Aug 132014

Reality forever said:

For anyone reading this: Men do not want women taking over any industry or company because men are afraid they’ll out produce them or perform them or come up with more profitable ideas, no, men are afraid of women in the workplace because all they bring is misery, low morale, lawsuits based on false accusations, insanity in general, never ending useless meetings and all around stupidity and dysfunction and low productivity.

Even women hate working with other women. Put several cats in a small cage together and you’ll get the picture.

But we can all give a sigh of relief because women will NEVER dominate any industry and there are specific reasons why. The reasons are contained in female nature. Any female above admin in any corporate office can barely even show up for work on any consistent basis.

I know this sounds insane, but we thousands of clients and the vast majority of the companies wherein we have female contacts are rarely ever in. Many have taken off for a year at a tine. It’s like this well hidden, but giant secret that no one talks about and I don’t think a lot of people are even aware of because women are so stealth at covering up their deviance and so many people will cover for them.

In fact I’ve been trying to find other people who have seen this who deal with a large number of companies like I do.

They take off huge chunks of time- months even a year at a time then refuse to be at work before 11am and are gone by 2pm and never work on mon. or fri. then suddenly quits after a short time. Forever. Not just that job- all work completely.

Women really only want to work part time if at all – they just like the idea of work and a status title and do not want to make any commitment to anything or anyone- especially women now. That is their flaky nature. And yes, they are ALL like that- 98% of them. And they’re lazy and don’t want to ever try harder or get out of their comfort zone or take risks. Women are their own worst enemies.

This deserved to be highlighted.  None of us are afraid that women are going to outperform us.  If that was it, we wouldn’t care.  Instead, we don’t want women taking a wrecking ball to entire industries.

Jul 192014

Back in February 2012, I wrote how young men were getting fed up with women faster than any other group of men based on a series of comments at The Spearhead.  Since then, that entry has become the most read page on this blog.  It still gets plenty of hits and even comments occasionally which is impressive considering that old content here typically only gets comments in the rarest of cases.  It’s because that page speaks to what a large group of young men are going through in dealing with women.  Young men’s frustration with women is only increasing so I wasn’t surprised by this comment I found on Dalrock’s blog:

No kidding! I have been paying special attention to young men at work between the ages of 25 & 30.I have coffee with them etc. The thing that I have noticed is what a ‘lack of respect’ that they have for women in general.I generally don’t have much respect for women myself….but,not like these guys! I mean they prey on them to use them without mercy.They treat them like garbage and use them at every opportunity.And the c**** are stupid enough to let them.The other thing that I have also noticed in the last few years is the number of men that “HATE” women……and I do mean “HATE”.I myself am into “sport sex”.Not these guys,they are into “grudge f*****g”.It is only going to get worse and women have no one to blame except themselves.

For young men their frustration with women is part and parcel of their understandable loss of respect for women.  For many young men, their frustration with women is rapidly turning into hate for women.  This is a natural and logical reaction by young men.  For their entire lives, women have been getting worse.  And unlike older men, they have no memory of a time when women didn’t engage in massive amounts of bad behavior bordering on being feral.  To these young men, the only thing women are good for is sex.  And not just any kind of sex, but “grudge fucking”.

The young men referenced in the above comment are between 25 and 30.  In a few years they will be between 30 and 35 to be replaced by a new group of young men who will have an even lower opinion of women.  Some old men who still have a positive opinion of women will have died off.  In other words, over time men who don’t hate women are likely to be replaced by men who are fed up with if not outright hate women.  We can see a difference in just a little over two years between the comment above and The Spearhead comments written back in 2012.  That’s how quickly this is happening, and it shows no signs of stopping.  Paul Elam gets emails from 16 and 17 year old teenage BOYS that are already fed up with women.  Just consider what their opinion of women will be when they’re between 25 – 30 or 30 – 35.  It’s going to be worse.  Eventually, this will hit critical mass.

Jun 102014

Of course, Susan Walsh isn’t responsible for Elliot Rodger. However, she used to believe one of the things Elliot Rodger believed, and Rollo Tomasi pointed it out (even though she removed it from her website:

Well, in case you were all wondering why Aunt Giggles was so late to the Eliot Rodger show (especially after her commenting that she had no plans to do a post about the kid), lets just say that when you rebrand a site like HUS to be more accommodating for HuffPo ownership it takes a while to scrub anything that might be incriminating from your old posts:

Oh rats! 404 Error not found.

That’s OK it takes a rat to archive a rat,…

Now, this IS peculiar! It looks as if Aunt Giggles was for creating guys like Eliot, before she was against it. That chart looks like a glowing endorsement of the 20 / 80 premise (and its cute too!).

Maybe we should alert the HuffPo and voice our concerns about their sponsoring a blogger who tacitly endorses the ideological notions that led to creating a misogynistic murderer like Eliot Rodger?

Are they aware of her attempts to scrub this post and distance herself from her complicit culpability? Gasp!

If it weren’t for bloggers like this perhaps Eliot Rodger wouldn’t have been motivated to kill 4 men and 2 women.

I really liked the graphic Rollo created out of Susan Walsh’s chart and Elliot Rodger’s video:
No one can deny that what Susan Walsh said about this subject is virtually the same as what Elliot Rodger said.

Jun 062014

Have you wanted to go a Sunday Morning Nightclub but wish that the worship service was held in an actual nightclub instead of a church?  If so, it looks like you might get your wish.  I found out via Patriactionary that a church in Tennessee is holding services in a nightclub.

If you don’t like a night club setting for going to church, you can also go to church at a strip club in Ontario, Canada.

I’m not surprised that church services would be held at night clubs or strip clubs.  The women in all three places act the same.  In many cases you can find women at church who have been in night clubs and strip clubs to watch male dancers perform in earlier stages of their lives so it makes sense that churches, night clubs, & strip clubs would merge into one thing.  I’m certain we will see more of this in the future.

Apr 192014

Previously, I talked about this New York Times article and the attacks on tech startups that were found in the article and the article’s comments.  The comments of that article didn’t limit themselves to attacking startups.  Men working in the tech industry were attacked for having autism or aspergers syndrome and being permanently defective:

In tech especially, which tends to attract autistic-like males who are considered antisocial losers (because most of them are) we are asking stones to yield water. Short on empathy and social skills, the boy-men in the field are incapable of seeing real world suffering and POVs distinct from their own narrow ones. Riding the wave of big money and perceived “hipness” they have an outsized sense of worth when none actually exists.

Other comments didn’t explicitly accuse men working in the tech industry of having autism or aspergers syndrome, but clearly implied it:

The males who specializes in information technology, primarily software development, at least USA born and bred – I cannot speak for expatriates of other countries working as such in the USA – are stereotypical nerds with unfortunately few social skills, little to no knowledge of any subject outside of their specialty in information technology, next to no knowledge of politics, history or literature and on and on. They also tend to remain juvenile males well into maturity in many aspects of behavior.

I do not know whether there is a nerdy female equivalent, but perhaps there is.

With regard to behavior of such males, there is no hope for change. Once adult, they are beyond remediation.

Any comment that talked about men in the tech industry having low social skills or low “emotional intelligence” is accusing them of having autism or aspergers syndrome like this comment:

I am not surprised. Techies are not known for sensitivity, emotional intelligence or social skills.

There are two things to notice here.  The first is that an article about the tech industry brought out comments about how all men working in the tech industry have a disorder on the autism spectrum.  This would not have happened unless there are a lot of women and manginas who hate the men working in the tech industry.  The second is how these comments explicitly that men working in the tech industry are not curable.  In other words, men working in the tech industry and defective and an ever present threat to women.  (Even if these comments said that men in the tech industry were “curable”, that wouldn’t be much better.  Since men working in the tech industry don’t universally have an autism spectrum disorder as is claimed in these comments, attempting to “cure” these men would be equivalent to sending them to a Soviet reeducation camp.)  The people who wrote these comments are basically proposing that men currently working in the tech industry be barred from being employed in the tech industry (or in any other industry because they would be a “threat to women” wherever they go) and much worse than that as Evilwhitemale empire points out:

Here’s a thought exercise.

What is the relationship between the continuously expanded definition of autism and aspergers (to include many high functioning boys) and the recent feminist hubbub over ‘brogrammers’ and similar tech men?


-these conditions primarily affect males and are often characterized by lack of socialization combined with proficiencies in math, science, etc.

-the hubbub over ‘brogrammers’ appears to center around feminists being forced to share power in the workplace with these men that they can’t do without in order to make businesses run.
It would appear that it’s becoming clear to feminists that there’s a class of men (on the top end of the corporate ladder) whose talents they are unable to duplicate.

-mental illness classification seems like a pretty easy way to marginalize or strip rights from someone that you don’t like without requiring that they break the law first.

Evilwhitemaleempire has answered the question of why an article attacking the tech industry brings out comments attacking men working in that  industry of having an autism spectrum disorder.  Feminists can’t control a major section of the economy that is dependent on male expertise, and feminists usually need the pretext that a man broke the law to strip his rights away.  The only other way to strip a man’s rights away without him committing an actual crime (barring an outright police state) is to accuse him of mental illness.  In the Soviet Union, political dissidents were accused of being mentally ill, and feminists are attempting to do the same thing to men working in the tech industry.

Apr 032014

Justice For Men & Boys provided us with this story how a teenage girl dropped her iPhone in a sewer.  The girl decides to retrieve her phone getting stuck in a sewer drain.  A local fire department spent 15 minutes getting the girl out of the drain.

I hope that no one had an actual fire while this was going on.  However, that isn’t the reason why they should have left her in the sewer drain.  The reason that they should have left her there is because she got herself free at one point without the local fire department.  Since she didn’t retrieve her iPhone, she decided to go back in to try to get her iPhone again and got stuck again.  If you can’t figure out that it’s a bad idea to go back into a sewer drain you were previously stuck in, then you deserve to be left there.

Feb 082014

I found this video on how to dismantle the wage gap myth with two questions:

The two questions are:

  1. Why hire men?
  2. Who is in on the conspiracy (to pay women less)?

While I told you the two questions, you should still watch the video.  He goes into greater detail.

Feb 032014

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

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

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

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

Dec 262013

8to12 wrote a comment about video games:

I don’t even play video games, but I’m sick of hearing men being bashed over playing video games.

Video games are this generation’s equivalent of golf.

Growing up I can remember hearing my aunt b******g about her husband playing golf. The guy ran his own business (carpet installation); worked 6 days a week; an 8 hour work day was considered a short day. On Sunday afternoons he played a round of golf with his buddies; had a few beers; and blew off some steam.

He worked hard; he supported his family; and by every indication he was a good dad and husband. But when the subject of golf came up, all that went out the window. He was wasting his time and ignoring his family, because of some juvenile kid’s game. B***h, b***h, b***h.

I see the same attitude today towards video games, and my response is so effing what? If a single man supports himself or a married man is responsible and supports himself and his family, so effing what if he wants to blow off some steam playing video games.

Every generation has had an equivalent activity. The next time you want to deride someone for playing video games, just substitute your generation’s activity (golf, garage rock band, adult softball, bowling, etc…) for video game and you’ll realize just how stupid your criticism of video games is.

The opposition to video games has nothing to do with video games themselves.  It could be golf or anything else men enjoy.  Men are not allowed to be involved in an activity without women.

Nov 262013

Stardusk created a new video where he describes 21st century feminism:

What Stardusk calls 21st century feminism is really nazbol misandry.  He talked about how feminism has stopped attempting to have a consistent ideology and become a money laundering scheme.  This is something I already said in different words, but the term, money laundering scheme, is important.  Nazbol misandry doesn’t care about ideology or consistency.  It’s all about raw greed.  Nazbol misandry is equivalent to the mafia, drug cartels, and other criminal organizations.

Does the mafia or the Medellín Cartel care about ideology?  No, they’re all about the money.  They don’t care about ideology or morality.  They do whatever they want, whenever they want to get what they want.  The only limit on what they do is their fear of repercussions.  Imagine if the mafia or the Medellín Cartel controlled the government.  They would be able to do anything they wanted with the only limit being a popular revolt or people opting out.  Nazbol misandry is the gynocentric version of what the mafia or the Medellín Cartel would look like if most limits on their actions were removed.

Misandry has gone from being an ideology to a criminal enterprise.


Oct 212013

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire had this to say about the fear of bad press (related to Paul Elam’s aborted appearance on 20/20):

Even a hit piece against AVfM and the manosphere would have caused many men to actually take a look at such sites who otherwise never would have. Some of those men would realize that 20/20 lied to them.
And doesn’t it shock you to see just how many in the manosphere don’t seem to get this?

Manosphere fear of bad press is based on what I like to call the ‘androgynous fallacy’.

The idea that there exists huge masses of folks who, like an androgynous person, have no dog in this fight over gender relations.

And therefore this mass can (rapidly) be persuaded to become feminists or anti-feminists based largely on who’s propaganda reaches their ears first.

It’s really quite amazing when you think about it.

Who, exactly, are we trying to impress by saying this but not saying that, by denouncing this guy or that, etc. ?

What impartial jury of public opinion on all gender matters are we trying to reach?

In the Western World there is no such thing as man who has been able to escape unscathed from feminism (except possibly very old men and very rich men).  Pretty much all men have had to deal with misandry by this point (even though they might not realize it as such).  Some end up becoming manginas like Manboobz.  Others come up with the same ideas MRAs or MGTOW do despite having no contact with either group.  (I know this is the case because I have talked to men who have expressed the many of the same ideas we talk about here even though these men have no contact with the MRM, the MGTOW community, or the Androsphere.)  The fact is there isn’t a large number of men (or women) who are blank slate androgynous people when it comes to these issues.  Every day men are negatively impacted by feminism (and misandry in general) so it doesn’t matter how big of a hatchet job 20/20 or anyone else in the media does.  No matter how evil 20/20 makes Paul Elam look, many men will know that 20/20 is lying to them thanks to their own experiences with misandry.

This brings up another reason why it’s a good idea for someone like Paul Elam to go on a show like 20/20.  There are lots of men out there who have come to the same conclusions that we have.  However, they think they’re alone.  They believe that they’re the only ones who think this way because they haven’t been able to find the MRM or the Androsphere.  Paul Elam by going on 20/20, regardless of what 20/20 does to this, can communicate to these men that they aren’t alone.  These men will find out there are communities of men who think like they do.  If you believe in the androgynous fallacy, you don’t know these men exist and don’t realize the importance of reaching out to them.

Sep 152013

If you want to know why feminism was able to take over everything in the West so easily, read the most recent article at The Spearhead.  The Maasai actually let an American woman become a Maasai warrior.  This woman didn’t go through the real initiation process of becoming a Maasai warrior, but that doesn’t matter.  What the Maasai did is equivalent to how standards for the military, police, firemen, etc. get lowered for women.  In other words, rather than tell this woman no to becoming a Maasai warrior, the men of the Massai created an affirmative action policy for women to become Maasai warriors.  It’s that similar.

Take a look at how Tennessee Assemblyman Harry T. Burn’s mom was able to easily shame him into voting for the 19th Amendment.  Harry T. Burn gave in to the demands (and shaming language) of his mom nearly 100 years ago just as the men of the Maasai recently did.  These men came from different cultures, different nations, and different races, but it didn’t matter.  Their reaction to women was exactly the same.  They all gave in to the demands of women.  The same thing happens wherever women start making similar demands.

This means that when women start making these demands, men will cave in them.  This is true regardless of what culture, race, nationality, religion, etc. a man is a part of.  The result is always the same.  The only time men don’t give into the demands of women is when a man is part of a space that defends its space from women by being actively hostile to women.  So far that has been the only successful method of not giving into women’s demands.

Aug 242013

Manboobz has decided to compare male geeks to the KKK:

Indeed, many of them — as tech dudes in a male-dominated tech world — are in fact in fairly privileged positions. For them to claim they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from the evils of “fake gamer girls” is a bit like Klan members claiming they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from blacks, Jews and Catholics. (Which is more or less what Klan members have argued over the years, albeit in less PC language.)

Manboobz seems to think that a group of dudes who want to engage in geeky activities without interference from feminists is equivalent to a group that lynched massive numbers of black men and engaged in terrorism.  Just as that comparison makes no sense, it makes no sense to call male geeks, “privileged”.  These are men who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy.  It’s a guarantee that almost any woman is higher on the social hierarchy than they are.  Feminists believe that homeless men are more privileged than women too so I’m not surprised they believe the same thing about male geeks.

Unlike the KKK, male geeks do need a safe space from women.  The feminist assault on the male geek subculture proves that.  Take Anita Sarkeesian.  She thinks it’s perfect all right to declare fatwas on male video game designers like how she endorses the murder of Randy Pitchford for reviving a video game series she doesn’t like:

Male geeks have nothing in common with the KKK, but their enemies do.

Aug 212013

Do you think you’re safe from the false abuse industry because your wife/girlfriend would never make a false accusation against you?  For the sake of argument, let’s assume that’s the case.  Better yet, let’s assume that your wife/girlfriend is a committed to M(H)RM ideas like Dr. Helen Smith, GirlWritesWhat, TyphonBlue, or Laura Grace Robbins.  Are you safe now?  The answer is no because even if your wife/girlfriend has no intention of making a false accusation of abuse against you, a third party can.  As Novaseeker explains, a third party making a false accusation of abuse against you can even override your girlfriend/wife who disagrees:

State and local practice can and does differ on these points in the details, but in broad brush a court can and often will issue a temporary protective order on the basis of the testimony of the cops, whether the wife corroborates or not (out of concern that she may have “battered wife syndrome”, so that she may be feeling like she wants to de-escalate regardless of what happened – so her testimony isn’t really dispositive if she decides to back off – it’s discounted, in many cases, if she decides to do that).

As to the “triggers”, again it varies by state/local, but what constitutes “abuse” is often determined by reference to the Duluth-type standards, which include some very interesting things, many of which are common in the context of marital arguments:

Example, Link: Rutgers University Domestic Violence Project:

The idea behind these laws is to be “prophylactic” – that is, to err on the side of protecting women, even if it overdoes it by impacting situations where there was no physical violence. This is done by describing mundane spousal arguments as abuse – which essentially renders virtually every marriage as one which contains domestic violence. This can also be reported by people other than the wife – the law doesn’t require the wife to be the complainer, or the person who brings the “violence” to the attention of the cops. Anyone can, as with respect to any other crime. And the definition of “abuse” is wide enough in at least some states to cover most of the Duluth-type stuff that Scott is talking about. So, yes, someone is at your dinner party who is a feminist, doesn’t like the dynamic between you and your wife and sees it as Duluth abuse, can have you arrested for domestic violence even over your wife’s objections, and once that happens it’s likely that you will be sucked into the entire DV legal system as he outlines (and as Baskerville does in his book as well).

Yes, the police or even just a random passerby can successfully make a false accusation of abuse against you even if your wife/girlfriend disagrees with the accusation.  They will just assume that she is afraid to speak up because you’re abusing her.

Too much time in this part of the internet is spent talking about trying to find the “right woman”.  Even if you manage to do that (and there is a good chance you won’t), a third party can still come along and make a false accusation against you making all of your work in finding the “right woman” for naught.  You can’t avoid the false abuse industry by picking the “right woman”.  The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate the false abuse industry.

Jun 292013

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, we have to be patient.

Apr 182013

Slwerner has informed us that tradcon arch-mangina, Jesse Powell got rejected by the “traditional womens rights activists”:

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:

” 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.

Unfortunately, Edita TWRA didn’t pull the plug on her blog.  She moved it to “modern feminine mystique”.  That name better reflects her nazbol misandry.

Apr 142013

Josh the Aspie said in my most recent post on circumcision:

“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.

Apr 062013

Looking Glass commeting at Dalrock’s has noticed a new argument category similar to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:

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.

Mar 282013

Dalrock said on his blog:

This means not seeing “woman” as a faceless collective, but making a serious effort to see individual women for who they are.

While I briefly commented on this there, the issue of whether women should be seen as a faceless collective or not is more complex and deserves more thought.  First of all, Dalrock is correct in principle.  That being said there is a problem with applying that straight up in the real world.  The problem can be best explained with an example.

One thing we have seen is tradcon women attack men who call out sluts.  Being a tradcon means being against what a slut does, namely her promiscuity.  Tradcon women should have no problem when a man calls out a slut yet they do acting as if a woman being called a slut is an attack on all women.  The tradcon women doing this may not be sluts themselves (although many tradcon women are “former”/”reformed” sluts).  Yet, they defend sluts for doing something they say they’re against.  Even if these tradcon women aren’t sluts themselves, what’s the difference between them and the sluts if they’re so willing to rush to the sluts’ defense?

This is the problem.  A man looking at this can’t know if the tradcon women are really any different from the sluts.  Thus women start looking like a faceless collective due to their own actions.  Women are not a faceless collective, but they will act like one when its convenient for them to do so.  Thus it’s understandable when a man decides to treat women as a faceless collective.  He got the idea from observing female behavior.

Mar 232013

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.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys