Feb 122014

I have read that most women, if they had the choice, would choose part time employment.  This makes sense when you consider that most women are nazbol misandrist by default.  The mommy wars are about women working full time vs. being mothers full time, but most women don’t want one or the other.  They want both a job and to be a mother which is the nazbol misandrist position.  The only way to truly have both a job and be a mother is with a part time job.  This also means being a mother part time.  The combination of part time employment and part time motherhood is the nazbol misandrist answer to the mommy wars.

Being a full time mother or having a full time job requires a level of commitment that most women don’t want.  Either one requires a woman to show up day in, day out (either literally or figuratively).  Neither option is fun a lot of the time, but that’s part of being an adult.  What women want is to have it both ways.  Women want a job when they feel like it and to be a mother when they feel like it.  This is another example of one of the hallmarks of nazbol misandry, female self interest in its most pure form.

If a woman is being a combination of part time employee and part time work, then who is picking up the slack.  Someone has to take care of the kids when she doesn’t feel like it and earn enough money to live, and that someone is a man (such as her husband) or men collectively (i.e. the government).  The part time job & part time mother combination is an excuse to dump a disproportionate share of work in both parenting and paid employment on to men.  (The combination of part time job & part time motherhood has a lot of additional overhead and other issues that being a full time employee or a full time mother doesn’t have.)  It’s all about women having the choice to be a mother or work whenever they want with men slaving away to make it happen.

One of the reasons why we have the mommy wars is that women can’t decide which option is better because either option requires them to do some kind of real work.  Part time employment combined with part time motherhood is an attempt by women to avoid being required to do actual work and dump all real work on to men.  Like with all other aspects of nazbol misandry, it isn’t ideologically consistent, but that’s the point.  Most women think they can have it both ways and dump everything they don’t want to do on to men.

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 122013

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire has created another cartoon for us:

_the pedophileI was going to try to write some extended commentary on this but this one picture criticizes several aspects of feminism, and this cartoon is able to communicate what it would take me a long time to write much more quickly.  This cartoon proves that a picture truly is worth a thousand words.

I also like how this cartoon shows how multiple feminist issues are connected to each other.  I have noticed more and more people saying “there’s nothing wrong with feminism except for X”.  If you just got rid of that X, these people believe that opposition to feminism would just disappear.  (Conveniently, that X typically is something that person doesn’t personally like about feminism.)  In reality, feminist issues have a web of connections to each other so you can’t get rid of just one part of feminism.  (This web of connections even connects to things not typically considered feminist because as Fidelbogen says, “feminism has fuzzy borders”.)  If you are able to get rid of one aspect of feminism, such as abortion, then you end up with conservative female supremacism or traditionalist conservative feminism.  If you are able to get rid of another single feminist issue then you end up with nazbol misandry or some other form of misandry.




Aug 152013

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.

Aug 112013

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.

Here he says that men must reassert authority but only to serve women’s interests:

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.

Elsewhere he says that ultimate male purpose is serve women:

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.

If you think that’s bad, it gets worse:

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.

May 142013

In the last few weeks we have been talking about equality a lot.  The reason for that is because both feminists and tradcons have finally admitted to being against it.  In both cases, they have explicitly admitted to being against actual equality such as equality before the law and equality of opportunity.  Neither group is talking about the cases where the term, equality, gets bastardized and redefined into something else (such as what feminists commonly do with the term).  It’s surprising that both groups have admitted to being against equality at roughly the same time, but it proves an important point, that both groups are against actual equality for similar reasons.

It’s not just the feminists and the tradcons who are against equality.  Other misandrists like Suzanne Venker are starting to weasel their way away from equality by using equal but different.  Expect her to over time increasingly be against (actual) equality.

Louise Pennington, a feminist, said that “equality is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women“.  In other words, equality is a smokescreen to benefit men.  While the tradcons and Suzanne Venker wouldn’t talk about the “true liberation of women”, it’s clear from their writings that they would otherwise agree that equality is a smokescreen to benefit men.  (In part this is because, actual equality might deny women chumps to marry and enslave.)

What is going on here?  Why are everyone but MRAs suddenly against actual equality?  It’s not because equality is a plot to benefit men, but it does benefit men all the same.  Suzanne Venker admitted that when men and women were unequal, women got the better deal:

Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

Compare that with last year’s wrecked cruise line, the Costa Concordia. It resulted in fewer deaths, but there was another significant difference. “There was no ‘women and children first’ policy. There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats. It was disgusting,” said passenger Sandra Rogers, 62.

This is what it comes down to.  Actual equality does not benefit women, and talking about equality is getting them nowhere, so a wide range of misandrist voices are now openly against it.  However, actual equality benefits men.  Equality before the law means that women can’t go around making false rape or false abuse charges and expect to get away with it.  Equality of opportunity means that women actually have to produce and not be a leech off men.  A job market with equality of opportunity would end up looking a lot like the tech industry does now with predominately male employment with a disproportionately high number of unmarried men because men are on average better qualified for most jobs.  Women would be left out in the cold because they couldn’t compete for jobs, and they couldn’t get married unless they worked to show that they could add to a man’s life.

Everyone but MRAs are now against equality not because it’s a plot to benefit men, but because equality means that women lose their special privileges.

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:

” femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com is no longer available.
The authors have deleted this site.”

Damned, PMATF, or should I say Greg, I didn’t realize you alien lizards had that power of mind control. You even managed to make Edita sound far more reasonable thanAndrew Richards vis-à-vis the role of masculinity.

I am humbled.

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.

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.

Feb 202013

There’s a conversation going on at Dalrock’s blog about the “Traditional Women’s Rights Activists”.  (The comments in that conversation are also good for showing why tradcons are useless when it comes to fighting feminism.)  PPM had this to say about TWRAs:

It’s obvious what TWRA is – naked female self interest and nothing more. It is raw feminine imperative, without the intelligence or guile to disguise itself.

I doubt this is a feminist false flag operation. Rather, it is an expression of unfettered entitlement and narcissism. Feminism may have unleashed these sins from their traditional constraints, but even feminism has some principles, as errant as they may be. TWRAs have none.

This is one of the reasons why I consider TWRAs to be what I call nazbol misandrists.  Both feminists and tradcons at the very least pretend to be consistent with the left wing and right wing political traditions respectively.  Nazbol misandrists don’t care about that.  If you look at the Feminine Mystique TWRA blog, you will see the author use whatever is convenient to advance female entitlement and narcissism.  You find plenty of examples of the author of that blog quoting both feminists and tradcons.  It doesn’t matter if there is any consistency with outside political traditions or if their ideas are consistent with each other.  It’s all about unifying previously separate misandrist ideas (just as the Nazbols in Russia unified the previously separate Russian nazi ideas and Russian communist ideas) into a single block of pure misandry serving female self interest.

The best example of how nazbol misandrists are all about pure female self interest is how they hate the MRM.  The TWRAs have spent more time hating the MRM than even tradcons and feminists do.  There is even a sister blog to Feminine Mystique TWRA called Oppose the MRM.  While both tradcons and feminists hate the MRM, there is a limit to how much either group can express their hate of the MRM before running into conflict with the political principles they have associated themselves with.  Nazbol misandrists don’t have any limits on expressing their hatred of the MRM because the only principles of nazbol misandry are female self interest and female entitlement.  The MRM stands in the way of female self interest and entitlement so the nazbol misandrists oppose the MRM with a fury that has the power of thousands of stars, but only give a token opposition to feminism.

In many ways nazbol misandry is the default form of misandry for most women (and manginas) like Danger said at Dalrock’s blog:

TWRA is essentially a large percentage of all women.

We all know the saying “There are no feminists on a sinking ship”. So yes, they all expect deferential treament.

This concept at it’s roots is a form of socialism, where it is your duty to provide something else to someone else for free. It is also part of the reason women vote so liberally, they really do feel entitled to being taken care of throughout their lives, regardless of the subject.

While I would replace TWRA with nazbol misandrists in what Danger said because a lot of women might not like the TWRA talk about traditionalism (even though the TWRAs don’t consider themselves tradcons), Danger is correct.  Most women are feminists only to the point where it serves their self interest.  Most women aren’t interested in feminism when its gets into forming lesbian communes and the like.  The same is true in the opposite direction when it comes to traditional conservatism.  Since the nazbol misandrists are purely about female self interest, they can “deliver” what most women want more so than either the feminists or the tradcons can.

Jan 162013

How should you invest your money in the future?  A commenter provides us with an answer that works:

And….. owning a mortgaged house is among the *worst* positions to be in…

It is not an exaggeration to say that betting against anything that a group of women think is a good idea, is a very solid strategy. Remember, women rely on groupthink, and invest (or force their husband to invest) in a manner that prioritizes groupthink rather than actual returns.

Mortgaged houses, gold, and Facebook shares are all things women thought were superb investments. Hence, all three are terrible.

While I have never expressed it in these terms, this has been my investment strategy over the last several years.  I can tell you that IT WORKS.  I didn’t buy a mortgaged house during the housing bubble.  I avoided gold when it obviously became a bubble, and I knew that Facebook had nowhere to go but down by the time it went IPO.  I made money or saved money when other people were losing their shirts because I didn’t take investment advice from a woman.  Some of you may remember the infamous “Suzanne Researched This” commercial from 2006:

The guy in that commercial knew that buying a house was a bad idea, but he did it because his wife and Suzanne the realtor, two women, berated him into it.  That commercial happened seven years ago.  If another commercial was made to see where he is now, he probably would have been foreclosed on.  His wife is probably in the process of divorcing him, and Suzanne has become a stripper.  Had that guy not been married (and thus not bought a house) he would be doing all right financially proving that investing against women works.

This will only become a better investment strategy in the future.  That commenter provides insight on that too:

For biological reasons, a female’s creature’s life is far more valuable than a man’s, and this applied to humans until the modern era. The number of babies that can be born is the same even if a large portion of the men die, while this not the case if even a single woman dies. Hence, all of human history treats men as expendable. No society has been an exception to this.

However, this assumes that women spend their entire lives from age 15 onwards bearing and taking care of children. It was normal for women to bear their full capacity of children (10+), of which 40% would die early. Human society was geared to transfer all resources to women as this correlated to the survival of children. There was no reason to assume the correlation was anything but exact.

But in the modern era, women now only use 10-20% of their lifetime childbearing capacity, on average, with a substantial percentage of women bearing no children at all. Yet, society is still programmed to transfer resources to women. Go to any department store, and see that 90% of the items there are things no man would ever buy for himself. Look at all the houses built…. our entire economy is evidence that society still funnels all resources to women, even though this no longer is spent on children, and certainly does not correlate to the survival of children.

In the meantime, all the work that keeps modern society running, is done by men. Whether the gritty men who keep the lights running and the water flowing, to the introverted men who create all technological innovation, civilization = men. And these are the men usually termed as ‘Beta’.

Society is funneling (nearly) all resources to women, but that is unsustainable.  We are already reaching the breaking point where we can no longer subsidize women.  Currently, most women are employed in make work jobs that generate no productivity or negative productivity.  (These jobs are mainly government jobs, quasi-government jobs, government mandated jobs in private industry, or private industry jobs that exist due to fear of feminism.)  Both government and private industry are going to hit the wall because they can’t support paying an army of effectively do nothing employees.  Soon, a point of no return will be reached, and lots of women will lose their jobs since both government and private industry can’t afford to subsidize them anymore.  Without jobs how are women going to buy all the crap they buy now?

One thing that will be pushed by both the left and the right by the time this happens will be to dump these women on to men.  In other words, it will be an attempt to get men to “man up and marry those sluts” into “traditional” marriages where the women don’t work.  Since neither the government nor private business will want to subsidize these women, they will try to get individual men to do it.  While we hear “man up and marry those sluts” from the tradcons, at this point the left will go “nazbol” misandrist and do it as well out of desperation.  This just represents another attempt to subsidize women with make work jobs.  In this case the “make work” is having lots of kids.  Since most kids now survive to adulthood, large families are just make work jobs for women subsidizes by their husbands.  Men will look at this and refuse to marry these women because they get no benefit to subsidizing a woman (in addition to other problems like anti-family courts).

All of this means over time that the economy will be reoriented to serve men’s needs and interests.  Therefore any good investment will be in a business that provides something men need and/or want.  Anything else will be a losing investment so this is why your investment strategy for the future should be to invest against women.  You may not always make money with this strategy (although you will a lot of the time), but when you do lose money, you will lose a lot less than anyone who invests in women.

Dec 162012

This is a post I shouldn’t write because it’s feeding the attention whoring of a woman who is going around to various MRA and MGTOW blogs, but it’s an important subject so I’m going to do so anyway.

I got this tweet sent to me earlier this week:

You may have already seen this FeminineMystiqueTWRA woman elsewhere on other MRA blogs.  Her name alone shows that she is a feminist.  The “TWRA” stands for “traditional women’s rights advocate” and being about any kind of “women’s rights” is an automatic red flag that she’s a feminist.  The “FeminineMystique” part is an obvious homage to Betty Friedan.  Her name is represents a merger of tradcon (traditionalist conservative) misandry and leftist feminist misandry.  This merger of different forms of misandry is the basis of her ideology.

Take a look at the blog post listed in the tweet, and you will see how she merges tradcon misandry and leftist feminist misandry.  She quotes both Germaine Greer and Amanda Marcotte as gospel.  She uses the former to “prove” that feminism benefits men and the latter to “prove” that the cause of divorce is selfish men who refuse to take care of women and children because men can supposedly get away with it.  (Of course, we know all these statements to be lies.)  It’s telling that FeminineMystiqueTWRA uses feminist sources to support her points while claiming to be “anti-feminist”.

FeminineMystiqueTWRA is also inspired by tradcon misandry.  She uses the standard tradcon canards of “Women are the real victims of feminism and not men”, “Men are forcing women to go to work against their will”, and “MRAs are feminists” because MRAs want equal rights.  (The idea that feminists want equal rights and not female supremacism is another lie of hers.)

What makes FeminineMystiqueTWRA different than any other tradcon woman we have encountered?  Most tradcon women wouldn’t quote and agree with liberal feminist women so easily.  While tradcon misandry is similar to leftist feminist misandry (since it’s all misandry), tradcon misandrists convince themselves that they are different from the leftist feminist misandrists and wouldn’t use them as inspiration like FeminineMystiqueTWRA does.  This makes FeminineMystiqueTWRA a bit unique and why I’m calling her a “Nazbol” misandrist.

I got the term “Nazbol” misandrist, from the Nazbol political party in Russia.  The Nazbols were formed a few years ago as a merger of Naziism and Communism.  (The name is literally “National Bolshevism”.)  While the Nazbol party was banned in Russia, it still exists as a faction in “The Other Russia” political party.  Both Naziism and Communism aren’t really that different as they are both forms of totalitarianism, but both sides are willing to fight each other to the death over their minuscule differences.  However, since both Naziism and Communism have been thoroughly discredited and marginalized, the only place either side has to go is to merge together which is why we have seen the formation of Nazbols in Russia.

Just as Nazis and Communists are both forms of totalitarianism with minuscule differences, so both tradcon misandrists and leftist feminist misandrists are both forms of misandry with minuscule differences.  That means sooner or later, we would see “Nazbol” misandrists that merged misandry from both the tradcon and leftist feminist variants.  That is what FeminineMystiqueTWRA has done making her the first “Nazbol” misandrist that I am aware of.  While I was expecting this to happen eventually, I am surprised that it happened so soon.  I didn’t think that mens rights had progressed enough for us to start seeing “Nazbol” misandrists.  I expected that it would be another decade at least before “Nazbol” misandrists appeared.  This means that mens rights is moving forward faster than any of us thought because “Nazbol” misandrists would only appear after mens rights is successful enough to force strains of misandry to merge.  We have been more successful so far than we thought.

Translate »