the spearhead » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

The Spearhead: The Myth Of Equal Suffering

AFINOs, conservative female supremacism, the spearhead No Responses »

Dec 192011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

When someone is talking about mens’ rights issues or anything that only affects or disproportionately affects men, a common response is some derivative of “women have it just as bad.” This response will be used no matter how absurd it is when applied to the issue or issues being discussed. For example, if an MRA is discussing what happens to men during and after divorce, someone will respond that women suffer just as much from divorce. Obviously, this is not the case, because women wouldn’t disproportionately initiate divorce proceedings otherwise. What these people are doing is promoting a myth of equal suffering.

Why do we have a myth of equal suffering? It is because feminists – and even many anti-feminists (who are really anti-feminist in name only, or AFINOs) – don’t want to admit that there are certain issues (such as divorce) where men bear the overwhelming brunt of the negative impact. Feminists will use this myth in an attempt to shut down any effort to show that their policies and actions are attacking men. AFINOs will also use the myth to hide the fact that women who don’t claim to be feminists are still benefiting from feminism. For them, it’s an attempt to pretend that the benefits of feminism are going to some far away group of feminist women instead of both feminist women and AFINO women. This can be seen with divorce where women who don’t claim to be feminists divorce as often as self-admitted feminist women do. It can also be seen when someone says, “But feminism hurts women too”.

The myth of equal suffering is not used in the opposite direction. If something were to disproportionately affect women, these people will not talk about how men are suffering just as much from the same problem. This is because the true purpose of the myth of equal suffering is not to demonstrate that men and women suffer equally: it is to diminish problems experienced by men so that women can be shown to be suffering more. This serves the purpose of adding more power to women via victimhood. It is similar to how feminism in general claims to support equality when in reality it is promoting an agenda of female supremacism.

The Spearhead: The Expat Test

AFINOs, Christianity, conservative female supremacism, male/female relationships, Manginas/White Knights, marriage strike, the spearhead, white (knight) nationalism No Responses »

Dec 172011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage. They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”. For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0. Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0). How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism? The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married. This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage. There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country
Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)
Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2. They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county. It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens. This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be? Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage. They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations. In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies. Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

The Spearhead: Occupy Wall Street Is Just Another Vehicle For Misandry

socialism, the spearhead No Responses »

Oct 112011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Whatever the other positives and negatives are of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is another vehicle for misandry. Some examples of misandry in the Occupy Wall Street movement, can be found at its We Are the 99% blog which showcases people who believe they are the victim of the richest 1%. That blog has a high number of single mothers and other women demonstrating high levels of entitlement as can be seen in the following examples:

This woman says, “Let the dudes pay my bill!” In other words, she is demanding men subsidize her, not rich men or billionaires (which would be questionable enough) but men in general. This is a repeated theme that can be seen with this woman who says, “men lied”. Again, it’s all men she is blaming.

This woman is complaining that she is going heavily into debt in college because she wants to work as an “activist” at a “feminist non-profit”:

Single mothers and soon to be single mothers are seen a lot on the We Are The 99% blog. The following examples have a common theme of how the bank bailouts should have been given to single mothers or women in general to subsidize their bad decisions:

There are many more examples of female entitlement such as women complaining that a degree in fine arts doesn’t guarantee a job, women who talk as if they randomly ended up in prison, etc. Some of you may be thinking that this is not representative of Occupy Wall Street because it’s easy to cherry pick a few blog entries. The misandry in Occupy Wall Street goes much deeper than this. Their demands include a “gender equal rights amendment”, and how they are organized is explicitly anti-male:

Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking.

All of this adds up to Occupy Wall Street being another arm of misandry. As far as they are concerned, if you are male, then you are part of the 1%.

The Spearhead: Feminist Bookstore Runs Into Financial Trouble

female economic bubbles, the spearhead No Responses »

Jul 252011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In Other Words, a feminist bookstore in Portland, OR has run into financial trouble. The organization that runs In Other Words, the Women’s Community Education Project, ran $18,743 in the red last year. Last month, the store laid off its only two employees. Sales at the bookstore are down 73% compared to four years ago. A plan to redefine the bookstore as a “resource center” has not stemmed the tide of financial losses.

The financial trouble In Other Words is having can be traced to one source, a law that took effect last summer that made it illegal to force college students to buy their textbooks from a single source. Before that law took effect, In Other Words had an exclusive contract to sell textbooks for women’s studies classes at Portland State University. All students at PSU taking a women’s studies class had to buy their textbooks from In Other Words until last summer. Given that PSU is a state university, In Other Words effectively survived on a government subsidy. Given that the law in question was passed in 2008 and didn’t take effect until 2010, the management of In Other Words had a long time to come up with a plan to deal with the lost income from not having a captive market. However, management of In Other Words has been unable to stop the financial losses. Because of this, it is likely that In Other Words will be closing in the near future.

The Spearhead: Disagreeing with a Man’s Politics is No Reason for Assuming Guilt in Rape Accusations

false rape industry, the spearhead No Responses »

May 182011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

A few days ago IMF (International Monetary Fund) Chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was arrested for allegedly raping a maid at a hotel that he was staying at in New York. It has already been documented elsewhere that there are several good reasons to believe that this is a false rape accusation. Currently the facts aren’t all in yet, but that has not stopped people from declaring their desire to hang Strauss-Kahn for this alleged crime (without a trial) because they disagree with his politics, disagree with IMF policies, or believe him to be guilty of some other crime that has not been proven. Here is one such example of this:

He’s a filthy Marxist bankster-gangster and probably best friends with the Spooky Dude.

I’m past caring if life is fair to pathological tyrants.

Here is another one:

Who cares if it’s fake? It’s about time one of the f*ckers promoting this sh*t goes down in flames because of it. I hope they use his asshole as a community cum dumpster in prison.

It doesn’t matter that Strauss-Kahn is a socialist. It doesn’t matter that Strauss-Kahn is the head of the IMF. A man disagreeing with your politics does not mean he is guilty of rape nor does it change the fact that it is despicable to use a false rape accusation as a convenient weapon against a man. One reason why false rape accusations are as common as they are now is because too many people are willing to take advantage of the situation when a false rape accusation happens against a political enemy.

This is not limited to Strauss-Kahn. The same thing happened with Julian Assange. Many people were ready to hang him for the false rape accusation against him because they disagreed with his politics and his work at Wikileaks. The same thing happened to the three Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape. The Group of 88, the 88 members of the Duke faculty who branded the lacrosse players as rapists, were ready to hang them for being white and male.

You may not like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Julian Assange, or the Duke Lacrosse players. You may not like what any of them do for a living. However, your personal dislike of a man is no excuse for not standing up to a false rape accusation.

The Spearhead: Marriage Isn’t Dying. It’s Dead.

AFINOs, conservative female supremacism, male/female relationships, the spearhead No Responses »

Apr 252011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Lot’s of people say that marriage is dying because less and less people are getting married. Many men are on a defacto marriage strike refusing to get married. While marriage rates are going down and many men are on a defacto marriage strike, marriage isn’t dying. It’s already dead.

What we think of as “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is marriage 1.0. Marriage 1.0 was killed a few decades ago by legal changes and marriage 2.0 replaced it. Most people don’t understand what the name, marriage 2.0, really communicates. The version number concept comes from software engineering and changing the whole number in a version number says that there were major changes between version 1.0 and version 2.0. When talking about marriage the use of “marriage 2.0″ is correct. There were massive changes between marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0. Many people who use the term, marriage 2.0, don’t really understand this. They think of marriage 2.0 as really being marriage 1.2 or marriage 1.02, minor changes not the major change it is.

When a new version of a software application comes out, no one is forced to upgrade to the new version. They may choose to upgrade. The software vendor may not support the old version anymore but there are no forced upgrades. This is different than the change from marriage 1.0 to marriage 2.0. There was a forced change to the new version of marriage. Everyone who was in marriage 1.0 was forced into marriage 2.0. Since whether marriage 1.0 or marriage 2.0 is available is determined by laws there can be only one or the other available at any time. The only marriage anyone in a Western country can have is marriage 2.0. It doesn’t matter if a person thinks there in a marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”. They are not because it’s determined by the law, and the law in all Western countries only allows for marriage 1.0.

This is why marriage is already dead (in the West). In every Western country marriage 1.0 is simply not an option no matter how much someone wants it. Anyone who tries to push “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is really pushing marriage 2.0 and by extension pushing feminism (since marriage 2.0 is feminist marriage) whether they realize it or not. There is no way of having a non-feminist marriage (or marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”) unless a man expats. (Bringing a woman from a non-feminist country to a Western country is not enough to avoid marriage 2.0 because it’s the laws that determine which version of marriage is in force. Thus the man must expat if he wants a marriage 1.0 marriage.)

What does (non-feminist) marriage being completely dead and buried mean for us? Unless a man is willing to permanently expat, he should not get married. Anyone who is pushing marriage even if they claim they’re pushing “traditional marriage” is reallying pushing marriage 2.0, a feminist form of marriage. Thus the marriage pushers are either useful idiots for feminism or have no real problem with feminist forms of marriage. If any of the marriage pushers were really interested in rebuilding marriage 1.0, they would not be attempting to shame men into marrying or calling us hedonists or nihilists. They would be in the courts challenging aspects of marriage 2.0 such as no fault divorce, and/or they would be setting up private marriage systems that actually reflect the “traditional marriage” they claim to believe in. (Even if these things didn’t work, at least we would know that the social conservatives and traditionalist conservatives who push marriage were actually serious about “traditional marriage” and not attempt to pull a bait and switch on men.) Because of all this marriage in the West is no longer an anti-feminist institution. That kind of marriage is completely dead. The current form of marriage, marriage 2.0, is a solidly feminist institution. To support marriage now (unless said supports are legally challenging marriage 2.0, setting up private marriage systems, or encouraging men to expat to get married) is to support feminism. Anyone in the West who is married is in a feminist marriage whether they like it or not.

The Spearhead: Female Solidarity: An Additional Aspect Of NAWALT

female behavior and whining, sluts, the spearhead No Responses »

Apr 172011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

We are told NAWALT (not all women are like that) over and over again. Naturally, the question comes up on whether all women are like that or not or if a particular woman is like that or not. The answer can be more complicated than being either/or. There are many cases where a particular woman may truly not be like that but pretends to be, acts likes a woman like that, or thinks like a woman like that out of some bizarre sense of female solidarity. Here is an example (from a woman using the username “Doomed Harlot”):

I self-identify as a “slut” because I have always opposed the double-standard and the transactional view of sex, and have acted accordingly. On the one hand, I may not qualify under the standards set forth here. I never had sex with, or even kissed, anyone other than a premarital boyfriend of several years and my husband.

For the sake of argument let’s assume that everything “Doomed Harlot” says about her sexual history is true. She has only had sex with two men, one of which is her husband. Yet, she calls herself a slut out of some bizarre desire to oppose supposed double standards and female solidarity. Is “Doomed Harlot” a slut? Is she like that? Technically not but if she’s willing to talk like that, think like that, and identify like that what is the real meaningful difference between her and an actual slut?

The issue of female solidarity and NAWALT is limited to slutitude. This applies to a lot of issues. For instance a woman might never intend to divorce or have an abortion herself and find those acts in most or all cases to be immoral, but she will fight against any changes to the law on those subjects. Even if she has no intention of having an abortion or starting a divorce, can she really be said to not be like a woman who does those things?

What has happened is that a lot of women who technically might not be like that have decided that female solidarity is more important than actually demonstrating that they aren’t like that. What is the meaningful difference between a woman who is like that and a woman who isn’t but talks, thinks, and identifies as a woman like that out of a sense of female solidarity? There really is none because either unintentionally or (most likely) intentionally, the woman who isn’t like that but acts like a woman like that is providing cover for the women like that. A woman who truly isn’t like that would want to demonstrate the difference between her and women who are like that.

Going back to the “Doomed Harlot” example, if a woman talks like, thinks like, and identifies as a slut, how is a man supposed to know she isn’t actually a slut? If she thinks she’s a slut then how can men know she really isn’t a slut? If “Doomed Harlot” isn’t going to make an attempt to differentiate herself from actual sluts, why should men?

Unless a woman is willing to clearly demonstrate she is not like that, using NAWALT as an argument is hollow and hypocritical. If a woman doesn’t think it’s important to clearly differentiate herself from women who are like that then men can not be at fault for thinking she is like that.

The Spearhead: The Decline And Fall Of Antioch College

education, saturday night live, sexual harassment, the spearhead No Responses »

Mar 022011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In my last post I predicted that the University of Cincinnati would collapse due to its embrace of feminism and leftism at the expense of real scientific disciplines like computer science. Several comments brought up the example of Antioch College which had collapsed due to its embrace of feminism and leftism.

Antioch College was originally founded in 1853 in Ohio by the Christian Connection movement and the Unitarian Church. Beginning in the 1940s it became a hotbed of progressivism and one of the first colleges to experience leftist student activism. This continued to the 1960s when Antioch College became one of the primary locations of student radicalism, the New Left, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the Black Power movement in that part of the US. The 1970s were more of the same for Antioch College, but it expanded to include several satellite campuses under the name of Antioch University. In the late 1970s Antioch College started having problems with its finances and experienced a decline in enrollment from around 2000 students to around 1000 students. While Antioch College’s financial situation stabilized in the 1980s it never was able to increase student enrollment beyond 1000 students.

Antioch College started having problems again in the early to mid 1990s when its “Sexual Offense Prevention Policy” received national publicity. According to the policy, consent for sexual behavior must be mutual, verbal, and reiterated for each new step of sexual behavior. The original version policy was created at Antioch College’s “Womyn’s Center” due to the agitation of a group of students called “Womyn of Antioch” and called for immediate expulsion of any man accused of a sexual offense with no rights given to the accused. A revised version of what the “Womyn’s Center” wrote became policy for Antioch College. Even the revised version was so absurd that it became the basis of a Saturday Night Live sketch called “Is It Date Rape?”

Things continued to deteriorate at Antioch College so that by 2000 Mumia Abu Jamal and transgendered rights activist, Leslie Feinberg, were invited to be speakers at that year’s commencement. This also recieved national publicity, and in the few years after enrollment declined to 600 students. By 2003 the situation at Antioch College deteriorated to the point where a renewal plan was started. This was done alongside deep cuts in staff which included eliminating Antioch College’s Office for Multicultural Affairs. The led to a student protest called the “People of Color Takeover”. Antioch College created the “Coretta Scott King Center for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom” in response to that protest but Antioch College still deteriorated. By 2007 enrollment had declined to 370 students. Also during 2007 the faculty of Antioch College filed a lawsuit against its Board of Trustees. Soon after operations were suspended at Antioch College, and it was closed in 2008.

Currently there are plans to reopen Antioch College in the fall of this year. Even if Antioch College reopens it is unlikely that it will ever regain the status it had.

The Spearhead: University Kills Computer Science Major But Keeps Womens Studies

education, socialism, the spearhead No Responses »

Feb 192011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Universities like everyone else are feeling the pinch in the current economy. This has led to them to look for places where they can cut expenditures. It would make the most sense to cut the useless parts of a university such as womens studies majors, various ethnic studies majors, “diversity” programs, programs for women, affirmative action, etc. and all of the associated expensive deans and bureaucracy that come along with such uselessness. The University of Cincinnati has not done this. Instead the University of Cincinnati has decided to cut its computer science major.

While the university claims that the computer science major is really being folded into other majors so nothing will be “lost”, this is not true. Computer Science is an independent discipline. Folding computer science into other majors is like a university trying to eliminate its chemical engineering major into its chemistry major. Despite the overlap, it makes no sense.

A university has many purposes ranging from preparation for jobs and careers to loftier goals such as expanding the sum total of human knowledge. The University of Cincinnati by cutting its computer science major instead of its womens studies major and all other useless majors has failed all of these purposes. What they decide to eliminate and keep sends a strong message about what they think is important. The University of Cincinnati has sent a clear message that what they think is important is feminist and leftist indoctrination.

Even knowing that the University of Cincinnati has decided to place more importance in feminist and leftist indoctrination than employment and the body of human knowledge, why was computer science chosen as the first major to be eliminated? Most likely there were several factors in the university’s decision but one of them had to be the pervasive anti-male bias that exists at most universities. Computer science is a major that is taken by mostly men, and those men are mostly “politically incorrect” men such as white men and asian men. If the University of Cincinnati cuts more majors they will most likely be other engineering and science majors that are made up of mostly “politically incorrect” men.

In the end this decision really only hurts the University of Cincinnati. Anyone who wants to major in computer science will go elsewhere along with their tuition and fees. Many men who weren’t going to major in computer science will still avoid the University of Cincinnati because its anti-male bias is clearer than the average university. In a few years alumni donations will start to collapse as men who are employed in computer science jobs will be donating to the universities they went to and not the University of Cincinnati. All the womens studies and ethnic studies alumni will not be able to make up for the lost alumni donations. The womens and ethnic studies alumni are going to government, quasi-government, and other government mandated jobs that are going to collapse in the near future. A alumni with no job or a job where they have to say, “Would you like fries with that?” will not be able to donate to their alma mater. Research grants will fall apart for the University of Cincinnati as they will not be able to make use of them.

In a way it’s good that the University of Cincinnati made this decision. Instead of hiding what they’re really about, now everyone knows.

The Spearhead: Doubling Down

female economic bubbles, mancession, socialism, the spearhead No Responses »

Jan 282011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Terry O’Neill, the president of NOW (the National Organization for Women) had this to say about government social programs:

No, we need increases in the social programs and here’s why. First of all, the social programs at the state and local level are being decimated because states, unlike the federal government, states can’t run a deficit. The federal government can and should in order to support these social programs.

The social programs mostly benefit women – these are things like childcare and after school programs and anti-violence programs and training programs. Those things are for women but the interesting thing is a lot of them employ women. So from my point of view, we really need those social programs enhanced – not cut.

There has been much written in the manosphere about how government spending is mainly spent on women. However, for the first time, a feminist and the president of NOW no less, has admitted. She has also admitted that women disproportionately employed by government at all levels, another fact widely discussed in the manosphere.

In addition, this shows us that feminists will not bend to the reality of a shrinking economy and shrinking government revenues. Instead feminists will double down (and triple down and quadruple down) and fight to the last womyn to keep governments at all levels spending on women. The fact that the US and other countries can no longer afford (if they ever could) feminism does not matter to them. The fact that the federal government of the US alone had a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010 or is projected to have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 does not matter to feminists. Knowing that the federal government is running these deficits already, O’Neill has effectively demanded multi-trillion dollar deficits and doesn’t care about the myriad of problems it would cause such as hyperinflation.

The Spearhead: The Mommy Wars Are A Distraction

conservative female supremacism, examples of both sides being feminized, the spearhead No Responses »

Jan 142011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

The “mommy wars”, the debate whether women should stay at home with the kids or go to work, is rarely brought up in the manosphere if at all. There is an excellent reason for this. In terms of anti-feminism the mommy wars are meaningless. In fact, the mommy wars serve as nothing but a distraction for actual anti-feminism and are another example of the argument between various forms of feminism/female supremacism on how to best extract money and resources from men (or how to best hold the whip over men).

Socons (social conservatives) use two main arguments for women staying home, traditionalism and children. ”Traditionalism” isn’t about what was traditional over human history but what the archetypal stay at home mother of the 1950s which was an aberration and wasn’t even universal back then. Throughout history women have done work that added income to the family. In addition there weren’t washing machines, stoves, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, etc. so there was more work to be done in maintaining a household. In the future more and more of household maintenance will be handled by robots such as the roomba leaving less and less work for a woman in maintaining the household. The idea that women should stay home with young children has merit. However, children grow up, move out, and live their own lives. As people live longer the time a woman would spend having young children is a diminishing percentage of woman’s life. What is she doing with the rest of her life? What socons seek to produce is not stay at home motherhood or traditional families but domestic divas who have little to no work to do.

The level to which socons want women to not be involved with things outside the home is extreme. Some socons even object to having their daughters spend any time at church ministries. Considering that a church ministry usually involves some degree of community service, they are even objecting to women doing any community service whatsoever in favor of “being at home”. The question must be asked, “What are these socon domestic divas and proto-domestic divas (their daughters) doing all day?” The answer seems to involve claiming that it takes an army of women to clean a house and that unmarried daughters should stay at home doing make work jobs of questionable merit like “sewing her wardrobe”. It seems to be all about minimizing work that women do and hiding this fact from men.

While feminists want women to go to work (or more accurately to a job), they are similar to the socons. Feminists will claim that women with jobs are “more productive” and “doing real work”. This is wrong. Over the last several decades many women have poured into the workforce into jobs like public sector jobs, quasi-public sector jobs like healthcare and education, human resources, etc. What do these jobs have in common? They are bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient, ossified, and in most cases unnecessary. In addition, they wreck the productive sectors of the economy. Many of these jobs are nothing but make work jobs, and women hold these economy wrecking make work jobs. Even outside of these sectors of employment, women can cause problems. A feminist had this to say about housewives trying to get work:

During preliminary interviews with housewives she saw that they had one thing in common: an extremely infantilized mode of behavior. Whenever the conversation didn’t go exactly as they wanted, they would become highly emotional, raise their woices, bcome irritable, cry, make unreasonable demands. They had no understanding of how to negotiate or listen to others. Their expectations of what they are owed by recruiters and employers were extremely inflated. It was obvious that inscribing themselves into the hierarchies of a workplace, curbing their highly emotional response to every slight contretemps and learning to listen to other people was going to be next to impossible for them.

Any man willing to be honest about it will easily be able to come up with multiple examples of women acting like this who are not housewives or former housewives. These are more reasons why feminists are wrong about women in jobs automatically being productive or doing real work. Like with the socons, it’s about minimizing the work women do and hiding this from men. The feminists and socons just disagree about the best way to do that.

On the other hand the feminists and the socons do agree that men are at fault for not making their respective positions happen. Feminists claim that men are evil brutes trying to keep women at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Socons are claiming that men have become “unmanly” and are forcing their wives to work, and that men are “pressuring” women to go college. Whatever their positions in the mommy wars, both the feminists and socons attack men with truckloads of shaming language. This is why the mommy wars are a distraction completely useless to men and useless to anti-feminism. It is nothing but an argument about how to best hold the whip over men in a very literal sense because the mommy wars are about women doing as little work as possible and making men do more.

The Spearhead: Hybrid Feminism

conservative female supremacism, female behavior and whining, socialism, the spearhead 1 Response »

Jan 082011

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Most women aren’t pure ideologues. They don’t adhere strictly to a particular ideology. This is key to understanding how the average woman fits into feminism and how feminism has caused the destruction it has. Too often feminism is defined in terms of what a cadre of lesbians or some other small group has done. It ends up treating feminism vs. anti-feminism as a purely academic debate that has no real effect on the real world. Feminists aren’t just some group of aliens on the planet, Uranus. If they were, we would have nothing to worry about. Instead feminism (or rather female supremacism) exists in various forms all over that many women and even men believe in.

However, a woman may be not purely be a conservative female supremacist (i.e. a social conservative) either. The average woman while not purely a feminist is not purely a conservative female supremacist either. Most people don’t think in the necessary post-modern academic terms to adhere to one of those forms of female supremacism. Not adhering to a pure female supremacist ideology does not mean that a person is anti-feminist/anti-female supremacy. Women in particular will develop their own personal female supremacism using a combination ideas from various strains of female supremacism. The “hybrid feminism” of “hybrid female supremacism” they create is not pure in terms of feminism or social conservatism or any other form of defined female supremacism but it’s feminist in the most important way possible. It’s about advancing women at the expense of men.

Why is understanding the idea of “hybrid feminism” important? Because the average woman does not believe herself to be a feminist (or socon) in any way. Her belief that she’s “not a feminist” doesn’t make her an anti-feminist. She will still have female supremacist beliefs. We have all heard statements like, “I’m not a feminist because I’m not a lesbian”, “I’m not a feminist because I don’t believe in gay marriage”, “I’m not a feminist because I don’t believe in abortion”, “I not a feminist because I’m a stay at home mom”, “I’m not a feminist because I want to get married”, “I’m not a feminist because it hurts women”, “I don’t know any feminists”, etc. These “not feminist” women still divorce their husbands, make false rape and false sexual harassment charges, send their sons to be emasculated in feminist public schools, vote for politicians that redistribute male wealth to women, etc. Despite being “not feminist”, these women have no problem using and support feminist programs and institutions. A lesbian on another planet (which is how socons effectively think of feminism) is not going to divorce her husband to get half of his assets or have sons to send to feminist public schools (on Earth).

A question that gets asked over and over again is where are these “not feminist” women when it comes to fighting feminism? They are always nowhere to be found outside of things that don’t affect men like abortion and gay marriage. They will have excuses like, “I’m too busy raising my family.” Being “too busy” never stops them from fighting against abortion or gay marriage. They are only “too busy” when it comes to cases where they benefit or may benefit in the future such as eliminating no fault divorce or eliminating government programs that benefit women.

The debate between feminists and socons is just about how to best acquire and control the resources and assets of men or how to best hold the whip over men. Many socon women are only against feminism because they believe men benefit from feminism and want to put a stop to men benefiting from anything. It’s the same with the “hybrid feminist”. They pick the combination of ideas from various female supremacist ideologies that they believe are the best way for themselves and/or women in general to hold the whip over men.

The Spearhead: Dealing With The Reality On The Ground

conservative female supremacism, Game/PUA, mancession, Manginas/White Knights, shaming language, the spearhead 2 Responses »

Dec 152010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

There are lots of people who claim to be against feminism but really aren’t. One way of figuring out if someone is seriously against feminism is asking if their critiques and solutions of feminism deal with the reality on the ground for men and boys. Instead if they are engaging in an academic discussion mental masturbation that does not offer anything to help to reality that men and boys are dealing with, then they aren’t serious about being against feminism. Most likely they are another form of female supremacist that agrees with 99% of feminism but has some sort of meaningless trivial disagreement with feminism. This is even more true if they claim to be against feminism but spend lots of time attacking MRA’s or the MRM.

Look at this post from the Oz Conservative blog. There’s a lot of talk about “individualism”, “separatism”, and “autonomy”. This is supposedly a criticism of both feminism and the MRM. Notice how those terms aren’t really defined for context they’re used in. They’re supposed to be “bad” because they’re “bad”. There are also a lot of bizarre claims that MRAs want to be “liberated from masculinity”. What “liberated from masculinity” means is not defined either. Nearly all MRAs would have no idea what is being talked about in that post because MRAs are dealing with the reality on the ground. MRAs are dealing with issues that affect (and in many cases destroy) the lives of men and boys such as anti-male divorce courts, fathers having their children taken away from them, men forced to pay for children that aren’t theirs, men in jail because of false rape charges, men losing their jobs due to affirmative action and the mancession, boys trapped in feminized school systems, boys forced to take drugs like ritalin, etc. If a 7 year old boy fights back against a feminized school system he is trapped in (as much as a 7 year old boy reasonably can), are we really supposed to believe that 7 year old boy is wants to be “liberated from masculinity”? (The author of the Oz Conservative blog is a teacher so he may actually believe that.)

Another example of supposed anti-feminism that refuses to deal with the reality on the ground can be found at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (along with another post at that blog). Look at some of the things Josh F. had to say:

And so what is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke.

The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.

The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.

To lead males to de facto homo-ism with a rally cry of “no marriage, no kids” is to lead males to a state of radical autonomy. Meaning, you are ensuring that he never sees the light of manhood.

Homosexuality is not JUST two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other.

It is a simple fact that those who believe in sexual autonomy (fluidity) simply reject the idea of an externally imposed sexual order. This means that their sexuality is self-created. Homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to the self, first, and only then the same when the void is felt. But make no mistake, a self-created sexual “orientation” that is sexually attracted TO ITSELF (the purely physical narcissist) is really a sexual “orientation” that rejects the externally imposed sexual order; this fluid sexual “orientation” rejects man as devout dyke and it rejects woman as radical homosexual. It is very plain to see that a self-sexualizer, even when he fills the void with something of the same, is by nature a self-annihilator.

What Josh F. is saying is difficult to read because many of his concepts are not defined. What is “autonomy” in this context? What is a “real man” supposed to be in this context? What is the “externally imposed sexual order”? It can not be figured out except that it is supposed to be “bad” for some unknown reason. Also, Josh F. tries to redefine terms like homosexual to some other nebulous concept similar to how leftist academics try to murder the English language for destructive purposes. The only idea that Josh F. communicates is that he is trying to expand anti-male shaming language.

What are these “devout dykes” that Josh F. talks about? They sound like aliens on another planet. That is because Josh F. refuses to deal with the reality on the ground of feminism. If the only problem of feminism were a group of aliens on another planet then men would have nothing to worry about. The problems of feminism are all around men on this planet. A woman who forces a man into divorce court and steals his children from him is not a “devout dyke”. It’s a heterosexual woman. An actual lesbian wouldn’t marry a man in the first place. When considering all of the problems caused by feminism, it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems. It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too. To ignore this is to ignore the reality on the ground for men. Josh F. refuses to consider that not getting married and not having kids is a solution that men can actually implement to protect themselves. This is why a lot of men avoid marriage and children. These men have never heard of words like “autonomy” or “self annihilator” in the context they are being used. Even if they have, they don’t care because they are dealing with the reality on the ground. They are trying to avoid things like divorce court and jail. Does a man dealing with the real problems of feminism such as a man who is a victim of false rape charges care about Josh F.’s weird ideology? No, because he is dealing with the reality on the ground, namely avoiding jail.

Look at what Jesse Powell (the same person who said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to “protect women”) had to say:

“Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.

Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.

What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women? Why does it exist? These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer. Those statements exist to avoid the question, “Why should men get married knowing the reality on the ground?” The reality for men getting married particularly younger men is that there is a greater than 50% chance their wives will force a divorce on them, take half or more of their assets, and take their kids away. Since when is it a man’s duty to go to divorce court or jail? Jesse Powell is telling men to ignore their own good judgement and ability to plan for the future and pretend the reality on the ground doesn’t exist.

All the people in these examples do the same thing, avoid dealing with the reality on the ground men are facing. They provide no practical solutions for men to use who are facing these problems in the face. They refuse to admit these problems even exist and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created. Instead they waste their time on mental masturbation inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way. This is in stark contrast to how the MRM or the greater manosphere acts. Take game, for example. It’s a solution that was created to deal with the reality on the ground men were facing. This is one reason why it’s effective. The only way we men will move forward in dealing with feminism is dealing with real problems and find concrete and usable solutions to them. Anyone who wastes their time on weird ideological debates will not be a part of a solution to the problems of feminism and is not really against feminism.

The Spearhead: Marriage 3.0

female behavior and whining, future predictions, the spearhead 1 Response »

Oct 282010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

What is marriage 2.0? It has been described in many different ways but this picture from Roissy captures an important aspect of it.

Who is the guy in the picture? We have no way of knowing. That’s because men do not matter in marriage 2.0. At the wedding, the beginning of the marriage, the man is just a guy in a tux. Everything else in the wedding is about the woman. He could almost be replaced by a mannequin if it weren’t for the end of the marriage under marriage 2.0, divorce. At that point the man is nothing more than a wallet to be pillaged by the woman (and lawyers). Again it doesn’t matter who the man is. Any man will do. In between the wedding and the divorce the man will similarly have no identity either because marriage 2.0 elevates the woman and dehumanizes the man. In marriage 2.0 the man might as well be a piece of furniture and if he starts causing problems like trying to assert himself, he may get thrown away (aka divorced).

Knowing this what will marriage 3.0 look like? The man will be there less and less until he isn’t anymore. The “marriage strike” is misnamed because more and more men have decided and will decide to completely stop looking for a wife knowing they won’t find one. How will marriage continue after that? The only way will be if women start marrying themselves such as this woman from Taiwan. Chen Wei-yih, the woman who is marrying herself, could be the first woman to engage in marriage 3.0.

The wedding industry will heavily promote marriage 3.0 to deal with falling revenues since men are losing interest in marriage. Commercials from them will say, “Why wait for a man for your special day. Marry yourself like an independent woman and have your special day on your schedule.” Such an advertising campaign would save almost all of the wedding industry except for the tux rental portion since everything in a wedding is about the bride. To save the tux rental industry the marriage 3.0 advertising campaign will include promotion of the use of mannequins wearing tuxes to replace the men who are no longer getting married.

Where will the men be in all of this? Since divorcing themselves isn’t going to do anything for the “married” women, expect women to petition the state for increased taxes in some form to be transferred to them. Whether this will happen or not or how long this will be in effect will be due to several factors not the least of which is how long the misandry bubble will last. Otherwise, men will completely ignore these “marriages” and get on with their lives as they see fit.

The Spearhead: Stimulus Supported Jobs Employing Women Set To Disappear

female economic bubbles, the spearhead No Responses »

Oct 042010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

The current recession has been called a mancession because men working in the private sector lost their jobs whereas women mainly working in government and quasi-government jobs had their jobs protected. The stimulus provided funds for women’s jobs which kept these women employed. However, the stimulus is nearing its end so women are starting to lose their jobs like men have.

Last Thursday tens of thousands lost their jobs when a stimulus supported government job program came to an end. The program provided temporary jobs to youths and “disadvantaged parents”. ”Disadvantaged parents” means women since government does not provide that level of support for fathers.

The job losses for women will not end there. States are running out of money and without the stimulus will not be able to employ the armies of women they do now. California is the most obvious example but many other states have their own problems. It has been estimated that up to 400,000 people working at the state and local levels of government could lose their jobs. (If things get bad enough which is likely, it could be a lot more.) Since government jobs are held primarily by women this means women will be losing their jobs.

Another reasons government layoffs could be much worse than 400,000 is that government workers are unionized and the byzantine rules governing such layoffs. (For example, the state of New York is having trouble figuring out how select 2000 people to be laid off because of this.) However there is a solution that will likely be used. Lay off everyone and rehire people as needed similar to how Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers during their strike in 1981. Again since women make up the bulk of government workers especially at the state and local level, this means that not only will lots of women lose their jobs permanently, but many more will lose their jobs for an extended period of time waiting to be rehired.

All of these factors will conspire to create lots of unemployed women. What will these women do? Perhaps they can go on Craigslist and offer their services for odd jobs such as cleaning up dog poop. Another possibility is prostitution. Already rental postings on Craigslist are offering free or low cost rentals in exchange for sex. There has even been a case where a woman traded sex for gas. These examples happened despite prostitution is illegal. These are serious possibilities for soon to be unemployed female government workers. After all being a government drone doesn’t provide a lot of experience for the productive economy.

The Spearhead: They’re Afraid Of Men Masturbating

conservative female supremacism, future predictions, sex bots, shaming language, technology, the spearhead 1 Response »

Sep 202010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Recently, Christine O’Donnell, a candidate associated with the Tea Party, won the Republican Senate primary in Delaware who among many other things sued a former employer for “gender discrimination” claiming that she suffered “mental anguish”. What O’Donnell is also known for is her views on sex particularly her anti-masturbation views. O’Donnell appeared on MTV back in the 90′s explaining her views of sex and masturbation which is available here on youtube.

Watch the youtube video and take note of the end. Except for a token guy, it’s a group of women. O’Donnell even says about her presumably future husband masturbating, “If he already knows what pleases him, and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?” This quote exposes the undercurrent behind anti-masturbation attitudes. It’s not so much anti-masturbation but anti men masturbating. People against masturbation have a fear that men might actually have an alternative to women. The answer to O’Donnell’s question should be obvious. A woman would ideally be providing more than a man’s hand both sexually and not. When it comes to a woman who can’t/won’t contribute to a relationship non-sexually (a growing group of women particularly among younger women), and is planning on trying to control a man through providing a minimum of sex, then she has a lot to worry about when it comes to men realizing that their hand will do more for them than a woman will. The obvious answer to this is for women not to be harpy that withholds sex as a means of controlling men but that answer will not be used by women. Instead we will see more anti-male masturbation shaming language.

For anti-masturbation shaming language, the Bible is used as a justification. However, anything about masturbation does not appear in the Bible. What is used is the story of Onan. This has a serious problem as a Biblical statement against masturbation. In the story Onan never actually masturbated. What happened in the story was that God ordered Onan to impregnate his dead brother’s wife, Tamar. Onan disobeyed God by pulling out during sex so he would keep having sex with Tamar. This has nothing to do with masturbation but disobeying God under a very specific set of circumstances. Nothing in the story even casually references masturbation.

Anti-male masturbation shaming language is not limited to religious conservatives. When women use vibrators they are praised for taking control of their sexuality. When a man uses a fleshlight he is attacked for being a loser who can’t get laid. This is very similar to the anti-male masturbation shaming language used by religious conservatives. Both groups are worried that men may not be sexually dependent on women. That is what they are really afraid of. Masturbation by men, fleshlights, and futuristic technologies like VR sex and sexbots are all attacked because they have to potential to give men more options when it comes to sex. Anything that even temporarily can replace an actual woman’s vagina is or will be the subject of shaming language.

As more sex technologies become available for men in the future there will be more anti-male masturbation shaming language. Some will be religiously based. Medical myths such as masturbation giving a man hairy palms will likely make a reappearance. None of it will be rooted in medical facts, and they will claim that this is only limited to men. Whatever the method of shaming language, it’s all for the same reason, to protect the pussy cartel from competition.

The Spearhead: Expanding Shaming Language

conservative female supremacism, conspiracy nonsense, insanity, Manginas/White Knights, shaming language, the spearhead 1 Response »

Aug 092010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

As men realize how shaming language is repetitive, it loses its effectiveness. What female supremacists and their manginas and white knights do is simply produce more shaming language. Another method they use is the expansion of shaming language itself through redefining various terms, such as homosexual, to buttress their poor arguments.

Over at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (where a mangina said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to protect women), one of the resident manginas, Josh, tries to claim that anything regarding men’s rights is homosexual. We know this makes no sense, so he tries to redefine what the word “homosexual” means, despite it having a specific definition about being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Take a look at what Josh had to say:

At root of both the “feminist” movement and its modern mirror, the men’s rights movements, is radical homosexuality (devout dykism), i.e., radical sexual autonomy. Radical sexual autonomy is the biological “goal” of liberalism and the easiest way for a “default elite” to stay in power after convincing a populace to deny Supremacy. A populace in a state of anti-Supremacy and willing to embrace homosexuality is a self-annihilating populace.

The core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids and that Christianity is the liberal juggernaut. This is de facto homo-ism and anti-Supremacy.

The MRM is at root a liberationist movement. Like all liberationist movements, it seeks to dissolve all relations and destroy all impediments to its autonomy. In short, all liberationist movements seek a radical autonomy. But this existence must manifest in the physical world. The two most primitive liberal manifestations are atheism and homosexualism

The MRM is merely a MALE liberationist movement largely driven by atheists and homosexuals. It is “feminism” (euphemism for devout dykism) for males.

I think our common understanding of homosexuality is a false one and it is easy to see why. Homosexuality is, first and foremost, sexual aversion with the “same-sex attraction” merely filling the void. More specifically, male homosexuality and devout dykism are sexual aversions to female and male, respectively. With this aversion and before the “attraction” is homo-sexuality, i.e., self-sexualization, a radical form of autonomy. A homosexual is one that is averse to the Other and attracted to self. He is a radical autonomist and ultimately a self-annihilator.

Putting aside the fact that Josh is guilty of triangulation for trying to equate feminism with men’s rights, he is not only trying to redefine the word homosexual, but uses other terms such as supremacy in a manner that differs from their actual meaning. And why does he capitalize the word “supremacy?” Why doesn’t Josh use words as they are defined in the English language? Because he is white knighting for women and has no real argument against us. Calling us all homosexuals makes no sense. While there are homosexual men as part of the MRM, most of us are not homosexual nor do we have any sort of “homosexual agenda”. What Josh is doing is trying to expand shaming language by redefining words like homosexual so that he can call us all fags. The lack of logic in such a process is clear.

Josh’s real agenda is made clear when he says, “the core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids”. What he is really worried about is that men are leaving the plantation and refusing to be slaves to women. Josh is incapable of admitting that actions like the marriage strike and refusing to have children are rational and sensible responses by men to the fallout caused by feminism. The clear answer to such a problem if you want men to get married and have kids is to fix problems like the family court system, the child custody system, other unjust laws and socialism. This would increase incentives and decrease disincentives for men to get married and have kids. While this seems simple, a white knight like Josh can’t understand this exactly because he is a white knight. Instead, he tries to redefine words like homosexual in a pathetic attempt to tar us with the sodomite brush.

To see how absurd white knights like Josh are being, compare what Josh is doing to what he would be saying if he tried it with other shaming language. Another form of shaming language that gets used against men is, “you have a small penis”. If Josh was trying to redefine that in the same way he is trying to redefine homosexual, he would be claiming that he can say that we all have small penises because our penises are less than 15 inches long.

This is not the first time that someone has tried to redefine the term homosexual beyond sexual attraction to the same sex. Extreme conspiracy theorist, Henry Makow, claims that all porn is gay, even that porn that has only heterosexual sex, and that sex is for procreation and that we are supposed to “outgrow” sex afterwards, with any further sexuality being gay. Josh is a conspiracy theorist because he believes that the MRM, the marriage strike, male refusal to have children, etc. are tools of the “elite” as opposed to a rational and sensible response by men.

We will see more attempts to redefine homosexuality so our opponents can call us “gay” and hope we will obey them for fear of this childish slur. As shaming language loses its effectiveness over time this will have little effect, because the argument is so poorly reasoned that any man with an ounce of common sense could see through it.

The Spearhead: The Repetitive Nature Of Shaming Language

female behavior and whining, shaming language, the spearhead 1 Response »

Jul 202010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Recently I wrote a post for my blog called “Facilitating Shaming Language” that among others things talked about a particular case of shaming language being used. Here is part of a response that I received:

I’m sorry your mother didn’t love you. I hope you get help.

I just wrote a post about shaming language and how do my detractors respond? With even more shaming language. This is not an atypical response. The Exposing Feminism blog which hosts a copy of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics received a similar response to the catalog from women that was also even more shaming language.

This tells us something important about shaming language. It is repetitive. While a user of shaming language might try to justify shaming language by claiming your behavior is “shameful”, the fact is shaming language can not be used to speak about your actual behavior. The user of shaming language is just repeating the same thing over and over again with slightly different wording despite being exposed as ignoring facts. It means that the user of shaming language is creating a strawman and not addressing their opponent’s ideas.

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics exists because of shaming language’s repetitiveness. We get told the same things over and over again. You have a small penis. You are angry. You make me feel afraid. You’re a coward. You won’t grow up. You’re gay. You need therapy. Man up, etc. Sure it may be worded somewhat differently, all shaming language is saying the same thing. There are many ways to say, “you won’t grow up”, but it’s all the samel.

What we can learn from this is that we should not fear shaming language. It does not and can never describe our actions or behavior. The use of shaming language means by definition that our opponents have no real argument against us. If they had a real argument against us, they would use it instead of shaming language. Shaming language is the refuge of those who want to shut down legitimate debate and men who bring up reasonable questions and concerns.

The Spearhead: We Should Not Worry About The NSA Or DHS

terrorism, the spearhead No Responses »

Jul 012010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Last week a troll tried to claim that The Spearhead was being tracked by the Department of Homeland Security (or similar law enforcement/anti-terrorist entities). This idea has appeared at various times in various places in this part of the internet. We should not worry about the DHS or the NSA (National Security Agency) coming after us.

We must remember that we have no evidence that the DHS, NSA, or any other government agency is tracking us. It is imperative that we base our actions on known facts not what someone or some group may or may not be doing. While the Obama Administration’s focus on “domestic terrorism” is a source of concern for several reasons (many not related to this subject), we should not automatically have a bunker mentality. We have nothing to hide. We should not act like we do. We are not a shadowy organization. We are reasonable men (and a few reasonable women) with a reasonable position. We need to be bold and out there speaking about the issues facing men. Hiding in the shadows regardless of what some three letter government agency may be doing is no way to live.

It is doubtful that men’s rights and related ideas are on the radar screen of homeland security. By the time that they are, it will be much more complicated than the DHS going after us. There will be opportunistic politicians who will see the potential of developing a power base of men based of men’s rights. That will make the idea that “MRA’s are a bunch of terrorists” much harder to be taken seriously.

On a personal level I have much more to lose than most of you here for speaking out about men’s rights. Many of you know that I work in a job in the defense industry with a high level security clearance. Various defense and homeland security government agencies have the right to search what I do online. I could lose my job because of what’s on my blog or what I have written on The Spearhead. The NSA could be tracking my online activities right now. While I don’t know if the NSA is tracking me online or not, it does not matter to me. I have and am going to continue to speak out about men’s rights like I always have.

I hope that the NSA or some other government agency is tracking me right now. Why? Because defense and homeland security agencies aren’t made up of anti-male robots. They are made up of men like ourselves. Like with any group of men there will be plenty of manginas and white knights. But there will also be plenty of men working for these agencies who will be ready to hear our message. Men who work for the NSA, DHS, FBI, ICE, etc. still go through the same things the rest of us do. These men are no less likely to be ass raped in divorce court, to have their children taken away from them, to be the victims of paternity fraud, to have false rape charges and false sexual harassment charges leveled against them, etc. If we are being tracked by a homeland security agency then after seeing are blogs and websites plenty of men working there will not think these guys are terrorists. Many of them will instead remember how their aunt divorced their uncle for no reason and their uncle was reamed in divorce court or how their best friend lost their job because some woman decided she didn’t like him so she made up a bogus sexual harassment complaint against him.

Working in law enforcement or homeland security does not automatically make a man a mangina or a white knight. These are men going through the same problems we are due to female supremacism, and we should remember that rather than treating them like a faceless hive.

The Spearhead: Media Claims Terrorists Are “Unmarried Men”

future predictions, islam, terrorism, the spearhead No Responses »

Jun 142010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch recently wrote about how the media is describing terrorism related news. There was a recent arrest of two Muslim men at JFK Airport who were on their way to Somalia to allegedly take part in terrorist activities. This arrest was reported by Reuters but Reuters did not say that these men were Muslim or point out the connection to wider Islamic terrorism. Instead Reuters described the men as “men”, “unmarried American citizens”, and “residents of New Jersey”.

While Spencer covered how the media is ideologically against identifying these men as Muslim, he did not cover why the media chose to refer to these men as essentially “unmarried men”. The media refused to describe the men arrested as Muslim because of their political correctness. However, there are many ways Reuters could have written this. Reuters chose “unmarried men” because of their anti-male and feminist ideology. It makes it sound like the men arrested at JFK Airport were more like George Sodini than Mohammed or Osama. It’s not just about hiding that it was Muslims involved in these arrests. It’s an attempt to kill two birds with one stone by also trying to shift the blame on to men by implying that terrorism is caused by regular (unmarried) men who are American citizens.

The media like other feminist and anti-male ideologues see the average man as the problem not the guys who are actually flying planes into buildings. Unmarried men are free of parts of the system that are designed to extract wealth from men such as the divorce court system. There is a real threat that men will either go ghost in greater numbers or fight back in the future. Expect to see more of this general blaming of men or unmarried men specifically in the future.

The Spearhead: Misandry In The Depopulation Agenda Conspiracy Theory

conservative female supremacism, conspiracy nonsense, insanity, shaming language, the spearhead 1 Response »

Apr 302010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

There are many different types of conspiracy theories about many subjects. However, most conspiracy theory you will encounter follows a “standard model”. This “standard model” conspiracy theory usually includes some type of unified group of elites such as the NWO or the Illuminati. In many “standard model” conspiracy theories you will find demons, reptile aliens, or grey aliens really running the show. The “standard model” conspiracy theory almost always has some type of “depopulation agenda”. The unified group of elites in the conspiracy theory want to reduce the population of the human race radically. Various final population numbers such as 500 million and 1.2 billion are given. The reason usually given that the unified group of elites supposedly want to eliminate that much of the human race is to better enslave the survivors.

The depopulation agenda conspiracy theory has quite a few problems. The biggest is the lack of hard evidence. The depopulation agenda is usually connected by a conspiracy theories to how feminist a society is, meaning that feminism is used to collapse fertility rates along with abortion and birth control. However, no such correlation exists. While feminized societies in the first world have seen their fertility rates collapse, this isn’t limited to places where feminism is prevalent. Japan’s fertility rate collapsed without feminism. Fertility rates even in the Islamic world have collapsed. For example, thirty years ago Iran’s fertility rate was 9 children/woman. Now it’s 1.8. Feminism has no influence in the Islamic world. Abortion and birth control aren’t used there either. Yet fertility rates are collapsing in the Islamic world the same as they are in feminized countries.

Another problem is that events after a depopulation event historically do not happen the way the depopulation agenda conspiracy theory claims. The black death was an event that caused depopulation. After the black death the nobility was not able to tighten the screws on their populations. In fact the opposite happened. Wages and other compensation went up for the survivors. This is consistent with supply and demand in economics. There was a major drop in the supply of labor so compensation of the remaining laborers went up. The elites that want depopulation would run into the same problem since they can’t annul the basic laws of economics.

However, all of those are side issues for us. In the future the depopulation agenda conspiracy theory will be used as a vehicle of misandry against men. So far it has only been used to attack feminism (and certain environmental issues). When it has been used to attack feminism, its attack has only been on aspects of feminism related to abortion and birth control. It’s fits in very well with conservative female supremacism which only attacks that portion of feminism and completely avoids what is happening to men. Conservative female supremacists go as far to say that feminism actually benefits men and that women are the only “real victims” of feminism. They will say that feminism “allows” to avoid “responsibility” in creating families and having children. (Of course, this is absurd since there is no responsibility to create a family and/or have children, just to take care of the children you already have.)

Due to the misandry in churches, many men have left the churches. On top of that due to marriage 2.0, many men are part of the marriage strike. This extends into the churches as well. Divorce is just as common in the church as outside of it. That is one of the reasons for the fear that conservative female supremacist women have of not having enough children. As we have seen, conservative female supremacist women and their white knights have not fixed the divorce system or created incentives for men to marry. Instead they use more and more shaming language. Since progressively using more and more shaming language isn’t have the effect they want they will need to up their shaming language. The depopulation agenda conspiracy theory will allow them to do that.

The conservative female supremacist women and their white knights will claim that the marriage strike, men’s rights, MGTOW and related ideas are all part of the depopulation agenda. Their “evidence” will be that men who have discovered these ideas aren’t getting married and having children. They will try and club men over the head with the idea that we’re voluntarily following the Illuminati in their depopulation agenda and that we need to man up and get married and have kids to fight the Illuminati. They will claim that the marriage strike, men’s rights, and MGTOW are Illuminati ideas to continue the depopulation agenda. Whenever a man points out what a disaster marriage and many other things having to do with women have become, he will be told to “man up” because he’s failing to fight the Illuminati. If a man is a victim of paternity fraud, the divorce industry, has his kids taken away etc. they will say that we all have to make sacrifices to fight the Illuminati. Since the Illuminati is a fictitious concept, conservative female supremacists can ascribe whatever motivation they like to the Illuminati which they will use to claim that any man who isn’t obeying them is a tool of the Illuminati.

While many conservative female supremacist women and their white knights will use this form of absurd shaming language in the future, most of them will not completely believe it. That does not matter to us. Even though they may not believe it, they will still use it out of desperation. While this will probably happen, it probably won’t be any more effective as other forms of shaming language are now. If anything it will be less effective since in addition to sounding crazy, shaming language has been becoming less and less effective over time.

The Spearhead: White Nationalism? More like White Knight Nationalism

false rape industry, insanity, the spearhead, violence, white (knight) nationalism No Responses »

Apr 252010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

As I have discussed before female supremacism isn’t limited to just feminism. As we know there is conservative female supremacism and Islamic female supremacism. There are a lot more than three forms of female supremacism. White Nationalism is also a form of female supremacism. White Nationalism promotes misandry by attempting to turn what would otherwise obviously be issues caused by misandry to issues of race. It seeks to keep men of different races from working together and discovering how much they have in common.

Our own Ferdinand Bardamu had a post at his personal blog recently about a dustup at AltRight among the White Nationalist crowd there that laid bare the misandry inherent in White Nationalism. As you can see from the link, White Nationalism is filled with women who except for the racial rhetoric sound like feminist, manginas, and (ironically) white knights. Let’s look a few examples of the comments from the White Nationalist crowd at AltRight starting with this one:

Mr. Locklin, I do hope that your desire for foreign women won’t overshadow the white man’s duty to reproduce with his own racial group.

Other than the racial rhetoric this could have been written by a conservative female supremacist white knight. Look at this one:

To broadly insult our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters in this manner is tasteless. Both American women and men have some changing to do, changing we can do ourselves. But you’re doing what feels good for you and that’s what counts for you. Paradoxically, you’re the typical modern American man: empowered, sassy, sarcastic, and dedicated to gratifying yourself. You’re not loyal to the nation or interested in seeing it through to a restoration. You’re doing your own thang and won’t take no bojive from people who are offended when you insult them.

This is nothing but garden variety anti-male shaming language. However, that doesn’t beat what a White Nationalist woman has to say:

Lock-load is an insulting cretin. As well as an utter moron. The article is loaded with errors. He shows two pictures of actresses. Lillian Gish was an American woman She had a career that spanned decades.This makes her a successful career woman – who succeeded in a business crawling with the Tribe. She would not have endured the juvenile insults of a pathetic, inadequate joke Lockloser for 2 seconds.

Neither would have Hedy Lamar – a woman that used her exquisite beauty to garner every type of material benefit imaginable. She was bi-sexual, and fled Nazi Germany, to serve the goalso of Die Jude, in America. Lockloser most likely would not have had enough cold hard cash to elicit her attention. Her idea of a dinner date would have included diamond bracelets, as hors d’ oerves.

Lockboor then includes the photographs of an assortment of foul Lesbians, and Jewesses, as representative of American females. Which they are decidely not. The promotion of every sort of denegeracy, in every American institution, is the work of the Franfurt School of Talmudic Jewry. The horrors of a degraded American, and global, womanhood, is the work of the Jew.

Lockinadequete-appendage rhapsodizes about the helpfulness of foreign females, and asserts that they aren’t as greedy and grasping. I suspect Lockmommy’sboy is exceptionally good at retaining his small hoard of cash, and resents the expenditure of the price of a hotdog, on a sidewalk stand, on any female – but if he thinks that foreign females are not materially obssessedm and greedier than George Soros – he’s still a virgin. Asiatics are the most soulless, heartless, absolutely ammoral hardheaded gold-diggers, that have ever befouled the Earth. Impovershed Eastern European females are not far behind. I have personally witnessed the very thorough skinning of every assett, of American White males, who have sought “submissive, demure” foreign brides. I have laughed in the faces, of those men, when they bemoaned their impovershment, and legal ravagement. They got what they sought, and they got what they deserved.

Finally – the White Nationalist movement is always whining about the absence of females. Gee – I wonder if snarky, snot-drenched attitudes, exemplified by Locksociallyretarded, have anything to due with this problem? Sorry, fellas – it’s not women that have to please you – you have to please, and lure in women.

Yup. It’s true. My 9 year old nephew has better social skills, than do 90% of you.

Gee, thanks, Richard Spencer, for publishing this insulting garbage. All this article has done is PISS OFF a lot of WN females.

I demand an apology. And a retraction.

Really – I do.

As a White American Woman. Who talks to a lot of other White American women. Who have HAD IT with snarky, juvenile, insulting socially-cretinous WN men.

This same woman wrote another similar comment:

Many, many of the comments reveal the precise nature of the problem – the boorishness, childishness, and social inpetitude of American males.

Once again, fellas – the onus is on YOU to please women. Not the other way around. Ghetto Negroes have better wooing, and flirtation skills, than so many White males. A lot of you guys are beyond pathetic. You really have nothing to offer females of any Race. A lot of you have very little money, and you are not as physically attractive as you flatter yourselves to be. To many of you – not all – but many – your attitude towards women is the most repellent aspect of your being. It’s not women – it’s you.

As anyone can see it’s all massive amounts of misandry and shaming language with some racial rhetoric thrown in. The misandry inherent in White Nationalism goes deeper than a few comments on the internet. Where did the false rape industry start? It wasn’t with feminists. The KKK (Ku Klux Klan) had their own version of the false rape industry white women would make false accusations of black men. Drop the racial terms and it’s no different the the current feminist false rape industry. Take a look at what happened during the Rosewood Massacre. A woman lies about being beaten and raped and a random black man living in Rosewood gets lynched. Then a massive battle between white men and black men happened where at least several men got killed. Multiple men died all because a woman lied about rape, but the Rosewood Massacre is not properly recognized as being part of the false rape industry because race was involved.

The misandry in White Nationalism goes even farther than just incidents like the Rosewood Massacre. The KKK had a corresponding group for women called the Women’s KKK or WKKK. The WKKK is very similar to feminism both in action and language. (Read the link for documentation of the similarities.) All you have to do is drop the words white and black from WKKK language, and you end up with feminist language.

We have to remember that misandry is the central problem facing all men today. That’s true regardless of what race a man is. Men of all races have a great deal in common. White Nationalism tries to hide that fact effectively acting as a vehicle for the promotion of misandry to benefit (white) women. White Nationalism and other racist ideologies are misandarist and benefit no man.

The Spearhead: Be Extreme And Unreasonable

the spearhead 2 Responses »

Apr 182010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
-Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw

These two men have a lot to tell us. Too often when talking about various issues that affect us we intentionally or unintentionally hold back or try to be at least somewhat politically correct. This has not stopped any form of misandry from moving forward. Instead we should be extreme and unreasonable for the reasons that Goldwater and Shaw point out.

You will not be able to win more women to our side by “toning down the rhetoric”, “being more politically correct”, etc. Most women aren’t going to want to give up the benefits they receive from misandry. This is a fundamental problem, not the level of your rhetoric. We have all seen women come to The Spearhead and other boards and tell us that we should “tone down the rhetoric” since women won’t listen. These women claim to support us yet never do anything but criticize us instead doing something productive to solve these issues. This is because they are really concern trolls and listening to concern trolls has not produced any results for us.

You will be accused of being a misogynist, sexist, having a small penis, being secretly gay, etc. regardless of what you say. You will be called names and told you have a small penis. Get used to it. It doesn’t matter how “politically correct” you are. Unless you are a slave to misandarists they will try to shut you up by calling you names, claiming you’re secretly gay, and making claims about the size of your genitalia. Using this technique to shut people up isn’t limited to us. As this person from the Tea Parties points out, it doesn’t matter what he says as he will be accused of racism regardless. Regardless of what the misandarists say about us, you need to keep going. Beyond baseless accusations they don’t have many weapons that aren’t obvious totalitarianism which would prove everything we say about them is correct.

We are fighting for freedom. As Goldwater pointed out extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Many of us have found ways to limit misandry in our own lives. However, many other men aren’t so lucky, and if we ignore them eventually the misandarists will come for us. There are men sitting in jail because of false rape charges. There are men who have lost their jobs due to the sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and other government policies to unemploy them (such as the recent stimulus). They are men who are victims of paternity fraud. There are men who have had their children taken away from them. There are boys suffering under the jackboot of misandarist teachers. There are boys being forced to take ritalin as young as 5 years old because they don’t act like girls enough. Our colleges have turned into enclaves of anti-male totalitarianism. As Welmer pointed out from the perspective of younger men this is starting to approach a real shooting war. For those of us who are older and don’t have kids we don’t really know just how much totalitarianism younger men are experiencing and unless those of us who are older, they don’t have the same options for escaping it yet.

Extremism pulls the center in the direction we want. By being extreme we can produce a new center that is more of what we want. This new center will thus look more reasonable than it did before. This tactic has been used many times in history with success. That includes feminists. After all Andrea Dworkin’s ideas weren’t put into law, but it did allow other feminist ideas to look “reasonable” which allowed for the current misandarist state of the law we now experience.

Being extreme and unreasonable gives a voice to those men who are thinking the same things but afraid to speak up. Many men out there are thinking the same things we are. However, they keep it to themselves because they’re afraid they are the only ones who have noticed what they know. The success of misandry is dependent on many men believing that they are alone in their observations of the world. We need to show them that there are many others who have the same ideas they do.

So go out and be extreme and unreasonable. That’s how we will make progress against misandry.

The Spearhead: Attention Whore Gets Angry At Her Success

female behavior and whining, the spearhead No Responses »

Apr 072010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Recently some women marched topless in Portland, Maine to protest for topless women being treated the same as topless men. The march was organized by Ty McDowell who was enraged at the men who were attracted by the march. This was despite the fact that some of the marchers posed for pictures. McDowell is planning more marches where she will be more “aggressive” in “discouraging” men who she thinks are watching the marches too much.

This march was attention whoring because Maine law says that it is only illegal to show genitals in public. In other words, it is legal in Maine for women to be topless (and this is why none of the women were arrested for marching topless). There is no reason except attention whoring to march to treat topless women the same as topless men in Maine because legally that is already the case. Since attention whoring was the purpose of this topless march, it is absurd for Ty McDowell to complain about men watching the march.

What Ty McDowell really wants is to be topless anywhere, but force men to not look at her while she is topless. Like with so many things, Ty McDowell is a woman trying to have it both ways. Either you’re in public and anyone can look at you or you’re not. That’s the truth of the matter, and anything else is attention whoring.