Women’s Duty To Men

by Joe Zamboni on December 28, 2012

The duties that American men have to American women are many, and consistently enforced by a variety of heavy-handed mechanisms such as mandatory jail-time, court-imposed fines, the yanking of your driver’s license, and separation from your children. As if that wasn’t enough to force you to comply, there is also being disqualified for financial aid in college, community shaming, and denial of sex.

The duties of men to women very importantly include the duty to protect. This more generally could be defined as the duty to be drafted, to go off to war and die, to be maimed for life, or to be tortured by the psychological harm that one suffered as a result of one’s violent military experience. On a more personal level, this duty takes the form of the man being the one who’s got the duty to fight off a burglar or intruder. Again and again I will write this: there is no comparable duty of women towards men, nothing even close.

The list of duties includes the duty to provide financial support for a woman, if she has become your wife, and/or the mother of your child, regardless of whether she does anything for you. Remember this is a duty, not a deal. You have no right to get anything in return. It is important that you be clear that relationships between men and women are not an equal deal. Instead, on the man’s side we have duties and obligations, along with a very heavy dose of accountability and responsibility, while on the woman’s side, we have rights and options, without the burden of much if any accountability or responsibility.

For men, you might furthermore include the duty to provide child support, which is really just an euphemism for further money to the woman, not based on the needs of the children, but based on whatever can be extracted from you. You could additionally include the duty to never to hit a woman, even though she may feel free to hit you without any legal penalties whatsoever. These and other male duties are enforced by law, and the full power of the state is brought to bear to make sure that every man complies. If you don’t believe me, read the instructions to the police who respond to domestic violence complaints, and read about mandatory instructions to arrest the male (it has nothing to do with who was at fault).

There are also other duties that men have toward women, such as the duty to listen to women, and treat them with respect, even if the involved women are doing stupid and despicable things. You see this in the general unwillingness of men to criticize women who are acting badly, such as bar hopping, getting pass-out drunk, having sex with multiple men they don’t know, and then blaming the men and claiming they were raped. Very few men dare to say: “Well, what did you expect?” or “Excuse me, could you have had something to do with this result?” There is no comparable duty of women to listen to men, or to respect men, and I see this in evidence at the supermarket where women publicly say the most abusive and embarrassing things to their husbands — perhaps acting sadistically, or perhaps just not giving a damn how the husband might feel to have others overhear such criticisms. Or maybe, for the wives, this is a public showing of power…

Although not generally acknowledged, there is also a duty, that many men feel, to give women the benefit of the doubt. We men, at least us traditional men, will try our best to rescue women who have screwed up big time. We may give them jobs that they aren’t qualified for, or extend the date when they would otherwise have been fired from their jobs for incompetence – and thus we hope to encourage them to get their acts together. We men are decidedly easier on women than we are on other men. This duty has even become institutionalized in many settings. For example, the physical standards for firefighters in many jurisdictions have been significantly lowered in order for women to be able to make the grade. The same lowering of standards, in order to give women the benefit of the doubt, can be found in the military. For men, if coming from women, there is no comparable benefit of the doubt, no bending of the rules, and no giving of special dispensations.

There is also a duty to be lenient on women, a duty to not force women to bear the full repercussions and impacts of their actions. You see this in the courts for example, where women are consistently given much shorter prison sentences than men for the same crime. Some of us call this phenomenon the “pussy pass,” where a woman in many instances can plead insanity, or be on her period, or suffer from post-partum depression, and use that as her get-out-of-jail-free card. Men cannot get away with such behavior or anything like this. Women do not provide any such leniency towards men. In fact, I am regularly disappointed to see how strict and unforgiving women are toward men. For example, I know several examples of women who were married to older men who have gotten seriously sick. A number of these women have promptly abandoned their husbands, apparently because their husbands were no longer able to provide the trappings of the lives “to which they have become accustomed.” I have been surprised that these women have apparently felt no duty to aid their elderly husbands. The old adage “for better or worse” doesn’t seem to mean anything anymore, except to some traditional married men that I know (but for men this behavior may increasingly be due the extremely punishing consequences of modern divorce rather than adherence to this old fashioned notion).

The more I have been thinking about this, the more surprised I have been to note the severe imbalance between the sexes in the area of duties: there are a great many duties that men feel they have towards women, but virtually none (bar those imposed by law) that modern women feel they have towards men. This is consistent with Briffault’s Law, which states that it is the female, not the male, who determines all the conditions of the animal family, and where the female can derive no further benefit from associating with the male, no further association takes place.

To really get this, and to let it in, can be disorienting but also, more importantly, emancipating. Women have no duty to provide sex, to cook, or to clean… no duty to take care of the children, or even to act like adults. They do whatever they please. And our society, most importantly the men in society, supports and allows women to do just that.

Which importantly sheds light on the advisability of men having children, getting married, or in any other way establishing a permanent commitment with a woman. In the current American environment, making such a commitment is most ill-advised. The woman involved can walk away from her side of the bargain, with virtually no consequences, in some instances in fact becoming better off than she was in the midst of the commitment. For example, a divorcing woman may do better financially if she walks away from her husband, if she collects alimony and child support from the ex, receives “gifts” from her new man, lives in the new man’s house, etc. On the other hand, if a man has a formal commitment such as marriage, he is expected to continue to observe that commitment (such as be the financial provider), even though the woman is no longer giving him whatever she had given in the past that induced him to enter into the relationship (sex, emotional intimacy, whatever). Men really need to get that, not only will a woman walk away when an arrangement is no longer to the woman’s advantage, but that the men often must continue to provide whatever it is that they committed to, even though they then get nothing in return.

This hard fact of life for a man can be seen in the plight of so many wounded male veterans. They have given a tremendous amount, and their lives are forever altered. What do they get, really? A lush life with ample benefits coming from the government? A revered and honored place in society? More attention from women? No, sorry, none of that. Their contribution is done and final. There is no going back. They are history. But they must nonetheless keep giving. You can see this as gross gender unfairness, especially when you understand that women do not need to keep giving, they can just keep taking, up until the point when they don’t want to take any longer.

Thus not only do men bear the brunt of all the duties in a heterosexual relationship, but whenever women do make agreements with men, to provide something of value (sex, cooking, child care, gestation services, etc.), they can withdraw their contributions whenever they wish, with very little if any consequences. For example, a woman can put a baby up for adoption in many states, simply by leaving it on the hospital steps, without paperwork, expense, or the need for excuses. Likewise, a woman can get an abortion without her husband’s consent or knowledge. But don’t try to do such things if you’re a man. For example, if she wants to keep the child, then you (the man) are obligated for eighteen years of child support, period, no exceptions.

In summary, the duty requirements for men contrast sharply with those of women. Not only do men have the duties, while women do not, but it is only with great difficulty that men can escape these duties. Consider the domain of money, where men cannot withdraw their giving without facing very serious draconian consequences (jail time, fines, loss of driver’s license, loss of professional license, etc.). For example, a number of states, like Florida, still have lifetime alimony laws. Men are effectively thereby made into financial slaves, working for the benefit of the ruling class (women). On the other hand, women can walk away from many of their commitments to men whenever they please. Now that’s gender fairness and equality, right?

{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous age 70 December 28, 2012 at 12:48

Um, more like 22+ years of child support. Back in the 80′s, paying child support for adult offspring to go to college became pretty standard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Angry_Black_Nerd December 28, 2012 at 12:50

Which is why I limit my dealings with females to the bare minimum. I will not be their slave.

-Angry Black Nerd

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
philip December 28, 2012 at 12:59

It all stops the second we stop allowing our selves to be manipulated. One does not have to be nasty or mean about it, simply do not allow yourself to be pawn anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
keyster December 28, 2012 at 13:01

Women have one and only one, very important duty to men…and that is to sacrifice their bodies as the gestational carrier of his progeny…his legacy…his virtual immortality. She will continue to retain some relevance as nurturer and partner in tending to his progeny, but is not neccessary for even that much…she’s then a handmaiden, a glorified nanny.

She holds her womb hostage for a ransom to be paid by the most able suitor. Your child, your immortality, is her gift to you – – so pay up because you owe her like big time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
geographybeefinalisthimself December 28, 2012 at 13:07

This is why men should GTOW. “Female sense of personal responsibility” is an oxymoron.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ecclesiastes December 28, 2012 at 13:12

Men, or rather male humans, don’t have those duties described, gentlemen do. Women neither have any duties, only ladies would.

Thus we see why there should be no more gentlemen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Stoltz December 28, 2012 at 13:31

It actually makes perfect sense in today’s world, if one stops and thinks about it. More than ever in our nation’s history is today’s economy braced by the american consumer. Corporations realize this as does our own government. If Americans stopped buying “stuff” tomorrow, after a few weeks our economy would be so badly bruised it would probably take months, if not years, to recover. (Yes, I know it would never happen, but just imagine.)

Now, depending on which economist you ask or what report you read, women are in one form or another responsible for 85-90% of all consumer purchases in the United States.

Connecting the two, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why men are given the shaft on just about anything regarding financial matters of the consumer base. Be it a transfer of wealth from man to woman in the form of alimony or child support, such that the purchasing power remains with the woman. Be it a transfer of wealth from men to women in the form of taxes going to pay for female-only services (special government agencies, DV centers), such that women continue to thrive and thereby continue to purchase goods/services. Be it a transfer of wealth from men to women in the form of charity to pay for female-only research (breast cancer [both, but mainly women], ovarian cancer), such that women continue to thrive and continue to purchase goods/services. Be it stupid commercials that portray men as buffoons and women as the supreme gender, such that women continue to purchase their goods. And so on … and so on … and the machine continues to grind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
JHJ December 28, 2012 at 13:40

Great article.

I will add just a few things: Some of this might be generational. While everything that comes to us courtesy of the boys in blue and the feminist state they serve is unavoidable, some of these things are, I think, generally speaking old men’s delusions.

“Although not generally acknowledged, there is also a duty, that many men feel, to give women the benefit of the doubt. We men, at least us traditional men, will try our best to rescue women who have screwed up big time. ”

Nope. Yes, society at large might think so, but men in their 20s and early 30s, who have seen the feminist society and carried the whole brunt of its anti-male discrimination are much less inclined to do so. I know I always assume that a women is guilty, useless, pampered and spoiled until she’s proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. I know this attitude is not exactly unique in my cohort either. I go out of my way not only not to “rescue” women, but not to help them at all. Can’t get that heavy stroller on the buss? Why don’t you ask the some you-go-girl! grrrlfriend? I am not lifting a finger for you. Slamming doors Daddy’s Little Princess and her Feminist Mother expects me to hold for them in their faces is highly satisfying too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
DG December 28, 2012 at 14:12

I think it was actually GirlWritesWhat – who often posts at AVfM (which I generally avoid, but didn’t in those days) – who I first saw pointing out on her own site the utter and total discrepancy in terms of duties.

Yes, men had rights women did not have. They also had obligations (read: duties) that weomen did not have. You’ve noted a lot of them here.

Women had some obligations as well, matching their protections.

Since then, the womens “rights” (aka dominance) movement has acquired the rights of men, while we cannot impose any of the duties or responsibilities that went with them. They have also dodged the duties/responsibilities/expectations that women traditionally used to have.

The end result: a severe imbalance between authority and responsibility for the results of any decisions made under that authority.

A person with authority and no responsibility is on a greased path to tyranny. A person with responsibility, but no authority is a slave.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Joe Zamboni December 28, 2012 at 14:48

@ Keyster –

I take your comment about women sacrificing their bodies to men, in order to have children, as a tongue-in-cheek remark. Women have no duty to sacrifice anything to men. Marriage is no guarantee of children for men. Men have no right to force women to have children.

If a man wants to have children I suggest adopting or else contracting with a surrogate. Both can be done without the extreme risks associated with marriage, including “child support” (privately funded ex-wife welfare payments that are in no way a reflection of the needs of the children) , alimony, and property division (male property confiscation).

Zorro December 28, 2012 at 15:39

The draft is a sticky issue, but otherwise, you simply dno’t have anything to do with women. Learn how to use birth control, never marry, get a sex-bot, hck off or go to a foreign country and do the sex tourism thing. Most Western women are–and I mean this literally–worthless (other than as shark bait).

The US is collapsing, our birth rate is nearly gone and Angry Harry tells us to laugh at the near doom the West is experiencing. Feminism is doing more to eliminate the West than all the jihadis combined. I just wish we could deal with feminists the same way we deal with jihadis. I’d pay to see that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Mister Grumpus December 28, 2012 at 15:57

We read all the time about how in marriage the husband gives the wife “financial security” and “physical security,” but we never read about the wife giving her husband “emotional security” or “sexual security.”

And why the heck IS that?

What comes to mind is that both financial security and physical security can be provided/transferred by/through a government, via its violent powers (police, taxes, regulation/skimming of financial transactions like paychecks, etc).

‘But I don’t see how anyone could point a gun at a woman and tell her to love or care about a man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Jaego December 28, 2012 at 16:20

Also the Department of Homeland Security considers returning Veterans Enemy Number 1 and all their training reflects this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
numnut December 28, 2012 at 17:17

No arguments,it’s pretty clear cut.
What is most egregious is the constant villainization of men as all sex offenders merely waiting to be caught.

The constant media hyping about how very abusive we are,and how the rule of law must be overthrown to ensure justice to the ‘victim class.’

Any genuine statistic will show rape is on a par with murder for the rate,roughly between %.3 and %3 maximum,yet the media hypes the lie of 1 in 4 or 3 of 4 daily and we men must be held to account for being so monstrous.

It is these lies and the lack of process in the courts that are the real fuel behind the marriage strike.

Back when it was just alimony and child support the marriage rates were still very high,now the artifice of criminality has been applied men begin to think a bit harder.

Considering that Emily’s list has been the greatest political donor in the US and Australia for about a decade now,we have no hope of rolling back unjust laws such as VAWA and all the ‘special’ training that goes to LEO,judges and courts.

In short,as men,we’ve lost standing in our legal system.

The women will always want more.
That is their single defining characteristic.

You will pay regardless of avoidance,look at the new taxes coming and tell where it’s going.
1.War for men overseas
2.Redistribution to women

Men are disposable,and we’re going to have to pay more or Be Disposed OF.

What I want to know is what are they gonna do when we’re gone.
It would seem the point of diminishing returns has been met,yet the misandry marches on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Jacob Ian Stalk December 28, 2012 at 17:21

It is not men’s duty to protect women. This seems to be an historic corruption of the biblical teaching in 1 Tim 5:8, which reads:

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”

Note that this is aimed at men no more than any other part of scripture is aimed at men. If we believe the Bible was written for women too, and that God’s messages are for women also, then we must conclude that provision for ones family is a duty that applies to everyone. Everyone who is Christian, that is.

On what other basis are we to suppose this duty to provide falls to anyone else, man or woman?

If you are not a Christian, then there is nothing that could be said to be ‘wrong’ if you don’t provide for your family, as it is wrong only in comparison to what is ‘right’, which in the Christian context is what Christ commands. If you don’t accept Christ as the authority for your behaviour, His commands can’t rightly be called ‘right’, right?

Obviously, a man ought to provide for his wife when she’s pregnant and incapable of doing so herself, and for his children when they’re dependent on him. But to call it a duty, or to suggest it is something that a man must do for women in any other context doesn’t make any sense at all.

To a Christian, the lesson of 1 Tim 5:8 is not to point the finger at men who do not provide for women (no such duty is ever stated in Scripture) but to show that provision for one’s family, whether you yourself are male or female and they themselves are male or female, is the loving thing to do. It remains a powerful lesson today, not as a duty for men but a warning to all that God is not pleased when family members are neglected.

Today, women (or their new husband, the State) can provide for themselves even better than men, so a proper understanding of this biblical message is more important than ever. Crucial, in fact.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sorrow December 28, 2012 at 17:44

All young men indoctrinated by women’s studies should read this article and demand equal rights for themselves and future sons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
beta_plus December 28, 2012 at 17:58

The real kicker comes when you have to pay taxes so that you pay for the children that you never fathered. It gets even nastier when you consider the laws and regulations that are built to facilitate this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
keyster December 28, 2012 at 19:50

A person with authority and no responsibility is on a greased path to tyranny. A person with responsibility, but no authority is a slave.

And so one day the pigs of The Manor Farm reduce The Seven Commandments to a single phrase: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

I take your comment about women sacrificing their bodies to men, in order to have children, as a tongue-in-cheek remark. Women have no duty to sacrifice anything to men. Marriage is no guarantee of children for men. Men have no right to force women to have children.

Men have no duty to sacrifice anything to women. Marriage is no guarantee of children for women. Women have no right to force men to have children. But yet, both men and women keep forcing themselves on each other. It should be stopped!

Women bear our children. That to them is enough justification to warrant male duty. It wasn’t always like this, but that’s what its become. She’s sacrificing the “freedom” of working and earning like a man, perhaps even realizing her true potential, to bear his child. There was a time she risked her life. Now she merely risks being inconvenienced with being “burdened with a baby”.

She HATES him for this, at least for awhile – – because she’s dependent. Equalibrium must be re-established, reparations are in order, or else other actions will be taken.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Attila December 28, 2012 at 20:09

I was standing at the Whole Foods waiting to check out- one woman (Woman #1) gets checked out, then the cashier (Woman #2) checks out the man in front of me. OK- then – ALL OF A SUDDEN – Woman #1 whizzes right by me and whispers “Do you mind”? Without waiting for an answer, she gets in front of me, and gets checked out by woman #2 – BUT – as she is paying – Attila turns to her and says, pretty loudly, “THAT IS PRETTY RUDE”. Woman #1 is swiping her card, doesn’t look at Attila, then whimpers, “I didn’t think you would mind”. Then Attila says- “THAT IS PRETTY RUDE- WHY DON’T YOU GO LEARN SOME MANNERS”. Woman #1 runs off- then Attila turns on the cashier- and berates the hell out of her for checking out somebody out of turn for “forgetting something”. Then – Attila goes to the men’s room – and lo and behold – he runs into one of the customer service managers inside, LOL . Manager is briefed on the situation- then turns around and says “I’ll take care of her”. Moral of the story: SPEAK UP, TAKE NO CRAP.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 28, 2012 at 20:29

This reminds me of the decline and fall of Rome. One of the signs that Rome was declining was that the state added more and more restrictive rules until the average citizen was little better than a serf.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire :

“Bruce Bartlett traces the beginning of debasement to the reign of Nero. He claims that the emperors increasingly relied on the army as the sole source of their power, and therefore their economic policy was driven more and more by a desire to increase military funding in order to buy the army’s loyalty. By the 3rd century, according to Bartlett, the monetary economy had collapsed. But the imperial government was now in a position where it had to satisfy the demands of the army at all costs. Failure to do so would result in the army forcibly deposing the emperor and installing a new one. Therefore, being unable to increase monetary taxes, the Roman Empire had to resort to direct requisitioning of physical goods anywhere it could find them – for example taking food and cattle from farmers. The result, in Bartlett’s view, was social chaos, and this led to different responses from the authorities and from the common people. The authorities tried to restore order by requiring free people (i.e. non-slaves) to remain in the same occupation or even at the same place of employment. Eventually, this practice was extended to force children to follow the same occupation as their parents. So, for instance, farmers were tied to the land, and the sons of soldiers had to become soldiers themselves. Many common people reacted by moving to the countryside, sometimes joining the estates of the wealthy, and in general trying to be self-sufficient and interact as little as possible with the imperial authorities. Thus, according to Bartlett, Roman society began to dissolve into a number of separate estates that operated as closed systems, provided for all their own needs and did not engage in trade at all. These were the beginnings of feudalism.”

RGTOW?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
numnut December 29, 2012 at 04:20

Interesting write up on the Roman empire.
Same thing happened with my great-grandad in the Ukraine.

He had a prosperous farm going and one of the first tractors.
The State began to claim most of his crops at the end of the season and taxing him severely.

Leaving him with not enough to go the winter.

Then they took the tractor and gave it to the collective.

Then they moved unless city folk unto his farm as ‘workers’ that did not work but only ate.

He left that country to come to America,the land of freedom and opportunity.

That story has been handed down through the generations as a warning,and as the resentment was so deep.

Where is the new land of opportunity,and how do we get there?

No,somehow this mess must be reversed.

First we must re-claim ownership of our own flesh and blood.
If we fail there,there is nothing you ‘own.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 29, 2012 at 04:40

A short video clip of what is happening to your wages and why.

American Salary = Chinese Salary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VoVjTCtLd4&feature=player_embedded

Keep voting guys you know it makes sense LOL. Wage stagnation/reduction over the last 20 years ? ( At least 40 years here in the UK and the EU )

Meh I bet it was those damned cultural marxists socialists again ? Was there ever a Republican government over the last twenty years ? They would never do anything like that, would they ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
jimbo December 29, 2012 at 05:19

It seems like the article you just wrote was spawned by a “moment” of increased anger at our general topic of discussion. It happens.

I remember the exact moment I began to have my eyes opened about feminism and women. Almost exactly 25 years ago now. My beliefs became pretty strong after about five to six years of study and contemplation. I remember wondering if “as the years pass in the future, will my convictions about feminism grow stronger in the upcoming years, or, will I start to believe that some of my convictions were wrong, being some type of overreaction to what initiated my awakening in the first place?” My feelings have only gotten stronger. Feminism is akin to a terminal disease that promotes misery and death by insanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 29, 2012 at 06:01

Americans buying guns like crazy.

Fast forward to the 1.30 mark to hear just how many

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQQQuB5GKGs&feature=player_embedded#!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
justeunperdant December 29, 2012 at 06:24

For those who are interested in traditional society, this is nice video.
http://vimeo.com/31991188

From one commenter at http://www.ourfiniteworld.com

I strongly recommend a book by Karl Polanyi, “The Great Transformation” which explains the power of the market to destroy traditional societies. Another good book is “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” by Tonnies, a classic of socoiology.

So long as the market rules, we shall have modern society, or some variant of it. The only way to break the power of the market would be a devastating collapse. My conjecture is that for the next fifty years some variation of Business as Usual and market power will continue to rule most societies.

Economists, of course, like market-based societies. Anthropologists, who have seen what modern market-based societies do to traditonal ones, are not so friendly toward modern industrial market societies. My sentiments are with the anthropologists, but most of my education has been in economics and finance. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that, with rare exceptions, tradition-based societies are doomed.

There are exactly three ways to organize a society: tradition, command, or the market. Command societies tend to rapidly self-destruct, as did the Soviet Union. In my opinion, market societies also self-destruct, though the process takes hundreds of years. Sooner or later, I think we will be forced to return to tradition as the organizing basis for societies, because of the self-destructive tendencies of both markets and democracies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
nugganu December 29, 2012 at 07:39

My duty to ex no. 2: I pay her close attention, as watching her get fat and ugly, hurtling toward spinsterhood, and complaining that she can’t find a husband on her blog gives me great joy. My other ex has already extracted wealth and inflicted great pain on me, so I reckon it all evens out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Migu December 29, 2012 at 09:06

Nemo:

Those estates mentioned were the barbarian estates. The Roman citizens joined the barbarians, they weren’t conquered. Haeffner elucidates this in his Germanic Histories.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed December 29, 2012 at 12:24

Americans buying guns like crazy.

Obama was named “Gun Salesman of the Year” in 2008 because, by himself, he convinced more people to buy guns than all the gun owners and gun salesmen in the US combined.

A whole lot of Americans own guns today – including the booga-booga-booga “assault weapons” – who would never have gotten around to spending the money if they were going to remain available. There would always have been a new big screen color TV, or another set of $200 sneakers for the kids, which would always have floated above a gun in priorities of things to buy. However, now that Obama no longer has to worry about re-election, he has 4 years to push his disarmament agenda. The same day he announced his new anti-gun task force, Walmart stores in 5 states sold completely out of semi-automatic sporting rifles. Thirty round magazines which sold for less than $20 two weeks ago are now going for $100+. Ammo for .223/5.56×45 NATO is nowhere to be found. Several gun shops around the country have reported days with more than $1 million in sales in a single day.

NBC News anchor David Gregory is under investigation by the DC police for brandishing a 30-round magazine (which is strictly banned in DC) on Meet the Press. The news media has jumped on it saying “let it slide”, but the perception of class division being pushed by the elites – “Laws that apply to thee, but not to me” – has further weakened their case.

I love what the Baltimore Sun had to say about it –
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-27/entertainment/bal-piers-morgan-david-gregory-guns-pathetic-20121226_1_piers-morgan-gun-advocate-david-gregory

Piers Morgan, David Gregory and guns – We’re pathetic
Is this the big national dialogue promised after Sandy Hook?

No wonder so many in the public hold us in such contempt.

While everyone is distracted watching what they are doing with their left hand, something even more ominous is going on with the right hand – scientists have been asked by the Connecticut’s medical examiner to study Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza’s DNA.
http://news.yahoo.com/trouble-adam-lanzas-dna-191227974.html

The media will, of course, spin this into “the search for the serial killer gene.” And, we all know what Big Pharma’s solution to all this will be – more medication.
http://www.phoenixism.net/?p=12460

Keep your wits about you, me droogies – the next few months to a year or two will be filled with very insidious attempts to extend the powers of the police state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jaego December 29, 2012 at 13:06

Yes, even the NRA answer to the problem will strengthen the Police State. And since Teaching is almost an entirely feminine and/or liberal profession, the Israeli practice of armed teachers is a no go. The best idea left is probably the armed custodian – either paid or volunteer.

Keep pounding away at the Liberal Elite about the hypocrisy of having armed guards for themselves and their children. Repetition is the key.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Alex December 29, 2012 at 13:26

Given that the present situation a man finds himself in regards to duties, responsibilities and women, are based on contract law which runs the US corporation, the majority of heartache can be avoided by simply not living with and entering into a marriage contract with a woman and the state as the controlling partner.

As far as being taxed to indirectly provide for women, every man has a point beyond which he’ll realize it’s not worth busting his hump at work. He will take a lower paying job which gives him more free time, or he will make money under the table, or he will give the culture the finger and leave the country. If men get really pissed they will go on the public dole and cynically bleed the host.

As for societal expectations, please. The more rude and entitled women act, the more men slight them, ignore them and finally insult them. I accidentally bumped into a woman at the store, very slightly, but I properly said, “I apologize. I didn’t realize you were there.” She started chewing me out way out of proportion to my action and I said, “Why don’t you shut up you fat cunt” and she just froze. The people around us just looked at us, though one guy laughed and another one smiled. White knights are a dying breed it seems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Djaybeetoo December 29, 2012 at 14:19

I hope you guys know that two thirds of women have mental health problems, at least in the UK, according to a government poster in a mental health clinic i took a female to. Kinda makes you wonder if it is worth it. Mankind is a species on the brink of extiction if the Rad Rems, or mainstream feminism has its way. Males are treated poorly in the workplace, unless they are management/manginas. Socialy women in the UK are so Whorish and Aggressive or so high maintenance, why the fuck should i bother. I like pussy but pussy has an attitude, wants a platinum bracelet and wants me to pay for everything even though she earns a living wage and i am on a subsistance wage. It is not as i am a dumb cunt, i jumped through all the hoops and got punched in the face by a feminist cunt every time. And they moan where have the good men gone? You stupid cunts punched them in the face so much, now they do not give two shits of a motherfuck about you….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Djaybeetoo December 29, 2012 at 14:25

if we are talking economics, a subject i studied for 6 years up to university level, it is all bullshit, it is all theoretical models based on outmoded 19th century ideas

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Djaybeetoo December 29, 2012 at 14:28

Oh the Sandy Hook stuff smells like a desensitised operator team went in and the guy was a tag along then executed when non useful

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaego December 29, 2012 at 17:14

What does Woman want? This! Scary beautiful…. Who needs men if you have a pair of these!

http://shine.yahoo.com/the-thread-how-to/scariest-shoes-time-173900092.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 29, 2012 at 17:26

Yes, even the NRA answer to the problem will strengthen the Police State.

Keep pounding away at the Liberal Elite about the hypocrisy of having armed guards for themselves and their children.

There is no solution anywhere in this situation as long as it is defined as “a problem” which can be solved and must be solved – except expansion of police state powers to prevent anything bad from happening to anyone. Self-responsibility got thrown out the door long ago.

The only ways to prevent any crazy person from ever again using guns to commit mayhem is to either lock up all crazy people, or to lock up all the guns. In order to lock up all the guns, they will have to confiscate them. In order to lock up all the crazy people, they will have to identify them. Maybe that is what those rumored FEMA prison camps are for.

This entire situation is being driven by the fundamental liberal/progressive delusion – that all “problems” can be solved, and must be solved, and that the human race is perfectible – given enough opportunity, education, and medication.

Now, tying this back to the OP, and not committing a complete thread high-jack, in US culture (at least) women have no duties or responsibility to anyone, whatsoever. They quite literally have let the half of the social structure for which they are responsible to collapse into a heap.

Everything I am talking about is illustrated in this article –
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/delays-litter-long-road-vehicle-rearview-rules-102153265–finance.html

Short version –
A SWPL woman (picture shows her standing behind a Cadillac, probably an Escalade) was not paying attention, got careless, and backed over her 9 y/o daughter in a bank parking lot – killing the child. Very sad. You would expect her to be tormented by guilt for the rest of her life.

But, she is an American woman, and the Rationalization Hamster is strong in this one –

Delays litter long road to vehicle rearview rules

By Lisa Leff | Associated Press

In the private hell of a mother’s grief, the sounds come back to Judy Neiman. The SUV door slamming. The slight bump as she backed up in the bank parking lot. The emergency room doctor’s sobs as he said her 9-year-old daughter Sydnee, who previously had survived four open heart surgeries, would not make it this time.

Her own cries of: How could I have missed seeing her?

The 53-year-old woman has sentenced herself to go on living in the awful stillness of her West Richland, Wash., home, where she makes a plea for what she wants since she can’t have Sydnee back: More steps taken by the government and automakers to help prevent parents from accidentally killing their children, as she did a year ago this month.

“They have to do something, because I’ve read about it happening to other people. I read about it and I said, ‘I would die if it happens to me,’” Neiman says. “Then it did happen to me.”

There is, in fact, a law in place that calls for new manufacturing requirements to improve the visibility behind passenger vehicles to help prevent such fatal backing crashes, which the government estimates kill some 228 people every year — 110 of them children age 10 and under — and injures another 17,000.

To put this into perspective, here are the totals of group murders since 1999, by year
year killed wounded
1999 18
2002 10
2003 6
2004 6 2
2005 7
2006 5 6
2007 38 15
2008 25 19
2009 50 48
2010 3 3
2011 6 12
2012 61 66
======== ========
total 235 171

So, every year approximately as many people die from accidents while people are backing up autos as have died in group murders in the past 13 years, and each year about 100 times as many people are injured as were injured in 13 years of shootings. Every year, 5.5x as many children under age 10 die as died at Sandy Hook.

From a purely numbers perspective, it does seem like a real problem. And, to my simple mind, a major public service campaign – “Pay Attention!!!” – would seem to be the obvious solution.

Not so for Ms. Nieman. Her solution is for the government to pass more rules, and force the car companies to make their engineers solve the problem of parents paying inadequate attention, so they can prevent parents from accidentally killing their children. And, whatever the engineers come up with, is likely to increase the price everyone will have to pay for every car they buy – as airbags did.

But, hey, even if makes every car cost $1,000 more, “If it saves even one child’s life, it is worth it” – right? It’s OK to charge every car buyer an extra $1,000 to keep parents who aren’t paying attention from killing their kids.

It is astonishing what people in this culture will do to avoid doing something about the real cause of the problem.

The number one duty of any human being in a civil society is to take responsibility for their own mistakes and not try to blame someone – anyone – else.

And, that is the duty that American women absolutely refuse to live up to – even toward their own children, much less men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
jimbo December 29, 2012 at 18:16

@joe zamboni

So if all the women in any given community of men said no more sex, men would have to accept that? I think you’re wrong. There are any number of duties women must fulfill to meet the needs of any society and meet the needs of individual men. Sex is one such need. Women aren’t doing their duties, which is why our society is getting ready to come apart. And, women aren’t doing their duties because we men aren’t doing our most important duty… keeping them in their place and under control. After fifty years, (with some exceptions) all we have is a bunch of psychotic knowitall women that are destroying us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
T December 29, 2012 at 20:18

If all you value a woman for are her “services”, that is: ‘sex, cooking,….’ , then you deserve the woman leaving you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
suffragette December 30, 2012 at 05:42

I wish mods didn’t take so long. I was so keen to take on you unattractive maladjusted, bitter losers and mock you. But I am trying to finish a thesis, and don’t have time to return. Good luck with your blanket hating of the other half of the population! Nice cause you got there. A bit of advice. If you want to break out of your woman-hating (which, whether you know it or not, will never make you happy), try seeing us as people, like, really people, not not-men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
greyghost December 30, 2012 at 07:36

T
This day and age that is all a woman has of real value to a man and the one thing women have been told is so taboo to receive from a woman. The statement you made proves the point and also shows you have nothing to offer and consider the relationship you have with a man depends on his elevation of your value to him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 30, 2012 at 07:41

zed
I read that story also. women are gone that bitch was driving around in a Cadillac Escalade and it was not good enough because the unseen beta chumps didn’t invent technology to stop her from killing her child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nugganu December 30, 2012 at 08:26

T – deserve the woman leaving us, and fortunate too!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 30, 2012 at 08:36

T must be tore up from the floor up and wrecked up from the neck up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 30, 2012 at 12:14

suffragette must also be tore up from the floor up and wrecked up from the neck up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 30, 2012 at 12:25

suffragette also has some projection issues; this is pretty much standard for a feminazi.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
deniz December 30, 2012 at 13:08

most of these women driving SUVs are not competent enough to drive these large vehicles and end up being a danger to everybody , there should be stricter rules for issuing driving licenses and dangerous drivers should have their licenses taken away, incompetent bumbling women drivers should definitely undergo and pass a special test and training program so that they are not a danger to other road users,women whould know that driving is a privilege and not a right and incompetent bumbling drivers should not be allowed to drive!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
justeunperdant December 30, 2012 at 19:42

To T and suffragette.

This is what I think of women: manipulative, stupid, emotional unstable, vindicative, heartless, useless, lack a scene of justice and loyalty, childish and so on.

If a women cannot do good sex and cannot cook, sew, do preserve she is indeed useless. These are the minimal quality a women should have for me to date her. I guess it make both of you undatable.

I hate women and I am for the oppression of women. Women you are strong and independent, leave us alone and go live your life on your own term. We don’t need you to be happy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 December 30, 2012 at 21:37

T and Suffragette are missing the point, of course. Probably concern trolls who swooped in to “set us straight” and haven’t spent much time studying the opposing view.

Here’s a clue, ladies: if you cannot articulate the counter-arguments your ideological opponents proffer against your belief, you do not know enough about the subject to form an opinion.

Here is the ugly truth you do not understand: until fairly recently marriage was considered a trade-off. Married men were obligated to provide sustenance, shelter, and security for a specific woman and their children. Nearly all men were also generally obligated to defend the society by being subject to involuntary military service. Wives were specifically obligated to take care of the children, the domicile, and her husband. Women had no general obligations at all. (That’s an example of female privilege, by the way.) Implicit in the specific obligation a wife had was for her to provide her husband exclusive sexual access. There are a number of good reasons for that, not least of which is that the husband – by holding up his end of the bargain – was entitled to 1) sex with his wife, and 2) to know that the children born to his wife were his own.

Since it was an obvious two-way bargain (a contract, if you will), society treated it as such. If either party failed to live up to his/her obligations the other party could leave and the “at fault” party had to make the other party whole – just like any other contract. That is how adults conduct their affairs. (That even included the sexual component of the bargain – if one party could not or would not have sex with the other – due to impotence or refusal – the non-performing party was considered to have broken the agreement.) But… although feminists are keen for women to receive the same benefits as men, they are dead set against treating women the same as men when it comes to obligations and responsibilities

Feminism is the radical belief that woman are extra-large children: like small children, they are to have no enforceable responsibilities. Thus, thanks to feminism, we now have a legal absurdity known as “no-fault divorce” in all 50 states. Essentially that means that one party can simply renege on her (it’s almost always the wife) obligations for petty reasons. But rather than losing the benefits of marriage all she loses are her obligations: she gets to keep most of the benefits. On the other hand the discarded husband still retains his obligations to his ex-wife. And if he fails to continue providing her with the benefits of marriage (usually in the form of the house, the kids, and a bunch of his money) – he goes to jail.

Marriage under feminism: Husbands have duties – wives have options.

The old social compact (pre-feminism) worked for everyone by channeling both male and female sexuality in the most useful way possible: the formation of nuclear families. That social system, along with the countless societal norms that support it (such as the expectation that men would work hard to amass wealth and single women would come to their weddings as virgins), created the conditions for advanced civilization. In short, Patriarchy benefits women, too. (It is arguably a better overall deal for most women than it is for most men.)

In the last 50 years or so that deal has been broken – but the breaking only worked to the short-term benefit of women. Women are no longer bound by the old social compact, while men are still expected to “man-up” like their grandfathers did when relationships were based on reciprocal obligations. But feminists are not good at understanding long term cause-and-effect. By breaking their half of the deal, they created the conditions for women to screw men over… for a while. But male willingness to be stomped on is a lagging cultural indicator, and now a generation of young men is wising up to the fact that “manning-up” only serves to obligate them to women who have no enforceable obligations in return.

If understanding the ramifications of a half-century of feminism sounds like “hate” to you, then you don’t understand what the word “hate” means.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Cultural_Expat December 31, 2012 at 05:18

To Suffragette and T…thesis on what? another MSW or Lawyer or M.ed? another tax or government feeder profiting off what little excess wealth now exists in this society, er, profiting off the US govt & Feds ponzie scheme? This past 2 weeks I voluntarily helped out 3 women in my trailer park (i live in a single wide due to divorce rape and ongoing mommy support from 15 years ago…ill never forget my lawyer saying…”I think we can get you into a mobile once this divorce is over-took me another 5yrs to be able to afford the downpayment on that one) Anyway, your sisters here in the park needed GFCI’s put in under the trailer, furnaces repaired, and roofs shoveled. Down here at the lower end you’re pursuit of you bullshit risk averse, “talking” and “writing” makework jobs do nothing but nothing but impoverish the whole to continue the perpetuation of you adult female child priveledge. i see it also as a project manager…I was inspecting the last phases of a 50 million dollar building project, multiple stories, 100′s of men pulling electric lines, installing cieling tiles, tuning boilers, etc….real work, real work with real quantifiable results; real work, dirty and requiring skill sets that produce results. Results provide a safe building that wont burn down, or flood, and provide efficient comfort for the occupants. I’VE ONLY SEEN 3 WOMEN WORKING amongst these laborers and tradesmen. these trades are begging to have women work at these jobs as they are govt jobs…to no avail….your busy talkin’ and writin’ and edubacating. i lose more and more respect for women everyday. i see them as selfish overgrown children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Human-Stupidity.com December 31, 2012 at 11:22

Amen.

Great article.

How can this have happened? Are there no constitutions that preach equal rights? That prohibit discrimination?

But it has happened.

Feminists are the most conservative group on earth. They conserved all rights that women ever had.

And removed all rights that men ever had.

This is the result.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Mark December 31, 2012 at 15:42

Here’s another duty for men, should they decide to become “Good Neighbor Sperm” for a lesbian couple.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/31/kansas-sperm-donor-to-same-sex-couple-readies-for-child-support-fight/?test=latestnews

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sam December 31, 2012 at 16:05

First, let me commend you on an excellent article. It should be taught to all high school boys in a “Men’s studies” class. (I know, like THAT is going to happen). As for women “sacrificing” their bodies to give birth to “Men’s” children, I am so tired of hearing that. Pregnancy and the resulting childbirth are natural, biological functions of a female. In fact, a woman can be brain dead and her body will do it on it’s own. But lately, women act like they are doing such an unselfish, noble act simply by having a child, like she’s chopping off an arm or something. Give me a break.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Dejay January 4, 2013 at 11:10

I’ve written this in a book project and have echoed these sentiments for years now. For the longest time, I’ve stated that the feminist movement was never EVER about women receiving equal treatment; it was about them receiving SPECIAL treatment, with the full weight of the law being on their side. There’s a huge difference in the two.

And as someone stated earlier, I agree with the whole consumerist angle going here. It’s no small wonder why the court system favors women and come down on men with a ton of bricks in divorce cases. The transfer of wealth from the husband to the now-ex wife keeps the corporations’ pockets lined because she is far more apt to spend $$$ on goods/services than he would (and if you don’t believe me, watch the commercials displayed on TV and tell me who they’re trying to sell their items to in most cases). The government benefits from the tax revenue generated from the sale of those items.

As many guys are painfully learning with every passing day, there is absolutely, positively NO benefit for a man to get married and/or move a woman into his place. In topics like these, you hear women scream from the hilltops about how they sacrificed their bodies to have children but ask yourselves this simple question; who decided to have the kids in the first place?

Articles like this should be required reading material for any boy over the age of 12. Getting hitched is no guarantee for longterm viability, especially when women initiates divorce two-thirds of the time and can take half of one’s wealth and retirement by simply stating that they’re no longer happy. There is no obligation for a woman to continue giving sex in the same manner or frequency as she did when she was trying to entice the guy into marrying her. But there is plenty of obligation for the same man to pay for the ‘lifestyle for which she has become accustomed’, even long after she has found another guy to spend her evenings with. Sort of like getting your car stolen, still be obligated by the bank to pay off the note, watch someone else drive down the street in the car while you’re waiting at the bust stop, all while the police continue eating their doughnuts when you bring it to their attention.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
domestic discipline democrat January 5, 2013 at 14:09

When I married my wife, I vowed before God and man to provide and protect. She vowed to honor and obey. We have different duties, but they’re duties all ’round.

I would not have married a woman who refused to vow to obey me.

You’re correct, in the eyes of the state it’s mostly one-way, but we just ignore that as best we can and live our lives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Gwen January 8, 2013 at 09:49

What you have written here is an unfortunate, uncomfortable truth in our society. The fact that women still expect men to provide and protect while walking away from their obligations to submit, obey and respect is completely disgusting to me. I am a woman and know that I am not equal to a man, nor could I ever be. I also realize that I need a man more than he could ever need me. I wish more women would realize just how evil feminism really is and how ultimately damaging it is to both genders. When I try to explain my viewpoints, though, it falls on deaf ears. They look at me like I’m completely crazy to suggest that they show appreciation for the many sacrifices of their husbands by showing them respect and deference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
dealseekingmom.com April 19, 2014 at 07:58

If some one wants expert view on the topic of running a blog afterward i propose him/her to pay a visit
this blog, Keep up the fastidious work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rosie April 25, 2014 at 08:53

As a woman from small islands in the Pacific, our culture specifies duties of both men and women upon growing up till the time to teach such duties to your children. Though I have left the land and here I am in unfamiliar land for a new beginning. Everything I have read in this page, is how I was taught at early age about Duties of Genders. So far I find it almost impossible for Men around me to carry out these duties said here.
Or could be maybe I am in the wrong place or do these men even know of such duties? Or is it true that women are at fault for such men to not act their part?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Luke July 13, 2014 at 18:11

You know what I can’t stand about this bullshit? Every point made here will be turned around and said to be the product of the patriarchy by any feminist you take these points to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
phillip bomar September 16, 2014 at 09:24

This is the most fulfilling read to say the least. This piece confirms what I felt a long time. And to know that I am not the only one who takes this subject seriously enough to research and write about it, restores my faith in men, who have not relinquish their essence to an old idea about women which is forbidden among an increasing society of women today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: