Yesterday, our host, who many of us have long realized to be an alien lizard creature, took over the mind of Edita Munoz (aka Edita TWRA), forcing her to first tell-off whiny uber-mangina Jesse Innocent-men-should-be-imprisoned-on-the-off-chance-that-a woman-might-be-protected Powell:
” Jesse that is incorrect. Chivalry is your domain and your idea. Nowhere in the TWRA doctrine does it talk about chivalry. The topic of chivalry is an add on, like a general idea that you yourself espouse. Kind of like I espouse my stance against Communism. The TWRA core philosophy can be found here and the philosophical ideal of the TWRA life can be found here. The TWRA’s are about helping women; by promoting ideals in our doctrine, and exposing feminism. We also stress the importance of chastity and housewifery. Chivalry is an idea that you espouse, it is NOT part of the TWRA doctrine.”
Then, forcing her to give a rather reasonable appraisal of notion of Chivalry:
” I see it as a moral code for knights. Now don’t get me wrong men do take care and protect women, same as women submit and stay loyal to them: it is a reciprocal relationship, and the word chivalry is not necessary in this case. The men in the aurora shooting were heroes because they protected their own, they were not chivalrous. I agree with you men have a natural instinct to protect, whether it is their wife, daughter or mother. Men will always protect the women in their lives. Again I would not call that chivalry. I have a problem with collective chivalry, as it is only possible if women are collectively submissive. But that is impossible as each person is completely different; thus the collective duty infringes upon ones freedom to choose a particular action. It is basically forcing everyone under the same umbrella, which in our society is impossible, at the moment. Also, expecting men to die for random women is not a viable solution either; because it makes men disposable. However, will a man always do anything in his power to protect his own: wife, mother daughter? Yes, he will. Because he has a natural instinct. However. there is a huge difference when it comes to men protecting their own and expecting men to protect all women irrelevant of their behavior. If I saw a weak soldier I would protect him: as we all in society have a duty to protect the weak irrelevant of the gender. If the parents are injured, the child may protect them as well. Chivalry is just that chivalry; used by knights. To attribute knight behavior to societal duties and men’s instincts to protect their own women (not random women), does not seem like a viable solution to me.”
And, finally, forcing her to wipe out her entire site:
” femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com is no longer available.
The authors have deleted this site.”
Damned, PMATF, or should I say Greg, I didn’t realize you alien lizards had that power of mind control. You even managed to make Edita sound far more reasonable thanAndrew Richards vis-à-vis the role of masculinity.
I am humbled.
“Womb-wisdom”. Is that like scrotal-smarts?
Seriously, this seems to be a primary example of the feminine imperative. If something isn’t all about women, and how it affects them, then that thing must be made to be all about women
First of all, I love the term, “scrotal smarts”. We need to remember that one when a woman starts about “womb wisdom” or “feminine intuition”.
Josh is right that women feel the need to make anything and everything about them. Baby BOYS being circumcised definitely isn’t about women because women don’t have penises.
I have seen the same thing when it comes to medical conditions that only men can have. I remember several years ago seeing commercials on TV about how men need to get checked for prostate cancer for their “families” (in other words, women) even though prostate cancer has nothing to do with women.
In the movie, Fight Club, Helena Bonham Carter’s character goes to the same testicular cancer support group that the main character, a man, does. At one point she says that she has more of a right to go a testicular cancer support group than the main character does. While that is an absurd idea, I think we may not be that far away from women trying to take over male only medical conditions like that. For women it has to be all about them even if it’s biologically impossible for it to be about them like with testicular cancer.
S1AL has created a new argument category.
There’s the “No True Scotsman” argument we all know about. His corollary is the “UMC Amish as TradCon”. There are very small, very cloistered groups like that, but good luck finding them. There are good churches out there, but there aren’t a lot of them. You aren’t going to get many takers to talking about the “Church” when you’re speaking from an ultra-thin minority.
UMC = upper middle class.
This is definitely a corollary to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I’m not even sure that “UMC Amish” churches exist, but even if they do they are so small and so few as to be almost impossible to find. Even if you found one, they probably wouldn’t let you in since you weren’t born into their church.
This means not seeing “woman” as a faceless collective, but making a serious effort to see individual women for who they are.
While I briefly commented on this there, the issue of whether women should be seen as a faceless collective or not is more complex and deserves more thought. First of all, Dalrock is correct in principle. That being said there is a problem with applying that straight up in the real world. The problem can be best explained with an example.
One thing we have seen is tradcon women attack men who call out sluts. Being a tradcon means being against what a slut does, namely her promiscuity. Tradcon women should have no problem when a man calls out a slut yet they do acting as if a woman being called a slut is an attack on all women. The tradcon women doing this may not be sluts themselves (although many tradcon women are “former”/”reformed” sluts). Yet, they defend sluts for doing something they say they’re against. Even if these tradcon women aren’t sluts themselves, what’s the difference between them and the sluts if they’re so willing to rush to the sluts’ defense?
This is the problem. A man looking at this can’t know if the tradcon women are really any different from the sluts. Thus women start looking like a faceless collective due to their own actions. Women are not a faceless collective, but they will act like one when its convenient for them to do so. Thus it’s understandable when a man decides to treat women as a faceless collective. He got the idea from observing female behavior.
If you’re not reading the This Is Why MGTOW blog, you should be. The author of that blog, Cerberus Alpha, made a good point about Nazbol misandrists. Here are some snippets from that post (although I recommend you read the whole thing):
I think it’s correct to state that most women are in the Nazbol camp by default, rather than being feminist or traditionalist. To be feminist or traditionalist, you have to be ideological (either political or religious), and attempt to frame everything in terms of how you view the world. Even if they are inconsistent (which they often are), they at least attempt to present their views consistently.
E.g. a feminist thinks that gender is socially constructed, and all inequality flows from this. To a feminist, women being paid less is therefore a major issue (despite it not being true any more, in fact young women are out-earning young men, and when you balance for women taking years out to have children, men more aggressively pursuing advancement, men and women choosing different fields of work, there is no disparity at all). But I digress; let’s humor them for a moment. ‘Unequal pay’ is a major issue because it prevents women from being as independent as they could be if they received the same pay as men.
Fair enough; nothing inconsistent so far. But if you ask your average feminist who should pay the bills, they tend to squirm and remain silent, or try to change the subject. They would like the autonomy that comes from men being providers, but they are aware of the inconsistency between this and their self-declared independence. So eventually, if you can withstand their rage and attempted evasions, you will get them to poutily admit that yes, going Dutch, splitting the bill, is the only way to be consistent with feminism, because the male provider role is directly connected to ‘patriarchy’ (again, we are humoring them; ‘patriarchy’ does not actually exist).
A traditionalist, on the other hand, believes the exact opposite to the feminists: she believes that male and female roles are naturally different, because that’s what God has decided, and/or time has proven that the traditional model of sex roles works. Thus, a traditionalist does not complain about ‘inequality’ – she believes that inequality is necessary and right.
Traditionalists are pretty much hated in the manosphere, for acting as though we still live in pre-feminist days. They tell men to ‘man up,’ and argue that we have a duty to provide for women, to sacrifice, even to die for women. Their views might be hopelessly anachronistic, but there is nothing inconsistent yet; they equally exhort women not to work outside the home, but to be good, traditional housewives. They recognize that the only way for them to be consistent, if they are going to make these demands on men, is to give men the leadership role within the family.
However, Nazbol misandrists have no regard for consistency whatsoever – they think that women should receive equal treatment, equal pay, be considered equal to men, etc. - and that men should still fulfill the provider role!
Trying to be completely consistent with either feminism or traditionalism runs into the same problem for most women. In some way or another being a truly consistent feminist or traditionalist ends up with a negative impact on a woman. This is why even a lot of self described feminist women and tradcon women will use twisted logic to get around these things. (For example, when tradcon women talk about “male leadership”, they will use concepts like “servant-leadership” where male leadership is effectively nothing but being a chauffeur for women.) Most women, instead, just don’t bother with consistency and choose the path of Nazbol misandry.
Most women, like most men, are not overtly ideological; they do not attempt to view the world through a single, narrow lens, and do not give too much thought to their worldview being consistent.
That’s why I say most women are Nazbol misandrists – they will demand equality when it comes to their paychecks, but then they demand chivalry when the bill comes. It doesn’t even matter that it’s inconsistent; it’s about what feels right to them. And what feels right, obviously, is being the ones who end up with more money. After all, if women are paid the same as men, but men are obliged to shell out more, who ends up richer? … Exactly. Most women, if only unconsciously, are female supremacists. After all, they want to be seen as ‘equal,’ ‘just as strong and capable,’ yet are unwilling to let go of the princess treatment that they feel is their natural right.
We can see this around the house, too. Women complain about men “not doing their share” of household chores. But then you realize they are referring only to certain chores – like cooking, ironing, and vacuuming. They conveniently omit chores like mowing the lawn, cleaning the car, changing the car’s oil, taking out the trash … tell me, have you ever once heard of a woman volunteering to do those chores? Or is it more likely that a woman who complains bitterly about men not doing enough ironing will dump a garbage bag in her husband’s arms and tell him to go take the trash out?
I think you get the point … they want equal help when it comes to their burdens, but they sure don’t want to take on part of yours.
So, now that traditionalism is dead, and given that feminism has only a limited appeal … it seems most women have embraced Nazbol misandry, because despite its inconsistencies, it serves their self-interest better than the other two. Why be consistent when you could “have it all,” and dump all your baggage in the arms of some poor shmuck? Why be content with being only ‘equal,’ when you could be ‘equal’ and ‘special’?
Understanding that most women are not overtly ideological is the key. Most women don’t feel the need to hold themselves to an abstract ideological standard like feminism or traditionalism. Like Cerberus Alpha says, it’s all about what “feels right” to women. Unlike both feminism and traditionalism, Nazbol misandry always delivers what a woman wants whenever she wants it. Neither feminism not traditionalism can do that for a woman, unless she is already oriented to those ideas. And even then such a woman will try and get out of anything that negatively impacts her from either feminism or traditionalism with twisted logic and/or being evasive.
Now that Anita Sarkeesian has released her first video attacking video games, here are two videos criticizing her:
The videos are from last year, but they are still relevant. The second video shows that Sarkeesian manufactured being a victim of misogyny by deleting her two previous videos before announcing her series on video games. What happened was that a lot of people were angry at her for deleting those two videos, and they made their feelings known in the comments for the next video which happened to be the video about her video game series. Sarkessian used everyone that was angry at her about an unrelated topic to whine, “HELP, HELP!!!! I’m the victim of an organized attacked by misogynists.” In reality lots of people were legitimately angry at her for a wide variety of reasons. This was intentional fraud on her part. Things like this are why these videos are very helpful in revealing that Sarkessian is a charlatan.
There’s a conversation going on at Dalrock’s blog about the “Traditional Women’s Rights Activists”. (The comments in that conversation are also good for showing why tradcons are useless when it comes to fighting feminism.) PPM had this to say about TWRAs:
It’s obvious what TWRA is – naked female self interest and nothing more. It is raw feminine imperative, without the intelligence or guile to disguise itself.
I doubt this is a feminist false flag operation. Rather, it is an expression of unfettered entitlement and narcissism. Feminism may have unleashed these sins from their traditional constraints, but even feminism has some principles, as errant as they may be. TWRAs have none.
This is one of the reasons why I consider TWRAs to be what I call nazbol misandrists. Both feminists and tradcons at the very least pretend to be consistent with the left wing and right wing political traditions respectively. Nazbol misandrists don’t care about that. If you look at the Feminine Mystique TWRA blog, you will see the author use whatever is convenient to advance female entitlement and narcissism. You find plenty of examples of the author of that blog quoting both feminists and tradcons. It doesn’t matter if there is any consistency with outside political traditions or if their ideas are consistent with each other. It’s all about unifying previously separate misandrist ideas (just as the Nazbols in Russia unified the previously separate Russian nazi ideas and Russian communist ideas) into a single block of pure misandry serving female self interest.
The best example of how nazbol misandrists are all about pure female self interest is how they hate the MRM. The TWRAs have spent more time hating the MRM than even tradcons and feminists do. There is even a sister blog to Feminine Mystique TWRA called Oppose the MRM. While both tradcons and feminists hate the MRM, there is a limit to how much either group can express their hate of the MRM before running into conflict with the political principles they have associated themselves with. Nazbol misandrists don’t have any limits on expressing their hatred of the MRM because the only principles of nazbol misandry are female self interest and female entitlement. The MRM stands in the way of female self interest and entitlement so the nazbol misandrists oppose the MRM with a fury that has the power of thousands of stars, but only give a token opposition to feminism.
In many ways nazbol misandry is the default form of misandry for most women (and manginas) like Danger said at Dalrock’s blog:
TWRA is essentially a large percentage of all women.
We all know the saying “There are no feminists on a sinking ship”. So yes, they all expect deferential treament.
This concept at it’s roots is a form of socialism, where it is your duty to provide something else to someone else for free. It is also part of the reason women vote so liberally, they really do feel entitled to being taken care of throughout their lives, regardless of the subject.
While I would replace TWRA with nazbol misandrists in what Danger said because a lot of women might not like the TWRA talk about traditionalism (even though the TWRAs don’t consider themselves tradcons), Danger is correct. Most women are feminists only to the point where it serves their self interest. Most women aren’t interested in feminism when its gets into forming lesbian communes and the like. The same is true in the opposite direction when it comes to traditional conservatism. Since the nazbol misandrists are purely about female self interest, they can “deliver” what most women want more so than either the feminists or the tradcons can.
Dr Stephen Baskerville has two videos on the dangers of (Anti-)Family Courts:
One of the reasons that we have an epidemic of women making false domestic violence accusations against men is because the government has created incentives for women to make false DV accusations against men. The state of Massachusetts has decided to give women another incentive to make false DV accusations:
The scenario that single women are going to drive the rental housing market is about to get a huge monkey wrench jamming it: very soon nobody is going to want to rent to women.
Here’s why. Massachusetts just passed a law, signed by the governor, that allows a woman to break a rental lease if she is the victim of “domestic violence” (DV). Already many of us have seen evidence of an entitlement mentality among many women that results in their expecting to be able to break contracts on a whim, often by claiming “they didn’t understand what they were signing”, “the contract is unfair”, and the like. Judges routinely throw out prenups over just such grounds. Really, this mentality usually boils down to, “I changed my mind, so why should I have to comply with this now?”
Now one state has codified this entitlement with leases, as it’s only a matter of time before (1) other states adopt similar laws, and then (2) many cupcakes decide to falsely claim they are DV victims—that is, with the sole purpose of getting out of their leases. Once this happens enough times, landlords ain’t a-gonna be willin’ to lease an apartment to a woman knowing that she can break it on a whim with the DV card.
What will happen now in Massachusetts (and elsewhere if this law is copied as it probably will be)? When a woman wants to move but is stuck in the middle of a lease, she will make a false DV accusation against her boyfriend, husband, or some random man who lives in the same building. Landlords will want to avoid renting apartments to women not just for the money they lose from women breaking leases on a whim, but from men who want to avoid women who make false DV accusations anytime they want to move. Of course, the government will try to force landlords to rent to women, so landlords may give up completely on providing apartments leading to a critical shortage of rental housing in the future all thanks to feminism.
Barbarossaaaa has a new video out called Traditionalism and feminism, the great gynocentrisms of our time. It’s over an hour, but it’s very good. Take a look at it.
The Men’s Rights Movement offers an effective opposition to feminism.
Traditionalists oppose feminism the way indulgent parents oppose their spoilt rotten daughter when she’s throwing a petite mal tantrum in the middle of a grocery store:
“Oh, dear, please don’t do that, please don’t be upset, sweetheart let daddy get you a loli? No? A doll? A puppy?” And then the indulgent traditionalist daddy turns around and breaks his son’s nose with his fist for “not stopping your sister from getting upset in the first place!”
Why is this? Because traditionalists are not equipped to recognize female agency, much less deal with it. Over and over again they prove that they prefer to blame the nearest man.
This is an excellent summary of tradcon behavior.
Also isn’t it sort of suspicious that traditionalist women are suddenly interested in opposing feminism just as male liberation is getting off the ground?
That entire article was void of any compassion for men; any sense that men exist outside of the writer’s fears and needs.
Traditionalist women need the Men’s Rights Movement far more then the MRM needs traditionalist women. They are gynocentric to the core; would they be willing to challenge their own male-hatred? Their gynocentric beliefs? The idea that women have the right or even the ability to define men? How about the author’s apparent knee-jerk belief that men are always to blame?
Tradcon women need the MRM in the same way that WW1 generals need large armies of cannon fodder. This is why, as Typhonblue correctly points out, tradcon women need the MRM more than the MRM needs tradcon women. In fact, the MRM doesn’t need tradcon women at all (unless they become actual MRAs).
How should you invest your money in the future? TFH provides us with an answer that works:
And….. owning a mortgaged house is among the *worst* positions to be in…
It is not an exaggeration to say that betting against anything that a group of women think is a good idea, is a very solid strategy. Remember, women rely on groupthink, and invest (or force their husband to invest) in a manner that prioritizes groupthink rather than actual returns.
Mortgaged houses, gold, and Facebook shares are all things women thought were superb investments. Hence, all three are terrible.
While I have never expressed it in these terms, this has been my investment strategy over the last several years. I can tell you that IT WORKS. I didn’t buy a mortgaged house during the housing bubble. I avoided gold when it obviously became a bubble, and I knew that Facebook had nowhere to go but down by the time it went IPO. I made money or saved money when other people were losing their shirts because I didn’t take investment advice from a woman. Some of you may remember the infamous “Suzanne Researched This” commercial from 2006:
The guy in that commercial knew that buying a house was a bad idea, but he did it because his wife and Suzanne the realtor, two women, berated him into it. That commercial happened seven years ago. If another commercial was made to see where he is now, he probably would have been foreclosed on. His wife is probably in the process of divorcing him, and Suzanne has become a stripper. Had that guy not been married (and thus not bought a house) he would be doing all right financially proving that investing against women works.
This will only become a better investment strategy in the future. TFH provides insight on that too:
For biological reasons, a female’s creature’s life is far more valuable than a man’s, and this applied to humans until the modern era. The number of babies that can be born is the same even if a large portion of the men die, while this not the case if even a single woman dies. Hence, all of human history treats men as expendable. No society has been an exception to this.
However, this assumes that women spend their entire lives from age 15 onwards bearing and taking care of children. It was normal for women to bear their full capacity of children (10+), of which 40% would die early. Human society was geared to transfer all resources to women as this correlated to the survival of children. There was no reason to assume the correlation was anything but exact.
But in the modern era, women now only use 10-20% of their lifetime childbearing capacity, on average, with a substantial percentage of women bearing no children at all. Yet, society is still programmed to transfer resources to women. Go to any department store, and see that 90% of the items there are things no man would ever buy for himself. Look at all the houses built…. our entire economy is evidence that society still funnels all resources to women, even though this no longer is spent on children, and certainly does not correlate to the survival of children.
In the meantime, all the work that keeps modern society running, is done by men. Whether the gritty men who keep the lights running and the water flowing, to the introverted men who create all technological innovation, civilization = men. And these are the men usually termed as ‘Beta’.
Society is funneling (nearly) all resources to women, but that is unsustainable. We are already reaching the breaking point where we can no longer subsidize women. Currently, most women are employed in make work jobs that generate no productivity or negative productivity. (These jobs are mainly government jobs, quasi-government jobs, government mandated jobs in private industry, or private industry jobs that exist due to fear of feminism.) Both government and private industry are going to hit the wall because they can’t support paying an army of effectively do nothing employees. Soon, a point of no return will be reached, and lots of women will lose their jobs since both government and private industry can’t afford to subsidize them anymore. Without jobs how are women going to buy all the crap they buy now?
One thing that will be pushed by both the left and the right by the time this happens will be to dump these women on to men. In other words, it will be an attempt to get men to “man up and marry those sluts” into “traditional” marriages where the women don’t work. Since neither the government nor private business will want to subsidize these women, they will try to get individual men to do it. While we hear “man up and marry those sluts” from the tradcons, at this point the left will go “nazbol” misandrist and do it as well out of desperation. This just represents another attempt to subsidize women with make work jobs. In this case the “make work” is having lots of kids. Since most kids now survive to adulthood, large families are just make work jobs for women subsidizes by their husbands. Men will look at this and refuse to marry these women because they get no benefit to subsidizing a woman (in addition to other problems like anti-family courts).
All of this means over time that the economy will be reoriented to serve men’s needs and interests. Therefore any good investment will be in a business that provides something men need and/or want. Anything else will be a losing investment so this is why your investment strategy for the future should be to invest against women. You may not always make money with this strategy (although you will a lot of the time), but when you do lose money, you will lose a lot less than anyone who invests in women.
I have to point this out until more people grasp this :
If women think the current laws are fair, and that getting unilateral custody is the way it should be…..
Then paternal grandmothers will lose access to their grandchildren when the father, her son, loses custody to the mother (her daughter-in-law).
So default mother custody causes plenty of paternal grandmothers to lose all contact to their grandchildren, as when the father is cut out, that means EVERYONE on the father’s side is cut out. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, you name it.
OK, so where is even the SMALL group of paternal grandmothers protesting default mother custody? What they thought was a great idea when they were having children, is now not such a good idea when their sons have children.
Old grandmothers are politically powerful. So where is the organization of ‘Grandmas against default mother custody’? Where?
Just one more example of women having no concept of cause and effect or long-term consequences.
There’s more to this than women having no concept of (long term) cause and effect. It’s one thing to not realize that divorce means that you can’t see your grandchildren before a divorce happens. It’s another to be fine with it afterwards as paternal grandmothers appear to be. This is an example of team woman in action. It’s a particularly extreme example in that grandmothers are willing to never see their grandchildren again just to support daughters in law they will no longer have a connection with.
The only way to deal with this is a true grandchildren strike, denying grandchildren from potential grandmothers. A grandchildren strike should not be necessary, but as we can see, paternal grandmothers don’t care when they can no longer see their grandchildren. The only way to deal with this is to not have children in the first place. Usually, I advocate surrogate mothers in India for men who really want children in the current feminist climate, but doing so protects our mothers from the consequences of their actions. That is unconscionable so perhaps we should all be on a grandchildren strike.
I always enjoy reading Barbarossaaaa’s blog. He always has good stuff like a couple of good examples of tradcon feminist women.
His most recent post has to do with the problem of obfuscating the complicity of women in the MRM. This is a real problem. Barbarossaaaa uses the example of supposed MRAs who say that men would divorce women as much as women divorce men now if given the opportunity:
“Well men do it too, if men were given the legal power to destroy women in divorce proceeding they’d be divorcing in equal numbers” etc.
This is standard operating procedure (for self depracating, koombaya, and upon the collapse of feminism men and women lived in wedded bliss forever and ever) MRA types.
Never mind the study that I mentioned in my anti traditionalism videos, showing two and a half decades worth, of women exhibiting a 40% increase in initiating divorce if they were the primary breadwinners in the household. Here it is directly quoted from the article itself.
But career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources, according to a 25-year study by Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash.
Researchers found that the tipping point is when the wife pulled in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. And it didn’t matter how rich or poor the pair were. Race, however, is a factor; more impact for whites than blacks.
According to this study, women, regardless of whether or not they are affluent or poor, will still chose to trade up and marry more successful men for wealth/status. This is hypergamy in its purest sense, and yet pointing it out in the manosphere will trigger knee jerk grand mal seizures from self loathing, utopian MRA’s that have declared a war on pointing out any correlative behavior women exhibit with feminism.
In the land where unicorns roam, and correlative female behaviors must not be named, the ministry of love regularly gins out tripe such as the quote below for export to my channel’s comment section:
If women could get off their ass and earn/invest at the same rate as the men we would see 50% divorce rates (roughly).
Unless you can aptly demonstrate hypergamous behavior as being STRICTLY a female trait then it is useless for MRAs or MGTOG to obsesses over.
Who said it (a troll with multiple sock puppet accounts) is irrelevant at this point. What matters is that we acknowledge this indigestible pig slop for the complete and utter NAWALT deflection that it is. Men won’t progress in our understanding of women and feminism until we do. These types will invariably give you the “women are the great victims of feminism” conned by those evil evil…(insert your preferred bogeyman -Marxists, Rothschilds, the “Left”-) conspiracy theory. The qeustion they never ask is if feminism was a big bad conspiracy to destroy families, then why were ONLY women given the power to divorce without consequence?. If the goal was to destroy families, surely they would encourage and legally empower both men and women towards frivolous divorce.
Or wait, could it be that… (Nah never mind -shudders-)
Eh..fuck it I’ll say it. Could it be that women are naturally inclined to divorce men the moment they don’t need them anymore?. Could it be that men (generally speaking) are very much less likely to abandon their families than women are?
These two questions at the end are the types of questions that too many men refuse to ask including many men in the MRM. Like Barbarossaaaa says this is nothing but a form of NAWALT that doesn’t fit the facts of what is going on. The overlap with conspiracy theory is not a surprise at all because for anyone who refuses to believe that women are complicit with feminism, some group of men must be blamed no matter what. It doesn’t matter how absurd the explanation is or if it completely fails to fit the facts (as it does in this case because men would be equally empowered towards frivolous divorce to maximize the destruction of families). This means that conspiracy theory in addition to all of its other problems is an extreme form of NAWALT.
Whether its frivolous divorce or anything else in feminism, the fact is women are complicit with it. No amount of obfuscation will change that fact.
In my last post about HVAC, Eincrou provided us with a video of another job no woman will ever do, climbing to the top of 1700 foot tall transmission towers to repair them:
I liked the part in the video where he compared to a spacewalk in that you have to bring everything with you. In this particular case, what this man had to bring was a 30 pound bag of tools. That just solidifies that women will never be doing this job.
I also liked this comment on the youtube page:
Slowly..every day… the tower bends a little from the weight of these two men’s massive balls
This is type of job like HVAC that as far as women know are done by transmission tower fairies. Just like with HVAC as men do only the required minimum to survive expect anything dependent on transmission towers like TV, radio, cell phones, etc. to stop working. If you want to prevent this, then you need to do some real work to fight feminism.
There are so many technologies that we use everyday that we barely think about. That’s because these technologies “just work”. They don’t “just work”. Instead it is the result of the labor of many men from the men who originally invented the technology to all of the technicians and other workers who keep these technological systems working. HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning), and Rof L Mao Esq on the Anti-Misandry forums had something to say about HVAC:
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (sometimes called HVACR to include Refrigeration)
This has been sticking in my craw for some time. In virtually every university around the world there is a complex of highly developed climate control systems that make it possible for students and teachers to examine topics of relevance and contemplate conditions of a future world while enjoying clean, breathable air that is maintained year-round within a narrow range of temperature and humidity. Without these systems, the entire higher-learning process would be made much more difficult, and yet the array of technologies and innovations making these conditions in indoor environments is something hardly anyone outside the HVAC industry ever has to think about.
And yet in many ways, HVAC as a whole is the pinnacle of human technological achievement. Without it there could never have been human space travel, underground research facilities in a number of fields, air-conditioned cars, not to mention the comforts in our homes most of us may take for granted.
In light of the cynical new feminist theory, promoted by Hannah Rosin and others, to the effect that economic recession represents an opportunity for women to rise economically at the expense of men and our role in modern society, I can foresee certain mundane mechanical obstacles to seeing this through long-term. It occurs to me that without climate control and HVAC systems continuing to function, the indoor environments making it possible for one sex to contemplate in safety and comfort the obsolescence of the other would no longer be available.
HVAC is not just held together by school janitors with wrenches and screwdrivers. It is the result of centuries of (male) developments in science and technology, analog and digital control systems and instrumentation, health and wellness research, integrative engineering drawing on knowledge from a wide spectrum of fields, as well as a vast system of manufacturing and research/development that continually strives to make HVAC systems more effective and efficient.
With the oft-discussed dilemma of female students showing little desire to enter into the STEM arena as a career track, one wonders how a world short on highly trained scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians – all of which are required to keep the HVAC industry afloat – may continue to enjoy safe, comfortable indoor spaces, such as the classrooms where Women’s Studies courses are taught.
Saying that HVAC is the pinnacle of human technological achievement is not an exaggeration. HVAC has led to massive drops in mortality rates and large economic gains. During the 2003 European heatwave, over 14,000 people died in France alone due to a lack of air conditioning. HVAC enables many other technologies. It is impossible to overstate the importance of HVAC. Like with anything that is this important, it is almost completely handled by men. When was the last time you have seen a female HVAC technician? Most of you will answer, never.
Women will not be getting involved in the HVAC trade despite that a myriad of full scholarships for women studying the HVAC trade go completely unused. It’s too dirty. It’s too “blue collar” despite the fact that it is a trade where good money can be made. Most importantly, it’s a line of work where results matter. A HVAC system has to work and accusing it of sexism won’t make it work better. For that matter, most women have no familiarity with the necessity of HVAC. For all they know, HVAC is done by heating and cooling fairies.
What will happen in the future as men see no point to working more than the bare minimum they need to survive? HVAC systems will start falling apart due to disrepair. This will also cause a chain reaction to other technologies that are dependent on HVAC. There’s is more to this that keeping your house cool in the summer and warm in the winter. For example, your computer can generate a lot of heat. HVAC systems are needed to keep it cool. Imagine the same thing at the datacenter scale. Datacenters are places where despite using the best HVAC systems out there, the heat generated from the racks of computers is still an issue. If HVAC systems don’t get their needed maintenance, then datacenters will not be able to run. There are plenty of other examples where keeping something climate controlled is very important. Without men working in HVAC, a lot of our technological infrastructure becomes non-viable.
If you want to save our HVAC infrastructure (and unless you want to live in a mud hut, you probably do), then you need to work to defeat feminism.
In my previous post asking if it was possible to defend a male space without making it explicitly hostile to women, Dragnet asked if there had been actual examples of a private organization that had been forced to accept women instead of private organizations just caving to cultural pressure. The problem with that question is that “cultural pressure” could also include government pressure. For example, in the past the government had threatened the MPAA with more regulation if it didn’t create its own film rating system. The MPAA film rating system is “voluntary”, but it’s “voluntary” in the same way that people/businesses who have to pay off the mob for “protection” is voluntary.
Beyond that, there are examples of the government explicitly forcing purely private organizations to admit women. It’s happened to a lot of charitable/service organizations. The Boys and Girls Clubs used to be the Boys Clubs until the government ordered them to admit females. The same thing happened to the Jaycees, the Kiwanis, and the Rotary Club. When this issue came before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that these organizations were really “public accommodations” instead of the purely private organizations they actually were because their membership was “too inclusive” to be a private organization. The Supreme Court also used reasoning that since these organizations could be used for business/career networking, anti-discrimination laws for employment also applied here to a degree. What this means is that three guys having an ad hoc hunting club without women (for example) isn’t going to have to worry about the Supreme Court forcing them to admit women. If it was a hunting clubs with thousands of members (or more), then the Supreme Court can and would order them to admit women.
The Supreme Court’s argument about business/career networking is particularly dangerous because business/career networking can happen anywhere where there is two or more people. That reasoning gives the government carte blanche to order any organization regardless of size or its nature to admit women. (For that matter, this reasoning gives the government an excuse to order any private organization to do what it wants.)
The Supreme Court also has not defined where the line between a truly private organization and a “public” one is. At any time the government can come in and declare a private organization to be a “public accommodation”. In theory it could define the three guys with an ad hoc hunting club to be a public accommodation. That doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth the time of the government to do that. The line between private organization and “public accommodation” is whenever the government wants to get involved with how a private organization runs things.
This tells us a lot about some of the problems that any mens rights organization will face in the future. Consider a mens rights organization, which by definition is a private organization, that decides to exclude women. That would make sense as we have seen women derail things as simple as blogs, and women disrupting the workings of (proto-)mens rights organizations. As soon as that mens rights organization starts getting somewhere, the first thing the government will do will be to declare it a “public accommodation” because it is sufficiently large according to the government and business/career networking can happen there. That will be the end of that mens rights organization. Either the organization will disband to refuse to comply with the government’s orders, or it will admit women and grind to a halt. Either way the mens rights organization in question is dead.
This isn’t an unsolvable problem, but it is a difficult one. Completely decentralized solutions like MGTOW avoid this problem, but that isn’t going to get any laws changed either, at least not directly. It’s the political equivalent of women invading a male space. Once a male space gets big enough women are either going to want in or want to destroy it.
I have been thinking a lot about the importance of male spaces. There has been a feminist war on the existence of any and all male spaces based on the principle of if men are doing something, no matter what it is, without women, then they have to be stopped immediately. This is also applies to predominantly male spaces like STEM employment, video games, “geek culture”, etc. It’s no surprise that we have seen a feminist/female assault against these areas such as the constant blather about sexism in video games and Obama’s attempt to apply Title IX to STEM. Whiskey has talked about how (female) Twilight fans (including the “Twi-moms”) took over Comic Con and ruined it.
We are running out of male spaces. The feminization of game is being attempted. There have been several attempts to turn the MRM into being all about women. (The most recent attempt was the LadyMRAs reddit which was supposedly about women helping the MRM ended up exposing its real agenda when they became rabidly insane against MGTOW.) The only real space that has managed to completely resist and fight off feminization and feminist invasion is MGTOW. At least one reason for this is because women in general see the MGTOW as hostile to women (regardless of what men in the MGTOW space are actually doing).
Knowing that MGTOW has been the only male space to resist feminization and feminist invasion because it is (de facto) hostile to women, then is the only way to preserve male spaces by making them hostile to women? 8ball commenting at SWAB’s blog thinks that this could be the case:
I’m starting to wonder if it’s even possible to have a male-only space that isn’t hostile to women. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t because I think any gathering of men will inherently turn misogynistic, rather the opposite.
Any space that isn’t completely alienating to women will eventually be …. “invaded” (for lack of a better term) by women, who will then insist that it conform to their sensibilities. Look at Geek culture for example.
You can see this happening in places like The Good Men Project. Most of their readers are women, a good percentage of their articles are not even remotely about men, and another significant percentage are about how men’s lives affect women. And even when the article is about men… often it is written by a woman.
I’m not sure how good of an example The Good Mangina Project is since it was started by male feminist men, but in thinking about it, 8ball has a point that even The Good Mangina Project now has a much higher percentage of women authors and women commenting and less articles even tangentially relevant to men than when they started. In a way, this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion. While The Good Mangina Project didn’t start out as a true male space, it shows that any space that is feminized will become more feminized over time.
I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how to protect male spaces without making them completely hostile and alienating to women, but at this point, I can’t see any other solution to protecting male spaces.
I didn’t think I would be mentioning Susan Walsh again, but Anonymous Reader had a good comment on why she gets angry at the androsphere:
This is what the HUSsies are all about – clinging to their “right” to ride the carousel, or a carousel-lite version of “only” 5 dicks prior to “settling”. This is why SW gets so worked up and angry at the androsphere – her Beta didn’t mind that she’d ridden the carousel-lite, so how dare younger Betas become choosy, just because they weren’t among the 5 (or 10, or 15…) ponies ridden. How dare men decide they get to be gatekeepers of commitment! The idea!
In aviation there is the concept of being “behind the curve”, i.e. trying to fly the aircraft as it was a few minutes or seconds ago vs. how it is. Falling behind the curve can lead to a stall-spin, at low altitude that breaks your airplane. The 2nd stage feminists are way behind the curve, because they never conceived that men would react to their actions, ever, and can’t come to grips with the fact that we have reacted, and we continue to react.
If you know this, then you won’t be surprised by Susan Walsh doing things like deleting posts that mention various androsphere individuals and the rest of her behavior.
I added a new page about how every religion and atheism is getting feminized. Go there to read the page and comment.
Bskillet81 of the Christian Men’s Defense Network explains the difference between divorced men and divorced women:
This is why there is a HUGE difference between a woman marrying a divorced man, and a man marrying a divorced woman. HUGE difference.
The divorced woman just wanted to trade up to a man of higher status, and did so without any reason whatsoever. She is selfish and implicitly (if not explicitly) sexually immoral in that regard. She only ever regardes her husband as a “state-registered boyfriend.”
On the other hand, the divorced man is usually the victim of a divorced woman, who hit him with divorce and/or infidelity out of the blue. He honestly thought he was going to get someone “till death do us part.” Sucker. He was just a higher-status form of boyfriend.
But, of course, our culture has it backwards. Ex-husbands are shamed. Ex-wives are glorified. Especially within Churchianity, I might add.
The difference is very stark, but that should be no surprise to anyone here.
The false abuse industry never stops expanding. It even creates new categories of fake “abuse”. This doesn’t stop at the doors of the church. Laura Grace Robbins uncovered a new form of the false abuse industry, “spiritual abuse”:
Taken from their “about” section:
“Joel became skilled at mental, emotional, verbal and spiritual abuse.
In 1991, Joel’s abusive treatment of Kathy culminated in his committing adultery. By this time their first son, Chris, was 2 years old and daughter Jenifer was 1 year old.
They left the ministry to travel on the road in full time secular work with the intention of restoring their shattered marriage and save the family. Things got worse. Three years of struggle ensued. Finally, they attended a one week set of classes that were designed to teach couples how to minister to severely abusive marriage relationships. Joel and Kathy realized that Joel was an abuser! Joel accepted this “verdict” and began to transform into a loving and kind husband.”
Spiritual abuse is a new claim to me and would make a good post. When a man isn’t loving woman in an acceptable way, call it spiritual abuse! Naturally, the husband is always the abuser!
Spiritual abuse is the perfect form of “abuse” for the false abuse industry. Real abuse, that is physical abuse, produces actual evidence of abuse. Thus for a man to be convicted of abusing a woman, there theoretically has to at least be some evidence of the abuse. (In practice, the false abuse industry is powerful enough to bypass this, but it does leave questions.) The false abuse industry prefers forms of “abuse” like “emotional abuse” and “verbal abuse” because they have less of a basis in reality. It’s easier to make false accusations of such forms of abuse with impunity because there are few to no metrics for it. It’s mostly based on a woman’s feelings. ”Spiritual abuse” takes this a step farther. While “verbal abuse” and “emotional abuse” may have some connection to reality, “spiritual abuse” does not. Thus, man can be accused of it without them fighting back with inconvenient questions like, “where is the evidence?” There is no objective metric for “spiritual abuse” so women can use it to club men whenever they want.
I have been developing a theory that for every aspect of feminism, the tradcons will invent their own variant of it. ”Spiritual abuse” supports my theory. The tradcons took the false abuse industry and added their own variant of it, “spiritual abuse”.
It’s important to do real things in the real world in support of mens rights. The Fifth Horseman is informing us of an opportunity to strike back against the false rape industry:
Kickstarter has a Brian Banks documentary (Brian Banks being the man falsely accused of rape, which cost him an NFL career and much more):
For those of you who don’t know how Kickstarter works, they seek crowdsourced donations to fund projects (a documentary, in this case). If the amount requested is not raised, all donations are returned.
About $9000 more is needed, and just 8 days remaining.
If you were wondering about new ways to have an impact, this is where you can. If MRAs can’t scrape up the mere $9000 needed to reach the funding threshold, that is a total failure of the MRM, and of the entire androsphere.
Five people have donated $1000 or more (and there is a good chance none of them are MRAs), but even donations of $5 or $10 can be accepted.
Come on! You can do it!
I fear that this is a time where the absence of Ferdinand Bardamu will be strongly felt…..
Go and donate. Do something for mens rights. Fight the false rape industry.
I found this blog post about the need for a Jewish manosphere. I agree. As the post points out, just as feminism as infected Christian churches, feminism has also infected Judaism. And like with the feminist infection of Christianity, the post points out how feminism has infected all forms of Judaism including orthodox Judaism. The post even points out there is likely a problem with women frivolously divorcing even in orthodox Judaism (just like how frivolous divorce in prevalent in the Christian church) although there is no data on it right now.
Feminism negatively impacts men from every religion out there and atheists (remember elevatorgate). It’s not just an attack on Christianity despite what various Christian tradcons say. To say otherwise just divides men who should be united against feminism and provides fodder for conspiracy theorists to say that the Jews are behind feminism.