Dec 102012
 

I always enjoy reading Barbarossaaaa’s blog.  He always has good stuff like a couple of good examples of tradcon feminist women.

His most recent post has to do with the problem of obfuscating the complicity of women in the MRM.  This is a real problem.  Barbarossaaaa uses the example of supposed MRAs who say that men would divorce women as much as women divorce men now if given the opportunity:

“Well men do it too, if men were given the legal power to destroy women in divorce proceeding they’d be divorcing in equal numbers” etc.

This is standard operating procedure (for self depracating, koombaya, and upon the collapse of feminism men and women lived in wedded bliss forever and ever) MRA types.

Never mind the study that I mentioned in my anti traditionalism videos, showing two and a half decades worth, of women exhibiting a 40% increase in initiating divorce if they were the primary breadwinners in the household. Here it is directly quoted from the article itself.

But career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources, according to a 25-year study by Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash.

Researchers found that the tipping point is when the wife pulled in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. And it didn’t matter how rich or poor the pair were. Race, however, is a factor; more impact for whites than blacks.

According to this study, women, regardless of whether or not they are affluent or poor, will still chose to trade up and marry more successful men for wealth/status. This is hypergamy in its purest sense, and yet pointing it out in the manosphere will trigger knee jerk grand mal seizures from self loathing, utopian MRA’s that have declared a war on pointing out any correlative behavior women exhibit with feminism.

In the land where unicorns roam, and correlative female behaviors must not be named, the ministry of love regularly gins out tripe such as the quote below for export to my channel’s comment section:

If women could get off their ass and earn/invest at the same rate as the men we would see 50% divorce rates (roughly).

Unless you can aptly demonstrate hypergamous behavior as being STRICTLY a female trait then it is useless for MRAs or MGTOG to obsesses over.

Who said it (a troll with multiple sock puppet accounts) is irrelevant at this point. What matters is that we acknowledge this indigestible pig slop for the complete and utter NAWALT deflection that it is. Men won’t progress in our understanding of women and feminism until we do. These types will invariably give you the “women are the great victims of feminism” conned by those evil evil…(insert your preferred bogeyman -Marxists, Rothschilds, the “Left”-) conspiracy theory. The qeustion they never ask is if feminism was a big bad conspiracy to destroy families, then why were ONLY women given the power to divorce without consequence?. If the goal was to destroy families, surely they would encourage and legally empower both men and women towards frivolous divorce.

Or wait, could it be that… (Nah never mind –shudders-)

Eh..fuck it I’ll say it. Could it be that women are naturally inclined to divorce men the moment they don’t need them anymore?. Could it be that men (generally speaking) are very much less likely to abandon their families than women are?

These two questions at the end are the types of questions that too many men refuse to ask including many men in the MRM.  Like Barbarossaaaa says this is nothing but a form of NAWALT that doesn’t fit the facts of what is going on.  The overlap with conspiracy theory is not a surprise at all because for anyone who refuses to believe that women are complicit with feminism, some group of men must be blamed no matter what.  It doesn’t matter how absurd the explanation is or if it completely fails to fit the facts (as it does in this case because men would be equally empowered towards frivolous divorce to maximize the destruction of families).  This means that conspiracy theory in addition to all of its other problems is an extreme form of NAWALT.

Whether its frivolous divorce or anything else in feminism, the fact is women are complicit with it.  No amount of obfuscation will change that fact.

  3 Responses to “Obfuscating The Complicity Of Women”

  1. True.

    My hypothesis (yes,I know this sounds stupid,bear with me) is that women are naturally threatened by men on an instinctive,subconscious level. This feeling of fear and the resultant hatred has nothing to do with anything men do. It is simply the same mixture of fear and awe men and animals have for fire. To women, we look like grizzly bears that have been semi-tamed to plow fields. We’re very useful,but potentially dangerous. Women can’t stand the potential of risk or danger anywhere near them,except possibly when they’re ovulating and their bodies tell them to seek out the “dangerous” male for breeding.The subconscious fear women feel leads to, as it does in men, the desire to eradicate the source of the “threat”. Hence, as soon as a man is no longer necessary to a woman’s survival, she attempts to put him down as though he were a suped-up grizzly taught to plow a field.

    All the nonsensical talk we heard from 70’s feminists and still hear today in some quarters about how “Men are threatened by powerful women” or “Men can’t handle a strong woman” is pure projection. They are attempting to describe the revulsion men feel at being approached by a woman who resembles a man more than a woman,which is really just heterosexuality working properly, in terms they understand-i.e. fear of the dangerous powerful beast. Of course,this idea is ridiculous from a man’s point of view, even women who are dangerous psychopaths are often turned into helpless waifs in our minds, or sick little girls, or an absurd spectacle. Fear of any type of woman is the last emotion we’d experience,which is precisely the problem.

    If we were half as afraid of dangerous women as we are Muslim suicide bombers or Marxists or Bilderbergers or whoever,we wouldn’t need the Manosphere. Women would need 6 different forms of ID to walk down the streets wearing a GPS ankle bracelet and subject to any number of random cavity searches (for actual security reasons) along the way. Personally, I think they should all be microchipped at birth so whenever any of them pulls some shit, their chip can be tagged from 600 or 1000 yards or whatever the legal limit is by the aggrieved man.Most of them would probably be down with it too if you told them it was for free healthcare or shoes or some shit that they want. They’d microchip the fuck out of their kids for free shoes or healthcare,

  2. I think if the laws were equal and husbands continue to be treated like property then yes the rate of divorce intiated by husbands would significantly increase. Who really wants to be tied to a self centered wife for the rest of their life? I dont think most would go out of their way to destroy women, rather they would want to get on with their lives wihout being taken to the cleaners. They would want to put their x-wife in the past as nothing more than a distant nightmare.

  3. @Thanatos

    Brilliantly said …

    “If we were half as afraid of dangerous women as we are Muslim suicide bombers or Marxists or Bilderbergers or whoever,we wouldn’t need the Manosphere.

    Women would need 6 different forms of ID to walk down the streets wearing a GPS ankle bracelet and subject to any number of random cavity searches (for actual security reasons) along the way. Personally, I think they should all be microchipped at birth so whenever any of them pulls some shit, their chip can be tagged from 600 or 1000 yards or whatever the legal limit is by the aggrieved man.Most of them would probably be down with it too if you told them it was for free healthcare or shoes or some shit that they want. They’d microchip the fuck out of their kids for free shoes or healthcare,”

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

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this:
Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys