What would happen if you applied Hillary Clinton’s “logic” about the real victims of war to rape? End Women’s Suffrage provides us with the answer:
If you have been around this part of the internet long enough, you know about how when women complain about their problems, they don’t want their problems fixed. They want to just complain about them. This video communicates this concept very succinctly and effectively:
And just to really drive the point home, here is one of the comments under that video:
A woman was drowning. I look at her from the dock and said, “I know you do not want me to “fix” your situation. I want you to know that I know what your feeling, the desperation, the fear, you see I almost drowned, so I can relate, I sympathize and have compassion for you. I am sorry this is happening to you. The woman died, but I feel very good that I provided her with the comfort of my sympathy and compassion and did not upset her by “fixing” her situation.
One trick that people against MGTOW try to use on MGTOW is that a MGTOW who talks about being MGTOW isn’t truly a MGTOW. According to their argument, a true MGTOW would be too busy actually going their own way to actually spend time talking about MGTOW. Obviously, this is a trick to try to get MGTOW to stop talking about MGTOW because they’re afraid of it. I found a video that completely destroys the argument that MGTOW should shut up to be real MGTOW:
I also like how this video points out that the exact same tactic was used against the atheist community. That makes it clear that this is a tactic by people to get their enemies to shut up and not a real rational argument.
An anonymous commentor brought to our attention that the UN is making a push towards mandatory paternity leave. The key word there is mandatory. The UN is not saying that businesses that can afford it may want to consider offering paternity leave or that men should have the choice of taking paternity leave if offered. The UN is explicitly saying that men must be forced to take paternity leave because maternity leave oppresses women due to the fact that maternity leave creates an incentive for businesses to hire men. The UN has admitted that the only way for men and women to be equal at work is to “handicap” men.
This is not the only case where it is suggested that men need to be “handicapped” in the workplace. At the Good Mangina Project, which recently has become the Scared Shitless of Donald Trump All The Time Project, a feminist discovered that one of the reasons for the so called wage gap was that men work more hours. This immediately becomes that women are being oppressed by men working “too many hours” because it creates an incentive to hire men. Again, the solution is to “handicap” men when it comes to working.
I chose the word “handicap” for a reason because what we are seeing is the prequel to Harrison Bergeron. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with Harrison Bergeron, it is a science fiction short story about a future America where anyone of above average intelligence, strength, etc. has to be handicapped to the lowest common denominator. For example, anyone who was more intelligent than a moron would be “handicapped” by implants that prevent that person from mentally concentrating.) Feminists are treating Harrison Bergeron as a how to guide. Right now, they are trying to “handicap” men by throwing roadblocks in their work and careers by forced paternity leave and forced limits on how much we can work. When that fails to bring men down to the level of women, the next step will be to try to force men to use the “handicaps” that are described in Harrison Bergeron. Of course, this will lead to the worst economic depression in history, but feminists will just blame that on men.
Paul Murray brought up how the US Constitution says that crimes must be tried by courts in reference to the college rape tribunals (which we know are a part of the false rape industry. Specifically, he is referring to the end of Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution which says:
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The only exception to a jury trial for a crime is impeachment. For all other crimes, all citizens of the US are guaranteed a jury trial. Despite what feminists think they can get away with, the constitution makes no exception for rape. The existence of college rape tribunals are in violation of Article 3, Section 2 of the constitution.
Additionally, the sixth amendment is also relevant. It says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
College rape tribunals violate every single clause of the sixth amendment of the constitution. Feminists have declared war on Article 3 & the sixth amendment of the US Constitution. (Feminists have declared war on the entire US Constitution, but that is a subject for another time.) Feminists have been running this war for a long time. First, feminists tried to use the Commerce Clause in the constitution in the first VAWA (violence against women act) to allow women to sue men they accused of rape even when said men had been exonerated by the criminal justice system. For obvious reasons, the courts declared this to be unconstitutional.
Now, feminists are trying to declare rape a “civil rights violation”. Remember that the college rape “tribunals” got started because of a letter to colleges from the Dept. of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. The trick feminists are using is have have men accused of rape not charged with a crime, but a “civil rights violation”. Because these men don’t get charged with an actual crime, they are denied due process. This is a violation of the spirit of our entire legal system and the constitution.
This reminds me of a science fiction TV show from the 90s, Bablyon 5. In that show, the President of the Earth Alliance (all of Earth plus all human colonies) wanted to make himself a dictator. One of the things he did was to create a organization called the Nightwatch which was designed to root out non-“peaceful” behavior. (This could be easily be replaced with civil rights “violations”). Non-“peaceful” behavior conveniently included criticizing the government of the Earth Alliance. The Nightwatch wasn’t involved in the criminal justice system so it did not need to follow the rules of due process. Even people who had joined the Nightwatch questioned this:
Because the Nightwatch was enforcing directives from the Earth Alliance political office (which could be replaced with the Office of Civil Rights easily) due process was thrown out the window until someone was charged with an actual crime. In other words, a person who committed a burglary, for example, would get full due process, but someone who criticized government policy would be dealt with by the Nightwatch who was completely free to ignore due process. The reason for this was that burglars or bank robbers or drug dealers or most criminals weren’t a threat to the coming dictatorship (which happened later in the series). Anyone who spoke out against the government was. Rather than completely take away due process which everyone would notice, they took away due process only in the areas that were relevant to them. This allowed them to hide what they were doing.
Feminists are trying to do the exact same thing. Feminists don’t care about taking away due process from burglars, bank robbers, drug dealers, etc. because the crimes those people commit aren’t crimes where (it is assumed that) women are the victims. On the other hand which something like rape, feminists want due process taken away because they want women to have the power to destroy mens lives just like the Earth Alliance government in Bablyon 5 wanted the power to destroy anyone who criticized them. (It goes without saying that male victims of prison rape won’t benefit from this.) Also, like the Earth Alliance government, not trying to take away due process in general gives feminist the benefit of being able to hide what they are doing (at least until the lawsuits from men start showing up). This is why colleges were chosen to host these “tribunals”. By starting them on college campuses, most people wouldn’t be in a position to notice them especially since they wouldn’t have a broader effect on due process.
On Babylon 5 the endgame of the Nightwatch was to merge it with regular security/police (which happened). Similarly, the feminist endgame to the college rape “tribunals” is to merge them into the government as a “civil rights” court and enforcement system where due process is ignored since it is not a criminal court. Such a thing is a violation of the US Constitution and needs to be destroyed before it can even be created.
The nature of open source software allows for anyone to take the source code and start their own project, AKA a fork. One good example of this is when OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD. What happened was that Theo de Raadt was asked to resign as a senior developer of the NetBSD core team. (It was likely due to personality clashes, although the NetBSD core team said that de Raadt’s contributions will still be welcomed.) What de Raadt decided to do was fork NetBSD into what became OpenBSD and have OpenBSD focus on security and code correctness. Since then, OpenBSD has been known for being one of the most (if not the most) secure operating system available. Additionally, several parts of the OpenBSD base system have been spun off into independent projects which have made their way into other operating systems including Windows. In other words, you may be using something created by the OpenBSD team right now.
So far feminists have not tried to fork an open source software project. Instead we end up with indcidents like #OpalGate. When the feminists and manginas realized that they weren’t going to get their code of conduct added to Opal, instead of complaining, they should have forked Opal. If the feminists were right that Opal was a haven of misogyny and villany, then a competing Opal with their code of conduct would have blown Opal away to the point were Opal would have been abandonded. In reality, this is not what would have happened. What would have happened was that the forked Opal would have had zero development. All the feminists in control of the new project would have done was argue about the code of conduct while the original Opal would have gotten actual work done. It would prove that the feminists invading open source software were wrong. Of course, if you tried to point this out to the feminists in open source, they would probably channel Adria Richards and say that forking is misogynist and has some sort of sexual double meaning.
Forking is a critical part of open source software. It allows for software reuse and adaptation. Adding feminist codes of conduct to open source projects would make forking more difficult. Sometimes for whatever reason, like with the NetBSD to OpenBSD fork, there needs to be a split. It might be because of personality differences or just a desire to fill a need like a secure open source operating system. Currently, forking allows for a clean break so that there is no interference with the new project. Adding feminist codes of conduct to open source projects would give the core developers of the original project undue influence over the forked project. They could do things like make a bunch of false sexism accusations to shut down the forked project. That would be a disaster for open source software so we must keep the feminist invaders out of open source.
Elmer pointed out that despite popular belief Ada Lovelace was not the first programmer, but the first developer evangelist. Historians agree and have shown that Charles Babbage wrote all the programs that Ada wrote three to seven years earlier. What Ada actually did was work with Babbage on writing up notes about his work. Those notes are where she gets her undeserved reputation.
What Ada did was act like Babbage’s developer evangelist. Since Ada has a programming language named after her for being a developer evangelist, I’m sure someone will lower the bar even further and name a programming language after Adria Richards. (Of course, the Adria programming language will never work, get some programmers fired, and never be used again.)
When I talked about how misandrists are using the fact of a business having a mostly male customer base/user base as evidence of misogyny, one thing got left out. Since we’re talking about Reddit, does Reddit actually have a mostly male user base? It turns out the answer is no.
Alexa says that Reddit’s user demographics have more women than average. So where did the Reddit’s user base is 74% male come from? It comes from a three year old article at Ad Week, and it’s possible that the data used in the Ad Week article might be up to a few years older than the article itself.
This goes beyond the idea that having a mostly male user base is equivalent to misogyny. Even when a site like Reddit doesn’t have a mostly male user base, misandrists will lie about it having a mostly male user base so they can accuse the site of being misogynist. The Daily Beast has an article that is a really good example of this. Not only does it repeat the lie about Reddit having a 74% male user base to accuse Reddit of misogyny, it also links to the Alexa report I referenced above. The article through its own links admits it’s lying! Even the comments at the end of the article notice this.
I image that they will probably try to get around this by saying Reddit was misogynist several years ago and “once misogynist, always misogynist” or some other garbage like that.
A judge has tentatively ruled that Ellen Pao must pay due to her false sexism lawsuit. This means that Ellen Pao is going to try to sue someone for $2.976 million now. That’s because Ellen Pao was demanding $2.7 million dollars from Kleiner-Perkins not to appeal her case. That dollar amount is conveniently the same as her husband’s unpaid legal fees related to the ponzi scheme he ran where he stole the pensions of Louisiana cops and firemen. Combine the two and it’s clear that Pao will be looking for a target to sue for at least $2.976 million (plus additional legal fees).
I predict that Ellen Pao is going to sue Pei Wei. I just got an email from Pei Wei with the subject, “Lighten Up, Pao”. It’s about the new Kung Pao item on their menu that comes with lettuce instead of rice. However, I’m sure Ellen Pao will try and weasel it as an cryptic attack on her by sexists at Pei Wei as an excuse to sue Pei Wei. It makes as much sense as her other lawsuits.
Since there are women who get paid for emotional labor, what does this mean for the women complaining that they don’t get paid for emotional labor? First, they aren’t doing any labor emotional or otherwise. Second, since they aren’t counselors or therapists, that leaves being a prostitute. If they’re not getting paid for emotional labor, then they are prostitutes who are failing at it because no man wants to pay to fuck them.
A woman who complains about not being paid for emotional labor is a prostitute failing a being a prostitute.
Despite being a newly created hashtag, #GiveMoneyToWomen is not new. Men have been giving money to women since the beginning of civilization. You can see that in how women are responsible for 80% of all spending. This is a gap of $10 trillion between women’s spending and women’s earnings. David Frum documented this in a tweet:
— David Frum (@davidfrum) May 31, 2015
Why is the #GiveMoneyToWomen hashtag necessary? Why has it started now? Giving money to women isn’t new, but what is new is that there are men refusing to give money to women. MGTOW is going strong, but lots of men are GTOW without ever hearing of the term, MGTOW. With men refusing to get married and refusing to work more than they have to, women aren’t going to get money from men like they used to. There are two ways of getting money from men, marriage and via wealth redistribution from the state. When a man refuses to get married and keeps his work output to a minimum, he prevents women from getting his money from both methods. Enough men have done this, so we now have women doing the internet equivalent of standing on a street corner yelling, “I HAVE A VAGINA. GIVE ME MONEY”.
There’s nothing left except to be that much more direct about it. Sometime in the near future I’m sure we will see something like a #IHaveAVaginaGiveMeMoney hashtag.
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.
This is a letter to all the moderate, armchair feminists out there. You know who you are. You’re a feminist because you believe in equality! You believe men and women should have equal rights, that feminists aren’t all a bunch of man haters, and you don’t understand why some people (like MRAs and Red Pillers) are just so darn angry with feminists all the time. You certainly never did anything to hurt us! You only want for all of us to just get along!
To all you ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to take you through an explanation as to why you, yes you, sitting at your computer or browsing on your mobile, you, who are an actual living, breathing person with a variety of thoughts, feelings, and experiences at your disposal, why you don’t actually, for all practical intents and purposes, exist.
(1) You don’t make the laws.
Ask yourself this, my moderate feminist reader – when was the last time you, and whatever moderate feminist organization that you’re a part of, created or influenced legislation that got passed or policy changes that got enacted? You got women the vote, you say? Come now, I highly doubt it was you and your specific moderate feminist lobbying organization that you’re a part of that got women the vote. Nothing? Interesting. Well, since you haven’t created any laws that have impacted society, I guess there’s no proof there that you exist these days.
Radical feminists, on the other hand, have given us the Duluth Model of domestic violence which was incorporated into the Violence Against Women Act. If you don’t know, the Duluth Model is the gold standard for determining who police should blame and arrest in a domestic violence dispute (hint: it’s always the man’s fault). They’ve done this despite the fact that the Duluth Model is, through and through, flawed.
They’ve given us the Dear Colleague letter, handed down by the federal government to colleges, and inciting college campuses to create campus kangaroo courts, to violate the rights to due process of those male students accused of rape.
They’ve given us the Yes, Means Yes law, which implies that men are rapists unless, during a sexual encounter, they stop and re-affirm consent with the woman regularly. If they forget to re-affirm consent (as consent can be withdrawn non-verbally by the woman at any time), they’re a rapist.
They have actively and successfully stood in the way of shared parenting laws, where fathers, by default, would gain 50% custody of their children during a divorce. According to the feminist organization NOW, “Increased father involvement does not necessarily result in positive outcomes for children.” That’s funny, couldn’t the same thing be said for increased mother involvement? Or…wait a minute?!? Is NOW actually promoting the outdated gender role of women being the best caregivers for children? How neanderthal of them!
So you see, my moderate feminist readers, when it comes to the political landscape and passing laws and policies that actually effect the lives of, well, everyone, your radical feminists friends have proved themselves to exist again and again. Whereas you, with your occasional retweet of #heforshe and a sincere wish for everyone to just get along….well…
(2) You don’t get out there and “represent.”
If you exist, my moderate feminist friend…then why do we never see you? Shouldn’t you be out there somewhere? Getting petitions signed? Attending protests for or against….uh…whatever it is would concern a moderate feminist (we’ll go into that later)?
Your radical feminist brothers and sisters are only all too visible.
Here they are in Toronto at an event for Doctor Warren Farrell, who was talking about a number of dangerous and highly volatile issues that radical feminists apparently hate men to talk about, such as “why are so many men killing themselves?” and “is there anything we can do to stop all these men from killing themselves?” I’m glad these brave feminist men and women were there to literally fight with police officers in an attempt to shut this dangerous talk down.
And then there’s Dr. Janice Fiamengo, who regularly talks about how modern radical feminists have gotten a little crazy and cultish, how they go so far as to oppose dissenting opinions and free speech. Well, the radical feminists were only too happy to prove her right when they showed up to blow horns and chant to completely disrupt the event. Way to prove your existence Rad Fems!
And who can forget the radical feminist’s fascination with pulling fire alarms, as is demonstrated at this anti-sexism talk hosted by a men’s group.
As you can see, not only have radical feminists pushed laws that affect our lives nationwide, they do their best to keep boots on the ground, ready to spring into action at a moment’s notice.
Now, my moderate feminist friend, got any video or photographic proof of yourself doing great feminist works? No? Well, that’s not helping your case for actually existing, now, is it?
(3) Your leadership is non-existent.
Help me out here, armchair feminists. Is there an armchair feminist queen? Is there a council of elders? Is there any kind of leadership, authority figure, hell, even a published author you can point to as the voice for moderate feminism? And good luck trying to prove Christina Hoff Summers is your leader. By all accounts, the feminist movement seems to have disavowed her existence.
In the meantime, lets see what noted radical feminist leaders and authors are saying:
- “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
- “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” – Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkinparaphrased from a work of fiction. New and improved Dworkin quote below.
- Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. – Andrea Dworkin
- “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnonMisattributed to MacKinnon. New and improved MacKinnon quote below.
- Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance. – Catherine MacKinnon
- “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
- “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
- “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.
- “Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” – Mary Koss
- “Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim.” – Mary Koss
Well, that looks like a strong showing from radical feminist figureheads to me, and certainly more proof of their existence of radical feminists. Moderate feminists…not so much.
(4) No one knows what you actually want to do.
So, oh moderate feminist, you want “everyone to be equal and just get along.” So what, actually, do you mean by that? What do you want the government/society to do to actually make women equal? It’s okay, I’ll give you a minute. In the meantime…
Radical feminists want to eliminate the burden of proof for rape cases.
Radical feminists are pretty sure that most women should stop going to prison for committing crimes.
Radical feminists want men to stop having sex with women all together, because all penis in vagina sex is rape.
Since all sex is rape, prostitution is flat out, because women can’t consent.
Radical feminists also say we’d better just eliminate pornography while we’re at it.
They want to sterilize men, unless they get a procreation license.
Which should make it easier to reduce the population of men down to 10%.
Looks like radical feminists have some pretty strong ideas for where they want the world to go.
Whereas you, dear moderate feminists…well…your battles have been won. Women can vote. Women can own property. Women out number men in colleges. Not only is the wage gap gone, but in some age categories, women now actually out earn men. Women outlive men. Women are in prison less than men. Women are attacked on the street less than men. Women get custody of the kids more than men. “Rape culture” has disappeared out of existence so hard that now a woman can completely make up a story about being raped and be taken seriously by the national media with no proof. Women can now be proud to be sluts! Women can be proud to join the workforce! Women can be completely ashamed of themselves for wanting to be stay-at-home moms. You’ve won!
Conclusion: You don’t exist.
And that’s just the thing…when your movement has won, well, there’s no point in having a movement anymore. When you win the game, you pack up and go home. Your movement ceases to exist. Your identity as a member of that movement ceases to exist. Poof. Gone. Bye bye.
And that, dear feminist is that. Whether it be lawmaking, activism, ideas for going forward, and leadership to guide the way, you just don’t seem to exist on any front, whereas radical feminism seems as real as ever.
So the next time you see an MRA, MGTOW, Red Piller, or average Joe/Jane on the street complain about how whacky feminism is, remember what it is that they’re actually talking about. They’re complaining about the feminism that actually EXISTS in the world. That actually does things, enacts changes, makes policy decisions, writes laws, and maintains an active presence in the universe. They’re not talking about the puff of non-existence that is your precious feminism. So maybe you should give them some slack for attacking something real and dangerous instead of a harmless figment of your imagination. And while you’re at it, maybe just start calling yourself an egalitarian instead. It’ll probably be an equally meaningless title in your hands, but at least people won’t mistakenly confuse you for an actual feminist. That’d be terrible.
I like several things about this. First, it documents many of the problems with feminism in one place with links. Second, and more importantly, it forcefully makes the point that political power matters.
There are lots of people who say that feminism is just about equality between men and women. Even if that any truth to it, that doesn’t matter. People who think that way (if they exist) don’t have any political power. It’s the feminists described above who have political power. They are the ones who are influencing laws and public policy.
There are people who might criticize this as a logical fallacy of defining feminism by which feminists are the “loudest”. This is not the case. Being the “loudest” and having the power to create laws and public policy are not necessarily synonymous. More importantly, how feminism affects people, particularly men in this case, is defined by whoever has the greatest ability to create laws and public policy. If feminism was just a bunch of annoying cranks then the arguments of silent moderate feminists might have merit. However, the ability to create laws and public policy trumps that because laws and public policy are enforced by the state. The state has guns, can put you in prison, and even have you executed (depending on your jurisdiction).
Feminism can and should be defined by the laws and public policy it has been able to create, not by a nonexistent moderate wing that only shows up in internet arguments. By that definition feminism is a dangerous totalitarian movement that wants to destroy individual freedom.
Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war. What group has died in war more than any other group? Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.
The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars. The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending. The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder. It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder. They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.
What groups are trying to draft young men as cannon fodder? Hollenhund describes each group and their respective script:
In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.
The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.
The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.
The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.
The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.
The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.
Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language. However, it is not working. Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.
Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers? First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder. Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them. There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work.” Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed. Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.
Second, young men see just how bad women are becoming. This is a strong disincentive to join any group that wants to use them as cannon fodder. Young men see the behavior of women and are getting more and more fed up with them for good reason. In 6 years of blogging, the most popular page on this blog by far is a page where I documented several comments from The Spearhead where young men were talking about how they are fed up with women. The second most popular page on this blog was a follow up to that page. This is not a coincidence. Those pages represent how growing numbers of young men feel about women due to their experiences with women.
Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with? Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him. More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.
Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University, recently interviewed Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal and investor in Facebook. Here is an excerpt from that interview where Thiel talks about Aspergers being important for innovation and the problems of conformity:
TYLER COWEN: Let me give you my take on how I’ve tried to fit different parts of your thought together. And again, for all you listeners, this doesn’t have to be true. It’s just my mental model of Peter Thiel. That you’re one of a lot of thinkers who takes the idea of original sin — it doesn’t have to be a theological commitment — seriously. Tocqueville wrote in the 19th century that America eventually would evolve to be a land of complacent people who were going to stop believing in original sin and stick to a kind of conformist mediocrity.
So you have taken this to heart. The world out there is deeply weird. Even though there appears to be free entry into ideas production, because of René Girard–like ideas, the people who deviate, someone comes down on them pretty hard. So there’s excess conformity, the original sin in people’s motives gets magnified at the social level. So basically, there are distortions out there. And everything we can see, it’s a gnostic theology, and a relatively small number of people who can see through those distortions can be great entrepreneurs, or can tell the truth about politics.
And it’s all ultimately some kind of bundled, implicitly theological, but not necessarily involving belief in God, but theological perspective about the nature of people. And it ends up spreading to all the different parts of society and that, to me, has been what ties your thought together. But that’s a hypothesis; let’s hear your reaction to that.
PETER THIEL: Let’s see. I think the way original sin normally works is that it resides in individuals, in one way or another. And so theologically, I would place it much more in society. And so I think society is both something that’s very real and very powerful, but on the whole quite problematic. We always run the risk of losing sight of that.
I don’t know if it’s strictly the awareness of it that solves it. Certainly, there probably are some people who are just vaguely oblivious to it, so in Silicon Valley, I point out that many of the more successful entrepreneurs seem to be suffering from a mild form of Asperger’s where it’s like you’re missing the imitation, socialization gene.
TYLER COWEN: And that’s a plus, right?
PETER THIEL: It happens to be a plus for innovation, and creating great companies, but I think we always should turn this around as an incredible critique of our society. We need to ask, what is it about our society where those of us who do not suffer from Asperger’s are at some massive disadvantage because we will be talked out of our interesting, original, creative ideas before they are even fully formed?
We’ll notice that’s a little bit too weird, that’s a little bit too strange. Maybe I’ll just go ahead and open the restaurant that I’ve been talking about, that everyone else can understand and agree with, or do something extremely safe and conventional, and therefore hypercompetitive, and probably not that great as an idea.
I’d say a lot of these people may not understand this larger theory about society, but they are somewhat oblivious to it, and it pushes progress. Now, certainly my own experience would have been a little bit more where — I grew up in Northern California. It was this hyper-tracked process, where my eighth grade junior high school yearbook, one of my friends wrote in, “I know you’re going to get into Stanford in four years.”
Four years later I got into Stanford, then I got into Stanford Law School. You won all the conventionally tracked competitions; you ended up at a big law firm in Manhattan. From the outside, it was a place where everybody wanted to get in. On the inside, it was a place where everybody wanted to get out.
You ask one of the people down the hall from me, said that it was great to see me leave. I left after seven months and three days, it was great to see me leave. It was like “I had no idea it was possible to escape from Alcatraz.”
TYLER COWEN: What did you learn there?
PETER THIEL: I learned that I was incredibly prone to this problem of social convention. If you want to give it a religious terminology, the psychological terminology would be that I had a rolling quarter life crisis in my mid-20s. The religious terminology, I had a quasi-conversion experience where I realized the value system was deeply corrupt and needed to be questioned.
I do think that one of the ways of challenging convention, one way, the Asperger’s way, is just to be vaguely oblivious to it all, and continue apace. Then I think there is another modality where you just become aware of how conventional our conventions really are, and then that becomes sort of an indirect route of trying to start thinking for yourself.
TYLER COWEN: In your view, perhaps the contemporary world is becoming, I don’t know what the word would be, stranger, or weirder, or more shaped by individuals who are different, precisely because conformity is being piled on other places. So if the movers and shakers would be people who are in some way neuro diverse, then overall, the world is becoming more surprising in a way, right? That’s what we expect at different margins, at different corners. This will accumulate. It may not ever feel like we’re getting out of the great stagnation, but each bit of change we get is in a way a more different change than we would get, say, in 1957, where everything was done with guys with white shirts and starched white collars, hoping they would be able to buy a little pocket calculator someday.
PETER THIEL: I think the innovation that we are getting is driven in strange ways.
I worry that the conformity problem is actually more acute than it was in the ’50s or ’60s, so that the category of the eccentric scientist, or even the eccentric professor, is a species that is steadily going extinct because there is less space for that in our research universities than there used to be.
I worry that perhaps, if anything, it’s a little bit the other way. It’s very hard to measure these things or calibrate them, but I think that in politics, the conventional approach is to simply look at pollsters. What are your positions going to be? You just look at the polls, you figure this out, and it works fairly well.
At the end of the day, that’s probably not how the system really changes. It probably will be changed by some idiosyncratic people who have really strong convictions, and are over time, able to convince more people of them. But whether this means that we have more or less change is hard to evaluate. It always comes from these somewhat nonconventional channels.
An interesting thing to do with this part of the interview is replace Aspergers with masculinity and conformity with feminization. When you do that what Thiel is saying makes just as much sense if not more.
What is going on here is that innovation requires a willingness to buck conformity just as Thiel points out. However, Aspergers (or Autism Level 1 as it is now called in the DSM-5) in many ways is just having an ultra-masculine brain. In other words, innovation is driven by masculinity. On the other hand, conformity is driven by femininity. Thiel points out that the increasing conformity of universities has driven out the eccentric innovative scientist and their Aspergers/ultra-masculine brains. What has happened to universities over the time period Thiel is talking about? They have become feminized so naturally they became conformist and hostile to innovation. That’s why innovation and change comes from nonconventional channels as Thiel points out. That describes the M(H)RM, MGTOW, and #GamerGate.
Thiel also had something to say about Japan and innovation and conformity:
TYLER COWEN: In the back room, we were talking about Japan, and a recent trip of yours to Japan. Maybe you would like to relate some of what you were saying?
PETER THIEL: They always want you to say things that are sort of contrarian and surprising, and so they asked me at this discussion I was giving in Japan. And the answer that I came up with, which was both flattering to the audience, but somewhat disturbing from our perspective, was I think we always think of Japan as this hyper-imitative, noncreative culture of extreme conformity.
My suggestion is that perhaps at this point, Japan is the least conformist, the least imitative country in the world. There’s actually a lot of interesting aesthetic cultural stuff going on, there still is a lot of very successful types of businesses. There’s innovation in food production, all sorts of interesting areas.
But then it’s an indictment of the West, where I think Japan is no longer the Japan of the Meiji Restoration of the 1870s, or the Japan of the cheap plastic imitation toys of the 1950s. It’s a country that no longer thinks it can get that much by copying the West. There’s probably still some narrow interest in IT and software. Outside of that, I think they are copying the US and Western Europe less and less.
People aren’t even learning English that much anymore. They’re speaking less English than they were 15, 20 years ago. The golf courses are all getting shut down and converted to solar farms or something; people don’t even want to play golf anymore. I think we need to take this as a real critique of our society, very seriously, that they’re finding less that’s desirable to imitate in the US or Western Europe.
I’m not sure about the golf thing because golf is also declining in the US, but that’s beside the point. Why would Japan want to copy the West less now? It’s because so much of the West is feminized. The Japanese know better. Thiel points out that the one thing Japan is interested in from the West is IT and software. In other words, Japan only wants to copy things from the West that aren’t feminized.
One thing I have noticed is how much feminists and SJWs hate Japan. This provides an interesting angle of that. Japan is rejecting the feminists and SJWs since they are not innovative and ossified conformists.
A commenter noticed something interesting:
Check out the Munchery menu (Munchery being a dinner-delivering company) :
About 90% of the serious entrees are prepared by male chefs. There are plenty of women chefs, but they only prepare the easier dessert items, which are just cookies, brownies, etc.
Irrefutable proof that men are better even at cooking, than women. You would think that being a chef on the Munchery roster is a career suited for women, since it is a new model and there is no ‘old boys network’ to break into. It is pure merit, based on something women have done since the beginning of time.
Yet, the serious meals are still prepared by men 90% of the time, with the easy things done by women.
Examine the link and poke around it. The proof is damning.
Not only this, but women couldn’t even come up with the idea. Take a look at the founders of Munchery. There’s not a single woman among them. This is especially damning because Munchery was started by busy
parents fathers who were looking for an option to get higher quality and quick meals for their families as they say on their about page.
It’s a damning indictment of women from multiple angles. First, you have something that is traditionally “women’s work”, cooking, but Munchery chef roster is dominated by men, particularly when it comes to serious entrees. Second, when you consider that women are complaining about having to do “women’s work” like cooking, they don’t come up with options like Munchery to help them out. Third, with less and less women actually knowing how to cook, they can’t even create an option to outsource cooking to someone else.
Of course, women/feminists will say that Munchery is misogynist because they will use the excuse of blaming “misogynerds” for anything that’s even distantly related to tech. The reality is that if such misogyny existed, then Munchery would have only been created by women and not by the men in the picture because the men in the picture would have considered it beneath them to even think about how to improve “women’s work” like cooking. That’s another reason why Munchery is a damning indictment of women.
Maybe it’ll illustrate my point if I propose an experiment.
Walk into the most expensive and prestigious café in the capital of the world’s most advanced and richest country. What will you find there? A bunch of women sitting around chatting about mind-numbingly dull and pointless stuff, complaining about men and shitting on them, generally whining, doing nothing useful. Now walk into the most poverty-stricken, desolate village of the world’s most backward, poorest nation. You’ll find exactly the same thing. That’s the reality of innate female passivity.
I’m not sure about the second half, but the first part is definitely true.
I found this blog about how #GamerGate is the last stand of individualism. I certainly agree that gaming is a fundamentally individualist endavor, and that #GamerGate is a battle between individuality and collectivism. Feminists/SJWs and the other enemies of #GamerGate do not see you as an individual. You are simply cishet (white) male to them, same as every other cishet (white) male out there. If you’re not a cishet (white) male, and you support #GamerGate, then you’re a weaponized minority suffering from false consciousness. Otherwise you’re in the progressive stack of victims (with white women at the top).
I disagree that #GamerGate is the last stand of individualism because there are several other fronts where individuality is fighting collectivism. (It’s likely that the blog author simple isn’t aware of this). The MRM/MHRM is an individualist endeavor. MGTOW is the ultimate example of individuality, and collectivism has no weapon that can defeat MGTOW. MGTOW has no organization or leaders so it forces the collectivists to deal with men as individuals. They are unable to deal with men as individuals so collectivism is guaranteed to lose against MGTOW.
I found a comment on The Good Mangina Project that needs to be saved. I’m surprised this made it past the site’s comment filters. I created an archive.today link to save it:
this is why your website is evil. it pretends to be a space for men, but in your article you insult people like me. you pretend to be geek by saying us & we but you clearly aren’t because when the man reveals his pain you belittle it by comparing him & us to a scooby doo cartoon & ignoring the argument that he made about joining a country or other organization.
noah, you don’t even run this website anymore. a man-hating girl runs it & you should be ashamed. you’ve let all men. you suck. you shouldn’t be writing about geeks any more than i should be writing about football.
When feminists attack men as rapists and misogynists, most manginas and nerds assume they are talking about some other guy. Gamer gate has taught a lot of nerds, that feminists and woman hate them. This is a good lesion that more men need to learn.
That’s right. When feminists talk about men being rapists, being privileged, or all around being evil, they’re talking about YOU. They’re not talking about some other guy. They’re talking about YOU.
Feminists said that the political is personal. That means for every man feminism is a personal issue. The fight against feminism is a fight to save our lives and our freedom. Feminists are coming after everything about us and everything we have including our video games. This is what #GamerGate supporters have discovered. Feminism isn’t some sort of far away entity. Feminism has targeted them as it has targeted every man.
Sooner or later, feminism is coming for YOU. You’re better off fighting it sooner rather than later.
For those of you using the PaleMoon browser now due to Mozilla’s failure to stand up to feminism, Spawny Get provided some instructions to get PaleMoon to not identify itself to websites as FireFox:
All hail VD. Switching to Pale Moon, which is an excellent idea BTW, doesn’t stop your browsing being reported to sites as being on FireFox. To really stick your boot up the market sharing arse of FireFox you need to do the following.
The following is all taken from VoxDay:
Since Pale Moon is built upon a Firefox base, it still reports itself to be Firefox to web sites by default. Fortunately, it is trivially simple to turn this off and cause the browser to correctly report itself as PaleMoon.
Create a new tab.
Type “about:config” into the Address Bar as if it were an internet site (URL).
Type “compatMode” into the Search box that will appear right below the Address Bar.
On the line general.useragent.compatMode.firefox there are three settings: user set, boolean, true. Click on “true” and it will change to false.
Close the tab.
That’s it. Web sites will no longer incorrectly attribute your pageviews to Firefox. If as many people have switched to Pale Moon as have switched to Chrome, the decline in Firefox usage may actually be twice what I originally estimated.
#GamerGate supporters are a diverse bunch. We come from all walks of life and career paths. Those career paths can include being in the military or working for the DOD or defense industry where a security clearance is required. Sooner or later, there would be a doxxing attempt against a #GamerGate supporter with a security clearance.
That’s exactly what happened recently, and the victim was required to report it to the appropriate channels. (There’s also a follow up interview with the doxxing victim.) This means that the FBI and any other appropriate law enforcement authorities will be investigating some anti-gamer feminists and SJWs for everything from espionage to domestic terrorism. The FBI will not be impressed by a group of people who say that they have more respect for ISIS than (American) gamers. I’m certain their reaction to being investigated by the FBI will be to throw baseless accusations of misogyny against them and the DOD just like they’re trying to do with Intel now that Intel pulled advertising from Gamasutra. I seriously doubt the FBI and DOD will be moved by a litany of accusations of misogyny against them.
I expect that anti-#GamerGate forces to end up like the woman in this video:
Feminists say that they don’t want to destroy video games, but make “better” video games. The feminist definition of “better” video games involves turning video games from a fun activity to a vehicle for propaganda, and here is a feminist admitting it:
The feminist desire to eliminate fun from video games means that feminists want to destroy video games.
For anyone reading this: Men do not want women taking over any industry or company because men are afraid they’ll out produce them or perform them or come up with more profitable ideas, no, men are afraid of women in the workplace because all they bring is misery, low morale, lawsuits based on false accusations, insanity in general, never ending useless meetings and all around stupidity and dysfunction and low productivity.
Even women hate working with other women. Put several cats in a small cage together and you’ll get the picture.
But we can all give a sigh of relief because women will NEVER dominate any industry and there are specific reasons why. The reasons are contained in female nature. Any female above admin in any corporate office can barely even show up for work on any consistent basis.
I know this sounds insane, but we thousands of clients and the vast majority of the companies wherein we have female contacts are rarely ever in. Many have taken off for a year at a tine. It’s like this well hidden, but giant secret that no one talks about and I don’t think a lot of people are even aware of because women are so stealth at covering up their deviance and so many people will cover for them.
In fact I’ve been trying to find other people who have seen this who deal with a large number of companies like I do.
They take off huge chunks of time- months even a year at a time then refuse to be at work before 11am and are gone by 2pm and never work on mon. or fri. then suddenly quits after a short time. Forever. Not just that job- all work completely.
Women really only want to work part time if at all – they just like the idea of work and a status title and do not want to make any commitment to anything or anyone- especially women now. That is their flaky nature. And yes, they are ALL like that- 98% of them. And they’re lazy and don’t want to ever try harder or get out of their comfort zone or take risks. Women are their own worst enemies.
This deserved to be highlighted. None of us are afraid that women are going to outperform us. If that was it, we wouldn’t care. Instead, we don’t want women taking a wrecking ball to entire industries.