May 252012

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

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

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

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

May 192012

This was said at Dalrock’s:

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

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

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

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

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

May 162012

Rollo Tomassi said this at Dalrock’s:

OT, but nevertheless hilariously entertaining,..
Hey Dal, I’m honored,..

Honest to God, there are male bloggers I wish I’d never heard of. From this moment on, I’ll never mention Rollo or Dalrock again, and I’ll delete any comment that does so. I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation.

I don’t even have to post on her comment threads anymore to enjoy the irony. Heheheh,..she loves me.

[D: That is pretty funny. Did anyone even mention either of us, or was it entirely unprompted?]

If you check the link, it was entirely unprompted.  One by one Susan Walsh is declaring her hate for everyone in the androsphere.  Is there anyone in the androsphere she doesn’t hate yet?  If there is, just wait a month and that will change.  Next Susan Walsh will call it a “compelling idea” that Dalrock and Rollo have been recruited by the Illuminati to destroy male/female relationships like she did with me.

I have to say that deleting comments that just mention the names of various androsphere personalities regardless of their actual content is a new low for Susan Walsh.  Umslopogaas called this increasingly fascist for good reason.

No one should be surprised by this turn of events.  No one in the androsphere wants to go along with Susan Walsh’s game 2.0/man up 2.0.

May 042012

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

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

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

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

Apr 292012

Brendan had this to say at Dalrock’s:

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

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

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

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

Apr 132012

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

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

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

1) Ending partial-birth abortion.

That’s it.

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

TradCons are the Pharisees of Luke 18:

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

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

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

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

This sounds right to me.

Mar 302012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mar 202012

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

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

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

Charge of being anti-white (Code Ivory)

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

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

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

Feb 292012

Deti compiled a list of memes that we hear from (conservative female supremacist) tradcons who claim to be against feminism, but are really AFINOs (anti-feminist in name only):

1. The manosphere is full of bitter and angry men.

2. Because of their bitterness and anger, these men are dangerous and violent, and therefore must be controlled (and punished if necessary).

3. These men are immoral and stand athwart conventional Judeo-Christian morality because they associate and identify ideologically with the Game/pickup artist sect of the manosphere.

4. Game is immoral, even in the marriage context, because it is grounded in fraud, deceit and manipulation of women.

5. Assuming it is true that Game allows men to exploit women’s psychological, sexual and sociobiological composition to ultimately manipulate them into sex (whether married or not), it proves that men are less moral than women, and that women occupy a higher moral plane than men. Women are pure. Men are base.

6. Men are much more to blame for the current SMP mess than women. Even though women were freed from prior legal, social and medical/risk of pregnancy constraints to have sex with whomever they wanted, men are more to blame because they took advantage of it. Men should have restrained themselves from the sexual smorgasbord the women put on offer.

7. Men who aren’t having sex should not be complaining about it. Christian single men are supposed to be chaste. Period, Full stop. Never mind that they see women — including the women in Church — doing literally whatever they want with whomever they want.

8. Christian single women are supposed to be chaste too, but if they are not, it is ultimately some man’s fault. Shaming sluts is diametrically opposed to Christian tenets of love, forgiveness and redemption, so we won’t do it. All she has to do is repent, come to Church and say she’s sorry for letting some man (men) ravage her body, and God will do the rest. We’ll leave aside for later the sticky wicket of natural consequences. Someone else will have to deal with that. We deal in the spiritual, and that’s all we need to do.

9. The divorce culture, the current legal setup in which women are encouraged to divorce for the flimsiest of reasons, men are impoverished and income streams to divorced women are arranged, the destruction of families: these things are bad. But men going around having premarital sex and deflowering precious paragons of virtue is worse, even if the paragons were begging for it. And any man who does this deserves to have a woman divorce and impoverish him, because that’s just and fair, and our God is a God of justice.

10. This so-called MGTOW business is merely men becoming parasites upon society. MGTOWs do nothing and ultimately give nothing back to the society in which they live and feed upon. They need to leave the MGTOW lifestyle, man up, quit playing video games and working at the comic book store, and marry the “reformed sluts” on which we are slapping those coats of Kilz. That way, these men can contribute to society in a way we believe is most appropriate. But if things go bad, or she decides she’s not haaaappy, or decides to EatPrayLove, he’s on his own. It’s his job to be nice to her, be sensitive to her needs, and submit himself to Jesus, the Ultimate Boyfriend and Lover of His/Her Soul. And if she leaves, it’s not our fault. We did our part. We had her pray the prayer. Hey, he f**ked up, he trusted us.

11. (Courtesy of FlirtyIntroverts) If men have it so bad and they feel they cannot get married because of unfair divorce laws, then they need to band together and change the divorce laws to make them fairer. The fact that the vast majority of men are not agitating for wholesale divorce reform means (1) they don’t think they are being treated unfairly; (2) the men who do get screwed got what’s coming to them; and/or (3) men still have all the political and economic power in this country and if they really wanted reform it would happen tomorrow.

Everytime a socon/tradcon shows up in the manosphere, they always end up saying these 11 things.  I don’t expect this to change.

Feb 172012

There are several blogs that claim to be feminist and support men.  Even Hooking Up Smart would fall into this category because it’s AFINO (anti-feminist in name only) and gynocentric to the core.  Telling the truth at these blogs gets you banned.  Hollenhund and Clarence discovered this.

Hollenhund was banned from Hooking Up Smart for posting this inconvenient truth:

Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place. Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.

So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition, for the reasons I mentioned above. Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.

And the notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly. If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP, they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males, plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless. I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.

That was too much truth for Susan Walsh to handle so Hollenhund got banned.  I’m sure he will get added to Susan Walsh’s list of MRAs and MGTOW that are working for the Rockefeller-Illuminati-Reptile Alien Cabal.

Clarence got banned for No Seriously What About The Menz? for positing this truth:

I recently got banned from No Seriously What About the Men apparently for a SINGLE COMMENT (about Rosie O, comparing her to a whale) that I made in the comments section in response to comments by women about how unattractive a certain feminist was (and I actually said that particular feminist -not Rosie O – was ok looking) and..get this..ON A WHOLLY DIFFERENT BLOG.

I will admit that I have a problem with comparing Rosie O’Donnell to whales because it’s an insult to whales.  That still isn’t a reason to ban someone from a blog.

These are just two examples of how feminist/gynocentric blogs that claim to support men in reality don’t.

Feb 092012

The reason why there is so much written in the manosphere about socons, conservatives, etc. is because it is recognized that feminism is not purely a left wing ideology.  It has infected both the left AND the right, and TDOM explains this and how feminism transcends both the left and the right:

That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.

I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.

Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.

At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.

On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”

The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.

The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.

Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.

Feb 062012

I found a link to this post from a comment at Dalrock’s blog about some “Christian” woman who is decrying the manosphere as a haven of sexual sin.  There are so many things wrong with this post that I don’t know where to start.  If you read the post, she sounds like a feminist.  She talks about how “angry” the manosphere is (which we know is code orange shaming language).  Since she doesn’t seem to be any different than a feminist, what’s her reason for claiming to not be a feminist?  It is:

I cannot offer an apology for feminism. I have not been able to align myself with the women’s movement because my sexual ethics, which are informed by my Catholic faith, are incompatible with the feminist stance on birth control, extra-marital sex, and abortion.

That’s it.  So what about the other 99.999% of feminism?  Clearly, she agrees with that.  When it comes to things like birth control and sex outside of marriage, there is nothing really “feminist” about it.  There are plenty of pro-life feminists so abortion isn’t particularly feminist either.  This woman’s three examples of how “she’s not a feminist” have a very limited and tenuous connection to feminism at best.  She has nothing to say about things really caused by feminism like paternity fraud, men who are forced into corrupt divorce courts and have their children stolen from them, the false rape industry, the false sexual abuse industry, the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, etc.

This woman is just another AFINO (anti-feminist in name only) and an example of conservative female supremacism.

Feb 012012

I found this comment:

rumor has it Elam is the actual man behind the anti-game nonsense

Rumor has it?  Yes, Paul Elam disagrees with game.  Deal with it.  He has better things to do than secretly organize a campaign against game.  It’s things like this that make me embarrassed to be associated with the game community.

Jan 252012

I have been following Dalrock’s posts about the Costa Concordia disaster.  From there, I found a link to this where a socon/tradcon/conservative female supremacist name Sheila Gregoire was wailing about how men weren’t committing a female supremacist form of seppuku for the benefit of women.  What I mean by a “female supremacist form of seppuku for the benefit of women” is the idea of “women and children first” where men should die for the benefit of women.  It’s similar to seppuku because seppuku was a way for samurai to die “with honor” and because female supremacists like Sheila Gregoire think it’s dishonorable for men to save themselves from a sinking ship.  To her and other female supremacists, this is “dishonorable” so the only way for men to save their honor in their eyes is to willingly die on the ship which is ritualistically committing suicide for women.

If that doesn’t convince you that “women and children first” is feminist/female supremacist, then the next sentence will.  Women and Children First is the name of a feminist bookstore in Chicago.  If “women and children first” wasn’t a feminist idea, then it wouldn’t be the name of a feminist bookstore.  (There aren’t any feminist bookstores named, “Men Are Really Great” after all.)  The only more feminist name for a bookstore would be, “Women and Women First” which is the name of the feminist bookstore in Portlandia.

Dec 192011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

When someone is talking about mens’ rights issues or anything that only affects or disproportionately affects men, a common response is some derivative of “women have it just as bad.”  This response will be used no matter how absurd it is when applied to the issue or issues being discussed.  For example, if an MRA is discussing what happens to men during and after divorce, someone will respond that women suffer just as much from divorce. Obviously, this is not the case, because women wouldn’t disproportionately initiate divorce proceedings otherwise. What these people are doing is promoting a myth of equal suffering.

Why do we have a myth of equal suffering?  It is because feminists – and even many anti-feminists (who are really anti-feminist in name only, or AFINOs) – don’t want to admit that there are certain issues (such as divorce) where men bear the overwhelming brunt of the negative impact. Feminists will use this myth in an attempt to shut down any effort to show that their policies and actions are attacking men. AFINOs will also use the myth to hide the fact that women who don’t claim to be feminists are still benefiting from feminism.  For them, it’s an attempt to pretend that the benefits of feminism are going to some far away group of feminist women instead of both feminist women and AFINO women. This can be seen with divorce where women who don’t claim to be feminists divorce as often as self-admitted feminist women do. It can also be seen when someone says, “But feminism hurts women too”.

The myth of equal suffering is not used in the opposite direction. If something were to disproportionately affect women, these people will not talk about how men are suffering just as much from the same problem. This is because the true purpose of the myth of equal suffering is not to demonstrate that men and women suffer equally: it is to diminish problems experienced by men so that women can be shown to be suffering more. This serves the purpose of adding more power to women via victimhood. It is similar to how feminism in general claims to support equality when in reality it is promoting an agenda of female supremacism.

Dec 172011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage.  They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”.  For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0.  Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0).  How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism?  The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married.  This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage.  There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

  1. Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country
  2. Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)
  3. Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2.  They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county.  It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens.  This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be?  Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage.  They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations.  In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies.  Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

Nov 012011

A White Nationalist said this on Dalrock’s blog:

Here is a somewhat unusual, anecdotal point of view on this subject. In my professional millieu, I am around a lot of smart, attractive late 20s / early 30s girls who have long term boyfriends that to my best judgment are greater betas to lesser alphas, but no marriage or children on the horizon. Further, those girls are really wanting to get that ring and start a family. I talk to a few of them, and overhear conversations of others. The boyfriends won’t shit or get off the pot. And I want those girls to have children.

Now, I understand the legal perils and other things that are causing those guys to hold off on getting married, or having a kid. But somethign must give, or entire crops (LOL at my econ-speak) of smart, beautiful girls will not have children like themselves.

Seriously, those girls ought to tell their boyfriends that she wants to start a family, and to give him a way out if he is unwilling; And if he doesn’t take the exit door, to just get herself pregnant wiht him. I’d rather those girls have out of wedlock chilren than no children at all, especially knowing that the boyfriends woudl come around to assuming th eresponsibility of fatherhood.

It’s a tragedy that the “Knocked Up” movie is a model for girls who look like Katherine Heigl to not go extinct.

If you scroll down, this fool reiterates that white women should trick white men into knocking them up.  I’m sure this white nationalist hates me as I am preventing multiple smart and pretty white women from reproducing.

If you’re reading this blog carefully, you should know that white nationalists think white women tricking white men into pregnancies is a good idea.  Several months ago Irrational White Nationalist said:

I hope Sabrina and Kate both successfully trick you with multiple oops pregnancies, PMAFT, if you’re all white. You have lots of money and power. White men like you should have children and if you refuse with your MGTOW mental degeneracy your white goddesses should force it on you. It’s your duty to the white race. PMAFT, I know you don’t want glorious white children but you will understand why having white children is important after having them.

You should be excited at the possibility of reproducing with multiple white goddesses. You have the opportunity to be more evolutionary successful than the losers of this so called manosphere with their lack of reproduction or minimal reproduction with one woman. That is being a white alpha.

This is just another reason why white nationalism is really just a goddess cult and should be called white knight nationalism.  White nationalists are not actually opposed to feminism in any meaningful sense.  They are only against something they think the Jews did which means they provide no real opposition to anything feminism does.  And as this example shows, white nationalists are enablers of misandry.

Oct 312011

Henry Makow, the guy who spends time thinking about Dick Cheney’s genitalia, has really gone off the deep end.  He posted an article from some lunatic who claims that circumcision is a conspiracy to keep men from masturbating and having sex.  It’s a really stupid idea because obviously that has not happened.  This is what Henry Makow had to say about it:

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction.  I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man’s life is positive. In fact, the option of taking a libido inhibitor would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself.  (But that’s another story.)

This is disturbing enough.  However, Henry Makow edited what he originally said.  I found this at another website that is recording Henry Makow’s articles and thus captured Makow’s original comment:

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction.  I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man’s life is positive. In fact, the option of chemical castration would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself. (But that’s another story.)

I added the bold.  I have also saved a screen shot of this in case it disappears.  If thinking about Dick Cheney’s penis was bizarre enough, Henry Makow believes that castration would be a “blessing” for young men.  I’m almost surprised he chose to cover his tracks on this because he never tried to hide his fixation on Dick Cheney’s penis.

Makow also posted an article from a woman running the born again virgin con showing his support for it.  Here are some of the things the born again virgin woman had to say:

Feminism has really been the Men’s Liberation Movement.

My most serious relationship was with a musician. He ended up moving to NYC to pursue music and I didn’t think I could keep up with his lifestyle or the city. He also drank quite a bit. I have tended to attract addicted men — something I have had to watch out for.

I am currently not working because of nervous burnout and I can’t believe the guilt that’s been thrown at me, for trying to stop and take care of myself.

I am under a lot of pressure and criticism from others. For instance, when I go to a singles event and a guy is talking to me and finds out I don’t have a job right now, and then walks away or looks at me weird. In that case–I may know that he’s looking for someone to take care of him.

Add these things to Makow’s attempts to obliquely shame MGTOW, his socon like attacks on video games using conspiracy theory, his support of the false abuse industry, his support of the false rape industry, and his calling divorced women “wholesome”, there is no reason to trust anything that comes out of his mouth, EVER.

Oct 102011

I found this on Dalrock’s blog, and it needs to be spread far and wide:

A lot of women are standing up for men in their heads, but find it too hard to actually say something because they’re fearful that they’re going to be attacked.

In other words, this is what this woman is saying: “I was was thinking about standing up for men, but decided that team woman was more important.  Since I thought about standing up for men, this should count as actually standing up for men despite me not doing or saying anything.  Even though whether I was actually thinking about standing up for men is not verifiable in any form whatsoever, any skepticism of this on your part means you are a penis bearing misogynist.”

Spread this far and wide since this is has to be the preeminent example of why increasing numbers of men believe that women hate them or at the least will sell them out.


Jul 152011

13:23 said about Norge:

You haven’t defeat anyone or anything. All you’ve done is scribbled some psychotic and delusional garbage about the evil coin crabbing Jews who are out to get you.

From your writing its pretty clear that you’re an older white male with at least one daughter. And its pretty obvious that this daughter has come of age and due to the culture she lives in (feminism) she’s started to behave like a typical western woman. And rather then accepting the fact that your daughter is slut and a whore, you’ve conjured up this fucked up ridiculous conspiracy about the satanist Jews who’ve brainwashed you’re daughter or what ever. Just face the facts so we don’t have to read you inane writings anymore.

While I wanted to stop talking about Norge, I wanted to comment on what 13:23 said.  While I tend to think that Norge has at least one daughter, he may also have at least one son.  Not only is he incapable of accepting that any daughters he might have are sluts, he is also incapable of accepting why any sons he might have are having trouble getting women or have decided to use women and never get married.  (Or perhaps any sons he has might have gone ghost.)

Rather than admit feminism is really FEMININE-ISM as Zed puts it, Norge concocted some silly grandiose conspiracy theory so he doesn’t have to blame women like any daughters he may have for their behavior.  Norge has gone to great lengths to not admit that his daughter(s) are a part of the problem.  By saying that his daughter(s) (or women in general) are brainwashed by some covert organization, he doesn’t have to hold women responsible for their actions.

Norge will blame the Jews, Freemasons, homosexuals, blacks, satanists, (non-existent) reptile aliens, anybody with the letter Q in their name, and/or many other groups I can’t think of.  He will blame anyone but a Western woman.  He won’t even blame non-Western women either as we have seen with his constant refusal to admit the reality of the false rape industry in the case of DSK.  (Since DSK is “the enemy” to Norge, he can never admit that DSK is a victim of feminism.)

A good question to ask is why is Norge here?  Why does he think spending time here is important?  Why is he spending all of his time accusing MRAs of misogyny and “gang stalking” and not accusing feminists of misandry and “gang stalking”?  If he thinks that feminism is a NWO scheme like the MRM is, then why isn’t he spending at least half his time arguing against feminists on feminist blogs, especially given the fact that feminists are the ones with real political power?  Why is he accusing me and other MRAs of being members of the NWO and not any feminists?  The reason it that he’s white knighting for women, and that he can’t deal with the fact that any daughters he has (if he has them) have chosen of their own free will to be sluts.  In each one of these cases, he attacks men only, never women.

I wish I could say this would end with Norge, but it won’t.  As I have predicted before we will see more of this in the future because there are various sections of the conspiracy theory community that are outright misandrist.



Jun 252011

(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)

My last post on Amanda Marcotte has generated a lot of hits.  First Snark sent it to the mens rights reddit.  Then it got sent to Instapundit/Glenn Reynolds.  My thanks to the both of you.  Since then that post has been linked at Dr. Helen, American Power, and elsewhere.  The daily hitcount for yesterday and especially today has been far beyond anything I have ever had.  That being said there have been some interesting reactions.

The first is from Mara who commented here on the blog.  (There was some question whether Mara was Maura from this post who was obsessed with my genitalia.    I checked the IP addresses and they are clearly two different people.)  She tried to use the fact that Mr. Ball once slapped his daughter as an excuse to justify the feminist totalitarianism used against him in anti-family court. Here is what Mr. Ball had to say about that:

When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.

This site I pulled that quote from is, a website recording all of the facts about what happened to Mr. Ball.  If this was as simple as Mr. Ball being a violent man, then why is there an attempt to erase all knowledge about him at places like wikipedia?

Worse than Mara, we have a conservative who responded to Glenn Reynolds defending the anti-family court system:

Assistant Village Idiot here. People who have a hair across their ass in general about the family court system are trying to keep the Thomas Ball story alive as if he is some kind of victim. In his efforts to have unsupervised visits with his daughter, he was told to have his visits supervised by Monadnock Family Services. He refused because he blames them for his problems.

I deal with that agency all the time, though not the children’s services – I have for 30 years. They are entirely reasonable people who make adjustments and accommodations for people who don’t like them or are suspicious of them all the time. Hell, they are a mental health center, so most of their clients are difficult and suspicious. They are not some Orwellian controlling agency. Ball decided that being pissy and proving that he was right about one incident ten years ago was more important than seeing his daughter. He’s no victim.

Family courts may indeed be prejudiced against fathers – I hear that, but I don’t know. I’ve certainly dealt with many cases of NH courts ruling in favor of fathers in custody disputes, though, and I don’t see a massive trend here. It pays to remember that MFS cannot tell its side of the story because of confidentiality, and that some pathological people hide by trying to tie themselves to legitimate causes. Wolves hide in sheep’s clothing, because it doesn’t do any good to hide in wolves’ clothing, does it?

Here is the blog of the guy that wrote that.

Again, the question has to be asked, if it’s this simple then why is there an attempt to hide what Mr. Ball did from places like wikipedia?  This guy says he has had no dealings with children’s services and really doesn’t know if anti-family courts are prejudiced against fathers.  Those of us who do know, know that anti-family courts are prejudiced against men.  We have decades of evidence proving that fact.

Amanda Marcotte has finally responded to this on her twitter:

@AmPowerBlog Yep. It’s not uncommon for abusers to turn to self-harm to continue exerting control over their victims.

Glenn Reyonds asked (most likely rhetorically) if Amanda Marcotte said the original quote from manboobz.  Since she is now defending it, there should be no question it was Amanda Marcotte.

Take a look at her link.  It’s about a criminal who barricaded himself in a hotel room with a woman.  At the end of the standoff, the man decided to shoot himself in the chest in an attempt to not be arrested by police.  The woman he was with was completely unharmed.  In Amanda Marcotte’s deluded mind, this man was shooting himself to screw a woman over.  What Amanda Marcotte said makes about as much sense as saying that UFOs were involved in this incident.

When it comes to committing suicide what group is doing it the most?  Men.  Divorce radically increases the chances that a man will commit suicide. Rather than recognize this as the tragedy it is and recognize the part that anti-family courts are playing in ending these men’s lives, Amanda Marcotte is claiming that men who commit suicide are doing it to screw over a woman.  The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Amanda Marcotte does not think men are human beings.

Jun 192011

A commenter posted this idea:

That is why church would be a great place for a PUA to run Game, and instead of complain about the feminization of church, use the church as a Sunday morning nightclub.

1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.

I’m not Christian, and could not easily blend in there, but I encourage white guys to do this every Sunday. Make the church implode on itself.

Oh, and remember to post flyers in the Church’s bathrooms, under the URLs @ Urinals campaign.

I think this is a great idea.  The churches for the most part are feminized and filled with white knights.  They also push men into getting married acting as a one-two punch with the anti-family court system.  One way or another this will force churches to defeminize or destroy them.  Either outcome is preferable to what we have now.

All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women.  Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them.  Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20.  Unless you’re in the middle of nowhere in a rural area, you aren’t going to encounter those.  I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches.  I only say that since the Eastern Orthodox churches tend to attract more men than women.  Supposedly they aren’t that feminized either, but I don’t know if that’s really the case or that’s temporary because the Orthodox churches haven’t been on the radar screen since they aren’t very visible in North America.  (I would think that the lack of feminization would not apply to the Greek Orthodox church.  This is something Novaseeker if he was still around could tell us about.)

When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”.  These women will put out for you.  You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues).  The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.

If you a member of a religion other than Christianity or familiar with non-Christian religions than I assume it would work the same in those places as well.

And as he reminds us: PUT UP SOME FLYERS.

I’m sure this post will get criticism from the socon/tradcon set for encouraging the defilement of virgins (even though there are basically no virgins in church anymore) and preying on “innocent women” (despite the fact that there aren’t any innocent women in church either.

Jun 162011

Dalrock said the following:

When my mother was in high school, a 15 year old girl having sex with a guy on the football team would have been considered a slut. Now you (and other traditional conservative women) see her as a victim if the football player doesn’t follow up with an offer for a relationship after the casual sex.

I have been trying to articulate why socons and tradcons (or the church) being against divorce or premarital sex or a thousand other things really is only used against men but haven’t been able to until now.  The reason is because socons and tradcons view women as victims in everything.  When a divorce happens rather than viewing women as perpetrators (especially since women file most divorces), they view women as victims of divorce.  When it comes to premarital sex and promiscuity, socons and tradcons view women as victims and not as willing participants.  This is why you get tradcon women defending sluts.

What this means is that when someone is a victim, then the standard rules of sin do not apply.  For example, socons and tradcons don’t consider rape victims guilty of the sin of premarital sex.  The problem is that  socons and tradcons think women are victims all the time.  Thus their normal sanctions against divorce, premarital sex, and a myriad of other things effectively no longer apply to women.  When socons and tradcons say their against divorce, or against premarital sex in both men and women, effectively this means they’re only against it in men because women are nothing but innocent victims to them.  Plus, who are women the victims of to them?  Men.  Thus to socons and tradcons men aren’t just guilty of the sin but of “tricking” women into sinning as well.  Even this gets taken to absurd extremes, since socons and tradcons believe that women can be “victims” of a “lack of male leadership” (which can be used to justify anything women do).

This is an example of how socons and tradcons are no different than feminists.  Feminists view women as victims of men in a myriad of ways, and as we can see here so do socons and tradcons.

Jun 132011

I found this at Oz Conservative which got me thinking:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes.

For socons and tradcons this doesn’t just apply to sluts and rapists.  Socons and tradcons assume that when a woman sins sexually (to what socons and tradcons consider sexual sin), a man must also sin sexually, homosexuality notwithstanding.  While this is technically correct, they take this to also mean that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between female sexual sin and male sexual sin in terms of the numbers of women and men committing such sins.  While heterosexual sexual sins require a man and a woman this doesn’t mean that sexual sin is distributed equally among men or women.  Getting back to the quote above, it’s clearly absurd to say that there is a rapist for every slut out there.  In reality, there are many sluts per rapist.

The same principle applies to (what socons and tradcons consider) sexual sin in general.  Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men.  We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin.  On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

Often you will hear socons and tradcons say that they’re against some form of sexual sin such as premarital sex equally in men and women.  Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males).  If socons and tradcons are going to attack (what they believe is) a sin, then they need to attack where it is happening.  By being against a sin “equally” in both men and women assumes that said sin is being committed equally by men and women and equally among men.  As we know this isn’t the case.

As bad as this is, what socons and tradcons are doing is even worse.  With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man.  Also, who is likely to be in a church on a Sunday?  The alphas, the 20% of men who are getting most of the sex, won’t be there.  The men who are in church will be from the other 80%.  Since sex among women is more evenly distributed, that means the women in church are likely to have committed sexual sin.  In other words, socons and tradcons are going after the wrong group in their churches when it comes to sexual sin.  It’s just another example of how churches are become feminized and another reason why men want less and less to do with the church.  Why would a man want to go to a place where he got blamed for something he didn’t do?

On top of this socons and tradcons will white knight for women who have sexually sinned a lot in the churches by trying to shame men into marrying them.  These white knights delude themselves into thinking their female coreligionists are innocent and sexually inexperienced when the opposite is true.  The men who decide to have nothing to do with the churches know better.  They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting.  They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.

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 »