Brendan had this to say at Dalrock’s:
Indeed, and this is what I have come to think of as the “engine of feminism”. Daddies. It was this sentiment that caused the men in power during the mid 20th Century to back feminism the way they did — they wanted it for their daughters. This is still the case today, for the most part, among “mainstream” men of all political persuasions (including, as everyone here knows, our social conservative friends). At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree. It is sustained largely by this, precisely because any real criticism of the new system runs headlong into an army of mainstream fathers who are very protective of their daughters, and exercise this protection in terms of encouraging maximal viable independence (from men, of course). This is both the engine of feminism and the main obstacle to any serious reform of any of the things we discuss on these blogs, really.
Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong. Feminism is dependent on marriage and family. Without it, feminism would collapse. When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.
Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?” Like TFH says, they don’t understand cause and effect well, but this represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is. A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism. The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women. The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such. They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want. If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce. Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men. Even increased taxation will not do it because men have less reason to work harder in such a scenario. Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.
This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism. Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.
Second-wave feminism set out to destroy marriage. Third-wave feminism realized that most women still want to be married, so they focused on maximizing female privilege within marriage. Honestly, I think the latter has been far more damaging.
4th wave feminism: legitimise divorce theft, cuckoldry, false rape accusations.
It’s all about making sure the money goes from the “men women don’t find attractive” to the “women who want to be close to attractive men, but can’t pay for the kids/diseases/abuse injuries/hamster mental problems”.
because “she’s worth it” :O
True. Steve Forbes is a huge feminist, even though he is supposedly a leading conservative. That is because he has 5 daughters.
We also have not had a President with a son since 1992 (and that was a different generation). There might be no reason to vote for Mitt Romney at all except for this (5 sons).
I don’t think that it is important to distinguish between 1st/2nd/3rd wave feminism when so much is systemic to human societies and psychology, and even centuries ago, half the men of a society would die in battle before many women were at risk (that too not of dying, but of becoming concubines).
Even observing groups of Chimpanzees and Gorillas show that the beta male is the member who is placed at the lowest priority.
Yes, the paradigm is KILL the men, rape the women. This is very much the case with Cultural “Marxism”, a very atavistic ideology if you think of it. Cultural “Marxism”, however, isn’t the only source of feminism. In Saudi-Arabia, there are people who want to raise the age of marriage to twenty-five!
Good points, I guess that’s why they legislated ‘shacking up’ into legal marriages, can’t have men sleeping with women without paying.
Brendan – ”…the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent.”
Guilty as charged.
I raised two daughters (both now adults), and what Brendan suggests would be a fair criticism of the way I did tend to think and often act. I was also guilty of being a long-time Blue Pill Churchian. I might even be “guiltier” than some complete Blue Pill addicts in that I always had the uncomfortable feeling that “something just wasn’t right”, yet I continued to go along to get along for years.
But, the time period between the 70’s and the 90’s was rather a modern “Dark Age” as to the dissemination of useful information (or, more accurately “truth”) to the masses. There was nothing with which to water the seeds of dissent that lay dormant in many of us.
As to my goals for my daughters, I did want them to be, as Brendan put’s it; “maximally viably independent”.
Yet, this wasn’t, in my mind, to equip them to be fish with no need for bicycles, nor to see them gain advantage of men of their generation. Rather, it was largely a response to the all too obvious reality that many marriages ended rather quickly in divorce, and (without any solid knowledge as to the real motivators of divorce) my wife and I felt that they should be able to live on their own (as opposed to be burdens on either us or society at-large) in the event that they should find themselves as unmarried adults.
Still, it’s not as if we taught them to be disrespectful of men, nor to view men and boys as the enemy, or even as the competition (in the mid-80’ to mid 90’s it seemed as though the economy was expanding, and that there would be jobs aplenty for all who sought them, so that educating and equipping girls to take part did not seem in any way to be anti-male). I (we) were really quite naïve.
It never occurred to me that Affirmative Action was really designed to be anti-male. I never supported it, but it seemed as though it was more aimed at giving a leg-up to “disadvantaged” non-white minorities (my opposition to AA was primarily due to the racial-advantaging to created). Only later did I come to realize that the primary beneficiaries of AA were white women from (well) above average socio-economic family backgrounds.
Of course, along with two daughters, I also have a son. Oddly, it was my wife who is most responsible for steering me towards the MRM. As she began working as a prosecutor, she noted that the system (including the courts) seemed to be highly biased against men and boys, specifically noting the many instances in which women were bring the most obvious of false claims of DV and child abuse against the fathers of their children in conjunction with custody disputes. It was she who first sounded the alarm as to what sort of socio-sexual dynamic our son might be headed towards facing.
It was her concern that got me interested in the MRM, and into reading Glenn Sacks old blog – a truly eye-opening educational experience. It wasn’t just the disadvantaging of men via the courts in divorce and custody, it was everything from a general social disrespect of men to paternity fraud and false rape accusations – and few people seemed to give a damned.
And, just as I was learning about this multitude of anti-male societal and legal issues, my wife got a real eye-opening shock – the rape case she was about to take to trial fell apart at the last minute as the “victim” confessed to her that she had not been raped, but was just mad because the guy she pursued for sex didn’t want her as a girlfriend.
It was a real WTF!?!? moment to learn just how willing women are to make false rape claims, and to go through with the associated personal unpleasantness, just to get back at a guy. More shocking was just how well the system was designed to aid and abet a woman who could appear sincere and stick to her story. It really was a matter of legal principles turned –n their heads, with a de facto “guilty until proven innocent” ideology prevailing.
But, all of this came to be in that virtual “Dark Age”, in which the feminist-influenced (controlled?) media held sway as the predominant source for most people.
Fortunately, the growth of internet blogs that were brave enough to focus on issues from the perspective of male interest, challenging the myths of male aggression and evil versus female oppression and female victimhood (via the mythical Patriarchy), is now beginning to shed light. The effects are difficult to fully assess, and yet they cannot be denied. In the four years since Pierce Harlan and Steven Birkimer launched “The False Rape Society”, there has been a noticeable change in the way in which rape claims are handled by police (especially), and an equally obvious growing public awareness of the issue (as seen in new article comments by the public). No one specifically cites the FRS, but the changes have been occurring exactly as the FRS has been suggesting. Coincidence? I think not.
And, we see “Manosphere” ideologies seeping into the main-stream, and even references made to specific bloggers. Many still try to ignore or to ridicule the message, but it seems to be finding fertile ground in the hearts of many never-the-less.
Thus, IMHO it is time to aggressively push the agenda forward, prying open eyes along the way. As one who was guilty of engaging in it, I welcome to challenge of calling fathers out on their roles in furtherance of feminist/gynocentrist ideals, as Brendan and PMAFT do herein. The Truth will either be embraced, or feared and shunned, but regardless, the Truth needs to be heard on the entire litany of men’s issues. At this point, it would be unconscionable to NOT address any ans all such issues. To fail ot do so is tantamount to continuing the recent Dark Age.
A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism.
Outside of college and in the workplace, the impact of lesbians is pretty limited. The ones I knew of were regarded as very strange by my co-workers and laughed at behind their back.
Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men.
The shift from society paying welfare benefits (a general, and unpopular tax on society) to targeting individual men for child support requires that men keep marrying. MGTOW is a huge monkey wrench in the machinery, which is why we hear so much ‘man up’ rhetoric. If men refuse to marry en masse, feminists will be forced to come up with some other means of extracting payments from men.
And feminists will have a lot of trouble finding a new way to extract money from men. Increasing taxes in general or a “man tax” will run into problems with Republicans who have taken “no new taxes” pledges. Even if such taxes are established, then the jig is up. Men will realize what is going on and adapt accordingly. More taxes or a man tax will just convince young men to work less. The government can’t get anything by taxing a man with no money. Increasing numbers of men will just work the bare minimum to survive. On top of that there is a limit to what transfers via taxes can do. At Traditional Christianity, Alte has bragged about how she
dupedgot her husband to pay off her debts. Women have increasing amounts of student loan debt, credit card debt, etc. With less men getting married, there are less men paying off women’s debts. The only other option to deal with this is to shaft the banks, but the banks won’t let that happen.The only option left is to shame men into marrying which is what we see happening. It’s not working too well.
I agree that it will be counterproductive, but I do think that a “bachelor tax” is going to come at some point. The tripwire will be when a majority of men under 40 or so is unmarried and has never been married. The justification will be that the additional revenue is needed to support the growing army of single mothers, which will be much larger than it is today and will include all social classes. I’m not sure how close we are to that, but if it can be spun as a tax for the benefit of children and mothers, the Republicans will line up behind it like the obedient little “do-bees” that they are.
Mass expatriation of men will happen, as expatriation itself is getting easier.
Also, men will still work less if they stay here.
Their only real solution is to expand the net of how else to trap men into slavery. Rather than just biological fathers, the government will ensnare men who get duped into even watching a kid for a single mother, to somehow provide for her. That is really the only way to get new men in.
This is another way where VR Sex has an impact. If men simply don’t leave home to interact with real women as much, fewer real women will even know about these men and can’t finger them for child support. Also, if the over-arching theme is that men cannot have sex with women without paying, then VR Sex enables men to avoid the 90% of women who are 7s or lower.
The Republicans sure will do.
Is it getting easier to expatriate? Read about FACTA being passed, which has caused foreign banks to reject American $ and expatriates are hurting.
also I recall reading that the price to renounce citizenship has been raised quite substantially.
Direct Bachelor taxes are a vestige of a bygone era and are completely unnecessary for governments to get their way. All they have to do is implement an indirect bachelor tax via a general tax across the board and then give rebates to ‘special groups’ (women).
Australia is going through the process this vey instance via a general carbon tax where single income families, low income families and pensioners get a rebate. So the only ones end up paying for it are the wealthy and bachelors.
All they have to do is implement an indirect bachelor tax via a general tax across the board and then give rebates to ‘special groups’ (women).
The bachelors will of course compensate for this imbalance by underperforming or simply getting the hell out of Dodge. The exodus of young men simply leaving the UK is an example.
Leaving the UK for which countries?
According to the article below, more than half went to four countries : France, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand. About 1 in 8 went to the US.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569400/Emigration-soars-as-Britons-desert-the-UK.html
The rest of them are spread out in various other countries. At many as 1 in 10 native-born Britons may now live abroad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6210358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/s_america.stm
All those 4 countries are experiencing a recession.
Australia and New Zealand? Good heavens, those are real bastions of feminism (They are in the Anglosphere). They complain about “man drought” when they actually mean “alpha man drought”
Sydney and Kiwi princess syndrome is VERY real, I’ve heard some whoppers from those
e.g. early childhood education graduate telling me she’s a neurologist,
e.g. honours student in history telling me she’s a life sciences major (speciality: blood-borne diseases).
I have some of that background so I spotted them quick, others may not be so lucky.
I believe those countries are favored targets for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Proximity. France and Spain are just around the corner. Since it’s so obvious that being an expat in those countries is a better deal than being a citizen in their own, it’s a no-brainer to cross the English Channel.
2. Low or no language barrier. Native English speakers aren’t known for their mastery of foreign languages.
3. Open space. As feminist as these countries may be, there are remote locations where the nanny state hasn’t fully invested itself. Canada and the US are also popular for this reason.
Very keenly seen. It is also the way Conservatives subsidize business; tax breaks.
Family exemptions aside, it will be fun to see what rationale they use to justify the tax on men like PMAFT, who choose to not marry and not have children, while not applying it to women like Amanda Marcotte, who choose not to marry and not have children.
As for the idea that expatriation is going to solve men’s problems, I’d advise men who are considering that option to hurry up with it, because it looks like the government is taking steps to make that impossible for people who owe back taxes…
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2012/04/owe-irs-bill-would-suspend-passport.html
I’m not sure if it’s passed yet, but this law (or something similar) will probably be in place by the time the bachelor tax becomes law.
In Australia the Amanda Marcottes get the advantage Of having the EOWA (government Equal Oppotunity for Woman Agency), a government minister for The Status of Women and federal government quarantees not to offer contracts to businesses that do not push gender equaliy with mandated spot checks and annual ‘gender quota’ reports.
In addition the Corporate Governance Council of The Australian Securities Exchange (listed stock market companies) require listed cpompanys to enforce gender equality on company boards with annual reports on their efforts.
It’s going to be very difficult. They probably will try some sort of rebate for single parents that are the “custodial parent”. Since these are mostly women, that tax becomes a default man tax, but that still doesn’t deal with the childless women. As men avoid marriage and family, less children will get produced so this won’t work so well. Plus, there is always the option of surrogate motherhood done via places like the Rotunda Clinic for men wanting children on their own. Anything they try won’t work, although that won’t stop them from trying.
For that to work as a method preventing expatriation, a man has to be in a position to owe back taxes. If he isn’t working or working minimally, he isn’t going to owe much if anything in taxes. It’s the same problem. While an onerous bachelor tax or man tax could be passed, the government can’t get tax money out of men who don’t have any money. Sure the government could throw all of these men in prison, but then they still aren’t getting any tax income. The government will also be paying to house and feed these men so instead of increasing tax income, the government will be spending more. If men weren’t working or weren’t working much outside of prison, good luck at getting them to work inside of prison. If prisons become work labor camps for men, then the jig is up, and whoever is in power will be done for.
There is no solution that they can use to get money from men when marriage and family is gone. Anything they attempt will not be workable and fall apart. That won’t stop them from trying, but the whole thing will collapse.
Black men been there, done that.
*golf flaps at Columnist*
Everyone ignores the canary.
After the ridiculously high divorce rates of the 70′s (in which every black neighbourhood saw 50+% of their couples broken apart), the boys of those families became anti-marriage (barring the acquisition of massive amounts of wealth or status. It should be a telling fact that the marriage rates of black men in the entertainment industry dwarfs that of the “lesser” men. )
Seriously speaking, men with hyper-misogynistic bodies of work such as Snoop Dogg and Jay-Z are married. Why, because they’ve budgeted for alimony and CS.
So, if liberals back feminism, and socon-tradcons are creators of more feminism
who does that leave that’s “against” feminism.
For now just a few true MRAs like Glenn Sachs and Paul Elam. Later, lots of young men.
That doesn’t give us much.
Those aren’t even Little Bighorn Odds.
Good post.
But you can simplify it even further: the engine of gynocentrism is wealth transfer from men to women, but core engine of institutional feminist power is gov’t wealth mediated wealth transfer from men to women. Whether through marriage, taxes, the divorce industry, healthcare, etc—the net flow of financial resources is always from men to women. This is how political feminism—indeed, all gynocentrism throughout the history of human civilization—has been financed.
Which is why the rational slackerhood advocated by bloggers like Roosh, the MGTOW phenomenon, Japanese grass eaters, etc is such a ticking time bomb for feminism. Once women become the primary taxpayers they will have effectively put themselves on the hook for paying for feminism—and everything else in our modern society. This is a dead end because, 1) many women work jobs that are either in the direct employ of the gov’t or in heavily gov’t subsidized industries and are simply paying “taxes” on gov’t largesse, and 2) women are less productive as a sex because of the constraints of pregnancy/childcare and their preference for “work-life balance” means they work as many as 25 percent fewer hours than men (google “female doctor shortage” for an example). It was easy to demand expensive feminist reforms when men paid 80 percent and more of the taxes, but these initiatives will be far less appetizing once women have to pick up their fair share of the tab.
The way to destroy political feminism is to force women to bear the full weight of their equality. Once that is accomplished through some combination of male indifference and female achievement, the current paradigm, which seems so robust, will begin to erode.
In other words, the Fourth Horseman of the Four :
Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax Base Erosion.
But that is just the fourth one. Just like an orchestra needs wind, string, brass, and percussion instruments, all four horsemen are needed to make feminism implode under the weight of its own contradictions and injustice.
[...] http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/04/the-engine-of-feminism/ Imprima em PDFCompartilhe isso:FacebookEmailRelated [...]
Marriage strike may not help feminism but helps big government, That’s the angle you guys fail to see.
Feminism was made (or suported) as a big gov tool to increase its influence upon people. WIth no family, the society poorer and more dependent upon the gov. THAT’S the point.
Good point. But PMAFT will call this Illuminati conspiracy theory.
Not necessarily ILLUMINATI conspiracy theory, but, yes, I will call it conspiracy theory.
Why is a man who is acting in his best interests by not getting married promoting big government? Not only does it make absolutely no sense, but it’s another reason why a lot of MRAs question whether the conspiracy theorists are actually anti-feminist or just traditionalist conservatives using conspiracy theory instead of “man up” crap like the regular tradcons do.
Frankly, these arguments like all the lies about feminism being a Jewish plot seem to have no purpose except to prevent real anti-feminist action. Conspiracy theorists have come here in the past and have accused me and other MRAs of working for the Jews, billionaires, the Rockefellers, and/or the government. Thinking that the marriage strike promotes big government is one step before thinking the MRM is part of a conspiracy.
Yes. Weird that the Jews are accused of feminism, after all, Jews are also said to run prostitution and pornography. Conspiracy theorists are dangerous. It started out as a white invention, but now the rest of the world is seeing the same white patriots as part of the Illuminati. Chickens coming home to roost!
Who has been saying that “white patriots” (AKA white knight nationalists) are working for the Illuminati? I have only seen that accusation leveled against MRAs.
@PMAFT
White fascists & white nationalists are one of the leading activists in supporting liberalism
They actively assault traditional conservatives & free-speech advocates, in the name of anti-racism & anti-hate
Check out vdare, white nationalist activists are notorious for assaulting & protesting against race realists & traditional conservatives
Well, Muslims and other people from the Third World.