Feb 072016
 

Millennial women support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton for President by a wide margin.  Now that the “Berniebros” attack on Sanders supporters has failed, feminists are trying other tactics that clearly won’t work.  Gloria Steinem is saying that millennial women who support sanders are doing so to meet young men.  Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is telling millennial women that there is a special place in hell for them for supporting Sanders over Clinton.  Specificially, Albright said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Why aren’t millennial women simply voting based on their vaginas?  They shouldn’t need old feminists to tell them to vote for Hillary, right?  It’s not because they are opposed to feminism (even if they swear up and down that they are not feminists).  There are a lot of millennial woman who unconsciously (or maybe consciously) know that the traditional feminist and SJW rhetoric of Hillary Clinton isn’t not good for them.  Sure, Clinton may become President, but that is bad in the long term for women.  A Hillary presidency and her policies will just create more MRAs, more MGTOWs, and will create more fertile ground for more #GamerGates.  Sanders seems like the safer choice for Democrats in this case.

Of course, the only difference between Sanders and Clinton, is that with Clinton will drive us off the feminist cliff at 100 MPH whereas Sanders will do it at 85 MPH.  (That’s because Sanders is against a bit of feminism like rape cases being tried by colleges.)  Sanders won’t save young women.  At most, he will delay the world of hurt young women will be in by a couple of years.

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.  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.

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.

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.

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.

Feb 032014
 

I haven’t had the time to follow what the red pill women are doing.  Fortunately, Laura Grace Robbins has, and she has pointed out that the red pill women are really the grey pill women (as in the 50 Shades of Grey):

I think a lot of the issues stems from women coming off a “50 Shades  of Grey” high and desperately trying to recreate a submissive role in real life. The thing is though authentic submission is not a role, a trick, a wile–I believe authentic submission comes from a heart that is focused on God.

Submission right now is a fad. Just wait till the 50 Shades movie comes out and reignites the craze and see how many more women all of sudden just “get it” and go red pill.  They will go from 50 Shades of Grey to 50 Shades of Red.

What the red grey pill women are doing is not new.  We have seen it before.  It’s another form of Game 2.0.  Call it Game 2.1 if you like.  These women are trying to co-opt game and other ideas from this part of the internet just like Susan Walsh did.  The only difference between them and Susan Walsh was that Susan Walsh was a second wave feminist who had some of her own ideas.  The red grey pill women are doing nothing but a really bad copy of our ideas.  You can even see it from the name of one of their blogs, Return of Queens.  Not only is it an obvious attempt at copying Return of Kings, it sounds like a blog for flamboyant homosexuals.   In a way, that’s appropriate because it shows how the red grey pill women can’t even copy our ideas right.  The red grey pill women are trying so hard to maintain a pretense of femininity without actual femininity that they end up in male homosexual territory.

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”.

Aug 152013
 

Jesse Powell TWRA (the TWRA at the end is important since Jesse Powell TWRA has no identity without women) says a lot of misandrist things.  One of the most misandrist things he has ever said it’s all right for innocent men who are the victims of false rape charges to be imprisoned because he believes it will protect women from being raped.   Jesse Powell TWRA says that we’re slandering him, and that the context of his remarks was because Paul Elam secretly desires to end all rape prosecutions.  In reality, we are correct, and he is the one slandering Paul Elam.

Paul Elam said that if he was on a jury in a rape trial, he would always vote not guilty.  This isn’t some sort of general protest against the false rape industry nor does Paul Elam want women to get raped.  Paul Elam has said that the whole legal culture around rape prosecution is corrupt tainting any evidence in a rape trial.  Rape shield laws also prevent a defendant from presenting relevant evidence.  These factors come together to make it impossible to determine guilt in a rape trial.  If you’re on a jury and know you can’t trust the evidence presented to you and/or you know evidence is missing, then you can’t evaluate whether a defendant is guilty or not.  Thus, a juror in such a circumstance must vote not guilty.  This is a sound legal principle and a proper application of due process.

Jesse Powell TWRA will start screaming at this point how this will allow rapists to go free.  It’s possible it might.  However, one of the principles that is at the foundation of our legal system is that it’s better for a guilty man to escape than let an innocent man be imprisoned.  This is better known as Blackstone’s formulation (named after Sir William Blackstone) which is, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Blackstone wasn’t the first to understand his formulation.  Various legal authorities in history before him understood this principle.   The Bible is likely the original source of this principle.  The Founding Fathers also agreed with Blackstone.  Benjamin Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.  John Adams provides the best explanation on why a legal system striving to be just must follow Blackstone’s formulation:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever

In other words, if the legal system must default to letting a guilty person escape whose guilt can’t be proven rather than let an innocent person be imprisoned because the alternative is to completely undermine the desire of people to follow the law.  In such a scenario, either the government collapses into anarchy because no one trusts it, or a police state (which will be corrupt by definition) will be established.  Knowing this it’s no surprise that the critics of Blackstone’s formulation are mostly tyrants or apologists for tyrants.  Pol Pot was a strident critic of Blackstone’s formulation.

There is no way to completely eliminate rape as there is no way to completely eliminate any other form of crime.  Imprisoning innocent men like Jesse Powell TWRA (and Pol Pot) would want to do will not eliminate rape.  Instead it destabilizes our government potentially leading to a police state which is exactly what a tyrant would want.  If Sir William Blackstone and the Founding Fathers were around today, they would agree with Paul Elam’s point of view because they understand that Blackstone’s formulation is a necessary component of a free and just society.

Jesse Powell TWRA clearly disagrees with Blackstone’s formulation so the only conclusion that we can draw is that he wants a matriarchal police state to “protect women”.  This is a case with a clear difference between two sets of ideas.  On one side you have Sir William Blackstone & the Founding Fathers defending freedom and justice.  On the other you have Pol Pot and a police state.  Jesse Powell TWRA has chosen the latter.

Aug 112013
 

I found that arch-mangina Jesse Powell has a blog where he goes by the name “Jesse Powell TWRA” despite being rejected by the TWRAs (traditional women’s rights activists).  As the TWRAs are nazbol misandrists, Jesse Powell as a nazbol mangina gives plenty of examples of how nazbol misandry naked female self interest without the desire to disguise itself.

Here he says that men must reassert authority but only to serve women’s interests:

I to place an emphasis on the need for men to assert authority and to claim their “rightful role in society” but I always make sure to place men’s assertion of authority in its rightful context; that male authority is only legitimate for the purpose of serving women’s interests.

Elsewhere he says that ultimate male purpose is serve women:

The rightful role of men is both leader and authority figure as well as provider and protector. Men asserting their rightful role in society has to include both assertion of authority and acceptance of responsibility and burden; indeed the assertion of authority is explicitly for the purpose of allowing men to provide for and protect women. The ultimate male purpose is to provide for and protect women; the means to achieve this end is male authority.

If you think that’s bad, it gets worse:

Men were created to serve women to enable women to serve children.

The difference between Jesse Powell and the feminist manginas and the tradcon white knights is that feminists and tradcons are much smarter about hiding their motives.  Feminists will at least play a bit of lip service to male problems with “patriarchy hurts men too”.  Tradcons will pretend that the believe in real male authority when they talk about male leadership.  In both cases, they’re lying but at least they’re making a minimal attempt to make their respective ideologies appealing to men and attempting to have some sort of internal consistency.  Feminists and tradcons are smart enough to know that they can’t openly talk about de facto male slavery for the benefit of women and expect to have more than a small handful of male supporters.  Can nazbol misandrists really be this stupid?  Clearly, the answer is yes.

Jun 292013
 

Every so often, a man in this part of the internet decides to give up on the M(H)RM or MGTOW.  Usually, it’s because of a (perceived) lack of progress in rolling back feminism to the point where such men declare that rolling back feminism can never happen.  Paul Elam had a good response to such men:

And now we have started building a better option for ourselves with the MHRM and MGTOW. That is what pissed me about this. It is happening right in front of him, but not on his schedule, so he is going to whine.

This is what it’s really all about it.  It’s not happening on their schedule (or in their way) so they whine about it.  Yes, the progress being made in rolling back feminism is happening very slowly right now.  It’s understandable to be frustrated about this.  (I wish more progress was being made too.)  However, it is happening.  Once the M(H)RM, MGTOW, and/or other anti-feminist (and de-facto anti-feminist) efforts reach critical mass, then we will see feminism rolled back much faster.

One thing that’s poorly understood is why anti-feminism hasn’t reached critical mass yet.  That reason is old men.  Old men lived before feminism and even now don’t take the problem of feminism seriously.  Most old men that are against feminism even now treat it as something that is irrelevant to the daily lives of men instead of an entity that controls government policy.  Young men, on the other hand, are much more likely to realize the truth about feminism even if they haven’t fully defined the problem yet.  Young men have lived their entire lives under feminist control.  They went to feminist controlled day care, public schools, colleges (if they went to college), and workplaces.  Young men have always lived under a feminist controlled government and had to deal with feminist influenced women (and that’s includes women who don’t think they’re feminist).  They have seen their fathers, uncles, and older brothers get ass raped and lose their children in divorce court.  Every day an old man who is more likely to be feminist or who is not meaningfully opposed to feminism is replaced by a young man who has directly experienced the devastation feminism causes in his own life even if he hasn’t fully defined the problem as feminism just yet.  Anti-feminism will gain critical mass simply from old men dying and being replaced by young men even if nothing else is done.  It’s a slow process (relatively speaking), but it it happening.  Starting around 2020 or so, we will see anti-feminist progress gain speed.

Unfortunately, we have to be patient.

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.

Jun 082013
 

I very rarely disagree with Paul Elam openly.  This is because he gets lots of “criticism” that’s baseless and all around silly nonsense that boils down to “Paul Elam is a godless commie or leftist”, “Paul Elam is a male version of a feminist”, “Paul Elam isn’t doing things my way or making the M(H)RM all about my pet issue”, “AVFM is insufficiently ‘Christian’ or ‘libertarian'”, “Paul Elam hates the white race”, or “Paul Elam and his terminology doesn’t follow my obscure philosophy”.  Adding my own disagreements, while minor, just creates an atmosphere of “see everyone hates Paul Elam”.  Also, Paul Elam (& AVFM) are in the trenches actually doing something a lot more than any of us.  They have a better idea of what would work to advance the M(H)RM from that alone than I ever could.

That being said, I agree with what rmaxgenactivepua said in his response to the most recent Entitlement Princess of the Month:

She also happens to be a former AVFM’er, proving AVFM needs to vet the women more stringently

Yes, AVFM needs to vet women (and men) joining it more stringently, because entryism is going to be an increasing problem.  (Entryism is when a group infiltrates another group, usually larger, in an attempt to expand their political or ideological base.)  We have already seen attempts at entryism in the M(H)RM from groups like the tradcons and the white (knight) nationalists.  In the game world, Susan Walsh was an entryist trying to create a “Game 2.0”.  (In fact, WBB is basically the Susan Walsh of the M(H)RM.)  As the M(H)RM expands in numbers and gets closer to the mainstream, the entryists will get more numerous and more sophisticated.  They will do a better job maintaining a pretense of supporting the M(H)RM than the tradcons or the white (knight) nationalists ever did.

How do we identify entryists in the M(H)RM?  We can’t assume that only women will be entryists.   Even though a woman is more likely to be an entryist than a man, both men and women can be entryists.  As time goes on there will be more entryists.  For now at least, the way to identify entryists like WBB is to find out their opinion on MGTOW.  Since MGTOW isn’t a movement of any kind, entryist tactics won’t work on it.  Thus, sooner or later an entryist will express their disgust and revulsion for MGTOW and will try to separate the M(H)RM from the MGTOW because MGTOW is a threat to what they’re trying to do.  If someone in the M(H)RM isn’t at least willing to leave MGTOW alone, then they’re definitely an entryist.

Jun 042013
 

The votes are in for the April 2012 Entitlement Princess of the Month.  The winner with 66% of the votes is Jamie Cuaca, the Indonesian woman who demanded $450,000 a month alimony.  Remember to keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month is another month with no voting because there is an incredibly obvious winner.  The winner of the May 2013 Entitlement Princess of the Month is Kristina Hansen, otherwise known as Wooly Bumblebee at A Voice For Men.  She worked hard for the award by viciously slandering the idea of MGTOW (men going their own way).  She did it on Facebook:

wbb

 

And on youtube:

Both the Facebook comment and the video are dripping with entitlement.  She thinks she has the right to tell men how to live their lives and to control the direction of the M(H)RM.  You can see more of her entitlement princessness in this conversation she had with Paul Elam who understandably is getting very annoyed with her.  (The relevant part starts around 6:30):

While this video is filled with entitlement on her part, the most important aspect of her entitlement complex is how she refuses to listen.  She refuses to listen to Paul Elam.  She refuses to listen to the experiences of men.  She thinks she has the right to tell men to shut up.

Anything I write about these two videos will not do them justice.  You just have to watch them, and if you do it will become completely clear why Kristina Hansen was the only choice for the May 2013 Entitlement Princess of the Month.

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.

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.

Mar 062013
 

On Jezebel, noted mangina, Hugo Schwyzer, is promoting pegging, which is a sexual act where a woman wearing a strap on fucks a man up his ass.  Hugo Schwyzer considers this a great way to turn men feminist.  The commenters on that piece mostly agree and apparently engage in pegging quite regularly.  Do hetero people really want to engage in pegging?  Obviously the answer is no except for ideological (i.e. feminist) reasons.  It would not be an enjoyable act for either a hetero man or a hetero woman.  Unless your girlfriend or boyfriend is questioning his/her sexuality or considers himself/herself a feminist, then you are never going to get a request to engage in pegging.

Since most women have no interest in pegging men, then what is the problem?  The problem is similar to the Susan Walsh line of, “I’m not a feminist because I’m against sluts/have no interest in being a slut.”  The average woman is going to look at feminists talking about pegging and think their nuts.  This sounds like a good thing except that it give the average woman cover for her own misandry because clearly she “can’t be a feminist” because she isn’t interested in unusual sex acts like pegging.  The average “not a feminist” woman will still be a misandrist and do things like use the feminist anti-family court system to divorce her husband all the while considering herself different from the feminists in the same way that Susan Walsh thinks that she is “not a feminist”.

What is happening with feminists and pegging is that what gets called “feminist” becomes a smaller and smaller subset of true misandry as feminism requires more and more obscure ideas and practices for someone to consider themselves a feminist.  This creates a problem where it becomes easier for women and manginas can be both “anti-feminist” (although they would be AFINOs, anti-feminist in name only) and misandrist at the same time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

Jun 022012
 

The votes are in for the April 2012 Entitlement Princess Of The Month, and the winner is Amanda Clayton with 51% of the vote.  She is the woman who was on welfare and won the lottery but failed to notify the Michigan welfare office about her new assets as required by law.  When asked if she felt she had a right to the welfare money she was getting after winning the lottery, Clayton said, ”I kind of do.  I have no income, and I have bills to pay.  I have two houses.”  Remember to keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

While we have submissions for this month, I am rolling them over to next month as there is an entitlement princess out there who clearly deserves the award this month.  She is none other than Susan Walsh of HookingUpSmart.  She is arguably one of the founders of “game 2.0” which is that men should only run game for the benefit of women.  Walsh has made increasing demands that men adopt and obey women’s demands no matter how absurd from banning men who speak the truth on her blog to supporting accusations that various MRAs (including myself) work for the Illuminati to deleting comments that just mention various androsphere/manosphere individuals to demanding that everyone believe that women only divorce men who cheat on them to deleting posts that referenced androsphere/manosphere men she used to agree with.  (That last one was recognized for being reminiscent of the Soviet Union.)  Those are just a few examples.  Documenting all of her entitlement princess behavior would take weeks.  All of this speaks to Susan Walsh’s massive entitlement complex which makes her the clear choice for May 2012 Entitlement Princess Of The Month.

May 272012
 

I thought that my previous post about Susan Walsh where I documented how she is deleting comments that mention androsphere personalities like Rollo Tomassi and Dalrock was the last thing I would say about her.  I have to document her latest descent into insanity.  Rmaxd has let us know that she is deleting posts now.  Specifically, Susan Walsh has deleted a post called “The Wisdom of Yohami” which referenced Yohami.  She can’t really totally get rid of it since links to it are everywhere.

Susan Walsh’s deletion spree continues.  Before it was Rollo and Dalrock.  Now it’s Yohami.  We should start a betting pool on who Susan Walsh will choose next to remove all references to on her blog.

At this point it should be clear to anyone what Susan Walsh really is although guys like MarkyMark will still defend her.

Translate »