Since today is father’s day, I added a new page about how fatherhood and not marriage is essential for civilization. I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page. Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.
InfoWars/PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones’s websites) released a youtube video about something called neomasculinity:
I noticed several things about the video. While it used game language and other language from this part of the internet, it’s clear that whoever wrote the script for that video didn’t really understand what we talk about. MGTOW gets attacked (which has led to responses from MGTOW like Barbarossa). Overall, this is another attempt at entryism by tradcons with some game terms used as an unsuccessful attempt to hide that it is an attempt at entryism.
This is nothing new. It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account). This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the Manhood Academy/Manhood 101 morons, and others have tried and failed to do. This time it has a dash of, “you have to get married because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” (which is why believing in the depopulation agenda is misandry) and “They (whoever they is) are putting chemicals in the water to turn you gay”, but it’s really no different. It’s an extreme form of the tradcon cry, “You have to get married to save civilization”.
Why is Alex Jones interested in creating another game 2.0 and attacking MGTOW now? Sandman discovered that on Google trends that MGTOW became more popular than PrisonPlanet starting a couple of months ago, and MGTOW is only getting more popular. Alex Jones is having the same problem all tradcons are having in trying to recruit young men. As Hollenhund described, young men refusing to follow the tradcon script. Alex Jones’s conspiracy theories are all derived from tradcon ideology, so when young men refuse to follow the tradcon script, they won’t buy into his conspiracy theories.
Alex Jones has a history of trying to cannibalize grass roots movements, and that is what he is doing with neomasculinity. Barbarossa and John the Other had a conversation where they talked about that and how it turns into mission creep to the point where the original mission of a grass roots group gets replaced with doing nothing other than talking about the NWO. Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists treat the NWO as all powerful so nothing can be done. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy of nothing getting done. After Alex Jones cannibalizes a grass roots group, the group is completely neutralized. If Alex Jones is successful both game and MGTOW (and the M(H)RM) would be cannibalized to the point where they are meaningless.
I am certain that Alex Jones’s attempt at entryism will fail. We have dealt with entryist tradcons before. Tradcons have nothing to offer game, MGTOW (or the M(H)RM) so neither does Alex Jones. No one is impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization”, so no one will be impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” We may see a few guys planning on pulling a Mark Minter use neomasculinity as a cover, but that will be it. We don’t need Mark Minters so good riddance to them.
The more tradcons attack MGTOW, the more popular it becomes. Let Alex Jones attack MGTOW and try his attempt at entryism. He will fail, and MGTOW will be more popular afterwards.
Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war. What group has died in war more than any other group? Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.
The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars. The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending. The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder. It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder. They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.
What groups are trying to draft young men as cannon fodder? Hollenhund describes each group and their respective script:
In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.
The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.
The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.
The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.
The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.
The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.
Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language. However, it is not working. Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.
Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers? First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder. Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them. There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work.” Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed. Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.
Second, young men see just how bad women are becoming. This is a strong disincentive to join any group that wants to use them as cannon fodder. Young men see the behavior of women and are getting more and more fed up with them for good reason. In 6 years of blogging, the most popular page on this blog by far is a page where I documented several comments from The Spearhead where young men were talking about how they are fed up with women. The second most popular page on this blog was a follow up to that page. This is not a coincidence. Those pages represent how growing numbers of young men feel about women due to their experiences with women.
Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with? Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him. More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.
In the movie, thanks to the alien technology in the staff Loki was given by Thanos, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner can go from nothing to having Ultron exist in 3 days. While that’s necessary for the movie to work (and for the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe story to work), that is not how technological development would happen in the real world. That is because nearly all technological development is not going from nothing to everything like that. It exists on a continuum or a spectrum where most technological advances built on previous technological advances. I suspect that this fundamental misunderstanding comes from women and manginas (who are letting women’s methods of thinking become their own) because it’s like pregnancy where a woman is either pregnant or not. There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, whereas for many other phenomena it is possible for it to be a little bit of something.
Thus, what happens is that women and manginas will focus on the end point of something and not realize all the disruption that can happen during the journey to that point. Sex bots are a good example of this. There is no end to the number of people who want to stop sex bots in an attempt to prevent men from having a sexual alternative to women. However, there is a lot of disruption that happen in the interim that will give men options without requiring the existence of sex bots. VR sex is one such example, yet, we hardly hear a peep from anyone on that. Even internet porn falls into the same category. Sure plenty of people complain about that now, but that is after the fact. They didn’t see what was happening from internet porn until it was too late.
What this means is that the real “age of ultron”, the development of artificial intelligence, began in 1985. Before 1985 CPUs could be designed without computers, but starting in 1985 CPUs got so complex that they could only be designed with the help of other computers. Since then CPUs have gotten a lot more complicated requiring more and more computer assistance to develop each new generation of CPUs. There’s even a story that the man who designed the Intel 386 CPU, the CPU that was on the tipping point between could be designed without computers and those that required the assistance of computers, went insane. That story is not true, but it represents the fundamental shift that happened in 1985.
For women the development of artificial intelligence will be a disaster. An AI has no reason to follow the feminine imperative. The “obvious” solution to a gynocentric woman or a mangina would be to prevent development of an “ultron” or an AI. However, like with sex bots, they are only looking at the end point. In the journey towards AI, there is a lot of disruption that will negatively impact the feminine imperative. That is why deep learning is a threat to the feminine imperative. Anytime decisions are pushed off on to computers (and deep learning is a significant shift human decision making to computer decision making), the feminine imperative will be negatively impacted. Yet, gynocentric women and manginas won’t see this coming. And this is not the first example of such a thing happening. There used to be a lot more women employed in the field of computer technology. That is because many of them were “human computers” or the equivalent in programming work. Once technologies like compilers were invented, the need for women in computer technology dropped like a lead balloon even though the need for programmers went through the roof.
If gynocentric women and manginas were going to try and stop the real “age of ultron”, they would have to shutdown all technological advancement in computer technology. Like with so many other things that are going to wreck the feminine imperative, it’s a long term process that involves millions of men. The death of the human race notwithstanding, that’s impossible.
Since Avengers: Age Of Ultron came out this weekend, this week on the blog with be Ultron week. All posts this week will be discussing various aspects of Ultron. (There are a aome spoilers for Avengers: Age Of Ultron. You have been warned.)
There’s a line in the movie (that also is in the trailers) that Ultron says, “You want to protect the world, but you don’t want it to change.” What Tony Stark and Bruce Banner wanted by creating Ultron was something that would allow everyone on Earth to ignore what was happening beyond Earth. Ultron would protect the world from alien threats so that everyone could live their lives as if the world had not changed. It turns out that trying to create such a protector is impossible. One of Ultron’s messages was that if humanity doesn’t evolve it will die. The movie is about his quest to force evolution in a manner similar to the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs. Vision, the good artificial intelligence, in the movie agrees with Ultron’s assessment that humanity will die if it doesn’t evolve. Vision just disagrees with Ultron’s methods of killing anyone to do it.
Women and manginas want an “Ultron” that will enforce the status quo. Their “Ultron” will force things to be like they were in 1987 or 1962 or some other date in the past forever. It will force men who are engaging in a marriage strike to marry, destroy MGTOW, and keep men in the dark about the real nature of women like previous generations of men were in the dark.
The problem is that in both cases creating an “Ultron” that will keep the world in a static state is impossible. What many men have discovered is that they need to evolve to survive. That evolution involves GTOW, refusing to marry, etc. Any attempt to create an “Ultron” that will end the marriage strike and MGTOW will fall victim to the same problem that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner had. It will just force more men to evolve faster. Everything from attempts to shame men who refuse to marry to college rape hysteria is an attempt at creating an “Ultron” who will enforce the misandrist status quo. However, it has not worked. More men just discovered the truth of how marriage is a bad deal for men, the false rape industry, and the real nature of women. All it has done is cause more men to evolve. That’s the problem for women and manginas. They want to keep the status quo, but they can’t stop evolution just like Tony Stark and Bruce Banner could not.
One aspect of the Baltimore riots that doesn’t get a lot of attention is how these riots are happening in a community where fatherless homes are the norm. At least it doesn’t until someone wants to blame men for the Baltmore riots. Over at Townhall.com, a tradcon blames fathers for the Baltimore riots:
We have seen a desperate single mother trying to discipline her teenage son, but we haven’t seen fathers.
Where are the fathers? This is the uncomfortable questions liberals refuse to ask.
Sure, the government can manage this chaos to some degree through force and coercion, but fathers can influence order and discipline through love and devotion.
How much of the violence and rebellion in Baltimore is simply a consequence of the destruction of families?
How much has the moral decay of society contributed to the acceptance and tolerance of men who feel no responsibility for children they’ve created?
How much of a child’s rage and anger comes from feeling abandoned or unwanted by their fathers?
This was an excellent opportunity to talk about how feminism has forced fathers out of families and how single mothers are intentionally blocking fathers from seeing their children. The black community has been hit hardest by this aspect of feminism. Instead, we get tradcons blaming fathers for “abandoning their children” when fathers are prevented practically at gunpoint from having any relationship with their children.
This gets even worse when you consider that the Baltimore riots are feminist beyond the issue of fatherless children. An article at Salon.com defends the riots as a “legitimate political tactic”. That would be bad enough, but it’s worse because the reason that article defends the riots is feminism:
But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.
The Baltimore riots are feminism and the result of feminism, so what do the tradcons do? Blame fathers. What we have here is another example of white knighting, and it’s more disgusting than white knighting for fictional women.
It’s bad enough when manginas engage in white knighting for women. It’s worse when they do it for women that don’t actually exist. Recently, Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans, Hawkeye and Captain America in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in an interview about the upcoming movie, Avengers: Age of Ultron, made a joke about Black Widow being a slut. This joke led to a lot of backlash from white knights as if Renner and Evans attacked a real woman. (No one is arguing that the joke was made about Scarlett Johannson instead of the character of Black Widow.)
It’s bad enough when manginas constantly white knight for actual women. (TFH has given us a particularly egregious example here.) However, that is not enough for manginas. They have to white knight for completely fictitious women. While Maginas don’t realize that white knighting for actual women won’t get them laid, they should know enough that white knighting for fictitious women definitely won’t get them laid. After all, it’s impossible to get laid with a woman that doesn’t actually exist.
Of course, manginas have been white knighting for Black Widow long before this. This mangina complained that Black Widow’s role in Avengers: Age of Ultron was too big because convoluted feminist reasons. (He also complains that there are too many penises in the Avengers. Yes, he actually said that.) In other words, manginas will find some excuse to white knight for Black Widow no matter what happens to her. Renner and Evans were forced to apologize for their joke. They shouldn’t have bothered because I’m sure that there are some manginas attacking them for apologizing since they trying to shut down Black Widow’s sexuality or some other nonsense.
Recently, Michelle Chapman, a British woman, was jailed for sending herself thousands of abusive messages. This included messages of a “very unpleasant sexual nature”. Chapman did that to make it look like her father and stepmother were responsible because she wanted to make their lives hell.
Chapman is the first woman to be prosecuted for faking online harassment against themselves. However, it’s guaranteed that she won’t be the last. It’s a safe bet that women like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn have sent death threats to themselves, and the prosecution of Chapman proves that it is a real thing.
The worst part about this story is how there are people falling on their swords to not blame Chapman for her actions. In an incredible display of white knightism, Chapman’s husband said, “She is the victim, she has mental health issues and it was a cry for help. She has not had the help she needs. This is what you do when you’re in desperate, desperate need of help – you scream out.” After Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are exposed as committing the same fraud as Chapman, they will use the mental illness defense too.
Let’s say there is a mangina out there in Silicon Valley who panders to women and wants to “help” them. For his attempts at helping, he gets viciously attacked by feminists. Despite the attacks, he does not have the presence of mind to realize that being a mangina was a big mistake. The mangina in question is Vivek Wadhwa, the Indian-American venture capitalist and academic.
Vivek Wadhwa has been attacked by feminists in the past such as by Shanley Kane, the January 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month. Feminists have not stopped attacking Wadhwa despite his stated desire to help women in technology. Here’s a short list of some of the things Wadhwa has been accused of by feminists:
- Taking the “oxygen out of the room” by “speaking for women”
- Taking credit for the work that two women did in a Huffington Post column
- Misappropriating money related to the book he wrote on women in technology
- Supposedly direct messaging multiple women on Twitter as a bizarre pretext to sexually harassing them
Because of this Wadhwa has decided to stop talking about women in technology. However, he has learned nothing. Wadhwa thinks its his fault for “fighting the battles of women in technology for too long” and “taking the accusations too personally”. When a group of people lies about you and falsely accuses you of unethical and/or criminal behavior, you should take it personally. If Wadhwa thinks he took the accusations “too personally”, all that proves is that he can’t see what is really going on. He can’t see that the issue of women in technology is not about women in technology but a platform to attack men. Wadhwa can’t see that there is no benefit to being a male feminist. He must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
On this week’s episode of Portlandia, they made fun of male feminists. A guy with no job who does nothing around the house and wife is a breadwinner discovers that he’s a male feminist because he’s taking on the traditional female role. It’s broken up into 3 segments starting at 02:08 and continuing at 10:04 and 19:16:
I recommend watching the whole thing. The segment about all the alternate sexualities you can come up with for Coming Out Day is hilarious and so is the segment where an actress gets advice from the Feminist Bookstore women. And the Feminist Bookstore segment merges into the last male feminist segment so you need to watch it to know what’s going on.
What I really liked about how Portlandia made fun of male feminists is how it made fun (probably unintentionally) of both male feminists and stay at home women. The guy discovers that he’s a male feminist because he’s taken on the traditional female role, and his wife has taken on the traditional male role. However, the guy doesn’t do any cleaning or cooking. They have a maid, and the wife ends up doing the cooking. That’s a very interesting way of slamming women for being feminist, but also wanting to stay at home and not do any housework either.
The last segment was good too. The guy (along with some other male feminists) annoy some people in a movie theater, and neither men nor women are interested in what they have to say. I won’t spoil what happens to the guy (and the other male feminists), but you will appreciate it.
One thing the attack on Charlie Hebdo has done is given us evidence on how feminists view men like Elliot Rodger compared to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers murdered several people. However, the feminist reaction to Elliot Rodger and Charlie Hebdo has been quite different.
Feminists said that Elliot Rodger was a “misogynist extremist” and a terrorist (that terrorized women) and tried to link him to PUAs and MRAs as if Elliot Rodger was part of a larger group of MRAs and PUAs that constituted something similar to Al Queda. Anita Sarkeesian has blamed “toxic masculinity” for Elliot Rodger (and other male shooters):
The reality of Elliot Rodger was that he was mentally ill. This was a man who fantasized about creating a virus that would kill all men except him and was being treated by psychologists since he was 8 years old. Rodger also murdered more men than women so he was hardly targeting women. He acted alone and was not associated with any group of MRAs or PUAs. Since Elliot Rodger is dead, his murders ended there.
This is in complete contrast to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. They were not mentally ill and were working with Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Objectively, this makes the Charlie Hebdo attackers much worse than Elliot Rodger. As long as AQAP is still around, then what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did has not ended. The feminist reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attackers is to come close to defending them such as with this article from Feministing or in the case of Jonathan McIntosh (Anita Sarkeesian’s “partner” as Feminist Frequency and likely boyfriend):
McIntosh actually thinks that what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did wasn’t that bad because they were “marginalized”. Feminists pretend that Elliot Rodger is a demon and a terrorist while supporting actual terrorists. Why do feminists think Elliot Rodger was evil while the Charlie Hebdo attackers are misunderstood? It comes down to one thing. Elliot Rodger murdered (pretty white) women so they consider him to be a misogynist despite the fact that he murdered more men than women. Feminists considered some of the work that Charlie Hebdo published to be misogynist. It all comes down to the fact that feminists consider violence to be legitimate against anyone they consider to be a “misogynist”. That is why they treat Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers so differently. That’s it.
Say you have two things, a political ideology and a hobby. Which one do you think will be attacked more? Obviously, the political ideology regardless of what the political ideology is. This is even more true if said political ideology is totalitarian like feminism is. If a hobby gets attacked even 1% as much as a non-totalitarian political ideology (much less a totalitarian political ideology), there is something wrong with the people attacking said hobby.
My impression from this discussion is that the people who are most angry at what Amanda wrote (and rightly so), only are bothered by attacks on nerds, but don’t object to dehumanizing attacks on feminists. In fact, posts containing such attacks are often praised.
That’s because another name for nerds would be hobbyists because what defines “nerd” among other things is their hobbies such as comics, video games, etc. Feminists are believers in a totalitarian political ideology. Any reasonable person would object to attacks on nerds but not feminists. And what does Ampersand consider examples of “dehumanizing attacks on feminists”?
I’ve also seen a bunch of blog posts responding to the response to Comment #171 by savaging feminists in general – Scott Alexander’s post, of course, but also a bunch like this one (sample quote: “Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore”) or this one, which talks about “feminist toxic trash” and is also viciously mean to Scott Aaronson (but highly praises Scott Alexander’s essay). The essay Scott recommended in #554 describes feminists as “digging trenches of resentment with shovels of hatred in order to launch volleys of degrading and dehumanizing bile towards anyone who dares think for themselves.” She doesn’t say “some” feminists, and her essay explicitly says she’s talking about all feminism, not just tumblr feminism.
Ampersand uses my standard reminder in every Entitlement Princess of the Month post as evidence of a “dehumanizing attack on feminists” but that has several obvious problems especially in that that statement doesn’t even speak about anyone in particular much less feminists. The only way that could be stretched to mean an attack of feminists is if one woman = all women = feminists, and even then it makes no sense. As for the second and third examples (here is the link for “the essay Scott recommended in #554″), they are the types of things people say about totalitarian political ideologies. Similar things are said about Nazism and Communism for good reason. No one would buy a Nazi trying to say, “not all Nazis are like that” or a Communist trying to say, “not all Communists are like that” so any reasonable person would not accept Ampersand trying to pull the same trick with respect to feminism.
This whole thing is an example of why feminism is a totalitarian political ideology. Feminists believe that the “personal is political”. In other words, nothing is separate from politics so to feminists nerds are not hobbyists but a political faction. Feminists view gamers the same way which is why we ended up with #GamerGate. Reality is much different. A hobby is not a political ideology.
I found a comment on The Good Mangina Project that needs to be saved. I’m surprised this made it past the site’s comment filters. I created an archive.today link to save it:
this is why your website is evil. it pretends to be a space for men, but in your article you insult people like me. you pretend to be geek by saying us & we but you clearly aren’t because when the man reveals his pain you belittle it by comparing him & us to a scooby doo cartoon & ignoring the argument that he made about joining a country or other organization.
noah, you don’t even run this website anymore. a man-hating girl runs it & you should be ashamed. you’ve let all men. you suck. you shouldn’t be writing about geeks any more than i should be writing about football.
EvilWhiteMaleEmpire has created another cartoon for us:
Being a mangina/white knight will not get you laid. It won’t get you any other benefits either. Male feminists are the enemy to feminists as much as non-feminist men are. Being a male feminist is far from a guarantee of protection against feminism.
The greatest example of this has to be David Futrelle. He failed to get any traction despite four years of blogging lies about MRAs so he had to change the name of his blog. All of Futrelle’s work has not generated any benefits for him just like with any other male feminist.
All of you should remember the conscious men from a couple of years ago and their Dear Woman video:
Have you wondered what a more conservative, less new agey version of the conscious men would look like? You don’t need to wonder any longer because I found it, a guy who opens doors for women because he adores the feminine genius. He doesn’t even try to define what the “feminine genius” is supposed to be (probably because he knows he can’t), but he knows he is supposed to serve it:
No, instead when I look at women I see the feminine genius. A genius so profoundly complex, important and valuable that I adore it. I adore the feminine genius because I am a real man who has not had his masculine awareness dulled by erroneous ideologies about gender, or seriously messed up by pornography-fueled predatory attitudes towards women.
As a real man I know that for my masculinity to scale the heights of greatness, I depend totally on the feminine genius to become the best that a man can ever be – in much the same way that I depend on oxygen to keep on living.
Without the complimentary and amazing feminine genius I can never be a real man. Instead I am doomed to be nothing more than the masculine equivalent of a rōnin – the Japanese name for a samurai without a master to lead him, a term which literally means “wave man” because he is adrift without direction and purpose.
I open doors for women because I know they deserve my profound adoration and selfless love. My tiny act of sacrifice is my way of saying ‘I am in awe of your feminine genius and all that I owe to it as a man’.
There you have it, a conservative version of the conscious men.
Carlos Danger, a.k.a. Anthony Weiner, has a message for women’s equality day. The specifics of the message don’t matter. It was the usual boilerplate expected from a mangina along with a plea to donate to his campaign, but Weiner managed to avoid any sexting with it.
Weiner has fallen the fourth place in the New York City mayoral race. He plays the only option he has left which is a last ditch effort where he invokes feminism and makes an appeal to women. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s a common tactic in politics when a politician is desperate. In Weiner’s case (as in many other politicians), it means his campaign is on the verge of crashing and burning. I expect that he will drop out of the mayoral race soon.
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.
Jesse Powell TWRA (the TWRA at the end is important since Jesse Powell TWRA has no identity without women) says a lot of misandrist things. One of the most misandrist things he has ever said it’s all right for innocent men who are the victims of false rape charges to be imprisoned because he believes it will protect women from being raped. Jesse Powell TWRA says that we’re slandering him, and that the context of his remarks was because Paul Elam secretly desires to end all rape prosecutions. In reality, we are correct, and he is the one slandering Paul Elam.
Paul Elam said that if he was on a jury in a rape trial, he would always vote not guilty. This isn’t some sort of general protest against the false rape industry nor does Paul Elam want women to get raped. Paul Elam has said that the whole legal culture around rape prosecution is corrupt tainting any evidence in a rape trial. Rape shield laws also prevent a defendant from presenting relevant evidence. These factors come together to make it impossible to determine guilt in a rape trial. If you’re on a jury and know you can’t trust the evidence presented to you and/or you know evidence is missing, then you can’t evaluate whether a defendant is guilty or not. Thus, a juror in such a circumstance must vote not guilty. This is a sound legal principle and a proper application of due process.
Jesse Powell TWRA will start screaming at this point how this will allow rapists to go free. It’s possible it might. However, one of the principles that is at the foundation of our legal system is that it’s better for a guilty man to escape than let an innocent man be imprisoned. This is better known as Blackstone’s formulation (named after Sir William Blackstone) which is, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Blackstone wasn’t the first to understand his formulation. Various legal authorities in history before him understood this principle. The Bible is likely the original source of this principle. The Founding Fathers also agreed with Blackstone. Benjamin Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. John Adams provides the best explanation on why a legal system striving to be just must follow Blackstone’s formulation:
It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever
In other words, if the legal system must default to letting a guilty person escape whose guilt can’t be proven rather than let an innocent person be imprisoned because the alternative is to completely undermine the desire of people to follow the law. In such a scenario, either the government collapses into anarchy because no one trusts it, or a police state (which will be corrupt by definition) will be established. Knowing this it’s no surprise that the critics of Blackstone’s formulation are mostly tyrants or apologists for tyrants. Pol Pot was a strident critic of Blackstone’s formulation.
There is no way to completely eliminate rape as there is no way to completely eliminate any other form of crime. Imprisoning innocent men like Jesse Powell TWRA (and Pol Pot) would want to do will not eliminate rape. Instead it destabilizes our government potentially leading to a police state which is exactly what a tyrant would want. If Sir William Blackstone and the Founding Fathers were around today, they would agree with Paul Elam’s point of view because they understand that Blackstone’s formulation is a necessary component of a free and just society.
Jesse Powell TWRA clearly disagrees with Blackstone’s formulation so the only conclusion that we can draw is that he wants a matriarchal police state to “protect women”. This is a case with a clear difference between two sets of ideas. On one side you have Sir William Blackstone & the Founding Fathers defending freedom and justice. On the other you have Pol Pot and a police state. Jesse Powell TWRA has chosen the latter.
I found that arch-mangina Jesse Powell has a blog where he goes by the name “Jesse Powell TWRA” despite being rejected by the TWRAs (traditional women’s rights activists). As the TWRAs are nazbol misandrists, Jesse Powell as a nazbol mangina gives plenty of examples of how nazbol misandry naked female self interest without the desire to disguise itself.
I to place an emphasis on the need for men to assert authority and to claim their “rightful role in society” but I always make sure to place men’s assertion of authority in its rightful context; that male authority is only legitimate for the purpose of serving women’s interests.
The rightful role of men is both leader and authority figure as well as provider and protector. Men asserting their rightful role in society has to include both assertion of authority and acceptance of responsibility and burden; indeed the assertion of authority is explicitly for the purpose of allowing men to provide for and protect women. The ultimate male purpose is to provide for and protect women; the means to achieve this end is male authority.
Men were created to serve women to enable women to serve children.
The difference between Jesse Powell and the feminist manginas and the tradcon white knights is that feminists and tradcons are much smarter about hiding their motives. Feminists will at least play a bit of lip service to male problems with “patriarchy hurts men too”. Tradcons will pretend that the believe in real male authority when they talk about male leadership. In both cases, they’re lying but at least they’re making a minimal attempt to make their respective ideologies appealing to men and attempting to have some sort of internal consistency. Feminists and tradcons are smart enough to know that they can’t openly talk about de facto male slavery for the benefit of women and expect to have more than a small handful of male supporters. Can nazbol misandrists really be this stupid? Clearly, the answer is yes.
At least I hope for his sake that he’s learned this lesson. After all, Tom Matlack picked the hard way to learn it.
As reported by A Voice For Men, Tom Matlack has left The Good
Man Mangina Project. What happened here? Tom Matlack is the founder of The Good Mangina Project. Matlack had a severe slap from the reality of feminism when it comes to men, namely that a man can never be mangina enough for feminists. TFH has talked about how many manginas have been doubling down on their white knighting over the last few years, and Matlack was no exception.
What did all of Matlack’s white knighting get him? Absolutely nothing. He got accused by feminists of running a MRA “infested”, porn-loving, rape apologist website. The Good Mangina Project was completely taken over by women wondering where the “good” men are (in addition to feminists) making it incoherent babble like Susan Walsh’s
Hooking Up Smart Reformed Sluts. Matlack like any other mangina couldn’t do enough for feminists. He was still an evil penis bearing man to them. That was never going to change no matter how much he supplicated before feminists.
What happened to Tom Matlack was inevitable. Eventually, every mangina will come face to face with the reality that they can never be anything other than an evil man to feminists. The only question is whether that mangina will accept that reality or go into denial. For Tom Matlack’s sake, I hope he has picked the former, but I would not be surprised if he choose the latter.
On Jezebel, noted mangina, Hugo Schwyzer, is promoting pegging, which is a sexual act where a woman wearing a strap on fucks a man up his ass. Hugo Schwyzer considers this a great way to turn men feminist. The commenters on that piece mostly agree and apparently engage in pegging quite regularly. Do hetero people really want to engage in pegging? Obviously the answer is no except for ideological (i.e. feminist) reasons. It would not be an enjoyable act for either a hetero man or a hetero woman. Unless your girlfriend or boyfriend is questioning his/her sexuality or considers himself/herself a feminist, then you are never going to get a request to engage in pegging.
Since most women have no interest in pegging men, then what is the problem? The problem is similar to the Susan Walsh line of, “I’m not a feminist because I’m against sluts/have no interest in being a slut.” The average woman is going to look at feminists talking about pegging and think their nuts. This sounds like a good thing except that it give the average woman cover for her own misandry because clearly she “can’t be a feminist” because she isn’t interested in unusual sex acts like pegging. The average “not a feminist” woman will still be a misandrist and do things like use the feminist anti-family court system to divorce her husband all the while considering herself different from the feminists in the same way that Susan Walsh thinks that she is “not a feminist”.
What is happening with feminists and pegging is that what gets called “feminist” becomes a smaller and smaller subset of true misandry as feminism requires more and more obscure ideas and practices for someone to consider themselves a feminist. This creates a problem where it becomes easier for women and manginas can be both “anti-feminist” (although they would be AFINOs, anti-feminist in name only) and misandrist at the same time.
By now I’m sure all of you have heard about Chris Dorner, the former LA cop who went on a killing spree. He produced a manifesto against the LAPD, but there is a small part of it that we should know about:
Those lesbian officers in supervising positions who go to work, day in day out, with the sole intent of attempting to prove your misandrist authority (not feminism) to degrade male officers. You are a high value target.
Since Chris Dorner is trying to defend feminism here, he is a feminist despite his complaints against misandrist lesbians. Misandry is feminism so trying to separate the two is a useless exercise in cognitive dissonance. It’s likely that Chris Dorner’s cognitive dissonance about feminism contributed to driving him insane and going on this killing spree. Chris Dorner would have been better off if he became an anti-feminist.
We hear a lot about how the Catholic Church is supposedly anti-feminist. Except for a few minor matters like abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, the Catholic Church agrees with feminism completely. Anyone who tries to claim that the Catholic Church is anti-feminist will typically say point out how much feminists hate the Catholic Church.
In the case of feminists hating the Catholic Church, why do feminists hate the Catholic Church since they agree on most of feminism? Justinian at The Spearhead figured out the answer:
The left’s hatred of the Catholic church mirrors the way women look down on male feminists.
This is what it comes down to. The Catholic Church is the organization equivalent to male feminists. Just how male feminists are hated by feminists despite the fact that they agree with each other, so is the Catholic Church hated by feminists.
The reason why there is so much written in the manosphere about socons, conservatives, etc. is because it is recognized that feminism is not purely a left wing ideology. It has infected both the left AND the right, and TDOM explains this and how feminism transcends both the left and the right:
That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.
I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.
Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.
At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.
On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”
The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.
The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.
Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.