Linda Fischer claims her husband, a former employee of Chrysler who was forced into early retirement last May, has committed violence against her. She has already gotten a protection order against her husband claiming that he has “harassed” her and has caused or attempted to cause her physical harm. John Fischer denies the allegations and is willing to take polygraph test to prove his innocence. The protection order has prevented John Fischer from entering his home so he is currently living in a camper.
Mr. Fischer says that he is not running against his wife because of the protection order but because of how the Democrats have handled the economy, health care, and the stimulus. He said:
I figured if I’m going to be on my own, then I’m going to have to do what suits me. I’m standing up for people who lost their job. I don’t think they’re being represented fairly in this state because they do not take care of the working man.
This state legislature race is a microcosm of many of the issues that we write about, the mancession, the false abuse industry, etc. John Fischer has not let all of the things his (presumably soon to be ex-) wife and the state have done to him stop him. Despite being forced from his home, he is fighting back in his own way.
In the past I have talked about non-feminist (i.e. non-leftist) forms of female supremacism. Something that all forms of female supremacism or misandry have is an attempt to have it both ways when it comes to women. Women are “independent” yet are dependent of men either through the state (feminism) or marriage (conservative female supremacism).
I should say that I find the idea of a “men’s movement” not merely quixotic but wrong.
What is needed is a movement which places families at the heart of things
The feminist attack on masculine authority is not, at bottom, about misandry. It is about misanthropy, expressed through a demonic attack on the family. Its source is not really the desire to see men brought low, though that is necessary if Christian civilization is to be annihilated. It is much, much easier to believe otherwise, but I urge all men of a conservative bent to resist this self-flattering lie! Its source is a hatred of the feminine, borne of Satan’s fear of the Blessed Virgin
One of the great pretty lies that conservative female supremacists promote is the idea that feminism is an attack on “families” not men. The hordes of men sitting in jail because of the false rape industry and the hordes of men who lost their job due to the sexual harassment industry and affirmative action and all the boys who had to suffer through female supremacist teachers can explain in detail why this is wrong. You may ask if the conservative female supremacists want to destroy feminism wouldn’t they want to play up how men are being hurt by feminism? They don’t because that would expose themselves as being minimally different than the feminists. Since they can’t do that, they try to have it both ways by saying, “men are getting hurt but not really since they benefit from feminism so the real problem is an attack on ‘families’”.
What does it mean when conservative female supremacists say that feminists are trying to destroy “familes”? They’re trying to claim that the “real victims” are women not men. This is borne out of the fact that what conservative female supremacists are really worried about is the gravy train ending. They’re worried that men are wising up and not going to be on the plantation anymore. From that greedy and craven perspective, women are the victims despite the fact that it’s men who are losing their jobs, getting thrown in jail, etc.
Another commenter there wrote:
In my view, the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is even worse than the feminist movement. I say this because the mainstream feminist culture does believe in protecting and supporting women to some extent while the MRM is opposed to any support and protection of women. Indeed the MRM promotes equality between men and women to a radical degree, more so than typical feminists do. The MRM is very anti-family and anti-marriage, constantly talking about and promoting “the marriage strike” and producing websites like “Dump Your Wife Now.” They talk of how marriage is a bad deal for men and how men should avoid marriage at all costs. They are against child support as well; they seem to be against any imposition of responsibility upon men.
If there is one thing that Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) hate more than anything else it is chivalry. Chivalry is the great enemy of MRAs because chivalry imposes responsibilities and duties upon men towards women
I am against feminism because feminism doesn’t protect women as well as patriarchy does. MRAs are also opposed to feminism but they are opposed to feminism because it offers too much protection to women in their view.
I have for a long time said that the argument between feminists and most conservative “anti-feminists” is really about how to best extract money and resources from men (i.e. arguing about how to hold the whip over men). Outside of a few minor issues conservative female supremacists like the one I just quoted are in total agreement with feminism. This proves what I have said more than anything else in such stark terms that I never thought I would actually see in writing.
Yes, MRAs (and others) are against the imposition of “responsibilities” on men. That’s because it has a simpler name, slavery. This conservative female supremacist is claiming that each individual man has “responsibilities” to women, not specific women but all women by the fact of his birth. (This is no different than feminists who have created massive transfers of wealth from men to women via the state.) This is slavery because these men did nothing to create these “responsibilities”. They didn’t get married to all women. They didn’t have children with all women. If a man doesn’t get married and doesn’t have children then he has no family “responsibilities” in the manner the person above is describing. This person I quoted should be happy about the marriage strike since men who are a part of the marriage strike are being responsible. However, this isn’t about responsibility. The person I quoted is worried that more and more men are figuring out the scam and avoiding it by not getting married.
If any of these conservative female supremacists really wanted marriage striking men to get married, then they would address these men’s concerns, namely the existence of no-fault divorce and the corrupt “family” court system. This would solve the problem and all of those websites this person would complain about would go away. To you and me that seems like the logical solution. However, since this isn’t about solving real problems, but trying to get men back on to the plantation, we instead get nonsense about “responsibility” from the conservative female supremacists. Plus, the logical solution would expose that women including conservative and religious women are a major part of the problem. Right now people like the person I quoted try to have it both ways by saying divorce is a sin but divorce is all the man’s fault for failing to show “leadership” or “responsibility” which is just a way to avoid placing the responsibility for divorce where it belongs, on women. This is especially true since women file for most divorces.
The person I quoted also claims that women are in need of “protection”. That brings up the question of whether women are really adults or children. If women need “protection” then they’re children and should be treated like children. If women are adults then they don’t need “protection” and should be held responsible for their actions. I’m not going to argue either side of this question except to say that the person above like all female supremacists tries to have it both ways. Either women are adults or children. Instead what this person is promoting a hybrid that enslaves men. That is trying to have it both ways.
LaRose’s arrest was due to the work of the Jawa Report and Youtube Smackdown who have been tracking supporters of terrorism on Youtube and twitter and having their videos on Youtube flagged for removal. She spent a lot of time on Youtube where these groups discovered her calls for violent jihad on Youtube and her use of twitter to raise funds for terrorists. You can read more about how LaRose was tracked on Youtube from the Jawa Report. In that link, the Jawa Report has described LaRose as a “middle aged sociopath woman desperate for love, lonely and isolated”. The Jawa Report has more about LaRose here.
This is a still developing story. Originally, when I was going to write this post for The Spearhead there was only one American woman identified in this terrorist plot. We’ll see what happens.
Chances are you’re familiar with Saturday Night Live’s Tom Brady sexual harassment skit. If not, you can watch it at this link. While Saturday Night Live is trying to be funny, they end up presenting a very accurate portrayal of how “sexual harassment” really ends up working. This is particularly true with the “three rules” they came up with to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits, “Be handsome. Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive.”
With this weekend’s episode Saturday Night Live has done it again. This skit is a spoof of a commercial for one of those home security companies. Watch it below:
While this skit is a hilarious spoof, it shows how unreasonably paranoid women have become of men. You have a guy who was at the woman’s party break into her house 20 seconds after leaving the party in addition to her grandfather, her rabbi, a couple of boys, etc. Why does this skit have a basis in reality? It’s because feminism produces propaganda that men everywhere are out to get women, and the skit hits on this by talking about how if you’re a woman “most men want to kill you”.
One thing that makes this funny is how it doesn’t make sense. Why would a guy already in a woman’s house leave just to break in 20 seconds later? That even more true with the woman’s grandfather. How would a couple of nine year old boys break down her door so quickly? We know such things but, the paranoia of men that many women have is not rational. A woman’s grandfather or a nine year old boy isn’t a threat to a woman. Feminists produced and continue to produce anti-male propaganda that men are out to murder, rape, and/or assault women, but as we know it doesn’t reflect reality. It makes no sense that a guy already inside a woman’s house would leave and then break in 20 seconds later. However, there are plenty of women who believe such things.
What’s very ironic about this skit (and still very true) is how despite this woman’s paranoia about men, she is still dependent on men for her protection. The office of “Broadview Security” is staffed by men. This also is very poignant. While feminists have produced all this anti-male propaganda to make women paranoid about men, their protection is still dependent on men. This includes male police officers and male legislators who produce anti-male laws for feminists. In the woman’s paranoia had any logic whatsoever, she should be just as afraid about the men from Broadview Security breaking down her door.
In conclusion, Saturday Night Live has created a skit (probably unintentionally) that shows the levels of female paranoia against men that many women have today. Just like with the Tom Brady sexual harassment skit, it tells truths about the subject that only humor can deliver over feminist dominated media.
We have heard a variant of these statements many times:
You MRAs/MGTOW/gamers are just as bad as the feminists.
I’m trying to find a common ground in the middle.
We need to ignore the extremists on both sides.
Whenever you hear a statement like those, it is not a statement of fact. It’s triangulation. What is triangulation? It’s when someone claims to be “above” or “between” the left and right wings of politics or some other issue. Triangulation was made famous by Bill Clinton, but he is far from the only person to use triangulation. Barack Obama has also engaged in triangulation. Neither Clinton nor Obama actually believed in a set of politics that was “above” or “between” the left and right. Both are leftists and used triangulation to get elected. This is the most obvious with Obama who while campaigning talked about “change”, “a new [non-ideological] politics”, but has clearly governed as a leftist.
Triangulation acts in a similar fashion when trying to shout down MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers. Using triangulation is an attempt to bring down MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers down to the level of feminists as if pointing out anti-male injustice is the same as feminists trying to gain more power. Thus the only thing that can be gained from triangulation when used here is continuation of the status quo. That status quo is misandry and feminist government policy. For the claims of the triangulator to be true, MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers would have to have as much political power as the feminists. Men are being thrown in jail by women lying about rape. Men are losing their jobs due to sexual harassment nonsense and government stimulus policies. Men are being forced to pay for kids that aren’t theirs (paternity fraud). Men are having their life savings and their children stolen by anti-male family/divorce courts, etc. There is nothing that men can do to women right now that is equivalent to one of those things much less all of them combined. Feminists have more political power, so the triangulator’s true intentions of defending misandry are exposed. Also claims of being “above” or “between” both sides are never used meaningfully against feminists, and this further exposes the triangulator’s true intentions.
One variant of triangulation you may sometimes hear is, “If we take feminism away, men will do all the same things to women that feminists do to men.” Again, this statement is only used against MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers so it enforces the status quo of misandry and thus is triangulation. However, this statement is objectively false. While there are many political views among MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers, there is a generally agreed upon view that government is a major part of the problem. Without government most misandry would not exist. When misandrist laws and policies are eliminated, the government will be a great deal weaker. It won’t have the same power to interfere with people’s lives it did when feminists controlled it. The only way men could do the same things to women that are being done to men now is by reinstating a powerful, pervasive government that they wanted to be rid of. In other words, it will be impossible because the weapon of a powerful, pervasive government has already been destroyed.
Despite explaining this, there will still be people who triangulate and talk about the need to find “compromise” or a “middle ground” (perhaps because they claim we need “female allies”). If you think about what “compromise” and “middle ground” mean in this context, it’s obvious they are triangulating. We want the false rape industry gone, the anti-male family/divorce court system gone, etc. Feminists want to keep on doing what they are doing. Thus finding “middle ground” or a “compromise” means only half as many men experience false rape charged, get ass raped in family/divorce court, etc. This is completely unacceptable and still gives the feminists what they want, but more importantly it exposes cries for “compromise” or a “middle ground” as hollow and triangulation.
Valentines Day Vagina Day has passed and like all Vagina Days, it involved lots of men supplicating before women. In other words there are a lot men who should be dumping the women they’re with but they don’t. You may be one of those men. Let’s take a look at two (admittedly extreme) examples of men who need to dump their women, post haste. The first example comes from here (which I talked about on my blog a while back).
Recently, my girlfriend of two months came up to me with a request for something foul. She wants me to try scat with her. Before I continue, let me say something. If you don’t know what scat is then trust me when I say that you don’t want to find out. Take my advice and don’t read this thread. When my girlfriend explained to me what scat is, I threw up right away, and I’ve been shaking ever since. So, believe me when I say that you don’t want to know what it is. If you aren’t planning on taking that advice, then know that you’re following at your own risk.
My girlfriend wants to poop in my mouth and have me eat it and swallow it. That’s what scat is. It’s the most horrific thing I’ve heard of, and my girlfriend wants to try it on me this saturday. She wants me to fulfill her desire. And I agreed to do it. She told me that if I’m not willing to do this for her, then I’m not a real boyfriend, that I don’t love her, and that we should break up. And, well… I love her. And when you love someone, you do these kinds of things for them. My girlfriend has been stuffing her face full of everything from bean burritos to chili, with plenty of laxatives thrown in for good measure. She wants to pull out the biggest crap of her life, just for me. I don’t think there’s any backing out at this point. Come this Saturday, my girlfriend wants to execute the greatest display of control and female empowerment on me that she possibly can by using me as a toilet. And there’s nothing that I can do about it now because I love her and I don’t want to disappoint. I’m just so terrified that I need help and some people to talk to.
I have to admit I’m not sure this is something that really happened. However, I am sure something similar is happening to a guy (or many guys), especially with the standard shaming language that is being used. While there is a joke that can be made about a literal “shit test” here, the fact is we have a man who has been bombarded with messages about how he’s a loser without a woman. He needs to dump his girlfriend’s sorry ass. Let’s take a look at the second example I found:
This my be a little long winded so I apologize in advance. My wife and I have been married for 5 years and I recently came back from a very long deployment over in Iraq. Shortly after I returned she confessed to me that she had been cheating while I was away but that it was all just a purely sexual fulfillment thing. After the shock and hurt wore off my understanding side came out and I basically told her that every woman has needs and that I understood and forgave her. She then hesitantly told me that she was without a doubt pregnant by one of them. Not him, but “one of them” she said.
Now the real confessions came out. Come to find out that during the year that I was deployed and gone she had numerous sexual flings with several guys. Once in a while she would have a one night stand but most of them were “friends with benefits” type situations or just plain old “Booty Calls” where they just used each other with no real friendship. When I asked her to tell me exactly how many guys she had slept with while I was gone she couldn’t give me an exact number. She just agreed that it was “more than a dozen”.
Now let me say this. At this point I’m still being the understanding and forgiving husband. I realize that while I was away at war she was extremely stressed.. wondering if I was going to get injured or killed. OK I get that. I forgive her for all of her flings no matter how many.
Heres what I have the problem with in all of this. Shes pregnant by another guy and doesn’t have a clue who’s it is. Not that it matters really but it just makes it even more wrong that she doesn’t know whose it is. And why is she pregnant in the first place? Because she has an IUD she never ever used condoms with any of the guys that she had sex with… ever. She says she didn’t think it was necessary with an IUD.. well obviously it was.
Before or during sex with these other guys she just either never mentioned pulling out to them or if they asked, she just left it up to them. Hmm.. if given the choice I wonder what the guys will do? Hmm. Of course they’re not going to pull out if given the option.. obviously because none of them did!
Now my wife is absolutely gorgeous..without a doubt. So I dont hold it against any of the guys for sleeping with her. However I do have a problem with something. She swears that she not only told every guy that she was married before she slept with them, but she also told them that her husband was over in Iraq fighting for our country. So they all knew that she was married and they still slept with her.. Ok, no shocker there.. But what amazes me I guess is that they knew I was over fighting in war, for America, risking my life every day while they used my wife for their sexual pleasure not even caring the slightest bit if they got her pregnant. Talk about thinking with your c**k!
Yet still Im not blaming them. She offered it and they accepted. They got their rocks off, some of them once, most of them coming back for more over and over again. I honestly cant say I blame them at all. She is hard to resist. 90% of the blame lies on her.. I get that..I really do
Before I say anything else let me tell you that Ive made the decision to forgive her for all of this and work on our marriage. I know without a doubt I can do it and that we can get past this. I really do. I love her more than life itself and am ok with what she did under the tough circumstances. The sleeping with all the other guys part doesnt bother me as much as the fact that she is pregnant by someone else. You may not agree or understand my decision to stay with her but Ive made it.
My(our) biggest decision, which is really why I am writing for advice here it what to do about the baby. Our 3 options are to either have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or raise it as my own. Shes already had 2 abortions in her past, once during college and one right before we met. Adoption I think would be tough on both of us. Being with her the whole 9 months that the baby is growing in her and then giving it up.. Dont know if either one of us can do that. The 3rd choice is to have the baby and raise it as my own. My friends and family would have to think that it was my baby though.. And I have no idea how I would feel being with my wife while she was pregnant from another man. Will it bother me? Be a constant thorn? A constant reminder of her sleeping with these other men? Would it end up turning me on for some reason? I have no clue.. Any thoughts from anyone?
This man is married so he is stuck from a practical perspective. Dumping his wife’s sorry ass means a divorce which despite the fact that she was cheating on him with multiple men while he was in Iraq, he still will lose half or more of his assets and possibly his freedom. In addition, if his wife keeps the baby he will be paying for child support despite the fact that the baby is not his and that there is no way it could be his since he was in Iraq. However, this man’s problems go deeper. Look at all the ways he is making excuses for his wife. He is also pretending he has a choice when it comes to keeping the baby vs. adoption or abortion. He doesn’t. His pathetic excuse for a wife has all the power there. What he needs to hope for is that his wife has an abortion so that he can divorce her afterwards with a minimum of problems.
Experts in game will tell you about push-pull techniques to keep women interested in you. This sort of misses the point. The point is having a backbone. Both these men are lacking a backbone. The first man should dump his girlfriend’s sorry ass immediately. The second man needs more of a strategy since he’s married, but he should do the same. We should not be reading their weak willed writings. We should be reading how they have dumped (or will dump) their women’s sorry asses. Maybe she will beg to you to take her back. Maybe not. However, the important thing is that you stand up for yourself.
Many of you men reading this may be thinking, “My woman isn’t that great, but at least I’m not those guys”. These examples may be more extreme than what you’re going through. However, is it really that different? Just because your woman isn’t treating as bad as these guys are treated, it doesn’t mean that your woman isn’t treating you like crap. If you’re man in a similar situation even if its only 1% as bad as these two guys, why are you letting it happen? If you’re married, you have some hard decisions to make. If not, then what you need to do is easy. Isn’t it time you grew a backbone and dumped her sorry ass?
When debating feminists or even just reading or listening to their drivel, they are guaranteed at some point to make a reference (really several references) to their “education”. As we know this is meant to convince us (unsuccessfully) that they are intelligent and have knowledge. The fact that feminists went to school or received a degree does not mean that they are intelligent or have knowledge. That is obvious from the fact that they fail to grasp basic concepts such as cause and effect and supply and demand. (Neither concept really requires that much intelligence, knowledge or education to understand.) Many of their degrees are in “women’s studies” which is about indoctrination and not knowledge or they got their degrees through affirmative action or some other form of female privilege. In either case, having a degree does not mean these feminists (and other women) received much if any education.
Since we know that they didn’t receive an education, a new word is needed to describe the process of going to school, receiving a degree without gaining any real knowledge or education. I propose, credentialation.
They have gone through a process that on the surface seems similar to getting an education, but all they have done is received a credential that is supposed to mean they have received knowledge in a particular subject. However, no real knowledge was gained, but these women are able to use the “credential” to act as if they actually received the knowledge the credential claims.
Credentialation doesn’t automatically mean some type of indoctrination happened, but in many cases it did. A degree in “women’s studies” is a good example. Classes in “women’s studies” do not impart any actual knowledge, but plenty of anti-male propaganda is presented (indoctrination). Many degrees in liberal arts fields also have indoctrination with anti-male propaganda but to a much lesser extent. Working for a degree in those fields can also be a credentialation since its possible to skate by on anti-male propaganda. It’s also possible to get a credentialation in an engineering field or the sciences, but this is more difficult since both those areas deal with the real world and thus require students in those fields to produce real, tangible results. However, due to “women in engineering” programs and other affirmative action for women, it’s still possible to get a credentialation and not an education in engineering and the sciences.
The are a couple of good ways to test if someone received a credentialation or an education. The more someone mentions their degrees as an argument the more likely they received a credentialation. If despite receiving a degree, it’s obvious that person didn’t gain any knowledge (particularly if they don’t understand basic knowledge about how things works), then they received a credentialation. Feminists are likely to fail the first test and will definitely fail the second.
At my office, several of the married guys are taking a class on auto repair. They take this class over and over again since they have cars they want to hold on to which means plenty of repair work. The reasons they give for taking the class are all sensible and true such as wanting to hold on to older cars for when their kids turn 16 (i.e. they don’t want to buy a new car for an inexperienced new driver who might total it right away), wanting some expert help for doing their car repairs, getting access to a lift for doing their repairs, etc. However, there real primary reason these guys are taking this class over and over is unspoken and with these married guys not quite conscious. These married guys who pay for the houses they live in have been exiled to their garages. Where are these guys spending their free time, particularly the weekends? In the garage repairing their cars. The auto repair class they take also gets them a night a week away from their house.
What does this have to do with the Dodge commercial? The other place that married men have been exiled to is their car. At home the married man is dealing with a harpy of a wife (and maybe ungrateful kids). Most of the rest of the time, Monday through Friday, is at work which means dealing with work related crap. The only time during weekdays the married man has without crap (unless he has a really great job) is when commuting to and from work. This is where the Dodge commercial comes in. It says to married men that in the only time on weekdays you have without crap, you should be as comfortable as possible. I suspect that’s also why more and more cars are coming with options like surround sounds and other luxuries that would have been considered exotic not that long ago.
I have also noticed how the married men that I have worked with (at any job I have had) always have the longest commutes. For the most part it has to do with satisfying their wives’ desire for large houses and the only way of doing that unless a man has lots of money means buying a house out in the sticks. From my POV as a single man, this sucks. The married guy is paying money for a house in the middle of nowhere for space his family doesn’t need with corresponding heating and cooling bills and many other expenses. This is on top of the long commute which under the best conditions sucks. To me a long commute is just extra dead time compared to a short commute. However, to a married guy a long commute while it sucks does have a side benefit, more time away from both home and work. The Dodge commercial indirectly taps into this because again you want to be as comfortable as possible during your long commute.
This commercial from Dodge really taps into what happening to married men, in some cases beyond what was intended probably. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few single guys got the message that getting married is a bad idea.
I find debating feminists to be a waste of time usually. It’s like fighting the Iran-Iraq War from the perspective of Iran or Iraq. A lot of time and energy gets wasted with no real results at the end. Feminists aren’t going to listen to our logic and reason, and we are not going to obey feminist insanity. Denise Romano is a primary example of this. It’s a waste of time to debate a known spammer and someone who says outright lies such as, “MRA blogs that enthusiastically incite rape and celebrate rape as a mens’ right”.
Another problem with debating feminists is accidentally conceding points because you’re busy making an argument about something else. Most of debate with Denise Romano is about whether moral or ethical issues of game. No one was asking the question of is everything that Denise Romano claiming even possible. This is important because Denise Romano is claiming that there are PUAs using hypnosis to get women to have sex with them. Hypnosis can’t be used to get someone to have sex with you (unless they already want to have sex with you in which case it’s redundant). It simply will not work.
The subject must BELIEVE he or she can be hypnotized.
The subject must eventually feel comfortable and relaxed.
If you don’t want to be hypnotized, you can’t be hypnotized. This means that hypnosis can not be used as a seduction technique ever. The only case where it would work is when a person has already been seduced in which case there is no point in using hypnosis because it would be redundant and a waste of time. Denise Romano is claiming that there are men out there that can forcibly hypnotize women against their will despite the fact that this is impossible.
Clearly, forced hypnosis is impossible. If it was possible, a few guys trying to get laid would be the least of anyone’s problems. We would see murderers who would instead hypnotize their victims into killing themselves, criminals who would rob people and banks by forced hypnosis to make people want to hand over their money, governments using forced hypnosis to gather intelligence, etc. None of this is happening, and this is what the world would look like if Denise Romano was actually correct.
Since I banned her from my blog for being a spammer, Denise Romano responded to my first post on her blog. Most of her response had nothing to do with anything I said, but Denise Romano claimed that “hypnosis professionals” agreed with her, and this was documented on Lady Raine’s blog. If this was really the case, why is it only on LR’s blog and why was there no link to these “hypnosis professionals”? We can figure out the answer to that, but I did a google search for the word hypnosis on LR’s blog. I found no links to “hypnosis professionals”. In fact, I only found three minimally relevant links. The first was to some nut job who makes the same claim as Denise Romano but without any actual evidence. That link also contains nonsense statements like, “but actually 7080% of us are receptive to some hypnotic suggestions”. The second was a link to an anti-scientology website which had to do with people who voluntarily underwent hypnosis. The third was a link to someone trying to sell a system using hypnosis so you can get laid. Again, there is no proof that it works. There are plenty of websites out there that claim to have products that will enlarge your penis, and they don’t work either so vigorous claims don’t mean anything.
Even “hypnosis professionals” can be very questionable. A few years ago, Penn & Teller on their Bullshit! show on the Showtime channel did an episode on hypnosis (which you can watch here). They showed how hypnosis is very problematic in terms of how well it works even when its voluntary. Even when people want to be hypnotized to stop smoking or lose weight, it only works when that person was highly motivated beforehand. Penn & Teller also talked to a “hypnosis professional” who claimed among other things that hypnosis could make your penis bigger, and she had a hypnosis tape to do that. Knowing that even talking to “hypnosis professionals” may not tell you the truth about hypnosis.
The fact is that it’s impossible to force a hypnotic state on anyone. You can’t hypnotize anyone against their will. Denise Romano when she claims otherwise against the body of scientific evidence about hypnosis is claiming men have found a way to perform the impossible. In essence, she is trying to start a moral panic which tells you everything you need to know about her.
Recently, I wrote on my blog about about an article from Reason Magazine (found via our own EW’s blog) that said that the primary class war is now between public sector employees and private sector employees. The article explains how government jobs are now better paid, have better benefits, have platinum plated pensions, and in some cases are even effectively exempt from some laws such as various traffic laws. I made the observation that this meant the primary class war was now between men and women because public sector employment is now mostly female. Public sector employment is now a vehicle for promoting female supremacism.
This also means that organized labor has also become a vehicle for promoting female supremacism. It used to be that organized labor was made up of men working in the private sector. In fact, unionization of government employees at the federal level wasn’t even allowed until 1962. Over time, private sector unionization has gone down while public sector unionization has gone up. For the first last year, a majority of unionized workers have jobs in the public sector (making up 52% of unionized workers) instead of the private sector. As a result, unions have become more and more about political activism for raising taxes and increasing unsustainable government spending. There are many examples of this. In Arizona, the Arizona Education Association (the teachers’ union in Arizona) successfully lobbied against repeal of a $250 million a year statewide property tax and identified another $2.1 billion in tax increases to forestall spending reductions. In California, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $1 million on a television ad campaign pressing for higher oil, gas, and liquor taxes. In Maine, the Maine Municipal Association, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Teamsters, and the Maine Education Association collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against a ballot initiative in November 2009 that would prevent government spending from growing faster than the combined rate of inflation and population growth and require the government to return excess revenues as tax rebates. In Oregon last week, there were two ballot initiatives to raise personal and business taxes that passed. Ninety percent of the advertising promoting a yes vote was provided by public employee unions who also made sure that the money that will be collected from the tax increases will go into benefits for public sector employees.
Knowing that the public sector workforce is predominately female, this means that all of these tax increases with increased spending on public sector employees are effectively acting as a transfer of wealth from men to women. It’s no surprise that state branches of the National Education Association (the teachers’ union) come up again and again when it comes to increasing taxes to spend on government employees as the teaching profession and by extension the membership of the NEA is predominately female. These are the reasons why organized labor has become another arm of female supermacism.
(Disclaimer for this post: I am not nor do I claim to be an economist or have any formal education in economics.)
By now you have read The Fifth Horseman’s post on The Misandry Bubble. (If not, go read it right now.) The term, misandry bubble, is very accurate because the misandry bubble operates like an economic bubble.
Economic bubbles fall into two types. The first type is typically a technological related economic bubble. The Railway Mania in the 1800s and the dot com bubble are two examples of this type. Both of those bubbles had all of the typical behaviors of economic bubbles, over-investment, rampant speculation, etc. However, when all was said and done there were real economic gains. The Railway Mania produced railroads, and the dot com bubble expanded the internet and created related businesses such as amazon.com. The second type of economic bubble is what might be called an asset bubble. The Tulip Mania of the 1600s and the recent (or current depending on where you live) housing bubble are both examples of asset bubbles. In an asset bubble the price of an asset increases beyond its fundamental value so the price of that asset must come down through inflation, a price collapse, or a combination thereof.
The misandry bubble is clearly an asset bubble. The fundamental value of women has not increased. Women aren’t becoming more beautiful, or smarter, or better cooks, or better girlfriends, etc. By any metric you wish to use, women are not improving. If anything they are getting worse so their fundamental value is going down not up. Thus, the misandry bubble exists because the demands, the “price”, women are demanding from men is going up while the fundamental value of women is holding steady or really going down.
In an economic bubble there are several social psychology factors. One is extrapolation, the idea that because prices have risen in the past they will do so in the future. During the housing bubble we saw this with speculators who flipped houses, and other people who bought houses because if they didn’t buy soon, “they would be priced out forever”. Realtors would say, “real estate only goes up”. David Lereah, the former Chief Economist for the National Association of Realtors, wrote books about how home prices would continue to rise until around 2010 or so. The same claims were made about the oil price spike of 2008 such as demand from the BRIC countries would remain high. We see the same claims in the misandry bubble. A lot of men accept the increasing demands of women because either they are “white knights” or believe that they have no other choice. However, as we see from the collapse of the housing bubble and the 2008 oil price spike, extrapolation is wrong, and this is true with the misandry bubble as well.
Another factor is herding, the idea that investors buy or sell in the direction of the market trend. In the housing bubble, many investment fund managers bought the investment vehicles that were designed to sell mortgages. During the bubble, there were hardly any voices speaking out about how the problems with these mortgage investment vehicles. There were people who noticed, but kept their mouths shut since it could mean losing pay or their jobs. Herding also existed on the level of individual buyers who bought because “everyone else was doing it”.
One aspect of herding that isn’t well know is the use of shaming language to get people who would be skeptical of the behavior causing the bubble to fall in line. There was plenty of shaming language used in the housing bubble. Many made claims that renters were losers and “would be priced out forever” (as in they would forever have the stigma of being a renter since they wouldn’t be able to afford buying a house in the future). The biggest example of shaming language has to be the Century 21 commercial from 2006 (the below video).
In addition to the shaming language to get the husband to buy the house, there is also a great deal of misandry in this video. This is a case of the housing bubble and the misandry bubble overlapping. The husband was right to be skeptical. This commercial aired in 2006. If the couple was really worried about schools, they could have waited two years (when their oldest was starting kindergarten) and saved a boatload of money. Even better they could have rented waiting out the housing bubble in the location with the schools they wanted. However, it was more important to make the husband fall in line despite the fact that he was originally right. With the misandry bubble, shaming language is nothing new as we have the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.
We also see moral hazards with bubbles where the decision making of investors in terms of risk and reward is interfered with. With the housing bubble, they are plenty of moral hazards as the government was and is encouraging people to buy houses. The $8000 tax credit for new homeowners is a prime example. It encourages people who would otherwise rationally weigh whether they would want to buy a house or not to believe there is less risk in buying a house than there actually is. Moral hazards aren’t limited to government policy either. The explosion of exotic mortgages during the housing bubble allowed people to buy houses they otherwise could not afford. These moral hazards lead to many of the foreclosures we see today since they threw the risk-reward relationship of whether to buy a house or not out of whack. Moral hazards also exist in the misandry bubble. The clearest example is with divorce and family courts. With the way divorce works now, women can easily divorce their husbands and get rewarded for it both financially and in getting the kids creating an incentive to get divorced. The same is true with the false rape industry. A woman can get away with making false rape accusations which creates an incentive to make false rape accusations. In the churches, priests/ministers/pastors “encourage” men to get married (using plenty of shaming language) creating a moral hazard of men marrying women they otherwise wouldn’t.
When economic bubbles happen, people who implicitly or explicitly realize there is a bubble, make changes in their behavior. Many people decided to wait out the housing bubble by renting to the point of deciding to rent their entire lives in some cases since they were soured on buying houses. With the 2008 oil price spike, people changed their driving habits and started buying more fuel efficient cars. The misandry bubble is no different. Many men learn game, go ghost, become part of the marriage strike, or even just minimize their time alone with certain types of women.
Overproduction and the search for alternatives is another aspect of a bubble. With the housing bubble, many more houses were built than needed. Areas were gentrified by people looking for cheap housing. The 2008 oil price spike led to increased oil production where possible and investment into alternative energy and other alternatives to oil. With the misandry bubble many men decide to expat to find women or bring foreign women to where they live. In the longer term, alternatives will include virtual reality sex, sex bots, and artificial wombs. The creation of these technologies is guaranteed by the fact that the misandry bubble is an economic bubble.
However, the misandry bubble is different from economic bubbles in one important way. The prices due to a bubble must come down through either inflation, lowered prices, or a combination. There is no equivalent to inflation in the misandry bubble so the “price” women are demanding from men must by definition collapse to where it was before. With the creation of technological alternatives, it will collapse to a lower level than it was before.
(My latest post at the Spearhead is up. As always comments are disabled here. Comment about this post at the Spearhead.)
The San Diego Union Tribune reports that an 11 year old boy’s personal science project was mistaken for a bomb. An 11 year old boy who attends Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School in San Diego was working on a personal science project to build some type of motion detector. He made the mistake of bringing it to his school. A vice principal at Millennial Tech saw the boy showing the device to other students at the school, and believing it was a bomb, IED, or some other type of harmful device put the school under lockdown and brought in the San Diego Police. Later the school was evacuated, and the device was scanned and determined to be harmless. The boy’s house and garage was checked by fire officials to make sure there was nothing harmful or explosive. Obviously, there wasn’t. While there will be no prosecutions (since no actual laws were violated), authorities are still “recommending” that both the boy and the parents “get counseling” because the boy supposedly violated some school policy.
One aspect of female supremacism is prosecuting a war on boys. This case is a stellar example of that. It’s safe to say that if an 11 year old girl brought a personal science project to school, it would be held as proof of “female empowerment”. However, since a boy did it, the police were called in, his house was searched for chemicals and explosive materials, and he (along with his parents) was remanded for “counseling” since they couldn’t find anything.
It’s even worse than it seems, because this is a tech magnet school. By definition a tech magnet school will have students who are interested in technology, engineering, and science. Trying to build electronic devices such a motion detector, as this boy did, should be considered typical – and even praiseworthy – for a student in such a school. Instead, any outside interest in science, engineering, and technology by boys is quashed by school authorities. If you wonder why the scientific, technological, and engineering fields are moving to Asia, just consider that what female supremacism is doing to boys is a huge part of it. Of course, with the export of feminism, Asia’s leadership in science, engineering, and technology will be short-lived, because boys will likely be treated with the same distrust and hatred in Asia as they are here in the near future.
At some point feminists (and other female supremacists) are going to develop new tactics to combat game. The Fifth Horseman has said that ramping up the false rape industry is one possibility. Based on a couple of things I have recently come across, this looks like it could happen.
The first is related to the Duke Lacrosse case. A few months ago, Duke University revised their “sexual misconduct” policy. While the Duke Lacrosse case was one reason this was done, another was that the reported cases of “sexual misconduct” at Duke had declined slightly. Ada Gregory, director of the Women’s Center at Duke University, had an absurd explanation for this fact saying, “The higher IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are … imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop.” In other words, because Duke has intelligent men attending, they can get away with rape (and other “sexual misconduct”) because they use their intelligence to convince the women they raped that they weren’t really raped at all. Effectively, Gregory is claiming that when it comes to intelligent men, most women won’t be able to determine that they were really raped because intelligent men can “trick” women into believing that they weren’t raped.
What does this have to do with game? These ideas can be used to ramp up the false rape industry to combat game. One thing I have heard from some people is that a false rape charge can’t happen when you use game, because good enough game will protect you. While this is debatable (and I don’t think there is any guarantee of this), let’s assume it is true. The problem becomes that this is no longer about a man and a woman. As the Duke “sexual misconduct” policy says, third parties (which we can assume are anti-male) will get involved. This is the key, because instead of dealing with a single woman, you’re dealing with an entrenched feminist bureaucracy so feminists won’t have to worry about minor problems such as women believing they consented to sex. Feminists will claim that using game implies a certain level of intelligence that allows a man with game to convince a woman sex was consensual. This will lead feminists to claim that using game is rape. In addition, feminists can also claim that game creates a “real or perceived power differential” which means that a man with game raped a woman even though he had no intention to do so.
Recently, Obsidian wrote a post concerning Denise Romano and her views of game. This led to her spamming The Spearhead, Obsidian’s blog, Ferdinand’s blog, and others with a comment about rape. Spam is the correct word to describe what Denise Romano did since her comments had nothing to do with the issues being discussed, and in the case of Ferdinand’s blog her comment was added to a post about his blog’s comment policy, making it true spam in every sense of the word. What Denise Romano is most likely trying to do is imply that men with game are effectively rapists. While we all know that’s a crock, this is the beginning of using the false rape industry to combat game. We have nothing to worry about from Denise Romano since she is doing it so poorly, but other feminists in the future may do it better.
This Spearhead article should be up sometime today. As with all my Spearhead articles comment at The Spearhead.
By now you have already heard about the “mancession”, and you know that men are disproportionately losing their jobs compared to women in this recession. Since the official unemployment rate in the US is already in the double digits, President Obama did the only thing he knows how to do, talk, by holding a jobs summit. All that came out of the jobs summit was undeniable proof that all the attendees at the summit should probably be unemployed.
Originally, the “stimulus” (which was supposed to keep the official unemployment rate well below its current level) was supposed to be spent on infrastructure. The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 and the DC Metro crash earlier this year in June (which was also covered by our own Roissy on his personal blog) showed that spending on maintaining current and building new infrastructure has been insufficient for a long time. The stimulus would have been a good opportunity to begin to correct this massive error as solid infrastructure is necessary for long term economic growth (not to mention safety), but womens’ (such as NOW) groups objected. They called the original stimulus “burly”, “macho”, and “sexist” demanding that the stimulus be spent on women. This was despite the fact that millions of men were losing their jobs, and education and health care added jobs primarily benefiting women. NOW and the other womens’ groups were successful with the stimulus was skewed towards education and health care leaving infrastructure in the same dangerous state it was before. In addition the gap between male and female unemployment is the largest in the history of unemployment data going back to 1948 when such data began.
This “women oriented stimulus” along with other things has caused the federal deficit for this year to surpass 1.8 trillion dollars, far beyond the deficit of any previous year. This causes more men to be unemployed since this massive federal debt is sucking capital out of the private sector which destroys jobs. Literally, there is no capital for new business creation and business expansion that would create jobs. Given all of the other factors here, effectively the stimulus and other ballooning government spending is causing millions and millions of more men to be unemployed. At least if the stimulus was spent on infrastructure jobs doing badly needed work would be created that would have provided a solid foundation for long term economic growth. Instead we have infrastructure that continues to crumble plus more and more men losing their jobs.
Since government policy is now driving the problems of male unemployment and crumbling infrastructure, only a significant change in government policy will solve these problems. Until then millions more men will become unemployed and there will be more bridges collapsing, metro crashes, electrical grid failures, and other disasters that should never have happened.
What happened to Tiger Woods isn’t being taken seriously by most of our society. This is no surprise. One example of this was a skit from the most recent episode of Saturday Night Live. (The skit can be viewed on Hulu, which may not work if you are outside the US, or on Youtube.) The only reaction to this video has been how it was in “poor taste” because Rhianna was the musical guest for that episode. However, the sketch itself is very interesting for what it tells us about the societal view of female on male domestic violence. In the skit Elin is set off by very small things such as Tiger Woods’s cell phone ringing. Plus, we are supposed to accept explanations for what is happening to Tiger Woods that are more and more impossible such as Tiger Woods falling down a flight of stairs and throwing himself through a window to Tiger Woods driving a car that he ran himself over with, etc. There is also a throwaway line about not blaming Cadillac for what happened with the car. Since female on male domestic violence isn’t taken seriously someone else has to be blamed no matter how absurd, Tiger Woods, General Motors, etc. Throughout the skit Tiger Woods makes comments about how strong Elin is because she must be for any type of domestic violence to happen supposedly. This is not the case. One reason that domestic violence against men is not taken seriously is that men on average are stronger than women. This has many problems. The most obvious is men being afraid to defend themselves against women because since they will be thrown in prison regardless of the actual circumstances. The advantage of strength can be nullified. One quick way of doing that is to pull out a gun. No matter how strong a man is, he isn’t going to stop a bullet. Knowledge of martial arts is another way. Recently, there was the story of a “Mr. Zhang” in China who was constantly battered by his wife. She battered “Mr. Zhang” using Kung Fu, the martial art that she had practiced since she was a child. Domestic violence against men isn’t taken seriously in China either. “Mr. Zhang” was only able to get a contract stating that his wife would only batter him once a week. This contract was enforced by his in laws. Such a thing is absurd (but what can be expected from a woman who says that “she can’t help herself”) and shouldn’t be necessary. I’m not familiar with the Chinese legal code, but I’m certain assault and battery is illegal in China. Thus, this proves that domestic violence against men is treated in a similar way there as it is in the West. Another good example is Carolyn Brown of Louisiana who poured boiling grits on her boyfriend while he was sleeping. As he was asleep his strength advantage was nullified. There are other examples too such as Lorena Bobbit’s attack on her husband. All the men I have talked about so far have one thing in common. They are still alive. Phil Hartman wasn’t so lucky. You may remember Phil Hartman from TV shows such as Saturday Night Live and Newsradio and movies such as Three Amigos. Hartman had many problems from the behavior of his third wife, Brynn. She had been addicted to drugs and in and out of rehab several times. Brynn was known for having trouble controlling her anger and losing her temper to gain attention. This came to a head in 1998 when Brynn, intoxicated and having recently taken cocaine, committed an act of domestic violence murdering Phil Hartman. With all of these problems why didn’t Phil Hartman leave? Only Phil Hartman knows that, but some possibilities are that despite the fact that Brynn had major substance abuse problems a divorce court would have sided with her in distribution of assets. Even if that was the case, wouldn’t that have been worth it for Phil Hartman? He would recover. Probably, except that they had two children. Given that women typically receive custody of children in divorce unless they’re eating the children, the children would have been stuck with Brynn and all of her problems. Phil Hartman wouldn’t have been there to protect his children. I would not be surprised if this is the reason that Phil Hartman never divorced Brynn leading to his tragic death. These men I have written about are all well known. Many men are suffering in silence as victims of domestic violence. It is now known that women commit 50% of domestic violence. Given that men aren’t likely to report women committing domestic violence against them, its safe to say that women commit more domestic violence than is reported. This is a real issue for millions of men including several famous men.
Recently, the New York Times had an article on paternity testing which has already been commented on by our own Roissy and Female Masculinist on their respective personal blogs. The men in the NYT article are all the victims of fraud. In any other context, the legal system would consider this a case of outright fraud. What this means is that the simple technology of paternity testing has acted as the light of truth exposing the entire family law system from lawyers to judges as corrupt and supremely dishonest.
The other area where paternity testing has shown the light of truth is with female behavior. Before paternity testing the only way a man would know for certain if his wife/girlfriend had committed paternity fraud against him was if he was away from his wife/girlfriend for an extended period of time when conception would have taken place. Now, it’s possible for men to know the truth both individually and globally. Depending on who you ask the cuckoldry rate is somewhere between 1% and 30% with 10% being a commonly cited number. Without mandatory paternity testing it’s impossible to know the exact percentage. However, the exact percentage doesn’t matter so much since paternity testing has shown that paternity fraud does happen enough that every man should be concerned about whether his kids really are his kids.
Before paternity testing women and male white knights would claim that “women would never lie about paternity”. Since paternity testing has proven this to be a myth, they have moved to “biological/genetic connections don’t matter” and shaming language. Take this quote from Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband. My own biases are going into this because I’m adopted, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are.
First, take notice of the shaming language. Beyond that this quote is incredibly self serving. I would bet serious money that if McCarthy had a medical problem that was inherited or otherwise required family medical history she would change her tune really quick. And what about all of those adopted children who go searching for their biological parents? According to her that shouldn’t happen. It’s all just more proof that McCarthy is claiming that fatherhood doesn’t matter and engaging in anti-male shaming language.
Mandatory paternity testing will probably not happen in the future since women and male white knights will oppose it. However, that does not matter since the most significant change from the creating of paternity testing is the knowledge men now have that cuckolding is a serious problem. Men are now aware of the need to make sure that his kids are really his, and nothing is going to put that genie back into the bottle.
As we fight feminists and other female supremacists, it’s important to remember those who have taken them on and their fellow travelers before us successfully, even if it was only over a small specific issue. T.J. Rodgers is one such man.
Who is T.J. Rodgers? Rodgers is the founder, CEO, President, and a director of Cypress Semiconductor, a company in Silicon Valley. He is a graduate of Dartmouth and Stanford. Rodgers is also known in the political arena for being libertarian minded, to the point of being an advocate for killing all subsidies for business including those that would benefit him, and an ardent defender of capitalism. You can find a biography here, and his essays on various issues here. Rodgers has taken on people such as Jesse Jackson.
One of the things that T.J. Rodgers is known for is what has been called the “nun episode”. Back in 1996, Rodgers received a letter from Sister Doris Gormley, the Director of Corporate Social Responsibility of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, an order of approximatively 1000 nuns. The order had investments of stock in various companies which included Cypress Semiconductor. As a shareholder Sister Gormley sent all of these companies a form letter demanding that women and minorities be included in the respective companies’ boards of directors. Rodgers responded by writing a letter to Sister Gormley pointing out why her demands (according to Rodgers) were immoral. Pointing out that the board of directors of Cypress Semiconductor was a not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function, Rodgers explained that the requirements for being on the board of directors involved experience as a CEO of an important technology company, direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and management experience, and/or direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the semiconductor industry. He also said that this usually meant a man with graduate level education who is around 50 years old. As of 1996 this meant that their current set of candidates for the board of directors were in graduate school in the 70’s, during which engineering was an almost exclusively male discipline. Because of this, Rodgers said, “a ‘woman’s view’ on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO.”
Rodgers continued the letter with a philosophical and pragmatic defense of his position explaining why he believed the Sister Gormley’s position was immoral. Rodgers also pointed out that there is no requirement in Christianity for “diverse” corporate boards, and that Sister Gormley’s position was based on political correctness rather than the Christian religion (be sure to read Rodgers’ excellent letter).
Rodgers sent a copy of his letter to all Cypress Semiconductor shareholders. This led to a full page article in the Wall Street Journal, and a debate between Rodgers and Sister Gormley at Stanford. The response to Rodgers was overwhelmingly positive. Ninety percent of the letters he received supported him. The only unified group that disapproved were other nuns.
When the Cypress Semiconductor stock that the order owned was sold, the nun episode quietly blew over, and T. J. Rodgers’ successful career continued unharmed.
My first post, Feminism is a subset of female supremacism, at The Spearhead is up. I have copied it below, but I have disabled comments for this post here. Please comment over at The Spearhead.
Those of you familiar with my blog and my comments on other blogs know that I have said that arguments between feminist women and ”anti-feminist” women are really just arguments about how to best extract money and other resources from men. Read or listen to an argument between feminist and “anti-feminist” women. The subjects they will argue about will have little to do with anything that is happening to men. Abortion will be top subject as well other subjects are irrelevant to what is happening to men such as arguments about wearing skirts vs. pants, debates about premarital sex, orquiverfull drivel. What you will not hear is anything that has to do with what feminism is doing to men such as the false rape industry, the absurd body of sexual harassment law, how men need to learn game or otherwise be shut out of the sexual/relationships market, the current divorce system, children taken away from their fathers and other issues of fathers’ rights, etc. In fact, the entire argument from “anti-feminist” women will avoid anything that is happening to men which effectively means “anti-feminist” women have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda.
Feminism is really just left wing female supremacism. This means that there are other forms of female supremacism out there such as conservative female supremacism which is what “anti-feminist” women really are. This has also been called lifeboat feminism as what this tries to do is combine elements of feminism and chivalry wherever its best for women creating a mutant hybrid that always benefits women. Hawaiian Libertarian wrote on his blog about a good example of this, the Network of Enlightened Women. If you look at their educate page, you get choice statements like:
By women’s view of empowerment being linked to sexual promiscuity we in fact undermine the very foundations of femininity. This promiscuity devalues women by men seeing them as something that can be used for their own ends and women accepting this status as the tools of men.
Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men. There is an obvious void in what we call the feminist movement today and a need for a new movement that can do justice not only to the similarities between the sexes but also to the differences.
To promote the Showcase, the NeW chapter at ASU has created a short video asking students four questions: What is a gentleman? What are the characteristics of a gentleman? Are there gentlemen at ASU? Are gentlemen an endangered species?
Student answers range from the serious to the comical. For example, some student responses to the question “What is a gentleman?” include, “just a man that has manners I guess,” “well, we don’t know. We haven’t ever seen one before,” “someone who opens doors, is chivalrous, and a nice guy,” “a gentlemen is a person that likes to do nice things and doesn’t really ask for anything in return” and “someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”
Remember these aren’t feminists. They’re conservative women. What this proves is that these women despite being “anti-feminist” are just as female supremacist as their feminist counterparts. They just disagree on how to enforce female supremacy.
If you take a look at their entire website you will find nothing about issues that feminism has caused that involve men such as the false rape industry, divorce, etc. It’s all (premarital) sex, abortion, etc. More importantly, there is plenty of shaming language used against men and general blame of men. This shouldn’t be surprising as, for example, divorce is just as common when married to conservative women as not and in the Christian church. They are just as for divorce as feminist women are. They also engage in shaming language against men who practice good judgement in choosing not to get married.
You will also notice the blame put on men for everything, blame that men aren’t being “gentlemen”, blaming men for promiscuity, etc. It’s even to the point where conservative female supremacists blame men for “letting” feminism happen. Men are even being blamed for abortion because it supposedly benefits men:
Let’s get real. Abortion is not good for women; anyone who has had one can attest to that.
Abortion and contraception have been good only for irresponsible males. They now can have sex without fear of the consequences.
In the meantime, women continue to take hormones every day, for years and years, which (despite denials from people with an agenda) does increase their chances of getting breast cancer.
If we use a little common sense, we understand why breast cancer is at epidemic levels.
Whether a woman has an abortion or uses contraception, it is she who bears the physical and psychological burden.
Have we really come a long way? Abortion has enabled men to use our bodies without having to look back and feel any guilt.
Let’s wake up and stop letting men convince us that they really care about us and our right to make choices.
Here we have an example of a conservative female supremacist blaming men for abortion because men are “forcing” women to be in a position where they have to choose abortion (along with “real man” shaming language). In addition, she blames men for an increase in breast cancer rates. There is also plenty of generalized blame against men for when sex happens, as if women have no sex drive whatsoever. (In fact, if you ask a conservative female supremacist about the false rape industry, all they will say about it is that men shouldn’t be having premarital sex, i.e. its their fault, even though a man doesn’t actually have to have sex with a woman to be a victim of the false rape industry. We have seen this in the Duke Lacrosse case and at the University of Maryland where women picked random male names out of a university phone book, putting those names on flyers they passed out saying the men were “potential rapists”.) With all of the ways conservative female supremacists try to blame men for sex, how far away are they from “all heterosexual sex is rape”, really? We shouldn’t be surprised by such a similarity since both feminism and conservative female supremacism are both female supremacist ideologies.
It’s important to know about conservative female supremacism because there are a lot of women who will claim they’re on the side of men because they’re “not a feminist”. Simply “not being a feminist” does not make a woman an ally of men. All it means is that instead of using the state to extract money and other resources from men, they believe marriage is the best way of doing this. They are stepping up their blame and shaming language because many of them are worried that feminists are in the process of destroying their gravy train of taking money and other resources from men. They are right to be worried about that. With the development of game, even if a man doesn’t use game he still understands the real nature of women, and this includes conservative female supremacists.
Of course, there are plenty of men who support and otherwise facilitate conservative female supremacism, but that is a separate topic I will address in a future post.
For those of you who follow Welmer’s blog, you know that he was working on a new online magazine style blog dealing with various issues men deal with. It’s here, and it’s called The Spearhead. Contributors include some of the most respected members of the MRA and MGTOW communities, Welmer, Novaseeker, Whiskey, Prime, Elusive Wapiti, and Ferdinand Bardamu.
Recent Comments