Apr 142013
 

Josh the Aspie said in my most recent post on circumcision:

“Womb-wisdom”. Is that like scrotal-smarts?

Seriously, this seems to be a primary example of the feminine imperative. If something isn’t all about women, and how it affects them, then that thing must be made to be all about women

First of all, I love the term, “scrotal smarts”.  We need to remember that one when a woman starts about “womb wisdom” or “feminine intuition”.

Josh is right that women feel the need to make anything and everything about them.  Baby BOYS being circumcised definitely isn’t about women because women don’t have penises.

I have seen the same thing when it comes to medical conditions that only men can have.  I remember several years ago seeing commercials on TV about how men need to get checked for prostate cancer for their “families” (in other words, women) even though prostate cancer has nothing to do with women.

In the movie, Fight Club, Helena Bonham Carter’s character goes to the same testicular cancer support group that the main character, a man, does.  At one point she says that she has more of a right to go a testicular cancer support group than the main character does.  While that is an absurd idea, I think we may not be that far away from women trying to take over male only medical conditions like that.  For women it has to be all about them even if it’s biologically impossible for it to be about them like with testicular cancer.

  21 Responses to “The Feminine Imperative: All About Women”

  1. The problem is of course that the gynocentric system is set up precisely this way. Nuturing, caring, compassion, vulnerabbility – regardless of whether they apply to men or women – are deemed “feminine” or only to be in the domain of women.

    In turn, vulnerability, compassion, caring and nurturing are deemed outside what is an acceptable domain for men – even when they are the victim/sufferer of some trauma or disease. That incidentally is why it’s “women and children” rather than “men and children”.

    This incidentally is why tradcons – either the open and blatant kind, or the closet kind who pose as MRAs – are no friend to the men’s rights movement. To recognise the issue of male disposability, you need to be able to recognise that there is a masculine gender construct there. Yes a fraction of it is rooted in biology, but a heap of it is rooted in the utility of men and women.

    The fact is that in addition to undoing misandrist legislation, one of the biggest challenges for the MRM is to discover just what is authentic masculinity. Where does the biology end and where does the social conditioning begin? Tradcons will argue that the traditional situation was “ideal” for men, but tell that to the men who don’t “make the grade”. Of course such men, according to society, are deemed to be [to borrow a phrase from Hitler that was used to describe the disabled] “life unworthy of life” and are subsequently ‘exposed’ through either proxy violence, destitution or suicide. Such men are deemed irrelevent – both to the arguments of tradcons and as human beings in the minds of tradcons.

    The fact is that we don’t know what authentic masculinity is as a race. Where does the biology end and the social conditioning end? If a man even challenges through their nature, what the biological should result in, does it truly make them less masculine?

    The only way we will ever truly get rid of male disposability, is if we reject the social utility aspects of masculinity. By all means, if men happen to authentically exhibit those traits, then more power to them. However there is nothing shameful or effeminate about a man if he posesses traits which fly in the face of that. It is only when we say that things like caring, compassion, nurturing and vulnerablity can be masculine and that they comprise a perfectly natural, and authentic masculinity, that men’s problems will remain men’s problems.

  2. even if there is a way to get women to think beyond themselves, it would still require something that benefits her in some way. society (and feminism) will give women a pass for this while shaming men for even considering men’s issues.

    • This incidentally is why I think women’s issues shouldn’t be off the table for us. What I am about to say will iniitially seem counterintuitive, but if you follow it through, it will actually make complete sense from a men’s rights perspective.

      Here’s the thing – the current debate with most if not all of women’s issues centres around the central theme of women being victimised and needing to be white knighted. In other words, the premise of this approach is to combat female infantalisation with, wait for it, more female infantalisation. As long as the stock and trade of women’s issues is female infantalisation, then male disposability will be deemed by society to be necessary and will be at leave vehemently, if not in some cases millitantly defended (eg UoT protests).

      Honestly, one of the biggest mistakes we can make is disputing the notion of women’s oppression, even today. Here’s the thing, yes women are oppressed – specifically they are paternalised. All that has changed is the “safe zone” for women to operate under.

      While that might seem like it’s handing feminists victory on a platter, here’s the thing. By sterring the “women are oppressed” argument into the accurate territory of paternalisation, you open the floodgates to men’s issues. Here’s why.

      Paternalism in terms of oppression has a very unique core feature to it – the party being oppressed are infantalised. Thus when you get someone to agree that women are paternalised, you have gotten them to admit to female infantalisation.

      Of course, how is female infantalisation facilitated? Male disposability.

      Thus in sterring the “women are oppressed” argument into an examination of the nature of that oppression, you immediately give men’s issues a foothold in ways that feminists will never see coming until they’ve landed themselves smack bang in a position where they’re forced to admit that “patriarchal theory” is a fallacy and that men’s rights groups have merit. If they don’t, then they are that point, guilty of blatant misogyny because they have denied women’s issues.

      Like I said, it’s somewhat counterintuitive, but it destroys them by their own game.

      • Well despite the rantings of the mentally ill mackPUA I think you are 100% correct Andrew Richards and that line of argument has been quite fruitful for the MRAs who’ve embraced it. Including the manosphere’s newest whipping boy Paul Elam, who seems to be under a lot of attack recently for not being enough of an *insert meme here* for the tastes of the internet.

        Unsurprisingly most of us doing actual MRA work have almost nothing to do with the manosphere or blogging in general anymore. Work and money is done in the real world now.

        • Unfortunately Paul Elam is as much a part of the problem as the likes of mackPUA are.

          Those types of MRAs you bring up, who have come to understand the nature of the game, should be able to either take a step back from a feminist meme or statement, be able to recognise the sliver of truth in there and reject the rest. Alternatively, if they can’t spot it, be open to someone else who can spot it and recognise it for what it is. Furthermore they should also either never cross the line into enforcing male disposability, or when they slip up and do cross that line, at least have the accountability to own it and apologise for it.

          Unfortunately, as I discovered firsthand, not only is Paul Elam incapable of this, but when he encounters it, he is has no issue whatsoever in engaging in misandrist rape and domestic violence apologetics and mocking survivors who speak out. Furthermore when I continued to call him out on it, figuring that at some point the penny might drop and Elam might realise “oops, I ****ed up big time there” and actually apologise, his solution wasn’t to live by the challenge he always throws at feminists of “own your ****”, but instead to ban me and falsely accuse me of being “nuts and a liar”. Meanwhile staff defended his actions by what can only be described as a “Paul ELam pass”. Go figure.

          On the other issue of the real world, I know what you mean, I’m currently involved in something which could change the nature of the msm debate on battered men in Australia.

          I suspect as time goes on and those of us seeing things for how they are continue to slowly make inroads, the likes of mackPUA will increasingly find themselves anachronisms and increasingly marginalised in society. Meanwhile the vast bulk of men out there will gradually discover the joys of being themselves, without anyone (tradcons or feminists) defining what parts of them are acceptable and unacceptable.

  3. @Andrew Richards

    Meh effeminate men, is the ultimate goal of feminism

    Go right ahead with the butt plugging …

    Theres nothing alternative about being effiminate, its what feminists want, demasculinised men

    Effeminate men ARE the problem, they charted all the feminist laws we have today, in the first place

    Effeminate men arent a minority or a marginalised group, they ARE THE MAIN culprits & perpetrators of misandry

    Effeminate men are bootlickers, authority worshipping, pussy whippped, misandric pieces of shit

    Wtf do you think tradcons are? Masculine?

    Stay OFF the liberal coolaid, homo’s are a side issue, they have nothing to do with MRA’s

    • Actually mack, what feminists want are omega males – men devoid of all masculine traits was far from what I’m advocating for.

      If you claim I am, then why did I say this (pay particular attention to the second sentence):

      “The only way we will ever truly get rid of male disposability, is if we reject the social utility aspects of masculinity. By all means, if men happen to authentically exhibit those traits, then more power to them. However there is nothing shameful or effeminate about a man if he posesses traits which fly in the face of that.”

      Feminists would say that second sentence was me supporting “patriarchy”, because “masculine” traits are evil. The fact that I’m advocating in favour of men also exhibiting masculine traits if they are authentic however, clearly proves that my position is completely contrary to a feminist one . What I’m arguing for is a man knowing himself and embracing all of himself, no matter how “feminine” or “masculine” that might happen to be.

      Yet for suggesting that, I’m supposedly advocating for men to be slaves to gynocentrism – despite that fact that feminists want the traditionalist machismo version of men, as to tradcons – the only difference is that feminists want to throw docility in there too as a kind of psychological “kill switch”.

      As for what tradcons are, you and the other PUAs out there should know very well what tradcons are like- you are them. Despite PUA claims of rejecting the system, you and your ilk are completely tradcon in your attitudes to masculinity and your own responses prove it.

      The moment someone suggests the right wing approach is as misandrist as the left, you emasculate them. The moment someone dares suggest that men having both “masculine” and “feminine traits” all in unique combinations because men are unique human beings, you emasculate them.

      What you have exhibited is textbook behaviour of what men who are the victims of domestic or sexual violence face, why they are shamed into silence and why there is such a high epidemic out there of male suicide. You and other PUAs are no friend to men’s rights.

      Heck PUAs would be amongst the first to glorify female-on-male pedophilia – as to them, all male-on-female sex is a “conquest”.

      The reason for this is that you and other PUAs have no interest in men genuinely finding themselves- you are purely interested in both preying on vulnerable men trapped by the notion that they need a women to have value and maximising your own number of sexual conquests. Of course the fact that both interests actually compound male disposability, is, and most likely always will be, somthing that you and other PUAs will never either be able to grasp, or want to grasp.

  4. Btw Andrew, as for your 2nd issue, you CANT combine feminism with MRA’s, feminism has always been a male hate supremacist movement

    If you’re so in love with effeminate men & feminism, why dont you out yourself as a gay feminist …

    You started off with defending men, & then typically start with your liberal retarded horse shit

    Get your facts straight, what exactly are you? A liberal asshole, or a gay prick?

    • Small surprise that a PUA would be so threatened by a break from traditionalist definitions of masculinity. After all this is a group who while “claiming” to reject the system, are complete and utter slaves to gynocentrism by basing their entire masculine self worth around their sexual prowess – one of the three pillars of disposable masculinity (the other pillars 2 being the ability to provide and the ability to protect). Of course the hilarious irony that PUAs think they’re not complete slaves to this gynocentric system is never lost on me.

      Oh sure, you delude yourselves to thinking you’re in control rather than women and the system, but the fact is that you’re ensnared by the most insidious of all the pillars of how male sexuality has been traditionally measured – male sexual prowess. What you and your misguided ilk have failed to grasp is that no matter how much a man might thrive in a prison, he is still a prisoner. If he mistakes it for freedom, then he is a deluded fool.

      The irony is that your entire response here denies gynocentrism even exists and therefore denies male disposability exists.

      You’ve said “Btw Andrew, as for your 2nd issue, you CANT combine feminism with MRA’s, feminism has always been a male hate supremacist movement”.

      However at no point have I said that MRAs should align themselves with feminists (precisely because it is a misandrist hate movement). What I have said is that is that until you change the nature of the debate on women’s issues so that it rejects female infantalisation, that you will never get society to reject male disposability. This is because, wait for it, male-disposability and female-infantalisation are in fact different aspects of the same larger issue – gynocentrism.

      Furthermore the approach I advocated for if done right, would actually hang feminists by the rope of their own dogmatic fraud, so how am I even remotely suggesting treating feminists as allies for even a split second.

      But then let’s face it – who cares about male disposability and men’s issues when all that matters to you and other PUAs are your next notch on a belt right?

      Of course, in almost predictable PUA fashion, you respond with this:

      “If you’re so in love with effeminate men & feminism, why dont you out yourself as a gay feminist … ”

      Really? I’ve just pointed out how women’s issues can be used to show feminist dogma up as completely flawed, even when dealing with women’s issues, and your response is to accuse me of supporting feminism?

      The fact that I refuse to have my sexuality used to make me a slave to gynocentrism makes me gay? How is your response anything other than a textbook example of tradcon enforcement of disposable masculinity?

      The internet term for that is “own goal”, and yours was so off the charts here you burned a hole through the net.

      “You started off with defending men, & then typically start with your liberal retarded horse shit

      Only a right wing tradcon could draw that conclusion – living under the myth that the left hates men and the right loves them – that liberalism is misandrist and conservativism is pro-male. Of course the irony that how you and other right winger’s respond to someone who rejects both the left and right is identical to that of those who are politically left wing (accusing them of being the opposite to what they are), should not be lost on anyone.

      The fact is that what I’ve done and continue to do is looked too deeply for the comfort and the liking of tradcons and PUAs who don’t want things to change because they perceive themselves as benefiting from the current status quo. Men aren’t going to get a better deal simply simply by repealing feminist laws; what is needed is a radical rethink of what authentic masculinity is, but on terms which benefit men, rather than those which benefit gynocentric feminists and gynocentric tradcons.

      Oh and fyi, in future you might want to avoid using disability-based slurs like “retarded” when trying to get your point across in the future. Using them just makes you come across as either ignorant of the full extent of the Holocaust(specifically the Nazi Euthanasia Program), or quite literally as a Nazi sympathiser.

  5. Andrew Richards – ”To recognise the issue of male disposability, you need to be able to recognise that there is a masculine gender construct there. Yes a fraction of it is rooted in biology, but a heap of it is rooted in the utility of men and women.
    ….
    The only way we will ever truly get rid of male disposability, is if we reject the social utility aspects of masculinity.”

    Andrew,

    Masculinity is not just some small “fraction” biologically based – it is mostly genetically based.

    The correct interpretation is not that masculinity is something that has been constructed to serve the Female Imperative, but rather that the biological realities of normal manliness have been co-opted and corrupted so as to see them serve the Female Imperative.

    Sadly, it seems to me that while you preach about the issue of “male disposability”, you are also trying to make a case for the disposal of masculinity.

    Am I wrong about your intentions?

    • You’re wrong in the entire premise of your argument period as you have completely failed to grasp the difference between authentic masculinity and disposable masculinity.

      Yes there is a biological foundation in what society has come to define as masculine. However you have completely ignored how society has taken that biological foundation and manipulated it to suit its gynocentric, survivalist imperative – based not on biology but rather on life expectancies, child mortality rates, maternal mortality rates and professional hazards of the pre-modern age.

      Yes there are anatomical and biological differences, but the component of masculinity which is disposable, which is stoic, which is based on the notion of being “the protector”, “the provider”, “humping anything and everything on 2 legs” – that is entirely disposable masculinity.

      Show me where genetically it is biologically impossible for a man to be a victim of abuse, to feel vulnerable, to be overpowered, to be beaten senseless by a random violent assault and to be able to just flick a switch when it does happen and suddenly be ok? Good luck finding it because about the only place you’re going to find it is on the planet Krypton.

      The reality is that most of what we define as “masculine” norms have far more to do with men and boys being brutalised into stoicism from an early age than they do with any authentic and inherent traits a boy/man might actually possess.

      Yes there is a biological factor argument there as well, however that biological argument is that only those with wombs deserve compassion, humanity and to have any personal value. Those who do not possess wombs on the other hand are deemed to have no value, no humanity and to exsit only to provide for and protect those wombs. The more an individual lives up to those ideals, the greater the number of wombs he will be allowed to impregnate. Thus male sexual prowess forms both the third pillar of male disposability and the “carrot” to trap those of us who as still drinking blue pill koolaid in that paradigm prison of disposable masculinity.

      The most ridiculous argument I have ever heard is that the way to break free of it is to adopt stoicism. The fact is that stoicism, especially when you look at the Roman version of it, which is where our masculine norms can be traced back to, is entirely designed to divorce men from their humanity, their emotions and any notions of men deserving compassion.

      It’s because of that model and how insidiously widespread it is that we have no idea as a society, what authentic masculinity is. The fact is what we’ll find is that there is no such thing as a single, standard masculine norm. The moment you encourage men to be themselves, despite what society tells them they should be, you discover that men are, *gasp**shock**horror* unique and therefore when we do discover as a society what authentic masculinity is, what we’ll discover is that there is no single answer to that question.

      Thus where one trait might be more dominant in one man, it may be less dominant in another man. However neither man is less masculine, because as you rightly point out – both men have an X and a Y chromosome and are therefore male, regardless of what social norms they either adhere to or fail to adhere to.

      In short, far from disposing of authentic masculinty, what I have argued for actually embraces it.

  6. Andrew Richards – ”Yes there is a biological foundation in what society has come to define as masculine.”
    No! There are biological traits common to men that are masculine, by definition, irrespective of what society deems them to be. I’m old enough to remember when in the 80’s there was a push to redefine (“real”) masculinity as being more open to a man’s “inner feminity” (see “Real Men Eat Quiche”). It fizzled out, because it wasn’t authentic mascuilinity. Masculinity is NOT what society says it is, it is what men are and what men do. Seeing natural masculinity as the source of ills is tantamount to seeing men as the source of ills. Sorry Andrew, there’s no way you can spin it otherwise.

    AR – ” However you have completely ignored how society has taken that biological foundation and manipulated it to suit its gynocentric, survivalist imperative “

    Maybe you should go back and re-read what I posted:
    ” The correct interpretation is not that masculinity is something that has been constructed to serve the Female Imperative, but rather that the biological realities of normal manliness have been co-opted and corrupted so as to see them serve the Female Imperative.”

    It was I who identified your failure to recognize that masculine traits were being manipulated to serve the FI, and I was pointing it out to YOU. It’s just pathetic that you now would try to pretend it was I who was the one missing that point, what with it being documented that I had, not 4 inches above.

    You have some rather strange notions about masculinity, not least of which is this stuff about what is authentic vs. what you claim is only disposable. The protective instincts are not, in and of themselves, disposability provided in the service of the FI. They were always genetic survival instincts which, yes, sometimes required the ultimate personal sacrifice; but such sacrifice was typically made so as to provide that a man’s offspring (or those of blood relatives) would survive on. Those traits in real masculine men have thus been hard-wired into us over the millennia, as brave men who were not afraid to fight and die for cause had their genes win-out over those of simpering cowards.

    It is an intrinsic part of what makes men great. Trying to devalue such authentic masculinity is to seek to devalue men. Mangina’s like David Futrelle would seek to mock and belittle such authentic masculinity as a useless relic of our ancestry. Effeminate losers like Futrelle often appear to me to be simply jealous of the authentic natural masculinity that they do not posses.
    Seems to me that you’d do the same simply because it might be manipulated into the service of woman. Or is it that you simply despise that other men have such qualities (irrespective of any FI manipulations)?

    Ultimately, a man’s authentic masculinity is up to him to utilize as he sees fit. Personally, I have a man learn to use it wisely – I would not try to dissuade a man from the masculine nature he has genetically inherited as a man.

    AR – “Show me where genetically it is biologically impossible for a man to be a victim of abuse, (etc.)”

    No one has ever tried to claim otherwise. You are simply constructing strawmen, because you cannot construct arguments.

    I thought you were a little “off” when you were ranting that labeling mangina’s who eschewed their own personal value, their own personal masculinity, and the both the value and masculinity of men in general so as to pedistalize women as “mangina’s” some how made them more disposable than they have already made themselves – but you’ve actually managed to top that foolishness with these unexplained and unsubstantiated claims that masculinity in beaten into boys. What world do you live in? Here in the “Western World” on Earth, innate, healthy, natural, authentic masculinity is being beaten out of boys. Boys are not allowed to be boys, but are being forced to act more like girls.
    Is this what you “approve of” for the social construction of a “new masculinity”?

    • @slwerner The flaw in your argument is that when people speak of “masculinity” what is being spoken about is dispposable masculinity, rather than authentic masculinity, or “maleness”.

      Let’s look at what was actually said:

      ” The correct interpretation is not that masculinity is something that has been constructed to serve the Female Imperative, but rather that the biological realities of normal manliness have been co-opted and corrupted so as to see them serve the Female Imperative.”

      This is a complete prima facie on your part. The fact is that “masculinity” is completely separate from maleness. Where “maleness” is defined as the bioloigcal factors which distinguish men from women, [disposable] masculinity is entirely a set of norms cultural norms where a man or boy’s maleness is deemed either acceptable or unacceptable.

      “It was I who identified your failure to recognize that masculine traits were being manipulated to serve the FI, and I was pointing it out to YOU. It’s just pathetic that you now would try to pretend it was I who was the one missing that point, what with it being documented that I had, not 4 inches above.”

      No what’s pathetic here is the scale of your double ignorance on this issue.

      You bring up the protective instinct. The fact is that while this does have some biological grounding (at least where children are concerned), the notion of a man as a perpetual protector of women, is a complete social construct – especially as we now know for a fact that the Amazons for example, existed in a society around the time of Alexander the Great and earlier and in their society, women at least shared combat roles for example (there’s debate as to whether their armies were entirely made up of women or whether they were unisex).

      The fact is that if men protecting women was hardwired, the Amazons would never have existed as it would have gone against every instinct that society had. They may be the exception but as the tenants of social psychology demonstrate – the moment you find an exception to a convention, that convention can no longer be considered inherent.

      Yet you foolishly mistake socially constructed masculinity for maleness.

      “It is an intrinsic part of what makes men great. Trying to devalue such authentic masculinity is to seek to devalue men. Mangina’s like David Futrelle would seek to mock and belittle such authentic masculinity as a useless relic of our ancestry. Effeminate losers like Futrelle often appear to me to be simply jealous of the authentic natural masculinity that they do not posses.
      Seems to me that you’d do the same simply because it might be manipulated into the service of woman. Or is it that you simply despise that other men have such qualities (irrespective of any FI manipulations)?”

      Your claims of implied jealousy are nothing but a strawman. I’ve already re-quoted myself once as saying I have no issue with men possessing alpha traits and that my issue is with the traits men are expected to repress to ONLY exhibit those traits and the way men are devalued for failing to live up to that ideal.

      What you fail to grasp is that men are at their best and at their greatest when they embrace ALL of who they are, regardless of how “feminine” or “masculine” those parts of a man are deemed to be. The fact is that men in society should be allowed to be themselves and simply valued for being human beings.

      Yet rather than actually agreeing that men being allowed to be themselves is actually a positive and results in men being treated as human beings, you millitantly oppose the notion. For someone claiming to fight against male disposabiltiy, you have a peculiar way of showing it.

      “No one has ever tried to claim otherwise. You are simply constructing strawmen, because you cannot construct arguments.”

      On the contrary, you all but came out and said precisely that when you denied that masculinity, as opposed to maleness, was far more socially than biologically founded. Such an argument blatantly implies that male stoicism, male disposability and female infantalisation are biologically rather than socially driven.

      “I thought you were a little “off” when you were ranting that labeling mangina’s who eschewed their own personal value, their own personal masculinity, and the both the value and masculinity of men in general so as to pedistalize women as “mangina’s” some how made them more disposable than they have already made themselves – but you’ve actually managed to top that foolishness with these unexplained and unsubstantiated claims that masculinity in beaten into boys.”

      If you were trying to prove that your intelligence wasn’t exactly your best asset, you’ve succeeded in spades. The fact is that when you look deeply enough at the situation men and boys face, everything I have said has been spot on and from a pro-male perspective. You claim to despise male disposability, yet when you’re confronted with someone getting too close to the truth with the causes for it and how the system is maintained, you go into millitant denial.

      First off, the issue was never the shaming of male feminists – it was the usage of a mechanism used to enforce male disposability being used too do it. The fact that I offered up an even more scathing and mocking alternative to “mangina” is ample proof of that.

      Secondly, as for my “unsubstantiated claims”, look at things like boys being bullied into stopping themselves crying, boys paying child support to pedophiles, boys being told to toughen up when they’re injured or the victims of violence, and so the list goes on. The fact is that it’s so insidious that most people (clearly you included” can’t see what’s right in front of you.

      “What world do you live in? Here in the “Western World” on Earth, innate, healthy, natural, authentic masculinity is being beaten out of boys. Boys are not allowed to be boys, but are being forced to act more like girls.”

      This is a complete prima facie on your part. The fact is that boys and men are still forced into a role of male disposability. However they then have scorn heaped upon them and told they’re evil for adhering to the very model of masculinity which society forced upon them to begin with.

      But hey it’s not like attitudes to abuse could be so hypocritical that male child sex victims could ever be expected to “man up” and pay child support to the pedophiles that raped them, now is it?

      “Is this what you “approve of” for the social construction of a “new masculinity”?”

      Of here’s a thought, how about teaching men and boys to embrace all of themselves, no matter how “masculine” or “feminine” some traits might be. I know treating men and boys as complete human beings might be a bit of a radical idea to you, but call me crazy, but it might just work.

  7. Yesterday, our host, who many of us have long realized to be an alien lizard creature, took over the mind of Edita Munoz (aka Edita TWRA), forcing her to first tell-off whiny uber-mangina Jesse Innocent-men-should-be-imprisoned-on-the-off-chance-that-a woman-might-be-protected Powell:

    ” Jesse that is incorrect. Chivalry is your domain and your idea. Nowhere in the TWRA doctrine does it talk about chivalry. The topic of chivalry is an add on, like a general idea that you yourself espouse. Kind of like I espouse my stance against Communism. The TWRA core philosophy can be found here and the philosophical ideal of the TWRA life can be found here. The TWRA’s are about helping women; by promoting ideals in our doctrine, and exposing feminism. We also stress the importance of chastity and housewifery. Chivalry is an idea that you espouse, it is NOT part of the TWRA doctrine.”

    Then, forcing her to give a rather reasonable appraisal of notion of Chivalry:

    ” I see it as a moral code for knights. Now don’t get me wrong men do take care and protect women, same as women submit and stay loyal to them: it is a reciprocal relationship, and the word chivalry is not necessary in this case. The men in the aurora shooting were heroes because they protected their own, they were not chivalrous. I agree with you men have a natural instinct to protect, whether it is their wife, daughter or mother. Men will always protect the women in their lives. Again I would not call that chivalry. I have a problem with collective chivalry, as it is only possible if women are collectively submissive. But that is impossible as each person is completely different; thus the collective duty infringes upon ones freedom to choose a particular action. It is basically forcing everyone under the same umbrella, which in our society is impossible, at the moment. Also, expecting men to die for random women is not a viable solution either; because it makes men disposable. However, will a man always do anything in his power to protect his own: wife, mother daughter? Yes, he will. Because he has a natural instinct. However. there is a huge difference when it comes to men protecting their own and expecting men to protect all women irrelevant of their behavior. If I saw a weak soldier I would protect him: as we all in society have a duty to protect the weak irrelevant of the gender. If the parents are injured, the child may protect them as well. Chivalry is just that chivalry; used by knights. To attribute knight behavior to societal duties and men’s instincts to protect their own women (not random women), does not seem like a viable solution to me.”

    And, finally, forcing her to wipe out her entire site:

    (http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/)
    ” femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com is no longer available.
    The authors have deleted this site.”

    Damned, PMATF, or should I say Greg, I didn’t realize you alien lizards had that power of mind control. You even managed to make Edita sound far more reasonable than Andrew Richards vis-à-vis the role of masculinity.

    I am humbled.

    • Why should women get the benefits of a “traditional” relationship, when they are not willing to take the disadvantages, i.e. paternity and virginity testing, low/no divorce, no abortion, abandonment if they cheat on men?
      Seems to me like they want traditionalism … only when the economy goes bad. So that they have a reason to shame regular men into accepting secondhand women (who chose to participate in a sexual competition to keep an alpha, lost, then wants the consolation prize of a regular guy she can treat like a eunuch and an ATM).

  8. Glad you like the phrase. Another example of at least one woman trying to co-opt a men’s issue, that I recall, is feminists deciding that they should use “no shave November” to talk about women shaving.

    http://sarahoverthemoon.com/2011/11/02/a-feminists-thoughts-on-no-shave-november/ is just one example.

    • That ideological fallacy that is White Ribbon Day wasn’t enough for them? Who am I kidding – when it comes to feminists, it’s like the jingle to that 80s horror movie “The Stuff”.

      Have fun playing around with the many allusions to feminism that has just opened up – there are so many there if you watch the movie 😉

  9. Moar white knight nationalism:
    MWIR/Kievsky has a double standard, he internalizes feminism. When Clytemnestra advocates wholesale conversion of “Whites” to Islam, with implied female access to swarthy cock, he sees little problem, and even admires her revolutionary insights.
    However, when I suggest the reverse sexual relations, he bans me.

    • LOL oogenahnd, have you got a link, or can you repost your comment here?

      Converting Muslims to White Culture, is a hilarious idea …

      PMAFT should do a whole post on how to convert Islam to whitey culture

      A whole movement dedicated to converting sandal wearing muslims, to american idol worshipping white culture, is pure comedy gold …

      We could call the movement, Mcdonalds, MTV, or rap music …

      Oh wait …

      The movement already exists … wtf … those gdmn marxist NWO social engineers …

  10. Then, of course, there is pink-ribbon… well I was going to call it a “month”, but really, it’s more of an entire season these days. For whatever reason they even had pink ribbon ammo at a local sports shop, and made football players wear pink. Ug.

    One of the techniques I’ve used to point out the problem with pink-washing to women is to point out how it negatively affects -their- needs. Here’s an example. “All of this over-devotion to breast-cancer. What about cervical cancer, or pancreatic cancer, or brain cancers, or lung cancer. Don’t those affect women too? Too much money to breast cancer kills women, not to mention the effect on men.”

    I get a lot of wide eyes and nodding heads, as women realize how pink-washing negatively affects -their- health needs. If you’re on a college campus, or an organic food market, throw in something about marketing and corporate greed, to further tie your comments into their world view.

Leave a Reply to Josh the Aspie Cancel reply

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