The Costa Concordia; Chivalry's Corpse, and Men and Self-Sacrifice

A while back, MarkMark had a post on the Costa Cordordia ship disaster and a poster named  Ping Jockey had had this to say:

This has shown them something that they hadn't planned on -- that men are fed up with their hypergamy, solopsism and entitlement attitudes, and are becoming more indifferent to them and don't really care about what happens to them. (Witness the recent articles about the concern of some women about the growth of MGTOW and growing male indifference to women. The getting scared about what could happen when enough "Good Men" become totally indifferent to them and their interests.)
It's been said that women's greatest nightmare is not men's hate, but men's indifference -- because it is only the concern of Good Men" about women that protects women against the depredations of "Bad Men". When women lose that concern, they have a LOT to fear.Based upon what has happened in this incident, I have a feeling that the next large accident or disaster where women are thrown upon their own resources without government intervention, protection or assistance is going to be VERY, VERY interesting indeed!

Much could be said about the phenomenon on the ship and the heavy-handed articles that followed.  Not surprisingly, there was an outcry about the alleged selfishness and shamelessness about the men who clamored to protect themselves first---women be damned.  Even (so-called) conservatives demonstrated their hypocritical true colors on this issue---it's okay for women to have equal rights, but when it comes to self-sacrifice, especially in a dire circumstance, men have to be expendable.  I wonder if these same people would do the same; I have a distinct feeling that they would not.  I would bet even a few sell their own mothers to save their own skins, yet have the stunning audacity to imply that men who do not abide by the (fairly modern, by the way) quasi-dictum of "women and children first."


It was the same message.  Women can have their cake and eat it, too, and glean the benefits of both "equality" and the protections that traditionalism yields.  Men have to bear the brunt of societal situations that call for it---whether we let it or not.  And if we don't like it, we are heartless, misogynist bastards to boot.   


I have had a rather passing interest in how organisms survive despite environmental stressors and conditions, and human beings are on the apex of that list.   Do men really have a genetic proclivity be the ones who are willing to sacrifice their very lives more than women when needed?  At first observation, it seems to be the case.  Superficially, at least.  After all, it was all part and parcel of the order of things, and Western culture hinged on this bedrock of sorts . . . right?
   
After many years of witnessing what had happened to other men---and not just myself---and even possessing a keen sense of self-preservation despite societal attempts to dampen it, whatever left of that attribute of self-sacrifice is now numbed.  I became disgusted by with a misandrist culture that exalts women at the expense of men.  I viewed self-abnegation as no virtue whatsoever, and getting rid of traces of it became far easier over time.  


While much has been debated about how true sociobiological drives are truly involved in this or not, there has sprung up more examples that if this somehow has some biological fact, it can be overridden.  Even more so,  it can be changed in the long term.  Feminism is quite the culprit.  Despite the concept that feminism is all about equality, it never was whatsoever.  One its latent---but very powerful and ingrained---thrusts of feminism is that men are here to ultimately serve men.  If we do not in some fashion, we are not just considered useless, but even possibly dangerous in some manner.


I've always thought that as a man that a woman by my side would make rational self-interest one of the main roots of our relationship.  It would be paired with a mutual understanding and trust that would serve us both.  This is not just from my experience alone, but I have discovered that there are women out there that refuse to grasp this as a concept, much less in practice.  So many expect men to love them unconditionally while they walk all over them; they expect men to work soulless jobs and not complain while women discover themselves and dump men on a whim.   


On top of this, they've gotten Betty Friedan's disease; forever happy being unhappy, and what "beta males" do for them is never enough while rewarding the perceived alphas ceaselessly.  Even women who believe themselves loyal engage in shameless hypergamy. Of course, men are supposed to accept all of this, and when we don't there are women out there who express shock and anger when we don't "know our role."  My retort to them is thus; what the hell do you expect?  


There are lessons from the Costa Concordia disaster.  This is where Ping Jockey's post comes into play here, and his statement has been concurrent with one of my themes for MGTOW; women have a lot to fear when good men show indifference or turn their backs on them---or decide the alternatives---foreign women, minority women, expating, womanizing, engaging in semi-reclusive modes, or simply waiting it out until a better woman comes along.  


Deep down, it is an absolutely terrifying thought that men can up and leave any time a woman that gets too out of hand and abusive.  It should be, but the intriguing thing is that so many women still do the wrong actions and behavior that do not make men more willing to make it a go.  This is far more dangerous and still alien for many women, who would rather risk a known evil in a man who is corrupt and brute than compassionate and tender.  


When Ameriskanks smashed the social compact between men and women, the old role of man-as-pack-mule gradually become more of a source of drudgery rather than pride.  As much as I detest feminism, there is a good thing that has come out of it; if women do not obligate themselves to men in a fashion, men need not, either, and we are freed up to seek out what our true bliss.  Whether or not American women will get the hint and decide to grow and learn with men or still mournfully cry out for the "traditional" roles they damned in the first place remains to be seen.  

Ruminating About Misandry

I have found in my frequent journeys online as well as observations of misandry in daily life, the media, or in the political arena that it never seems to let up. Granted, in there's always a place where I escape from the unfettered ding of its raucous call in order to maintain a seamblance of peace---I have a few devices; cooking gourmet dinners for myself, walking around a local beach late at night or the grappling sessions I attend twice a week.

Still, I find that cannot sever myself from writing about this cultural malaise. Men are being removed as main authority of the family and sometimes even kicked out, with the ever-widening grip of the state encroaching in our lives. Young men are not as scholarly inclined or even discouraged to be more ambitious in school and college, and will have a significant effect on the economic course in our future. Despite some efforts to push for dual child custody in divorce court women are still favored as primary caretakers while many fathers have pay up for CS with limited access to their kids. Debtor's prison, an Unconstitutional situation, is still enacted in many cases when man cannot financially maintain support payments. Maybe a mother has leveled false charges of abuse against a man to restrict visitation entirely or has found another lover while he slaves away. The ludicrous burden---what I consider should be illegal---of alimony is rewarded to greedy and vindictive-minded ex-wives. In the workplace, false accusations of sexual harassment have men walking on nails and although some countermeasures have been implemented as policy to curtail them, there are women that will still employ this a weapon to be rid of men they don't like or find "creepy" on a whim. Don't get me started on health funding, depression and suicide rates, hypergamy, slutwalks, and domestic violence.

What have feminists, feminism, and their counterparts have done to help men in dire need? If anything they have aided in spearheading legal and social misandry with no signs of letup. With the lie that feminism is supposed to be for legal and social equality, it has clearly shown its true colors---female supremacy---and anyone not giving homage to its poisonous credo is demonized, marginalized, or punished in some fashion.  With the Radfem Hub now made visible and its posters true thoughts laid bare, it is evident what they really think of men.  Many of the statements were particularly cruel, but one of them that troubled me was the suggestion that mothers could starve male infants and boys of affection and nurture in order to (essentially) let them die.  


How heartless.  Unbelievable.


One most note that many of these same women that have made these venomous statements are not exactly in the shadows in the first place; among them are career women and those in influential positions.  And yet, these feminists are the oppressed and victimized---or so they claim.  In reality, they want the power sans responsibility, and burden men further with absurd expectations.  It's the hideous irony that those purporting to champion equality secretly desire to regulate men to the status of second class citizens.  Or worse.


Given all of this, it's not surprising that there are men gradually men drifting away in a sense---refusing to support women without mutual reciprocation, tired of contributing to society with little reward, suspicious of Ameriskank behavior, and cynical of any romantic ideal after being hurt by women for too long or told over and over it's all their fault.  There's a lesson from the Radfem Hub revealing from Agent Orange; men are considered expendable.  Period.  And no matter how profound our efforts to uphold civility and society, as well as . . . oh hell . . .  just expect a modicum of love and affection from a woman that treats us halfway decent in return, we are still inferior by virtue of our Y chromosome.  


Feminism has always tried to control men, and by extension, male sexuality.  In turn, women's sexuality is paramount and should be always given precedence over men's, which is clearly seen in anything with reproductive choice, child support, cuckolding, and the like.  This appeals strongly to women who don't completely share the outright hatred of the more extremist type; after all, it's something that has permeated our culture like a bonfire that seemingly cannot be doused.  Add this with massive redistribution of wealth from men via the state to women (supposedly for the sake of the children).  Imagine if the latter were to fall through (including welfare, CS, and alimony ground to a halt); if the doomsayers are correct, it is a possibility.  If more men wake up to realize they are being extorted, indirectly or otherwise, by a system that basically cares nothing for them outside of production and utility purposes---walking ATMs and sperm banks---things will be vastly different for the sexes, and all the cries to return to bullshit notions of chivalry would dissipate.   


By means of comparison, the feminists spouting hatred have a more insidious viewpoint than your average, smug, selfish Ameriskank.  Men are disposable, superfluous.  And although without men we would not have the advances in our historical evolution as we know it, we truly are perceived as deserving as the expendable sex.  I am still a little surprised that they still feel it should clandestine about it, considering how misandry extends to both the radical left as well as Necons.  Obviously, some of it is out in the open.  It would be a sick joke if they were not so earnest.


As Men Going Our Own Way, there are no hard and fast rules for every individual man, but spreading the word about the truth  has become crucial.   For those that have no respect for men and masculinity should ask themselves this: why should we have any respect for them when they continue to smash any underlying social contract asunder and leave no benefit for men?  

Robert O'Hara Exposes Feminist Hatred

This is from the site A Voice For Men.


There has been much discussion about this recently and I could probably add more than a few words of my own.  There has been some digging up of feminists posts about what they really think of men.  This is actually recent writings and not just the classic cases of quotes from the your Dworkins of the world; it's proof of how they view men in general, and it gets even worse---they are in certain career positions that will surprise some.  While I consider myself rather cynical, I still find the implications troubling.  Another point here is that unlike the constant protestations that feminists don't have real power and clout in the status quo, this will be another blow to that notion. In fact, it's something I've stated for years; it is ingrained (currently) in our society and quite active in many social and workplace circles.  I'm not the only one who subscribes to this, but I do think they should be held accountable in accordance to whatever damage they ultimately do.  


I want to thank everyone involved from AVFM for shedding light on this serious problem and Agent Orange for his work; some may say that it will not effect great change, but it truly is another blade (as one poster used to say, and I miss him) how feminism will disseminated by a thousand cuts.




From the article:   Radfem Hub: the underbelly of a hate movement

Imagine that you are a fly on the wall of a private meeting. The attendees include a legislative lobbyist, an arts council member, a political writer, a bestselling novelist, a communications assistant for a national chamber of commerce, a web developer, a special education teacher and a child care worker.

What do you imagine you would hear in that meeting? Maybe plans to improve children’s education, especially those with special needs? Perhaps a call to mobilize resources to ensure school kids are not attending class hungry, or that they are safe from abuse and exploitation? Maybe you would hear concerns about the quality of education and school budgets during the global recession, or other problems faced by the upcoming and developmental generation of world citizens.
Well, one such meeting has been happening, conducted by well-placed individuals who fill the job descriptions listed above. But educational and welfare improvements were not the topics they discussed. The agenda of the meeting was the shared desire to abuse and murder children, to trap people in wooden buildings and blow them up, to throw children from, through, windows, to pursue infanticide and forced eugenics, and to seriously entertain and secretly pursue ways to exterminate half the population.

If you are waiting for a punch line, don’t.

Radfem Hub (Radfem is short for Radical Feminist), is a website featuring articles from well-known activists, many of whom are in significant real-world positions of political and social influence. The site has been the focus of some attention since Simon and Schuster novelist Pamela O’Shaughnessy, posting under the name Vliet Tiptree, penned an article there advocating human scientific experimentation and forced eugenics, in order to “extirpate” certain aspects of masculinity.
The publishers of Radfem Hub frequently profess and promote philosophical solidarity with the late Valerie Solanas, author of The Scum Manifesto, a violent ideologue who advocated the extermination of men. She also gunned down artist Andy Warhol, maiming him for life.

Some well-known figures are closely associated with the Radfem Hub. Loretta Kemsley, publisher of Moon Dance Magazine, which was given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is listed as having a “board presence” on her public profile there. Sheila Jeffreys, feminist author and professor at The University of Melbourne has a public presence there and frequently provides articles. Julie Bindle, author and columnist with The Guardian, a well read newspaper in the U.K., has also posted there. (see Wikipedia Links Below).

Underneath Radfem’s veneer of social consciousness, however, and hosted on the same website, is a private forum; the underbelly and engine room for the site as a whole. The discussions there, assumed to be out of the public eye, are virulent and hateful; often peppered with calls for violence. For a long time, they have been successful and maintaining both secrecy and anonymity. Until now.

Over the past several months an operative ,who will only be identified as Agent Orange, has successfully infiltrated the group and has collected trove of information, including over a hundred screen shots that document what can only be called the most shocking evidence of extreme hatred in the feminist movement seen to date.
Not only have these conversations been documented with screen shots but Agent Orange, with the help of an investigator, has tracked down the identities of several of these individuals. The confidence level of the information is compelling, and more is on the way.  Here is a portion of the individuals identified, along with some of their statements.

Danielle Pynnonen (screen name “Allecto”), a child care worker whose employer is unknown;

click to enlarge

Kat Pinder (screen name “Amazon Mancrusher”), a community development coordinator for the City of Perth in Australia and former U.K. Game show Big Brother contestant;

Click to enlarge

Isabelle Moreira (screen name “Izzie”), a web developer in Curitiba, Brazil;

Click to enlarge

Mary Syrett (screen name “Mary Sunshine”), a writer and member of the City of Kingston Arts Council in Ontario, Canada;

Click to enlarge

Julie LeComte (screen name “Rain”), a communications assistant for the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Australia;

Click to enlarge

Lorraine Allen (screen name “White Tiger”), a special education teacher at The Center for Discovery Hurleyville, New York;

Click to enlarge

Laila Namdarkhan (screen name “yabawife”), a well known feminist activist who was instrumental in passing legislation in the U.K. Regarding the mental health of women in prisons;

Click to enlarge

And of course Pam O’Shaughnesey (screen name changed from “Vliet Tipree” to “karma”), an established writer, publisher and lawyer. In this post, the complete depravity of O’shaughnessy’s ideology shines though with a clear willingness for mass murder as a “last resort.”

Click to enlarge

These screen shots represent just a sample the images and other data that document real people engaging in what can only be described as an orgy of gender hatred. What’s more, these are not individuals who live on the fringes of society. They are people who hold public offices, positions in academia and the media. Their voices and ideas are heard in legislatures all around the world and even in the chambers of the United Nations.

In the very near future, the complete body of data collected by Agent Orange will be made available to the public at large. This means that anyone interested learning more about these people and publicizing their own analyses on their blogs, Youtube channels or other media will be able to do so. It also means that interested members of the general public can voice their concerns regarding these individuals to the press, as well as anywhere these individuals may pose a direct threat, particularly to the welfare of children.

For a long time men’s advocates and others have tried to point out to politicians and the public that feminism was, at its heart, a movement rooted in hate. Those contesting this point of view claim that radical feminism isn’t recognized as legitimate by most feminists and that radical feminists aren’t taken seriously. This new information demonstrates those assumptions are false.

This data, and the mountains of it to soon follow, reveal that radical feminists with bigoted, violent leanings are thoroughly entrenched in the media, governmental and education systems worldwide, and that they are exerting their influence to further legislation and policy that reflects not only their hatred of men and boys, but a desire to put themselves in a position to inflict as much harm on them as possible.I will be joining Paul Elam on AVfM Radio tomorrow night, when we will be speaking live with Agent Orange, who has a great deal more information and perspective on what has been happening at Radfem Hub. Another surprise guest will be appearing.

Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondance_Magazinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreyshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindelhttp://radicalhub.wordpress.com/

Remembering Michelle

To be honest, I really didn't know how to start off this post.  So I will say it; Michelle is only one of two women in my lifetime that I truly loved, and while I was young when it came onto me like an incessant whirlwind you could not dissipate, being young made it no less potent.  If anything, it amplified all the rawness and pain that I felt for it being unrequited.   I do remember her from even before I had been a high school sophomore and that she was exceedingly beautiful and feminine, unlike women now days that feel they have to festoon their bodies with tattoos and gradually wear on their physiology with drugs and partying.  


If "alpha female" equated to Michelle, she was quite the prize at the time.  She was a senior, and not only was she gorgeous, but academically bright, lady-like, kept her nose clean, and had the warmest smile I had ever seen.  There were many things to adore about her to a driven but gangly, introverted teen such as myself.  I don't recall exactly at one point that my lionization would infect my loins like a raging fever I couldn't rid myself from, but I do know when she discovered it.   Perhaps the death of a couple of relatives at that period only added to my dismay; they had died in an abrupt car crash.  Now life and love had another meaning; it could be profound but taken away at any time.  She needed to know how I felt because life was fleeting.


Of course, Michelle it not know how strongly I desired her; never before was I moved so deeply by a woman.  Yes, lust was a part of it, but if it had been only sexual I could have moved on.  That was not so easy.    At fifteen, I was floored by it---I'll be up front and state I didn't know how to come to terms with it.  At the time, I wondered if it had been any more powerful I would have moved proverbial mountains just to be with her.


Not that it mattered.  I was a somewhat nerdy younger guy with a crush.  That was it in her world.  That fact alone was eating away at me, but would be even more brutal when I would see her with a bone-headed football player she had befriended.  Sometimes, I wondered if she had latched on to him as a token boyfriend to prevent me from continued pursuit, although she would smile that particular smile to me on occasion and speak to or about me in passing.  It wasn't just the idea she had a trophy beau on her arm that was devastating; it was because I was not even considered despite her coy and wispy acknowledgments of me.  I was in a lower caste, regardless.  I even ruminated if I might as well have been dead, and that my passing would only been thought of momentarily in her life--and she would continue without that much fanfare.


What is paramount is that I was a romantic soul that truly did believe in loyalty, self-sacrifice, passion, and devotion to a woman that I was enamored with.  It is somewhat difficult to convey that belief now despite other posters finding me fairly articulate and direct.  There were other young women, but in my world Michelle was like the chosen one; I wanted her as a soulmate so badly that it tore at the fibers of my being.  For an entire year, I burned with that core fire that would eventually yield to a colder, more darker flame that would not be the same ever since.


Oh yeah, I did mention that I loved another woman later on.  But even then, I was not the same.  Andrea refused to understand that about me despite (supposedly) adoring me to the point of fixation, and as much as she wanted me, I had changed at a younger age.   A crucial part of not loving simply every woman that came along is that very few would ever appreciate what I would have done for Michelle to be at my side for a lifetime, and it transformed me unalterably.  I don't give my respect and love out to just any woman, because Ameriskanks don't respect and love men back in the same fashion.   Michelle would not do the same for me at all.  I had to come to grips with that notion, and it was like trying to grapple with a venomous tiger.   And once that proverbial struggle was over, I came out the other side scarred and stoic.   


There are women out there that think nothing of how heartbreak effects men.  They will even deride and openly mock those same men, not regarding the former and also not realizing their derision leads to more cynicism and even bad karma for those women.  You do get what you give, and those women in kind---in their hubris---refuse to come to terms with how mistreating, demonizing, abusing, and marginalizing men creates the problems that poison the well---even in our culture.  If men took the personal as political (as feminists do) the landscape of the relationships between the sexes would look very, very different.  To say the least, most women would think twice about purposefully hurting men on one level or another, and at the more extreme, the feminist nightmare of what they perceive is oppression and men's anger---one which they are reaping despite their claims to the contrary---would be made manifest.  It is quite a testament to men's reluctance to be at war with women, if anything.  We are not bred to hate them.   But we are not their punching bags or drones, either.   


There was not one real pivotal moment that lead me to become as I am now, but the Michelles of the world will not know the influence they have.  The magic has been constrained like a hermetically sealed talisman; it may just never return.  Women  cry for that romantic soul will not come back, at least not in this lifespan.   And they should be very worried about that.


My experience may seem to pale in the view of men in child support custody battles or dealing with a violent woman bent on destroying their partners somehow, but I have changed.  I have become that man that can say "No" to anything a woman does in my personal life I don't like at all, to the one that can walk away without looking back.  This frightens Ameriskanks more than the guy that cheats, the one that is emotionally or physically abusive, or the one they purport is a "lazy, no good bastard" that lets himself go.  We are dangerous in the light that we are looking out for ourselves since none of them would bother to do the same.  After all, if they truly don't need us, perhaps we can return the favor and let them stare in the mirror at their own real cause of their problems.


There is more I could say, but Michelle has contributed to the man that has walked away.  There is a heavy price tag to pay for creating men like me, whether is was indirect or not---or if they realize it or not.     

If any substantial number of women begin to wonder why they're suffering, and really want to know why, the information is available. The Buddha explained it all quite clearly 2500 years ago. He was surely not the first, nor will he be the last. Afterwards he simply walked away from the melodrama.  ---Philalethes

My Thoughts On Ameriskanks Losing Their Appeal To Men Over Time

Very recently it was brought up that there are women who still cling the idea that their ability to attract the best of men lasts with them regardless of the ravages of time and an unhealthy lifestyle---or at least men that were perceived good catches, as opposed to men Ameriskanks typically look down upon with scorn.  This includes men which nowdays are typically good men that are often marginalized or even demonized in some fashion. 

If you are a good man in the viciousness and cruelty of a misadrist society, you always have to watch your back.  You have to find some kind of support system that same society which expect you to "man up" and "deal with it" even though that support is barely there.  Regardless of what any feminist or white knight has ever believed, most men have to make in through their lives with little backup of their own.  Even women that aren't as hateful or skeptical about men cannot seem grasp this in concept.  The fact of the matter is that many women have always had some sort of supportive element(s) in their lives that often outrstrip their men cohorts, and since we supposedly live in a "patriarchy" that allegedly benefits men, they are bereft of the understanding that men receive far less of these support structures (including emotionally) than women do on average.  It is a sad commentary on our culture, indeed.

But, as a good friend of mine used to say before his passing, let's cut through the bone and get right to the marrow of the matter.

I've said this before in conjuction with this topic, but you would think a woman that has gone through the gaunlet of self-abuse, excess, addiction, and a catalog of toxic relationships that gave her a hefty amount of baggage would be grateful for a what they would deem as an "average Joe's" attention as being lucky.  The arrogance of the modern Ameriskank helps them thrive on their delusion about Prince Charming still riding in to rescue them from their largely self-crafted problems---even when they have spent a great portion of their lives passing up good men and wondering why those same men they treated with a snear and disrespect will not invest much time with them.  On one of the forums I frequent, a poster writes:

AR:

This is why we have this overactive "rape culture". I really think women get off on being scared that they can be raped or hit on at any time. It must mean they're soooooo attractive and hawt. These women would rather believe that a guy is suffering inside with wanting her and not going to get it than the fact that a guy might not be interested at all. That just doesn't compute.
You can REALLY piss off a woman by asking her why she thinks ANYONE would want to rape her? A friend of mine did that once at a bar and she was LIVID! Gawd, it was funny! Wouldn't you think that would be one less thing to be worried about?

And my response in continuation of the thread about this very same subject (although slightly edited):

I've been called conceited because I look years younger than my age, I'm in fairly good shape, and I don't bow down to just any woman that walks by. Even one woman called me "Fabio" because I'm tall and muscular with long hair. With her skewed sense of humor I don't know if it was a compliment or a slam.

With women, however, their hubris and desirability is not to be questioned.

Hell, even with online dating sites (which are pretty much a farce stacked against men and in women's favor), if a woman showed off in her pictures it was okay, but if you are shirtless and musclebound as man you are often labelled as a narcissist. I think it's a way of control, and a way of cutting down men's esteem while lifting women's own at men's expense. They want to dominate the dating, sexual, and procreative marketplace. With feminism it is proverbially and literally law designed for women's choice and men's responsibility----even if that means there are men that will never find someone remotely suitable as a mate at all.

The irony is that usually the women who are damaged secretly wish they were more desirable, but will not openly admit they have their flaws. It eats away at them in all seriousness, and, of course, how dare you point it out. They want men to trip over themselves for access to their rarely given affection and approval but hate giving up that personal, sexual, and social power. Even with dating, Ameriskanks want to control just about everything, even with ultimate veto power to reject you as a mate (unless they consider you a celebrity alpha or something).

The idea that most men would not want a burnt out, used up skank is not something they will readily come to terms with. I honestly think if women had to deal with the rejection, scorn, criticism, and even hatred men receive as desirability is concerned they would be near lunatic mania with it---and (in all seriousness) even the actual suicide rate would skyrocket, as opposed to the bogus suicide attempts.

"Can an ideology teach hate?" From Toy Soldiers

From the blog site:

One of the curious changes in the online community over the last decade is the growth of the men’s rights movement. Driven by concern for men’s issues, men’s rights activists formed online communities. The movement garnered the attention of several people who have since led offline activist campaigns to help men and boys. But perhaps more than helping men, the men’s rights movement has spawned a feminist backlash against the movement and the discussion of men’s issues.

The most common accusation against men’s rights activists is that they are part of a hate group. Feminists claim that the ideology guiding men’s rights activists is rife with misogyny, particularly as it relates to violence against women. Feminists claim exposure to men’s rights groups causes people to support and potentially commit violence, although no self-professed men’s activist has ever been reported to have hurt anyone, whether on his own or in the name of the movement. Feminist bloggers like Manboobz owner David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer, and dozens of others list examples of comments and posts from men’s rights sites to try to prove their claim. As far as feminists are concerned, the men’s movement or any concern for men’s issues teaches nothing but hate.

Coincidentally, men’s rights activists argue the same thing about feminism. Part of their core beliefs is that feminism seeks to oppress men and shift all power to women. Of course, feminists cry foul at the mere assertion that any feminist is capable of hurting men, let alone that feminism as an ideology teaches misandry.

Case in point, on a recent Manboobz thread I mentioned my experiences with my feminist aunt. Futrelle posted a rhetorical question from a men’s rights blog, but the comment section revolved around a joke one of the men’s rights’ commenters made involving shooting feminists with boiled potatoes until they renounced feminism. To this I replied:

[...] I would have much preferred my feminist aunt to jokingly fantasize about shooting me with boiled potatoes to get me to accept feminism than have her actually maliciously shove dildos and strap-ons up my ass when I was a child to teach me how evil “patriarchy” is.

This prompted a number of comments, the gist of which was that feminism had nothing to do with my aunts actions, that feminism never causes bad behavior, and that my aunt is not a feminist. I received a similar response from feminist blogger Barry Deutsch several years ago when I mentioned my aunt (which also prompted Barry to ban me). My response to the Manboobz comments that an ideology can inform a person’s actions led to a host of retorts, the best of which came from Rutee Katreya:

Find for me where feminist thought says the rape of boys is a requisite action to promote equality for women. What your aunt did was fucking horrible. I don’t really see a reason for you to be on board with feminism because of it. But I simply will not allow you to slander an entire movement trying to prevent similar for hundreds of people (Not women, girls, boys, or men, people) because of one person, who can’t even get people to agree with what she did, and who nobody within has apparently defended. Trying to say we’re ‘like’ or worse, *worse* than a movement that just wants to perpetuate enslavement for a gender, because one woman who is a feminist did a horrible thing to you, is not going to fly.

This is the the same feminism that teaches that men collectively oppress women for the sole purpose of keeping all the power for themselves. The same feminism that claims that every male, regardless of his age or social status, benefits from this “patriarchy” at women’s expense. The same feminism that holds the fraction of men with power and the fraction men who commit violence as representative of the whole male population. The same feminism that views men as the ultimate enemy, one to be feared, distrusted, and suspected.

Would it surprise anyone that an ideology espousing that kind of hatred might cause a person to hurt someone?

It certainly does not surprise feminists. The core of the feminist argument is that society’s ideas about women cause men to commit violence against them. Yet how is it possible for the men’s rights movement and conspiracy theory called “patriarchy” can cause violence, but an openly anti-male ideology like feminism could not possibly cause a woman to hurt her nephew? This blog is full of accounts of feminists using feminism to hurt, punish, and discriminate against men. Numerous men and women have written and spoken about the negative impact feminist ideas had on them. Plenty of people have discussed how feminist policies have hurt boys and men. The misandry within feminist doctrine is obvious that feminists feel the need to create a Feminism 101 blog and constantly remind people that feminism is not about hating men.  And they do this all while claiming that “patriarchy” makes men rape, beat, and kill women. Everything from stiletto heels to make-up comes back to one pseudo-ideology making men oppress women. It is a glaring contradiction that so far none of the feminists responding to me over at Manboobz can seem to get around.

I do feel for them. They are essentially trying to defend the feminist version of “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. They cannot just admit that feminism as an ideology can be and has been used to hurt people, and something inherent in the ideology makes that so common. As such, I can forgive the insults and the wild straw man arguments claiming that I stated my aunt represents feminism or that I stated that feminism supports child rape. I suppose I would pull at straws too if someone said a thing I do not believe possible happened to them.




(Note:  Needless to say I admire TS's fortitude with the feminist circles he engages.  I have no patience for them, personally or otherwise).  

Omega Virgin On "A Question No Woman Or Mangina Will Ever Answer"---And My Response

From white and nerdy . . .

Lots of women and manginas say that the reason why I can’t get a girlfriend/get laid/am hated by women is because I’m a “misogynist asshole” or something similar. They say that women are staying away from me because they don’t want misogynists.

Knowing that claim, here is a question that no woman or mangina will ever answer. I wasn’t what they call a “misogynist” most of my life. I had a much better opinion of women most of my life. I was not born with my current opinions about women. They came from experience, especially my experiences with being the victim of false sexual harassment charges. Since so much of that happened before I developed my current view on women, then why did women treat me EXACTLY THE SAME as they do now? Why is not being a “misogynist” getting the exact same results as being a “misogynist”?

My response is here:

One of things they will never acknowledge is that no matter how your perspective is, the feminists, white knights, the media misandrists, and politicians will not come to grips that they have a mammoth hand in crafting the anti-male environment we have now. Openly admitting it would be confessing their guilt even with all the blatant disgust for men and masculinity that has been ongoing. Yet when men criticize feminism and its supporters and adherents for what they are and what they do, we are automatically branded as misogynists. It’s damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

Of course, white and nerdy, they will claim you were bitter all along. It’s absolute nonsense, but as you know they will not ever expose their own complicity, or look in the mirror for the answer as to why men are ever coming to more of the conclusions we have about them.

I also have been accused of being a woman hater more than anything else. Regardless of what that’s supposed to mean to them (hell, even ignoring a woman’s whim has now been labeled as abuse or misogyny), one thing is clear—men who discover that Ameriskanks are far from flowers and light glean this from interaction and experiences with them, not from being shunned. I know some men that would actually prefer being ignored by women after a time considered all the abuse and lies hurled at them over the years. Anyone from Burton to Zed/Zenpriest has made this known; a man who has his eyes opened about the dark side of women does not become cynical and wary because they were like that to begin with—they become wary through dealing with them. Most men I know grew up with an almost idealistic view of women, if not placing them on pedestals. Unfortunately, some men never learn to grow out of that, and even get punished by their denial of skank and feminist behavior. Still, they will defend skanks, golddiggers, single moms, and feminists to the brink of hostility even though they will suffer in the long haul for it.

We have to look out for ourselves and promote our rational self-interest, with or without women. If this is “misogyny,” so be it.

They despise and fear men they ultimately can’t control. That’s what it’s really all about. Even abusive men still gravitate toward women, and there are women who will welcome them. A man that truly has power over a woman is one that can walk away—even one who has loved her in the past, but will no longer tolerate personal jabs and exploitative efforts from one.

I have pondered a few times why so many women have such open resentment and even hatred towards men. In the past, I thought Whiskey is not wholly correct about how Ameriskank women perceive beta men as disposable and loathsome, but now it’s seems much on par with what how they treat men as such. My own opinion is that they pretty much don’t give a shit about the majority of men, and it’s all about them. Period. Granted, that sentiment is in gradients, but it still holds true. But there is a counter to this, and one I hope catches on eventually.

I think enough is enough—I don’t care where that hidebound resent or even seething hatred comes from, and if feminism fuels that fire or not (which is most certainly does). I do not give credence to it. Feminists can bitch about patriarchy until the end of time and justify why they are so angry with men even while being underhanded about—it will never be something I will accept. Not as a man. No way. Not ever.

I honestly believe the MGTOW philosophy, in part, is a reaction for being mistreated as much as we are getting sick and tired of being looked upon as second class citizens (or less so) and want our sense of worth and rights as men upheld in general. I think Zed hit upon something when he pointed out your typical American skank doesn’t see as holistic human beings, and women are shocked when many men reveal we are deep wells that have more depth than they want to realize. This would mean we would have be treated as real equals on every level, and this is precisely what they don’t really want. Herein lies the difference between MGTOW and feminism . . . the latter is about female supremacy, power, control, and lack of accountability while still shunting the onus on men with almost everything.

No wonder more men are gradually awakening up.