Mar 102014
 

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

This weekend Saturday Night Live had Lena Dunham as its host.  Because of that or perhaps because it was International Women’s Day, the writers of Saturday Night Live decided to have a sketch attacking MRAs (mens rights advocates).  The sketch is called “Jewelry Party” and can be watched either on NBC’s website or on Hulu.

What happens in the sketch is that a hispanic woman originally from South America ends up bringing her boyfriend to a jewelry party that was really only intended for women.  She gets her boyfriend to talk about how he’s a MRA, and the boyfriend ends up being a feminist caricature of a MRA.  He only protests when the weather is nice, is obsessed with shutting down Planed Parenthood, was a MRA because a girl dumped him at 18, was a virgin before he met his girlfriend, is a bad in bed, etc.  Eventually, the boyfriend escapes leaving his car for his now ex-girlfriend.  The sketch didn’t even attempt to have a punch line.

People who don’t have any sympathy for the MRM didn’t find the sketch funny at all.  Complex Pop Culture called it the “worst sketch of the night”. TV Line said that its “one paragraph description can’t convey the awfulness of the full sketch”. Boston.com said about the sketch:

To no one’s surprise, a “jewelry party/men’s activist” skit morphed into an infomercial for Dunham’s various political causes and beliefs. It came complete with a painful-to-watch Hispanic Cecily Strong.

Awkward.

It’s guaranteed that most of the viewers wouldn’t get what the sketch is talking about.  Most people don’t read feminist bloggers so they don’t have the context of why the tropes are being used against the MRA.  To them it looks like an extremely forced sketch that was designed to cater to Lena Dunham’s biases.  This would cause one of two reactions in the audience.  A viewer would either find the whole thing absurd and forget about it entirely or would wonder what a MRA is and why someone would create such a bizarre and inconsistent caricature.   Viewers in the latter group will end up researching mens rights on the internet and find something completely different.  They will end up with an education about some real issues such as the false rape industry, corrupt unconstitutional family courts that impoverish men and deny fathers access to their children, paternity fraud, how  nearly all deaths in the workplace are men, etc.  This will lead many of them to become MRAs themselves in spite of the sketch.

What Saturday Night Live did this weekend is a case of no publicity is bad publicity.  SNL gave a boost to the MRM even though that wasn’t the intention of its writers.

Nov 182013
 

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

Obamacare has a fatal flaw. It requires the group that needs the least amount of health insurance on average to pay the most money compared to any other group for it. That group is young men, particularly young single men, and young men have no reason to purchase health insurance under the Obamacare system. For most young (single) men, the only health insurance they need is catastrophic insurance, but such a health insurance plan is considered “substandard” under Obamacare. Health insurance plans under Obamacare have to include things that young (single) men will never use like maternity coverage. Even though there are fines for not buying health insurance under Obamacare, young (single) men have less reason to purchase health insurance under Obamacare than they did before Obamacare.

Because young (single) men have no reason to support to Obamacare system, posters like these have been created in a desperate attempt to get young (single) men to buy into Obamacare:

brosurance

This poster was created by Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, and it’s a complete lie for at least two reasons. First, Obamacare can’t be called “brosurance” because it will never benefit “bros” or young (single) men. It will only benefit women, and women will always have priority over men under the Obamacare health system. Obamacare should be called gynosurance not brosurance. Second, health insurance under Obamacare will cost a young (single) man a great deal more than beer money because he is subsidizing everyone else’s health care. It’s actually better described as a “bro-tax”, “bro-fine”.

A more recognized name for a “bro-tax” is a bachelor tax. Obamacare is probably the first actual bachelor tax in the United States. It’s not a coincidence that the first bachelor tax in the U.S. was related to health care. Men used to subsidize women’s health insurance via family health insurance plans. Specifically, men subsidized the health insurance of their wives and daughters. As marriage rates have dropped so has the marital health insurance subsidy has evaporated. In other words, Obamacare is the first (unintentional) salvo against the marriage strike, MGTOW/MOO (men going their own way/men opting out).

While Obamacare was caused by the marriage strike & MGTOW/MOO, it will also fail because of the marriage strike & MGTOW/MOO. A young single man has no reason to subsidize the health insurance of women he doesn’t know. (Many young single men couldn’t even if they wanted to because unemployment is high among young men.) Men who have decided to never get married or go their own way/opt out will never subsidize the health insurance of women they don’t know. The government will never be able to force marriage striking men and MGTOW/MOOs to pay into Obamacare or a similar scheme. If the fine for not buying into Obamacare is cheap, then it’s cheaper to pay the fine and women’s health insurance isn’t subsidized enough. If the fine is expensive, then it’s cheaper to go to jail. A man in jail will never pay health insurance. Instead his health insurance will become an additional cost for the government making the problem the problem even worse.

Obamacare is guaranteed to fail since the government has no way to force men to buy into the system. Any replacement for Obamacare that attempts to have men subsidize women’s health insurance will fail for the same reason.

Oct 312013
 

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

This year there is an election for governor in the state of Virginia.  The two main candidates are Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, and Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican.  Terry McAuliffe is known for being a major Democratic party fundraiser and has a long history of questionable business dealings.  McAuliffe has no real platform so his campaign has resorted to using the mythical “war on women” to attack Cuccinelli with most of his attacks focused on abortion and birth control.

Invoking the nonexistent “war on women” is par for the course for Democrats.  What is unique about McAuliffe campaign’s use of this tactic is that they are trying to connect Cuccinelli to fathers’ rights groups.  Here is an example:

The “leader” of the fathers’ rights movement that Cuccinelli was representing was Ron Gringnol Jr., a former Virginia House of Delegates candidate, who was in a custody dispute with his ex-wife.  Cuccinelli only “took time off” from being Attorney General because he was closing out the case from his private practice before being Attorney General, and the case was scheduled to be in court two weeks after he was sworn in as AG of Virginia.  What this boils down to is that Cuccinelli was simply representing a man who wanted to see his children.  He was representing a man who wanted to be a father to his children.

Terry McAuliffe does not understand men who want to be fathers to their kids since he doesn’t care about being a father.  When one of his kids was being born, McAuliffe left his wife in the hospital to attend a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.  When McAuliffe’s son Peter was born, McAuliffe stopped for another fundraiser while taking his wife and his newborn son home from the hospital.  When McAuliffe’s son Jack was being born, McAuliffe thought it was more important to argue with the anesthesiologist and obstetrician involved with his son’s birth about socialized medicine than to just be there for his wife and newborn son.

While it’s clear that Terry McAuliffe hates fathers to the point of not caring about being a father to his own kids, the views of his supporters on fathers are worse.  The graphic shown above was posted to facebook, and here is the response from one of McAuliffe’s supporters:

I do not know him personally but any man who would delve into a womans issue such as child bearing and raising children is obviously insane.

This woman is saying that any man who wants to be a father to their children is insane.  She believes that fatherhood should not exist (although it’s safe to assume that she doesn’t want to give up the gravy train of men paying child support).

To cover up McAuliffe’s deficiencies as a candidate for governor, his campaign has run the most anti-father (and anti-male) campaign in American history.  Polls currently show that McAuliffe has a very comfortable lead over Cuccinelli.  While there are other issues involved such as the recent government shutdown, this shows that McAuliffe’s anti-father bigotry resonates with a section of the electorate.  The end result of McAuliffe getting elected will be than even more young men will decide that it’s too dangerous to become a father and to go their own way.

Oct 142013
 

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

After Pax Dickinson was fired from his job as CTO of Business Insider a few weeks ago, there has been a lot of talk by feminists about bros, bro culture, brogrammers (a combination of bro and programmer), etc.  While the term, bro, and its derivatives have been around for a while, feminists have used Dickinson’s firing to assert bros and bro culture is everywhere there is a concentration of men especially in the tech industry.  Is this really the case?  To figure that out we have to see what the definition of “bro” is.  Urban dictionary provides several definitions.  Here is the first:

Obnoxious partying males who are often seen at college parties. When they aren’t making an ass of themselves they usually just stand around holding a red plastic cup waiting for something exciting to happen so they can scream something that demonstrates how much they enjoy partying. Nearly everyone in a fraternity is a bro but there are also many bros who are not in a fraternity. They often wear a rugby shirt and a baseball cap. It is not uncommon for them to have spiked hair with frosted tips.

The urban dictionary definition covers what most people would think a “bro” is, yet such a definition means that terms like “brogrammer” are a contradiction in terms.  The definition of “bro” is consistent with what most people think frat guys and jersey shore guidos are like, not programmers.  Most people think of programmers as men who lack social skills and maybe even have borderline Aspergers syndrome.  Their idea of a programmer is a man who neither is part of a fraternity nor is at a lot of parties.  (While programmers can come from all walks of life, the issue in question when it comes to defining terms like “bro” and “brogrammer” is people’s perceptions.)  As far as most people’s perceptions are concerned, a “brogrammer” logically can not exist.  The question must be asked, “why does the term, ‘brogrammer’, exist?” and “why would anyone say that a lot of frat guys and similar types have taken over the tech industry?”

Looking at how the terms, “bro” and “brogrammer”, are used by feminists reveals a different definition of the word being used by feminists.  Ann Friedman writing in New York Magazine shows us what feminists really mean by terms like “bro” and “brogrammer”:

“Bro” once meant something specific: a self-absorbed young white guy in board shorts with a taste for cheap beer. But it’s become a shorthand for the sort of privileged ignorance that thrives in groups dominated by wealthy, white, straight men. “Bro” is convenient because describing a professional or social dynamic as “overly white, straight, and male” seems both too politically charged and too general

To feminists terms like “bro” and “brogrammer” are synonyms for straight white male.  As Ann Friedman reveals, feminists can’t just say straight white men when they mean straight white men because it’s too “politically charged”.  In other words, if feminists talk about straight white men, it’s obvious that feminists just hate straight white men.  Instead, feminists are now using the term “bro” to make people think they’re only talking about a frat guy subset of straight white men when feminists are talking about all straight white men.  It’s a trick by feminists to avoid criticism because most people aren’t going to defend stereotypical frat guy behavior whereas they might have a problem with blanket attacks on straight white men.

This also reveals that the term, “brogrammer”, is really just an attack on men in the tech industry.  The explains the contradictions in people perceptions of a bro and a programmer.  It has nothing to do with the behavior of men in the tech industry.  What feminists really have a problem with in the tech industry is that there is a large group of men employed in jobs that aren’t under their control.  Like with the term, “bro”, using the term, “brogrammer”, is an attempt by feminists to avoid criticism from people who might have a problem with blanket attacks on men working in the tech industry.

In conclusion, whenever a feminist use the term, “bro” or “brogrammer”, just replace it with straight white men or men in the tech industry as appropriate.  By doing that, what feminists really mean when using those terms will become clear.

Jun 032013
 

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 there have been a couple of examples showing that feminists have a problem with hot women showing their bodies.  For example, a feminist at Femspire wrote an article attacking every single aspect of the new Star Trek movie, Star Trek: Into Darkness.  In particular, the author of that piece objected to a scene where Dr. Carol Marcus (played by Alice Eve) was in her underwear.  Nothing actually happens in that scene.  There is no pornographic aspect to it or anything to worthy of an objection.  It was nothing more than anyone would see on most beaches.  Here is an image of what was in that scene to judge for yourself:

alice_eve

One of the comments in the Femspire piece, actually called this “gratuitous nudity”.  For something to be “gratuitous nudity”, it actually has to have NUDITY which would require Alice Eve to be naked, not in her underwear.

In the UK feminist groups, UK Feminista and Object, have launched a legal campaign against “lads’ mags”, magazines that have hot women in their underwear and similar amounts of clothing.  These magazines aren’t pornographic, and they have nothing to complain about.  Despite those facts, UK Feminista and Object are saying that “lads’ mags” constitute sexual harassment or sexual discrimination against employees and customers of the stores where they are sold.  Since the “lads’ mags” show nothing more than would be seen on most beaches, UK Feminista and Object are saying that going to the beach is a sexually harassing experience which is clearly absurd.

Clearly, feminists have a problem that goes beyond nudity or pornography since they have a problem with men seeing women, particularly attractive women, in their underwear.  They are even trying to change language so that women in their underwear are considered “nude”.  What is happening here is an attack on (heterosexual) male sexuality.  Men like looking at hot women with few clothes on.  The problem feminists have with images of women in their underwear is that men like looking at them.  Everything that the feminists are saying about “harassment” (as if you can be harassed by an inanimate object), “nudity”, and/or “misogyny” is just a smokescreen for how they can’t stand men doing something they enjoy like looking at hot women.

May 052013
 

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

Feminists say that feminism is about equality.  MRAs and many other anti-feminists know that feminism is really about female supremacism.  Louise Pennington writing in the Huffington Post admits that feminism admits that and believes that “equality” is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the liberation of women:

My original feminism was about equality: women were equal to men and all we needed was the laws to force misogynists to stop being misogynists. The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women. Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic;

What is the “true liberation of women”?  It’s nothing more than female supremacism.  Since Pennington is against both equality between men and women and presumably women having a lesser status than men (because women wouldn’t be “liberated” in this case), the only option left is that she supports female supremacism.  This is confirmed by her attack on equality before the law and elsewhere in Pennington’s article:

Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.

Governments have been waging a war on crime ever since governments have been around despite knowing that the complete elimination of crime (or violence) is impossible.  The only way to even try to do such a thing is a police state the likes of which wasn’t even seen in the Soviet Union.  Neither socialism nor the police state of the Soviet Union were totalitarian enough and female supremacist enough for her because even socialists still pay lip service to equality and the idea that both men and women have human rights:

Until two years ago, I would have still identified as a socialist-feminist, although my awareness of the structural oppression of women was growing. The unrelenting misogyny and rape apologism on the left made me reconsider my political stance as did the creation of the Feminist/Women’s Rights board on Mumsnet. The more I read on Mumsnet, the more radical my feminism became. I started reading Andrea Dworkin, Natasha Walters, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Susan Maushart, Ariel Levy, Gail Dines, Germaine Greer, and Audre Lorde. I learned about cultural femicide and I started reading only fiction books written by women: Isabel Allende, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Kate Mosse, Margaret Atwood, Kris Radish, Barbara Kingsolver, and Andrea Levy amongst many others. I started reading about women’s lives and the power of real sisterhood.

My feminism, both the definition and activism, has changed dramatically over the past 18 years. Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy. The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too. I don’t always feel a ‘real feminist’ or a ‘good enough’ feminist. All I know is that I am a feminist who truly believes that women have the power to liberate all women from male violence; that feminism is fundamentally about the power of sisterhood.

My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices. I now only read books written by women. I try to get my main news from women’s news sites and women journalists like Soraya Chemaly, Samira Ahmed, Bidisha, Helen Lewis, Bim Adewunmi, and Sarah Smith. I follow only women journalists on Twitter and Facebook. I support organisations which are placing women’s experiences at the centre of public debate: Women Under Siege, The Everyday Sexism Project, and The Women’s Room UK.

Pennington says here that she is privileging women over men.  It’s not just about what Pennington reads or her actvism.  Throughout her article, Pennington doesn’t just attack the a general vague idea of “equality”, she attacks very specific ideas of equality, namely equality before the law.  Being against equality before the law means that Pennington wants to elevate women above men legally which is the most important aspect of female supremacism.  There can be no doubt here that Pennington is a female supremacist and that feminism is about female supremacism.  

Dec 102012
 

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 speaking about mens rights issues, one thing you will hear plenty of times is some variant of “why can’t we declare a truce between feminists and MRAs?”  or “why can’t we have a truce in the battle of the sexes?”  Suzanne Venker even called for a “truce” in a followup to her “war on men” article.  It’s a form of triangulation to get MRAs and MGTOW to shut up, but there is more to it than that.  It’s a Feminist Hudna.

A hudna is an Islamic term for a truce.  The first hudna was the Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya, a 10 year truce in 628 AD ending hostilities between Mohammed and the Arabian tribe of Quraysh.  Muhammad and his followers used the period of truce to rebuild their forces, and after just 2 years the treaty was broken leading to the defeat of the Quraysh tribe.  There are conflicting interpretations of what happened.  One interpretation says that Muhammad and his followers had no intention of honoring the treaty and were planning to attack as soon as they could marshal their forces to defeat the Quraysh tribe.  Another interpretation says that the Quraysh tribe broke the treaty.  While either interpretation could be correct, the former interpretation describes how feminists act.

The reason why we hear all this talk about a “truce” from feminists and others is because feminism has run into some real problems.  Men are starting to wake up to what feminism (and female behavior in general) is doing.  Men under 30, in particular, are waking up in huge numbers and getting fed up with women.  Increasing numbers of men are deciding to go ghost and completely ignore women.  Even men who aren’t going ghost are avoiding marriage.  Plenty of men have realized that they only want to work as much as they needed leading to less money going to government coffers and women who need a financial bailout.  With feminism starting to run off the rails, what do feminists and other female supremacists do?  They declare they want a “truce” that is really a hudna so that they can regroup, strengthen themselves, and lull men into a false sense of security.  They have no intention of stopping their campaign against men or actually respecting the rights of men.

There is no such thing as an honest truce with feminists or other types of female supremacists.  It’s all a hudna so that they can regroup and attack men harder.

Oct 212012
 

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

For anyone who cares about mens rights, voting can be problematic.  For a particular office the choices are often a feminist vs. a conservative female supremacist who is anti-feminist in name only.  As a result it is understandable that many MRAs would decide that voting is pointless.  However, for MRAs in the U.S. should vote this November for two reasons.

The first reason is that judges at the state level are often elected unlike federal judges who are appointed.  As was said by Dean Esmay at A Voice For Men, anti-family courts operate at the state level, and the courts that falsely imprison men for rape, abuse, or other crimes at state courts.  This means it is possible (depending on the state) to vote misandrist judges out of office.  Even if judges in a particular state aren’t elected, your vote for state offices can have a greater impact than your vote at the federal level.  In addition, in many states district attorneys and prosecutors are elected as well.  This provides the opportunity for MRAs to vote out misandrist prosecutors.  This will need to be a strategy used across multiple election cycles to make it work so the best thing is to get started in November’s election.  (A good place to start is with the information that Dean Esmay provided at A Voice For Men.)

The second reason to vote this November is to put a stop to the “war on women” myth.  As liberal politicians have become more dependent on the women’s vote, their pandering to women has reached a fever pitch with the myth of the “war on women”.  The only way to put a stop to this level of pandering to women is by voting against any and all politicians who say there is a “war on women”.  Vote for a conservative politician or a third party politician.  If there are no candidates for a particular office other than a politician invoking the mythical “war on women”, then write in “the war on women is a myth”.  It doesn’t matter which one you pick, as long as you register a vote that is not for a politician who says there is a “war on women”.  This will also need to be a strategy used across multiple election cycles so again it is best to start by voting this November.

If MRAs vote this November for these two reasons (and continue to vote with the same goals over the next several elections), then this strategy can have a real impact to roll back feminism and help men who would otherwise be in the cross hairs of feminist policies.

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.

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:

  1. Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country
  2. 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)
  3. 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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Translate »