Women’s Excessive Emphasis On Reproduction

by Joe Zamboni on December 10, 2012

By Joe Zamboni

Women overemphasize the importance of all things reproduction-related because it’s the basis of their claim to being treated like royalty, to tyrannical power over men, and to gender supremacy. Females focus on sexual attraction (clothing fashions, hairstyles, make-up, plastic surgery, etc.), sexual relationships, romance, marriage, having babies, motherhood, child care, raising children, teaching children, and many other reproduction-related activities because this fundamental strategy confers prestige, power, and influence on females. This is particularly true for those attractive adult females who appear to be biologically capable of having children. In spite of all the feminist propaganda thrown at them, the dream of many, and perhaps most, American women, remains to get married and have a family. But we Americans as a culture are suffering from an extreme over-emphasis on the importance of reproduction.

Like the worker bee in the hive, it is a man that enables the queen (a woman) to focus on reproduction. Marriage, as we have established it in America today, is all about setting up a little fiefdom, where a woman is made the queen. For example, the house is without question in the vast majority of marriages the royal dominion of the woman. And from the time they are very little, males are indoctrinated to make sure the females get everything they need in order to perpetuate the species. Thus it’s a man’s role to provide food, water, shelter, protection, money, etc. We are told that those men who offered such diligent life-long service for their queens (wives) in fact had offspring that were more likely to survive.

But maybe that’s a myth too, that’s engineered to enhance the power, prestige and influence of women? If you look around, you’ll notice many single mothers without the fathers anywhere in sight, without the fathers providing a damn thing (at least nothing directly, since it is largely men’s taxes that support such women via government aid programs). Those single mothers seem to be having many children, and the latter seem to be surviving quite well. So perhaps the story about the great importance of reproduction, and how critical it is for men to cater to women’s many needs, is simply another brainwashing technique used by women — a technique at this point culturally well-established — but nonetheless a technique used to enslave and subdue men?

In support of the notion that this gross over-emphasis on the importance of reproduction is in fact not necessarily the result of the natural evolution of the species, consider the ecological state of the planet. As anyone who has seriously studied this matter can tell you, we humans have gone way too far with this focus on and infatuation with reproduction. The alleged evolutionary strategy intended to make sure that the human species continued has been way too successful, and most of us humans are loath to admit that the strategy has long ago outlived its usefulness. Few people dare to talk about how humans are dominating, crowding-out, and in many cases exterminating nearly every other species on the planet, with the exception of insects and rodents, and those that we harvest for food (such as cattle). Why is it that so few dare to say the emperor (this evolutionary strategy of over-emphasizing reproduction) has no clothes?

The answer lies in the words of French writer Voltaire, who wisely said: “In order to find out who controls you, one only needs to find out whom he cannot criticize.” As many men’s rights activists can tell you, women do not take criticism well. Most American women believe they are above criticism, as though a lowly vassal, aka a man, cannot criticize a Queen (with a capital Q). At the same time, among many of this author’s friends, the typical husband’s response to a wife’s complaint is no discussion and no argument… simply “yes dear.” How did this lopsided and perverse situation come about?

We clearly must be able to criticize, to tell the truth, about what’s happening if we as a species are going to be able to adapt ourselves to new situations. But the myth supporting the bending-over-backwards that men engage in to please women is something that women don’t want to mess with. For women, the system as it now stands works for them. Never mind that feminists have been screaming about “equality” for decades; clearly those women didn’t mean what they said. In spite of feminist dogma, most women think that of course men should support women via alimony and child support. And no, women shouldn’t have to pay alimony and child support to men, or so they claim. This illogical position can only be continued as long as we men keep this reproduction strategy myth in place.

Catering to the female has to stop. Men need to stop buying diamond rings, getting on their knees to ask women for their hand in marriage, paying for dates, opening doors, and in so many other ways taking care of women as if each and every one of them were the sole queen bee in the hive. There are billions of women on earth, and a great number of them are expendable. There is no serious current danger that the human species will die out. There is no rational justification to act as though any particular woman is a queen bee. And after a man has had sex with a significant number of women, he’ll come to appreciate that no sex is worth being a slave. It doesn’t matter if she is Cleopatra or some other great sexy beauty. (Note that the myth of the Trojan War, the myth about men waging a protracted and costly war to recapture the beautiful Helen of Troy, is absolutely consistent with this over-emphasis on reproduction, teaching men that they should be giving everything, including their lives, to save a super-beautiful fertile young woman.)

The catering to female desire and female whim has gone way beyond what is necessary in order to get the job done, and in this case this author is talking about adequately raising children. The corporations have noticed how men work so hard, how they with great dedication act like worker bees, and so they hitched up consumerism with the desires and whims of the female. It is no mistake that women control 88% of American retail spending; this social design comes about through the alliance of supremacist feminism with the enslaving corporate elites. As a result of this social design, as a result of this socially-dictated over-emphasis on reproduction, men are expected to go well beyond providing the necessities, they must slave their lives away to make sure that women experience the luxuries shown in advertisements, live the life of the beautiful actresses in the movies, and have the exciting opportunities enjoyed by heroines in female porn novels like Fifty Shades Of Grey. This catering to women’s desires and whims has gone beyond obnoxious, repulsive and entitled — it is now dangerous, malignant, and out-of-control. Even if nobody cares about the impacts on the psychological health of men, this strategy cannot be sustained because it threatens the fundamental viability of the earth’s ecosystem.

Life should not be all about babies and bringing still more people into the world. Supposedly humans are intelligent and self-aware, not simply instinctual animals. It’s time we lived up to that billing. We as a species must rise above the unthinking instinctual drive to reproduce and look at the long-term consequences of our actions, notably how catering to female desires and whims is a painful path to destruction not only of males, but of females too, and ultimately of civilized society as well.

It is time for the worker bees (males in human terms) to rise up and revolt en masse. It is here where the men’s movement meets the anti-consumerism movement, meets the environmentalism movement, meets the anti- slavery movement. We don’t need more people. We need more personal freedom, more self-actualization, and more pursuit of happiness (in whatever form that may take for an individual). For a man who never wanted children, to be forced to devote a large portion of his life to economically supporting some spawn of his that he never intended to bring into this world, simply because his girlfriend, or perhaps his one-night stand, refused to have an abortion, or put the spawn up for adoption — that is slavery, straight out-and-out slavery. The fact that women are the only ones able to choose: having an abortion, putting a baby up for adoption, leaving a baby on a hospital’s steps without explanation or paperwork, or employing one in a large array of birth control technologies not under the control of men … that speaks volumes about the reproduction-related control that women now have over men. As Voltaire’s quote would imply, as long as women call the reproductive shots, and as long as men are not willing to stand-up and complain about the injustice of this situation, the control women have over relationships with heterosexual men will continue in its enslaving form.

The rules of modern American marriage also reveal how excessive the catering to females has become. It used to be in the name of reproduction, or if you like legal terms “for the good of the children,” but women have co-opted the system and now it’s simply about catering to women’s desires and whims (not genuine needs). If he has children by a woman, a man is obligated to pay 20+ years for child support. So what if she uses the money any way she wants, without any accountability, without any need to show that the children actually benefitted? If a man marries that same woman, and then later divorces, he may be required to pay alimony to this queen for life. So what if her child rearing days are long gone, and so what if she offers him no services in return? And of course, if a man is married to a woman, he’s also required to support the queen economically on an ongoing basis. So what if he does an equal share of the housework and she doesn’t have any children?

Marriage is a trap of gigantic proportions that men — intelligent men in many cases, men who just haven’t taken the time to fully investigate the facts — are still falling prey to, in tragically large numbers. The best way to stay free: don’t get married, and don’t get a woman pregnant. Have a vasectomy, use condoms, date older women, be celibate, and otherwise do whatever you need to do to prevent reproduction. If a woman who had sex with you does get pregnant, insist upon and then pay for an abortion. Our enslaving social system is profoundly rigged against men, and the most viable option is to avoid both the marriage game and the reproduction game.

It’s time that we men defined a desirable man’s life as something other than just being a worker bee, just catering to the desires and whims of females, and just “supporting the family.” What could your life be like without the obligations of a wife, children, child support, alimony, and all the other trappings of marriage and reproduction? Have you really thought about that? Do you dare?

{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }

Jeff December 10, 2012 at 12:48

“We don’t need more people.”

You lost me here. Leave that up to the individual couple to decide…to decide this for others is tyranny. This “we” shit is communism/feminism…yet you go on to talk about personal “freedom”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Joe Zamboni December 10, 2012 at 13:13

@Jeff -
This is not communism, or anything repressive. Just the opposite. This is about freedom — men being able to choose a life other than the life already preordained for them by the system and women. You are, if you wish, of course, free to choose a life of enslavement to women and their pursuit of reproduction, and all the consequential whims and desires that they throw your way.

geographybeefinalisthimself December 10, 2012 at 13:25

“It’s time that we men defined a desirable man’s life as something other than just being a worker bee, just catering to the desires and whims of females, and just “supporting the family.”

I know that the competition that is part of my namesake is called a “bee,” but worker bees are all female and bees are not exactly one of the desirable animals of the MRM (granted there are worse insects and spiders), especially not one to symbolize a desirable man’s life. I’m not into animal biology (obviously I’m still more fixated on geography), so I am unable to think of a better example.

I would not recommend catering to the whims of females or starting a family to any male until the legal climate for males stratospherically improves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
pjanus December 10, 2012 at 13:38

So, this author works for the U.N. Population Control.

Does the author think we can be controlled like women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Bill December 10, 2012 at 15:59

I agree that the rules are way off from where they should be. The rules should allow men to choose right away if he wants the child or not. If he does not, then he should pay for half an abortion and not be legally required to pay or do anything. If women want it all they should do it by themselves. Unfortunately most people would shoot this down because it would hurt “hard working single moms”. Bull. I should have just as much right to get rid of responsibility as you do women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
brigadon December 10, 2012 at 16:04

Sorry Joe, but again I think your article misses the point.
(*paraphrase*) Robert Heinlein said “They Key to a man’s happiness is to find out what he is willing to spend long hours and overtime doing, and then doing it. This is not ‘evil’, this is men’s nature. Whether that is robbing banks, woodworking, driving a truck, flying a spaceship, making money, or doing women’s nails. If you are thinking longingly of vacations and the time you get off of work, you are going to be unhappy. It’s time to consider flying a spaceship, or robbing banks.”

The point is that men are happiest when they are DOING. Women may choose to spend their lives pursing fleeting happiness, but men are builders, and innovators, and doers. Many of them are happiest when providing for and raising a happy, healthy family.

Telling men to stop doing what makes them happy, to stop producing, to stop being ‘worker bees’, to stop reproducing, is NOT a viable strategy. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to come up with something that MRA’s can DO, but ‘stopping doing’ is not it. WOMEN’s behaviors are the problem, not men. The only breakdown in men’s behavior is when we stupidly allow Women to shed responsibility.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Paul Murray December 10, 2012 at 17:10

Since you mention worker bees, one fem-centric myth is that the female worker bees do all the work – collecting pollen and nectar – and the male “drones” do nothing.

The reason they are called drones is that they continuously fan the air inside the hive, making a droning sound. Why? Because in order to make nectar into honey, the humidity and temperature inside the hive must be precisely controlled. It’s the drones, IOW, that actually make the honey.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo December 10, 2012 at 17:37

I did an expose on feminists in relation to bees; pretty humorous. http://gloriusbastard.com/?p=764

I disagree with certain things; like your rallying call to get other movements under our collective umbrella. I think we need to let them handle their own; or do work for two or more that are important to the individual. Otherwise; we are feminists who merely co-opt other movements at their expense, furthering our own agenda. We need to be different!

Once we get power to change things; making and office in the FBI to hunt down women who try to disrespect us is what feminists did. I think that unlike “drones” in a bee-hive; we are like other insects in that we have a better chance of survival that our female-kin don’t possess. I agree with you here; let them learn to value us again. However, completely denying our species is to dismiss responsibility. Thereby guaranteeing feminists stay in power. Power=Responsibility! Make no mistake, people whether they know our arguments or not are going to have kids. We need to focus more specifically on what it is we want; or again we are like the opposite camp we loathe so much.

Otherwise, great article. I think you have something here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Joe Zamboni December 10, 2012 at 17:42

@Brigadon -

I invite you to write your own article. I did not “miss the point” you wanted me to make. I never intended to make that point.

I am saying before we men do anything else (rob banks, navigate spaceships, whatever), we have to stop doing what society and women tell us to do, which is to be metaphorical “worker bees” supporting women’s needs, desires and whims.

Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech December 10, 2012 at 18:30

If any of you are really that concerned about men not reproducing, there are options that don’t involve handing over control of your life to a woman. You can hire a surrogate mother in India to have your kids, and no woman can take them away from you because they are completely yours legally.

It’s not a surprise that women are so obsessed with reproduction. Without reproduction, most women have no purpose. Government policies aside, it always makes more sense to have man do something than have a woman, whatever that thing is. That now includes reproduction since women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful. More and more men are realizing this so they are not having kids. This leads to women trying to tighten their grip on reproduction to only have it slip through their fingers.

Men taking control of reproduction is the future and absurd conspiracy theories about Joe Zamboni working for the U.N. is not going to change that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
"The One" December 10, 2012 at 18:39

Well, I won’t be following this strategy. I won’t be catering to any woman’s priorities above my own priorities either.

I won’t be impregnating any woman who is not good enough to raise my children.

If circumstances don’t become more favorable, I’ll find a dangerous hobby. Sky diving looks good. There are always drugs. There is travel. A place which has not yet been ruined by Feminism can change your outlook.

Feminists can go to hell. They don’t have me feeling any hypertension. Let not your heart be troubled. And to any young men, I would suggest you don’t get a vasectomy as any kind of anti-Feminist political act. You might wish you weren’t shooting blanks one day.

Just make sure you’re not impregnating some entitled princess who will make you regret the day you laid eyes her. The only way to be sure is to marry her before the age of defiance, which is generally not legal.

Otherwise, you’re probably SOL and you’ll probably die a whipped, hen-pecked, cuckolded, grovelling toady to an overbearing wife, or else a lonely beggar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Glenn December 10, 2012 at 19:24


“We don’t need more people.”

“You lost me here. Leave that up to the individual couple to decide…to decide this for others is tyranny.”

I am glad I was not the only one that picked up on the not-so-subtle authoritarian themes embedded this article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
brigadon December 10, 2012 at 21:06

Joe, ‘your article misses the point’ was my attempt to be polite and not call it a load of horseshit. you begin by making cogent points, and proposing coherent solutions, but about halfway through several paragraphs you attempt a logical disconnect.

If you had said “We should stop doing what feminists say and do whatever sort of work makes us happy.” without dismissing what makes SOME men happy, growing society, reproducing, and having a family, I would agree. But the basic assumption that having a family is wrong, or even that the world is overcrowded, is unexpurgated, unidentified deli meat. As is the demand that men do NOT have a right to wish to have a loving wife and family.

But, if you would prefer the direct response, half the article is a load of ivory-tower whitewashed excrement. Society, civilization, and social interaction exist primarily to ensure reproduction and reproductive safety. If you take that away, you remove all controls on human behavior, all conscience, all hope, and all reason. All you have left is killing people and taking their stuff. Individual fulfillment is not the responsibility of a civilization, it is the responsibility of the individual.

If I cared for nothing but my own self, I could happily live in a hole in alaska far from any other humans. Civilization is unneccessary for individual aggrandizement, society, growth, it is all based solely upon the idea of increasing safety and reproduction for a species, not for an individual.

In some ways, we agree, it is time for men to stop catering to women. We need to stop allowing women to be used against us as a tool for control. But saying to cast aside all control, all responsibility, all men who wish to be FATHERS and have a FAMILY is denying our ability to be better than anarchic animals.

I agree that the catering has to stop. I do NOT agree that we need to stop reproducing. These are two facets that are entirely disconnected.

“Life should not be all about babies and bringing still more people into the world. Supposedly humans are intelligent and self-aware, not simply instinctual animals.”
Why not, if that is what makes you happy? What could possibly make you think that bringing up humans to be cogent, intelligent, and socially-adept beings is a less than worthy goal, or makes someone subhuman?

“As anyone who has seriously studied this matter can tell you, we humans have gone way too far with this focus on and infatuation with reproduction.”
I have seriously studied this matter, and come to a different conclusion. We, as a species, are expansionistic. We need to expand. We need to focus on reproduction, and on those strategies and technologies that make this expansion viable (space travel, colonization, space habitats, etc.). Rather than scaling down our growth and getting ‘in tune with our environment’, we have evolved to make our environment in tune with us. more expansion and reproduction and ‘room to move’ are necessary, not less. Our brains have given us the most perfect evolutionary advantage possible… I am unwilling to toss that advantage away and become an animal in order to ‘fit in’.

I am not saying that your article is totally wrong, I am saying that some of your conclusions do not fit the facts as you have presented them in several cases. Thus it ‘misses the point’.

And as for doing an article or ten myself, I have not been asked. In general, as a practicalist(Ie, I do not subscribe to a nonviolent philosophy), libertarian, artist, practicing dominant, and futurist/scifi writer, my ‘opinion pieces’ Are a bit too radical even for the Spearhead in many cases. I did something on IMF before it shut down, but I am well aware that my militancy makes many of my writings unwelcome in spaces where others can be held responsible for my musings. I am more aware of the war on free speech and the war on creativity than most. I see problems within their matrix… every problem has other, interlocking issues that MUST be addressed, or any solution is either doomed to failure or will be worse than the problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon December 10, 2012 at 21:12

Basically I am saying that we need to ‘change” society’s expectations, not blow them off as irrelevant to our needs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
lavazza1891 December 11, 2012 at 02:12

Altruistic behaviour in social insects

All social bees, wasps and ants – which I will refer to as just bees from now on – have workers that do not go on to produce offspring, but help their sexual sisters and brothers to produce offspring. Now this altruistic behaviour does not seem to make any sense, and it did cause Charles Darwin a lot of worry, so you are in good company if it confuses you too. However we tend to think of things from a human perspective, and there are major differences between us and bees that go some way to making sense of the seemingly selfless behaviour of the workers. Quite simply a bee worker shares 75% of her genes with her sisters. Whereas we share only 50% of our genes with out brothers or sisters. And the reason for this difference is that we are diploid animals and bees are haplodiploid animals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
migu December 11, 2012 at 02:46

When do we get the population control article….oh we just did. Lead by example!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
jimbo December 11, 2012 at 04:20

Pro, or con, argument or agreement. almost everything on this site comes down to one thing. It is the very essence of the root of feminism… Is it more constructive/destructive to describe and treat men and women as equals, or men and women as different? When it becomes believed or assumed that women are our equals, their collective/cumulative logic will make them go insane and they will become un-virtuous wives and mothers. Such a high percentage of women haven’t always been the fucking nightmares they are today. They haven’t always been creatures (that Joe talks about) that need to be avoided like the plague. They’ve become that way because we’ve allowed them way too much freedom. The resultant of accepting them as equals. The first thing we need to do in the smolder and ashes is assert authority over women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Ode December 11, 2012 at 05:17


You lost me here. Leave that up to the individual couple to decide…to decide this for others is tyranny.

You think you are free?
The best way to profit from a human is not through direct enslavement with threats of the whip and chain. Manipulation is far more productive. If a man can be convinced that he is free, then he will work even harder to enrich his master not knowing he is pursueing his enslavement.

Go ahead Jeff you are “free” to choose your path. This is only a forum, nobody has the power to stop you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
meistergedanken December 11, 2012 at 05:20

“Life should not be all about babies and bringing still more people into the world. Supposedly humans are intelligent and self-aware, not simply instinctual animals. It’s time we lived up to that billing. We as a species must rise above the unthinking instinctual drive to reproduce and look at the long-term consequences of our actions,…It is here where the men’s movement meets the anti-consumerism movement, meets the environmentalism movement, meets the anti- slavery movement. We don’t need more people.”

I agree – it has always bothered me to consider that most of us are seemingly doomed to be unthinking slaves to our biological dictates. But endless growth/reproduction cannot endure on a finite planet. You have to laugh at the simpletons here who get so offended when anyone broaches the topic of mitigating the effects of unfettered population growth. Oh well, some people just have a piss-poor grasp of mathematics (as well as a grandoise sense of worth of the potency and primacy of their gonads).

I remember sitting in Social Studies class back in junior high in the mid-80’s and learning that the population of the world had just reached 5 billion people, which meant a 25% increase had transpired just since I was born. At the time, the population of the U.S. was around 240 million people. As of last year, the world population is 7 billion, and the U.S. population is now 314 million (legal residents only). If you look at the population growth rates of the last 50 years and extrapolate into the future, it is safe to say that the earth’s population will AT LEAST get to 9 billion people in our lifetime alone.

Now let me pose a question to the non-stupid readers: How many people do you think this planet can support before resource depletion and scarcity cause widespread shortages and starvation? 10 billion? 12 billion? Scratch that, let’s get a bit less abstract and more close to home: how many people do you think America can support? Or perhaps more relevantly, how many people do you think America can support without drastically reducing the quality of life we currently enjoy? 450 million? 500 million? And how many years do you suppose it will it take for the American population to get that large?

We can either intelligently manage the decline, or mindlessly keep doing things the way we have been and then go over the cliff into oblivion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
migu December 11, 2012 at 06:08

Pay no attention to the death cultists. (Population control proponents) Even China has vast swaths of land where nary a human can be found.

Resource depletion? Name one resource that has ever been depleted. Don’t even try fossil fuels, the supply of those is still increasing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
POD December 11, 2012 at 08:22

Ignore the folks who think population growth is good and fine. Yes it is true we can still feed all the 7 billion today with current food production, those starving are due to wastage and poverty and misallocation.

But everything physical is finite, and the earth can only support a finite population, of humans, birds, fish – anything. Maybe we can still feed 12 billion people, but life isn’t only about food , is it ? Quality of life is something too. People in America live in a lower density of people per square mile. Try living in India/China. Yes, there are swathes of unoccupied land, and there’s reason for that. Not all land is created equal, land that is unoccupied could well be unfit for population sustenance – unfertile soil, lack of water.

It’s easy to think you only need 2000 sq feet of land for a family. You didn’t account for the area that needs to cultivated to grow food, the area needed to build power stations, water filtration plants, drainage, roads , parking, schools. the quarries and mines to obtain the rock and mineral to build your house, make that car, build cell phone, store your food before it reaches you, and so on. Unless you like to like a hand to mouth existence like the poorest of the poor in Africa and Asia, you need to understand , the true resource utilization per person is a lot higher than you think.

Eventually there will be a point where available resources are too low per person.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The First Joe December 11, 2012 at 09:21

Screw this neo-Malthusian “we don’t need more people” BS.
The future you envisage basically adds up to the plot of “Children of Men”.

What is needed is this:

- the CHOICE for men to have a “paper abortion” (actually a disownment of all rights and responsibilities to the child) when presented with an “Oops! pregnancy” by any woman. This balances the woman’s abortion / abandonment / adoption rights.

- mandatory paternity testing of all babies and supposed fathers at birth. No more “Mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe.” If you’re not the bio-Dad then you’re off the child support hook, unless you CHOOSE to adopt.

- Marriage strike en masse.

- Arrange your affairs so as to legally minimise your tax liabilities.

Those measures alone would be big steps toward addressing the inequalities between the sexes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The First Joe December 11, 2012 at 09:27

@POD – It’s true that ultimately the world is finite, but despite what massive landowners with huge families like the obscenely wealthy Ted Turner keep telling you – Earth is FAR from overcrowded. For example: the UK is one of the most densely populated nations, with 56millions people on these islands… Yet, 85% of our land remains rural, and much of our good agricultural land is kept fallow under the Common European Agricultural policy. By comparison France has twice the land area, for the same population.

Ultimately, we won’t have too many people, we’ll have too few planets.
Any one planet may suffer a catastrophic disaster at any time, space colonisation and planet terraforming must be a top priority for humanity in general (starting with Mars).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
DWD December 11, 2012 at 10:52

Nuts to this article. It’s nothing but a declaration of surrender. I couldn’t care less if some african or asian shit hole is overpopulated or some stupid turtle I’ve never heard of in the south pacific disappears. Better your dumb whale than me and my line!

Ya we got a critical problem with feminism and insane leftist death cult ideas like the ones in this article, but suicide ain’t the answer! Our fathers didn’t make epic sacrifices to put some Queen on her throne, they did it for us, their sons. Aeneas carried his father out of Troy, not his mother.

If you care about anything other than sticking your dick in a wet hole, have as many sons as possible and teach them the truth about this disgusting culture. Eventually, perhaps not for many years yet, it’ll come to a shooting scrape, best we have at least a few to show up on the day when it does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Matt Strictland December 11, 2012 at 11:29

Destroying civilization by not reproducing is not a solution to Men’s problems.

As for getting to another planet to live there , simply socially impossible. Technically possible in time. Yes. But human nature, the banding tribal primate part of the brain won’t allow it.

Human societies including and especially the the advanced ones can’t even provide a means of income for their reproductive age citizens (50% youth unemployment in Spain for example) in sufficient amount for them to afford to have any kids.

How precisely are we going to allocate resources to discovering a planet, building the vast web of technologies required to get there and then getting a beginning civilization to live there when the very basics of a complex civilization are the edge of human social capacity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
brigadon December 11, 2012 at 14:10

@Matt- That’s the fun part.

Our ancestors crossed the land bridge from africa. They invented the science of navigation, and crosses oceans with little food and water.

‘socially impossible’ is code for ‘too complicated to think about right now’. Humans have been beating impossible odds for millions of years, what makes you think we cannot do so now?

And as for useable resources, 70% of the earth’s surface is virtually untapped and ripe with potential. All it takes is will. ‘Overpopulation’ is a myth perpetuated by people who wish to be wealthy southern plantation owners.

A few years ago, I took a sailboat out on a single trip, stocked for bear, to just cruise around a bit and ‘find myself’, and work on my art free from distractions. No passport, so I sorta had to avoid big foreign ports. for almost three months in the pacific I didn’t see another living soul except when I got close to port to restock.

If ‘overpopulation’ bugs people so much, they should be pushing for kelp farming and floatcities, not population control measures.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
bruno December 11, 2012 at 16:11

Choosing not to reproduce is by far the most rational and sane decision a man can make in this western world.

Sex and the women’s monopoly on reproductive rights are the cornerstones of women’s tyranny under which we live.
This is the reason why men slave away at work, while women walk around like they are the queen of the world, hung with jewels, expensive clothes, perfume, make-up, high heels and fake body parts.

Yes, I know, having children is the best feeling in the world, but for a man, in this feminazi paradise, it’s nothing less than a slavery to anything what can come up in the mother’s little head.

The courts, the police, lawyers, social workers, all government institutions, her family, your family, they will all be on her side, enthusiastically hammering down on your sorry head.

Nobody, nobody will be on your side.

Even older guys who have been grinded already in the divorce-child support torture chamber, will just shake their heads in misery, and do nothing, because they know there is nothing they can do.

The woman is pregnant, and now it’s all out of your hands.

You just handed your life on a silver platter to those who will enjoy to destroy you.

She can decide anything she wants, and you can decide nothing at all.
But you’ll have to make the monthly payments for at least 20 years, and in every way the benefit of the child and the mother will be considered to be of the utmost Holy importance, while your happiness and reproductive rights are of absolutely no importance at all.
Quite on the contrary: the more you suffer, the more they will enjoy it.
They will say: we want only what is best for the children.
Pure nonsense: it’s all a sadistic scam, just to beat the man down, and to transfer your money to her. They don’t care about the children at all. They just use the children.

The women will always support this scam, because they profit from it, and the white knights will always support it too, because they enjoy to hurt and torture and destroy other men.

So don’t think it will ever change.

For a man in the western world, it is absolute madness to voluntarily and willingly make a woman pregnant.

A man’s desire in life for love, romance, and children, are his weak point, and that’s exactly where they will slam their hooks in, if they can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 11, 2012 at 16:42

If this video is anything to go by it would appear we are all going to go underground. Very interesting really clued up young guy.

Mickey T, nothing to do with me mate. This guy is streets ahead of me.

Do Men Justify Their Own Exploitation.


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 11, 2012 at 17:02


Outstanding comment. Hear hear. Well said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Joe Zamboni December 11, 2012 at 18:04

Thanks Bruno for your perspective — I agree.

Walking in a nearby park during a recent business day, I see 95+% women, a number of children, but no men. I asked my buddy about this, and because he’s retired; he said “it’s always that way.” He even asked his wife about it. He asked her during a walk, “where are all the men?” In a matter-of-fact way, without missing a beat, she said “they’re working.” There was no surprise or revelation there. Even my buddy’s wife admits it.

Men are slaving away so that women can have a good life. How do the women manage to do that? Via marriage and children, and the coercive systems (like child support laws) that go along with those two activities. That’s where this article was going. Individual choice – that’s issue here. The best way to win is not to play the marriage and children game.

oddsock December 12, 2012 at 04:55
El Bastardo December 12, 2012 at 09:59

@Bruno and J Zamboni


I am on the fence about your views compared to others as I feel they both have merit. The problem for me about your argmunet is this: in the big picture, I think we are already starting to see feminism’s entrance to the dustbin of history. SO I am not sure you are right about where this leaves us? Although I see the merit of your argument, and those of your detractors.

For now; I take your side for a younger man; yet for an older man who has no kids it is a much more bitter pill. He may not have time to wait it out.

I guess the obvious question is already answered; but there are so many more that I feel neither argument effectively answers long term.

Your thoughts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Joe Zamboni December 12, 2012 at 15:51

for El Bastardo –

The Men’s Movement is in such disarray, with so many voices claiming that we should go in this direction, while others claim that we should go in another, etc., that we unwittingly cancel each other out. The place where we men can all agree is that to comply with what society and women traditionally tell us about our role is now compellingly self-destructive and enslaving.

That is why I am focusing on the micro-picture, notably what does a man need to do to protect himself. The more men that protect themselves, the more it will become apparent to women that they can no longer manipulate and enslave us. So the macro-picture will be taken care of naturally, as a result of a whole lot of men attending to the micro-picture applicable to their lives. The power and “dynamic” alternative (as you put it) to men’s traditional role is for men to respect themselves, defend themselves, and look after their own interests, instead of continuing to blindly agree to manipulation and enslavement.

bruno December 12, 2012 at 16:14


I’m sorry to say but I don’t share your optimism.
I don’t expect feminism to go into the dustbin of history any time soon.

Women will always go for more privileges, that is obvious.
Why wouldn’t they?
And they will always enjoy the support of a large number of men, the white knights, the mangina’s, or whatever we like to call them.
They will also always strive for more female privileges, because they are perverted sadists, who want to have an excuse to hurt other men.
Not to mention how government expands its power with the excuse of enforcing female privileges.

You see the enormous powers that we are up against?

That is the sad state of our world, and there is not much we can do about it, except keep spreading the message that men should take their own life in their own hands, and try to survive in this mess.

Marriage and fatherhood are deathtraps for a man’s freedom and happiness nowadays, it’s like voluntarily putting your head on the chopping block.

The importance of staying free from marriage and reproduction cannot be overemphasized, and avoiding marriage and reproduction should be a modern survival reflex for any man, just like looking left and right before crossing a busy road.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni December 12, 2012 at 22:56

@ Bruno –

Before every breakthrough there needs to be a breakdown.

Those of us alive now are witnessing the breakdown of the traditional model with which men were told they must comply, including the self-sacrificing man, the self-effacing man, and the man who never complains. This is a very important development, and what is getting unleashed is a tremendous intellectual, spiritual, emotional reservoir of male talent that will soon be brought to bear on the many problems caused by feminism.

El Bastardo December 13, 2012 at 05:41

@Joe n Bruno:

Thanks for the replies.

I can see where you are all coming too. The thing is, I still sit on the fence as I see what you are saying in both of you are on the “micro” side of the equation.

I definitely agree with this Joe: “This is a very important development, and what is getting unleashed is a tremendous intellectual, spiritual, emotional reservoir of male talent that will soon be brought to bear on the many problems caused by feminism.”

Yet “how” are they going to bring it to bear is the question.

For me, the macro side is relevant only in what a man can change with the advent of technology like the internet. What I see is millions, maybe billions eventually, of men gaining their information about the manosphere online; an even if we can’t exactly agree we can at the very least cause the commotion necessary. Believe me when I say I really am not that optimistic in general. Even if we could change everything, human stupidity is easily sold enslavement for cheap goods and “honey traps.”

What I suspect is needed is a severe financial collapse. Far be it from me to be without my tin foil cap, but I suspect quite highly that the banking institutions leading families have something to do with all this as well.

The thing I have learned as a man; is that despite all women’s bull shit-they want men to lead! Their solipsistic nature aside; they will follow strong men in either case being against us or for us. They are not an island to themselves, and given the choice they will instinctively go for a security blanket over going their own way. Whatever that is, we have to control what that is; and not because we desire anything with women or not.

Right now, they can keep the charade up as the tax dollars stay put,and their is still a semblance of female empowerment to be hallucinated with. However, this is built on the backs of men, I seriously don’t think that completely shutting off from the world is going to be available to us. Life balances out eventually, and there is nothing we can do about it. To be able to survive and control on the micro is not a be all guarantee on the macro level. If you succeed in taking power and responsibility on the micro yet fail to acknowledge the macro; you can get blown away and lose everything with a small shift in the macro dynamic.

Also, I personally feel that MGTOW is very alluring; at first. Eventually the pain of loneliness is something most men will fail to bear the load continually. I don’t think that family was enslavement for the man in times past as the truth anymore than for the woman. It was complimentary; the goal of feminism was to make it obsolete. I think they have spent their overall political, and willful capital to have enough momentum to finish that job. They have failed, and the mens movement needs to keep piling on the pressure.

Sadly for feminists, PUAs, and MGTOWers I suspect that marriage is going to make a comeback as its traditional sense is like the powerful vacuum of a theoretical black hole for most people who want companionship and to pass on their genes. Also, sex without drama is what a healthy marriage sans divorce culture can offer. Getting rid of the lawyers, well I can’t argue there; that is a high greedy bar to jump.

I’m positive those last two sentences will drive you both crazy; but I am only making a prediction that the feminist experiment has failed. Without the continual tax monies propping them up, and the loss of control in the media’s ability to manipulate the masses; even if the collective might of the Rothschild family is truly behind it all I suspect the veil of secrecy will be lifted and the public aware eventually.

I do not claim to know or predict the reaction that will ensue as the damage has been in the making for decades. Also, many people benefit from it; but you cannot know what a day may bring.

Some will approve of what they have lost, others like us will be glad to see it die. People are stupid, even the best of us. One only need look at the coming fiscal cliff, and the reaction of the American public to see the dynamic in action.

Lastly, if our movement becomes prominent; I suspect we will have to be mindful of losing our own momentum and the eventual selling out of certain members.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
brigadon December 13, 2012 at 08:07

so, Joe, if you are pushing for men to abandon manliness altogether, what do you plan on doing during the bloody revolution, complete breakdown, and mass starvation this will cause? Chances are, ‘together’ guys that know what they are doing are gonna be the first ones kilt because everyone will want what they have and make, and will happily take a knife to the golden goose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni December 13, 2012 at 10:03

@ El Bastardo – I do not share your views on conspiracy theories behind feminism, although I’m sure there are some big feminist conspiracies that we the public is not yet aware of. As I see it, it has simply been basic human greed, wanting to exploit the system for personal advantage, that has been in play, and women and feminism have used the protective nature of men, the willing-to-sacrifice nature of men, as much as they can to get advantages over and from men. It’s time for this to stop, and divorce court, parental alienation disorder, and all the other twisted unfair things that men have to put up with — all that will encourage this abuse to stop sooner rather than later. No doubt a serious economic reversal, such as the one we seem headed into, will help to accelerate the demise of existing gender-based social structures, including feminist-inspired preferences for women and girls.

And no Brigadon, I am not encouraging the abandonment of manliness, I am encouraging the adoption of innate and natural manliness, rather than what women and society tell us manliness should be. For example, men are natural risk takers, and they are naturally inclined to fix what is inequitable and unjust (men are behind revolutions almost exclusively). Let men do what they do naturally, unhampered by women’s judgement, and what society tells them they should do.

El Bastardo December 13, 2012 at 10:33

@Joe, mostly understood, and the conspiracy to me exists obviously; although I don’t really feel I wear a tinfoil hat. However, I could admit if I am proven wrong. Sadly, I can’t be, nor sadly can I be proven right. We would need a lot of information that is very heavily hidden in secret.

To be sure, all of the entities you feel should change can be proven through the Social Security act alone as tied together. Yes, greed is certainly a path for which they walk hand in hand.


The next golden goose is what our movement would have to be in order to accomplish a successful revolution with government in tow; at least I feel. The thing is; every government is obsessed with consumer economy marxism. It breeds the sort of state control they desire; and that is carefully breeded by caring for women’s vice.

I seriously doubt a revolution is going to really help us in the Founding Father sense as our current military could easily obliterate us. I think it will be more of a slow grinding affair getting to the top; and I agree with Joe that it will be required for an enormous economic collapse to get us going. Not that that is what I want; but I am not the demographic controlling over 80% of discretionary spending wit government and corporations hovering over me like flies on shit.

I see where you both are going, and I respect it; I just still don’t feel like it will carry us over the long term. Thanks for the responses fellas.


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Skadhi the Raverner December 13, 2012 at 11:57

“Life should not be all about babies and bringing still more people into the world. Supposedly humans are intelligent and self-aware, not simply instinctual animals.”

That kind of thinking is the fault behind feminism and its fellow traveller social movements – trying to fight/overcome/override mans animal nature, which includes the biological basis of so called ‘gender constructs’, is insane.

” If a woman who had sex with you does get pregnant, insist upon and then pay for an abortion.”

I notice you were given the right to be born. Not to mention that doing so legitimises the abortion movement even though it removes the rights of so many men whose kids were ‘aborted’.

The same principle applies to you as with the feminazis, if you only talk about ‘rights’ as a way to live as you want, why should anyone else care about yours? Bastard.

If you 100% want to avoid the chance of parenthood just abstain altogether, I mean that would be overriding nature. Oops! Inverted feminists want it both ways though.

I can see this sort of thinking derailing men’s rights into abuse of anti-feminism to justify the worst kind of male behaviour, just as feminism leads to the worst kind of female behaviours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Skadhi the Raverner December 13, 2012 at 14:50

Oh yea, I hope you excuse this double post especially coming from a female. I was going to blog this with a link to the post, but I’ve found I’ve lost access to my own blog and can’t even approve comments now.

If things are worse for most men because of feminism, liberalised abortion and the sexual revolution, it makes no sense to embrace the changes these things have brought – it lets the opposition set the terms.

Despite the possibility of a compulsory paternity test, I suspect that certain people in the manosphere would object as much as feminists to the ancient Irish solution – of automatic male custody of children, punishing genuine ‘deadbeat dads’ who impregnate irresponsibly by increasing the potential costs of sex, yet removing the incentive for women to trap men with a not-so-’accidental’ pregnancy by removing the economic and social benefit to the woman.

Though this double deterrent would go a long way to restoring healthy gender relationships, I guess some people of both genders want their precious ‘freedom’ and moral or political language is easily abused to present personal selfishness as respectable (and I’m not sure yet whether this article was a parody or not, I guess it can be read as such).

Lastly the most effective way of keeping a movement alive is to transmit your values to your children. If feminists keep breeding but MRM males abstain from reproduction, feminist values will inevitably win out. Whereas if women (and men) supportive of feminism delay motherhood and espouse antinatal beliefs and practices till they’re past their best years, they’ve obviously weakened themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila December 14, 2012 at 10:26

I always turn a deaf ear when a woman starts to talk about her children. Too old to care.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 14, 2012 at 22:29

Brigadon summarized as follows:

The basic assumption that having a family is wrong, or even that the world is overcrowded, is unexpurgated, unidentified deli meat. As is the demand that men do NOT have a right to wish to have a loving wife and family.

This is the Feminist shame tactic – find a woman who likes a traditional role and call her a traitor.

Congrats on alienating the other members of your gender that don’t want to choose your choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
x December 15, 2012 at 18:41

teaching men that they should be giving everything, including their lives, to save a super-beautiful fertile young woman.)

Christianity supports this.
“die for the woman”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Some Guy December 28, 2012 at 09:11

Worker bees are female. Male bees – drones – sit around the hive doing nothing, waiting in case they are needed to fertilize a new queen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 25, 2013 at 16:01


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: