Jan 112016

By now, I’m sure you all have heard about the alleged gang rapes in Cologne, Germany.  I have been seeing a lot of reactions from people in this part of the internet who should know better like:

  • See feminists don’t care about women
  • See feminists can’t protect women
  • Immigration is the real rape culture

If you think things like this, then you aren’t an anti-feminist.  For the last several years from Rolling Stone at UVa to mattress girl at Columbia, we have witnessed just how large the false rape industry is.  Yet, as soon as a middle eastern refugee/immigrant gets accused of rape, so called anti-feminists who know just how pervasive the false rape industry is automatically believe the accusation.  Anyone who ever applies the feminist principle of “listen and believe” to a rape accusation, even in limited cases, is a feminist.  And plenty of so called anti-feminists did that with the alleged rapes in Cologne.

For those of you who have been around this part of the internet long enough, this shouldn’t surprise you.  The same thing happened when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was falsely accused of rape.  A man’s race or his politics is no excuse to automatically believe a rape accusation like a feminist. The best of all would be to look for a good lawyer like Tampa sex offenses lawyer that will defend your rights.  What a lot of so called anti-feminists are doing is trying to be more feminist than actual feminists.  It’s a bad idea for many reasons, and it just strengthens the false rape industry.

Why is adopting “listen and believe” such a problem in limited cases?  The best example why starts with this video of a white knight nationalist who is highly emotional about the alleged rapes in Cologne and wants to start “rape patrols” to stop them:

Notice how he’s talking about violently assaulting middle eastern refugees who supposedly are raping white women.  He doesn’t talk about giving the alleged rapists a trial, fair or otherwise, due process, or innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  For him, if a woman says she was raped, he wants a gang to beat or murder the alleged rapist.  He also attacks MGTOWs for not wanting to join his gang of refugee beating white knight nationalists.

One reason why we have such a problem with the college rape “tribunals” is because they exist to circumvent the criminal justice system and due process.  This white knight nationalist also wants to circumvent the criminal justice system and due process.  He is just as bad as the college rape “tribunals”.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that he’s similar to the college rape “tribunals” because he is talking like a feminist and acts like a feminist (engaging in “listen and believe).

Feminists want rape to be handled outside of the criminal justice system because the criminal justice system demands things like evidence and believes in principles like innocent until proven guilty.  Just like the college rape “tribunals”, this man is giving the feminists exactly what they want with his “rape patrols”.  It’s no surprise that the entire video is an emotional outburst against MGTOW who are actual anti-feminists.

Nov 192015

Jesse Powell, the mangina who said that it was all right for men to be imprisoned on false rape charges to protect women, is now saying he’s a MRA.  He has not changed his views in any way, and he admits that.  What he did was take a lot of tradcon bullshit that has nothing to do with MRAs and label it MRA.  Here is an example:

In terms of my psychological development and how I see the world regarding gender relations I am definitely an MRA and always have been. If I was to try to establish a “beginning” of my MRA path or my MRA psychological orientation I would say the “beginning” was my initial effort to declare my love towards and establish a relationship with the woman I loved the most in high school in 12th grade at age 17. That was when I first established in my mind a romantic identity or romantic persona; a sense of self-worth and purpose based on my love for a woman. I had a very rudimentary sense of asserting myself for the purpose of claiming a moral purpose in relation to a woman. What was “MRA” about this first assertion of myself romantically was that it was based on a self-defined morally oriented self-concept where I was trying to associate the romantic feelings I felt with a moral idealistic purpose that would give my romantic feelings moral purpose and moral value. In other words I was setting up for myself a concept of myself as a man in service to a woman on my own terms for my own moral purpose.

The MRM is about things like fixing laws and public policy, not getting a girlfriend in high school (or later).  Clearly, he has no interest in actual MRA issues like fighting the false rape industry.  (It’s obvious he still supports the false rape industry.)  No one can take the term, MRA, and apply it to any old thing like Jesse Powell did.  Words have meaning.

Jul 062015

Over at The Federalist, Mytheos Holt wrote up a standard tradcon diatribe against men’s rights.  He says that tradcons have men’s rights issues covered, but let’s look at what he says about it:

So this brings up the question. What do men’s rights activists have as their signature issue? Child support? Child-custody reform? Social conservatives are already doing that. Male circumcision? Atheists, and the natural-birth movement. Tightening divorce laws? Social conservatives, again. Educating young men? Everyone from policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute to Laura Ingraham is worried about that. Military conscription? Ironically, feminists tried to pursue that with the Equal Rights Amendment. False rape accusations? Get in line; every conservative is worried about that now.

Noticed how many times he says that tradcons have been “worried” about these issues.  Worrying is the limit of what tradcons have been doing the last 50 years about these issues.  Sorry tradcons, no one is impressed by you being worried.  No one cares that you were secretly worried about what was was happening to men (assuming that you are even telling the truth that you were worried.)

Tradcons have abandoned their sons and grandsons, but they’re very worried about it so that makes is fine as far as they’re concerned.  Young men think differently.  Young men are refusing to follow the tradcon script (along with all of the other scripts), and all the “worry” the tradcons can produce doesn’t mean a thing to young men.

Jun 212015

Since today is father’s day, I added a new page about how fatherhood and not marriage is essential for civilization.  I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page.  Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.

Jun 122015

The Washington Post had an article on how cuckolding is becoming mainstream.  I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m sure that when that article came out a million men (at least) decided to never get married and go their own way (even though they have never heard of MGTOW).

If the article has any truth to it, most young men will not want anything to do with marriage.  All the shaming language from tradcons, which are functionally equivalent to the UN sending strongly worded letters, can not compete with the desire of most men not to be cuckolded.  The harshest shaming language from tradcons pales in comparison to the current disaster marriage is right now.  If cuckolding becomes more commonplace then the difference only becomes greater.

Tradcons are fighting a battle they can’t win.  If a man’s options are being cuckolded or having to occasionally listen to impotent shaming language from tradcons, nearly all men will choose not to be cuckolded.

May 302015

InfoWars/PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones’s websites) released a youtube video about something called neomasculinity:

I noticed several things about the video.  While it used game language and other language from this part of the internet, it’s clear that whoever wrote the script for that video didn’t really understand what we talk about.  MGTOW gets attacked (which has led to responses from MGTOW like Barbarossa).  Overall, this is another attempt at entryism by tradcons with some game terms used as an unsuccessful attempt to hide that it is an attempt at entryism.

This is nothing new.  It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account).  This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the Manhood Academy/Manhood 101 morons, and others have tried and failed to do.  This time it has a dash of, “you have to get married because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” (which is why believing in the depopulation agenda is misandry) and “They (whoever they is) are putting chemicals in the water to turn you gay”, but it’s really no different.  It’s an extreme form of the tradcon cry, “You have to get married to save civilization”.

Why is Alex Jones interested in creating another game 2.0 and attacking MGTOW now?  Sandman discovered that on Google trends that MGTOW became more popular than PrisonPlanet starting a couple of months ago, and MGTOW is only getting more popular.  Alex Jones is having the same problem all tradcons are having in trying to recruit young men.  As Hollenhund described, young men refusing to follow the tradcon script.  Alex Jones’s conspiracy theories are all derived from tradcon ideology, so when young men refuse to follow the tradcon script, they won’t buy into his conspiracy theories.

Alex Jones has a history of trying to cannibalize grass roots movements, and that is what he is doing with neomasculinity.  Barbarossa and John the Other had a conversation where they talked about that and how it turns into mission creep to the point where the original mission of a grass roots group gets replaced with doing nothing other than talking about the NWO.  Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists treat the NWO as all powerful so nothing can be done.  It creates a self fulfilling prophecy of nothing getting done.  After Alex Jones cannibalizes a grass roots group, the group is completely neutralized.  If Alex Jones is successful both game and MGTOW (and the M(H)RM) would be cannibalized to the point where they are meaningless.

I am certain that Alex Jones’s attempt at entryism will fail.  We have dealt with entryist tradcons before.  Tradcons have nothing to offer game, MGTOW (or the M(H)RM) so neither does Alex Jones.  No one is impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization”, so no one will be impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!”  We may see a few guys planning on pulling a Mark Minter use neomasculinity as a cover, but that will be it.  We don’t need Mark Minters so good riddance to them.

The more tradcons attack MGTOW, the more popular it becomes.  Let Alex Jones attack MGTOW and try his attempt at entryism.  He will fail, and MGTOW will be more popular afterwards.

May 252015

Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war.  What group has died in war more than any other group?  Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.

The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars.  The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending.  The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder.  It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder.  They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.

What groups are trying to draft young men as cannon fodder?  Hollenhund describes each group and their respective script:

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language.  However, it is not working.  Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.

Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers?  First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder.  Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them.  There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us.  We pretend to work.”  Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed.  Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.

Second, young men see just how bad women are becoming.  This is a strong disincentive to join any group that wants to use them as cannon fodder.  Young men see the behavior of women and are getting more and more fed up with them for good reason.  In 6 years of blogging, the most popular page on this blog by far is a page where I documented several comments from The Spearhead where young men were talking about how they are fed up with women.  The second most popular page on this blog was a follow up to that page.  This is not a coincidence.  Those pages represent how growing numbers of young men feel about women due to their experiences with women.

Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with?  Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him.  More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.

Apr 302015

One aspect of the Baltimore riots that doesn’t get a lot of attention is how these riots are happening in a community where fatherless homes are the norm.  At least it doesn’t until someone wants to blame men for the Baltmore riots.  Over at Townhall.com, a tradcon blames fathers for the Baltimore riots:

We have seen a desperate single mother trying to discipline her teenage son, but we haven’t seen fathers.

Where are the fathers? This is the uncomfortable questions liberals refuse to ask.

Sure, the government can manage this chaos to some degree through force and coercion, but fathers can influence order and discipline through love and devotion.

How much of the violence and rebellion in Baltimore is simply a consequence of the destruction of families?

How much has the moral decay of society contributed to the acceptance and tolerance of men who feel no responsibility for children they’ve created?

How much of a child’s rage and anger comes from feeling abandoned or unwanted by their fathers?

This was an excellent opportunity to talk about how feminism has forced fathers out of families and how single mothers are intentionally blocking fathers from seeing their children.  The black community has been hit hardest by this aspect of feminism.  Instead, we get tradcons blaming fathers for “abandoning their children” when fathers are prevented practically at gunpoint from having any relationship with their children.

This gets even worse when you consider that the Baltimore riots are feminist beyond the issue of fatherless children.  An article at Salon.com defends the riots as a “legitimate political tactic”.  That would be bad enough, but it’s worse because the reason that article defends the riots is feminism:

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

The Baltimore riots are feminism and the result of feminism, so what do the tradcons do?  Blame fathers.  What we have here is another example of white knighting, and it’s more disgusting than white knighting for fictional women.


Apr 052015

Rmaxgenactivepua brought us this webpage where a woman talks about the fallout from artificial wombs.  It’s an enlightening piece of women’s fear of artificial wombs.  Just look at what the author has to say:

The current War on Women pales in comparison to the potential impact that ectogenesis, a technology in which a human fetus gestates completely out of a mother’s body, will have.

The war on women is a myth, but this means that anyone is who paranoid enough to believe in the nonexistent war on women will be deathly afraid of artificial wombs.

What does it mean to sever human “birth” from the human body? This connection, between women and babies, is one of the sole sources of power that women have in some societies.

That isn’t true, but most of women’s power is derived directly or indirectly from childbirth.  From this and the rest of the article, it’s clear that the author realizes that with other options for children, plenty of men will forgo dealing with women which destroys women’s power.

Ann Oakley’s book The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women illustrates how ectogenesis would be part of a long-standing process by which virtually all male and often misogynistic medical cultures have taken control of birth and women’s wombs in the name of science.  In this framework, ectogenesis will potentially exaggerate preexisting inequities and biases.  In this equation women aren’t liberated, they are further subjugated and alienated from their own bodies and abilities.  This Handmaiden’s Talescenario is fairly believable if you pay any attention to, for example, Rick Santorum’s antediluvian reproductive rights agenda and the number of people willing to vote for him.

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

“Misogynistic medical cultures” produced things like the use of forceps in childbirth which saved many women’s lives.  This tells us that what women are afraid of with artificial wombs is bigger than just artificial wombs themselves.  What women are afraid of is the use of any technology in childbirth, even if they would otherwise die without it.  What science and modern medicine has done is not just made childbirth safer for women, but it has also demystified it.  That demystification has lessened women’s power even when it has benefited them.

Then it gets silly.  The author starts arguing that Tradcons are going to merge with Transhumanists to create some sort of misogynist tradcon cyborg that uses artificial wombs to oppress women.  It’s guaranteed that tradcons will oppose artificial wombs, and one of the reasons they will is because they’re white knights for women.  What this really shows is that for feminists all opposition looks like a tradcon even when that doesn’t make sense.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Perhaps women will no longer be able to hide behind childbirth and child rearing and do real work for a change.  Of course, to the author, this is “violence against women”.

Other feminist analyses takes into account the class and race implications of the enthusiastic adoption of assisted reproductive technologies by the wealthy. Some, eco-feminists, relate the eventuality to correlating a general campaign against nature. Ectogenesis also opens up the real possibility of men becoming mothers and primary care takers.

This is an admission of the author’s (and other women’s) real fear of artificial wombs.  Men will have children on their own, realize that they can raise them on their own, and no longer need women to help them raise children.  Then women have to contribute by doing other work which scares the crap out of them.  This is what the author’s (and other women’s opposition) to artificial wombs (absent a “social justice framework” as she says later in the article which means control by women) is really all about.

People have talked about how feminism has exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, mental, economic, spiritual, civic, physical) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.  The author of the page I linked to is clearly afraid the artificial womb will do the same to expose female inferiority when it comes to raising children.  However, she is wrong because that process has already started without artificial wombs.  Growing numbers of men are coming to the realization that women’s involvement in raising children is at least unnecessary and in a lot of cases harmful.  Paternity testing has shown that many women can’t be trusted to have your children instead of some other man’s children.  There are already commercials on TV advertising fertility clinics abroad to single men so that single men have their own children.  Artificial wombs aren’t the beginning of the process of exposing female inferiority when it comes to raising children.  They’re the end.  The author and her desired “social justice framework” can’t stop what has already started.

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.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »