Aug 182012
 

I have been thinking a lot about the importance of male spaces.  There has been a feminist war on the existence of any and all male spaces based on the principle of if men are doing something, no matter what it is, without women, then they have to be stopped immediately.  This is also applies to predominantly male spaces like STEM employment, video games, “geek culture”, etc.  It’s no surprise that we have seen a feminist/female assault against these areas such as the constant blather about sexism in video games and Obama’s attempt to apply Title IX to STEM.  Whiskey has talked about how (female) Twilight fans (including the “Twi-moms”) took over Comic Con and ruined it.

We are running out of male spaces.  The feminization of game is being attempted.  There have been several attempts to turn the MRM into being all about women.  (The most recent attempt was the LadyMRAs reddit which was supposedly about women helping the MRM ended up exposing its real agenda when they became rabidly insane against MGTOW.)  The only real space that has managed to completely resist and fight off feminization and feminist invasion is MGTOW.  At least one reason for this is because women in general see the MGTOW as hostile to women (regardless of what men in the MGTOW space are actually doing).

Knowing that MGTOW has been the only male space to resist feminization and feminist invasion because it is (de facto) hostile to women, then is the only way to preserve male spaces by making them hostile to women?  8ball commenting at SWAB’s blog thinks that this could be the case:

I’m starting to wonder if it’s even possible to have a male-only space that isn’t hostile to women. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t because I think any gathering of men will inherently turn misogynistic, rather the opposite.

Any space that isn’t completely alienating to women will eventually be …. “invaded” (for lack of a better term) by women, who will then insist that it conform to their sensibilities. Look at Geek culture for example.

You can see this happening in places like The Good Men Project. Most of their readers are women, a good percentage of their articles are not even remotely about men, and another significant percentage are about how men’s lives affect women. And even when the article is about men… often it is written by a woman.

I’m not sure how good of an example The Good Mangina Project is since it was started by male feminist men, but in thinking about it, 8ball has a point that even The Good Mangina Project now has a much higher percentage of women authors and women commenting and less articles even tangentially relevant to men than when they started.  In a way, this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion.  While The Good Mangina Project didn’t start out as a true male space, it shows that any space that is feminized will become more feminized over time.

I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how to protect male spaces without making them completely hostile and alienating to women, but at this point, I can’t see any other solution to protecting male spaces.

  101 Responses to “Is It Possible To Defend A Male Space Without It Being Hostile To Women?”

  1. GirlWritesWhat and Typhonblue seem to be assets to whatever space they comment in. So it’s not a problem inherent to all women, though for socialogicial reasons I suspect its a problem for most.

    In my experience, merely treat men and women the same when they comment and you will be ok, because it prevents the sort of games that your average woman (at least on the web) is used to playing in chatrooms and on message boards and blogs. A fair policy almost always results in a mostly (and at times nearly all male) amount of male commenters, and the more “free speech” you make it the more “hostile to women” the space will become. Yes, SOME women hang out at “B” on 4chan, and some women will occasionally comment at places like The Spearhead , A Voice for Men, or at the old In Mala Fide. But most women can’t hack it. In short, simply be fair and (better yet) have a rather open comments policy and most of the wrong type of females will stay away. Recently a feminist named “fannie” demonstrated this over at Feminist Critics, where she studiously avoided a thread set up just for her and the moderators and instead of focusing on substantive arguments chose instead to comment on a few posts by non-bloggers whom she thought had done her wrong. She threw insults around and then stormed off in a huff. For whatever reason, she seemed to get off on the conflict and had no use for pesky fact based arguing. Sadly, most women seem to be this way.

    The same applies in real life. Treat all employees alike, measure on results and only pick people who can take a joke, and lots of bullshit would be avoided. Unfortunately, laws, lawsuits, and informal quotas make that pretty much impossible these days which is why so many men are miserable at work. I have worked in an all male environment and, later on, I was in the call center of a repair facility(alas, I didn’t have the skills for repair or the certifications). Often I was the only male in the room for 2 or 3 months at a time working with an all female cast. What helped me there was that the “alpha female” of the group was a mom who, for whatever reason was very “results oriented” in her work demeanor and took a liking to me. She also couldn’t stand the occasional female gossips and backstabbers who passed through the center, and she held the other girls responsible (not me!) for doing their OWN work. So from this I take it that if a certain type of female is in a position of power at a job, things might get done anyway, but it would be absolute chaos without.

    • Aha, but women are sneaky and they _specifically_ try to keep from being treated like men are treated. They take on nicknames that are expressly female or indicative of being female, so everyone knows they’re female. That in itself causes different attitudes towards them. Then they proceed to accuse lots of people of misogyny. By making it look as if they’re being discriminated _against_, they achieve the goal of securing a special place. And it’s all downhill from there.

  2. “this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion.”

    I reluctantly agree. I remember the early days of The Spearhead which was rabidly anti-female as well as anti-feminist. Visiting women were shown the door immediately. They did not stick around to be piled-on. Out of that primordial rage came a lot of good.

    The Spearhead has softened considerably since then. During the transitional phase a lot of women came by and stuck around for longer. (Not necessarily pro-MRA women.)

    So yes, quite possibly. The other thing, implicit in your post, is why female invasion is bad. It’s bad not just because they are women, but because women are prone to changing everything to be about them, and to creating new lists of rules, etc. It’s not that spaces get ‘feminized’ in terms of just female presence, it’s that the females ‘feminize’ the spaces themselves by changing their nature (for the worse, considering these were intended to be male spaces).

    About the only space I can think of not feminized, apart from MGTOW (which is amorphous enough to avoid invasion in any case), is pornography. And of course the feminists are forever trying to ban it.

    • It’s not that spaces get ‘feminized’ in terms of just female presence, it’s that the females ‘feminize’ the spaces themselves by changing their nature (for the worse, considering these were intended to be male spaces).

      That is correct. If this was about women coming into a male space to be a part of it, then no one would have a problem. What women are doing is changing a (previously) male space into something completely different like all of the Twilight chicks at Comic Con.

      About the only space I can think of not feminized, apart from MGTOW (which is amorphous enough to avoid invasion in any case), is pornography.

      This has an interesting implication for the future. If porn is the only form of entertainment resistant to feminization, then porn will be the only form of entertainment men will consume in the future. My guess is that things will change before that happens, but that is where we are heading towards.

      • “Is It Possible To Defend A Male Space Without It Being Hostile To Women?”

        No,it is not. Not only must the environment itself be hostile and/or dismissive toward women, the rules for commenting themselves must be mutable,allowing goalposts to be shifted and women kicked out for arbitrary reasons. Then,when they complain, you just say “I’m sorry you couldn’t follow the rules,but you didn’t abide by guideline 17 when you took advantage of the exception to rule 6.”

        I love the women we have in the manosphere now, but let’s not forget the selection process that narrowed down all the unacceptable candidates to these very intelligent and hip women was long and arduous. We blasted these women with fire breath and beat them over the head in arguments until we found a few tough cookies whose hearts were in the right place. They’ve earned the right to speak on men’s issues and I would never want to bully them,but in order to keep man-hating usurpers without the faintest idea of how much work it took for men to build up these spaces from taking over, I am sorry to say that a constant atmosphere of “ONE WRONG MOVE AND YOU’RE TOAST!” must be maintained. The manginas are bad, but they’re transparent and limp-wristed hack pussies. The women, you WANT to give a second chance to. After all, we’re NOT misogynists.

        That’s where we make our mistake. Women couldn’t possibly imagine how difficult it has been for men to seek equal rights. The vast majority of them would want to turn the MRM into apology for pedophilia,metro-sexual pegging training,and femdom promotion,just like their own gossip rags. All while claiming to be pro-male.

        The MRM must remain overwhelmingly male,and the atmosphere should be nothing less than rabidly pro-male,pro-reason,pro-order. Don’t forget, to a feminist,”what about teh menz” is a punchline. To take any softer stance ourselves would be dooming the MRM to failure. It must be like a Kevlar vest for the bullets WOMEN’S political representatives started firing at male innocent bystanders,while women stood mutely in tacit agreement with them.

        If feminists are attacking the MRM, they’re not attacking ordinary men. Second to dismantling feminism itself, that’s the most possible good we could do for men.

  3. No. That is oppression under the rules of Cultural “Marxism”.

  4. Actuallly, Mojo, I was at the Spearhead when it was founded. I followed from Welmer’s old blog, and I was there when PMAFT was attacked in a tweet by that actor that played “Data” on Star Trek:TNG. It’s more cyclical. At the beginning it was more a “free for all” then Welmer tightened up the moderation a bit, but alas some people figured out ways to mess with the commenting system (multiple accounts and things) and it became so bad that not only did I stay away but a female could comment and say “I agree one hundred percent, and I’m ashamed of my sex and wish I was worthy of licking the armpits and washing the socks of any man here” and be called a man-hating rad-fem bitch before you could sneeze, while any comments by her about this unprovoked personal attack would be downvoted to -999. I was disgusted by a few of the commenters there (not most). I’m not interested in commenting on one sided echo chambers regardless of whether they are MRA or not.

  5. You cannot keep it male without it being hostile, or they will invade it, whine about it, and then destroy it.

    The only way it could be different is in a culture that valued the masculine.

  6. If you want to keep an physical all male space. Sexually harass women until they are forced to leave. Prevent them from ever coming in. And eject the women from that space.

    In an online forum of course. Just ban them.

  7. maybe someday, when feminism has vanished into the ether, and we can get on with this thing we call civilization.

    I would love to live in a society that truly understood the concept of equality, as opposed to this twisted up nightmare where we must uplift the supposed “oppressed underclasses” and punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of long dead ancestors. maybe then we could interact with a woman in the workplace without worrying about false harassment charges or being browbeaten after she sucked and fucked her way into management.

    I would like to think that there will be a smooth and careful transition from the post feminist era to a new age of enlightenment, but I can’t help but feel like we might be headed towards Einstein’s prediction about the war that comes after WW3. I can’t say how feminism will end but it might be that after it does, women will be begging to be allowed to stay inside a man’s home while barefoot and pregnant, caring for the children and the kitchen.

  8. G-man wrote:

    If you want to keep an physical all male space. Sexually harass women until they are forced to leave.

    Hmm, the “show your tits or GTFO” trick. It can be effective, but I worry about the legal implications.

    Prevent them from ever coming in. And eject the women from that space.

    Here are four easy ways to do that. They’re all indirect, so proving discrimination would be tough.
    (1) Institute screening requirements. Examples: For a fitness club, require all candidates to bench press at least 200 lbs. For open-source programming, they need to have their own personal OSS project to belong to a team.

    (2) Make sure the tasks in the all-male space are distasteful to women. For example, in Mixed Martial Arts classes, the members have to spar full-contact on a regular basis. Women don’t much like the prospect of a sweaty man on top of them or being pounded on.

    (3) Have them at inconvenient times. This usually means late at night.

    (4) Sidestep legal requirements. For example, if the membership of your club is legally required to admit women after it exceeds a certain size, split off another group if the first one is getting too popular.

    In an online forum of course. Just ban them.

    They’ll try and come in, disguised as a male. Of course, they’ll ‘out’ themselves soon enough when they try and start changing the forum to suit their ends.

  9. Remember, that while a man would not mind his wife having a hobby, a woman gets bitter when her husband spends even 1 hour of time on something that does not directly benefit HER.

    The reason for this is that women just want to consume resources. When there is a male space, women instinctively want to go there because there being be resources being produced (that a woman wants to consume before some other woman gets there first), or otherwise take credit for the work that the men are doing.

    Remember that since women want to consume, and they know that men produce, they want to immediately invade any male spaces, and consume the output before another woman gets there first.

    That is all there is to it.

  10. Speaking of male spaces, my poll on the presence of misandry had a surprising result :

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2012/06/a-first-quarter-poll-on-the-misandry-bubble.html

    Sure, there is *some* selection bias with the androsphere voting there. But that alone cannot explain the landslide victory in our favor. Many ‘feminists’ went out of their way to post the poll in places they thought would get the results they wanted, only for that to have surprisingly little success.

    So an online poll like this being so decisively in our favor (again, even if we take half of the ‘Yes’ votes out), is stunning.

  11. Unfortunately, I’m starting to see it claimed that a man can still be MGTOW and cohabit with / marry women. In my opinion this is a stealth attempt to co-opt MGTOW.

    • The problem there is that MGTOW and ghosting get merged into one idea. While they overlap, they aren’t the same. I can’t see ghosting as being co-opted by women or successfully invaded by feminists.

      • good point. I don’t consort with women at all anymore but I still don’t consider myself a ghost because I’m quite career-oriented and also involved in some political activism.

  12. It is not possible to have a male only space without it being hostile to women. I would like to see more true male spaces with hostility to women. Spaces hostile to women would provide a much needed refuge for men who are hated by women.

    • Or, consider a fraternal order model. No need to be hostile, just don’t allow them at meetings.

  13. [...] PMAFT had a good post this weekend where he asks the question, “Is it possible to have a truly…  Experience says that eventually any and all male spaces that do not take extreme measures to defend themselves end up taken over by women and feminized to the point where a conquered male space will end up being something completely different than what it was.  It is not possible to have a male space that can stay a male space without it being hostile to women. [...]

  14. Funny thing is, there’s certainly no shortage of female spaces which are hostile to men…

  15. In general, I agree that male spaces are important and should be preserved, but video gaming and geek culture are public spaces, not male spaces. There have always been females interested in these areas, even if they were fewer in number than men. I don’t think the whole geek culture has to change to accommodate women or put women first either. Like I said, it’s a public space.

    Gender aside, I don’t understand why Twilight fans would gather at Comic Con…

    • “In general, I agree that male spaces are important and should be preserved, but video gaming and geek culture are public spaces, not male spaces. There have always been females interested in these areas, even if they were fewer in number than men”

      Watch “Wargames”. When Ally Sheedy finds out Broderick is a computer geek, she looks at him like he announced his dick is infected by a flesh eating virus. She obviously doesn’t have a CLUE what any of his hardware is or what he’s doing with it. I can confirm that just 20 years ago, this was a culture-wide sentiment that females had.

      Anything having to do with computers,just like anything having to do with uranium mining or coal-mining, has always been very much a “male” space. Women DID NOT get involved until men simplified it for them, just as with EVERYTHING else women have done.

      • Twenty years ago, anything computer related was for outcasts only. I know. I was… am one. People who spent time with computers were considered weird. It would not have mattered how easy computers became if they hadn’t become mainstream. Women will leave a male space alone if they think it is populated entirely by “losers.”

        PS I realize that this comment is very late. But this is the first I saw of this post.

  16. Yes, Kuroloki:
    I think the more important thing right now is to focus on how to keep “male culture’s ” in voluntary and recreational public spaces that are mostly male, because these tend to be the things where the problems with gynocentrism arise as women enter these spaces. An all male clubhouse is still legal and so its easy to keep women out of that if that is what you want to do; but things like “Gamer Culture” and such are not all-male spaces to begin with. These things are careers and recreations that , for whatever reason, appeal primarily to males and these things are being actively targeted by feminists and self-interested women in bigoted and misandric ways.

    “All male” spaces, such as Black Pill’s blog, aren’t the same thing at all. From a feminists (or member of the larger culture) perspective, who cares if a bunch of “losers” getting together in their club don’t allow women? They have nothing that is desired, so provided they don’t incite violence there is no need for the powers that be or the femmies to even care about them.

    • This argument was made about geek “losers” and tech, geek culture, etc. Why would women want to be at a “loser” place like Comic Con? Yet we saw that happen with the (female) Twilight fan invasion.

      Any male only space is considered a threat to women’s interests regardless of whether it has something women “want”.

      • I disagree.

        IF the space serves no purpose for them -and if it is small enough they won’t even get the use of finding sexual partners within it – females in general are happy to ignore it. Twilight was a mass culture phenomenon, and Comic Con has, over the past 10 to 15 years been moving into more of a mass culture type of space, driven in part, at least, by $.

        Want to keep females out of your space? Make your space devoted to bitterly complaining about them. I haven’t noticed a mass female or feminist invasion of this blog, let alone “The Black Pill”. Understand that you are in danger ONLY if you have something they WANT. Then they will come in to claim it, either based on the contention you don’t morally deserve it, or that they made it in the first place.

        • Given how many times the MRM has had to deal with women from Susan Walsh to the LadyMRA reddit trying to turn the MRM or androsphere into something else, I can’t see what point you are trying to make.

          Frankly, you seem to be oversensitive to criticism of women that doesn’t affect you.

        • Clarence wrote:
          Understand that you are in danger ONLY if you have something they WANT.

          Where your theory falls through is they always WANT something, even if it’s only male attention. The tendency to invade and destroy male spaces is hardwired into women.

          Then they will come in to claim it, either based on the contention you don’t morally deserve it, or that they made it in the first place.

          Repugnant behavior, isn’t it? What happens is women come in to an all-male group and claim privileges held by its elite members. For example, the push to get women to serve on submarines has been for officers, not enlisted personnel (that’s been put off for the indefinite future).

      • What can be the methods then of making male space invisible to women and how it is so unglamorous to be in it. I mean scarcely any women would want to invade the male space of oil rigs and professions with a high death rate.

        • What can be the methods then of making male space invisible to women and how it is so unglamorous to be in it

          Pre-Modern coal mines made of math where you have to sacrifice your life for other people’s freedom.

  17. I guess, to clarify:
    The important thing is defending the idea of a “male culture”. There seems to be this meme that male cultures are guilty of the Original Sin of patriarchy, thus they must be changed. Theoretically, and sometimes on a rhetorical level, this can be or is asserted to be done to bring the perspectives of both sexes of the participants into play and create an environment that is not “hostile” to anyone.
    In practice, this is not how it is done. Every idea – even ones that might be considered to have some merit as to being problems – that the “reformers” try to implement on these cultures and spaces is poisoned and magnified by a combination of chivalry and feminism until you get such absurdities as the presence of a bikini clad photo of one’s wife on one’s own desk creating a “hostile work environment”: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/CornerOffice/story?id=86756&page=1#.UDJFjqCNHYh

    I was going to get into more about the male gamer culture, and how, while there are some legitimate problems concerning on how the men in it treat each other (let alone women,gays or other ‘protected minorities’ snort) the fact is most of the attacks on it are overblown and the men’s perspective and needs – the reason WHY the gaming culture evolved as it has and what purposes it serves for the largely male participants- are being roundly ignored. But I have decided I don’t need to go into any long detail to make my point. Heck, look at the current work culture. Risk averse, focused on making the least rational and most easily offended people (almost always women) comfortable, they, in effect, destroy free speech and most modes of normal male communication with each other and to women.

    Male needs? They are of no use to the feminists and White Knights and they care not about the happiness of the males in the male cultures they invade. They don’t come to share and maybe learn a little and to have mutual fun, they come to destroy armed with righteousness because they worship the sacred gynocentric. Male needs in terms of space and speech and thought and sex are considered evil (‘privileged’) and so time and again one of the big aspects of these campaigns is shame – whether it is deserved or not. Gentlemen, this isn’t equality and we must fight this.
    “Ghosting” and “MGTOW” are irrelevant to these problems – and in terms of public spaces – can’t even be the solutions. No, we must fight – something men have not been good at in the past.

  18. Actually, PMAFT I like to think I’m oversensitive to bad arguments.
    Keeping women out of private male spaces isn’t hard , heck you can pretty much make it so unpleasant for them that they don’t want to come around, anyway. So long as “freedom of association” remains the law in the USA there will always be a way to have strictly male private clubs,blogs, and activities.

    It’s keeping women from taking over public and work environments that is the real problem. In short, merely mixing men and women (one or two women is generally no problem, I’m talking more) should NOT result in the total domination of female culture like it does now.

    That’s the real problem, and that is what has to be fought.

    • Keeping women out of private male spaces isn’t hard , heck you can pretty much make it so unpleasant for them that they don’t want to come around, anyway.

      All that means is that instead of taking over that male space, those women would want to destroy that male space instead. For example, Comic Con could become extremely unpleasant for women to keep out the Twilight fans. Would the female Twilight fans just leave Comic Con in disgust and leave Comic Con alone afterwards. No, there would be massive protests (led by feminists) against Comic Con, and women whining to Congress that Comic Con must be shutdown.

      At a smaller level, there probably aren’t a lot of women who would want to take over this blog (or The Black Pill since you brought him up) or any other androsphere blog, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of women who would like to see this blog (or The Black Pill or other androsphere blogs) shut down. I pay for my own hosting as a partial safeguard against someone trying to shut this blog down

      So long as “freedom of association” remains the law in the USA

      That’s a big question mark. One could make the argument that freedom of association doesn’t exist in the USA now.

      there will always be a way to have strictly male private clubs,blogs, and activities

      There are a lot of men only clubs and organizations that were forced to shutdown or admit women so obviously this isn’t the case. Yes, the government isn’t going after a group of 4 MGTOW who have a video game “club” who don’t want anything to do with women RIGHT NOW, but the trend is that eventually the government will care. If feminists via the government try to crack down on decentralized ideas like MGTOW then they will be going after small groups of men who do things without women.

      It’s keeping women from taking over public and work environments that is the real problem.

      If you have an actual working solution to this (instead of downplaying the problem) that doesn’t involve a blanket ban on women, I want to hear it. The problem is that no one has come up with a better solution, and it sounds like you don’t have one either.

    • Clarence wrote:
      Keeping women out of private male spaces isn’t hard ,

      Even Augusta Golf club didn’t manage to do it. This is a private club with an unusually ornery management. Yet it still succumbed to political pressure.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/sports/golf/augusta-national-golf-club-to-add-first-two-female-members.html?pagewanted=all

      • Even Augusta Golf club didn’t manage to do it. This is a private club with an unusually ornery management. Yet it still succumbed to political pressure.

        If Augusta couldn’t do it, how are we supposed to do it without extreme measures?

        • Let’s see:
          The President and the main Republican contender to the Presidency both were required to pressure this club and even so it did so at its own pace and invited its own kind of woman. This controversy had went on for ten years prior, so I’d hardly say they bowed to pressure. More likely they thought they had something to gain. Surely Obama , for instance, doesn’t approve of their two selections, neither of whom is a noted feminist.

          You can ban females from blogs all you want, so I don’t see what the issue is with keeping them out.

        • Clarence wrote:
          The President and the main Republican contender to the Presidency both were required to pressure this club

          Why the hell should the president ever get involved in the first place? It shows you the level of political and social influence these nitwits currently have.

          and even so it did so at its own pace

          If it yielded to political pressure, it by definition did not do it at its own pace.

          and invited its own kind of woman

          How is there any such thing as “its own kind of women?” Republicrats and Democans are pretty much two sides of the same coin these days with regard to feminism.

          You can ban females from blogs all you want, so I don’t see what the issue is with keeping them out.

          How about the prospect of getting the blog shut down?
          Or someone finding out a blogger’s identity and trying to get him in trouble with his employer for not having the ‘right’ opinions?

  19. “If you have an actual working solution to this (instead of downplaying the problem) that doesn’t involve a blanket ban on women, I want to hear it. The problem is that no one has come up with a better solution, and it sounds like you don’t have one either.”

    What are you talking about? The only thing I’m potentially downplaying is the difficulty of keeping females out of purely private male spaces. Certainly I’m not downplaying the problems of female cultural imperialism in the workplace or public spaces. Understand this: workplaces are not purely private male spaces nor are public spaces. Your blog, your house, your treehouse are different things entirely.

    Anyway, to solve the problems of female cultural imperialism at workplaces will require repeal of some of the sexual harassment laws, tort reform, and a defanging of Human Resources. Needless to say this sort of thing will take time.Solving the problem of female cultural imperialism in mostly male public spaces and cultures is more realistic to fight right now, because all you need to do is spread the red pill around more. Less White Knighting means less female misbehavior and fewer females being interested in general.

  20. I see that Ray is moving the goalposts.
    A. You are not guaranteed anonymity on the internet. You haven’t been guaranteed anonymity on the internet ever. If some jerk or bitch “outs” you to your employer and your employer chooses to can you for your beliefs, you can blame the fact that the US is corporateocracy moreso than women or feminism. People have been fired for all sorts of stupid shit that made it onto the internet, Facebook seeming to be the biggest culprit. I support internet anonymity and are against any laws that would make it illegal or make it easier to track people. But people have been getting “outed” and accidentally “outting” themselves on the internet since the beginning.

    B. I never said what happened with Augusta was right. But if it takes ten plus years of pressure and people at the level of the Presidency in order to get a club (one you or I would never get into anyway) to change its policies, then I daresay your local Women Suck club is perfectly safe. Once again, need I mention that I’m against any additional legal restrictions (apart from those we’ve been living under since the 60s) on the rights to free association.

    • Clarence wrote:
      I see that Ray is moving the goalposts.

      No I’m not, you’re pooh-poohing the problems with maintaining male-only spaces, both PMAFT and I have provided counter-arguments to your pollyannish “there’s nothing to worry about” attitude.

      You are not guaranteed anonymity on the internet.

      Where did I say that you are? I’m saying that feminists can, and probably will try and resort to dirty tricks like that because they’re completely unprincipled. That’s why bloggers such as PMAFT have secret identities.

      I never said what happened with Augusta was right. But if it takes ten plus years of pressure and people at the level of the Presidency in order to get a club (one you or I would never get into anyway)

      They yielded to political pressure. You come off like the clueless socons who crow when they win an occasional legal or social battle. They don’t appreciate that the progressives will simply try again until they achieve their goals. John Derbyshire once compared conservatism to walking east on a westbound ship and he’s right.

      Augusta’s capitulation proves my point, not yours.

  21. Now to clarify the state of the law:
    If a club is truly private, i.e. does not use a public facility there is little or nothing the government can legally do to that club. Public pressure excepted. Now if all bets are off and the government openly violates its own laws and goes after such a club to try and force open membership – then, gentlemen, we need a revolution and its went well beyond the problem of females in male spaces.

  22. Problem with male spaces is that men don’t want them. Given a slight chance they might get a whiff of putang most men will steam roll their brothers.

  23. “Is It Possible To Defend A Male Space Without It Being Hostile To Women?”

    No.

    So what?

  24. [...] Why is it that women can never apologise for anything? And why is it that when they come into a male space, they take it over? [...]

  25. [...] There is a very long thread at Dalrocks — which, a bit like the old Traditional Christianity threads, has been derailed about three times. The nature of this at times has led to a couple of commentators asking if there is still a space where men can have conversations without it becoming feminized — as has happened in SciFi and fantasy, where squicky vampires are destroying the genre. [...]

  26. @ PMAFT

    Can you name a male-only, privately owned organization that has been forced by the gov’t to accept women into its ranks? I can’t—I don’t think it’s ever happened. It’s much more likely that men caving to cultural pressure is what advanced the intrustion of these spaces. In light of this it shouldn’t be difficult for determined men to keep women out of privately owned male spaces: simply don’t allow them in, and don’t cave to the cultural pressure to do so. This hasn’t happened in the past because the guys running these male-only spaces weren’t red pill guys…but this is what needs to change.

    No need for elaborate strategies, in my view. We just need red pill guys setting up the male-only spaces—and sticking to their principles come hell or high water.

    • The Boys Clubs which are now known as The Boys and Girls Clubs. The Boys Clubs were “redefined” by the Supreme Court as public instead of private because it was open to all boys. The same thing happened to the Rotary Club, the Jaycees, the Kiwanis, and the Lions Club via the same reasoning.

      You could argue that technically the government never forced a private organization to admit women, but that’s only because the government decided to redefine those organizations as “public” it forced to admit women first.

    • dragnet wrote:
      In light of this it shouldn’t be difficult for determined men to keep women out of privately owned male spaces.

      Determined is the key word here. I’m not sure how well a determination to keep out women scales. So what may be doable with small groups may not be sufficient for large organizations.

      No need for elaborate strategies, in my view.

      I think multiple methods of keeping out women would be helpful though.

      We just need red pill guys setting up the male-only spaces—
      and sticking to their principles come hell or high water.

      You would need to vet them, otherwise women could get in through their usual divide-and-conquer tactics.

  27. @ PMAFT

    upon further research I’ve concluded that you are correct–here is a link to the 1985 Supreme Court decision:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-22/news/mn-12306_1_state-supreme-court/2

    in light of this, it would appear that the only way to maintain male-only space is to make the space inhospitable to women it would seem.

  28. [...] asking if it was possible to defend a male space without making it explicitly hostile to women, Dragnet asked if there had been actual examples of a private organization that had been forced to ac…  The problem with that question is that “cultural pressure” could also include [...]

  29. The goodmen project should be encouraged to become even more pro-women and written by women and read by women and commented at by women.

    It is a GREAT thing when the goodmen project is 100,000% women.

  30. Yeah, I’ve had a lot of problems with comments over the years. Keeping women in line hasn’t been the biggest one, fortunately. Actually, the biggest issue is having special interest trolls (e.g. white nationalists) come in and dogpile the place, but I put a stop to that recently.

    However, one thing that has to be kept in mind about female commenters is that, to be quite honest, male commenters like them, or at least are animated by them. If I let just a few women post some semi-provocative stuff the comment count shoots way, way up. Look at Dalrock’s blog for a recent example of this. His comment counts are really high because these girls keep coming in and saying dumb stuff, then the guys all feel the need to throw in their two bits. I value Dalrock’s blog, of course, and think he’s doing great work, but can’t help but find the bimbos posting there to be a bit of an unwelcome distraction. However, Dalrock’s got a mission of sorts going, so it really isn’t my place to grumble about it.

    Usually, when guys are hanging out amongst themselves, they are rather laconic. When they say something, it’s to the point, and usually understood. It’s a comfortable way to communicate, but doesn’t generate all that much “buzz.”

    That’s fine by me. I’d rather guys were reading the posts and silently nodding in agreement or occasionally making some well-considered correction than have an avalanche of chatter and repartee. So, we have to accept that online, when you don’t have many women involved, it’s going to seem like there isn’t much going on. However, if you distill all the good ideas and worthy points and weigh a quieter male site against a very loud female site, I think you’d find that the male one, despite having significantly less volume, has a lot more mass, if you know what I mean. Basically, women are prone to gaseous emissions, while men contribute something solid.

    I’m OK with that. I prefer dealing with men. I have a girlfriend anyway, and one female is more than enough to deal with. :)

    • “I’m OK with that. I prefer dealing with men. I have a girlfriend anyway, and one female is more than enough to deal with.”

      Gotta tame the Spearhead rhetoric to appease the pussy, eh Bill? Real classy. We have a name for you guys: Mangina.

    • However, one thing that has to be kept in mind about female commenters is that, to be quite honest, male commenters like them, or at least are animated by them. If I let just a few women post some semi-provocative stuff the comment count shoots way, way up. Look at Dalrock’s blog for a recent example of this. His comment counts are really high because these girls keep coming in and saying dumb stuff, then the guys all feel the need to throw in their two bits.

      No kidding. If you saw how many hits this blog gets, you would wonder why there aren’t 10 or 20 times more comments. This is why. I don’t have women saying dumb stuff here.

  31. Bullshit, Price.

    The Spearhead was far more virulent when it was dominated men.

    Now that you’ve decided to censor men and cater to women, the discussions are not interesting, as nothing is actually discussed.

    Afor has a theory that you’ve shacked up with a new slut, and that’s why you’ve reverted to your mangina ways. Is that so?

    • Or do you just want to make more $$?

      I wish you guys wouldn’t justify your behavior with lies and bullshit. It’s dishonorable. The only possible reasons you have turned The Spearhead into a mangina and woman friendly (and man unfriendly) zone is 1) You are a mangina, 2) You care more about making $$ than about doing something meaningful.

      If you would just be honest about why you’re doing it, like a man, instead of trying to backwards rationalize it with your bullshit, I could respect that.

    • Bah, stupid me, I meant virile, not virulent. It should have read:

      “The Spearhead was far more virulent when it was dominated by men.”

      I can’t believe anyone would seriously claim otherwise unless they have some sort of agenda.

      • God Damn it.

        “The Spearhead was far more virile when it was dominated by men.”

        “The Spearhead was far more virile when it was dominated by men.”

        “The Spearhead was far more virile when it was dominated by men.”

    • Someone is pissed that the white nationalists and other kooks were kicked out of The Spearhead.

      • Ad hominem, I wouldn’t expect any different from a feminist.

        Manginas abound in the land of the manosphere.

      • If you had an argument, you’d make it.

        The Spearhead was far more virile when it was dominated by men, not women and manginas.

        But of course, like a feminist, like a woman, you resort to personal attacks and refuse to argue a point.

        I’m not sure what’s wrong with you guys, who band together to defend each other even when you’re in the wrong. If you don’t want the truth, don’t claim you do.

        The only way we solve men’s problems is by looking for the truth, finding solutions to the problems, and setting up goals.

        Guys like you who just want to whine and complain on the Internet while singing Kumbaya are useful idiots and nothing more.

        • Jeremiah wrote:
          If you had an argument, you’d make it.

          Dude, why don’t you start your own goddamn blog if you’re so dissatisfied with Price & co. And then cultivate an audience. Or do you have one already?

        • If you had an argument, you’d make it.

          There is nothing to argue since you’re just spewing random words.

        • I don’t have to start my own blog.

          The alt right blogosphere already exists, and it has the answers that manginas in the MRM refuse to discuss. Sites like Amerika.org, for example.

          What is the problem you have with my pointing out the failures of “MRM” sites? They have no goals, no solutions in mind. They are places for do-nothing complainers. There’s no point to it.

          So for those men who actually want to do something about the problem, they clearly need to go somewhere else and do something different. The alt right / new right blogosphere is where many end up. Hope to see you there someday!

        • So for those men who actually want to do something about the problem, they clearly need to go somewhere else and do something different. The alt right / new right blogosphere is where many end up.

          If you actually believed this, you wouldn’t have bothered to write three comments here in the last hour. If you believed what you said you wouldn’t be here trying to use MRA blogs to advance your agenda.

        • Jeremiah wrote:
          I don’t have to start my own blog.

          No, I guess you don’t. You can just spend all your time coming onto other men’s-issues blogs and tell them how fucked up they all are. And be written off as a nutcase. Suit yourself.

          What is the problem you have with my pointing out the failures of “MRM” sites? They have no goals, no solutions in mind. They are places for do-nothing complainers. There’s no point to it.

          I’m sure there are places that are a much better use of your time, so don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  32. “Someone is pissed that the white nationalists and other kooks were kicked out of The Spearhead.”

    Yet kooks like Peter Nolan had more fire in his little finger than all his detractors – none of whom could point him to a productive use of his energies. People mocked him and disagreed with him but had nothing to add to him, no conduit to suggest for his wrong solutions. His heart was in the right place but it was more fun for most to mock him with no solutions of their own other than whiiine.

    As for WN, this whining about them reminds me of Ferdinand’s whining about them and for the same reason: A post is made on a racial matter – say Trayvon Martin. The host knows it will boost website traffic and some not-so-nice things will be said. The host (Bill, Ferd, whoever) knows that the same WN guys post on a number of topics without getting into political incorrectness but the host has to stir up traffic so he throws the racial post to the WN wolves, and then yells, “Bad dog!”
    Please. Ferd would whine in the same way, “Those bad WN ruining my site! Waaaah!” Please. Really?

    This is why the women rule. Men have other agendas than helping out their fellow men, and can’t wait to throw men under the bus for sex, money, not kissing big chief’s ass enough, blah, blah, blah…

    I see Price has sex regularly now so all is well with the world. Please…
    My hope is with the young men in their teens and 20s. The older men…please…

    • The real problem here is a lack of integrity.

      These males have been brought up as manginas, not men. In fact they probably don’t even have it in their bones to be men rather than manginas.

      You know, I used to be a bit of a mangina, but I learned not to be. I had the capacity for it. It was always in my DNA, as my father and his line were anything but manginas, they were real motherfucking men.

      Guys like Bill who insist on censoring those they disagree with emotionally, who refuse to discuss issues because they aren’t PC, regardless of whether they’re factual? Manginas through and through, and they won’t ever change.

      These manginas are our ENEMIES. There aren’t many actual men these days. Some call us r’s vs K’s according to r/K selection theory. Whatever you want to call it, only a small percentage of men today are capable of actually acting with integrity and have the intelligence to do something meaningful. The rest are useless idiots or, worse, fighting against us.

      When guys like Bill Price can’t even be honest about why they censor views they disagree with on an emotional level, can’t even argue rationally against those views, betray people who have helped them through the years for expressing those views, well, they simply aren’t men. They’re cowards, eunuchs, cuckolds, manginas.

  33. This was a very good post. From what I have seen in The Manosphere, the only Blogs which is truly an all male space s MGTOW forums and Happy Bachelors. Even on A Voice for Men and The Spearhead women comment from time to time. However on MGTOW forums and Happy Bachelors I have yet to see any women post yet. MGTOW forums was mentioned on this thread as being a truly all male space. Can anyone offer their opinion on why they think no women at all comment on MGTOW and Happy Bachelor forums? Or maybe women have commented on those forums and I just missed the thread(s)?

    • “Can anyone offer their opinion on why they think no women at all comment on MGTOW and Happy Bachelor forums?”

      Because they are manly spaces that don’t pander to women. Instead, they allow men to be men, to speak like men, to argue like to men, and don’t try to force them to be PC like women.

      The-Spearhead used to be like that, for the most part, but Welmer (Bill Price) decided to start harassing and banning users who weren’t PC enough, who dared to speak bluntly like men, who dared to point out that, indeed, AWALT. He decided to mangina the place up, to tell the males there not to speak bluntly and honestly, to pull their punches, and what did he call this? GROWING UP. Literally, he said that talking like men was childish, that the manosphere is growing up by censoring non-PC views, by censoring manly discussion, and by pandering to women and the mainstream. That is pure unadulterated MISANDRY to label masculinity as “childish”. It’s disgusting, really.

      AVfM used to be pretty open as well, but always had a few masculine women around who had some decent input to give and still do. But over time Paul Elam decided to push away men who weren’t really very open to involving women at the forefront, and to censor people in the same way Bill Price at the Spearhead did.

      So why are MGTOW and Happy Bachelor forums spaces for MEN? Because the men who run them refuse to pander to women, refuse to be manginas, refuse to censor masculine men. The direction a site goes is entirely within the owner’s control. If the site owner is a mangina, sooner or later only women and manginas will be around. If he is a man who doesn’t label masculine men as “childish”, then men will stick around and women and manginas will leave.

      Paul Elam and Bill Price, sadly, are manginas. They pander to women and loathe the idea that masculinity has meaning. They abhor The Way of Men because they aren’t good at being men themselves: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/03/the-way-of-men-masculinity-explained/

    • Really excellent article here that gets to the root of the problem in the manosphere: http://www.groin.com/feminism-beats-the-mens-rights-movement/

  34. What’s wrong with alienating women exactly? Most of these groups (geeks, videogames, etc) were developed when women alienated us. Yes there are some women that actually support the movement like GWW, but this is mainly because she just makes some research and exposes what she found out without giving any advice in how it must be taken…she is the only one doing this in the female field, the rest are always trying to impose how their “perfect man is” and are actually feminists or traditionalist leeches. Fuck them.

    In resume let’s alienate them, like EA did in Texas, that’s the only way to keep our spaces.

    • Actually this is a prima facie. Such women were always there – especially when you’re talking about female geeks.

      What actually happened in the last decade was the feminists started this BS that somehow video games and the rest of geek culture were a “patriarchal” space when in fact it had been the domain of male and female OUTCASTS alike for years before that (in fact any gamer worth their salt knows the story of Killcreek handing Romero’s ass to him over a Quake deathmatch to bring up one example).

      In fact I have multiple female geek friends who got into anime and even toy cartoons of the 80s, because they genuinely appealed to them – long before feminists pushed for either as a new frontier for women to get involved with as if they were never on the scene to begin with. In fact it generally put them just as much on the outer as those of us who are male geeks.

      The fact is that geek culture has always been counter-culture and it wasn’t until big blockbusters like Transformers came along (which ironically hardcore fans like myself regard as an abolmination) and the Playstation hit, that toy cartoons and gaming respectively became acceptable.

      In fact, before that it was jocks mocking us just as much as the plastic women and the rad fems out there.

      The same holds true with guys who were gifted in STEM fields and showed it in high school. Have people forgotten that “nerd” and “geek” were still insults not that long ago – heck they still are in many places.

      In fact it was conveniently around the time that feminism that suddenly STEM and being a geek became manly – when ironically before that, being a geek was deemed well and truly “unmanly”.

      So lets cut the hypocritical BS about geek culture and STEM having always been PROUDLY a male space when some of the loudest and most macho voices in the manosphere are going to have been the very same jocks who treated us with nothing but contempt as teenagers in high school and were often viewing us as nothing more than targets for bullying.

      As someone who has always been a male geek and one with a VERY long memory, I can honestly say that anyone making these claims about geek culture ALWAYS being a PROUDLY male space, is either suffering from a very short memory or is completely full of crap.

  35. Lol stated Yes there are some women that actually support the movement like GWW, but this is mainly because she just makes some research and exposes what she found out without giving any advice in how it must be taken…she is the only one doing this in the female field, the rest are always trying to impose how their “perfect man is” and are actually feminists or traditionalist leeches. Fuck them.

    You seem cynical and skeptical in regards to GWW. What do you mean “she just makes some research and exposes what she found out without giving any advice in how it must be taken”?

    • No I’m not skeptical of GWW, she stated why she is interested in the movement and I believe her honestity. I can buy her doing it for her two sons.

      I believe doing research and stating data IS the way to go. You let men take that data and do with it what they want to and take their own decisions on how to approach the problems. You don’t give them directions unless they ask you to do so.

      I am naturally skeptical of every person that tries to impose a way to do things without anybody asking, I can’t help but believe they are just pushing a darker agenda when they do.

  36. I have an idea make male spaces as attractive to women as crab fishing and oil riging.

  37. I think it’s a shame you think video games; STEM subjects and geek culture are only for men. Women enjoy these things too. I grew up playing video games, loved math and science. It’s what I enjoyed. Can you imagine not being able to do these things based on your gender?! All things in life are for both genders and both genders should be treated with respect in all spaces. Sexual harassment as suggested above is horrendous. The idea should be REPULSIVE to you not offered as an effective solution. Can you imagine being sexually harassed in taking part in life activities? I am also concerned with a lot of peoples interpretation of what a feminist is. They can be male or female and just want women to be treated with equality; respect and dignity. This is not a crazy idea!

    • The only thing repulsive to us, are brainwashed feminist retards like you …

      Go learn some hand eye co-ordination before you spout your gender horse-shit

      • I am not brainwashed nor a retard. I know I am equal as a human being and deserve respect as all others do. I have not spouted any gender horse shit and hand eye co-ordination is somewhat irrelevant to the topic isn’t it? :P

        Such a response by yourself is rather emotional and added nothing of value. If you were looking to change my mind your approach is lacking and non-persuasive.

    • All things in life are for both genders

      This is obviously false. Otherwise we wouldn’t have women’s only gyms.

      • Exercise is an activity that both genders take part in. There are men only gyms too. The interesting thing is women like women only gyms not to exclude men but they don’t have to worry about appearance. It can be quite intimidating to lift weights next to guys too. I’ve had guys stare at my body as I work out and say unpleasant things like if I make a noise from exertion this apparently is an acceptable reason to talk about how I want to be fucked. This is extremely intimidating. Especially when surrounded by no other women and other guys who do not seem to care. Women are also told they must always look good (which is rubbish) but it’s why they want private space to work out hard without caring as they believe this societal bull. Perhaps if we could just be respectful people on both sides this wouldn’t happen. It is a corrective action not an ideal that there are gender only gyms. Its the reason why there are guy only gyms and classes so some guys don’t feel they have to compete or perform in a certain way when there are ladies around. They don’t want to be societies alpha male etc.

        The presence of gender only gyms does not make it acceptable to limit activities for different genders either. Especially education. Men are limited by gender roles too. Some are shy and quiet and like activities deemed “feminine” by society. They can’t be who they want either. Please think about how your interests and activities have been shaped by gender roles and tradition that are based purely on culture. It’s silly to limit human potential and enjoyment.

        • Dani wrote:
          There are men only gyms too.

          Any franchises, like Curves? My money is that almost all of them are small, fly-under-the-radar types of operations.

          It can be quite intimidating to lift weights next to guys too.

          Your attitude underscores the reason why women aren’t welcomed into male-only spaces – they continually demand that men alter their behavior to suit women’s comfort. They’re also only too happy to use heavy-handed tools to enforce their will such as the threat of firing or legal action.

        • If guys wanted franchises why not have them? The market calls the demand….. It feels like you feel your saying women are at fault you have no male only gyms or that they are not franchised enough for you… which really isn’t the case there.

          I’m very sorry to inform you but making the disrespectful comments and gestures I referred to is not male behavior and that is offensive to decent men that respect women. Gyms are not male only spaces either – exercise and health is for both genders. You could go to a gym and see this. Most people really don’t care either about mixing with the other gender. It’s not a big deal for them. They go to the gym and work out. Why is acting decently a big task you? Can you imagine if we were talking about white only gyms?

          A white person saying these black people come into my white space and want to be treated with respect… how dare they. I mean COME ON.

          You do understand why laws are there don’t you? To protect people from harmful actions towards them. So maybe no-one should be behaving harmfully towards them in the first place….. so yes they should use appropriate methods to live their lives fully. The same laws protect you also.

        • Dani wrote:
          If guys wanted franchises why not have them?

          Because of the universal law of female hypoagency – if there’s a male-only space that’s sufficiently high-profile and high-status, women will want in and will apply legal and social pressure to do so. Or they’ll simply try and destroy it.

          Examples:

          (1) Augusta Golf Club. Was an exclusive, male-only club. Now admits women as members due to pressure from various quarters, including President Obama.

          (2) Prohibition. Inspired by do-gooders such as Carry Nation, who didn’t like men getting together at a saloon to have a good time.

          (3) Female reporters being allowed inside the locker rooms of pro football players to interview them on the grounds that prohibiting them is “discrimination”.

          There are countless others.


          You do understand why laws are there don’t you? To protect people from harmful actions towards them.

          Using the law for protection is one thing; using it as a weapon to get your way is another.

          I’m very sorry to inform you but making the disrespectful comments and gestures I referred to is not male behavior and that is offensive to decent men that respect women.

          I only respect people who have earned it. That’s one of the biggest issues with women who come into formerly male-only spaces: they want the respect and privileges accorded only to the elite members. In other words, they don’t want to pay their dues.

          The same laws protect you also.

          Current laws in Western countries are highly female-centric. In other words, women are held to a much lower standard than men.

        • “Because of the universal law of female hypoagency – if there’s a male-only space that’s sufficiently high-profile and high-status, women will want in and will apply legal and social pressure to do so. Or they’ll simply try and destroy it.”

          We are still talking about gyms which no-one has a problem with you having right? They exist. No-one cares. Fact.

          Examples:

          (1) Augusta Golf Club. Was an exclusive, male-only club. Now admits women as members due to pressure from various quarters, including President Obama.

          Who have only admitted a few women from what I understand. Can you explain why women should not be able to play golf? It is not a male space. This is not like a gym where you can set one up wherever. They are in fixed locations. Business is carried out in these places. Why again would you exclude people from equal opportunities? Not only that a brief search says black people only used to work here not join in. This should be giving you a hint on your world views.

          (2) Prohibition. Inspired by do-gooders such as Carry Nation, who didn’t like men getting together at a saloon to have a good time.

          Prohibiton was a long time ago…. Why does this make it acceptable to exclude women from STEM subjects, video games and whatever else?! I think you are simplifiying the issue as well. Jesus. By the same logic I could use Hitler to justify how all men feel in all respects to life. Maybe she didn’t like women drinking either?!

          (3) Female reporters being allowed inside the locker rooms of pro football players to interview them on the grounds that prohibiting them is “discrimination”.

          If male reporters go in yeah they would be missing out in their work opportunities. If they have a genuine issue why don’t they say no reporters in the changing rooms?? What is wrong with that? Does the issue not happen with female sports teams too????

          “Using the law for protection is one thing; using it as a weapon to get your way is another.”

          Something both genders can do. :-)

          “I only respect people who have earned it. That’s one of the biggest issues with women who come into formerly male-only spaces: they want the respect and privileges accorded only to the elite members. In other words, they don’t want to pay their dues.”

          The thing is if its a public space anyone can be there and they are to be treated with respect and dignity. No-one owes you dues. Your the one seeing elite members. And I mean are we talking about a freaking gym here? There are elite gym users? o_0 You know what happens when I go to the gym. I use it and go home. As do most people. They pay for it to – no-one owns the gym space.

          “Current laws in Western countries are highly female-centric. In other words, women are held to a much lower standard than men.”

          Saying stuff like that does not make it so. It’s common knowledge that female related laws have not been prioritized. Like in the UK only in 1994 was marital rape became a crime. Domestic violence is only just being considered a crime in itself you individual legislation. Harassment and sexual assault have not been dealt with as seriously as they should have been. Laws relating to contraception and abortion are good examples. We still have marriage certificates where only the fathers name and job are required. Or you know we couldn’t actually vote until recently and make the laws or have any input into them…. we still are underrepresented in this profession too… so yeah. Awkward.

          And just so we’re clear none of this is and justifiable reason to exclude anyone person from STEM subjects or life activities.

        • Who have only admitted a few women from what I understand.

          They shouldn’t admit any.

          Can you explain why women should not be able to play golf?

          No one was stopping them from playing golf – they just weren’t allowed to be members of that golf club.

          It is not a male space.

          It was. Unfortunately it isn’t anymore.

          Why again would you exclude people from equal opportunities?

          Why not let women form their own associations, and pursue their own business opportunities as they see fit? Why the need to piggyback on a male organization? The straightforward answer is they don’t have what it takes to do it themselves.

          Not only that a brief search says black people only used to work here not join in

          I’m fine with them including blacks; I’m not fine with them including women.

          This should be giving you a hint on your world views.

          Feminists love to compare themselves to minorities to
          to trumpet how “oppressed” they are. An upper middle class white woman’s “oppression” has no relationship with an inner city black man’s.

          The thing is if its a public space anyone can be there and they are to be treated with respect and dignity.

          Augusta Golf Club is not a “public space”. It’s an exclusive, invitation-only organization. You are very confused and incoherent.

          It’s common knowledge that female related laws have not been prioritized.

          From what source did you acquire this “common knowlege”? A scabloid rag?

          Like in the UK only in 1994 was marital rape became a crime.

          Marital rape is an absurd crime. If you don’t want to make love, don’t get married. If you don’t want to do it anymore, get a divorce.

          Prohibiton was a long time ago….

          But the busybody, invasive tendencies of female nature still haven’t changed. That’s why I mentioned
          it as an example.

          Why does this make it acceptable to exclude women from STEM subjects,

          They’re excluding themselves for the most part these days. They’d rather get a job in HR or study art history.

          I’ll post the url again :

          http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

          Read it and weep. Or read it and get gina tingles.

    • Dani wrote:
      All things in life are for both genders

      No, one gender innovates and pioneers something new; the other elbows its way in after it’s already established.

      and both genders should be treated with respect in all spaces.

      Women as a group never stop at respect or equality though; they always want the cherry-picked pieces of an activity or space. In other words they demand not just equality but equality with the highest status males in there. That’s why they bitterly complain about being underrepresented as CEOs but never say a word about being underrepresented as truck drivers.

      Sexual harassment as suggested above is horrendous

      I spoke out against it because it can attract a whole raft of legal issues. This is exactly what men don’t want if they’re to maintain their male-only spaces. My guess is you’d change your mind about sexual harassment if Brad Pitt did it to you. Look at corporate workplace policies created by mostly-female HR departments – they’re designed to prevent advances by unattractive men.

      • “No, one gender innovates and pioneers something new; the other elbows its way in after it’s already established.”

        This is a very strange thing to say. Are you not aware of how women have been restricted in the past from education and working so skills and experience have limited involvement in history?. Despite this many women have been pioneers in many fields. Did you know the first programmers were women?

        http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/researcher-reveals-how-%E2%80%9Ccomputer-geeks%E2%80%9D-replaced-%E2%80%9Ccomputergirls%E2%80%9D

        Thats just one example. Would you ever say to black person who wanted to share white space after they had been in slavery that they were elbowing there way in to established space like they had no reason to be there?

        “Women as a group never stop at respect or equality though; they always want the cherry-picked pieces of an activity or space. In other words they demand not just equality but equality with the highest status males in there. That’s why they bitterly complain about being underrepresented as CEOs but never say a word about being underrepresented as truck drivers.”

        I don’t think you really understand the issue. They don’t want to be cherry picked to be in a space. They wanted to be considered equally. Take the UK for example if we are looking at CEOs as you bring them up. Recruitment firms have said women with relevant experience and skills are not getting CEO jobs despite being suitable to do the job. They are being overlooked purely due to gender bias. On the FTSE 100 12.5% of board members are women. They are as equally able to do the job yet not getting equal representation. That’s not wanting to be cherry picked at all.

        Trucking is a male dominated area too. Yet many women are already in low paying non-skilled work elsewhere; much more so then men. This is the reality of the situation. To turn this on its head can you imagine living in a world where based on your sex you were overlooked for board work and were told your valid reason was somehow irrelevant as you did not complain about being a receptionists or secretary too?

        “I spoke out against it because it can attract a whole raft of legal issues. This is exactly what men don’t want if they’re to maintain their male-only spaces. My guess is you’d change your mind about sexual harassment if Brad Pitt did it to you. Look at corporate workplace policies created by mostly-female HR departments – they’re designed to prevent advances by unattractive men.”

        Ok. Erm you don’t sexually harass people because its not nice. Like you don’t murder people as its not ok – not because of the legal issues being an issue afterwards…. Sexual harassment is unwanted attention – so no I do not wanted to be sexually harassed. That makes about much sense as saying I wouldn’t complain about Brad Pitt raping me. Just so we are clear I don’t want Brad Pitt to rape me. Would you mind if Brad Pitt raped you? You suggest because he is attractive it’s acceptable for him to act this way? Or that because he is attractive a person must automatically want it? Neither propositions make logical sense.

        Now sexually harassment policies are in place so women are not sexually harassed by men in a work space… because it’s unpleasant. Sexual harassment procedures are in place to protect men too. No-one should be sexually harassed. Like no-one should be murdered or beaten or raped or robbed. When HR have policies on sick leave or holiday would you say these purely originate from gender?? Your seeing illogical links I’m afraid. I also think it is fair to say many male HR workers would be decent enough to have sexual harassment policies in place as they recognize its unpleasant and should not happen to anyone.

        • Dani wrote:
          Are you not aware of how women have been restricted in the past from education and working

          So have most men, except a small elite.

          so skills and experience have limited involvement in history?.

          Yet the removal of those restrictions has brought absolutely no increase in female creativity. For the most part, women don’t invent or pioneer new things. It’s the men who take the risks and do the spadework. That’s a pattern that repeats itself throughout history – men blaze a new trail and then women follow along and demand to share in the spoils.


          Now sexually harassment policies are in place so women are not sexually harassed by men in a work space

          Real sexual harassment usually has an element of quid pro quo – such as “give me a blow job or you’re fired”. Corporate HR rarely has to deal with those types of incidents. So their policy is almost completely directed at unattractive men lower in the hierarchy.

          Sexual harassment procedures are in place to protect men too.

          I don’t need a sexual harassment procedure – I’m quite capable of telling someone to get lost myself.

          Yet many women are already in low paying non-skilled work elsewhere; much more so then men. This is the reality of the situation.

          94% of workplace deaths are men; Warren Farrell noted that in the Jobs Rated Almanac 24 of the 25 worst jobs were 95-100% men. Women don’t want to do unpleasant work that pays a premium. That’s why jobs like coal miner or crab fishing are pretty much male-only.

        • “So have most men, except a small elite.”

          Someone is being willfully ignorant. Women until recent history were kept at home. Men wern’t…. Please read a history book.

          so skills and experience have limited involvement in history?.

          Yet the removal of those restrictions has brought absolutely no increase in female creativity. For the most part, women don’t invent or pioneer new things. It’s the men who take the risks and do the spadework. That’s a pattern that repeats itself throughout history – men blaze a new trail and then women follow along and demand to share in the spoils.

          I’m very sorry but women have achieved things despite the bias against them and have vastly imporved economic output. Why do you think western countries do so well. They do a lot of the unpaid work at home as well. Your really just making stuff up now.. And keeping them out of fields they wish to go into is not a very logical thing to do if creativity and output is a real concern for you. I’m pretty sure one gender isn’t entitled to “spoils” more than an other. You get the job based on merit right? It appears your actually saying men have some kind of predetermined right to get jobs (sounds like cherry picking to me).

          Now sexually harassment policies are in place so women are not sexually harassed by men in a work space

          Real sexual harassment usually has an element of quid pro quo – such as “give me a blow job or you’re fired”. Corporate HR rarely has to deal with those types of incidents. So their policy is almost completely directed at unattractive men lower in the hierarchy.

          What are you on about. It’s aimed at every person in the company. I explained this with clarity before. Sexual harassment is not just demanding blow jobs. Its unwanted sexual touching and comments that are inappropriate to the work space. To be frank your the one fixated on looks here.

          I don’t need a sexual harassment procedure – I’m quite capable of telling someone to get lost myself.

          So people shouldn’t have protections in place for them??? I shall tell murderers we should not have crimes for murder because you can protect yourself etc.

          Yet many women are already in low paying non-skilled work elsewhere; much more so then men. This is the reality of the situation.

          94% of workplace deaths are men; Warren Farrell noted that in the Jobs Rated Almanac 24 of the 25 worst jobs were 95-100% men. Women don’t want to do unpleasant work that pays a premium. That’s why jobs like coal miner or crab fishing are pretty much male-only.

          Dude. If you have a problem with bad working conditions get help for the people in these fields right? Why should anyone have to die at work? This isn’t a gender based work death competition. I mean lets not even go there about how a woman would be treated if you turned up to work as a coal miner or crab fisher. If you feel these are the worst jobs come be a receptionist or a secretary or shop assistant or nanny or nurse. No-one is stopping you.

          And for the record when women do the same work as guys they get paid less for it as a trend not the other way around.

          Again no reason to justify treating anyone else like poorly.

  38. Someone is being willfully ignorant.

    Willful ignorance there is, but it isn’t me.

    Women until recent history were kept at home. Men wern’t….

    No, they were working backbreaking, dangerous jobs, usually to support their families. There’s no reason to believe that working all day as a ditchdigger allows any more opportunity to better yourself than staying at home.

    Please read a history book.

    Read plenty of them – mostly of the non-PC kind.

    I’m very sorry but women have achieved things despite the bias against them

    The current governmental and social bias is now almost entirely in their favor. Look at all the laws and policies directed at hiring more women. Or the current
    programs for women’s health and other concerns.

    and have vastly imporved economic output.

    No they have not. What the influx of women has done has depressed wages due to increased labor supply, raised the overhead of businesses, raised the prices of the real estate market, and distorted the markets – women are far more likely than me to purchase frivolous products such as extra shoes or jewelry.

    The url below has something to say about women’s place in Western society.

    http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

    About sexual harassment policies:
    What are you on about. It’s aimed at every person in the company.

    I see no burning need for sexual harassment policies or an enforcement arm in an all-male work environment such as a crab fishing boat or a football lineup. The straightforward conclusion is that sexual harassment policy is for the benefit of women and with women’s concerns in mind, not men’s.

    I explained this with clarity before.

    You wouldn’t know clarity if it bit you on the ass, which is why your screeds are so verbose.

    Why should anyone have to die at work?

    Because some necessary jobs are inherently dangerous. The ones who are willing to bear that risk are almost all men.

    And for the record when women do the same work as guys they get paid less for it as a trend not the other way around.

    Your evidence?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

  39. Well, how do you make a “black-only” space? A “whites only” space? A “no Jews” space? A “Hindi only” space?

    Seems like you’d use the same tactics as the past before civil rights took hold. Are you a Jew wanting to get into our WASP country club? Membership denied. Are you a black person wanting to live in the white neighborhood? Nope, local law says you can’t.

    On an on-line community, you just ban those you don’t want. Of course, in forums where you and like minded individuals don’t make the rules, you can’t do this. You’ll just have to accept that things have changed. You can’t ban women from STEM professions, and making the environment hostile for them gets you sued. You can’t ban women from geekdom because it’s not yours.

    You want to make an on line forum just for men? Go ahead. Ban the women. Delete this comment. You don’t have to make the environment hostile, or create rules with double standards for the purpose of banning women… Uh… Fairly.

    Just be honest and straightforward about your intentions. State clearly, on the blog’s mission, that you have an on-line forum for men. Women are not allowed, and will be banned and their comments deleted without notice.

    Simple.

    • Well, how do you make a “black-only” space? A “whites only” space? A “no Jews” space? A “Hindi only” space?

      Except for a whites only space, all those spaces exist so someone knows.

      You can’t ban women from STEM professions

      Women have done a good job of banning themselves from STEM. This doesn’t give them the right to destroy men in STEM professions.

      You can’t ban women from geekdom because it’s not yours.

      No, but you can ban people who are hostile to geekdom from geekdom. That would include most women.

      In the US we still have this thing called freedom of association. You don’t get to trample on it.

  40. Lynn wrote:
    On an on-line community, you just ban those you don’t want.

    On the Internet, no one knows if you’re a dog. Or a woman. She’ll out herself after a while (attention whoring or talking excessively about herself are dead giveaways), but recognizing and taking out the trash is still a headache.

    The problem is especially bad in highly trafficked forums since the moderator often doesn’t have time to read all the messages. Requiring registration can cut down on some of this, but then fewer people contribute.

    You can’t ban women from STEM professions

    Startups tend to have such arduous working conditions that the percentage of women in them approaches zero. Women only want to come in after the heavy lifting has been done and the company is successful. The problem with that is they still demand the privileges accorded to the guys who built the thing from scratch, and also that the company culture change to suit their wants and needs.

    The height of this absurdity is shown in the Donglegate fiasco, where a female “Developer Evangelist” (aka “affirmative action hire who couldn’t code her way out of a wet paper bag”) tattled on two men on her Twitter feed for sharing a tame joke about “big dongles” at the Pycon conference in March of this year. One of them got fired as a result. In this case, the resulting karma blowback led to the tattletale herself losing her job, but my money is that at least some male developers are asking themselves if working with women or hiring them is worth the trouble. It’s not as if they’re contributing any vital skills or expertise.

    You don’t have to make the environment hostile

    But the only environments that women don’t try and invade are the ones that are actively hostile to them. Either the subject matter is something they don’t like, the working conditions are uncomfortable or dangerous, or both.

    • Well if women aren’t in STEM professions, why are you complaining about it? And if their presence is so small, then it’s negligible. Who cares?
      And if they are in STEM professions as a sizeable minority, well, regardless of what you personally consider their work ethic or talent is, you can’t do anything about it. Our society has decided that making a working environment hostile to women, minorities, etc. is illegal.

      As for freedom of association, well yes. That’s the point. Women are free to enjoy geekdom. It’s not yours to decide who can and can’t participate. Regardless of what your views are or what you think “women” are doing. That’s the country we live in. There are countries that still ban women from certain professions and past times. So your views still exist and are put into practice in some places. Although, those countries are changing too. Slowly.

      Now, as I was saying, a forum which you and like minded individuals run, sure. You set the rules. Just as blacks, Jews, Catholics, Native Americans, Hispanics and women were once banned from various aspects of life, you too, can also ban. It’s simple. But only on a forum you control.

      I just wonder about what the fuss is about. You complain that banning/deleting accounts takes time because women will no doubtedly disguise themselves and it takes time to out them. But it also takes time to out the women, and then make a concerted effort to be hostile to them. What’s the difference? As these women are outed, there will be more hostility directed at them anyway. Seems like the OP is splitting hairs.

      Also, where are places where whites are banned? I’ve never heard of such a thing but you say that these places exist.

      • Lynn wrote:
        Well if women aren’t in STEM professions, why are you complaining about it?

        I’m not the one complaining about it, it’s the self-appointed social justice warriors who are. To appease the EEOC and feminazis, it’s not uncommon for companies to hire token females with pretentious titles like “Developer Evangelist” and pay them an excessive salary. Whatever that is, it’s not social justice.

        And if they are in STEM professions as a sizeable minority, well,

        It’s a minority that’s continuing to lose ground, despite all the frantic attempts at boosterism.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorikozlowski/2012/03/22/women-in-tech-female-developers-by-the-numbers/

        I believe the numbers shown tend to inflate the percentages of women artificially because tech women are often fast-tracked to roles such as project management where performance is far more difficult to accurately gauge.

        The female developers I do see are almost all foreign-born. If they do it, they usually work with only one language and treat it as a day job without much passion.

        you can’t do anything about it.

        I’m going to let nature take its course on this one. Even the lamestream media can’t hide the underperformance of women in tech nor the problems they have caused.

        Our society has decided that making a working environment hostile to women, minorities, etc. is illegal.

        Translation: some companies are required to hire and retain dead weight in order to not run afoul of the gods of affirmative action. ‘Our society’ of course is very selective at to what types of work it’s necessary to have ‘equality’. Note that there’s no such push for equal representation in plumbing or crab fishing.

        The jobs that are coveted are usually white collar, very well paid, and appear at least on the surface to be easy and fun. But real software development is more often than not brutally hard and can push developers to their physical and mental limits.

        Women are free to enjoy geekdom.

        What the hell is that supposed to mean? Look up the percentage of female contributors to efforts such as open source – it approaches zero percent. That tells me all I need to know about how much they collectively “enjoy geekdom”.

        There’s a saying in Texas – all hat, no cattle. That pretty much describes what passes for female geekdom – it’s almost all attention whoring and an attempt to take credit for stuff they didn’t create.

        It’s not yours to decide who can and can’t participate.

        I don’t decide who can and can’t participate. They just don’t make any real contributions in significant numbers. They do try and invade male spaces and demand men alter their behavior to suit them.

        I just wonder about what the fuss is about.

        A blogger named Fifth Horseman has noted that women usually don’t grasp cause and effect very well. You should read his essay The Misandry Bubble.

        http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

        Also, where are places where whites are banned?

        I never brought race into this discussion. I didn’t see any whites at this African-American club meeting that I accidentally walked in on once. My straightforward conclusion is that they don’t allow whites to become members.

  41. Become Happier By Avoiding Sex, Marriage, Fatherhood, And Parental Alienation Syndrome.

    [Introduction]

    My information is a combination of three stories. The first story describes one of the most important books that I have ever read (Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome by Amy Baker). The second story uses information from online articles to reveal events that are enormously influenced by family problems (like Parental Alienation Syndrome). Parental Alienation Syndrome is probably the worst family problem because it can last for decades after the relationship with the spouse or the lover has ended. The other family problems can be eliminated when the couples divorce or when the unmarried couples separate. The third story explains why parental alienation methods were used against me by an unexpected group of people.

    [Book Summary]

    Forty adult participants were interviewed for Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome (by Amy Baker). The book has a lot of long and informative quotes from those interviews. During childhood, each of the 40 adult participants had an alienating parent (usually the mother) that manipulated them into unjustly hating (or pretending to hate) the targeted parent. Many participants said that they were frequently forced to make hateful or belittling comments to the targeted parent even though they secretly loved the targeted parent. The book gives a detailed explanation of each method the alienating parent used to manipulate or brainwash their children. The United States would become a better country if every targeted parent made their children read and talk to them about this book.

    [Married Life With Children]

    Many alienating parents manipulated their children into hating the targeted parent even though the married couple lived in the same home. The targeted parents are usually unaware of this hatred because the alienating parents and their children decide to keep their hatred a secret as long as the targeted parents (usually the father) stay in the marriage. One child secretly wanted his father to die. The targeted parent thought that his spouse and child were at home in another part of town, but the child was watching him (probably through a window) because the alienating parent told her son to secretly spy on his father. As an adult, the child finally told his father about the childhood spying, the secret hatred, and the other secrets.

    In some marriages, the alienating parent made hateful or belittling comments to the targeted parent. In some of the openly hostile marriages, the children also made hateful or belittling comments to the targeted parent. During the marriage, children saw the alienating parent abuse the targeted parent (verbal abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a combination of abuses). The author believes that many of the alienating parents had a personality disorder like narcissism (other disorders were named in the book). Family problems (including Parental Alienation Syndrome) affected the children. “Nearly half of college-age adults [19-25 year old students and non-students] struggle with a mental health disorder, from alcohol dependency to depression and anxiety. But only a quarter seek” treatment (“Young Adults Hit By Mental Health Issues,” BaltimoreSun.com).

    One reason marriage rates are decreasing is because more people are witnessing the divorces and the unhappy marriages of numerous family and friends. People that were older than 20 and had divorced parents were 33 percent less likely to ever get married (“Research Suggests Children Of Divorce More Likely To End Their Own Marriages,” UNews.Utah.edu). The percentage of people older than 18 that were currently married was 72 percent in 1960 and 51 percent in 2010 (“Marriage Rate In America Drops Drastically,” HuffingtonPost.com). “According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, in 1980 only 6 percent of men between 40 and 44 had never been married; in 2008 it was 16 percent (“The Stigma Of The Never-Married Man,” Details.com).” Fifty-six percent (56%) of all men and 65 percent of men with bachelor degrees remained in their first marriage for at least 20 years (“Only Half Of First Marriages Last 20 Years,” Today.com). “Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women (“Debunking 10 Divorce Myths,” Health.HowStuffWorks.com).”

    [Child Support And Child Visitation]

    Fifty percent (50%) of the children born to married parents will see their parents divorce before they reach the age of 18 (“Statistics on Children of Divorce in America,” About.com). Custodial parents (usually the mother) can ignore child visitation orders because there is usually no punishment (“Visitation Rights Must Be Enforced,” Cleveland.com). One father was divorced, he had child visitation problems after the divorce, and he remarried the alienating parent because he wanted adequate contact with his child. Some mothers will ask the family court for an increase in child support payments if the father’s income increases significantly. A few websites like LegalZoom.com answer the question: “Can I go after my ex-husband’s new wife’s income for more child support?” The answer is that in “limited circumstances” the ex-wife would get an increase in child support payments.

    “Our [1997] data show that 4.5 million [56% of non-poor] nonresident fathers who do not pay child support have no apparent financial reason to avoid this responsibility. None of these fathers are poor (“Poor Dads Who Don’t Pay Child Support,” Urban.org).” In 2008, nearly 25 percent of parents did not pay any court-ordered child support, and another 30 percent did not pay the full amount (“Most Child-Support Payers Stiff Their Kids,” CBSNews.com). Twenty-four percent (24%) of custodial mothers did not receive any court-ordered child support from fathers, and thirty-seven percent (37%) of custodial fathers did not receive any court-ordered child support from mothers (“Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1991,” page 6, Census.gov).

    The primary reason for child support delinquency is child visitation problems. Another reason is a “vindictive or unjust” divorce process (“The Family; Why Fathers Don’t Pay Child Support,” NYTimes.com). “Men Who Broke” (FathersForLife.org) has many stories of men that committed suicide because of enormous child support arrears or child visitation problems. Some fathers that are victims of Parental Alienation Syndrome pay the full amount of court-ordered child support, and some fathers that were treated well by their families do not pay the full amount of court-ordered child support. Father’s family court problems were explained extremely well in A Promise to Ourselves by Alec Baldwin (book) and Divorce Corp by Joseph Sorge (book and DVD).

    When the children became adults that no longer lived with either parent, many alienating parents (usually the mother) would continue to prevent their children from establishing a relationship with the targeted parent. Many adult alienated children eventually had a positive relationship with the targeted parent. Many children will be permanently alienated from their fathers. Single divorced men with permanently alienated children and never-married men that never had children will be in a SIMILAR situation in their old age.

    [Old Age]

    “In-Home Care For Frail Childless Adults” (Urban.org) reveals the percentage of frail older men (age 65 and older) living in the community that receive in-home care from paid help and unpaid help (family and friends). The information excludes men living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Frail unmarried older men with no children received help 50.4 percent of the time (37.9% unpaid help and 20.3% paid help). Frail older men (both married and unmarried) with two children received help 59.8 percent of the time (58.4% unpaid help and 9.3% paid help).

    Nursing homes and assisted living facilities are alternatives to in-home care. “Ohio nursing home and assisted living facility residents rated their overall satisfaction with the care they receive in the ‘B+’ range, according to a statewide survey by the Ohio Department of Aging (“Ohio Nursing Home Residents Rate Facilities Well In State Survey,” Cleveland.com). During old age, the entire Social Security payment of some fathers is confiscated by the government to pay child support (current and past-due). It does not matter if the child is an adult, if the debt was created decades ago, or if the father does not have another source of income (“Child Support vs. Social Security,” BankRate.com).

    [Share The Wealth]

    The emotional harassment that I experienced from an unexpected group of people (since 2001) is very similar to the parental alienation methods described in this book. Before I joined the Navy, I almost always worked minimum wage jobs (mostly in Atlanta, GA). My female Navy enlisted recruiter encouraged me to become a Navy Officer because she saw that I had a bachelor’s degree. I was too old to qualify for most officer job categories as a civilian. The age limits were higher for Navy enlisted personnel. I was interested in the officer program during my first several months of active duty, but I decided not to apply. For ten years (2001-2011), I was a Navy enlisted sailor on active duty in San Diego (CA). My significantly improved financial status caused women and society to change from not caring about my personal life to using emotional harassment to demand that I get a girlfriend and become a father.

    I live alone, I have never been married, and I do not have any children. I used to have sex with women before I began practicing sexual abstinence. “Effectiveness Of Family Planning Methods” (CDC.gov) and “Contraception” (CDC.gov) reveal that the “typical use failure rate” for condoms is 18 pregnancies per 100 women per year (18 percent). Some single condom users want to wear two condoms at the same time. A few women that want to get pregnant will lie and say that male contraceptives are not needed because they are sterile or because they are using female contraceptives. I am happy practicing sexual abstinence and avoiding having a girlfriend because both plans allow me to avoid marriage and fatherhood. The percentage of women at the end of their childbearing years (the 40-44 age group) that have never given birth was 10 percent in 1976 and 18 percent in 2008 (“Childlessness Up Among All Women,” PewSocialTrends.org).

    For the first time in my life (starting in 2001, when I was 32 years old), there was an extreme and coordinated effort to emotionally harass me at work and near my home. The emotional harassment continued after I moved from Atlanta (GA) to San Diego (CA). When I was near my home, strangers that I saw only once would either emotionally harass me or spy on me (child spying is described in my third paragraph). A hacker could spy on my laptop or smartphone (“WiFi Snooping: Who’s Spying On Your Laptop?,” KMOV.com). Company employees can view customer information like my online email account, my bank account, and my brokerage account (“Employees Snoop On Customer Data,” ABCNews.Go.com). My harassers often have information (negative and positive) that I did not reveal to anyone.

    [Doctor’s Visit]

    I was VERY ANGRY at the beginning of the emotional harassment (in 2001), but I got used to it. In 2010, my Commanding Officer (O-6 rank) forced me to see a psychiatrist even though I felt fine. I learned that the Navy does not need a very good reason to make a service member see a psychiatrist. I took a psychological test, and I talked to the psychiatrist. At the beginning of the session, I put a tape recorder on the table. I told the psychiatrist that I will record the entire session. I did not tell her that if I received an unfair diagnosis, then I would have used the tapes to get a second opinion from a psychiatrist that I would have hired. One year after I left the Navy, I destroyed the tapes. The psychiatrist decided that I should live at a Navy mental hospital for three days for observation. The Navy mental hospital told me that I did not have any mental disorders.

    The psychiatrist said that information from my session would be revealed to my high-level supervisors (E-9 rank and above). Even if I was not warned, I would not have told the psychiatrist anything that I did not want the entire world to know. The harassers at my new job location and near my home knew specific things that I told the psychiatrist. The harassers were unable to get any damaging information. Before my 2005 re-enlistment, I knew that I would leave the Navy in 2011 (Honorable Discharge as an E-5). The emotional harassment will last for the rest of my life because I will not become an ATM machine (paying child support for my alienated children that I am rarely allowed to contact). “’In the 1950s, if you weren’t married, people thought you were mentally ill,’ said Andrew J. Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins University sociologist who studies families (“Married Couples At A Record Low,” WashingtonPost.com).”

    [The Boycott]

    The emotional harassment increased my desire to do research on marriage and fatherhood. The more research I did, the worse marriage and fatherhood looked. Marriage and fatherhood is much worse than the emotional harassment that I frequently deal with. I am used to the emotional harassment. The only major problem that I have is unemployment. Avoiding sex, marriage, and fatherhood means that I solved my future problems with family court and the unfair fatherhood laws BEFORE it was too late. If a large percentage of men boycotted family court and the unfair fatherhood laws for their entire life, then society would eventually be FORCED to create a better system. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) in the United States and Herbivore Men in Japan are large groups of men that are avoiding sex, marriage, fatherhood, and Parental Alienation Syndrome.

    A Promise to Ourselves by Alec Baldwin (book) and Divorce Corp by Joseph Sorge (book and DVD) exposes a broken family court system that frequently does not care about “the best interests of the child.” Any solution to family court and the unfair fatherhood laws should have the goal of preventing unfair changes to the improved system after the children are born. One possible solution would be to pass laws that create “parental contracts” (similar to prenuptial agreements) that cover child custody, child visitation, and child support payments. The “parental contract” could require both parents to allow yearly “parental alienation awareness training” for their children.

    The “parental contract” laws would reduce the number of unfair negotiated contracts. The law would have mandatory minimum child support payments. The “parental contracts” would allow both parents to avoid paying child support if both parents have an equal amount of child custody. If the custodial parent refused a non-custodial parent’s child visitation, then there could be a two-part punishment in the “parental contract” (a “flow reversal” punishment). In the first part, the permanent non-custodial parent would get temporary custody of the children for at least one month. In the second part, the direction of the child support payments would reverse during the temporary custody period. The permanent custodial parent would have to pay child support. A fair system would mean that fewer non-custodial parents would have child support arrears. Allegations of child abuse would have to be proven in a CRIMINAL court. A conviction would authorize the criminal court (not the family court) to punish the defendant by canceling or by modifying their “parental contract.” Parents (married and unmarried) without a “parental contract” would be in another system. [Written by Michael Anthony Hill in Miami, FL (07-01-14)]

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: