Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

It’s No Surprise That Young Men Are Getting Fed Up With Women Faster Than Any Other Group Of Men

Feb 202012

A post over at The Spearhead a few days ago brought up how men under 30 are more clued in about women than anyone other age group of men. Several comments basically communicated the fact that men under 30 are increasingly fed up with women:

Thanks for mentioning us younger guys. As a under 30 millenial, I will tell you exactly why most of us have this outlook.

We are the divorce generation. Even if we grew up in families that weren’t divorced we were still latch key kids.

Not only did I, a little over a decade ago, have more friends with single mothers by choice but also with divorced parents than intact families I also went to school with girls and came of age during the grrl power of the 90s.

This idea of women as victims falls on deaf ears when you spend year after year dealing with fucking cunts.

Team vagina can tell me all day long about how women would never lie about birth control or use men for child support and so on.

But, I know better. The high school I went to, a little over a decade ago, had a Teen Mom(watch that show on MTV if you want a realistic look) or two in almost every single class I had.

I literally only had one class in high school that didn’t have a pregnant girl in it. Several had two or three, out of 30 or 35 students and not enough book. Gotta love shitty high schools in the south.

That is just high school. If you look at reddit and the mens rights section in particular you will see that most of the guy are about my age(maybe a few years older) or younger.

Even the guys that aren’t in the MRA section on reddit have a very warped view of women and relationships. I think this is due to being born in the divorce generation.

Who needs to burn their own hand to find out that fire is hot when you can watch dozens upon dozens of older men burn their hands and scream in pain? Who needs that, so to speak?

This doesn’t even begin to talk about growing up in a feminized education system or the entitlement issues run rampant that most young women have or all the other issues.

To put it simply: You can’t kick a dog and not expect it to eventually bite the hand that feeds.

Guys of my generation have been kicked since we were puppies, and we were kicked constantly and from everyone who supposedly loved and cared for us.

There is a groundswell of MRAism and misogyny and just a lot of pissed off guys for one reason or another.

I haven’t, for example, met a single guy in his 20s who hasn’t had alteast one or more psycho bitch crazy ex gfs.

There is a reason that guys on reddit have a saying that goes like this: “dont stick your dick in crazy.”

There is also a reason that feminists have gotten so angry over young men and what young men say that they have created a very hostile troll group on reddit called Shit Reddit Says, or SRS. This SRS group exists to do nothing more than attack MRAs and other young men and mock them.

I suggest you don’t spend too much time looking at their shit, but if you haven’t heard about them before then I do suggest you head to reddit and search for them and take a look at their subreddits. They are a perfect example of the crazy cunts that guys like me have had to deal with growing up. They have no argument or abilit to even discuss topics, they simply mock and jeer.

As far as this article goes, I agree. Not only that but the MRM is making headway as far as getting out message out.

This article is full of female projection and female hope but it also uses the term hypergamy, which I first read about in Devlins work and the MRM.

Marriage Suits Educated Women:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/marriage-suits-educated-women.html?_r=1

THe comments are interesting to say the least. All sorts of older single women complaining about how the article isn’t true, cause men are afraid of educated women(lol). I suggest you all check it out.

The simple truth is that I, and I suspect most guys (especially of my generation), simply get tired of the constant competiveness and bitchy demeanor of western women. Especially the hyper educated (with liberal arts masters) who want to rub it into our faces constantly.

Unlike men of older generations I have had more girlfriends than most older guys had in their entire lives before I turned 21. I can honestly say that women do not add any value, outside of the value of pussy and sex, to a mans life.

Even with great sex it gets fucken old, it wears you down and makes you tired, having to constantly deal with the power struggles in modern relationships.

I haven’t even lived with a girl and I am sick of it. After I got out of my longest LTR a few years back, it only lasted about 3 yrs, I was just drained. It felt like my soul had been sucked out or something.

Women aren’t companions these days. They are ruthless competitors at work, at school, and even in our relationships.

Why would I or any other guy, especially us younger guys who learned this the hard way, give one fuckin shit about women?

In the last three weeks I have had three times where a group of young women, college girls from the University down the stree, asked me for help while I was driving. Each time I told them to fuck off.

One of those times was last night. I was at a drive through and it was cold and raining out. This hot blonde chick tapped on my window and asked me if I would give her and her friends a ride down the street so they wouldn’t have to walk home in the cold rain. I told them to fuck off. I am not a limo or taxi service. They could have offered to give me a group blowjob and the most that would have happened would have been me jizzing on their face and then riding off. TBH, I wouldn’t have even done that. Last thing I want to deal with is a false rape claim.

Women have pissed away any good will guys my age used to have towards them. If you don’t believe me then simply look at markets and see what sells to young men and see how young men view women.

Go and look at online forums based around video games and you will see young men talking shit about girls their age. Hell, get on some feminist sites and you will see feminists complaining about young guys, teenage guys, talking constant shit about women. Look at reddit and you will see it too. Look at any male oriented areas and you will see it.

Look at rap music or the proliferation of the word gold digger. Women are worthless these days, especially after or before sex. I think they are realizing it too. There is no happy ever after. There is no ’till death do us part’, cause we all know that women are branch swingers or monkeys. They won’t let go of one branch until their hands are firmly planted on another branch.

Oh and Branch = cock. Females tend to call it serial monogamy.

Fuck that shit. They won’t love you. They will just treat you as a utility object. A fucking ATM or sperm donor or human shield or emotional tampon/shrink or a dildo or a rock to lean on and so on.

My point is this. What do women have any more??? Pussy is cheaper to come by, especially if you know some game, than candy on halloween. They can’t cook or clean worth shit. They are honest. They aren’t equal to any degree, especially 99% of them.

What do women have to offer besides a funhole to play with for 45 minutes? They suck as friends, shit they give their own friends eating disorders and call them frenemies.

WTF do women have to offer? I think it is very little and I think young men are figureing this out every day.

I think women are realizing that their gravy train is coming off the tracks and are scared shitless. I think many, if not most, young men wouldn’t allow a woman to go back to the kitchen and be barefoot even if the women begged for them to be allowed to be kept. I think women know this and I think that is why they are getting even more bitchy.

I think this will only backfire for women as a whole and I am looking forward to seeing it all fall apart. This comment is long enough, so I will just say nice article.

Here’s another comment agreeing with the previous comment:

I will agree with Troll King’s assement of the men of the Millenial generation. We have seen a lot going through high school, but especially college. We have seen women engaging in hypergamy and relastionship games without them even keeping up the pretense of “Romance.”

It could be put down to the bitterness and schadenfruede of the “famous dateless losers.” But then we ask, “why are we dateless?” Because we can’t compete with the vapid game of the player, okay but what does that say about women? Because we cannot compete with the empowered career female to satisfy her hypergamous needs, okay but doesn’t that then mean love and romance are hyporcitical games and thus make woman a liar?

Back in college my one buddy was really into a band, Reel Big Fish, and we were driving aroudn once musing when he put on a song of their’s in whcih the story is about a girl who snubbed the band leader when he was starting out, but since he has been successful has returned to seek his attention. So my friends turns to me and says, “fuck these bitches, they go to college and slut it up, then expect to find a nice guy who makes money after he gets a career. Who wants a used up whore?” Remember this was the mid 00′s so we thought success would be ours, if not for the mancession.

The problem from the female perspective is their narrow focus, there are still little bitch men who will put all there energy into a relationship just to have pussy validation. So when these females have their girlfriend with a dick, they make sure their social circle consists of other attatched females. Even other females who are not at the same standing as them do not exist in the her world. These are also the type of men who are so debased as to have no self-respect, virtue, or honor.

An example, a buddy of mine had this female friend from high school who was the biggest slut you could know, if she went out drinking she was out fucking. He has a fuck buddy relationship with her, and she starts dating some new guy, some bouncer who is a shy mangina. One night they are out drinking, bouncer boy goes in the back to lay down, and my buddy starts banging her on the couch, bouncer boy comes out afterwards to see them naked on the couch. Now this guy is such a mangina that he can’t accept what just happened and buys the excuse that it was just drunken making out.

This was about two years ago, mangina bouncer is still with the slut. I guess he is the loser who will marry her.

However the inbalance will still get to them as there are still large numbers of unattached females (because guys like Troll King, at least six of my buddies, and me are not taking them on) who will compete with the attatched female for her man. Women have no inate sense of right and wrong, so there is no level they won’t sink to, us Millenial guys noted this when younger when we learned “the best way to attract girls is to have one already.”

I have one friend who was a little weenie science dude back in college, only got ass once when some born again virgin girl in his Bible study group tunred into a cock-snatching harpy on him, needless to say when the group found out she became the victim and he the evil leacher. He had another relationship with a psycho woman who ultimately rejected him because he didn’t measure up to her previous soccer playing boyfriend. So now he has bulked up, gotten into adventure sports, and is getting a masters in engineering, and rutting through the university girls.

We can see that our inate value as a person for reasons of love, does not matter except for maybe a pump and dump. So why emotionally invest in some joke, we are not women who change with the wind. A romantic blow to our psyche’s are not solved by wine parties and shaking our asses in public.

My generations of fellows are at heart nihilistic, vicious, and with very little pretense of conscience. This is because we are informed by a type of moral philosophy, brought on by the moral degeneracy in family, society, law, and relationships. We implicitly understand social contract as it applies to relationships.

They can fight back with all the laws and shaming they want, but we are men and we will adapt and survive. Let us maintain the imbalance and drive it to a fever pitch.

Another comment:

Really? I don’t know how old you are, but I can promise you that guys under 30 are fed up with women. We had to grow up next to the most entitled and bitchy group of females that ever walked this planet.

Just look at popular culture. Whether its rap music or rock music or TV or movies.

Just compare film from 50 years ago to film today. Or music.

Were there concepts back in the day similiar to gold diggers? Were men writing music about how horrible and slutty women were? I know there are some types of music that are fairly old that deal with those issues….namely some blues and jazz and country. But even that stuff doesn’t hold a candle to what you might hear on the radio today.

And another comment:

Male, 26.

I agree 100% with what Troll King has said. This mirrors my experiences (in AUS). More than half my friends in school didn’t have fathers, and although it wasn’t quite as bad as 1-2 per class, there were several girls I knew who were pregnant before 15. Some of them even knew who the father was… occasionally. Heck, one of my female friends had three children by the time she was 16, and all to different fathers.

Whatever good will I had for women ended in high school. I’ve had a few GFs since then, hoping I’d find one that wasn’t crazy, but they all are. NAWALT? Fucking yes they are.

My folks don’t help either. I tried to talk to them about it when I noticed it towards the end of high school (age 15-17). Dad could see the problem but still (even now) believes that the women who do this are in the minority. mum just refuses to see a problem and says I’m being silly. Her favourite word is misogyny. I have no idea how they’ve managed to stay married for almost 30 years.

Women are emotional vampires. They don’t bring anything of value to a relationship (I’m a qualified Chef, so I don’t need a cook. Washing machines are literally 2 button pushes) except for sex, and quite frankly, I don’t have to hug my Fleshlite afterwards. I also don’t have to worry about it lying to me about contraception. Also the sex is better!

No, women don’t have any social currency left. Girls are stupid, throw rocks at them.

And a portion of another comment:

One of the major things I have noted is the disconnect between the 30 something men and the 20 something men. Especially in regards to women and relationships (I am speaking in the general population, not the MRM): my group are functioning nihilists, while the older men still have the delusion of hope. My initial thought was a difference between the Gen-Xers having lived their lives during relative prosperity and influence from a resurgent social progresivism. Then I realized that there was a major cultural shift, similar to the rise of Jazz and the roaring 20′s in the early 20th century.

I recommend reading the full comment thread because for brevity’s sake I only included a few comments. Men under 30 are getting fed up with women at a very fast rate. There are a lot of men who decided to go ghost after getting fed up with women, but getting fed up with women took these men decades. Paul Elam has talked about how he has gotten emails from teenage boys, 16 and 17 year olds, saying that they’re fed up with women. The younger a man/boy is, the more feminism and crap from women he has had to deal with each day. Teenage boys have now experienced the same amount of crap from women that an older man wouldn’t have gotten until he was at least 40.

As these men and boys have gotten exponentially more crap from women, women are doing less. First, women stopped learning basic life skills like cooking. Now, many young women are giving up on showering and basic hygiene (like I talked about recently). I imagine that the many boys in the next crop of teenagers (if not current teenage boys) are going to get even more disgusted with women and girls than they are now because they are literally getting FILTHIER. The smarter teenage boys will keep their dicks away from these cesspools of God knows what. This will be helped along by technology like VR sex because technology can’t give you a STD or some other disease. (Plus, it will probably be cleaner as in a lack of dirt/filth.) Add that to the fact that these young men have been assaulted constantly by feminism since the day they were born, and the results as they get older will be explosive.

The good news about this is that the MRM will in the coming years and decades get a massive infusion of manpower and energy. The bad news is that the men in charge of the MRM right now don’t really get what young men are going through now so they are ill prepared to handle the influx of all these young men. Maybe that’s not a bad thing because these young men don’t need help figuring out who is causing them trouble.

Telling The Truth On Feminist Sites That Supposedly Support Men Gets You Banned

AFINOs, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments 29 Responses »

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.

TDOM On How Feminism Transcends Both The Left And The Right

AFINOs, Christianity, conservative female supremacism, examples of both sides being feminized, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, Manginas/White Knights 7 Responses »

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.

The Three Ways Misandry Could Unwind In The Future

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, future predictions 4 Responses »

Dec 152011

Anonymous Reader gave an explanation of the three possible ways that misandry could unwind in the future:

Regarding the unwind of misandry TFH prefers one form of unwind to another.

Zed
Someone is dumping raw sewage into the lake where I get my drinking water. There is no “sacrifice” at all in trying to stop them. I am part of “the common”, and the common good is also my good. I like drinking fresh, pure, water. Doesn’t everyone?

Sure. Consider three options:

Door # 1. You take the offender to court, a jury finds the other party is guilty of a tort, orders them to stop doing that bad thing and to pay damages to you, with the threat of imprisonment for repeat offenses or failure to pay.

Door #2. You get some friends together, go find the offender, take him out and beat the snot out of him, then throw him in the effluent runoff with a warning to “stop this, now, or you’ll get more of the same”.

Door #3. You get a lot of friends together, with weapons and torches. You find the offender, beat him as badly as you want to, then hang him by the neck from the nearest tree until he is dead, and leave his body hanging as a warning to others. You burn his house to the ground. You hunt down all his relatives and kill them as well; men, women, children, babies, old grannies, all of them. You burn all their houses, barns, cars, everything to ashes. If anyone gets in the way, you kill them, too. If anyone tries to defend any of the offenders relations, you kill them and burn their house as well.

Three solutions. Each one will end the problem of raw sewage in your drinking water. However, not all of them are going to lead to the same sort of society, right? I think that this is more or less what TFH is trying to suggest – orderly unwind, vs. disorderly unwind, vs. catastrophic unwind, there is a difference.

Historically, humans have employed all three of the methods above. The more desperate and frustrated and angry that people become about a problem, the more the solution tends away from Door #1, and towards Door #3. I am pretty sure that none of us want to live in the world that Door #3 leads to.

The Offshoring Of Jobs Is The Result Of Feminism

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female economic bubbles, sexual harassment, socialism 41 Responses »

Dec 032011

The Fifth Horseman had this to say on the outsourcing/offshoring of jobs:

Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.

Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.

Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.

Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.

This is true. Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be. Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring. That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis. When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis. As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business. In fact, it’s surprising that there isn’t more offshoring of jobs.

If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.

Man Up 2.0 And Game 2.0

conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, Game/PUA, Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0, sluts 11 Responses »

Nov 192011

Over at the Rational Male blog, Rollo Tomassi introduced the concept of “Man Up 2.0″:

I’m glad to see it getting the publicity, but ONLY a woman could write this without suffering fem-screech backlash accusations of misogyny. This is the environment we’re in today. I have no doubt that Ms. Charen will receive her share of frothing hate from ego invested Jezebels, but at least her critique will register for them. No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

This is a real danger that I’m glad we’re starting to talk about. There’s a real danger of game being “sanitized” for the benefit of women or “made safe” for women. This form of game is game 2.0, a parallel of marriage 2.0, and it feeds into the form of promiscuity that women prefer allowing women to be sluts exclusively on their terms and is all around detrimental to men.

Socons/Tradcons love man up 2.0 and game 2.0. It fits into their blather about “male leadership” that is really only about having a ready made scapegoat when a woman needs it. A good example of this is Escoffier who recently at Dalrock’s blog declared that Athol Kay was the only good gamer out there. He didn’t include other married gamers. He only included Athol. Even most married gamers are not pro-female enough for him.

Many of you are thinking, “Doesn’t this apply to someone like Susan Walsh too?”. You aren’t the first to think that:

This can also be seen with Susan, as she is an erstwhile proponent of Game, but tends to mesh in a variety of conditions, qualifications and other caveats. Sometimes I read her stuff and just cringe at how even a professed anti-feminist still writes from the Team Woman perspective.

The threat of man up 2.0 and game 2.0 can not be underestimated, and until Rollo wrote his post, we weren’t dealing with it. One reason I think that we had the disaster that was the Elam-Frost debate (something I wasn’t going to address originally, but with this I have changed my mind so I will be writing a post on it on Monday) was this. Just because someone uses game language (or Roissy style game language) does not automatically make them pro-male in any way.

If Anyone Doubts The Morality Of What I’m Doing At The Sunday Morning Nightclubs

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining, Sunday Morning Nightclub 20 Responses »

Nov 062011

Eincrou wrote this about the morality of what I’m doing by going after the “born again virgin” crowd:

Dubious Wonder: “I had a couple of wild years in college, repented, came back to my childhood beliefs, and tried to make things right with God. I understood that I’d sinned in some of the things I’d done in my younger years, but was trying really hard to live up to God’s standards when I married my ex.”

If anyone doubts the morality of Pro-Male/Anti-feminist Tech’s explanation for why he’s picking up women in churches (which I sort of did at first, to be honest), let them read this comment.
If he had been on the “born-again-virgin” prowl sooner, PMAFT could have saved that man from being an “ex”.

Man Up. Man Up. Man Up

conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments 2 Responses »

Oct 292011

From a comment at Roissy/Heartiste on Bill Bennett’s recent man up BS:

- men commit suicide at a rate of 4 to 1 over women. man up.
- men die on average 5 years earlier. man up.
- over 90% of workplace deaths are men. man up.
- men do almost all of the dirty, dangerous, and manually difficult jobs. man up.

- false accusations against men of sexual harassment and rape will rise in our Feminist Indoctrination Centers known as colleges because the standard of evidence has been lowered to “preponderance of evidence”, the lowest standard of proving guilt. man up.

- television is largely misandrist, especially commercials. man up. you can laugh about chopping a man penis off on television and suffer no consequences. man up.
- there are 8 million programs, groups, associations, and organizations to help and support women, about 3 for men. man up.
- more men are homeless than women. man up.
- most war deaths are men. man up.
- women have hordes of white knight pussy slaves and male feminist morons on their side. men don’t have the equivalent. man up.

- don’t ever mention any of the above in front of other men. that’s whining. man up.

Men Didn’t Abuse Their Power In The Past

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments 4 Responses »

Oct 272011

From Slwerner:

There are no perfect comparisons to be made. Still, where and when men have had the advantages, they haven’t abused them to anywhere near the same extent women in the west are doing today.

I’m certain that culture and religious norms do play a role in this, but it’s hard to image they can fully account to the significant differences between the way the genders have tended to abuse their advantage.

I do believe that married women today think about and plan for divorce. On a post here (Dalrock’s) a while back, there was even the revelation by a woman who interviewed married women and found that even those in supposedly happy marriages still tended to think about divorce at an alarmingly high rate.

I’d image that this comes from the more hard-wired tendency for women to think in a self-protective manner, whereas men tend to be more sacrificial (towards their wives, their children, and even strangers) than women are. This likely also manifests in men being generally more content in a given marriage than are their wives.

I’d go so far to suggest that if you could set up a more apples-to-apples comparison [for example, if one could question husbands and wives separately from each other, and pose the question to them that if they could leave their marriage and take the lions share of the assets with them (and have custody of any children), would they be willing to do so?], that far more wives would be willing to take advantage of the advantage afforded them than would their respective husbands.

Doing God’s Work

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, Sunday Morning Nightclub 4 Responses »

Oct 172011

The Fifth Horseman wrote:

PMAFT,

I’m also in the process of getting a third chick to string along from a Sunday Morning Nightclub.

Actually, you ARE doing God’s work. You are shielding the innocent from predation. This is precisely what God would approve of – the strong defending the weak from predation.

Reading this should cause the heads of socons and tradcons to explode.

Spread This Far And Wide

AFINOs, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining 4 Responses »

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.

Just Read This

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, women who get it 8 Responses »

Sep 152011

Read what Dr. Tara had to say about “Our So Called Rape Culture”. You will want to read this.

Uncle Elmer On Business And The Economy

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female economic bubbles, mancession 3 Responses »

Aug 192011

Read what Uncle Elmer had to say about business and the economy:

Women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. They are marginalizing that small percentage of men who passionately innovate, destroy, and create ideas and take the risks to drive them to actualization

Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. Women can only insult me and deprive me of opportunity. Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labarynthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

Men have shanked me and kicked me in the teeth, but only men have given me opportunity and employment. No woman can or will provide me or any man employment, yet all western women feel entitled to help and opportunities from men, even as they drive men out of the workplace.

It leads to a nasty conclusion : workplace women are your enemy. They cannot help you but can and will hurt you. Do not look at them, do not talk to them. Extend your hand to men when possible and fight your male rivals honorably. If you are in a situation where you must fight a female remember that she can use any tactic and you will be crucified for merely standing your ground. Walk away from it.

Government studies that make dubious observations on gender differences are produced by self-serving feminist bureaucrats who have no concept about the reality of making a profit in the competitive business world. These imbeciles want the federal government to demolish profitable business structures that evolved over decades in the corporate shark-tank in favor of comfort and security for women and their lifestyle choices. Females want to inhabit man-created business structures as if those structures existed before man appeared on the veldt. They are clueless, and what’s more don’t care. They just want to have their cake and to eat it too. When you have pushed the last man out of the corporation it will collapse under its own dead weight.

Why You Should Post Some Fliers

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments 3 Responses »

Aug 072011

The Fifth Horseman explains why you should post some fliers as part of the URLs @ Urinals campaign:

It is exactly for this reason that the URLs @ Urinals campaign has so much potential.

Men have seen anecdotes, come to about 20% of the conclusions themselves, but would not figure out the other 80% without coming to our various blogs. The flyers not only distribute a lot more ‘red pills’ all over by sparking curiosity within the ‘Group A’ of men, but is highly scalable. One of us can post flyers that another 5000 men might see. What if 20 of us posted flyers?

We must all put in more effort to post flyers. The attendance in this ‘sphere can rise by an order of magnitude.

Data And Evidence That Men Experience

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, MGTOW 1 Response »

Jul 252011

One of the biggest strengths of mens rights is it’s ability to provide data and evidence:

Leave alone MRA, they have a capability to provide data and evidence way beyond this One-what blogger could ever do.

Marriage has benefits? Provide data. MRA can provide statistics and experience about courts, media, cops.

Not going on their way? If it seems a loser move, many MRA does not mean it as a refusal of sex altogether. Just the crap called marriage.

I am starting to believe MRA in abstract is too complicatd to understand for the average internet user (or blogger like that). MRA relates to men’s rights, not state, not religion, not any fucking else. No men’s rights? No civilization. Realize it.

While all of this is true, it goes beyond that. While the MRM can provide data and evidence that it is correct, many men will experience the evidence directly (such as dealing with anti-family courts or a false sexual harassment allegation) or indirectly (knowing a man who has been the victim of feminism). This is the reason that many men will come to conclusions that agree with MRAs and MGTOW before finding MRA and MGTOW blogs (if they ever find them).

“The Talk” Video Roundup

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining, video 1 Response »

Jul 232011

I haven’t had a chance to talk about Sharon Osbourne and the women of “The Talk” reacting to Catherine Becker cutting off her husband’s dick. At this point I really don’t have anything to add that hasn’t been already said, so here are some videos about it:

If you want to take action to stand up against Sharon Osbourne and “The Talk”, ScareCrow explains how.

What NAFALT (Or Even NAWALT) Really Means

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining 5 Responses »

Jul 162011

I found this post at Hunting for Archetypes about what NAFALT really means (which can be applied to NAWALT too):

Hey, I know we feminists are all on the same team, and wear the same ‘uniform’, and even moderate feminists tacit approval via silence (and strength in numbers) is a given politically, you can’t hate us all. I mean, I know some of us are busy shooting your fathers, sons, and brothers in the face. I know some of us are busy taking away your basic legal rights, dehumanizing you and demolishing your future. I know some of us are setting up all the systems they can find to benefit your S/O if she leaves you and takes you for all she can get, and I know there are a whole bunch of us cheering on that entitled mentality.

but not all of us are like that.

Some of us stand around and do nothing.

Blame Anyone But A Western Woman

AFINOs, conspiracy nonsense, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, false rape industry, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, future predictions, Manginas/White Knights 5 Responses »

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.

The Two Meanings Of “Husband”

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, male/female relationships 1 Response »

Jul 052011

I found this at Dalrock’s:

Interesting. I was just thinking the other day about how “husband” has two definitions:

n. – woman’s spouse: the man to whom a woman is married
v. – be thrifty with something: to use and manage something economically and sensibly, e.g. resources or money

Whereas “Wife” has but one meaning: n. – man’s spouse: the woman to whom a man is married.
Which is not to say that wives are never frugal or insensible about money, but that a husband – at least under the Old Rules – is expected to be a good steward of the family’s resources and more frequently is.

Socons And Tradcons View Women As Victims Just Like Feminists

AFINOs, conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments 20 Responses »

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.

Women’s Role As Child-Bearer Is Rapidly Becoming Unnecessary And In Many Cases Even Harmful

artifical wombs, conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining, technology 48 Responses »

Jun 062011

I found this comment at Roissy’s (thanks to namae namka linking to this blog in another comment):

“Why the difference? *Women are reproductively more valuable than men*.”

I wonder how true this is today though. Clearly in today’s world the need for reproduction is very different than before (no need for more hands on the farm, etc.); and, for certain segments of the population society would probably benefit from their non-reproduction.

In fact, I think the obvious gender-wide frustration of women today can partly be explained by this lowered value of children/reproduction altogether. Women understand that their primary purpose will always be tied up with reproduction and not civilization-altering achievement; now that this purpose has been largely removed, what do they have left? Female claims of males becoming increasingly ‘redundant’ are classic cases of projection: men are as useful as ever, whereas women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.

How much longer will women maintain these privileges after reproduction gas little place in society?

Plus, the older privileges were predicated on women’s willingness to become mothers at a young age to bear healthy children for tribe; how many of today’s women fit this description? If you don’t measure up to the job, you shouldn’t get the benefits…

The bold was added by me. Namae namka responded to that part with a link to my post on feminist paranoia about artificial wombs and other reproductive technologies and with good reason. Before even our current level of technology, women were in complete and total control of reproduction. Women could get knocked up by one guy and claim another guy is the dad and there was no way of knowing what the truth was. First came increased scientific knowledge about reproduction. Before that the process of reproduction would have been considered to be almost magical given women room to exercise total control. This lessened women’s control over reproduction. In the 20th century came paternity testing so men could know without a doubt who a child’s father is. Now women have no room to hide except that the law allows for paternity fraud. Eventually we will have artificial wombs which will allow men to have children without women if they so choose. The artificial womb represents control of reproduction being wrestled away from women. This is a pretty direct progression of how women become less and less necessary in reproduction.

However, there are other angles to what is going on here. One thing technology has done is allow more babies to survive birth and survive childhood. Before modern medicine if you wanted 2 or 3 children to survive to adulthood you probably would have to have six or more babies. Having that many babies was the only way to be sure to enough survived to adulthood. This is still the case in many places. If you know that to have 2 or 3 children survive to adulthood, you only need to have 2 or 3 babies, then that’s a lot less time spent on reproduction (and associated child rearing). And we don’t need to breed more hands to work on the farm either. This is another angle of how women are less necessary for reproduction.

Knowing this the socon and tradcon call for large families becomes a form of white knighting for women. Having only 2 or 3 kids nowadays leaves a lot of time before and after children. What are women doing then? (Sending women to work is obviously not an answer as the last few decades have shown us.) Large families are the socon/tradcon attempt to (unconsciously) paper over this problem.

The last part of the comment that I bolded says that women’s role as child bearer in many cases is becoming harmful. This is obviously true. All the pathologies caused by single mothers do not need to be repeated here. Beyond single motherhood take a look at younger women in their 20s. How many of them would you really trust to be mothers even if divorce wasn’t an issue? Take a look at the current crop of teenage girls, and it’s clear they will be even worse for motherhood than women currently in their 20s. Don’t forget all the misandry that these women carry which will have a negative impact on any sons you might have with them. I have taken flak for talking about alternatives for men to have children such as artificial wombs in the future and surrogate mothers in places like the Rotunda clinic in India. All things being equal the two parent family is probably better for raising children, but all things are not equal. Because of divorce the two parent family can become single motherhood at the drop of a hat. Single fatherhood from the beginning is better than that. Even without divorce women are increasingly unqualified to be mothers. And if you have sons you will be introducing misandry to them in your home. We are getting to a point where single fatherhood may be the superior system of raising children, especially when it comes to raising sons.

Libertarianism’s Achilles Heel

Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining 11 Responses »

May 302011

Eincrou wrote:

Last year, ReasonTV did a video about female libertarians and though there were the usual delusional excuses for female disinterest, most of the comments pointed out how beneficial big government has been to women.

I think libertarians somewhat realize the fact that women’s status and government spending/power are inextricably linked, but they haven’t yet discovered just how massively feminism contributes to ALL the phenomena they have identified as problems.

This gets to what the Achilles Heel of Libertarianism is. Until Libertarianism is willing to deal with the fact that women are the biggest supporters of big government and consistently vote for politicians promising the largest expansions of government, Libertarianism will remain a marginal political party and movement. (Libertarianism also has a similar problem with border security issues as a lack of border security, which Libertarians are for, effectively is importing more big government voters. However, this does not compare to the problem of women voting for the worst big government politicians out there.)

Expecting women to reject big government is like expecting government employees to reject big government (and not so ironically the majority of non-military and non-law enforcement government employees are female).

A Trifecta From Höllenhund

AFINOs, conservative female supremacism, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, female behavior and whining, shaming language 20 Responses »

May 282011

Höllenhund posted three comments at Dalrock’s blog that are very good:

Stephenie,

your position is crystal clear and a repetition of what you’ve already said. Your greatest fear about the potential future fallout from the current mess is that women’s autonomy may get terminally eroded and some men may become such hardliners that they’d start killing feminists (which is the sort of utterly baseless, sensationalist “argument” one would expect to see on Jezebel.com). Your concern is thus mainly about the possible disadvantages women would suffer and not, say, the masses of men who would die horrific deaths in the same scenario.

I’ve seen examples of this self-serving female attitude before. Susan Walsh once said that the main reason why he wants men’s overall social condition to improve is because her female readers are interested in high-quality “eligible” mates. Kay Hymowitz also argued that men should “man up” and improve themselves because…the women want high-value mates.

All in all, I have never seen a single woman argue that she wants to see men’s grievances and problems addressed because she cares about them as her fellow human beings who deserve dignity and respect. What women say instead is that men should improve themselves in order to…provide women with the mates they want. In other words, women don’t believe that men’s prosperity is a worthy goal in itself. Women think it’s self-evident that men just OWE them various things.

I find it funny – easy to explain and not terribly surprising, but nevertheless funny – that virtually all women and the majority of men go through life under the assumption that women have enormous social value just by virtue of being women; that they are the ultimate prize in men’s lives; that their uteruses are worth their weight in gold.

We can observe this gynocentric attitude in society’s general treatment of male-female relationships. By and large, society considers it self-evident that a young woman should be picky when choosing a mate because she’s the prize and she deserves the best she can get by virtue of having an uterus, whereas a young man should pretty much have no standards and should just believe that any woman who agrees to put up with him is somehow God’s gift to him.

He continues with:

For the sake of argument, I’ll try to illustrate the absurdity of this attitude by offering a hypothetical scenario. Let’s suppose one of the well-known male journalists wrote something like this:

“I think women’s overall social condition is worrying. They need our help and advice. I believe we should encourage young women to stay thin, develop a positive, cheerful nature and learn how to be good lovers, because these are the sort of mates the average young man is interested in.”

All feminists and virtually all women would go apeshit and this man would lose his job the next day. Reverse the roles, and it’s just business as usual in the current media.

He ends with:

I think Butterfly Flower’s comments illustrate something profound with regard to female attitudes towards the MRM.

We all know traditionalist women routinely complain about the supposed fatalism of the MRM. If you ask them about this, they will of course tell you that what they object to is nihilist MRAs “whining”, “sitting around complaining” and rejecting traditionalist roles instead of manning up and doing something against the feminist system and proposing societal solutions. If you ask me, I think what really bothers them about the MRM is something completely different: the message of male self-preservation.

This is something incomprehensible to traditionalist women because they have always operated under the assumption that men are uncomplaining, expendable provider and protector mules who will accept any sacrifice society and women demand of them. But now we have a growing number of young men seeing both the patriarchy and feminism for the shams they are, refusing existing gender roles, going their own way and practicing self-preservation, becoming asshole cads etc. MRA authors encourage them not to take unnecessary risks, not to become victims, to consider marriage only optional, to carefully weigh their options and care about their own well-being. This phenomenon is almost unprecedented in human history and to the average traditionalist mind it falls in the “does not compute” category.

It is especially unnerving for traditionalist women because what they actually want is a sort of “soft landing” after the excesses of the past 40-50 years, a scenario where women only have to suffer minimal damage as men decide to adopt traditionalism, “grow a pair”, defeat the feminist monster and accept patriarchal roles again. What they actually want men to do is to band together under the rightist flag, mount a heroic frontal assault against the feminist pillboxes, suffer enormous losses – all right-wing ideologies just love the idea of martyrdom, after all – but eventually reach victory, reestablish the patriarchy, wipe the leftist blood from their bayonets and then graciously offer women the role of SAHM so that these precious creatures can once again grace with their presence the lives of the manly men who deserve it. In their minds, men only exist as providers (read: mules), white knights and heroic martyrs who sacrifice themselves for their morally pure, angelic women.

But men are wising up and telling them to suck it – in growing numbers. Traditionalist women are resorting to their old tricks, saying “the ultimate goal of the patriarchy is to benefit men”, but more and more men are realizing it’s bullshit. Some of these women started opportunistically sniffing around the MRM, hoping to find patriarchal knights in shining armor just dying to rescue the damsels in distress and slay the feminist dragon in mortal fight, but the MRM rejects them. These women actually believe that even after the decades of fire, destruction and suffering unleashed by the feminist culture war, if they simply say “I want to be a rightist SAHM”, men will grow a pair and sign up for marriage 1.0 like the mules they are, as if nothing happened in the past 40 years. What they don’t realize is that the blinders are off, women have revealed themselves for what they truly are and the trust between the genders is terminally broken. Even legal reform couldn’t resuscitate the marriage rate. Even if a law is passed to benefit husbands, it can easily be repealed 5-10 years later and more and more men know this. Western civilization is dying, but men won’t save it for women. More and more of them will simply keep out of the blast wave and preserve themselves, only for themselves and nobody else.

The Truth About How Child Support Works

Anti-Family Courts, Featured Posts From Other Blogs And Featured Comments, Spearhead Related 25 Responses »

May 072011

Novaseeker wrote about how child support really works. It’s something every man needs to read:

The main problem with the CS regime is that people are generally unaware how it really works. They assume it works one way, but really don’t understand the disparate impact of how it actually works. In effect, it is an additional tax, full stop, on the father which is paid to the mother on a tax-free basis. It really doesn’t matter how much you make, the tax rate is basically the same, the way the statutory formulas/guidelines generally work. People think it’s based on “income share”, because that’s how the statute is worded, and that’s how it was peddled when the CS rules were changed, but as you’ll see below, it’s really a flat tax on the father’s income regardless of income share.

Here are some examples, just to clarify. Let’s assume a child support calculator that is 15% of pre-tax income for one child.

Example One
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 200k
Total support amount is 15% of 200k, which is 30k. H’s share of total income is 50%, so H pays ex-W 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.

Let’s look at what happens when we change the income levels.

Example Two
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 50k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 66.67%, so H pays ex-W 66.67% of 22,500, which is …. 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.

Ok. What happens when ex-W earns a lot more than H?

Example Three
H income = 50k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 33.34%, so H pays ex-W 33.34% of 22,500, which is 7500. 7500 is, you guessed it, 15% of H’s pre-tax income.

The way it works is that the father pays a flat rate of his income to the mother no matter what. The actual amount of dollars that flow depends on income share, which means that a guy in example three pays less actual dollars, but the dollars that he does pay are the same % of his pre-tax income as the guys earning twice as much in examples one and two. It’s the same percentage of income no matter what. It’s a flat tax, plain and simple, which is then paid to Mom on a tax-free basis.

CS payments are invisible from the tax perspective, which, in effect, means that the tax impact is terribly disproportionate. Dad doesn’t get any deduction for CS payments. They’re treated as if they were rent or gasoline (except they are not variable — you can’t reduce the cost as you can with rent or gasoline by moving or driving less). And Mom receives them tax free — these payments are not reported on her tax return and are generally invisible. And, as the original post points out, they are made with after-tax dollars, so the actual “effect on income” is much, much higher than 15% — i.e., it’s much more than 15% of the take-home pay of Dad. If Dad in example one has take home pay of, say 60k, 15k of that goes to CS, which is 25% of his take-home pay being transferred to his ex-wife on a tax-free basis to her on an ongoing basis. And, again, that doesn’t even take into account the health care premiums, the college savings account requirements, the life insurance premiums, and so on, that one is required to maintain in the typical decree. At the end of the day, this is a huge, huge wealth transfer from men to women, and it takes place on a completely unreported basis because, again, these payments don’t count for tax purposes, so they are not figured in Mom’s income. Flatly put, it’s a big, big scam, but if you complain about it, you’re instantly denigrated as a deadbeat supporting jackass who hates women and children. It’s a system that has been well designed by feminists to enslave men to their ex-wives, in practice.