Everyone But MRAs Think That Equality Is A Plot To Benefit Men

 "nazbol" misandry, conservative female supremacism, Spearhead Related  24 Responses »
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.

Tradcons Let Feminists Define Their Reality

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, insanity  22 Responses »
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.

A New Argument Category

 conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  8 Responses »
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.

A Faceless Collective

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  9 Responses »
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.

Nazbol Misandry Is Female Self Interest In It’s Most Pure Form

 "nazbol" misandry, AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  11 Responses »
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.

Stay At Home Mothers Or Stay At Home Bloggers?

 conservative female supremacism, female behavior and whining  7 Responses »
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.

Typhonblue On Tradcons

 conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  14 Responses »
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).

Alex Jones Is Mark Driscoll Plus Conspiracy Theory

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), Anti-Family Courts, conservative female supremacism, conspiracy nonsense, video  16 Responses »
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.

You Can’t Redefine The Term, “Slut”

 conservative female supremacism, sluts  12 Responses »
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.

The NRA Needs To Stop Attacking Video Games And Start Supporting Mens Rights

 conservative female supremacism, gaming  13 Responses »
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.

“Nazbol” Misandry

 "nazbol" misandry, AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, female behavior and whining, the war on women is a myth  5 Responses »
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.

Obfuscating The Complicity Of Women

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, conspiracy nonsense, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  5 Responses »
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.

Spiritual Abuse: The Next Frontier Of The False Abuse Industry

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, false abuse industry, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  8 Responses »
Jun 232012
 

The false abuse industry never stops expanding.  It even creates new categories of fake “abuse”.  This doesn’t stop at the doors of the church.  Laura Grace Robbins uncovered a new form of the false abuse industry, “spiritual abuse”:

Taken from their “about” section:

“Joel became skilled at mental, emotional, verbal and spiritual abuse.

In 1991, Joel’s abusive treatment of Kathy culminated in his committing adultery. By this time their first son, Chris, was 2 years old and daughter Jenifer was 1 year old.

They left the ministry to travel on the road in full time secular work with the intention of restoring their shattered marriage and save the family. Things got worse. Three years of struggle ensued. Finally, they attended a one week set of classes that were designed to teach couples how to minister to severely abusive marriage relationships. Joel and Kathy realized that Joel was an abuser! Joel accepted this “verdict” and began to transform into a loving and kind husband.”

Spiritual abuse is a new claim to me and would make a good post. When a man isn’t loving woman in an acceptable way, call it spiritual abuse! Naturally, the husband is always the abuser!

Spiritual abuse is the perfect form of “abuse” for the false abuse industry.  Real abuse, that is physical abuse, produces actual evidence of abuse.  Thus for a man to be convicted of abusing a woman, there theoretically has to at least be some evidence of the abuse.  (In practice, the false abuse industry is powerful enough to bypass this, but it does leave questions.)  The false abuse industry prefers forms of “abuse” like “emotional abuse” and “verbal abuse” because they have less of a basis in reality.  It’s easier to make false accusations of such forms of abuse with impunity because there are few to no metrics for it.  It’s mostly based on a woman’s feelings.  ”Spiritual abuse” takes this a step farther.  While “verbal abuse” and “emotional abuse” may have some connection to reality, “spiritual abuse” does not.  Thus, man can be accused of it without them fighting back with inconvenient questions like, “where is the evidence?”  There is no objective metric for “spiritual abuse” so women can use it to club men whenever they want.

I have been developing a theory that for every aspect of feminism, the tradcons will invent their own variant of it.  ”Spiritual abuse” supports my theory.  The tradcons took the false abuse industry and added their own variant of it, “spiritual abuse”.

The Jewish Manosphere

 conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments, white (knight) nationalism  24 Responses »
Jun 192012
 

I found this blog post about the need for a Jewish manosphere.  I agree.  As the post points out, just as feminism as infected Christian churches, feminism has also infected Judaism.  And like with the feminist infection of Christianity, the post points out how feminism has infected all forms of Judaism including orthodox Judaism.  The post even points out there is likely a problem with women frivolously divorcing even in orthodox Judaism (just like how frivolous divorce in prevalent in the Christian church) although there is no data on it right now.

Feminism negatively impacts men from every religion out there and atheists (remember elevatorgate).  It’s not just an attack on Christianity despite what various Christian tradcons say.  To say otherwise just divides men who should be united against feminism and provides fodder for conspiracy theorists to say that the Jews are behind feminism.

The Catholic Church And Male Feminists Are Similar

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, examples of both sides being feminized, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments, Manginas/White Knights  8 Responses »
May 252012
 

We hear a lot about how the Catholic Church is supposedly anti-feminist.  Except for a few minor matters like abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, the Catholic Church agrees with feminism completely.  Anyone who tries to claim that the Catholic Church is anti-feminist will typically say point out how much feminists hate the Catholic Church.

In the case of feminists hating the Catholic Church, why do feminists hate the Catholic Church since they agree on most of feminism?  Justinian at The Spearhead figured out the answer:

The left’s hatred of the Catholic church mirrors the way women look down on male feminists.

This is what it comes down to.  The Catholic Church is the organization equivalent to male feminists.  Just how male feminists are hated by feminists despite the fact that they agree with each other, so is the Catholic Church hated by feminists.

Not The Same Institution

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), Christianity, conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  18 Responses »
May 192012
 

TFH had this to say at Dalrock’s:

Too few people are questioning the very obvious problem that the institution that conducts the marriage is not the same institution that conducts divorces. The two have no relation. How can so few people see the obvious problems with this.

So either the church should handle divorces, or the courts should handle the marital contract (which would itself make the lopsided arrangement far more clear to the man).

Also, if the church is not at least lobbying hard for this, that means they are either not serious about keeping the institution of marriage alive, or are too stupid to even grasp the dynamics.

That is why the focus on gay marriage is more irritating than anything else. They actually believe *that* is a threat to marriage. Rather, it is like firing a bullet into a corpse that has already been dead for a year.

This is very true.  When people get married, they go to a church (or some other place that isn’t a courthouse) and only give minimal thought to the legal side of it.  When they get divorced, they go to the courthouse and maybe later think about the religious side like getting an annulment (if that’s even relevant).  The primary institution of marriage to most people is not the law/courts/government, but for divorce it is.  This is why to solve the problem of rampant female initiated divorce, the solution must deal with the law/courts/government.  Tradcons and socons refuse to get this so they try to fight this as a culture war issue which leaves them fighting a useless war against gay marriage.  They ignore the fact that the biggest threat to marriage is female initiated divorce a lot of which is done by churchgoing Christian women.

Driving Miss Daisy

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  11 Responses »
May 042012
 

Anonymous Reader explains how when socons and tradcons talk about “male leadership”, they are really referring to men being “chauffeurs” for women:

Or, in other words, they say they want men to be leaders, but actually want them to be chauffeurs.
You know, the guy with the jacket and cap who takes a passenger where she wants to go, and who speaks only when spoken to. A remake of “Driving Miss Daisy”…

The socons and the tradcons try to tell men that being a chauffeur for women is “male leadership” by doing the equivalent pointing out the chauffeur sits in the front seat.  It’s a logical fallacy to assume that being in front of something means that you are in charge of it.  It pisses off the socons and the tradcons that increasing numbers of men are understanding this.

The comparison with the movie, Driving Miss Daisy, is very apt.  Driving Miss Daisy is about a black male chauffeur driving a white woman in the South before the civil rights era.  The black male chauffeur had lesser status and less rights than the white woman he drove.  This accurately describes the current situation between men and women.  Imagine if Miss Daisy told her chauffeur that he had more rights than her because he was in the front seat, and she was in the back seat of the car that he drove.  Such an idea would be absurd.  That’s what the socons and tradcons are doing.

The Engine Of Feminism

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  37 Responses »
Apr 292012
 

Brendan had this to say at Dalrock’s:

Indeed, and this is what I have come to think of as the “engine of feminism”. Daddies. It was this sentiment that caused the men in power during the mid 20th Century to back feminism the way they did — they wanted it for their daughters. This is still the case today, for the most part, among “mainstream” men of all political persuasions (including, as everyone here knows, our social conservative friends). At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree. It is sustained largely by this, precisely because any real criticism of the new system runs headlong into an army of mainstream fathers who are very protective of their daughters, and exercise this protection in terms of encouraging maximal viable independence (from men, of course). This is both the engine of feminism and the main obstacle to any serious reform of any of the things we discuss on these blogs, really.

Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong.  Feminism is dependent on marriage and family.  Without it, feminism would collapse.  When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.

Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?”  Like TFH says, they don’t understand cause and effect well, but this represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is.  A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism.  The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women.  The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such.  They have no interest in living in lesbian communes.  They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want.  If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce.  Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men.  Even increased taxation will not do it because men have less reason to work harder in such a scenario.  Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.

This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism.  Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.

What Really Motivates Tradcons

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments  22 Responses »
Apr 132012
 

Ever wonder what really motivates Tradcons?  Bskillet81, the man behind the blog, Christian Men’s Defense Network, explains their motivation:

I think so much of the discussion on TradCons and why they do what they do and why they are so willfully blind and so on… So much of the discussion entirely misses the boat on what motivates TradCons/SoCons.

They are not motivated by actually advancing a policy and cultural agenda and making incremental gains and so on. Look at the history of the TradCon/SoCon movement. Let’s list its successes:

1) Ending partial-birth abortion.
2)……

That’s it.

TradCons are not motivated to advance any policies. This is why they vote for candidates who give lip service to their aims, and then vote the opposite way every time, and the TradCons keep supporting these politicians with money and campaign volunteering and so on.

TradCons are the Pharisees of Luke 18:

The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.”

The point of TradCon/SoCons is, they want to be able to look at the destruction of society, and say, “Look at all those debauched evil people! I’m so glad I’m not like them. Look at how much better I am!” This gives TradCons a great deal of satisfaction and personal pride. As such, they want society to go to hell in a handbasket, because the worse it gets, the easier it is for them to point to society and feel good about themselves.

When it comes to MRM, it is easier for TradCons to point at evil men and say, “Look at how much better I am than that evil deadbeat divorced dad!” than it is to point at a woman. No one is impressed if you scapegoat a woman so as to glorify your own perceived righteousness. Doing that outs you as a total pussy. So you have to shame a man so you can still look tough while you’re being a Pharisee.

It’s that simple. The last thing TradCons want is to save our culture.

This sounds right to me.

Conservative Muslims Want You To Marry Single Mothers

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, future predictions, islam, Islamic Feminism, male/female relationships  18 Responses »
Mar 302012
 

I have been skeptical of the idea that Islam would be any sort of anti-feminist force.  The belief that Islam would be anti-feminist is based on the same myth that the tradcons are anti-feminist.  If anything Islam will end up on the same path of feminization that happened to Christianity and conservatism.  The only reason that we haven’t seen Islam become outright feminist yet is because Islam was really off the radar screen.  Now that Christianity and Judaism have been feminized, Islam is now a target and ill prepared to fight off feminism.  The end result is that Islam will become like the tradcons where they insist that they are “anti-feminist” all the while being feminized and pro-female in everything they do.

We will start seeing examples of the feminization of Islam.  One such example is how the conservative Islamic political party in Malaysia is telling (Muslim) men to marry single mothers.  They are claiming that Islamic polygamy which allows a man to have up to four wives was only to “protect widows and orphans”.  That may be correct, but from what they are saying, such a concept is being stretched:

Malaysia’s conservative Islamic party has urged Muslim men to marry single mothers as additional wives instead of “young virgin girls”, a state official said.

Wan Ubaidah Omar, a cabinet minister from northern Kelantan, which the party controls, said the proposal aired in state parliament this week was needed to help single mothers and widows in the under-developed region.

“Muslim men usually like young girls or virgins as their additional wives, so I suggest instead of taking these young virgin girls, why don’t they marry the single mothers as their second or third wife?” she said.

“This will ease the burden of the single mothers as the men can help them to take care of their children. The single ladies have no burden,” said Wan Ubaidah, who is in charge of women, family and health affairs in the state.

We now have a Muslim woman telling Muslim men to not marry virgins.  For now, only a Muslim man’s first wife (and most Muslim men will only have one wife) can be a virgin, but soon enough even that will fall by the wayside.  Some of you may think this is only about helping widows.  Think again:

Wan Ubaidah said her call was not meant to encourage polygamous marriage but as a way to help at least 16,500 single mothers aged under 60 in Kelantan, a state that has one of the highest divorce rates in the country.

It’s a call to force men to marry divorced women, not widows.  These same people defend this as being necessary for the “welfare of women”:

The minister also called for husbands who leave their wives without good reason to be whipped under religious laws.

“Some of these husbands just go missing in action suddenly, and leave the wives without any food or money. These kind of men should be whipped, they deserve it,” Wan Ubaidah said.

“This punishment is not in the state sharia law at the moment, but we can make it a law to make men more responsible; there is a lot of room for improvement in the legal system to protect the welfare of women,” she added.

The Muslims are now on the verge of adopting all of the feminist myths that divorce only happens because men are abusive or vanish.  It’s also clear that they are only a step away from promoting deadbeat dad myths.

Islam is well on its way to becoming as feminist as the tradcons are.

Code Ivory

 AFINOs (Anti-Feminist In Name Only), conservative female supremacism, shaming language, white (knight) nationalism  36 Responses »
Mar 202012
 

I read this from OneSTDV, and it gave me an idea:

The Manosphere, which I believe is primarily comprised of black and South Asian men, seeks the destruction of the family, and by proxy or deliberate motivation, traditional white society. What the Manosphere seeks as their utopic vision, a societal-level sausage fest, will accomplish nothing and furthermore directly contradicts the biological imperative of every single animal that has ever lived. By focusing on the gender war, their occasionally noble pursuit implicitly ignores the far more fundamental aspect of liberalism – hatred of Western civilization and whites. While not in a full-length post, I’ve argued before that a large portion of the Manosphere is primarily concerned with exonerating NAM men for their crimes and instead placing the blame at white feminists for society’s ills; with white women also being a group that has largely rejected them sexually. The fact that the Manosphere aggressively opposes racial discussion, both on their blogs’ front pages and within their comment sections, implies that such a characterization has merit.

This gives me an idea for an addition to the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, code ivory shaming language.

Charge of being anti-white (Code Ivory)

Discussion: The target is accused of declaring war on the white race or hating white people in some way.  Typically, this is used by white nationalists, but it also used sometimes by various reactionaries and conservatives who want to paint the target as a believer in multiculturalism.  Examples:

  • You hate the white race.
  • You are just angry that white women have rejected you.
  • You want to destroy Western civilization.
  • You are blaming white women for the crimes of non-white men.
  • You are failing in your duty to produce white children.
  • You are trying to destroy the white race via miscegenation.

Response: Feminists who use the tactic of “women and minorities” do not care about non-white men.  Non-white men are victims of feminism just like white men.  The damage feminism does affects poor men to a greater degree than other men, and poor men are made up of a higher percentage of non-white men.  The first victims of the false rape industry were black men who were lynched by the KKK because a white woman lied about being raped.  White nationalism is nothing but a goddess cult that worships white women so they are as feminists as self described feminists.

 Older Entries