Feb 212015

On this week’s episode of Portlandia, they made fun of male feminists.  A guy with no job who does nothing around the house and wife is a breadwinner discovers that he’s a male feminist because he’s taking on the traditional female role.  It’s broken up into 3 segments starting at 02:08 and continuing at 10:04 and 19:16:

I recommend watching the whole thing.  The segment about all the alternate sexualities you can come up with for Coming Out Day is hilarious and so is the segment where an actress gets advice from the Feminist Bookstore women.  And the Feminist Bookstore segment merges into the last male feminist segment so you need to watch it to know what’s going on.

What I really liked about how Portlandia made fun of male feminists is how it made fun (probably unintentionally) of both male feminists and stay at home women.  The guy discovers that he’s a male feminist because he’s taken on the traditional female role, and his wife has taken on the traditional male role.  However, the guy doesn’t do any cleaning or cooking.  They have a maid, and the wife ends up doing the cooking.  That’s a very interesting way of slamming women for being feminist, but also wanting to stay at home and not do any housework either.

The last segment was good too.  The guy (along with some other male feminists) annoy some people in a movie theater, and neither men nor women are interested in what they have to say.  I won’t spoil what happens to the guy (and the other male feminists), but you will appreciate it.

Jul 222014

We know that young men are only getting more and more fed up with women so young men will do things like refuse to get married, only deal with women when they want to grudge fuck them, etc.  Some young men will ask why bother having anything to do with women at all and choose to go ghost.  Of those young men some will take extreme measures to make sure they can’t be manipulated by women such as this young man referenced in a comment at Dalrock’s blog:

GunnerQ says “What we’re seeing is young men learning to turn off their sex drives for their own sanity.”

I’ve heard of this. On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

I had expected to hear about this sort of thing sooner or later, but reading it is a bit of shock.  It does make sense for the young man in the comment.  He knows better than to get married, but because of his faith, other options aren’t available to him.  I’m not sure if using antidepressants in this manner is a good idea, but given the constraints of his faith, this young man made a logical decision.

I doubt most young men will take this route in dealing with women, but it may have some popularity among religious young men who have “limited” options.  I doubt this will get a positive reaction from the church.  Another comment at Dalrock’s tried to seriously compare this to birth control, and that’s the tip of the iceberg.  I predict that we will see pastors like Mark Driscoll screaming at men who do this.  This will just lead to more men leaving the church.

More than anything else this shows just how much young men are getting fed up with women.  A young man does not choose to kill his sex drive with antidepressants for trivial reasons.

Mar 162014



Last year, WTOP, a local radio station, had a contest to see who had the worst commute.  The winner was a man who lives in Harrington, DE but works in Arlington, VA (specifically Rosslyn for those of you familiar with DC).  He has to drive from Delaware to Maryland where he gets a commuter bus that takes him to DC.  From there he takes metro from DC to Rosslyn.  The commute takes over 3 hours one way and requires him to get up at 3 AM every working day.  Why have a job with such a long commute?  The short answers is because he’s a tradcon:

 Plus, Stanford’s not a morning person. But if that’s the case, why take a job that requires a 3 a.m. alarm and a horrendous commute?

“So I could have my family live near family members and be near the church I wanted to go to,” says Stanford, who lives in Harrington, Del.

Stanford’s current job doesn’t allow him to telecommute, and he says computer programming jobs closer to home pay tens of thousands of dollars less. Delaware’s lower taxes and cost of living also make it easier for Stacey to be a stay-at-home mom.

If the family lived closer to his job, Stanford says living expenses would force Stacey to work and the children would have to spend time in other people’s care.

“I’d rather my wife be able to be the one taking care of the kids, raising them and giving them their family values,” he says.

A lot of this problem could be solved by living just a bit farther away from family members and their church.  (It is likely that it is the wife who wants to live close to their family members and church.)  Or it could be solved with his wife getting a part time job.  Their youngest child is 9 so the desire to have a stay at home mom doesn’t completely hold water since the kids are in school.  Notice how all of these solutions involve the wife having to do something or give up something.

Their kids hate how they never see their father:

“My dad’s commute stinks because I don’t get to see him often,” says 9-year-old Christopher, the youngest.

I guess kids not seeing their father is traditional and a “family value”.  The wife here is denying their children time with their father just do she doesn’t have to work a few hours a week at a part time job.  I suspect that if a follow up story was done on this guy in a few years that his wife will have divorced him because he’s “never around” and “never took care of the kids”.

Feb 222014

One thing you hear people say a lot is that men (en masse) are becoming more feminine due to feminism and/or environmental factors.  I’m not convinced of this.  I have noticed that any example that is supposed to show that men en masse are becoming more feminine falls into one of two categories:

  1. Men aren’t doing what I want.  This includes everything from tradcons complaining that men aren’t getting married to women complaining that men aren’t bailing them out anymore to men have different political views than the complainer.
  2. Environmental factors such as lowered sperm counts, BPA, etc.

The problem with the environmental factors category is twofold.  First, you have to prove that it’s happening.  Second, you have to show that environmental factors are actually leading men en masse to act more feminine.  For example, consider lowered sperm counts.  The current research shows that lowered sperm counts are not happening.  It’s really the media creating panic.  Even if that wasn’t an issue, what are the examples given of men acting more feminine as a result of environmental factors?  They all fit into the first category of “men aren’t doing what I want”.  In other words, citing environmental factors as the cause of men is complaining that men aren’t doing what I want indirectly and hoping no one notices.

Can anyone come up with an objective example of men en masse becoming more feminine?  I don’t mean individual examples because those aren’t representative of most men.  Plus, a lot of those examples would be tied to a paycheck in some way.  Most men would never have the opportunity to “go feminine for pay”.  Plus, it ends as soon as the job ends.

Complaints about men en masse becoming more feminine are really self serving attempts to hide that the complainer is pissed that men aren’t slaving away for themselves or for women.  What is really happening is that men are looking at the dating landscape, the marriage landscape, the employment landscape, etc. and finding that there is no payoff.  Why get married if you will just get ass raped in divorce court?  Why bother dating if you can’t find a good woman?  Why bother going to college and wasting your money?  Why bother working more than the bare minimum you need unless you get paid highly for your time?  Why do a bunch of things tradcons, feminists, women in general, etc. want when they won’t provide you equal consideration or anything in return for your work?

What has happened is not that men have become more feminine.  What is happening is that men are making LOGICAL and RATIONAL decisions.  All complaints about men becoming more feminine seem to be in areas where men have discovered there is no payoff or the payoff doesn’t match the risk or work.  Men haven’t become more feminine.  Men simply aren’t being idiots.  Being able to make logical and rational decisions is something men do.  In other words, any complaint about men becoming more feminine is actually an example of men being masculine.  Given that enough men are making similar logical and rational decisions, it’s possible that men are now more masculine than ever before.  This means that feminism hasn’t feminized men but has had the opposite effect of making men more masculine.

Jan 022014

It’s time for the Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Last month’s winner was Jenny Erikson.  Anyone who has read about her will understand why I made her last month’s entitlement princess without any voting.

The Entitlement Princess of the Month can only keep going with your support so keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month there are two entitlement princess to choose from.  The first was submitted by Josh the Aspie, and she is an unnamed woman who was the wife of a North Sea oil worker.  While her husband was away, she carried on an affair spending all of his money and running up large debts in her husband’s name (committing identity theft).  (Later, it would be revealed that the wife actually had a string of affairs.)  When her husband found out about the affair, she and her husband got into a violent altercation that led to him being convicted by a court and being put in a jail for a few months.  However, the jury didn’t believe he was the one who started the violent altercation.  The woman also tried to falsely accuse her husband of rape, but the false accusation failed.  The husband’s house has been repossessed to pay for his wife’s debts, the wife fled with their four kids.  The husband doesn’t know where his now ex-wife and kids are.

The second was submitted by Bill, and she is only known as L.M.  L.M. wrote to The Not Thinking Housewife that she was a lesbian for a while before seeing the error of her ways.  However, L.M. doesn’t believe that her bout of lesbianism is her fault.  It’s the fault of men for failing to pursue her for marriage and not knowing how to “take charge” in relationships.  This might be the first time in the history of the Entitlement Princess Of The Month contest where we had a morality specific entitlement princess.

Vote for one of the entitlement princesses in the poll below. Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore.

Who is your vote for the December 2013 Entitlement Princess Of The Month?

  • The Cheating Wife Of The North Sea Oil Worker (72%, 63 Votes)
  • L.M. The Former Lesbian (28%, 25 Votes)

Total Voters: 88

Loading ... Loading ...
Dec 202013

While Code Bronze shaming language covers personal calamities, it doesn’t cover related shaming language that exists at a larger level.   For example, one piece of shaming language I have seen used is “if you don’t have kids, medicare and social security will collapse”.  That shaming language isn’t about a failure to have a legacy, but a failure to do a (supposed) duty which can be about more than just having children.  It’s the charge of being a leech on society.  This I’m calling Code Olive since leeches can be the color of olive.

Charge Of Being A Leech On Society (Code Olive)

Discussion: The target is accused of failing to do his duty to society or is accused of being a leech on society.  Examples:

  • If you don’t have children, medicare and social security will collapse.
  • We all have to contribute to society.
  • Women are weaker than men so men must lead women.
  • How dare you choose to work as little as possible?  You’re no different than a welfare bum.
  • You’re a leech on society and/or the government.

Response: Men have to freedom to choose how they live their lives.  Men are not required to work just to produce maximum tax revenue for the government or to ensure the stability of government programs.  Since society has become hostile to men, there is no reason for a man to support such a society.  If society wants men to do things for it, then society has a reciprocal duty to men. Duty can not be one sided. It is a logical choice for a man to remove his productive capacity for a society that doesn’t value him and is hostile to him.

Dec 142013

Here’s some shaming language that we see semi-regularly:

Mule, all Driscoll is asking is that young men learn a trade, put down the porn, and find a girl to marry–what responsible men have done since Creation, really. If that’s too much, you’ve just made Driscoll’s point.

Or, put in terms the actuaries might use for us, if you don’t marry and father some children, good luck having someone to change your bedpan when you’re too old to work and Medicare and Social Security have collapsed. Yes, getting married risks divorce in the next decade. Not getting married risks dying in misery a few more decades hence.

Choose wisely.

Shaming language about not having children and no one to take care of you when your old isn’t quite covered by the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics so it needs an entry I’m calling code bronze.

Threat of No Legacy (Code Bronze)

Discussion: Because marriage has turned into an anti-male institution, many men have knowingly or unknowing decided to go their own way and avoid marriage.  In most cases, this will correspond with never having children.  The (unmarried and childless) target is threatened with a calamity that will befall them when they are older due to their lack of marriage and children.  Examples:

  • While there’s a risk of divorce in getting married in the next decade, there’s a risk of dying in misery with no one to change your bedpan when you’re elderly.
  • You will be trapped in a nursing home when you are older with no one to visit you.
  • You will die alone.
  • There will be no one to remember you after you are dead.
  • Your family will die out with you.

Response: There are two issues here, what happens before death and what happens after death.  After death a man is not going to be around to care about if he has children or if anyone remembers him.  Also, if a man wants to be remembered, he does not need children to accomplish that.  Before death, the issue is one of frailty and long term care, not “dying alone”.  This shaming language assumes that children will be caregivers for their elderly parents.  There is no guarantee of this.  In rare cases, children may die before their parents.  It’s likely that children will dump their parents into a nursing home instead of providing elderly care themselves.  Women may try to alienate children from their fathers, so men with children could easily be in the same situation as childless men.  A man who falls victim to this type of shaming language is more likely to make a bad marriage decision like marrying a single mother.  In this case, the children aren’t his and are likely to not care about long term care of an elderly man with who not related to them.  Having children is not a guarantee of anything, and it’s more likely that a man will end up in a situation of getting divorced and having no one to “change his bedpan”.

Nov 152013

All of you should remember the conscious men from a couple of years ago and their Dear Woman video:

Have you wondered what a more conservative, less new agey version of the conscious men would look like?  You don’t need to wonder any longer because I found it, a guy who opens doors for women because he adores the feminine genius.  He doesn’t even try to define what the “feminine genius” is supposed to be (probably because he knows he can’t), but he knows he is supposed to serve it:

No, instead when I look at women I see the feminine genius. A genius so profoundly complex, important and valuable that I adore it. I adore the feminine genius because I am a real man who has not had his masculine awareness dulled by erroneous ideologies about gender, or seriously messed up by pornography-fueled predatory attitudes towards women.

As a real man I know that for my masculinity to scale the heights of greatness, I depend totally on the feminine genius to become the best that a man can ever be – in much the same way that I depend on oxygen to keep on living.

Without the complimentary and amazing feminine genius I can never be a real man. Instead I am doomed to be nothing more than the masculine equivalent of a rōnin – the Japanese name for a samurai without a master to lead him, a term which literally means “wave man” because he is adrift without direction and purpose.

I open doors for women because I know they deserve my profound adoration and selfless love. My tiny act of sacrifice is my way of saying ‘I am in awe of your feminine genius and all that I owe to it as a man’.

There you have it, a conservative version of the conscious men.

Oct 122013

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire has created another cartoon for us:

_the pedophileI was going to try to write some extended commentary on this but this one picture criticizes several aspects of feminism, and this cartoon is able to communicate what it would take me a long time to write much more quickly.  This cartoon proves that a picture truly is worth a thousand words.

I also like how this cartoon shows how multiple feminist issues are connected to each other.  I have noticed more and more people saying “there’s nothing wrong with feminism except for X”.  If you just got rid of that X, these people believe that opposition to feminism would just disappear.  (Conveniently, that X typically is something that person doesn’t personally like about feminism.)  In reality, feminist issues have a web of connections to each other so you can’t get rid of just one part of feminism.  (This web of connections even connects to things not typically considered feminist because as Fidelbogen says, “feminism has fuzzy borders”.)  If you are able to get rid of one aspect of feminism, such as abortion, then you end up with conservative female supremacism or traditionalist conservative feminism.  If you are able to get rid of another single feminist issue then you end up with nazbol misandry or some other form of misandry.




Jun 262013

The Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.  Tradcons everywhere are going into a frenzy about how this will “destroy families”.  My response to that is, “Who cares?”

While tradcons fret about “gay marriage”, heterosexual marriage is being destroyed by a group other than homosexuals.  It is being destroyed by heterosexual women.  It’s heterosexual women who are initiating nearly all divorces citing drivel like “irreconcilable differences”.  It’s heterosexual women who are using anti-family courts to force fathers out of the family and out of their children’s lives.  (And let’s not forget how blatantly unconstitutional anti-family courts are.)

Heterosexual women are the real threat to heterosexual marriage.  Any man who is part of the “marriage strike” isn’t refusing to get married because a few gays get some benefits or can get married in a few states.  It doesn’t even enter into any man’s thinking.  Men in the “marriage strike” are avoiding having their children taken away from them, paternity fraud, loss of their assets, loss of their jobs, & loss of their freedom.  This makes it clear that gays aren’t destroying marriage.  It’s heterosexual women, so when it comes to DOMA being declared unconstitutional or gay marriage in general, “who cares?”

Jun 132013

Some anonymous idiot responded to the On Sluts page with:

2. The hookup culture is mutually beneficial. Men complaining about sluts should reflect upon their own promiscuity before determining that this is wrong. If you have so many complaints about it, you may want to stop hooking up with random ‘sluts’.

The rest of anon’s response was equally moronic, but this is part I want to focus on.   The hookup culture is not mutually beneficial.  We know that because of hypergamy.  It benefits most women, but only the most alpha of men.  It’s a fundamentally unequal situation, but anon is insisting an unequal situation is equal.  When you consider the belief most people have that “women want relationships” (which is true but only with the apex of men just like with hookups until they get desperate after 28 or so), the concept being presented here (unintentionally by anon) is that this is an equal situation, but men are benefiting from it more than women.  In other words, this ended up being another case where a feminist said that equality only benefits men, which is something we have heard from feminists before.

This got me thinking about other times someone says a situation is equal between men and women when it really isn’t leading to “equality only benefits men”.  When it comes to promiscuity we know because of hypergamy for every man that engages in it, several women do.  This is because a wider cross section of women have a greater opportunity to engage in promiscuity than all but a small fraction of men.  However, like the anon above, tradcons don’t recognize this and believe that this situation is equal too.  We have all seen tradcons say that “men are just as sinful as women” even though when it comes to sexual sin, this isn’t the case.  Since tradcons believe in “male leadership”, their belief in that men and women are equally sinning sexually turns into another case where equality benefits men only.  Tradcons believes that the only reason women commit sexual sins (or any type of sins) is because a man “led” them into it.  (This adds a new dimension to tradcon opposition to “equality”.)

Here’s the pattern we are seeing here:

  1. Take a situation that is unequal where women benefit over men
  2. Say that situation in question is “equal” between men and women
  3. Attack equality (explicitly or implicitly through misdirection) so that it looks like the situation in question benefits men even though it really benefits women

This is how feminists and other misandrists make situations that benefit women look like they benefit men.

May 142013

In the last few weeks we have been talking about equality a lot.  The reason for that is because both feminists and tradcons have finally admitted to being against it.  In both cases, they have explicitly admitted to being against actual equality such as equality before the law and equality of opportunity.  Neither group is talking about the cases where the term, equality, gets bastardized and redefined into something else (such as what feminists commonly do with the term).  It’s surprising that both groups have admitted to being against equality at roughly the same time, but it proves an important point, that both groups are against actual equality for similar reasons.

It’s not just the feminists and the tradcons who are against equality.  Other misandrists like Suzanne Venker are starting to weasel their way away from equality by using equal but different.  Expect her to over time increasingly be against (actual) equality.

Louise Pennington, a feminist, said that “equality is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women“.  In other words, equality is a smokescreen to benefit men.  While the tradcons and Suzanne Venker wouldn’t talk about the “true liberation of women”, it’s clear from their writings that they would otherwise agree that equality is a smokescreen to benefit men.  (In part this is because, actual equality might deny women chumps to marry and enslave.)

What is going on here?  Why are everyone but MRAs suddenly against actual equality?  It’s not because equality is a plot to benefit men, but it does benefit men all the same.  Suzanne Venker admitted that when men and women were unequal, women got the better deal:

Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

Compare that with last year’s wrecked cruise line, the Costa Concordia. It resulted in fewer deaths, but there was another significant difference. “There was no ‘women and children first’ policy. There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats. It was disgusting,” said passenger Sandra Rogers, 62.

This is what it comes down to.  Actual equality does not benefit women, and talking about equality is getting them nowhere, so a wide range of misandrist voices are now openly against it.  However, actual equality benefits men.  Equality before the law means that women can’t go around making false rape or false abuse charges and expect to get away with it.  Equality of opportunity means that women actually have to produce and not be a leech off men.  A job market with equality of opportunity would end up looking a lot like the tech industry does now with predominately male employment with a disproportionately high number of unmarried men because men are on average better qualified for most jobs.  Women would be left out in the cold because they couldn’t compete for jobs, and they couldn’t get married unless they worked to show that they could add to a man’s life.

Everyone but MRAs are now against equality not because it’s a plot to benefit men, but because equality means that women lose their special privileges.

Apr 242013

If a feminist says X, doesn’t that mean that someone saying not X or anti-X is an anti-feminist?  Your initial impulse might be to say yes, but the answer is not necessarily.  It depends on what X is and what feminists mean by X.  It also depends on whether feminists actually want X or are just saying it.  If a feminist says X, picking the opposite position of X without analyzing what the feminists actually mean and whether feminists are being honest when they say X is letting feminists define your reality.  Increasingly, this is what tradcons are doing.

A good example of this is the word, “equality”.  When a MRA like Paul Elam says the word, “equality”, he is talking about things like equality before the law (fair trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.).  In other words, Paul Elam is speaking in standard English.  When a feminist says “equality” they are completely redefining the term to be something else, namely men and women being completely the same (with enforcement by a large oppressive government).  This is not standard English, but that isn’t the worst problem.  Even by “feministese”, feminists are lying because what they really want is female supremacism.

What tradcons do in this case is blur the standard English definition of the word, “equality” and the “feministese” definition.  They then use this as a platform to say that there’s no difference between MRAs like Paul Elam and actual feminists.  Then the tradcons take the position of being “anti-equality” so that they’re “anti-feminist”.  What has happened here is that the tradcons have completely failed to actually analyze the situation.  If you look at the context in which a MRA talks about equality vs. a feminist talking about equality, it’s obvious that the MRA and the feminist mean two completely different things.  Plus, the MRA is honest while the feminist is dishonest.  To say otherwise like the tradcons do, only helps the feminists because tradcons are implicitly saying that feminists are honest and speaking standard English.  Both of those are wrong, and a big part of the anti-feminist argument is to show that feminists are redefining language when it suits them and that feminists are dishonest.  Tradcons are sabotaging actual anti-feminist efforts.

“Equality” isn’t the only example of tradcons doing this.  You can see the same thing with Mark Richardson’s (Oz Conservative) “autonomy theory”.  It’s a long philosophical treatise that uses common English terms (like “autonomy”) are completely redefines them.  In many cases, it redefines them into the “feministese” version of those terms.

Trying to confront tradcons about this is useless.  They just hide behind “philosophy” when you confront them.  The problem is tradcon thinking and language has been completely taken over by feminism.  Saying the opposite of what the feminists say when your ideas and language is completely controlled by them, does not make you an anti-feminist.  All it means is that you have let feminists define and control your reality.

Apr 062013

Looking Glass commeting at Dalrock’s has noticed a new argument category similar to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:

S1AL has created a new argument category.

There’s the “No True Scotsman” argument we all know about. His corollary is the “UMC Amish as TradCon”. There are very small, very cloistered groups like that, but good luck finding them. There are good churches out there, but there aren’t a lot of them. You aren’t going to get many takers to talking about the “Church” when you’re speaking from an ultra-thin minority.

UMC = upper middle class.

This is definitely a corollary to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.  I’m not even sure that “UMC Amish” churches exist, but even if they do they are so small and so few as to be almost impossible to find.  Even if you found one, they probably wouldn’t let you in since you weren’t born into their church.

Mar 282013

Dalrock said on his blog:

This means not seeing “woman” as a faceless collective, but making a serious effort to see individual women for who they are.

While I briefly commented on this there, the issue of whether women should be seen as a faceless collective or not is more complex and deserves more thought.  First of all, Dalrock is correct in principle.  That being said there is a problem with applying that straight up in the real world.  The problem can be best explained with an example.

One thing we have seen is tradcon women attack men who call out sluts.  Being a tradcon means being against what a slut does, namely her promiscuity.  Tradcon women should have no problem when a man calls out a slut yet they do acting as if a woman being called a slut is an attack on all women.  The tradcon women doing this may not be sluts themselves (although many tradcon women are “former”/”reformed” sluts).  Yet, they defend sluts for doing something they say they’re against.  Even if these tradcon women aren’t sluts themselves, what’s the difference between them and the sluts if they’re so willing to rush to the sluts’ defense?

This is the problem.  A man looking at this can’t know if the tradcon women are really any different from the sluts.  Thus women start looking like a faceless collective due to their own actions.  Women are not a faceless collective, but they will act like one when its convenient for them to do so.  Thus it’s understandable when a man decides to treat women as a faceless collective.  He got the idea from observing female behavior.

Feb 202013

There’s a conversation going on at Dalrock’s blog about the “Traditional Women’s Rights Activists”.  (The comments in that conversation are also good for showing why tradcons are useless when it comes to fighting feminism.)  PPM had this to say about TWRAs:

It’s obvious what TWRA is – naked female self interest and nothing more. It is raw feminine imperative, without the intelligence or guile to disguise itself.

I doubt this is a feminist false flag operation. Rather, it is an expression of unfettered entitlement and narcissism. Feminism may have unleashed these sins from their traditional constraints, but even feminism has some principles, as errant as they may be. TWRAs have none.

This is one of the reasons why I consider TWRAs to be what I call nazbol misandrists.  Both feminists and tradcons at the very least pretend to be consistent with the left wing and right wing political traditions respectively.  Nazbol misandrists don’t care about that.  If you look at the Feminine Mystique TWRA blog, you will see the author use whatever is convenient to advance female entitlement and narcissism.  You find plenty of examples of the author of that blog quoting both feminists and tradcons.  It doesn’t matter if there is any consistency with outside political traditions or if their ideas are consistent with each other.  It’s all about unifying previously separate misandrist ideas (just as the Nazbols in Russia unified the previously separate Russian nazi ideas and Russian communist ideas) into a single block of pure misandry serving female self interest.

The best example of how nazbol misandrists are all about pure female self interest is how they hate the MRM.  The TWRAs have spent more time hating the MRM than even tradcons and feminists do.  There is even a sister blog to Feminine Mystique TWRA called Oppose the MRM.  While both tradcons and feminists hate the MRM, there is a limit to how much either group can express their hate of the MRM before running into conflict with the political principles they have associated themselves with.  Nazbol misandrists don’t have any limits on expressing their hatred of the MRM because the only principles of nazbol misandry are female self interest and female entitlement.  The MRM stands in the way of female self interest and entitlement so the nazbol misandrists oppose the MRM with a fury that has the power of thousands of stars, but only give a token opposition to feminism.

In many ways nazbol misandry is the default form of misandry for most women (and manginas) like Danger said at Dalrock’s blog:

TWRA is essentially a large percentage of all women.

We all know the saying “There are no feminists on a sinking ship”. So yes, they all expect deferential treament.

This concept at it’s roots is a form of socialism, where it is your duty to provide something else to someone else for free. It is also part of the reason women vote so liberally, they really do feel entitled to being taken care of throughout their lives, regardless of the subject.

While I would replace TWRA with nazbol misandrists in what Danger said because a lot of women might not like the TWRA talk about traditionalism (even though the TWRAs don’t consider themselves tradcons), Danger is correct.  Most women are feminists only to the point where it serves their self interest.  Most women aren’t interested in feminism when its gets into forming lesbian communes and the like.  The same is true in the opposite direction when it comes to traditional conservatism.  Since the nazbol misandrists are purely about female self interest, they can “deliver” what most women want more so than either the feminists or the tradcons can.

Feb 042013

Bharat Mahan wrote an interesting comment at A Voice For Men about tradcon women:

SAHMs are SAHBs – stay at home bloggers.

All the “traditional housewives” I’ve seen trying to infilitrate the Manosphere did so simply to garner compliments from men while their husbands were out at work.

And the men took the bait.

Everytime Alte or Twerk or whoever talked about “homesteading” or home schooling or type up their Menu Plan Mondays with food porn, the men would respond with, “good to know there are still good, solid women like you out there” and “your husband is one lucky man”.

Now tell me, how can you “homestead” and home school when you’re blogging and surfing the Manosphere all day long?

What is behind the phenomenon that Bharat Mahan is talking about should be obvious.  Being a stay at home mother in a modern first world country is make work job for women (just like most workplace jobs are make work jobs for women).  Since being a SAHM is a make work job, what happens can be best described by the saying “idle hands are the devil’s workshop/playground”.  The supposed SAHMs spend all their days blogging, and this part of the internet is not immune to this.

We need to recognize this for what it is so we should stop using the term, stay at home mothers.  We should use the term, stay at home bloggers, instead, since that more accurately describes their situation.  These women aren’t doing vital work.  They’re blogging all day because they have nothing better to do.

Jan 272013

Typhonblue had some interesting things to say about tradcons:

The Men’s Rights Movement offers an effective opposition to feminism.

Traditionalists oppose feminism the way indulgent parents oppose their spoilt rotten daughter when she’s throwing a petite mal tantrum in the middle of a grocery store:

“Oh, dear, please don’t do that, please don’t be upset, sweetheart let daddy get you a loli? No? A doll? A puppy?” And then the indulgent traditionalist daddy turns around and breaks his son’s nose with his fist for “not stopping your sister from getting upset in the first place!”

Why is this? Because traditionalists are not equipped to recognize female agency, much less deal with it. Over and over again they prove that they prefer to blame the nearest man.

This is an excellent summary of tradcon behavior.

Also isn’t it sort of suspicious that traditionalist women are suddenly interested in opposing feminism just as male liberation is getting off the ground?

That entire article was void of any compassion for men; any sense that men exist outside of the writer’s fears and needs.

Traditionalist women need the Men’s Rights Movement far more then the MRM needs traditionalist women. They are gynocentric to the core; would they be willing to challenge their own male-hatred? Their gynocentric beliefs? The idea that women have the right or even the ability to define men? How about the author’s apparent knee-jerk belief that men are always to blame?

Tradcon women need the MRM in the same way that WW1 generals need large armies of cannon fodder.  This is why, as Typhonblue correctly points out, tradcon women need the MRM more than the MRM needs tradcon women.  In fact, the MRM doesn’t need tradcon women at all (unless they become actual MRAs).

Jan 222013

Infowars.com is a website run by Alex Jones, a well known conspiracy theorist.  Some people think Alex Jones is against feminism.  This is incorrect.  He is no more against feminism than Mark Driscoll is.  Recently Infowars.com published a list of 22 things that are wrong with men these days demonstrating their misandry:

#3 The average American girl spends 5 hours a week playing video games. The average American boy spends 13 hours a week playing video games.

#4 The average young American will spend 10,000 hours playing video games before the age of 21.

#5 One study discovered that 88 percent of all Americans between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games, and that video game addiction is approximately four times as common among boys as it is among girls.

Infowars.com thinks that there is something wrong with video games yet they can’t actually come up with anything other than video games are a popular hobby.  (For all we know “video game addiction” being more common in boys may be nothing but misandry against men and a predominately male hobby.)  What is the problem Infowars.com has with video games?  It has been proven that there is no link between video games and violence.  (Infowars.com didn’t even try to say this.)  The only reason Infowars.com can have a problem with American men and boys playing video games is misandry.

#12 Pornography addiction is a major problem among our young men. An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and one survey found that 25 percent of all employees that have Internet access in the United States even visit sex websites while they are at work.

While visiting porn websites at work is a bad idea, what is the problem here?  So what if men look at porn?  Infowars.com hasn’t come up with an actual problem here except that more men than women are interested in porn.  Again, the only reason Infowars.com has a problem with this is misandry.

#14 The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet. If our young men behaved differently this would not be happening.

#15 In the United States today, one out of every four teen girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease. If our young men were not sex-obsessed idiots running around constantly looking to “score” these diseases would not be spreading like this.

Now, we’re getting into some heavy duty misandry.  Anyone who understands the 80/20 rule, and how women ride the cock carousel knows why this is wrong.  This is misandry in its most pure form since there is only a tiny fraction of men involved in these things but lots of women.

#16 Right now, approximately 53 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 24 year old age bracket are living at home with their parents.

#17 According to one survey, 29 percent of all Americans in the 25 to 34 year old age bracket are still living with their parents.

#18 Young men are nearly twice as likely to live with their parents as young women the same age are.

#19 Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents in the United States right now according to Time Magazine.

Why is this the fault of young men?  Young men go through a massively misandrist education system, and when they get to working age they are discriminated against in jobs with policies like affirmative action.  I’m sure most of these young men would like to have their own place, but they can’t because they are actively being discriminated against.  Why blame young men for this?  Misandry.

#20 Today, an all-time low 44.2% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are married.

#21 Back in 1950, 78 percent of all households in the United States contained a married couple. Today, that number has declined to 48 percent.

MAN UP AND MARRY THOSE SLUTS!!!!!!!  If you don’t the Rockefellers/Rothschilds/bankers/Jews/NWO/demons/reptile aliens win.  This gets blamed on young men, and there is no talk about anti-family courts, fathers losing the children in divorce, and how marriage is an all around bad deal for men (if not dangerous).  Young men refusing to get married is rational, and I’m glad to see it happening.  Alex Jones should be happy about this development, but he isn’t because he is a misandrist.

After reading this, it’s clear to me that there’s no difference between Alex Jones and someone like Mark Driscoll except that Mark Driscoll doesn’t rant about the (non-existent) NWO.  Take Mark Driscoll’s “how dare you” rant of misandry.

Add some ranting about the NWO to Driscoll’s rant, and it could have come from Alex Jones.  Alex Jones is nothing but Mark Driscoll plus conspiracy theory.

Jan 092013

One of my most popular posts is ”It’s No Surprise That Young Men Are Getting Fed Up With Women Faster Than Any Other Group Of Men” about how men under 30 are getting fed up with women.  It continues to be linked to and generate hits for this blog even though it was written close to a year ago.  It also continues to get new comments, but recently a woman named Cynthia commented on that post in a bizarre attempt to redefine the term, “slut”:

You should also realize, that I would not call these girls sluts, I mean they only sleep with attractive guys, not any guy.

This is quite possibly the most bizarre way to get out of being called a slut that I have ever seen.  And Cynthia is a conservative, too, once again showing that conservatives are obsessed with making the world “safe” for sluts. Nothing Cynthia tries will work because the term, slut, is impervious to being redefined since men will use the word, “slut” as we wish.  Even if you don’t have sex with unattractive guys, you’re still a slut, women, and nothing will change that.

Jan 052013

After the Newtown shootings, NRA (National Rifle Association) President Wayne LaPierre said:

And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like “Bullet Storm,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Combat,” and “Splatterhouse.”

And here’s one, it’s called “Kindergarten Killers.” It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research staff can find it, and all of yours couldn’t? Or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

This is wrong in so many ways.  First, there is no connection between video games and real world violence at all.  Second, video games do not come close to simulating actual firearm usage.

The most important reason why LaPierre is wrong is because what he is doing is feminist.  Video games are an activity predominately enjoyed by men.  So are guns.  Both activities are under attack from feminists (just like other predominately male activities like science fiction are) because men are interested in them and women are mostly not interested in them.  LaPierre is shooting himself in the foot (pun intended) by alienating allies among the video game community and helping out feminists in their war on male activities.

What LaPierre should have done is form an alliance with the video game community.  While the Newtown shootings are being used against gun owners right now, the next target will be video games and other mostly male interests and activities.  Both the video game community and the gun community are fighting the same enemy, feminism.  They should be working together to point out facts like how the Newtown shooter was raised by a single mother and how homes where the father is kicked out lead to more violence.

The NRA is in a position of weakness now because they are attacking video games and not the real causes of the Newtown tragedy, single motherhood and feminism.  The NRA is in the same boat as the Republican Party where it needs to become an explicitly anti-feminist and pro-mens rights organization to survive.   (Lots of conservative and right wing organizations are in this situation.)  Guns aren’t the problem here, but neither are video games.  The NRA needs to realize this and realize that its only way forward is by fighting feminism.  Anything else leads the NRA to irrelevance.

Dec 162012

This is a post I shouldn’t write because it’s feeding the attention whoring of a woman who is going around to various MRA and MGTOW blogs, but it’s an important subject so I’m going to do so anyway.

I got this tweet sent to me earlier this week:

You may have already seen this FeminineMystiqueTWRA woman elsewhere on other MRA blogs.  Her name alone shows that she is a feminist.  The “TWRA” stands for “traditional women’s rights advocate” and being about any kind of “women’s rights” is an automatic red flag that she’s a feminist.  The “FeminineMystique” part is an obvious homage to Betty Friedan.  Her name is represents a merger of tradcon (traditionalist conservative) misandry and leftist feminist misandry.  This merger of different forms of misandry is the basis of her ideology.

Take a look at the blog post listed in the tweet, and you will see how she merges tradcon misandry and leftist feminist misandry.  She quotes both Germaine Greer and Amanda Marcotte as gospel.  She uses the former to “prove” that feminism benefits men and the latter to “prove” that the cause of divorce is selfish men who refuse to take care of women and children because men can supposedly get away with it.  (Of course, we know all these statements to be lies.)  It’s telling that FeminineMystiqueTWRA uses feminist sources to support her points while claiming to be “anti-feminist”.

FeminineMystiqueTWRA is also inspired by tradcon misandry.  She uses the standard tradcon canards of “Women are the real victims of feminism and not men”, “Men are forcing women to go to work against their will”, and “MRAs are feminists” because MRAs want equal rights.  (The idea that feminists want equal rights and not female supremacism is another lie of hers.)

What makes FeminineMystiqueTWRA different than any other tradcon woman we have encountered?  Most tradcon women wouldn’t quote and agree with liberal feminist women so easily.  While tradcon misandry is similar to leftist feminist misandry (since it’s all misandry), tradcon misandrists convince themselves that they are different from the leftist feminist misandrists and wouldn’t use them as inspiration like FeminineMystiqueTWRA does.  This makes FeminineMystiqueTWRA a bit unique and why I’m calling her a “Nazbol” misandrist.

I got the term “Nazbol” misandrist, from the Nazbol political party in Russia.  The Nazbols were formed a few years ago as a merger of Naziism and Communism.  (The name is literally “National Bolshevism”.)  While the Nazbol party was banned in Russia, it still exists as a faction in “The Other Russia” political party.  Both Naziism and Communism aren’t really that different as they are both forms of totalitarianism, but both sides are willing to fight each other to the death over their minuscule differences.  However, since both Naziism and Communism have been thoroughly discredited and marginalized, the only place either side has to go is to merge together which is why we have seen the formation of Nazbols in Russia.

Just as Nazis and Communists are both forms of totalitarianism with minuscule differences, so both tradcon misandrists and leftist feminist misandrists are both forms of misandry with minuscule differences.  That means sooner or later, we would see “Nazbol” misandrists that merged misandry from both the tradcon and leftist feminist variants.  That is what FeminineMystiqueTWRA has done making her the first “Nazbol” misandrist that I am aware of.  While I was expecting this to happen eventually, I am surprised that it happened so soon.  I didn’t think that mens rights had progressed enough for us to start seeing “Nazbol” misandrists.  I expected that it would be another decade at least before “Nazbol” misandrists appeared.  This means that mens rights is moving forward faster than any of us thought because “Nazbol” misandrists would only appear after mens rights is successful enough to force strains of misandry to merge.  We have been more successful so far than we thought.