional Christians hold to the belief that women need to keep their mouths shut in church. The underlying belief to that is that women seldom have much useful or meaningful to say – unless it is about their feelings.

Guys who have been turned inside out by the family courts are not a good group of people to approach looking for sympathy for a woman’s experiences, or to debate philosophically about the gender war, any more than a bunch of drunk marines are a good group to approach and take the position that the navy guys have it tougher.

If you want some background on the history of the skirmishes of the gender war, I would suggest the Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere –
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/18/guide-to-bird-watching-in-the-manosphere/

It appears that an Elusive (perfect) Wife has flown in and perched above our heads and is entertaining us with her song. Here is the section of that essay which deals with the Elusive Wife.

One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and you’ll see her in Church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. Her home cuisine is delicious, she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path she’ll never foray.

The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. She’s the one who never lets any man forget that “he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!” ( It’s just that they are “invisible”, but all men should take her word on it, anyway.)Her song goes something like this: “Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!”

The Elusive Wife appears to support men’s issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within “The Movement” will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women’s every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife’s husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent.

The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men’s issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut September 20, 2012 at 06:12

Police officers being trained to not arrest young women.

http://www.theiacp.org/PublicationsGuides/ResearchCenter/Publications/tabid/299/Default.aspx?id=1812&v=1

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alex F September 20, 2012 at 06:32

@ Darryl X

Thanks for clarifying your position, and I entirely take your points. However, when you said:

“That’s why in a civilized society, women are to remain silent in matters outside the family. The MRM and this site are outside the family.”

I wanted to reiterate my question to you of, what do you really want from the MRM? Your list of what the MRM stands for was good, and I agree on most points, but like Lyn87 said, that wasn’t really what I was asking – that was “what does the MRM want from women?”. Because the MRM is a direct response to women, to what they (and some men) have done to the world through feminism.

You say women should keep silent on any matters outside the family. But you have also said that women who don’t stand up to feminists and feminist policies are part of the problem. So which is it to be? If you want women to take a strong and politicized opinion against feminism, then they are very much going to have to express themselves, loud and clear, outside of the family.

If that’s not what you want – if you think that even being outspoken against feminism is a type of feminism (which, as it is outside of the family and traditional roles, it is), then women should be applauded for taking a back seat, and leaving confrontations and activism to their husbands.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 20, 2012 at 07:09

That’s why in a civilized society, women are to remain silent in matters outside the family. The MRM and this site are outside the family.

Bill seems to disagree, and the last time I checked it still said “W.F. Price” on the masthead.

Also, you wrote the following (emphasis added),

Darryl X September 19, 2012 at 08:49
@ Apollo -
…Even if she represents 20% of women who are not psychopaths, she must be compelled to take an active part in the destruction of feminists and feminism…
…The consequences of her failure to stop feminism must be greater than the retaliation by feminists. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for women to help men…
…This is a war. If you aren’t fighting feminism and feminists, then you are helping them…

In one post you said Andie is personally obligated to “take an active part,” “help men” (to fight feminism), engage in “fighting,” and castigated her for her “failure to stop” it.

Then a few hours later you made a complete U-turn when you wrote, “women are to remain silent in matters outside the family. The MRM and this site are outside the family.” How, pray tell, is Andie supposed to fight feminism in society while remaining silent in matters outside of her family?

Less than an hour later you did another U-turn when you wrote this, “Andie has many more means than any man. She has a vast legal, political, social and financial machine that no man has.” (Talk about hyperbole: Andie is a housewife, not the Senate Majority Leader.) So now you’re expecting her to use these vast resources at her disposal to change the culture, while being silent outside of her family. By the way, the resources she has at her fingertips are designed for advancing feminism and crushing men – they are not well-suited for fighting feminism and helpingmen.

That’s not white-knightism: it is me pointing out that you are simultaneously demanding two things that are mutually contradictory.

This reminds me of when I first started commenting here at the Spearhead. A few guys saw my nom de plume and incorrectly assumed that I was a woman. I started catching crap for the content of what I wrote. When those same people realized that I am a man, suddenly I became an ally. Suddenly the same points they criticized earlier became valuable insights. There was no change to what I wrote, just the realization on their part that I have the same reproductive plumbing as they did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Apollo September 20, 2012 at 07:11

@Daryll X

OK, presuming I accept your premise that the schism between the sexes should be treated as a war, and that all of those who are on the opposing side should be made to take responsibility for their actions, how do you propose we “fight”? The Feminists currently have the machinery of the state supporting them, which is a significant point in their favor. Can we be effective opposition, and do we have a reasonable chance of avoiding becoming a casualty in this war if we choose to do so?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 20, 2012 at 07:25

Zed,

I understand your point. And I understand that Darryl X got royally screwed. I have railed against such things many times. I have expressed my fury over this system and the way it treats men like him – my brother got a taste of it himself. In short, I am angry for him, not at him.

But to take your analogy to the next step: yes, he’s in a firefight, and yes, he has every right to be angry, and yes, Andie landed on her feet (although that was by no means guaranteed). But Andie was wounded by the same enemy, and she seems to be an ally now.

If I was back in Afghanistan in a firefight, and the QRF showed up to help, and one of the guys was so busy shooting that he mistook the QRF for the enemy, I would tell him to “Stop firing at our guys!”

I agree with the vast majority of what Darryl X writes, just as I agree with you most of the time. But I don’t see the point of fratricide within the ranks.

Is Andie an “Elusive Wife?” I don’t know. Maybe, just maybe, she is a grown woman who is pissed off at what feminism did to her father and her own childhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 07:39

Meanwhile, here is something from the not-invisible women –

http://news.yahoo.com/ladies-firsters–why-the-new-sex-segregation-is-great-for-women.html

Ladies Firsters: Why the new sex segregation is great for women

Last week I hired a babysitter, put on a dress and took a taxi to a friend’s birthday party across town. Her beautiful house swirled with a hundred guests or more. The conversation was flat-out great: the election, how college is a scam and (my favorite topic) Lana Del Rey. Little was made of the birthday; I still don’t know which one it was. In place of cake and candles was an exclusionary door policy. Women. Only women. The three men present were waiters.

There was nothing defiant or political in this separatism. Separatism by sex is so standard at social events now that no one even commented on it. The crowd was cool and gracious. The women seemed universally like winners, expansively at home in this unmixed company. No men around to worry about, to protect, to impress, to slow down for.

Fishing…
No woman around to worry about, protect, to impress or slow down for.

Hm. Tough choice – being a waiter to serve women, or go fishing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay September 20, 2012 at 08:36

. In place of cake and candles was an exclusionary door policy. Women. Only women. The three men present were waiters.

Were they all carpetmunchers? Imagine heterosexual men doing the same and writing about it, reactions would range from ridicule to outrage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 20, 2012 at 09:02

In place of cake and candles was an exclusionary door policy. Women. Only women. The three men present were waiters.

If only those three waiters had attended a few seminars to get “tight game” it would have turned into an orgy…

LOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo September 20, 2012 at 09:19

@ Zed:

Meanwhile, the men are plowing the back 40, driving the food to the supermarket, putting it on the shelves, and cleaning the ladies’ room so that the princesses can have a completely safe and well-stocked store the next time that they need to buy food for their party.

Almost all of the men who do this are either not present and therefore invisible or else they are treated as low-class and next to invisible by these princesses. From their point of view, all of the food just magically arrives and is then *handed to them* by the the three men who are physically present.

They don’t stop and think for a minute about the huge supply chains stretching across continents that are needed to put that Alaskan Crab on their plates within a few days of it being caught by men – brave men who fight the arctic weather to feed these women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 20, 2012 at 09:40

@ Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 04:31,

I agree with almost everything you wrote there. A few caveats: although I have seen men destroyed by divorce and the vastly unequal power it gives to women (including my brother’s ex-wife), I have to say that most of the men I know personally consider their marriages to be beneficial. The divorce rate among my social and familial circles is very low. Admittedly, the circles in which I travel do not at all constitute a representative sample of the overall population. I am one of those men who considers my marriage to be well worth what I put into it. I have bragged on my wife here and elsewhere, and I meant every word of it. Having said that, I understand that I lassoed a unicorn, that it was not entirely due to my actions, and that it in no way diminishes what you and far too many other men have gone through. Nor would I attempt to denigrate you or diminish the suckiness of your situation because of my situation.

On the “public assistance” part I would actually take a harder line than you do. I don’t think anyone has the right to live off the fruits of someone else’s labor without providing service in return.

We seem to be in violent agreement 90% of the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 09:41

But to take your analogy to the next step: yes, he’s in a firefight, and yes, he has every right to be angry, and yes, Andie landed on her feet (although that was by no means guaranteed). But Andie was wounded by the same enemy, and she seems to be an ally now.

If I was back in Afghanistan in a firefight, and the QRF showed up to help, and one of the guys was so busy shooting that he mistook the QRF for the enemy, I would tell him to “Stop firing at our guys!”

And, I do understand your point, Lyn87. I don’t see any point in attacking Andie, or standing up for her. She’s a grown woman, and women can do anything (so women have told me all my adult life), so I assume that she is fully capable of standing up for herself.

I’m sort trying to play mediator here. I don’t have any investment in either side, however I do have more sympathy for Darryl’s position.

Let’s take this analogy one step further, and see if we can torture it until it breaks down. What if those supposedly QRF guys had something wrong with their uniforms? Maybe the color was slightly off, or one guy had his sergeant’s stripes sewn on upside down. Once they get past the perimeter with the sentries guards down, they turn out to be Nidal Malik Hasan – who lulled people into a false sense of security by wearing a Major’s uniform – and open fire.

I would be willing to bet that the internal security details at every US military installation had hair triggers the week after the shooting at Fort Hood. There is a reason why negotiators enter an armed camp with their hands up – to make absolutely certainly clear that they are not planning an ambush after they have gotten inside the security perimeter.

Now, here is the dilemma – is it better to err on the side of trust, or on the side of distrust?

And, the answer to that boils down to what is at stake.

I don’t have anywhere near the animosity toward the female sex that Darryl does, and that is entirely due to the fact that I never trusted one of them enough to burn me as badly as woman burned him – or your brother.

In short, it boils down to the way I was able to avoid the things which happened to him was not to trust a woman enough to hand her a loaded gun pointed at my head.

Or, to put it directly in the context of this conversation – the way I avoided ending up like Darryl and a lot of guys like him, was to refuse to give women like Andie the life they claimed to want.

So, yes, feminism has harmed women like her far more than it has harmed me. But, strangely, I don’t have any motivation at all to fight those women’s battles for them while they stand around invisible singing “Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!”

If my house catches on fire, I will do what I can to put the fire out, and if I can’t and need some assistance, I would count on real firemen over invisible firefighters who do nothing but stand around silent while protecting their own meal tickets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 09:49

@ Art -

“This thread went batshit pretty fast…”

Sorry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 20, 2012 at 09:56

Zed: You are a wise Elder, but you seem to be missing a few things here:-

1 In this war for Western (and other) Civilisation’s body, mind and soul, Feminism is one of many enemies and corrosive forces: they *all* need identifying, opposing and taking down if we are to win;

2 Even if we were winning every Tactical firefight (as opposed to losing nearly all of them, which we actually are [with deepest respect to those fighting those fights]), we could still easily lose the Strategic war: Strategy is what will ultimately win the day;

3 For the most part, when you read my points that you appear to be dismissing as ‘Philosophy’, you can swap that word for ‘Strategy’: deep, long-term, big picture – the only real road to victory.

[Note that this ranges from the micro of individual men rebuilding themselves *as Men* (rather than dodgy feminised constructs), to the macro of winning the global war.];

4 The Strategic (informed by ‘Philosophy’) side of the war will have to involve allies, whether we like that or not. Make no mistake that I would refuse to be alone in a room, or converse, with Andie or GWW or any other woman/womyn in the flesh (they’re just too dangerous to interact with in person), but the profit/loss is different where communication by only public (with witnesses) posts (that can’t be edited by us) is concerned [plus I've got the North Atlantic between me and them, keeping me safe];

5 ‘Nations have no permanent friends, nor permanent enemies, but only temporarily common interests.’ It is only in skilfully dancing this Great Dance, that blocs can prevail. Check your history. Though I find it personally distasteful/unethical [Kant again], it is necessary to view Andie’s (and GWW’s etc) contributions through a hard-hearted, realpolitik lens.

I’m aware of the songbirds article, and the similar You Tube vid (I forget his name, but the black and white filmed guy with the natty trilby). In the vid, you have three types of womyn/women moving into MRM spaces:-

i Blatant Feminist fruitloops;

ii Fake Good Women, out to seduce us back into ‘manning up’;

iii Actual Good Women.

Andie is clearly not #i, and her posts seem to be much more concerned with ‘how can we work together to destroy the darkness?’ than ‘There’s someone out there for you too…’. To me she’s #iii until she demonstrates otherwise. Thus an ally – and it’s not like we’re so snowed under with allies that we can be hastily turning our noses up at them, is it?

If she turns out to be an unusually-subtle (for a womyn) #ii, then my heart is granite to that message; and if she does succeed in luring some allegedly post-’red pill’ men into ‘manning up’, then those men were liabilities anyway: They’re men making their choice; we’re Men, not f*cking nannies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 10:34

@ zed -

“The underlying belief to that is that women seldom have much useful or meaningful to say – unless it is about their feelings.”

It’s worse than that. It’s not that women have nothing useful or meaningful to say but they will use any opportunity to manipulate and destroy. A husband is in a household with her to keep that behavior in check because she can’t check herself. I could deal with it if it was just useless and meaningless.

What got me about Andie’s post was the sense of grandiosity and the rationalization and the complete failure to understand the circumstances imposed upon many men that are not emotional but practical and with serious implications life-threatening. Common response of women to portray serious practical problems that they have created as emotional problems of their victims.

Failure to see the problems that we are having now, practical problems. Forget all the solipsism. I sometimes wonder if men today really understand the shit we are about to eat and that we have to prepare for and feminism is in the way of that. That feminism be eliminated and now is critical. The entire economy of the developed world is collapsing and that collapse is accelerating.

I remember about twenty-seven years ago when I was only seventeen and I had predicted the collapse of the housing market and financial institutions around the middle of the first decade of the new millenium. It’s not rocket science. Everyone thought I was nuts. Amazingly, there are a large proportion of the population that does not believe there was a collapse in the housing market or financial institutions.

Because they can’t see it. Because they have been spared that by the government which has transferred vast amounts of wealth to men and women (mostly women) who made a lot of very bad decisions. As Warren Buffet said, “A lot of very responsible people are going to have to be paying for the behavior of a lot of very irresponsible people”. I get that. Not acceptible but I’ll “man-up” and take it on the chin anyway.

What most people do not understand and I will keep trying to impress upon them is that men are not just being asked to “man-up” and take it on the chin. Either voluntarily or not. They are being punished for “manning-up” and taking it on the chin. That has been lost in Andie’s posts as she soft-pedals the problems. Whenever I encounter a man or woman (feminist or not) who soft-pedals like that, I’m going to run them to ground.

Another thing. This is a war. Andie is a woman (as far as I can tell). At best she is a prisoner of war and will be treated as such until the enemy has been crushed without mercy. After reparations have been made and the enemy has been adequately subjugated, Andie will be released. In the meantime, she is the enemy. And she is a woman who benefits from feminism and has a tremendous conflict of interest and cannot be trusted. Many men who have trusted a woman like Andie have had their lives torn assunder. You’d think that men would have learned this after a few eons. Maybe some of you haven’t been shot at by the enemy enough or had enough of your legs blown off to understand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 10:47

@ Alex F -

“You say women should keep silent on any matters outside the family. But you have also said that women who don’t stand up to feminists and feminist policies are part of the problem. So which is it to be?”

Good point. OK. If she is compelled to speak about such matters outside her family then she can go to a feminist blog and start ripping on the feminists. Educating them. If she’s such a great wife and woman, she can go tell a feminist. Or another woman who doesn’t understand what she’s missing out on. Telling men what they already (or should already) know isn’t going to help men. I am familiar with too many women who tell men what great women they are and would never do what one-third of other adult women have done to men (in divorce). And then turn around and tell women the exact opposite and then do to the men what they told the men they would never do because they think it’s wrong. Bottom line: every single woman I have know and who has written or said what Andie has on this thread has behaved just the opposite. Duplicity. Simple fact is never trust a woman. It may not always be correct but almost. And the consequences of trusting her far outweight any benefits. It’s a simple strategy that every man should adopt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 10:58

@ Lyn87 -

“In one post you said Andie is personally obligated to “take an active part,” “help men” (to fight feminism), engage in “fighting,” and castigated her for her “failure to stop” it.”

If she is compelled to say anything outside the family (as no one can stop her), then she can say it to a feminist. Or provide some useful advice to men like me (if that’s possible). Self-agrandizement and chronic victimhood on a web-site like this seems like gloating or solipsism more than anything. Perhaps I’m a little on the sensitive side but I don’t think so. I think her post was in very poor form. And I’ll take her to task without apology. And woe to any man who came to her rescue. As far as accusations about hating women, I’ll reiterate as I have before, I neither hate nor do I promote hate (of women or anyone else for that matter). But I do hold women accountable for their crimes or for promoting or enabling such crimes. That is not hate. I’ve encountered too many men (and certainly most women) who portray the condemnation of women’s crimes as “women-bashing” when obviously it is not and is instead condemnation of women’s crimes (or anyone’s crimes for that matter). It’s just that women and some men don’t seem to distinguish the two. Steep learning curve there. We have a long way to go. Not just among the women but among a fair number of the men too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 11:05

@ Lyn87 -

“On the “public assistance” part I would actually take a harder line than you do. I don’t think anyone has the right to live off the fruits of someone else’s labor without providing service in return.

“We seem to be in violent agreement 90% of the time.”

As a country, we are as weak as our weakest link. I think we have an obligation to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves. The elderly or the mentally or physically disabled. Our war veterans. Unfortunately, most of our public assistance (and a great disproportion of what they actually contributed) is going to women. Public assistance that ought to be pared down considerably and then reallocated toward men who are veterans and who are mentally or physically disabled or who are elderly or who contributed so much to civilization. And I don’t mind giving my fair share or even more than my fair share. But I do mind doing at gun point and under threat of imprisonment. That is a product of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 20, 2012 at 11:07

@ zed September 20, 2012 at 09:41

Alas, all analogies break down at some point (or they wouldn’t be analogies), and we have neared the breaking point of this one. At the risk of inching just a little bit closer: if the QRF shows up and has already started shooting at the same bad guys that I’m shooting at, I’m not going to conduct a uniform inspection. That is the break-point of the analogy, since the next step takes us beyond what it will support: an enemy posing as the QRF can kill you, whereas Andie has no analogous means of harming anyone here.

And you’re correct, of course. Andie is a big girl and has proved capable of defending herself. I’m reacting the same way I would react if anyone’s valid points were simply dismissed because of an accident of birth. I tend to avoid Chateau for a variety of reasons, one of which is that they will jump all over a woman who writes something valid even though they would praise the same content if written by a man. (Unless they thought he was a “beta,” since they’ll all “alpha-males” themselves. No really. Just ask them. /sarc)

I’ve seen some of that here, although the guys here tend to be much more mature than the “playahs” at Chateau. I assume you remember Lara, who used to post here a lot. She wrote a lot of goofy stuff, but every once in a while she would come up with something insightful. A couple of times she would do that and be downvoted until it collapsed her comment, while a male commentator would be upvoted for saying the same thing a few minutes later.

On a related note: one could make the case that what we’re doing here – talking among ourselves – doesn’t constitute doing anything anyway. I’m not sure I agree with that, since most of the people who visit this site never comment – so we are speaking to a far larger audience than just each other. And by doing so we plant seeds of thought in thousands of readers, many of whom are probably closer to the fence than you and Darryl X and I.

I don’t know: Andie may be a fraud. I have no reason to think she is, but I can’t categorically dismiss the possibility: any more than people may question the accuracy of some details you or I have given about our own situations. If she shows herself to be I will be right there with Darryl X with my rhetorical battleaxe.

Anyway, I think we’ve we’ve beat this particular horse to death and arrived at a general consensus. I’m moving to other things unless my presence here is requested.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 20, 2012 at 11:31

@ Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 11:05,

I concur in full, although probably with a few differences in application. Now I really am leaving: it’s way too nice outside to do this all day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 12:02

1 In this war for Western (and other) Civilisation’s body, mind and soul, Feminism is one of many enemies and corrosive forces: they *all* need identifying, opposing and taking down if we are to win;

Define “this war”, Diogenes’ Lamp, and then define “we.”

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

In any “war”, the combatants tend to be a combination of volunteers and conscripts. If an enemy force invades another’s territory, most of the residents there are conscripts by circumstance.

Feminism is a red herring – a Trojan Horse. It provides cover for all the corrosive forces, and an almost unlimited supply of useful idiots to volunteer to carry the water.

In the vid, you have three types of womyn/women moving into MRM spaces:-

i Blatant Feminist fruitloops;

ii Fake Good Women, out to seduce us back into ‘manning up’;

iii Actual Good Women.

You left out iv, which I think is the largest group – Attention Whores.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 20, 2012 at 12:12

OK, here’s my analogy:-

We are the War Office in London, and a French woman sends a message to us. She has found herself in a position pretty high up within the occupying Nazi power structure, but has family and husband to think of, so must therefore move quietly.

She has presented us with a plausible tale explaining her HATRED of the Nazis, and her message to us is, “What can I do to stick a dagger into the ribs of these motherf*ckers, to best effect?”

Our sophisticated male minds ensure that she is never given the ability to do us appreciable harm, should she turn out to be a double agent, and are aware that female rage and hatred are powerful forces that we can use to good effect.

If our answer is, “Tell her to f*ck off!” then we’re doing it wrong; and fully deserve to lose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 12:51

On a related note: one could make the case that what we’re doing here – talking among ourselves – doesn’t constitute doing anything anyway.

I consider that a foregone conclusion. I have said several times recently that there is no MRM and I do not believe that their is ever going to be. As indirect evidence of that assertion, I offer –
http://www.historyofwar.org/

This notion that a bunch of people with wildly divergent life histories and agendas are going to come together, sit down, and sing Kumbaya is just a SWPL feel-good fantasy.

I’m reacting the same way I would react if anyone’s valid points were simply dismissed because of an accident of birth. I tend to avoid Chateau for a variety of reasons, one of which is that they will jump all over a woman who writes something valid even though they would praise the same content if written by a man.

That is very noble of you, Lyn87, and I have a great deal of personal inclinations to support that, but what you call “accidents of birth” tend to be far more powerful politically than we realize.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, I noticed, in addition to black/white racial segregation, a distinct hostility among the adults I knew toward all Asian races. I could not understand it without the experience of going through WW II when yellow people were considered the enemy. My own social/political myopia was evidenced by the fact that I did not consider a marriage between an American and someone Japanese or Korean to be an “inter-racial” marriage.

My point here is that once a people start to regard another people as “the enemy”, that attitude is nearly impossible to erase from consciousness.

And, there is a psychological phenomenon called the “justification response” in which when someone is attacked for a belief or attitude that they hold,their own rationalization hamster spins into action coming up with reasons why what the believe is the only rational thing to believe.

I observe this phenomenon without judgment. Whether it is a good or bad thing is totally secondary to the fact that is the way things are.

If you take note of the attitudes of guys like Roissy, Roosh, Matt Fornery, and a whole host of emerging bloggers in the 25 – 35 age range, you will notice a cultural drift in the way they view women. They have completely dehumanized them. Women are not female human beings to Roissy and the rest, they are “poon”, or in Roosh’s case – “flags.”

This is a natural and predictable reaction of people who have already been dehumanized by another group – the dehumanization bounces.

For years I have used the tongue in cheek analogy of why Men’s Rights have never gotten any traction of pointing out that any man who treats most women like they could be Typhoid Mary has most of the rights he needs.

Women who don’t want to be treated like Typhoid Mary have a choice – they can fight against the women dehumanizing men, and distinguish themselves from those women, or sit around invisible, wringing their hands, while the harpies pollute their drinking supplies.

I survived 30 years in the “dating” world without having happen to me what happened to Darryl and a whole lot of other guys here. I consider myself fortunate. 30 years, and I am out. I’m not going to sign on as a lifer.

I look at things that people have 2 choices – take steps to improve their environment, or live in a squalid environment.

People who stand around invisible, wringing their hands and hoping that someone else will make things OK for them, don’t get much consideration from me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 12:56

OK, here’s my analogy:-

We are the War Office in London, and a French woman sends a message to us. She has found herself in a position pretty high up within the occupying Nazi power structure, but has family and husband to think of, so must therefore move quietly.

She has presented us with a plausible tale explaining her HATRED of the Nazis, and her message to us is, “What can I do to stick a dagger into the ribs of these motherf*ckers, to best effect?”

OK, I must have missed something. What position high up in the Nazi power structure are we talking about? All I hear is the grousing of their cleaning lady that they invaded her house and threw her out – until she found some guy to provide her food and shelter.

Maybe “If you get a chance, poison their food” is about the best I can suggest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 20, 2012 at 12:59

@ Apollo -

“how do you propose we “fight”?”

Good question. And one for which I am unprepared to answer. I’ve been thinking about it a lot. Many decades. The enemy has taken hostages (children). They have gutted the financial and other practical resources at our disposal. The enemy also is a critical component of civilization. So they themselves are holding themselves hostage. It’s much harder for those men caught in the machinery already. There are more options for those men who aren’t. Concerning children, an important weapon in our arsenal is the birth certificate and, in the US, a social security number. Also paternity. The best way to protect our children is to deny a birth certificate, social security number and paternity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner September 20, 2012 at 13:02

feminism is malinvestment. Natural forces, call it market based forces or whatever, have spoken definitively…over and over and over again. matriarchy is not only something that doesn’t occur naturally but it’s actually very toxic and destructive. Humanity is not better off with “women on top”. What made The West and in particular America wealthy was letting freedom reign, but freedom not only for women to be women and girls to be girls but for men to be men and boys to be boys. Put another way freedom from the state and, as it applies to feminism, overzealous academics and social engineers who presume they know more than the rest of us. And that is the true litmus test of feminism and all their embellished and hubristic claims about women… without massive generational wealth accumulated over decades to fund an active and oppressive entity (the state) to literally choose winners and losers feminism and women would not be “winning” or “on top”. Not even close. They would as a function of technological progress be vastly better off than any previous generation, however, without society’s special set of female-only training wheels, sexual relations would be normal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno September 20, 2012 at 13:04

@ numnut

” Police officers being trained to not arrest young women.

http://www.theiacp.org/PublicationsGuides/ResearchCenter/Publications/tabid/299/Default.aspx?id=1812&v=1

Again a perfect example of how the law and law enforcement bends over backward to prevent itself from coming down on women, in the same way that they would come down on men.

How they try so hard to NOT treat men and women equal.

Textbook, blatant, explicit sexist discrimination against men.

Yes, that’s how we know the law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 20, 2012 at 13:35

When I was growing up in the 1950s, I noticed, in addition to black/white racial segregation, a distinct hostility among the adults I knew toward all Asian races. I could not understand it without the experience of going through WW II when yellow people were considered the enemy.

-Zed

Yeah, my grandpa really disliked them. Especially Japanese, of course. He blamed them for his little brother’s death. Actually, it was kind of their fault — he died in WWII in the Philippines.

I didn’t really get it until I was older and saw that the older Chinese felt the same way about Japanese.

Diogenes' Lamp September 20, 2012 at 14:08

Zed @ 12:02: ‘iv: Attention Whores’: I was describing someone else’s classification system, not mine. It could be argued that these #iv’s are subsets of either #i or #ii; regardless, we’ll add #iv as a distinct set if you like [I rarely take discrete classification systems too seriously; since reality doesn't either]. I recall several posts of Andie’s where she’s asked for practical advice in her part in ‘fighting the good fight’, but didn’t really receive any.

The test will be to engage with her in good faith, and see what she actually does. If she makes progress in the right direction, then she’s more likely a #iii (Good Woman); if she refuses to move from where she is now, but keeps going on about it, then she’s a #iv [at which point I'll file her in my crowded circular filing cabinet].

[It should be obvious here that 'Andie' - in her absence - is largely a hypothetical construct example (a mere label) for the purposes of most of this discussion.]

‘We’: Please consider any such words, including all labels and abstract nouns, that I use to be in inverted commas [it just gets really cumbersome, and looks really pseudy, if you actually do that - I used to... complete with endless definitions: Cool, no one reads that sh*t these TL;DR days]. I’ll leave it to each reader to decide whether s/he’s broadly part of any ‘we’ that I’m describing, in each statement that I make.

‘War’: Members of the enemy [provide your own definition] have advocated total gender cleansing (within the context of an already horrifically misandric system, and ‘End of Men’ crowing everywhere), and nobody in the acceptable ‘intelligentsia’, nor any other part of the mainstream, seems to have had much of a problem with that. That’ll be a war then.

Within the context of the post that I wrote it in, ‘war’ and ‘we’ were already somewhat defined as: ‘Those who are attempting to preserve the more long-term-useful and admirable classical qualities and achievements of Western (and other) Civilisation (which largely equates to ‘the male’)’. Broad strokes at this stage – we can quibble about the details, and have our *major* schisms (as opposed to current bun-fights) over trivia later, when we’re winning.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the war model that the MRM seems to have ended up with is Russia vs Napoleon; with the likes of the OP being just one of the numerous, inevitable ‘General Winter’s, taking forever to arrive. I suppose that a more accurate model would modify that by Napoleon having sent some Bolsheviks in ahead of time to also undermine Russia from within – but the model still works (you don’t need much cohesion for each increasingly-poor man to individually fall back to safety, leaving eff all but pocket fluff behind).

Your point about Feminism being just a ‘Trojan Horse’, was also my point. If they didn’t happen to be perhaps the most powerful weapon of all in the PTB’s arsenal (and the agents of such appalling ruin; who’ve committed the sin of enjoying it waaay too much), the easily-led patsies would be nothing but a pitiable distraction.

The feminist wedge is also reaching the point that it is becoming too blunt, and the womyn will find themselves being unceremoniously dropped into the toilet, in favour of a sharper wedge, ‘soon’.

“We defeat da ebil wimmins, and we’ve won the war: huzzah!” OK….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 20, 2012 at 16:47

It should be obvious here that ‘Andie’ – in her absence – is largely a hypothetical construct example (a mere label) for the purposes of most of this discussion.

Yes. These discussions are not about the real person “Andie” – who I would be willing to bet is a good egg, overall – but using her hypothetical personality as a stand in, a doppelgänger, of a phenomenon which has kept the MRM stillborn for at least 30 years.

To Darryl, she is a symbol of his “oppression” at the hands of the blue gun thugs. To some other men, she is a symbol of new hope – proof positive that women are “waking up” and “getting it.”

I’m sort of in a 3rd place which puts me at odds with both points of view.

Personally, I don’t see much that can be done for guys in Darryl’s situation. More than 30 years ago, a buddy of mine got his hand caught in a rolling press. It got really mangled. Even though his company paid for some top flight surgeons, and he regained a remarkable amount of use of it, it is still mangled today.

The advice “Keep your hands out of the machine” is only useful to those guys who haven’t gotten caught in it. However, for those guys, it does remain pretty good advice.

It does seem like a lot more women are waking up to how badly women have screwed the pooch when it comes to their future meal tickets. Aunt Giggles is twisting herself in knots trying to get ahead of the manosphere and come up with new gymnastics for her rationalization hamster.

I’ve made it a point in life to never trust anyone who says “trust me.” When I hear the message that sounds like “Go ahead and stick your hand in the machine. It’s turned off right now, and I PROMISE, I swear on a stack of bibles that I WILL NOT turn it on”, I think “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me.”

I have seen how women in general regard keeping their promises –
“Yes, I said I would do A, BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT.”

The feminist wedge is also reaching the point that it is becoming too blunt, and the womyn will find themselves being unceremoniously dropped into the toilet, in favour of a sharper wedge, ‘soon’.

I really don’t know what that sharper wedge will be. I think that the White Knights and the manginas will simply resort to bigger hammers trying to beat that dull wedge further in. That is the message I see in Manosphere comments these days. When Mentu wrote about his vasectomy, the WKs and manginas went NUTS!

“How dare you try to escape!!! Don’t you know that when we have got you by the sperm, WE HAVE GOT YOU!! GOD DAMN you, get your ass back in here and stick your head back in the noose!!”

The majority of women are now trapped in the workforce – as wage slaves and taxpayers for the PTB – and “men” just don’t have the ability to save them from their own mistakes, even if those men wanted to.

Everything old is new again – the “oppression” of marriage and being a “kept woman” able to be a stay at home wife (barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove) so hated by the bra-burning feminists of the 60s-70s, has now become one of the fondest fantasies of their daughters’ generation. And, one of out 3 resent their husbands for not making enough money to allow them to do so.

http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/one-out-of-three-women-resent-their-husbands-for-not-earning-enough-money/

84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.

What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.

I think Aesop covered what has happened in the last 50 years in his “Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dale September 20, 2012 at 19:59

@Darryl X
“If women are married, they should not be allowed to collect public assistance AND receive the financial benefits of marriage. If they are divorced they should not be allowed to collect any benefits from marriage. Only public assistance.”

As another poster, I would go furthur and say the divorced woman or single, promiscuous woman should get nothing. Her life as a single mother should be hard. So hard, that other people see her as an object lesson for why children without a father is foolish and very undesirable. Every time we subsidize a single parent, we show other people that single parent-hood isn’t all that bad, what with all the help you will get. Yes, the reality may be that even with government assistance, it is difficult. But other people have their perception of reality, not reality itself.
I think it is better to do what will prevent 10 new children being created for life in a deficient home than help the 1 child already there. I agree that is hard, but I do not have limitless resources.

Widows and orphans are a different case; in those cases there was a father, and he was removed by death, not selfishness.

“twenty-seven years ago when I was only seventeen and I had predicted the collapse of the housing market and financial institutions around the middle of the first decade of the new millenium”

Wow. Predicting the housing collapse 3 decades before it happened is pretty smart. I knew as a teenager that the stock market was a Ponzi / pyramid scheme, but, at least in Canada, the housing market was not such an obvious pyramid scheme.

“Simple fact is never trust a woman. … It’s a simple strategy that every man should adopt.”

Very distrustful view… and I regret to say it, but one that seems partly true, at least financially. It is interesting to me that when God set up the economic system in Israel (about 1500 B.C.), women were not permitted to inherit the family land/farm, except in the case where there were 0 sons. ALL property of the father went to his sons. If he has 1 son and 10 daughters, the 1 son gets everything. And no, the farm was not divided if his marriage ended. Farm goes to sons, ex-wife gets… well, as far as I can tell, zilch. Which brings the point that, in order to continue to receive the benefits of marriage (home, food, clothing), the female had to remain a wife. Thus, a man did not have to trust his wife to not divorce him — she had the financial, daily motivation to remain with him.

But don’t expect agreement if you ask a church woman today to agree to a pre-nup, even when it is stated that this is to strengthen the marriage bond and conform to the Bible she claims to follow.

@Towgunner
Put another way freedom from the state and, as it applies to feminism, overzealous academics and social engineers who presume they know more than the rest of us.

Bad news (as if you did not already know)… the social engineers are not done yet. Just last week, a teacher in Alberta Canada was fired because he gave grades of 0% to students who refused to submit assignments. The school has a “no zeros” policy. We can’t have the little ones learning the consequences of irresponsibility, can we? Imagine if the average voter understood consequences, and had a personal, emotional reason to avoid irresponsible decisions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 20, 2012 at 20:09

Zed: It doesn’t really do to say much about what the PTB are really up to (not least because nobody except them really has any idea), but it seems that we’re moving towards one of two options, depending upon what they want:-

1 To be the Uncontested Gods of the cesspit;

2 To be merely the Majestic Demigods of the Glorious Kingdom.

If it’s #1 then we’re all f*cked, but they don’t have much to gloat over either; if it’s #2 then there needs to be a backlash such that men are allowed to build that Glorious Kingdom, with the inevitable pendulum back-swing after that one retarded as much as possible (by having given all of the corrosive forces like Feminism and the chav class so much rope in this phase, that they’ve hanged themselves 10,000 times over, and will be spat upon for millennia). Dunno.

Regardless, it does have to get very much worse before it gets any better (being a pendulum). The children wedge will be at least one of the sharper wedges that will take over when the Feminist wedge has outlived its usefulness (having put into motion all of the mechanisms for the children wedge to slickly drive deeper into society).

We’re already seeing the blameless victim-angels 1.0 (womyn) getting the shock of finding that their platinum-plated get out of jail free cards bounce, here and there, when they smack their blameless victim-angels 2.0 (children); or rebuke their child students at school. The children are already using womyn’s false accusation tactics against their teachers (mostly womyn in that industry, eh?)… heheheh. :D

I mentioned elsewhere that once New Labour got finished with its DNA database and centralised info database, and forcing us to carry ID cards with chips that link to that database (that everyone and his/her dog could scan, except for the ‘citizen’ whose card it is), and its plans to fine people £1000.00 for putting the wrong type of rubbish in the wrong bin, and the dodgy (elite-exempted) child register and so on; then increased surveillance was in order (this tiny little island already has a quarter of the entire world’s CCTV cameras) – in the name of Pwotecting da Childrenz!

It’s a one-way ratchet (thankfully the Tories aren’t fussed about enjoying soft tyranny, and would rather just give those £billions saved, by not funding such dark Lefty wet-nightmares, to their rich mates), and we’d have been only one major ‘OMG! Child abuse!’ ‘story’ away from having cameras in our living rooms.

Studies would then show that child abuse has actually increased – but it’s happening in bedrooms (more cameras)… then bathrooms….

The Feminists will get a shock (after they’ve realised that ‘All privacy is merely a patriarchal-abuse enabler, and needs to be dispensed with!’ = some seedy guy working for the surveillance corporation that New Labour would give the contract to is watching them masturbate and sh*t) when they find that changing their dogma (again) cuts no ice any more.

They’ll get a shock when the cameras reveal that the Nurturing and Compassionate victim-angels 1.0 are unprecedented abusers and batterers, and the state does exactly the same demonisation number on them that it has against men for decades, and with kids ever-increasingly taken off them and raised in state facilities.

Being demons now, the corporate employers will be given free rein to drop the hammer on them (taking their expensive, fluffy benefits off them and demanding that they actually do some f*cking work for their decreased wages).

Womyn will be shocked when they say to their PTB representatives: “You know, we’ve changed our minds about that whole, ya’know, feminist thing… we’ve decided that_”

“This was *never* about what *you* wanted: You. Stupid. C*nts.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Apollo September 21, 2012 at 01:38

@Daryll X

Yes. I don’t know how we would fight either. And that creates a problem with the “war” analogy. How can you have a war if you don’t even know how to fight back? The only workable and practical strategy I have been able to come up with to deal with this is not to “enlist”, and to wait until the feminist scourge is dealt with by nature (which abhors imbalance, and doesn’t care about “fair”). The only problem with that is, I don’t know what else will get destroyed in the process. Certainly our society won’t survive without major changes. Feminism has to be starved of resources to implement it’s policies before it will be defeated, and considering how it’s tied into our society thats going to require a major financial collapse. Basically I don’t think we will get rid of Feminism until we literally cannot afford it’s inefficiencies any more.

I’d like to say that people could be brought around to realizing the damage it does on their own, absent unmitigated disaster, but given what I’ve seen of the so called MRM so far, and what I know of women, that just seems naive. Women are too self centered and wont give up their privileges, most men are pathetic white knights and manginas who wont go against those women even if it’s in everyone’s best interests, and the remaining men get labelled misogonists and ignored if they try and tell truth to power. That’s why I think Feminsm won’t be displaced until things get so bad that we are forced by dire circumstance to reembrace Patriarchy and rebuild our civilization. So, can we really fight? Maybe all we can do is keep ourselves intact until it’s time to rebuild.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 21, 2012 at 05:49

@ Dale re September 20, 2012 at 19:59 -

Go further. Spot on…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 21, 2012 at 06:08

@ Apollo -

“The only workable and practical strategy I have been able to come up with to deal with this is not to “enlist”…”

I agree. Except that we still have a “draft” for some of those who refuse to enlist. There isn’t a moment of every single day during which identification of solution to our dilemma is not forefront of my mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 September 21, 2012 at 07:23

I think Apollo has it about right. Feminism is like widespread obesity – it’s a problem that only affect rich societies. Poor societies cannot indulge in counterproductive extravagances.

But the West (most of it anyway), isn’t rich anymore. Now hear me out – because the West has by far the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. At this point that standard of living is the result of two things: the economic inertia built up over hundreds of years of patriarchal families and by following the “Protestant Work Ethic,” and borrowed money – made possible by the fact that the West has been FAR more productive than the rest of the world for centuries, and western currencies have always been the world’s reserve currencies, with the U.S. Dollar filling that role now.

But the number of people who vote for a living is huge. The undermining of familial patriarchy that began in the 1960′s means that men no longer have the incentive to work as hard as their fathers did. Also, there’s no doubt that the Protestant Work Ethic is fading away, and the inertia won’t carry us through the next major crash, which is coming soon. Perhaps as early as next year. Western economies are much more service-based now as well, so the real productivity of Western workers (on average) is slipping in relation to non-Western workers. (By that I mean that most of us don’t make stuff anymore.) When the bill comes due all the debt we’ve accumulated will bury us – and since our creditors will be left holding worthless debt they’ll be screwed as well. Bad debt must be wiped eventually, and anything that must happen will happen.

We got the tiniest taste of what is coming when the city of Topeka, Kansas announced that the police department would no longer respond to the routine domestic calls that were occupying so much of their time – they had real crime to deal with. Not that the pooooor wyminz were not going to be taken care of, but rather that the county sheriff’s department would be on the hook to answer the calls instead of the city police department. In a real sense, feminist wolf-crying just got too expensive for Topeka to continue to indulge. Anyone familiar with the story knows how apoplectic the fem-bots went: they stared screeching that wife-beating was now legal in Topeka… as if. The thing is that they were still going to be taken care of as they always had been – fembot fury was directed at the fact that there was somebody who was not at their immediate beck and call. The only thing that changed was that one agency was not in lockstep, and we can’t have that! If one agency is allowed to get out of step, others might get the same idea. Then what? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

When the big crash comes – and it is inevitable – the entire Western world will be faced with the same kind of reality Topeka faced: indulging feminist fantasies about how the world works – or ought to work – is a luxury we will no longer be able to afford.

But unlike in Topeka, where the county was there to do the bidding of women while the city could not, what happens when every level of society can no longer afford to cater to the irrational demands inherent within feminism? Answer: women will be forced to abandon it. When an unhaaaaaapy woman wants to call the thugs in blue to haul away her meal ticket she’s going to get a busy signal. If she expects the state to expend resources imprisoning hordes of unemployed men for the “crime” of being in arrears, she’s mistaken. States are already finding that keeping men locked up for petty crap is more expensive than it’s worth, and increasingly cash-strapped polities are not going to increase their prison populations even more to lock up these men.

I predict that women will get very nice, very fast. For many of them it will be a day late and a dollar short, and they will suffer a lot. The only hope is for traditional women already in stable relationships, and young women not yet polluted by years of feminist indoctrination and carousel-riding.

Hang on. It’s going to be a rough ride.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed September 21, 2012 at 07:37

Zed: It doesn’t really do to say much about what the PTB are really up to (not least because nobody except them really has any idea), but it seems that we’re moving towards one of two options, depending upon what they want:-

1 To be the Uncontested Gods of the cesspit;

2 To be merely the Majestic Demigods of the Glorious Kingdom.

If it’s #1 then we’re all f*cked, but they don’t have much to gloat over either;

I think Adam Smith called it quite well –

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

It doesn’t matter to the PTB what they own, as long as they own it all.

George Carlin lays it out clearly enough that almost anyone can understand it if they do not stubbornly refuse to hear it.
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/03/nwo-owners.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 21, 2012 at 12:34

Dale: “the social engineers are not done yet. Just last week, a teacher in Alberta Canada was fired because he gave grades of 0% to students who refused to submit assignments. The school has a “no zeros” policy. We can’t have the little ones learning the consequences of irresponsibility, can we?”

I had a ‘friend’ plunging into despair as he had to mark his college students’ assignments, sitting next to me for moral support (over here in Blighty).

Similarly, he also had to give non-submissions, flat-out failures and blatant plagiarism (of Wikipedia LOL!!!) – which was supposed to be an instant ejection from the college forever offence – nothing lower than a low-medium pass.

The interesting thing was that he also had to give the only two ‘near perfect’ submissions nothing higher than a high-medium pass. Given that we have a grades league table system over here, it’s worth noting that it is considered preferrable to have those two high-90′s % deserved grades dropped down to <75%, in the interests of enforcing mediocrity, than reap the prestige and financial rewards that would come with the deserved (ie Just) increased average grade.

"Maaaney makes the world go raaand, innit!" my hairy arse.

As in many things, the wise ol' fox Kurt Vonnegut nailed this; in 'Harrison Bergeron' (though he committed the common error in dystopian fiction of having those running tings being benignly motivated: Orwell was right, in spades, with a big effing cherry on top!).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 21, 2012 at 14:55

Zed: Verily yup to: “I think Adam Smith called it quite well –

“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”

It doesn’t matter to the PTB what they own, as long as they own it all.”

[I've been at this all my life, so the Carlin vid sounded like: "The sky's blue... water's wet," to me.]

But there’s also *some* truth in Smith’s idea that a thriving civilisation (as opposed to our deteriorating one) kind of has to boot-strap everything, however much the PTB might want to hog it all and keep everyone else down.

‘Burning the books and burying the scholars’ is all fun and games, but the guys at the top end up being the Lords of a Shit Civilisation, that’s an unsatisfying (to them) joke.

Barring ‘General Winter’s of sufficient magnitude turning up in time, my third best hope is that the PTB will eventually become afflicted with “Simply *unbeaaarable* ennui” after a few generations of being the Uncontested Gods of the cesspit, realising that the ‘boot on a human face forever’ just means endless sh*t on your shoes.

Given that most of the true elites are inbred, useless retards, their vintage Bentleys will finally pack in forever; but there’ll be no new ones being designed and built – since Bentleys represent the cardinal sin of excellence in your (remaining poor excuse for) artisan class.

When they want to metaphorically go out hunting, they want to shoot lions and bears (shooting endless woodchucks having become booooring!) – so they’ll have to allow some to exist. They want some challenge, at least, that they’re just not going to get from lording it over nothing but humants until the end of time.

When they’re looking down upon their homogenised global cesspit, they’ll (eventually) realise that they actually have ended history; but their egos will long for them to have left their Names in History.

They will be bored of re-reading the same old classics, and crave a Renaissance in new classics, art and architecture to chatter about and literally patronise. They will want hypersonic bizjets to brag about. They will want mighty Grand Fleets and Armies to play with, a new Great Game and Glorious Clash of Empires.

All of these require that they surrender just a tiny sliver of personal power, and give it to men – so that they can do their civilisation- and culture-building sh*t (they can still have their tyranny, but it just needs to be a more ‘Right’ than ‘Left’ one). It’d be nice if the PTB have already figured all this out for themselves, so that we can jump straight to that part fairly soon (which is my second best hope).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed September 22, 2012 at 06:22

@Diogenes’ Lamp,

As much as I agree with you, philosophically, about the issues of preserving what you call “civilization”, I still believe that the elites do not care. It’s like the old saying “The rich are different.” They simply do not care about, and are not motivated by, the same things which might motivate you or I.

Where you and I perhaps part company is on the issue of personal responsibility and the intersection of that with individual behavior.

The vast majority of the means that the New Wizards of Oz use to control the sheeple are voluntary on the part of the sheeple. No one has a gun to my head forcing me to buy a new car every 3 years, or live in a McMansion, or watch the boob tube.

The fundamental paradox of power is that power accrues to those people who seize it. Full Stop.

To me, it makes absolutely no sense to complain, for example, about the garbage on TV, with the embedded expectation that the PTB should produce and serve me a better quality of garbage. If I don’t like the garbage on TV, then all I have to do is not watch it. Problem solved.

My perception of the situation is that average people have many times more control over their own individual situations than they are willing to exercise. Even when they don’t like the general direction that the leaders are leading the herd, and bitch about it constantly, they still follow it.

The elites are constantly struggling over who has the most “power” to control large scale social policy, and are knifing each other in the back all the time in order to gain the slightest advantage. The compulsion to do this is mutually exclusive to a benign attitude of civilization building.

The sheeple – who just want to be led – don’t have the compulsion to acquire power, nor they have the wherewithal to even control their own individual lives.

Comfort, safety, and luxury always breed indolence. The sheeple start to take for granted that other people will provide their food, and safety, and entertainment. What they don’t realize is that their elites have become just as short sighted as they are, and are chasing the short term gratification of hedonistic desires at the expense of building for the future or even maintaining what others have built and passed on to them.

For example – in the US about 11% of major highway bridges are considered structurally deficient. A few years ago a major bridge collapsed in Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring 145. As critical to our way of life as transportation is, our transportation infrastructure has to be one of our top priorities, yet when the elite piggies line up at the trough fighting for their share of the pork barrel, thousands of silly little projects that benefit their own districts get priority.

Few decent people have the drive to accrue power, and some that may start out with decent values lose them during their climb to the top of the heap.

I have always taken the path of exercising as much control over my own life as I possibly can, and encouraging others to do the same. I think that gives me and the people in my immediate sphere of influence the best chance of thriving, no matter badly the elites screw things up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dale September 22, 2012 at 12:48

@Diogenes’ Lamp September 21, 2012 at 12:34

> I had a ‘friend’ plunging into despair as he had to mark his college students’ assignments, sitting next to me for moral support (over here in Blighty).

I herewith make complete withdrawl of my whiny complain about teachers here being forced to give undeservedly high grades and admit your situation is worse. At least here, we do not yet push high grades down to prevent the hard-working student from earning an advantage.

>PTB… realising that the ‘boot on a human face forever’ just means endless sh*t on your shoes.

I know you were trying to make a serious point, but that was a great turn of phrase :) Thanks!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 22, 2012 at 16:41

Zed: In lieu of the Tale of Tragedy and Woe that I’ve been typing all day, I’ll just drop some tight paragraphs [or not, as it turned out]:-

Genuine question: can you suggest a better term for what I call ‘Civilisation’?

It appears that tyranny expresses itself differently in the US and UK. We’re less likely to end up with the ol’ ‘Federal Ninjas’ shooting us to death in our beds (the EU isn’t keen on such things, though the UK’s aristocracy certainly is) and similar acts of hard, naked force; however, the likes of New Labour (when in power, or under their local councils even when not) absolutely embody ‘soft totalitarianism’.

There seems to be more tolerance for MGTOW (if you avoid the major mangles) over there. I have always lived the life that you described (but much moreso); but this appears to have been intolerable to my Lefty city council. However independently you try to live, nanny will always have at least one form that you need to fill in and return within a set time.

I did, they ‘lost’ the proof that I had done so (that I had a dated receipt to prove that I had, counted for nothing); and they unleashed Juggernaut upon me.

I ended up not far from Darryl X’s position (everything apart from [because I have none] the trauma Re kids and spousal betrayal [Darryl - you have my total respects mate!]), due to a bureaucratic ‘mistake’ involving their mis-handling of a trivial and redundant piece of fucking paper: The state does this shit for its own purposes (the ol’ ‘malignant narcissim’: great phrase!); whether evil wives – or any womyn at all – are involved or not.

I’ve deliberately avoided the womyn hand-mangling machine, but found that even some random womyn you know only as peripherally as a barmaid in your local can still reputation-rape your entire life to death, just coz she feels like it one day (taking your entire community, and flat, off you in the fall-out from her batshit, As Seen On TV! melodrama).

Any womyn, who comes into your ambit, has but to accuse – and you’re irrevocably fucked. This can come from nowhere, however tight your Game, and however great your prior social status and popularity.

Your ‘male privilege’ (unless you’re an actual elite, and even then not necessarily as we’ve seen) is an anchor round your neck, that will drag you straight down to the bottom.

Agree about the sheeple: You’ll notice that none of my top three best hopes [and 'hope' really isn't the word I mean, but I haven't found a suitably accurate word in any language] involve ‘da people’ actively doing anything at all to improve their lot – they won’t.

PTB: The shadowy puppeteers – who knows what them crazy loons are up to? But then you’ve got the next tier down (who actually do have the power to give the puppeteers the finger if they want). Not wanting to be all Anglo-centric or nothin’ but I can only speak about what I know – please consider it merely an example.

They are still taught the Classics; Mythology dripping with true power and glory – of Heroic Destiny.

They are still taught History, but with most of the ‘We’re eeebil – sob! – and should all shoot ourselves! I’m sorry… I’m soooorrry!’ malarkey left out; including the high-octane awesomesauce of the likes of the Napoleonic Wars, Pax Britannica, Great Game and that fascinating and intricate (high-stakes) dance of the Empires pre-WWI.

They sit in, and are surrounded by, the artifacts created in ‘a better time’ of a standard of workmanship unlikely to be reproduced anywhere now (and *certainly* not in the worse-cesspit future), oozing History. They are surrounded by masterpieces depicting Trafalgar and Waterloo, and many have lineages that can be traced back to officers who served in those, and similar, battles.

I know for a fact that many of these beings are thoroughly disgusted about the way the country’s gone (and continuing to go), and are fit to puke and burst blood vessels at the state of the UK’s Armed Forces today, particularly the Royal Navy. :( They despise these coalition adventures, and ludicrous, humiliating RoE. They would curtail the intensive chav-breeding programme in a heartbeat (‘Stick them in workhouses!’), and would funnel all (minus their generous cut) of that money into the Forces if they could.

There is a similar class of people, thinking the same thing, in most of the fairly great nations that I’m aware of. And the political class (who are below them) seems to be committing the ultimate cardinal error of mightily pissing off their militaries, in most of the Western ‘Liberal’ ‘democracies’ (the really major cuts and indignities haven’t quite hit yet in the US, but they’re imminent).

I have no doubt that, in the UK, if the aristocratic class (who has a firm tradition of military service, including the Royals) were to attempt a coup d’état against “You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking” Dave, most of *Her Majesty’s* Forces, and most of the British public (save the pussy Guardian readers and useless teat-suckers) would rise to the occasion.

This is what I mean about the possible plan of letting the consequences of all things Lefty get so out of control and horrendous that a traditionalist military dictatorship seems vastly preferrable; the squaddies marching through the streets seen as beloved liberators from the nightmare.

Unfortunately, they kicked me out of the aristocrat club when, after one too many sherries, I committed the faux pas of referring to my nice cup of tea as “me luvly brew” – thus revealing myself as a low-born interloper – but I’ll bet you anything that if most of this tier of elites, from the US through the more major powers in Western Europe* through Russia, could drag our Civilisations out of this ever-declining Historical and Cultural cesspit and drop them back in 1898*, they would.

*Except for Spain, probably…. :P

Dale: Cheers for noticing chief. :) My posts do tend to go on a bit, and usually not into the fluffiest places; so I try to leaven them with a few nice bits of phrasing… and usually a sh*t ton of gallows humour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
baileysidea September 29, 2012 at 16:11

Darryl X,
I showed your efforts to my brother and my mates and they almost wet
themselves at you. In fact, we’ve got a new nickname for pearl clutching girly queers in our circle we call them Darryl X’s.
What kind of man are you? Frightened of women? Want to keep them under because you feel so challenged by them?
And you call it a war? You’ve been fighting for thirty years.The only war is in your mind. Two of the lads fought in real wars, and they got really annoyed and used colourful language when they read your limp dicked words.
Am I allowed to put limp dick? After all, swear words aren’t allowed on this pearl-clutching blog.
Sir. you are no man. Neither are any of the fake men here. Real men aren’t frightened of thinking of women as equal. Real men don’t feel challenged by women and aren’t afraid of them having the same rights and responsibilities we’ve had for thousands of years.
Whatever a woman did to you, you probably deserved it. In fact I think you did, you whining queer. And why didn’t you walk away? I’ve known real men who went through wars and poverty and abuse and they aren’t whining about how women have all the breaks and how we are fighting a war against feminists ie women with the same rights and responsibilities as we have.
Call me a mangina. I’d rather be a mangina with my two jobs and wife and sons and daughter than a queer ladyboy like you and your men friends.
Don’t bother responding, or e-mailing me. I won’t be coming back. I’m not frightened of women like you are. Neither are any of the lads.
My advice; Grow up, grow a pair, stop being whining little girls, and see how silly you all are.
I’m gone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: