skip to main |
skip to sidebar
stonerwithaboner had snatched a quote from Feminist Critics that he liked, so I'll repeat it here with some commentary:
The problem is that the Nice Guy is the target of a
modern witch hunt. The Nice Guy is considered a target, a wounded man
because he dares speak out about his loneliness. Women don’t like that,
and men who are too obsessed with sexual competition, see him as a
target. All the nasty things said about nice guys are nothing but
rationalizations for women having no compassion for emotionally
distressed men, and men following their animal competitive instinct.
Before we can address the attack on nice guys, first we need to know
what it is based on. It is not based on what women say it is. It is
based on the feeding frenzy instinct, the desire for women to cull men
from the herd to reduce unwanted attention, and for men it is to reduce
competition.
I think this pretty valid thinking.
Personally, I'm pretty much done with the nice guy/bad boy terms, but Jacalope is on to something here. A man that values his sense of self and being on more than one level, and has been marginalized wrongly is often stigmatized---or even demonized---for openly lamenting his condition as unfair. Men who are viewed and treated as suspect or not as prized as other men by women are often seen as weak or undesirable despite their attributes. He's someone either to exploit or pass up. The frustrating truth is that this actually compounds the problem; regardless of what people believe, there is a hegemony, a hierarchy of sorts in the dating and mating world, and women who want strict choices who they favor, and they alongside with men who don't want rivals are keen to dump on anyone not considered suitable no matter how good the man really is at heart.
If women clearly perceived the NG as a full-fledged human being, it would mean they would have to act accordingly---his pleasure and pain, joy and suffering, dreams and nightmares, and happiness and sorrow would be something not to dismiss, and reducing him to second class citizen status or lower would be difficult. Since so many Ameriskanks want to be the ones desired and sit in the driver's seat---even passive aggressively---having to deal with a man normally considered not as up to par as an equal would be a struggle for them. It would mean that their personal power would be on a level playing field with those same men. And it would not be so easy to explain why they throw themselves at "alphas" and yet demand a NG to kow tow to ludicrous demands and moods while still remaining the one with the hands on the proverbial reins.
Deep down, it seems that Ameriskanks have little respect, understanding, real passion, or sympathy towards men they want as front men, walking ATMs, workhorses, and whipping boys. The "All the nasty things said about nice guys are nothing but
rationalizations for women having no compassion for emotionally
distressed men . . . " is one the main motivations beyond the febrile rants about "nice guys." Simply put, it's a glib and smug excuse to treat men like shit sans accountability. But don't you dare criticize women for their feelings, wants, expectations, or react to them as a spoiled, would-be princess without a throne and a broken crown. You're just a misogynist if you have the gall.
Symantec has tagged certain MGTOW/MRA sites, and I wish to spread the word about it. I do openly state that this company will never get my business and I will continue to let others know why. I believe this is defamation and do want to inform as much as possible about it. I also will let anyone MGTOW/MRA oriented who wishes to contact me about this issue, they can write me at WithoutAMaster@msn.com at any time. Please keep in touch. SR
From The Rights of Man site:
Thursday, 14 March 2013
NOW OFFICIAL - O2 AND SYMANTEC BELIEVE HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX ABUSE IS HATEFUL
By now most people are aware of the issue of men's rights website being wrongly blocked by Symantec and various mobile phone companies due to them somehow being flagged as "hate sites". I've done further investigations and can exclusively reveal the official response from these companies on this matter. There tends to be a bit of confusion about this issue and so firstly I'll attempt to explain what's going on and tackle some misconceptions.
Which sites are blocked?
I initially identified 48 sites blocked by Symantec/O2 and flagged as "hate sites". The list then grew to 58 as even more were identified. It's fair to say that a majority of key sites critical of feminism and supportive of men's rights are blocked. You can see the full list here.
What exactly does this mean for the sites concerned?
The "hate site" classification means a number of users are denied any access, particularly people accessing the internet in some restaurants, workplaces and via mobile phone networks such as Telefonica/O2. In total Symantec claims 250 million users of the filter worldwide, so it could easily mean a 10% reduction in traffic for mens' rights sites.
How long has this being going on?
It is uncertain as to exactly how long this has been an issue. I became aware of the problem in May 2012 though it appears to have been going on in some cases for at least two years. It must have been happening for a considerable length of time as some of the blocked sites no longer exist.
Hold on, I thought avoiceformen.com had been unblocked and Symantec had backed down?
Sadly this is not the case and such a suggestion is based on a false report in the media. Avoiceformen.com was never unblocked at any stage.
I find this all a bit hard to believe, how can I check a site's classification for myself?
There are currently two ways to check whether or not a site has been branded as a "hate site". Users have previously checked a site's status by enabling Norton's DNS service, but a much easier method is O2's url checker.
Other mens' rights activists and even member of the media have had difficulty getting any sort of meaningful response from Symantec so I've taken a different approach and been in touch with O2/Telefonica management. I asked them to classify the blocked websites more appropriately and to stop censoring such content. Eventually I was put in contact with O2's head of complaints, Antony Gibson, and he confirmed that O2 use the same filter service from Symantec, called Rulespace, thus explaining why the two block lists of the two companies are identical.
Mr Gibson liaised with Symantec and informed me they had reviewed the list and decided to reclassify just 2 out of the 47 sites I presented them with. This therefore means the "hate" classification/block officially stands for the bulk of this content (including avoiceformen.com) and is no accident. Mr Gibson explained that O2/Symantec regarded the sites to be at the "low end" of the spectrum in terms of hate and further explained that they were blocked and classed as "hate sites" due to reasons such as showing "aggression" and/or use of the term "anti-feminism"!
Mr Gibson did express some concern about people seeing men's rights sites listed as hate sites and smeared in this way, but O2's solution to our concerns is that they will disable their url checker so no one can see the reason why a site has been blocked. In other words O2 is fairly happy for the issue of human rights for men to be classed as hateful, their only concern is people finding out that they're taking this stance. So, now we have no just a case of censorship and defamation, but a cover up too!
To compound matters yet further, many of these sites classified as hateful really are incredibly innocuous and deal with very important issues, many don't even use the term "anti-feminist" either nor contain "aggression". Such a term is so vague and ambiguous as to be completely meaningless, and proves absolutely how the filter is arbitrary and a nonsense and completely open to abuse. More importantly, if O2/Symantec have an issue with the term "anti-feminist", then they are quite blatantly taking an extreme political stance in favour of an ideology. Afterall, there's barely any more "aggressive" way of supporting feminist doctrine than to censor and defame anyone who dares critique or correct it.
I think this issue really sums up how important the men's' movement is today, not to mention the scale of the challenge facing us. We see countless feminist activists all over the media campaigning against free speech and equality and seeking privileges for women such as subsidised insurance premiums. Feminists make endless sexist comments telling men not to rape and even the host of the world's leading feminist radio programme openly laughs at male victims of domestic abuse. Whilst all this has been going on, and despite spending countless hours on the matter, I've failed with a simple request for companies to stop denying help to male victims of rape and domestic violence. In fact I can't even get these sick companies to remove their "hate site" smear from their classification of these vitally important resources. Perhaps I haven't yet been "aggressive" enough?
Here's a selection of sites O2/Symantec's insist on keeping in their "hate site" category:
http://dvmen.org - A site in Colorado helping male victims of domestic violence.http://toysoldier.wordpress.com - A blog highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse.http://www.ncfm.org -Website of the longest running men's human rights organisation in the US (founded in 1977).http://www.fathersforlife.org - A site seeking for fathers to have a greater role in their children's lives.http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html - A webpage scientifically debunking the most common feminist myths.http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.co.uk - blog by a fahter who doesnt' get to see his son.
For those who are curious, apparently the only two non-"hateful" men's sites out of the 47 are: Hisside.com and dadi.org and both are now unblocked.
by John Kimble
The following may or may not be the email addresses of the O2 board members:
Matthew.Kay@o2.com, Pilar.López@o2.com, Ronan.Dunne@o2.com, Trevor.Healy@o2.com, Kate Jarvis@o2.com, Simon.Linares@o2.com, Richard.Poston@o2.com, René.Schuster@o2.com, Stephen.Shurrock@o2.com, David.Arculus@o2.com, Peter.Erskine@o2.com, Cath.Keers@o2.com, Eduardo.Zaplana@o2.com
I would like to direct your attention to a recent post by The Black Pill titled Men Get Rejected More Than Women by Any Metric.
http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/men-get-rejected-more-than-women-by-any-metric/
BP is correct about how men largely face rejection far more than women. Men still do much of the asking out, women generally don't---unless you are some perceived alpha that other women are tripping over themselves to date/have sex/have a relationship with. Women will often go after what other women want; the goal of getting a man that other women desire is no exception. Regardless of his worth, a man who as a potential harem of sorts has women after him because other women value him.
But this is not common at all. Even so-called liberated women will often expect men to initiate and face rejection. Hypergamy is a subject that comes up on many MGTOW boards and videos; women that claim they want equality can be summed up by their hypocrisy by a couple of things; desiring to get a higher status man, and expecting men to do the work gaining her approval while she has veto power. By having this choice, it shunts the onus onto men while women do not have to face the pain of rejection; they are in the driver's seat, while men have to sink or swim. The righteousness in this dynamic is frustrating; women can be petty and nitpick about the dumbest crap in mate selection while not sharing the same level of approval winning.
In reality, many (if not most) women take rejection worse than men. Men have to inure themselves to it; hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Let's face it. Despite complaints to the contrary, even women of subpar physical looks, low-paying jobs, and other flaws can snatch a man far easier than a man in the same equivalence. Hell, even a man of higher attributes often have difficulty in dating and attracting a suitable mate. Women typically do not date/marry down as much, while men are supposed to demonstrate clemency to women that are of lesser socioeconomic status as them.
Since women have a better time attracting men, many believe that men can pick up women with the same ease and frequency. This is nonsense; men have to prove themselves far more unless they are at the top of the heap. There are women who complain about the quality of men out there, but they are usually focusing on a narrow spectrum of men. Even a recent article stated that anyone outside of being white collar are "non-negotiable" as far as dates are concerned---they are not dating material these pseudo-elist women mentioned in the post. Nevermind that many blue collar men can make good money, but I digress.
Looking into it further, the typical moaning and bitching often includes that men aren't even "manning up" to improve themselves and make themselves more potentially good date/mate material. Of course, there are women who decry that men will not take up their responsibilities. When Western culture is swimming in misandry, it's not too hard to understand why men will not "man up" in first place. When being loyal, honorable, honest, hard-working, genteel, and generous is not mutually rewarded or even outright exploited, a man seeing clearly will wise up.
This is evident with the dating scene as well. The cards are stacked against men, and there are women who will not give up their social and personal power so easily . . . even if it harms them in the short term. They are refusing to accept that there are men who will not let their own self-respect dwindle or be used in the dating process while sweety wants to reap the rewards. If some sort of mutual equity was widespread, it would be different, but it is not the environment we observe now.
A good friend of mine summed up things nicely, although he was speaking about the workplace when he was getting the brunt of crap jobs and lost much of his motivation when he knew it was a losing battle to hold on to his job at the time: If you don't care, why should I. There are women out there that do not want to understand this about men, and will continue to blunder and largely blame men while living in denial about what is actually happening.
Over the years, the shaming language loses it effect, and the women that are upset that men would rather play an X-Box in their thirties or keep their money for retirement. Women need acknowledge why this is more common rather than remaining smug and single (all the while still thinking about men at every turn). In the mating dance, even with the dating scene, it's not being intimidated by a "strong, independent" woman that stops men from approaching/making the first move. Those same men are tired of running the gauntlet for little result, disappointed by the arbitrary whims, never being good enough, and the exhaustive and trivial lists judgmental women draw up for them. And who can blame them?
This post was made under the influence of Hexvessel, Blood Ceremony, Lycia, and, of course, Black Sabbath. All bands I can't get enough of, if anyone is wondering.
I was thinking about a gal I had a relationship with years ago that I'll dub as "Amy" here. I shared a few thoughts with a good friend and his wife while talking about women I dated over the years, and why my proverbial red flag radar was now permanently up.
I have never married, and will for all of my life never take the plunge and tie the knot with an Ameriskank. I do proudly state that. I could say marriage is for suckers and leave it at that, but over the years watching marriages either turn sour or gradually unravel made me cold. As a youth, I swore that if I ever made serious vows to one woman I would devote myself to someone worthwhile. Obviously, that woman never arrived, and I did not want to make the same mistakes I saw in either marital "bliss" turned to failure, or those marriages tattered and worn. None are perfect, but there you go.
Over time, I've seen Ameriskank behavior has gotten worse. Granted, I am from the women are women camp, but variances, cultural decay, and memes do make a difference. It's not a matter of, "You haven't found the right woman yet"---which mostly comes from women who believe they mean well. NAWALT aside for a moment, even someone with similar, complementary attributes has not shown me consideration in the long haul. And I am done with hearing that's all our fault for not attracting the rights ones, especially in an era of rampant hypergamy. Just looking at the dating pool a(s of late) would have filled me with dread when I was a romantic teen. It's a source for my grim aloof demeanor, and even though I'm not a complete introvert, it has turned me into a distant cynic.
Amy, of course, was the final nail in the coffin. I dated her for the longest time, because I believed she was making progress with herself. She even wanted to prove herself worthy to me, something that had not always happened in a while with my foibles with women in the past. It was impressive at first, and she was fairly attractive and affectionate during our first year together. It was almost like we were married, and when everything went grey---and then ugly in the last four months---it was also like a soiled marriage ending in wreckage. And Amy treated it as such.
It was hard to tell who the "real" Amy was; either a warm and almost bubby, voluptuous, girly-girl like woman . . . that would become a brooding, quick to anger spoiled brat that would get drunk and stoned while making various threats. It was to the point where I thought I would have to literally restrain her during her worse bouts. Considering that if the cops were called on us, I'm sure I would be the one arrested despite being on the physical defense. Amy pushed and emotionally bullied, and I stood my ground as she resented me. She resented me for not being a pushover and independent, the very qualities she was attracted her to me in the first place. I was her alpha with bad boyish appeal. Now I was her nemesis because I would not bow down on hand and knee.
Her idea, eventually, was to domesticate me---but what that really entailed was to lick her self-inflicted wounds, be a lap dog, and a sounding board. Before, for the longest time, I was respected and even rather lionized. When it slowly came to the fore that she wanted a man that was part pack mule, part counselor, I became disgusted and upset. She knew way beforehand what I was like, and that it would not make me happy in a relationship whatsoever.
I swore a covenant to myself that I would never seriously get involved with an "Amy" again. I did date. I had FWB situations. But anyone who reassembled her was immediately passed up.
It has come to the point where I really believe that Ameriskanks feel like their self-entitlement includes that men have to feel happy to succor to them---although we dare not look like we are kow towing too much. If all men are dogs to a skank, kicking a lowly dog for misbehavior and watching it cower even more is weakness in their minds. Yet, on the converse, a dog who snarls back after continued abuse is somehow a dangerous threat.
Ameriskanks know very little balance in relationships towards men, it is often close to an all or nothing affair. It has often been stated a truly healthy man ready for a commitment is neither Caspar Milquetoast or a brute, but since AWs make poor decisions in mate selection (and blame men often for the blunders and ruination of a pairing, anyway), an AW will rarely heed for what is good for them in men.
And it's little surprising when they find more men are not willing to submit to the act of marriage. By its very action, kneeling and presenting a wedding ring is a sign of submission; it is a man yielding, even giving up his freedom in a symbolic and very real sense. It makes it even more precarious and ominous in light of the fact women have the power of the state to decimate what a man has built with her over the years. Don't even get me started about accusations and custody battles.
There are a growing number of us not being happy at all with the AW desire to have the veto power above men sans accountability, and it is to their own damn determent that they refuse to acknowledge this and the societal implications.
There's been a glut of articles about how men are anything from child-men to the erroneous charge that men are finished, and among much of the muck and blather that has raised its ugly scathing head, it seems that a fact gets lost in the maelstrom that never is on the forefront of women's minds.
Someone along the line, men's wants and needs have seemingly become irrelevant. From a MGTOW perspective, many see that Western society caters to women ceaselessly at everyone's expense, and the feminist lie that patriarchy controls women at every turn seems just that: a lie. Even men have argued on various videos that traditional women still demand men as beasts of burden and take advantage of both license and protectionism.
With all of this, someone has forgotten to ask what makes men truly happy. It is as if we are supposed to fill those roles of protector and provider without complaint, no matter how much misandry we have to wade through . . . or that those roles could be still damned by a vindictive bitch with a ravenous lawyer and false accusations. Hell, when a man does actually follow the beat of his own drum, he's called anything from creep, gay, loser, child-man, and even more vile barbs have been spat forth.
All the legal traps and social malaise aside, I made an offhand comment the other day that I wanted to focus more on----it seems so many women want to make themselves less interesting and even repulsive to men than ever, and yet somehow we are supposed to still offer unconditional love to them at the end of the day. Only a deluded fool or masochist would dream of such rotten bargain, and yet when men balk at it---for pretty damn good reasons---we are dubbed as anything from bitter to even possibly dangerous. It's pathetic.
Men's happiness----and their insistence on rational self-interest---is seen as antithetical to the whims of women, and the cries of asshole and misogynist abound. But as society might, when discovering men's real motives, it would be hard pressed to blame us for resorting to such a stance. But it does. Constantly. We are viewed as guilty as charged. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't.
There's a plethora of reasons why men concur with a MGTOW mentality. But what is curious is that women do not think men's happiness is paramount . . . or even an issue. When men start to deeply mistrust a woman that they would willing find solace in her arms with, and that does not abate, more women are apt to find men that "won't commit" but still remain clueless about it.
They remand clueless, because they don't realize their behavior is part of the cause. Without serious self-examination, there are women that spend a good portion of their lives fouling up what could be a deep, profound bond between the sexes. When they tire of the drama and conflict (often self-created), it's typically too late.
It's my belief women are inclined to be, well, women, but at the same time are quite capable of change and being the agents of adapting. The big question is thus: will they ever treat men's happiness as anything of import? Will they espect men as much as they expect it in turn? On one hand, I believe it is quite possible; however, it remains to be seen. Perhaps they will only bother when enough men tire of the emotional games, power trips, and toxic relationships. After all, despite feminist myths to the contrary, many women have benefited from both traditionalism and "equality," and they aren't prone to give up their own privileges any time soon.
This was taken from The Spearhead, if anyone was wondering.
Zorro June 16, 2012 at 13:29
Considering the way our culture is diving into the Estrogen Swamp, the only way a man can remain a man is to keep his hands clear of wedding rings.
Great job, fembots. You’re creating a society where the only man women will want is a man who will not want women.
You idiots.
.
. . Father's Day for all the fathers out there, and also that I have had the luck to spend time with my own father---who despite his problems as managed to live to a ripe old age. I very grateful to be able to see him when I can.
Cheers! SR
