Occasionally, I read about men even saying things about the divide between the sexes I don't care for. Sometimes I think men blame other men almost as much as women. It's an amazing testament that MGTOW has taken off in the past couple of years---I am pro-masculine, yes, but men can lock horns on issues they would be stronger as a group with mutual respect. One thing that strikes me is the notion that men are responsible for this mess we're in, even for feminists, politicians, and male-firsters for getting away with acting like aristocrats over us.
I realize that our opinions are diverse, far more than feminists would give us credit for, or that they would care for. I also realize there is a certain truth in the above sentiment, our generalized notions of fairness and honor be damned; perhaps men have been letting this social malaise we're in drag on for too long. I could cite even personal examples of men committing the dumbest fucking crap in their lives that made me wonder why they were so self-destructive. There is a reason for it, yes, but there also comes a time for self-responsibility, too.
And as much as I have barbs against the Democratic party, the Republicans are not better. Not one bit. What's the difference between a Joe Biden and a George W. Bush? You really believe there actually is? Do you entertain the possibility that either party is going to care about men's issues on the level of attention that women receive? Both were major figureheads in in getting VAWA reauthorized, one of the biggest anti-male federal laws ever fashioned and implemented. NOW were doing cheers when it was official. Does it really matter if one is a Dem or Neocon? Zenpriest was correct in the allegory that one is either choosing for the Bloods or the Crips---only one is more overtly concerned about women's rights at the expense of men, the other expects us to man up.
And man up for what?
Most men, outside of selfish politicians pushing their agendas to keep secure office, thought they were doing the right thing be promoting another insidious form of chivalry re-packaged as seemingly positive and progressive: feminism. After all, isn't it a noble thing to liberate women and support them in their quest for "equality?" And what, if a few men get trampled in the carnage, it's all for a good cause, eh?
But, if anyone is going to surmise that men have gummed things up, they're not completely correct. If anything, it doesn't matter if you can quantify it or not---women have created this culture by the extension of their powers in realms that have great impact and importance. They cry and moan about there are no nice guys out there, but have wanton sex with thugs and players. They blame men for wars and in-fighting, yet vote en mass for male politicians that instigate battle under the guise of patriotism. Thus insuring that women can have a hedonistic heyday on the home front (ever hear about the stories of infidelity women commit well the soldiers are deployed? Or the Unconstitutional debtor's prison solders find themselves in since CS payments weren't deferred while overseas?).
And all the while disrespecting, shaming, and dishonoring men. And if you discuss politically incorrect topics too much at work or, the Gods forbid, denote that there are sex differences at all outside of the obvious, watch your ass if someone gets wind of your "hatespeech" and sends you to HR for alleged sexual harassment. Men are called cowards for inaction, politically or otherwise, but when going beyond defending themselves and counterattacking, suddenly find they are getting legal or social beat down one way or another. And yet again.
Single moms, teachers, their influence on young men, using men by proxy, and sexual and emotional power women have on men is profound and leaves a major deep swathe that sets the tone for the the social dynamic between men and women. It amazes me that even men underestimate this, but women do as well. Don't think for a moment that power would be given up, instinct or not.
Women have created us, literally, and on a metaphorical level, they don't want to completely accept the fact, with all the decrying about male irresponsibility, their own distinct complicity. The hand rocks the candle is the hand that rules the world.
The single mother that expects little Johnny to be a productive citizen and "better" man, more than the father she pushed away with sexist laws or because she chose a bad boy to be her mate (dumb) will find that he'll grow up with more strikes against him. Maybe resenting mother by taking it out on other women when he's older. Maybe rebelling, perhaps, and seeing that women get much of the perks and privileges in Western culture, he feels the weight of inequality even if he isn't a MRA. Every. Damn. Day. Never mind that little Johnny is, quite literally, an extension of her on a primal and psychosocial level.
And do women truly desire "equality"? The real thing? Do you want to know what's that's like if men honestly dealt with you in that manner?
Get into a fight with a man, fuck you, take your lumps. You cares if you're not as strong. It's only fair.
Don't want to get shot or blown up on the front lines in war? Hey, fuck you, you're stepping up with the men and risking your life and limb, regardless of the studies of lowered female morale and less ability to deal with violence.
Valentines Day? Buy me flowers, woman. Better yet, I buy you flowers, you give me a passionate blow job.
Marriage? You pay up for your wedding dress, your share. This wedding cake doesn't just magically appear out of thin air.
Can't keep up with me sexually or athletically? Get out. I'll find another hottie that will keep in shape and rock my world.
Ask me out on date for once. I'll let you pay for dinner for the reward of screwing me. Or maybe I'll bitch at for you objectifying me as a hot stud---I'm not just a good lay, I'm human being. How dare you think I'll just bang you for a dinner date, Virginia. What about my mind? My heart? My dreams and aspirations?
Oil change? Garbage taken out? Cooking for yourself? Self defense? Deal with it. You wanted equality, you got it. Now man up like that strong independent woman you are . . . I thought feminism was about equality.
Bah . . .
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
For the Dearly Departed
I will not sleep tonight
too many thoughts, muscles too tight
here in the dark I'll replay
all that has passed, my youth, the glory of broken
days
cold winter sun, rises, decays
I'll just get up to stay drunk all day
too many doubts, thoughts that delay
it is now gone, it's gone, the glory of broken days
There's so much I could write in this post. So much. Perhaps, like other posts I haven't expanded on---just yet---some other time I shall.
Several people in my life close to me have passed on, and left an impact on me that will always be remembered. It wasn't just me, far from it---even at his funeral, my friend Marshall was honored with a sign near a highway that displayed WE MISS YOU from his co-workers. As I drifted off last night, although he wasn't in the forefront of my mind, I dreamt of him and his older brother---also a good friend of mine, were eating ethnic cuisine, drinking, and chuckling at stories from both past and present. When I woke up, the pang of of loss flooded back with an intensity only surpassed at his abrupt death, one that occurred in his early thirties as he laid down to rest from a lengthy work day.
It bothered me that a few wondered if he was "slow," and perhaps, if they had any clinical background, may have misdiagnosed him with Asperger's Syndrome. Marshall may have been plunged headfirst into video games for hours on end by himself nary little interruption, or become engrossed in a fantasy tale from a tome that sparked his interest, but he was sensitive to his environment and in his social interactions with others, and possessing alexithymia? It was certainly not in his personal makeup---he was a creature of habit, a comfortable semi-stoicism at times, and self-absorption, but no one who knew well enough could accuse him of out of touch with himself or the others close to him. He was quite the generous individual, even if not materialistic on his own front.
I dedicated a post on another forum to a semi-public figure I dubbed as "Byron," one I knew off and on for almost fourteen years. Strangely enough, Byron and Marshall would meet only on a few occasions, but those events were both intertwined with humorous good times and mystery. I remember Byron laughing heartily at Marshall's antics of playing an oddball superhero for a moment, and in another more sombre session after midnight, contemplating in a serious depth questions about life and if the divine even exists---almost to the point teetering on the edge of recreating those eerie spectral invitations into the astral that William James himself would have raised on eyebrow on. We had also, as a motley group, sauntered out into the backyard and the mist of a rather ethereal and chilly October night, gathered to get away from the den of iniquity filled with beer bottles, brandy, vodka, cigarette and incense smoke, to stop and meditate for a time about both the jovial and the profound.
The magical circle of friends would eventually end. It is depressing, and not surprising, either. And in as much as I maintained contact with Marshall for those years before he had left this earth, I can still recall the nights we stayed up until the nocturnal hours crept near the dawn, "talking shop" about work, our growing cynicism and foibles with young women, or otherworldly tales of ghosts and shades from a documentary or text we had watched or read, I do wonder if own his spirit has made a visit or two on us, if only to remind us of those times with him again. Perhaps it is a selfish gesture on my part or wistful thinking, but to relive that period would be welcome. However, there is no going back, only the good that knowing his life enriched ours.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Roe Versus Wade for Men Revisited
Like the Duke LaCrosse case, many MRAs are aware of Dubay's struggle, although the latter did not receive the same spotlight and media treatment. His main thrust was to prove fraud with his partner, Lauren Wells, and promote, perhaps, what could be considered a groundbreaking precedent with men; that men should have the same equivalent rights as women do in reproductive choice. It stems from a couple of things.
When Matt Dubay got sexually involved with Lauren Wells, he was open about the fact he didn't desire to be a father at the time. Wells made it clear that she was incapable of getting pregnant, although she claimed she was used contraceptives to reassure him. Neither, apparently, was true and she got knocked up. When discovered, they had both considered adoption, but later Wells changed her mind; Dubay didn't want to raise children---eventually however, she was adamant about him providing child support.
While critics believe Dubay wanted to bail from paying CS, but Dubay's attorney, Jeffrey Cojocar, was of a different mind; the contention is that Michigan's Paternity Act gave exceptions to women eschewing supporting children and abandoning them if they didn't want to fulfill motherhood, and fathers did not have the same option---which violates the Equal Protection Clause. The judge could have cared less in this case. Supposedly, Dubay did not provide evidence to prove fraud on Well's behalf, until he maintains his stance from then up to the present. The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as of this writing, so keep that in mind.
Now, I realize that some women, in particular, may believe Dubay is lying. I still find this difficult to entertain, simply because this has gone beyond the same court in which he protested this situation, and he has always maintained he did not want to be a father. Wells targeted Dubay for the inverse of why women go for bad boys---he was potentially a good provider, and a good catch. Not to mention, in a "he said, she said" situation, the court is honoring her by default, not him, because he's the dad biologically. So the ruling from the first court didn't allow Dubay to bow out of unplanned conception, and because of the interests of the child and the fact she filed for CS, it was mandated.
It's clear from all of the following what's going on. Women, at least in this State, have the choice of sexual congress, whether or not they are using contraceptives, can resort to giving up on motherhood at any time, through abortion, adoption, dropping the child off at a hospital. The Paternity Act gives reproductive license to women---and when men are subject to a woman's desire for CS, men cannot make the same choices to refuse to be involved. Hence, the inequality That Roe Versus Wade for Men addresses.
But it gets worse---there is a mounting amount of evidence that women are using deceptive means to get pregnant. One story had a thirty-something woman, convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy, had been required to pay CS from their illegal coupling. Talk about outrageous. Another had a young male roughly the same age---not at adulthood, to start paying CS even though she was also older. There's been more than one insistence of women having oral sex with a partner and inserting the semen into her vagina to promote impregnation. And so on, and so forth.
The feminist party line is always to support a woman' s choice regardless of outcome. So much for equality. What I find troubling is that more women are getting caught red-handed lying to their partners about conception, or sabotaging it. Of course, when in doubt, if a men trusts a women to ensure usage of conception and it fails or she's lying, it's may be his fault for being naive. If he doesn't trust her and uses it, he's a wary asshole.
Is this "blame the men" game still prevalent, or what? Granted, I realize some men engage in risky sex, but an enormous amount of women do exactly the same in hasty drunken nights of debauchery and stoned-drenched clubbing, and although you'll hear from that men will state condoms are unromantic, there are women who will openly risk pregnancy and STDs before being sexually responsible.
Hopefully, male contraceptives such as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), which in phrase III of human testing, and vas-occlusive contraception, which involves temporary plugs in the vas deferens, will hit the marketplace as affordable products with easy access. Obviously, the condoms and vasectomies are the norm, but it isn't helping things with the former isn't flawless, and the latter has troubles with vasovasostom if a patient ever wants it reversed, which can be costly. We have to educate and stress to men, young men in particular, if our culture is still going to promulgate inequalities towards men when it comes to reproductive choices; if the push is to force men to be more responsible, we'll respond in kind, but if we are to have that responsibility, we have to have choices, too.
And a final thought for now, but isn't it funny how feminists get pissed when men don't take responsibility for contraception and risk taking in sex (and some online have stated how much of drudgery it is on their own account), but when men do use them responsibly, they are blasted for having more personal and sexual power? Maybe we should, as some women have suggested, "keep it in our pants," put when we do that, suddenly we're trolls and losers opting out of the game that "can't get laid" even if women are attracted to us, and upset that we don't jump into the fire automatically. If anything, it's another cautionary tale for men to be cautious about dating, marriage, and raising children, and the more it's told, the more men are questioning the very foundation of women the were ingrained by society to trust, with that trust shattering into fractures and fissures that might not mend again.
UPDATE: A recent press release states as follows:
A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
It's not surprising to the jaded ones, I suppose. That includes yours truly.
When Matt Dubay got sexually involved with Lauren Wells, he was open about the fact he didn't desire to be a father at the time. Wells made it clear that she was incapable of getting pregnant, although she claimed she was used contraceptives to reassure him. Neither, apparently, was true and she got knocked up. When discovered, they had both considered adoption, but later Wells changed her mind; Dubay didn't want to raise children---eventually however, she was adamant about him providing child support.
While critics believe Dubay wanted to bail from paying CS, but Dubay's attorney, Jeffrey Cojocar, was of a different mind; the contention is that Michigan's Paternity Act gave exceptions to women eschewing supporting children and abandoning them if they didn't want to fulfill motherhood, and fathers did not have the same option---which violates the Equal Protection Clause. The judge could have cared less in this case. Supposedly, Dubay did not provide evidence to prove fraud on Well's behalf, until he maintains his stance from then up to the present. The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as of this writing, so keep that in mind.
Now, I realize that some women, in particular, may believe Dubay is lying. I still find this difficult to entertain, simply because this has gone beyond the same court in which he protested this situation, and he has always maintained he did not want to be a father. Wells targeted Dubay for the inverse of why women go for bad boys---he was potentially a good provider, and a good catch. Not to mention, in a "he said, she said" situation, the court is honoring her by default, not him, because he's the dad biologically. So the ruling from the first court didn't allow Dubay to bow out of unplanned conception, and because of the interests of the child and the fact she filed for CS, it was mandated.
It's clear from all of the following what's going on. Women, at least in this State, have the choice of sexual congress, whether or not they are using contraceptives, can resort to giving up on motherhood at any time, through abortion, adoption, dropping the child off at a hospital. The Paternity Act gives reproductive license to women---and when men are subject to a woman's desire for CS, men cannot make the same choices to refuse to be involved. Hence, the inequality That Roe Versus Wade for Men addresses.
But it gets worse---there is a mounting amount of evidence that women are using deceptive means to get pregnant. One story had a thirty-something woman, convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy, had been required to pay CS from their illegal coupling. Talk about outrageous. Another had a young male roughly the same age---not at adulthood, to start paying CS even though she was also older. There's been more than one insistence of women having oral sex with a partner and inserting the semen into her vagina to promote impregnation. And so on, and so forth.
The feminist party line is always to support a woman' s choice regardless of outcome. So much for equality. What I find troubling is that more women are getting caught red-handed lying to their partners about conception, or sabotaging it. Of course, when in doubt, if a men trusts a women to ensure usage of conception and it fails or she's lying, it's may be his fault for being naive. If he doesn't trust her and uses it, he's a wary asshole.
Is this "blame the men" game still prevalent, or what? Granted, I realize some men engage in risky sex, but an enormous amount of women do exactly the same in hasty drunken nights of debauchery and stoned-drenched clubbing, and although you'll hear from that men will state condoms are unromantic, there are women who will openly risk pregnancy and STDs before being sexually responsible.
Hopefully, male contraceptives such as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), which in phrase III of human testing, and vas-occlusive contraception, which involves temporary plugs in the vas deferens, will hit the marketplace as affordable products with easy access. Obviously, the condoms and vasectomies are the norm, but it isn't helping things with the former isn't flawless, and the latter has troubles with vasovasostom if a patient ever wants it reversed, which can be costly. We have to educate and stress to men, young men in particular, if our culture is still going to promulgate inequalities towards men when it comes to reproductive choices; if the push is to force men to be more responsible, we'll respond in kind, but if we are to have that responsibility, we have to have choices, too.
And a final thought for now, but isn't it funny how feminists get pissed when men don't take responsibility for contraception and risk taking in sex (and some online have stated how much of drudgery it is on their own account), but when men do use them responsibly, they are blasted for having more personal and sexual power? Maybe we should, as some women have suggested, "keep it in our pants," put when we do that, suddenly we're trolls and losers opting out of the game that "can't get laid" even if women are attracted to us, and upset that we don't jump into the fire automatically. If anything, it's another cautionary tale for men to be cautious about dating, marriage, and raising children, and the more it's told, the more men are questioning the very foundation of women the were ingrained by society to trust, with that trust shattering into fractures and fissures that might not mend again.
UPDATE: A recent press release states as follows:
A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
It's not surprising to the jaded ones, I suppose. That includes yours truly.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Who's Objectifying Who?
This is another response to a woman I'll call UB from another forum. Since it's in the spirit of the blog, here's more fuel for the fire.
UB: Objectifying men is the new trend.
LL:
Well, it's not like that hasn't been going on for ages. The actual new trend is men are increasing becoming the gatekeepers, the cautious sex. Hence the need for women to develop a "seduction plan", as you put it.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's a lot of women that want men to work at "romance" and seduction, and put less effort into it. It's been a while since I had a woman earnestly enter the stages of seduction, whether its to finalize intercourse or not. It's not that there are an absence of women in my life; usually those going after me are single moms (which is a BIG no-no) or drunken party girls that go from A to Z without much fanfare. No one seems creative anymore, or employ alcohol for the purpose of letting go.
It seems to be a lost art on them, or they just don't care about it as much as fulfilling their own needs, perhaps? So many women have complained about being objectified sexually, and yet there are several that have no problems with utilizing their sexual powers in order to use men to obtain their wants. Men, in our current state of existence, cannot do the same thing, unless they are fawned over by hordes of women. Most men basically do not have this power to an Nth degree, and more and more men not only realize that women have this gatekeeper advantage and the possible hypocrisies it might entail. If women were, as UB suggested, objectifying men in this fashion in the inverse---men could use more primal sexual power to their own personal gain. It doesn't work as easily as women's. And when pointing this out, I hear, "oh, that's the way it is, just deal with it."
As far as objectifying men, it's been going on for ages, indeed, LL, but it's of more impact. How many men here have expressed their desire that they don't care about their partner's career as much as they are employed, make concessions about looks as long as they are fit and healthy, and don't mind quirks and foibles as long as these women aren't mentally unstable? A hell of a lot of them. But when women state their standards, it appears as a strict laundry list. True, some men are picky, but then again picky men that hold out for the women of their dreams usually wait a long time, or are damned with the label as being "judgmental" if they refuse to date low income single moms or corrupt female wolves-in-sheeps clothing. Perhaps, there is a truth in how women date men to approve their situation, and men are supposed to date women to, well, approve women's situations again. How men fair in that dynamic is a matter of risk, and often serious.
Personally, I know women that would pick apart the fact men wear generic shoes or drive a used compact auto to work. He has the wrong hair cut or appearance, even if not outrageous, he's just not as hip or attractive. I've pretty much got the physique part down (and I'm not kidding when I say this, but I'm fairly along the lines of what UB is looking for in that department), but as much as she usually is more progressive, it's surprising how many women fall back on traditionalist or sociobiological modes of being when it suits them, and feminist basics when it comes to next aspect (hence the phrase equality when the paychecks are distributed, but chivalry when the bills roll in).
This is where her argument isn't complete and only applies to women with her particular brands of viewpoint---a more of tat for it relationship holds more merit to myself (like her), but in the process of objectifying men, women will often resort to hypergamy and cognitive dissonance to rationalize and iron out any personal inequalities men face. If women were objectifying men directly, there would be far less confusion and everyone would know where they stand, even if stranded by the wayside. For example, if I was garnering attention from women, superficially speaking, equivalent to myself, she would be in great shape, have a interest in many subjects, frugal with money, no children, roughly my age, above-average in being proactive in her life, with no serous mental or physical ailments. This isn't happening, and more than myself are experiencing this.
Generally speaking, in a UB world where the sexes played fair and sex would not be used in deceptive matters or as a bargaining chip (and withdrawal of affection) a true exchange would not be perfect. But far better than the sins of omission or hollow promises that people commit in order to gain the upper hand.
A "wallet" is not a man, nor are we walking ATM machines. Curious how women view men as men, before human beings.
UB: Objectifying men is the new trend.
LL:
Well, it's not like that hasn't been going on for ages. The actual new trend is men are increasing becoming the gatekeepers, the cautious sex. Hence the need for women to develop a "seduction plan", as you put it.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's a lot of women that want men to work at "romance" and seduction, and put less effort into it. It's been a while since I had a woman earnestly enter the stages of seduction, whether its to finalize intercourse or not. It's not that there are an absence of women in my life; usually those going after me are single moms (which is a BIG no-no) or drunken party girls that go from A to Z without much fanfare. No one seems creative anymore, or employ alcohol for the purpose of letting go.
It seems to be a lost art on them, or they just don't care about it as much as fulfilling their own needs, perhaps? So many women have complained about being objectified sexually, and yet there are several that have no problems with utilizing their sexual powers in order to use men to obtain their wants. Men, in our current state of existence, cannot do the same thing, unless they are fawned over by hordes of women. Most men basically do not have this power to an Nth degree, and more and more men not only realize that women have this gatekeeper advantage and the possible hypocrisies it might entail. If women were, as UB suggested, objectifying men in this fashion in the inverse---men could use more primal sexual power to their own personal gain. It doesn't work as easily as women's. And when pointing this out, I hear, "oh, that's the way it is, just deal with it."
As far as objectifying men, it's been going on for ages, indeed, LL, but it's of more impact. How many men here have expressed their desire that they don't care about their partner's career as much as they are employed, make concessions about looks as long as they are fit and healthy, and don't mind quirks and foibles as long as these women aren't mentally unstable? A hell of a lot of them. But when women state their standards, it appears as a strict laundry list. True, some men are picky, but then again picky men that hold out for the women of their dreams usually wait a long time, or are damned with the label as being "judgmental" if they refuse to date low income single moms or corrupt female wolves-in-sheeps clothing. Perhaps, there is a truth in how women date men to approve their situation, and men are supposed to date women to, well, approve women's situations again. How men fair in that dynamic is a matter of risk, and often serious.
Personally, I know women that would pick apart the fact men wear generic shoes or drive a used compact auto to work. He has the wrong hair cut or appearance, even if not outrageous, he's just not as hip or attractive. I've pretty much got the physique part down (and I'm not kidding when I say this, but I'm fairly along the lines of what UB is looking for in that department), but as much as she usually is more progressive, it's surprising how many women fall back on traditionalist or sociobiological modes of being when it suits them, and feminist basics when it comes to next aspect (hence the phrase equality when the paychecks are distributed, but chivalry when the bills roll in).
This is where her argument isn't complete and only applies to women with her particular brands of viewpoint---a more of tat for it relationship holds more merit to myself (like her), but in the process of objectifying men, women will often resort to hypergamy and cognitive dissonance to rationalize and iron out any personal inequalities men face. If women were objectifying men directly, there would be far less confusion and everyone would know where they stand, even if stranded by the wayside. For example, if I was garnering attention from women, superficially speaking, equivalent to myself, she would be in great shape, have a interest in many subjects, frugal with money, no children, roughly my age, above-average in being proactive in her life, with no serous mental or physical ailments. This isn't happening, and more than myself are experiencing this.
Generally speaking, in a UB world where the sexes played fair and sex would not be used in deceptive matters or as a bargaining chip (and withdrawal of affection) a true exchange would not be perfect. But far better than the sins of omission or hollow promises that people commit in order to gain the upper hand.
A "wallet" is not a man, nor are we walking ATM machines. Curious how women view men as men, before human beings.
Friday, November 2, 2007
A Different Take on Sensitve Men and "Fragile" Men Egos
Recently, I wrote this in response on another forum to some gal who dubbed herself as 'funnygirl.' It pretty much explains itself.
What funnygirl probably won't admit, is that women's egos are easily just as disrupted. I work in a profession that has a slightly more amount of women than men, and there has been a plethora of women who are hypersensitive to issues they often take men to take for, and we're supposed to accept it. It could be anything from diet and weight, to career options/roles, to sexual choices and religion. Politics, too.
There are women that constantly place men on the defense, in catch-22 situations, and openly use personal attracts in order to gain a reaction, prove something that may not be normally factual 24/7 about a man, or obtain and upper hand in an argument based on "emotional truths" rather than seeing the global picture.
If a man did the same, he'd be accused of emotional abuse.
Eventually, the more you send barbs and personal jabs against a man, eventually, he'll probably give you a negative response one way or another. But you gained his attention, didn't you? I suspect funnygirl28 fell for the idea that she can treat men as emotional and sexual inferiors, and when men protest or become defensive, they are either assholes or exhibiting a "fraile male ego" of sorts.
You kick someone around long enough, no matter how seemingly passive, they will kick back. Hard.
It's curious that some women just refuse to understand this basic truth concerning most men. Most men put up with so much stress and bullshit, if they opened their eyes to even the daily effrontery that goes along with their workloads and responsibility they carried on their shoulders, I'm honestly not sure if they could handle it. And on top of that notion, men still must prove themselves and gain respect from women, some (more than you think) of whom play games, give off mixed cues, and favor one type of men that's not good for them while shitting on another they believe can "take it." Female players may not always sleep with a legion of men, but they are still players even if they don't see it in themselves.
This is the secret behind the desire to find a "sensitive man;" what that particular woman really means is she wants someone who is strong and traditional for her when she breaks down, but also listening to her wants and desires when using him for a counselor figure. When his insecurities or weaknesses crop up, they are generally meet with apprehension or scorn, and I've even seen women outright blast them to the point of violence; it probably goes without saying that funnygirl doesn't want to deal with emotionally deep men. That would mean she would have to treat a man as true equal, a human being in totality, and it's something she positively doesn't want.
Truly sensitive men who protest their treatment in a relationship, who don't put up with being an emotional punching bag are attractive to women for the same way they are eventually replaced or shunned; they are complicated and don't fall in the idiotic matrix of the nice guy-bad boy continuum. They are "fragile" because they can only accept so much abuse. There are women that enjoy the passion and drama it might bring, but eventually settle with a semi-stoic man that they can complain about to their friends and peers about how their emotional needs aren't met, all the while still "stuck" in a dull relationship that they seem to have created, anyway.
What funnygirl probably won't admit, is that women's egos are easily just as disrupted. I work in a profession that has a slightly more amount of women than men, and there has been a plethora of women who are hypersensitive to issues they often take men to take for, and we're supposed to accept it. It could be anything from diet and weight, to career options/roles, to sexual choices and religion. Politics, too.
There are women that constantly place men on the defense, in catch-22 situations, and openly use personal attracts in order to gain a reaction, prove something that may not be normally factual 24/7 about a man, or obtain and upper hand in an argument based on "emotional truths" rather than seeing the global picture.
If a man did the same, he'd be accused of emotional abuse.
Eventually, the more you send barbs and personal jabs against a man, eventually, he'll probably give you a negative response one way or another. But you gained his attention, didn't you? I suspect funnygirl28 fell for the idea that she can treat men as emotional and sexual inferiors, and when men protest or become defensive, they are either assholes or exhibiting a "fraile male ego" of sorts.
You kick someone around long enough, no matter how seemingly passive, they will kick back. Hard.
It's curious that some women just refuse to understand this basic truth concerning most men. Most men put up with so much stress and bullshit, if they opened their eyes to even the daily effrontery that goes along with their workloads and responsibility they carried on their shoulders, I'm honestly not sure if they could handle it. And on top of that notion, men still must prove themselves and gain respect from women, some (more than you think) of whom play games, give off mixed cues, and favor one type of men that's not good for them while shitting on another they believe can "take it." Female players may not always sleep with a legion of men, but they are still players even if they don't see it in themselves.
This is the secret behind the desire to find a "sensitive man;" what that particular woman really means is she wants someone who is strong and traditional for her when she breaks down, but also listening to her wants and desires when using him for a counselor figure. When his insecurities or weaknesses crop up, they are generally meet with apprehension or scorn, and I've even seen women outright blast them to the point of violence; it probably goes without saying that funnygirl doesn't want to deal with emotionally deep men. That would mean she would have to treat a man as true equal, a human being in totality, and it's something she positively doesn't want.
Truly sensitive men who protest their treatment in a relationship, who don't put up with being an emotional punching bag are attractive to women for the same way they are eventually replaced or shunned; they are complicated and don't fall in the idiotic matrix of the nice guy-bad boy continuum. They are "fragile" because they can only accept so much abuse. There are women that enjoy the passion and drama it might bring, but eventually settle with a semi-stoic man that they can complain about to their friends and peers about how their emotional needs aren't met, all the while still "stuck" in a dull relationship that they seem to have created, anyway.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Single By Choice
Unfortunately, I'm running on sleep deprivation and a little Southern Comfort to calm my nerves, but suffice to say, well, I haven't run out of things to say . . . heh . . . and one the things I want to touch upon is single men.
Of course, single men, especially long term men, are often considered second rate, objects of mockery, even losers and pariahs by so-called independent women who feel no hesitance to bash men and fixate on them. And despite their "liberated" condition, these particular women can't seem to stop talking about us, and living their too-busy lives worrying whether or not prince charming will show up at their doorstep with movie star good looks, and a bag of credit cards to boot.
As much I as I liked some female attention the past, I find as a grow older, that it's not what's cracked up to be if you have to deal with the ever present heavy duty baggage surrounding the bargain.. And with all the anti-male bias in the media and laws place on us, there's something else to consider:
With all the bluff and bluster American women give off, it's curious that they rarely acknowledge that their attitudes and mistreatment towards men and their questionable characters may contribute to why men are so reluctant to get involved, whether it's dating up to marriage and children. True, some men will never learn; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. But I can't bring myself to hate them, but sometimes, rest and retreat from them has brought peace of mind rather than loneliness and depression. After all the times of hearing, "maybe YOU should look inside yourself to see what's wrong and why you have issues," isn't it interesting that they might afraid of doing he same thing?
Of course, single men, especially long term men, are often considered second rate, objects of mockery, even losers and pariahs by so-called independent women who feel no hesitance to bash men and fixate on them. And despite their "liberated" condition, these particular women can't seem to stop talking about us, and living their too-busy lives worrying whether or not prince charming will show up at their doorstep with movie star good looks, and a bag of credit cards to boot.
As much I as I liked some female attention the past, I find as a grow older, that it's not what's cracked up to be if you have to deal with the ever present heavy duty baggage surrounding the bargain.. And with all the anti-male bias in the media and laws place on us, there's something else to consider:
I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere. ----Zenpriest
With all the bluff and bluster American women give off, it's curious that they rarely acknowledge that their attitudes and mistreatment towards men and their questionable characters may contribute to why men are so reluctant to get involved, whether it's dating up to marriage and children. True, some men will never learn; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. But I can't bring myself to hate them, but sometimes, rest and retreat from them has brought peace of mind rather than loneliness and depression. After all the times of hearing, "maybe YOU should look inside yourself to see what's wrong and why you have issues," isn't it interesting that they might afraid of doing he same thing?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Added More Important Links
The following has been added because I enjoyed their content and feel so much is very significant, even if we disagree a bit on the minor details, I'm all for the spirit of spreading the word and continuing to shed light on the subjects that have been far overlooked and neglected. I appreciate all the time and effort the men and women have been putting into there own forums, but without further ado, here's a few more---enjoy:
Exposing Feminism
Being Feminine
End of the Road
Origins of Inequality
Equal But Different
Faustus' Lair
Just Another Disenfranchised Father
Past links are being updated. Again, please peruse the blogs/sites if you haven't, and if you're familiar with them, there will be more to come, I assure you..
C.
Exposing Feminism
Being Feminine
End of the Road
Origins of Inequality
Equal But Different
Faustus' Lair
Just Another Disenfranchised Father
Past links are being updated. Again, please peruse the blogs/sites if you haven't, and if you're familiar with them, there will be more to come, I assure you..
C.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Removing the Debris
I will make this post short---even MRAs will disagree with me on this stance, of which I have respected. But I'm going to do it, anyway, since I'm not against preemptive strikes. I'm sure gender feminists thought was a "bitter nice guy" and bought into that internet stereotype. You are vastly incorrect---I'm a man that puts up with no shit in my sphere. This is the lions' den, and I am the master of the beasts.
Any feminist who comments here will have to resort to curtailing any argumentum ad hominem style fronts or personal attacks. You are only allowed to respond if I desire. It's harsh, even to many of the men who are critical of feminist polemic and myths. But for the gender feminists who still hold their precious notions of how white, young, middle to upper class women are so downtrodden as opposed to us men and feel a masochistic need to blither away, go elsewhere. The scathing comments will be deleted without fanfare---you are not looking for an honest debate, but a personal battle. You will not find that at all. The possibility of being banned permanently is always looming. Do not commit the above error or you are gone. End of discussion. Expression on this blog is earned through merit, and nothing else.
This is my one and only warning on this post, until I get around to a troll rules of sorts.
Any feminist who comments here will have to resort to curtailing any argumentum ad hominem style fronts or personal attacks. You are only allowed to respond if I desire. It's harsh, even to many of the men who are critical of feminist polemic and myths. But for the gender feminists who still hold their precious notions of how white, young, middle to upper class women are so downtrodden as opposed to us men and feel a masochistic need to blither away, go elsewhere. The scathing comments will be deleted without fanfare---you are not looking for an honest debate, but a personal battle. You will not find that at all. The possibility of being banned permanently is always looming. Do not commit the above error or you are gone. End of discussion. Expression on this blog is earned through merit, and nothing else.
This is my one and only warning on this post, until I get around to a troll rules of sorts.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
SR is Back with the Hammer of Thor
I often get some flak from those who believe I'm too cynical and critical of women's behavior. Well, I've never made it secret that I realize that not every woman is copy cat of each other, what is troubling is that so many women are similar to what I describe, with the inner workings. I understand also, while women are women, that cultural factors aren't exempt from determination or manifestation of character. They make choices. And often bad ones. I don't say, "but there are exceptions" as a disclaimer to prevent my detractors from branding me as a misogynist. They usually will, anyway, and while there are women taking other women to task for their greed, slutdom, lunacy, and irresponsibility, I'm not becoming all flowers and light simply because the latter exist. They are not traitors to their gender, but exposing the fact that the Empress Wears No Clothes, and unfortunately, women's word is still given more credibility than men's. Because, ya know, you're sexist even if you point out bad girl behavior. Or something like that.
Here's something I wrote on a private forum that I believe bears merit.
The idea that men "think with their dicks" is a true self-projection from women if there was one. Women's intrinsic power comes from their generative force, giving birth, and their hormonal landscape is one cell of imprisonment they can't escape, at least until after menopause. This is one reason why reproductive choice is a crucial feature of feminists and feminism as well as traditional women; it is the one trump card in dealings with Western men; all but the most blocked-headed of women who somehow know this on some level, and will never completely yield or submit this power to men.
This is also why women often withdraw their own sexual desire for men---to admit they have a primal attraction to give pleasure to men is designated by modern women as a sign of weakness, and by doing the former, women lead men on to "prove" themselves, i.e. exploit them. This is why "pure" slutdom is considered bad and done behind closed doors, indirect forms of prostitution---although we dare not call them whores, which would be calling a spade a spade, is "good" as long as nobody states the obvious and sugarcoats it.
The notion that women are more moral than men is complete and utter rubbish. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to women in the past---when I actually bothered---talk about their kids, their clothes, their boobs, their asses, the kinds of sex they've had, diets, hairstyles, their sex life/adventures, their husbands and boyfriends (often described in sitcom and bumbling terms), their boobs, their asses, their purses, their clothes, their boobs . . .
-Look at the self-"improvement" books out there for women.
-Glance over the diet and fashion magazines tailor made for women, and the repeated subjects therein.
-Witness their behavior in clubs and the meat market.
See a pattern here?
Yet women, presently, fight ever against themselves, each other, and men in order to appear as "strong and independent womyn" by flashing their sexuality for the world to see and play childish (and potentially dangerous, to sociopaths who've caught that attention) of hide n' go seek---by placing an arbitrary dilemma of sorts out on the table, only a few select men can breach the gap unscathed---those 20% of men who have little problems with women flocking to them. If the "wrong" man approaches their amped up desire to attract men (which has been embellished because women's personalities, in the inverse, have become more toxic) they get mocked, derided among friends, rejected, or worse, pressed with charges of harassment, stalking and assault.
The distinction of the prideful slut and the hypocritical slut is one of a myriad of reasons why my trust for women generally has bottomed out. A woman who wears many masks and uses her sexuality to manipulate, bargain, punish, and castigate while advertising her wares and assets doesn't have honor on any level whatsoever. My rule of thumb with women, without having to list a medium-sized catalog of red flags is fundamental: if you can't trust a woman with sex, you cannot trust her with anything. Her sexuality is a continuum in the parameters (or lack of) in her life; it permeates everything.
American women, in their lie to deceive themselves to escape nature, even their own, cannot master nature because they deny their own affliction with Pagan earth. By emitting sexual noise that is deafening to men and then penalizing men's desire by giving off hollow signals, they draw long term alienation and resentment from the only men that could elevate them from their self-imposed dichotomies.
And, as much as New Age/feminist minded groups will claim otherwise, it has been pretty much men and their inventions and support of technological life and advances that has raised us out of living in those "grass huts" controversial writer and professor Camile Paglia as been quoted about, perhaps one of the few truly honest and brazen thinking "anti-feminist" feminist out there.
Here's something I wrote on a private forum that I believe bears merit.
The idea that men "think with their dicks" is a true self-projection from women if there was one. Women's intrinsic power comes from their generative force, giving birth, and their hormonal landscape is one cell of imprisonment they can't escape, at least until after menopause. This is one reason why reproductive choice is a crucial feature of feminists and feminism as well as traditional women; it is the one trump card in dealings with Western men; all but the most blocked-headed of women who somehow know this on some level, and will never completely yield or submit this power to men.
This is also why women often withdraw their own sexual desire for men---to admit they have a primal attraction to give pleasure to men is designated by modern women as a sign of weakness, and by doing the former, women lead men on to "prove" themselves, i.e. exploit them. This is why "pure" slutdom is considered bad and done behind closed doors, indirect forms of prostitution---although we dare not call them whores, which would be calling a spade a spade, is "good" as long as nobody states the obvious and sugarcoats it.
The notion that women are more moral than men is complete and utter rubbish. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to women in the past---when I actually bothered---talk about their kids, their clothes, their boobs, their asses, the kinds of sex they've had, diets, hairstyles, their sex life/adventures, their husbands and boyfriends (often described in sitcom and bumbling terms), their boobs, their asses, their purses, their clothes, their boobs . . .
-Look at the self-"improvement" books out there for women.
-Glance over the diet and fashion magazines tailor made for women, and the repeated subjects therein.
-Witness their behavior in clubs and the meat market.
See a pattern here?
Yet women, presently, fight ever against themselves, each other, and men in order to appear as "strong and independent womyn" by flashing their sexuality for the world to see and play childish (and potentially dangerous, to sociopaths who've caught that attention) of hide n' go seek---by placing an arbitrary dilemma of sorts out on the table, only a few select men can breach the gap unscathed---those 20% of men who have little problems with women flocking to them. If the "wrong" man approaches their amped up desire to attract men (which has been embellished because women's personalities, in the inverse, have become more toxic) they get mocked, derided among friends, rejected, or worse, pressed with charges of harassment, stalking and assault.
The distinction of the prideful slut and the hypocritical slut is one of a myriad of reasons why my trust for women generally has bottomed out. A woman who wears many masks and uses her sexuality to manipulate, bargain, punish, and castigate while advertising her wares and assets doesn't have honor on any level whatsoever. My rule of thumb with women, without having to list a medium-sized catalog of red flags is fundamental: if you can't trust a woman with sex, you cannot trust her with anything. Her sexuality is a continuum in the parameters (or lack of) in her life; it permeates everything.
American women, in their lie to deceive themselves to escape nature, even their own, cannot master nature because they deny their own affliction with Pagan earth. By emitting sexual noise that is deafening to men and then penalizing men's desire by giving off hollow signals, they draw long term alienation and resentment from the only men that could elevate them from their self-imposed dichotomies.
And, as much as New Age/feminist minded groups will claim otherwise, it has been pretty much men and their inventions and support of technological life and advances that has raised us out of living in those "grass huts" controversial writer and professor Camile Paglia as been quoted about, perhaps one of the few truly honest and brazen thinking "anti-feminist" feminist out there.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
David's Bachelor Guide
I've linked to Dave's myspace page here, but for those wishing to either get some solid grounding for dealing with women, if you still are actively doing so and not shunning them for all the misery they may caused you in every capacity, here it is. I realize there exists some exceptions, but for the most part it's a good list to re-acquaint yourself with on occasion. If it mimics Tom Leykis a bit, that's not a bad thing---oddly enough, I echoed some of Tom's sentiments myself before I knew who he was in the beginning.
Here it goes, enjoy!
ok guys i made a decent sized list of things men should follow to live the bachelor life effectively, it isnt totally complete or perfected yet but here is a list i compiled check it out and tell me what you think
1.Never pay more then 20 bucks on a first date, ideally 15 or less
2.Don’t date, live with or marry a single moms
3.If a jumpoff gets knocked up and extorts you for child support leave the country
4.Always wear protection and get a vasectomy if you can
5.Never marry
6.Never buy a woman diamond rings or any jewelry or gifts, if you do make damn sure she will give you the cash equivalent of what you spent on her. Ideally be a cheapskate use coupons on dinners, drinks, small gifts, etc
7.Don’t deal with femnazis
8.Flush condoms down the toilet every time
9.Use a condom everytime
10.Don’t move in with or have a woman move in with you, no cohabitation , if you have to get a cohabitation agreement
11.If you meet up with a bootycall make sure you are going to get laid
12.Internet jumpoffs you want to meet asap, if need be meet them once to see if they are who they are and are attractive to you, etc and then bang them the next meeting, no questions asked.
13.Don’t have kids
14.Never let a woman or anyone have access to your money, keys to your place or your personal belongings
15.Invite females to your place only as guests , don’t have them stay over for any length of time
16.Don’t give up who you are or what you want to do for a female
17.Give your number to as many females as possible and have them call you when you want them to, get their number as well
18.Be confident, bold and upfront with women, don’t listen to what they say they like, boldness and assertiveness turns them on, being an asshole helps as well
19.Don’t date or try to hookup with a coworker or a woman at your college, big legal nightmares trust me
20.Don’t date seriously until you are where you want to be professionally, financially and mentally
21.Advise your friends about the bachelor life
22.Don’t let a woman feminize anything about you or your belongings, many women try to see if they can change or pussy whip a guy. Never change for her, be who you are
23.Always work to better and improve yourself, financially and education wise, the more money and power you have the more likely you will attract hotter women, but don’t throw your money at them.
24.Avoid psycho women and females with criminal records , especially watch out for women who have been charged with abuse or have abused guys before
25.Go for the chicks that will give it up the easiest, multiple tats, piercings, slutty clothing, etc are some good signs as well as ones with low self esteem or need for attention
26.Be careful of beautiful women that approach you and seem very interested in you right away, usually they have ulterior motives, many times they want something from you, money , favors, etc just say no to them.
27.Watch out for women with lots of emotional baggage they may look at you to try to save them, don’t do it, just bang them
28.Steer clear of gold diggers and entitled selfish women
29.Set up a black book for your booty call list
30.Avoid women who are drunk , if you sleep with them they may accuse you of rape, same as women who change their minds in the middle of sex, just get up and leave
31.Avoid women who want to just “talk& get to know you” you aren’t there for that you are there to get laid, make it clear to them
32.If you date a woman make sure they pay their half of the dating expenses at all times
33.Avoid married women their husbands may try to kill you, etc mess with single women only, and if they have boyfriends get their number anyways and call them every 6 months or so to see if they are single
34.Never allow a woman or anyone to disrespect you in any way always call them out on their crap, women like to test men but get turned on when they are called out on their BS
35.Be mysterious don’t let women know everything about you, the more they know they more they can hurt you, use your and exploit you. Don’t let that happen.
36.Don’t give her access to anything you have, don’t let a lot of women or any female know where you live or your home number, many psycho women have done horrible things to men and their belongings just because they can. Give them your cell phone number only.
37.Don’t talk all day long to women you have to be more of a challenge, say as little as possible, and give as little of effort to get laid, try to get it in the least amount of time as possible. Women know if they want to sleep with a guy very quickly the more you wait the less likely you will get it.
Here it goes, enjoy!
ok guys i made a decent sized list of things men should follow to live the bachelor life effectively, it isnt totally complete or perfected yet but here is a list i compiled check it out and tell me what you think
1.Never pay more then 20 bucks on a first date, ideally 15 or less
2.Don’t date, live with or marry a single moms
3.If a jumpoff gets knocked up and extorts you for child support leave the country
4.Always wear protection and get a vasectomy if you can
5.Never marry
6.Never buy a woman diamond rings or any jewelry or gifts, if you do make damn sure she will give you the cash equivalent of what you spent on her. Ideally be a cheapskate use coupons on dinners, drinks, small gifts, etc
7.Don’t deal with femnazis
8.Flush condoms down the toilet every time
9.Use a condom everytime
10.Don’t move in with or have a woman move in with you, no cohabitation , if you have to get a cohabitation agreement
11.If you meet up with a bootycall make sure you are going to get laid
12.Internet jumpoffs you want to meet asap, if need be meet them once to see if they are who they are and are attractive to you, etc and then bang them the next meeting, no questions asked.
13.Don’t have kids
14.Never let a woman or anyone have access to your money, keys to your place or your personal belongings
15.Invite females to your place only as guests , don’t have them stay over for any length of time
16.Don’t give up who you are or what you want to do for a female
17.Give your number to as many females as possible and have them call you when you want them to, get their number as well
18.Be confident, bold and upfront with women, don’t listen to what they say they like, boldness and assertiveness turns them on, being an asshole helps as well
19.Don’t date or try to hookup with a coworker or a woman at your college, big legal nightmares trust me
20.Don’t date seriously until you are where you want to be professionally, financially and mentally
21.Advise your friends about the bachelor life
22.Don’t let a woman feminize anything about you or your belongings, many women try to see if they can change or pussy whip a guy. Never change for her, be who you are
23.Always work to better and improve yourself, financially and education wise, the more money and power you have the more likely you will attract hotter women, but don’t throw your money at them.
24.Avoid psycho women and females with criminal records , especially watch out for women who have been charged with abuse or have abused guys before
25.Go for the chicks that will give it up the easiest, multiple tats, piercings, slutty clothing, etc are some good signs as well as ones with low self esteem or need for attention
26.Be careful of beautiful women that approach you and seem very interested in you right away, usually they have ulterior motives, many times they want something from you, money , favors, etc just say no to them.
27.Watch out for women with lots of emotional baggage they may look at you to try to save them, don’t do it, just bang them
28.Steer clear of gold diggers and entitled selfish women
29.Set up a black book for your booty call list
30.Avoid women who are drunk , if you sleep with them they may accuse you of rape, same as women who change their minds in the middle of sex, just get up and leave
31.Avoid women who want to just “talk& get to know you” you aren’t there for that you are there to get laid, make it clear to them
32.If you date a woman make sure they pay their half of the dating expenses at all times
33.Avoid married women their husbands may try to kill you, etc mess with single women only, and if they have boyfriends get their number anyways and call them every 6 months or so to see if they are single
34.Never allow a woman or anyone to disrespect you in any way always call them out on their crap, women like to test men but get turned on when they are called out on their BS
35.Be mysterious don’t let women know everything about you, the more they know they more they can hurt you, use your and exploit you. Don’t let that happen.
36.Don’t give her access to anything you have, don’t let a lot of women or any female know where you live or your home number, many psycho women have done horrible things to men and their belongings just because they can. Give them your cell phone number only.
37.Don’t talk all day long to women you have to be more of a challenge, say as little as possible, and give as little of effort to get laid, try to get it in the least amount of time as possible. Women know if they want to sleep with a guy very quickly the more you wait the less likely you will get it.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
ChristianJ's broadcast on AntiMisandry
Damn right, I'm spreading the word. Look forward to more of this, from ChristianJ and others.
http://antimisandry.com/98christianj-on-misandry
http://antimisandry.com/98christianj-on-misandry
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Witch and The Priest
Roughly a year ago, Mary Winkler decided she had received enough abuse from her oral accounts, and allegedly had a heated argument with her preacher husband where the shotgun she held, on accident, went off.
Never mind that the wound itself was indicative of a premeditated murder against Matthew Winkler, and despite claims of past abuse, including sexual acts that she didn't like, Mary was not in the midst of struggle defending herself in a life or death situation. Never mind that the day Mary Winkler shot him, they both were supposed to have a meeting at a bank, whereupon Matthew would discover Winkler was involved in scams including bank fraud and wire fraud. This included cashing counterfeit checks in her name and her husband's, that he had not previously known.
I don't know if Matthew truly 'abused' Mary or not, but it seems remarkable that friends, religious associates, and family members declared otherwise. And regardless of motive, if Mary had been a man committing the same crime with a wife, it would have been considered an act of a fiend or a coward. But Mary is now free after only serving seven months, and although she is in a custody battle with Matthew's parents over the children, they are now without a father, and have a murderess for a mother. I don't even want to imagine what it's going to be like for them now that this tragedy has occurred.
The story of Matt and Mary Winkler is very telling---the defense of a battered/abused woman, sans proof, is still utilized as justifiable homicide, and in the eyes of gynocentric laws in our Western culture, women still can receive a slap on the wrist. When men do the same exact thing, they are usually nailed to the wall. As much as feminists' outright lie about that women receive harsher penalties for the any crime, the results indicate something quite different. Over the years, we have been exposed to more and more of these articles keep revealing the universal push that we're somehow supposed to swallow like a jagged, bitter pill: women who kill men do it out of reaction to systematic punishment and humiliation because of patriarchal oppression and malevolent men, and men who kill their spouses are, well, still evil men who wield the proverbial sword of that perceived cruel domination over victimized women.
Remember, that Winkler's sentence was to be a maximum of three years.
Occasionally, a modicum of sense prevails. Years ago Susan Wright claimed the same abuse card, and performed her own style of premeditated murder with a Basic Instinct style twist: she lured her husband, Jeff, into a rather kinky sex act, and while tied up, eventually stabbed him nearly 200 times. The jury was, at first, almost sympathetic towards her crocodile tear tale until the reality of seeing the bloodied bed hit them square in the face: thankfully, they had the impetus to find her guilty, although her conviction has a clause in it---it's not for life, and in thirteen years she is up for parole. If a man had sadistically killed a woman in the same manner, he'd never see the light of day if he didn't qualify for the death sentence in that particular state.
There's a lot more I could add, but I'll leave readers with these thoughts---until we, if ever, hold women just as accountable as men for their actions, for better or ill, our society with continue to sag under the weight of giving guilty women license for brutal crimes, while men are still ever-carrying the burdens of it on their backs. When more and more men continue to wake up about the disparities of injustice towards them and its inherent hypocrisies, those who don't politically protest may get so disgusted that social obligation will sound like a hallow concept rife with the toxins of exploitation. They will rebel by not giving credence to women, not helping them, and walking away.
The hideous irony of feminism is clear: when women win over men, ultimately, they lose. When will they realize that harming men only can continue to backfire?
Much has been said about the "disappearance" of men in many avenues, but no fact is so disheartening to find that men's lives are considered second rate---or worse---than American women's. If women want men to participate in the social compact, they will have to accept this challenge, warts and all. How women decide to exalt self-responsibly, I do not know. They shouldn't be surprised when Atlas truly shrugs---after all, enforced self-sacrifice, along with the fact that a man's life is viewed as disposable under a woman's whim, that more men are rebelling against the very system that innately devalues them.
Never mind that the wound itself was indicative of a premeditated murder against Matthew Winkler, and despite claims of past abuse, including sexual acts that she didn't like, Mary was not in the midst of struggle defending herself in a life or death situation. Never mind that the day Mary Winkler shot him, they both were supposed to have a meeting at a bank, whereupon Matthew would discover Winkler was involved in scams including bank fraud and wire fraud. This included cashing counterfeit checks in her name and her husband's, that he had not previously known.
I don't know if Matthew truly 'abused' Mary or not, but it seems remarkable that friends, religious associates, and family members declared otherwise. And regardless of motive, if Mary had been a man committing the same crime with a wife, it would have been considered an act of a fiend or a coward. But Mary is now free after only serving seven months, and although she is in a custody battle with Matthew's parents over the children, they are now without a father, and have a murderess for a mother. I don't even want to imagine what it's going to be like for them now that this tragedy has occurred.
The story of Matt and Mary Winkler is very telling---the defense of a battered/abused woman, sans proof, is still utilized as justifiable homicide, and in the eyes of gynocentric laws in our Western culture, women still can receive a slap on the wrist. When men do the same exact thing, they are usually nailed to the wall. As much as feminists' outright lie about that women receive harsher penalties for the any crime, the results indicate something quite different. Over the years, we have been exposed to more and more of these articles keep revealing the universal push that we're somehow supposed to swallow like a jagged, bitter pill: women who kill men do it out of reaction to systematic punishment and humiliation because of patriarchal oppression and malevolent men, and men who kill their spouses are, well, still evil men who wield the proverbial sword of that perceived cruel domination over victimized women.
Remember, that Winkler's sentence was to be a maximum of three years.
Occasionally, a modicum of sense prevails. Years ago Susan Wright claimed the same abuse card, and performed her own style of premeditated murder with a Basic Instinct style twist: she lured her husband, Jeff, into a rather kinky sex act, and while tied up, eventually stabbed him nearly 200 times. The jury was, at first, almost sympathetic towards her crocodile tear tale until the reality of seeing the bloodied bed hit them square in the face: thankfully, they had the impetus to find her guilty, although her conviction has a clause in it---it's not for life, and in thirteen years she is up for parole. If a man had sadistically killed a woman in the same manner, he'd never see the light of day if he didn't qualify for the death sentence in that particular state.
There's a lot more I could add, but I'll leave readers with these thoughts---until we, if ever, hold women just as accountable as men for their actions, for better or ill, our society with continue to sag under the weight of giving guilty women license for brutal crimes, while men are still ever-carrying the burdens of it on their backs. When more and more men continue to wake up about the disparities of injustice towards them and its inherent hypocrisies, those who don't politically protest may get so disgusted that social obligation will sound like a hallow concept rife with the toxins of exploitation. They will rebel by not giving credence to women, not helping them, and walking away.
The hideous irony of feminism is clear: when women win over men, ultimately, they lose. When will they realize that harming men only can continue to backfire?
Much has been said about the "disappearance" of men in many avenues, but no fact is so disheartening to find that men's lives are considered second rate---or worse---than American women's. If women want men to participate in the social compact, they will have to accept this challenge, warts and all. How women decide to exalt self-responsibly, I do not know. They shouldn't be surprised when Atlas truly shrugs---after all, enforced self-sacrifice, along with the fact that a man's life is viewed as disposable under a woman's whim, that more men are rebelling against the very system that innately devalues them.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Still Around, People
Once I'm back from vacation, which is this week, I'm going to come in tackling various themes. And yes, even SR attracts women (including a statuesque vixen that seems curious to indulge my personal hedonism---nope, she's not an exotic dancer or escort) despite his detractors labeling him as misogynist.
Makes you wonder about the respect level towards manginas. I am anything if not honest. Bowing down to women, in order to garner favor, has never been my style. Manginas gather more resentment for seeking approval above personalized standards of conduct.
Makes you wonder about the respect level towards manginas. I am anything if not honest. Bowing down to women, in order to garner favor, has never been my style. Manginas gather more resentment for seeking approval above personalized standards of conduct.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
MMA, Detox, MGTOW blogging, Feminism, and other cynical stuff
It's been a puzzling and dismaying couple of weeks. Two bloggers from the UK have almost completely vanished with little fanfare, and those of you already familiar with the MGTOW scene, already know something about the disappearing acts, although I won't go into detail here, except to save the questioning for the private forums for now. I will say godspeed to them if by any off-chance they are reading this, and wish the best.
That being said, although I write here on a semi-regular basis myself, this is far from dead in cyberspace, and I fully intent to continue to probe deeper issues when I can. My MMA training is fine, although right now I've taken some herbal and fiber supplements to flush my system, so pumping iron was placed on the backburner until tomorrow. Alas, I didn't get to see the recent cage matches part of my crew signed up for up close and personal, but even a couple of the guys that lost actually went down fighting, literally. Good show!
A few "evil" thoughts before more next blog post:
-What can feminism do for men? What's in it for men? Even the question has been skewed by feminists to mean even posing the question means its an extension of male entitlement. I counter by stating that men should look out for their own self interests at all times, because feminism will never, and I mean NEVER do it; past, present, or future. Not one bit. Unless you're a male feminist getting a good volume of "female attention" (nudge nudge, wink) and have a salary built on spinning yarns and believing your own self-righteous bullshit.
-What good are women "friends" if they don't do you any good? What purpose does it serve it all they are going to do is act coy, cry for help, bitch about their husbands and kids (in a one-sided tangent that doesn't stop about the same goddamn problems), never give their loyalty in return, provide a shoulder to lean upon? Even a decent blowjob doesn't allay the months upon months of being used as an emotional tampon, only to be discarded when your utility worth is deemed non-existent. And women are supposed to be more loyal than men?
-It is women -- not men -- that are pushing men into non-mongamous trysts, the use of sex workers and therapists, and quiet civil disobedience. It is women who are divorcing men out of boredem. It is women who are committing to the idea of hypergamy versus the reality of committing to hardworking men, after their party years have taken its toll and sleeping with dregs is no longer desirable. Women do not want to share life with men. If they did, they would make a serious effort for it. They want a beta male who has the appearance of an alpha, who ultimately caves in to women's whims and desires, and go to the next man if the former outlives his usefulness---providing she already has more than a toehold in the latter's life.
-Young American women are scared to death with relating to men as global human beings. It means that they would have to treat men as emotional and spiritual equals. It is something they cannot have, and will prove to be their future failing in life.
-Feminism is a tool, a means to an end, for certain women who "pick and choose" between traditionalism and "equality." Their cognitive dissonance doesn't bother them, because they don't spend a wealth of time with self-examination.
-Young women who are harboring a selfish, myopic, short term gain, and stunted system of dealing with men are refusing to see that is already backfiring on them, and they still deny their own complicity because the default mechanism in their psychologies is to blame men wholesale, even completely innocent men they cannot have, because they are resentful they have to "settle."
-Many men realize that a polyamorous approach is more desirable than the financial serfdom of living with a nagging, used up single mother with brats sired with a thug or a nobody, which was the mum's selection in the first place. Only manginas and the desperate seek them out, and even they might rebel if like an abused dog, they get kicked around too much.
-Gossiping skanks believe that the male-bashing they do behind our backs is out of our range. Guess what---we're doing more than eavesdropping, we're figuring out what makes you tick as well, and what we have to do not to get hurt by conspiring female jerks again.
-Many men resent the idea of "woman as leader" not because of her sex, but because her abuse of power. If anything, women politicians that are openly feminist dump more heat on men while allegedly favoring women, all for the sake of furthering their political careers; VAWA, IMBRA, rape shield laws, background checks when seeking foreign brides . . . the list goes on. Their track records have proven them untrustworthy and unfair, caring about their own self-promotion, and they turn a blind eye towards men's rights. Pray those that aren't openly feminist don't have a clandestine ax to grind.
-Too many women are in the upswing of the sport of blaming men, remaining clueless why men are completely sick of their bullshit they spew about how an idea relationship consists of, and what a true family is all about. Single moms are guilty as charged.
-Men, with still too few positive leadership roles coming from forefathers, aren't looking to matriarchal figureheads for several reasons, including the fact women don't want to truly understand men (they already think they do) Instead of providing more respect, nurturing them, mentoring them, and giving insight, they up the ante with guilt and shame, thus continuing the cycle of alienating and turning men off to them. Since they demand social obligation from men as a right, they get weak and and tenuous results because they refuse to uphold any similar conditions in the social compact.
That being said, although I write here on a semi-regular basis myself, this is far from dead in cyberspace, and I fully intent to continue to probe deeper issues when I can. My MMA training is fine, although right now I've taken some herbal and fiber supplements to flush my system, so pumping iron was placed on the backburner until tomorrow. Alas, I didn't get to see the recent cage matches part of my crew signed up for up close and personal, but even a couple of the guys that lost actually went down fighting, literally. Good show!
A few "evil" thoughts before more next blog post:
-What can feminism do for men? What's in it for men? Even the question has been skewed by feminists to mean even posing the question means its an extension of male entitlement. I counter by stating that men should look out for their own self interests at all times, because feminism will never, and I mean NEVER do it; past, present, or future. Not one bit. Unless you're a male feminist getting a good volume of "female attention" (nudge nudge, wink) and have a salary built on spinning yarns and believing your own self-righteous bullshit.
-What good are women "friends" if they don't do you any good? What purpose does it serve it all they are going to do is act coy, cry for help, bitch about their husbands and kids (in a one-sided tangent that doesn't stop about the same goddamn problems), never give their loyalty in return, provide a shoulder to lean upon? Even a decent blowjob doesn't allay the months upon months of being used as an emotional tampon, only to be discarded when your utility worth is deemed non-existent. And women are supposed to be more loyal than men?
-It is women -- not men -- that are pushing men into non-mongamous trysts, the use of sex workers and therapists, and quiet civil disobedience. It is women who are divorcing men out of boredem. It is women who are committing to the idea of hypergamy versus the reality of committing to hardworking men, after their party years have taken its toll and sleeping with dregs is no longer desirable. Women do not want to share life with men. If they did, they would make a serious effort for it. They want a beta male who has the appearance of an alpha, who ultimately caves in to women's whims and desires, and go to the next man if the former outlives his usefulness---providing she already has more than a toehold in the latter's life.
-Young American women are scared to death with relating to men as global human beings. It means that they would have to treat men as emotional and spiritual equals. It is something they cannot have, and will prove to be their future failing in life.
-Feminism is a tool, a means to an end, for certain women who "pick and choose" between traditionalism and "equality." Their cognitive dissonance doesn't bother them, because they don't spend a wealth of time with self-examination.
-Young women who are harboring a selfish, myopic, short term gain, and stunted system of dealing with men are refusing to see that is already backfiring on them, and they still deny their own complicity because the default mechanism in their psychologies is to blame men wholesale, even completely innocent men they cannot have, because they are resentful they have to "settle."
-Many men realize that a polyamorous approach is more desirable than the financial serfdom of living with a nagging, used up single mother with brats sired with a thug or a nobody, which was the mum's selection in the first place. Only manginas and the desperate seek them out, and even they might rebel if like an abused dog, they get kicked around too much.
-Gossiping skanks believe that the male-bashing they do behind our backs is out of our range. Guess what---we're doing more than eavesdropping, we're figuring out what makes you tick as well, and what we have to do not to get hurt by conspiring female jerks again.
-Many men resent the idea of "woman as leader" not because of her sex, but because her abuse of power. If anything, women politicians that are openly feminist dump more heat on men while allegedly favoring women, all for the sake of furthering their political careers; VAWA, IMBRA, rape shield laws, background checks when seeking foreign brides . . . the list goes on. Their track records have proven them untrustworthy and unfair, caring about their own self-promotion, and they turn a blind eye towards men's rights. Pray those that aren't openly feminist don't have a clandestine ax to grind.
-Too many women are in the upswing of the sport of blaming men, remaining clueless why men are completely sick of their bullshit they spew about how an idea relationship consists of, and what a true family is all about. Single moms are guilty as charged.
-Men, with still too few positive leadership roles coming from forefathers, aren't looking to matriarchal figureheads for several reasons, including the fact women don't want to truly understand men (they already think they do) Instead of providing more respect, nurturing them, mentoring them, and giving insight, they up the ante with guilt and shame, thus continuing the cycle of alienating and turning men off to them. Since they demand social obligation from men as a right, they get weak and and tenuous results because they refuse to uphold any similar conditions in the social compact.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Death of the Nice Girl
Where are all the nice girls at? Don't tell me. I already know. They are supposed to be devoutly sitting in the church pews waiting for a future husband to come along. They are supposed to be taking care of themselves concerning their health to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. They are supposed to be improving themselves in very fashion, so they are well-rounded individuals men can't resist and feel impelled to be at their sides.
Uh huh.
I may be going against the grain when I state this, but I do think good women are "out there." Trouble is, their exists a dearth of them that seem to be dwindling. Chances are awfully high the the good ones are either scooped up, or in the process of being in the dynamic of being with a man already. Funny how that seems like the flip side of American women's complaint of that all the good men are either married or gay. I don't exactly feel much sympathy for women who blither on like this---it's basically an excuse to stay single and bitch about their condition to their fair weather friends.
Even worse, the ratio of good men to good women is out of whack. I'm not certain about how that ratio is numerically, but I do know how it ultimately plays out for men. There's a lot of single men that are that way for a myriad of reasons, but one of the reasons is what I've stated above, and with the amount of single moms, cast iron bitches, used/washed up sluts, nutjobs, and the more gender feminist minded aren't likely candidates for the man who is more discriminating in his tastes, or serious about having a marriage and family (and children that are legitimately his) that isn't going to crash and burn. Hence, more paucity of good women: add to the fray that the women (men are wary of) overestimate their proverbial market value and shame men who don't date them with shit behavior, I can't say I blame men for not even courting women anymore after a time.
Now, I don't completely buy the traditional lines women repeat, either. I've read where apparent nice gal types have an awful time with shyness and making moves, but it seems like an excuse not to become intimate with men on more than one level. Seems like they have no problems with letting men trip over themselves in order to secure a relationship with them; of course, the responsibility lies at the men's doorstep, her work involves showing up and spending an hour and a half on her looks. You pay for dates. You ask her out. You follow up. You have to say and act in all the right ways. There's no promise that those things will iron out any of your differences or make her bond with you more. Basically, she has veto power and if you're not presenting yourself as a good catch, it's still up to her what occurs, if anything. And men have all the power? Even personally, in this situation? Will she continue the pursuit in kind? That's if she won't meet with her friends and family with any modicum of chagrin at all by being with you---even if you hit it off, your value plummets quickly if peer pressure demands you're a loser unfit to polish her shoes on a shine box.
Women will often go for what other women want, including men. Even a "good" girl will follow some of the examples of a bitchy alpha female if she feels it won't help being affable. The more dirty fighters will conspire if it requires backstabbing, cheating, lying, turning others against each other, stealing a man from his own girlfriend or wife, or even worse tactics. Yet good men still languish without a date, and if they complain about it, they are bitter whiners. But women take sexual rejection infinitely harder than their male cohorts and will even wreck havoc if thwarted. Most men, even half assed players, get used to periods where they are dateless or sexual specters on the primal landscape. Single women, even ones who don't put out easily and use sex as weapon once in a relationship, get tied in knots when they aren't attracting men like they used to.
Interesting how women use, "You should get laid/you're a loser that can't get laid."
And men are the ones obsessed with sex? What? Women aren't? With their vociferous amounts of babbling concerning their children, their asses, their boobs, their sex lives, birth control, abortion, tampons, PMS, how to give better blowjobs, or competing with other women over the slim minority of men deemed worthy, while dressing up sexy for the approval of their tenuous partnerships they developed they label as "friends?"
Christianity or any other religion holds no guarantee she internalized solid character values. Tramp stamps be damned. It's another indication of the hive mind American women either adopt or innately possess---I'll let the armchair theorists debate whether or not it's sociobiological imperatives that lead them to the habituation of such nihilistic hedonism; the ersatz rebellion of tattoos, piercings, drunken and stoned at an endless array of nights, hopping from one man to another, one club to another, in a desperate search for the next thrill at the party. Capricious in her ways, the "spiritual NOT religious" females aren't terribly different from women who feel they are the (a)moral arbitrators of those values---since they are women and feel justified in taking the tenets and either absorbing them as they see fit, or changing them in mid-stream when they work against her egocentrism.
Nice girls? Yeah, I may have gotten off the beaten track here, but you're outnumbered by the women I've outlined above. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I'm tried of arguing about it anymore.
Uh huh.
I may be going against the grain when I state this, but I do think good women are "out there." Trouble is, their exists a dearth of them that seem to be dwindling. Chances are awfully high the the good ones are either scooped up, or in the process of being in the dynamic of being with a man already. Funny how that seems like the flip side of American women's complaint of that all the good men are either married or gay. I don't exactly feel much sympathy for women who blither on like this---it's basically an excuse to stay single and bitch about their condition to their fair weather friends.
Even worse, the ratio of good men to good women is out of whack. I'm not certain about how that ratio is numerically, but I do know how it ultimately plays out for men. There's a lot of single men that are that way for a myriad of reasons, but one of the reasons is what I've stated above, and with the amount of single moms, cast iron bitches, used/washed up sluts, nutjobs, and the more gender feminist minded aren't likely candidates for the man who is more discriminating in his tastes, or serious about having a marriage and family (and children that are legitimately his) that isn't going to crash and burn. Hence, more paucity of good women: add to the fray that the women (men are wary of) overestimate their proverbial market value and shame men who don't date them with shit behavior, I can't say I blame men for not even courting women anymore after a time.
Now, I don't completely buy the traditional lines women repeat, either. I've read where apparent nice gal types have an awful time with shyness and making moves, but it seems like an excuse not to become intimate with men on more than one level. Seems like they have no problems with letting men trip over themselves in order to secure a relationship with them; of course, the responsibility lies at the men's doorstep, her work involves showing up and spending an hour and a half on her looks. You pay for dates. You ask her out. You follow up. You have to say and act in all the right ways. There's no promise that those things will iron out any of your differences or make her bond with you more. Basically, she has veto power and if you're not presenting yourself as a good catch, it's still up to her what occurs, if anything. And men have all the power? Even personally, in this situation? Will she continue the pursuit in kind? That's if she won't meet with her friends and family with any modicum of chagrin at all by being with you---even if you hit it off, your value plummets quickly if peer pressure demands you're a loser unfit to polish her shoes on a shine box.
Women will often go for what other women want, including men. Even a "good" girl will follow some of the examples of a bitchy alpha female if she feels it won't help being affable. The more dirty fighters will conspire if it requires backstabbing, cheating, lying, turning others against each other, stealing a man from his own girlfriend or wife, or even worse tactics. Yet good men still languish without a date, and if they complain about it, they are bitter whiners. But women take sexual rejection infinitely harder than their male cohorts and will even wreck havoc if thwarted. Most men, even half assed players, get used to periods where they are dateless or sexual specters on the primal landscape. Single women, even ones who don't put out easily and use sex as weapon once in a relationship, get tied in knots when they aren't attracting men like they used to.
Interesting how women use, "You should get laid/you're a loser that can't get laid."
And men are the ones obsessed with sex? What? Women aren't? With their vociferous amounts of babbling concerning their children, their asses, their boobs, their sex lives, birth control, abortion, tampons, PMS, how to give better blowjobs, or competing with other women over the slim minority of men deemed worthy, while dressing up sexy for the approval of their tenuous partnerships they developed they label as "friends?"
Christianity or any other religion holds no guarantee she internalized solid character values. Tramp stamps be damned. It's another indication of the hive mind American women either adopt or innately possess---I'll let the armchair theorists debate whether or not it's sociobiological imperatives that lead them to the habituation of such nihilistic hedonism; the ersatz rebellion of tattoos, piercings, drunken and stoned at an endless array of nights, hopping from one man to another, one club to another, in a desperate search for the next thrill at the party. Capricious in her ways, the "spiritual NOT religious" females aren't terribly different from women who feel they are the (a)moral arbitrators of those values---since they are women and feel justified in taking the tenets and either absorbing them as they see fit, or changing them in mid-stream when they work against her egocentrism.
Nice girls? Yeah, I may have gotten off the beaten track here, but you're outnumbered by the women I've outlined above. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I'm tried of arguing about it anymore.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Happy Father's Day
To all of the fathers out there, and the most appreciation to my own.
If this is post is brief, it's not because of lack of desire, but lack of sleep. Kudos to you all.
If this is post is brief, it's not because of lack of desire, but lack of sleep. Kudos to you all.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A Few Words about Women and Being "Taken"
In another form, a woman who'll I'll dub as KM, writes the following in regards to women and sexuality:
Oh, for Pete's sake. You guys tell yourselves whatever you want. I want to be held down. And it has nothing to do with the media or being schizo or anything. (Although I'm not ready to claim sanity yet...) It's a biological fact. And what's more, I'm willing to bet it's the woman who initiates it more often than not.
Ever read a romance novel? Um....never mind. Probably not. I've only read maybe 10 in my life. The thing is, the guy in the romance novel who gets the girl isn't the one who's all solicitous to make sure she gets home unmolested. She appreciates him, of course. But it's the dark stranger, the wounded, solitary count, the viking warrior who gets the girl. And he doesn't hurt her. He is forceful, yes, but has control. Look at Dracula. Well, I guess technically Dracula does hurt them, but he has the whole eternal life, undead attraction thing going for him.
Romance novels are not written to influence women. They're written to appeal to women.
Well, friends, I couldn't help but respond. Since I have trouble with such claims, I'll tell you why, here---I'll add a few things as I go tomorrow:
Even aside from women initiating it more often than not, hell, many men haven't even met women ask them out on a fucking date once.
Men are told by women to "treat them like a lady." Well, after seeing how decidedly unladylike women can be, why should they?
The one pivotal thing you must remember is that there has to be an underlying mutual consent. The gender feminists who want men, assiduously, to keep tabs on everything. They have men merely ask like little servants begging for crumbs and don't like gray areas because they operate out of fear. The women who play dangerous games of "rapo" like shifting from wanton slut to battered victim because they are lashing out at men because they feel like they have to maintain dominance and punishment---no matter how malefic its manifestation. That one time they didn't feel like it was consensual on a whim, simply because the relationship isn't going the right way, is the day he's in deep shit.
By doing the above, it ensues there is no "equality" in the sexual dynamic. The gatekeepers can stifle the valves of libido, and despite being having more control, blame the other for misreading cues or breaking the ground rules established. How interesting---the one with more power has less responsibility, and guess who's the one with more sexual power. This is where the feminists are in denial or clearly full of shit. It is also an undertone that's evident here---women's sexuality and essence is more significant and of import than men's, vulnerabilities be damned.
Many men are not given a manual for women and the sociobiology of sexuality, and when they do get something akin to it, it's often comprised of a couple of things---it's still about benefiting women, advice from women, and a good amount of filler. It's usually up to nice guys to fill in the blanks, and since that is often from inexperience, they can trip up---and that's, of course, their fault, even if they are in the dark.
If everything was cut and dried, there would be far lesser problems. But women often tell men, "Figure me out, I'm a woman, but I won't give you all the clues, but I change when I want" to "I wish you hadn't figured me out, it's scary"---because it indicates a loss of control when men truly understand women and sexual desire. Keeping men off kilter and committing sins of omission, even with intercourse, allows women the upper hand. Even the street talk on women when men get together and start comparing notes looks quite different from the idiotic maze women use in order to filter out men that are undesirables---men aren't interested in the fodder, they are interested in what works and not getting in the doghouse with women---IF they bother at all.
There's also a dark side to that mysterious rogue character you mentioned. Women have fantasies about them and make a grave mistake that underneath it all is that guy she pined for in her blossoming sexual maturation. Hell, even one of my ex-girlfriends loved the idea of Beauty and Beast and other seemly inane fairy tales. Yet, fairy tales can have a lot to teach us---including about those who are fixated with certain figures. Women who want to lose momentary control still think that their anti-hero, an inversion of the savior motif, will protect and rescue them.
A true dark master has allegiance to no one but himself, whether he is the modern version of the black magician, or beast masquerading as human---its contemporary manifestation is the psychopath who usurps women's personal power, even if it means torturing and killing her.
This is why I just shake my head at women (which is seems to be a domain of a lot of white women, especially) reveling in fantasies about being aggressed against.
Oh, for Pete's sake. You guys tell yourselves whatever you want. I want to be held down. And it has nothing to do with the media or being schizo or anything. (Although I'm not ready to claim sanity yet...) It's a biological fact. And what's more, I'm willing to bet it's the woman who initiates it more often than not.
Ever read a romance novel? Um....never mind. Probably not. I've only read maybe 10 in my life. The thing is, the guy in the romance novel who gets the girl isn't the one who's all solicitous to make sure she gets home unmolested. She appreciates him, of course. But it's the dark stranger, the wounded, solitary count, the viking warrior who gets the girl. And he doesn't hurt her. He is forceful, yes, but has control. Look at Dracula. Well, I guess technically Dracula does hurt them, but he has the whole eternal life, undead attraction thing going for him.
Romance novels are not written to influence women. They're written to appeal to women.
Well, friends, I couldn't help but respond. Since I have trouble with such claims, I'll tell you why, here---I'll add a few things as I go tomorrow:
Even aside from women initiating it more often than not, hell, many men haven't even met women ask them out on a fucking date once.
Men are told by women to "treat them like a lady." Well, after seeing how decidedly unladylike women can be, why should they?
The one pivotal thing you must remember is that there has to be an underlying mutual consent. The gender feminists who want men, assiduously, to keep tabs on everything. They have men merely ask like little servants begging for crumbs and don't like gray areas because they operate out of fear. The women who play dangerous games of "rapo" like shifting from wanton slut to battered victim because they are lashing out at men because they feel like they have to maintain dominance and punishment---no matter how malefic its manifestation. That one time they didn't feel like it was consensual on a whim, simply because the relationship isn't going the right way, is the day he's in deep shit.
By doing the above, it ensues there is no "equality" in the sexual dynamic. The gatekeepers can stifle the valves of libido, and despite being having more control, blame the other for misreading cues or breaking the ground rules established. How interesting---the one with more power has less responsibility, and guess who's the one with more sexual power. This is where the feminists are in denial or clearly full of shit. It is also an undertone that's evident here---women's sexuality and essence is more significant and of import than men's, vulnerabilities be damned.
Many men are not given a manual for women and the sociobiology of sexuality, and when they do get something akin to it, it's often comprised of a couple of things---it's still about benefiting women, advice from women, and a good amount of filler. It's usually up to nice guys to fill in the blanks, and since that is often from inexperience, they can trip up---and that's, of course, their fault, even if they are in the dark.
If everything was cut and dried, there would be far lesser problems. But women often tell men, "Figure me out, I'm a woman, but I won't give you all the clues, but I change when I want" to "I wish you hadn't figured me out, it's scary"---because it indicates a loss of control when men truly understand women and sexual desire. Keeping men off kilter and committing sins of omission, even with intercourse, allows women the upper hand. Even the street talk on women when men get together and start comparing notes looks quite different from the idiotic maze women use in order to filter out men that are undesirables---men aren't interested in the fodder, they are interested in what works and not getting in the doghouse with women---IF they bother at all.
There's also a dark side to that mysterious rogue character you mentioned. Women have fantasies about them and make a grave mistake that underneath it all is that guy she pined for in her blossoming sexual maturation. Hell, even one of my ex-girlfriends loved the idea of Beauty and Beast and other seemly inane fairy tales. Yet, fairy tales can have a lot to teach us---including about those who are fixated with certain figures. Women who want to lose momentary control still think that their anti-hero, an inversion of the savior motif, will protect and rescue them.
A true dark master has allegiance to no one but himself, whether he is the modern version of the black magician, or beast masquerading as human---its contemporary manifestation is the psychopath who usurps women's personal power, even if it means torturing and killing her.
This is why I just shake my head at women (which is seems to be a domain of a lot of white women, especially) reveling in fantasies about being aggressed against.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Feminist And Guilty Part One: Male Feminists
I've always had truck with mere idea of male feminists. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I find the concept oddly intriguing, and the reality of it is no where near as the facade they would don. It is like the evangelist that plays the role of the epitome of a great Christian, while living a life of deception on the side and rationalizing any discrepancies.
For one, I'm puzzled at the their incessant agreement with their female counterparts that male privilege exists despite the overwhelming evidence that men simply, on average, don't have it as good as modern day women. Many will point out how women have been oppressed for thousands of years (or whatever amount of time it supposedly is) and almost completely ignore the pitfalls, the adversities, the tedium, the inequalities men face and are expected to accept nary a complaint.
Or, if they are to be acknowledged, it is nowhere near the suffering women go through---women always have it worse. Even gay men don't have it as bad as women, despite political affilations male feminists have with them, women are the ones who are the majority of victims of any form of prejudices down the line. And any incessant and institutionalized discrimination against men is the result or negative manifestation of patriarchy, and no women at all are to blame either . . . whether or not they are complicit in the silence for no outrage against the damning of men and masculinity.
I'm sure that male feminists will have bulwarks that buffer most accusations MRAs and the politically incorrect-minded can muster. My most destructive barbs always include menacing edge that they can't shield themselves against utterly---the hallmark of the good guy badge. And promulgate a good image. Chances are that they are doing very little to clearly help women, but have no problems with expecting---even demanding---men change for women, because, of course, women have it worse and women, despite being strong and independent, need help and protection from big, bad other men.
Male feminists have much to gain by their label, but my questioning of their self-description is thus: what are they really DOING as opposed to the lipservice they give to their position? It often serves to keep them employed in a cushy job that offers no serious challenge. It gives them the attention that many skanks seek---an audience in which they are the cynosure, the counsel figure, the fake post-modern shaman and humanitarian.
But it also gives them much lavished attention from women. Male feminists will deny that their motivation as a penultimate feature; self gain, and with that self gain cock-blocking is an accusation that is supposed be laughable, but let's face it, women will often buy into a proud figure that will promote one's self, whether it is in the college classroom or dance club. "I'M better than HIM" they will boast with an undercurrent of masked self-righteousness, in order to gain favor with women and maybe even prevent access to women from other men by stigmatizing or blasting them. So they rise to the forefront, which is what they wanted, anyway.
Of course, much of them dismiss or try to criticise men's rights activists, and pinning them with a cluster of charges, ranging from approval of wife beating to unilateral misogyny, and what have you.
Male feminists state most men don't believe they want to change (and should), but when they want men to change it is in reference to women and in service to women. Women are infallible, men are flawed and need to personally reshape their social, sexual, and workplace attitudes for women. And after all, men have oppressed women for centuries, right, so it's only right and fair that men should employ adaptive strategies in order to help women. In this regard, male feminists are no different than traditional men who expect men to live up to the standards of chivalry without reward---that women still need to be protected. And men are universally responsible for conduct towards women, and owe women that to fulfill the debt allegedly spawned from "evil" oppressive patriarchy.
Of course, we will call a spade a spade here due to all of the campaigns of "men can stop rape" and such other expressed associative guilt heaped on men from feminists: it's collective bigotry. Male feminists also enjoy using this in order to flash their good guy badges and claim high moral ground.
Continually preaching that men should practice self-sacrifice in regards to women, most don't live up to it in their own life examples. This is the main reason why neither MRAs nor gender feminists, oddly enough, trust male feminists. It isn't just the thinly-veiled invidious remarks towards MRA camps---male feminists grew up not comfortable in their own skin, with other men not like themselves, and may have even lived a life of wanton abandon with women in the past, and expurge their guilt and shame on others by demanding men shape up.
The true believers---which are the most damaging because they believe in their cause---aren't dangerous because tedium of their internal hypocrisy. It is the harm they create for other men, and men who desire women without the hurdles of feminist memes and the distrust fostered between the sexes.
For one, I'm puzzled at the their incessant agreement with their female counterparts that male privilege exists despite the overwhelming evidence that men simply, on average, don't have it as good as modern day women. Many will point out how women have been oppressed for thousands of years (or whatever amount of time it supposedly is) and almost completely ignore the pitfalls, the adversities, the tedium, the inequalities men face and are expected to accept nary a complaint.
Or, if they are to be acknowledged, it is nowhere near the suffering women go through---women always have it worse. Even gay men don't have it as bad as women, despite political affilations male feminists have with them, women are the ones who are the majority of victims of any form of prejudices down the line. And any incessant and institutionalized discrimination against men is the result or negative manifestation of patriarchy, and no women at all are to blame either . . . whether or not they are complicit in the silence for no outrage against the damning of men and masculinity.
I'm sure that male feminists will have bulwarks that buffer most accusations MRAs and the politically incorrect-minded can muster. My most destructive barbs always include menacing edge that they can't shield themselves against utterly---the hallmark of the good guy badge. And promulgate a good image. Chances are that they are doing very little to clearly help women, but have no problems with expecting---even demanding---men change for women, because, of course, women have it worse and women, despite being strong and independent, need help and protection from big, bad other men.
Male feminists have much to gain by their label, but my questioning of their self-description is thus: what are they really DOING as opposed to the lipservice they give to their position? It often serves to keep them employed in a cushy job that offers no serious challenge. It gives them the attention that many skanks seek---an audience in which they are the cynosure, the counsel figure, the fake post-modern shaman and humanitarian.
But it also gives them much lavished attention from women. Male feminists will deny that their motivation as a penultimate feature; self gain, and with that self gain cock-blocking is an accusation that is supposed be laughable, but let's face it, women will often buy into a proud figure that will promote one's self, whether it is in the college classroom or dance club. "I'M better than HIM" they will boast with an undercurrent of masked self-righteousness, in order to gain favor with women and maybe even prevent access to women from other men by stigmatizing or blasting them. So they rise to the forefront, which is what they wanted, anyway.
Of course, much of them dismiss or try to criticise men's rights activists, and pinning them with a cluster of charges, ranging from approval of wife beating to unilateral misogyny, and what have you.
Male feminists state most men don't believe they want to change (and should), but when they want men to change it is in reference to women and in service to women. Women are infallible, men are flawed and need to personally reshape their social, sexual, and workplace attitudes for women. And after all, men have oppressed women for centuries, right, so it's only right and fair that men should employ adaptive strategies in order to help women. In this regard, male feminists are no different than traditional men who expect men to live up to the standards of chivalry without reward---that women still need to be protected. And men are universally responsible for conduct towards women, and owe women that to fulfill the debt allegedly spawned from "evil" oppressive patriarchy.
Of course, we will call a spade a spade here due to all of the campaigns of "men can stop rape" and such other expressed associative guilt heaped on men from feminists: it's collective bigotry. Male feminists also enjoy using this in order to flash their good guy badges and claim high moral ground.
Continually preaching that men should practice self-sacrifice in regards to women, most don't live up to it in their own life examples. This is the main reason why neither MRAs nor gender feminists, oddly enough, trust male feminists. It isn't just the thinly-veiled invidious remarks towards MRA camps---male feminists grew up not comfortable in their own skin, with other men not like themselves, and may have even lived a life of wanton abandon with women in the past, and expurge their guilt and shame on others by demanding men shape up.
The true believers---which are the most damaging because they believe in their cause---aren't dangerous because tedium of their internal hypocrisy. It is the harm they create for other men, and men who desire women without the hurdles of feminist memes and the distrust fostered between the sexes.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Upcoming policy on trolls
I am going to write a hard and fast handful of rules about posting comments on here. As of late I have had a couple of visitors which my trust level remains very low about. It is nothing against the cyberspace alliances I've made over the years, so for that crowd (including MRAs) they have nothing to worry about. If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me on the main forum I'm a mod on.
For feminists and their mangina cohorts, you will only be allowed to debate on threads I wish, and I will give a curt and main point overview of Dos and Dont's. If a thread gets out of hand, it gets closed. I will not flamebait without giving allowance to speak, but the rules outlined have to be obeyed. There will not be an enormous list here; just a cluster of things I will "lay down the tracks with" so to speak in order to deal with unruly characters, engage in male shaming language, and those who, with ulterior motives and clandestine behavior, betray my trust.
The Policies with be modified if need be, and a continual series of "Feminist and Guilty" is in the works, in part, of societal malaise I've observed.
And BTW, those I'm calling out here as trolls and backstabbing fools are proving me right; men are truly shit upon in this gynocentric culture---by gender feminist women AND mangina men.
For feminists and their mangina cohorts, you will only be allowed to debate on threads I wish, and I will give a curt and main point overview of Dos and Dont's. If a thread gets out of hand, it gets closed. I will not flamebait without giving allowance to speak, but the rules outlined have to be obeyed. There will not be an enormous list here; just a cluster of things I will "lay down the tracks with" so to speak in order to deal with unruly characters, engage in male shaming language, and those who, with ulterior motives and clandestine behavior, betray my trust.
The Policies with be modified if need be, and a continual series of "Feminist and Guilty" is in the works, in part, of societal malaise I've observed.
And BTW, those I'm calling out here as trolls and backstabbing fools are proving me right; men are truly shit upon in this gynocentric culture---by gender feminist women AND mangina men.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
My Review of Neil Marshall's "The Descent"
The Descent has some of basal elements that make up the so-called branch of horror, often termed survival horror. But unlike it's precursor cinematic cousins, it dives deep into its cavernous abyss and remains there, never hinting that hope and nobility will ever win out. This is not a fun flick, or a feel good movie of the summer. And in the face of all the flicks featuring women kicking ass, being all-too competent and cool, and triumphing over struggle (often at the expense of men . . . again), it delves into hysteria and the macabre.
And like many movies of its ilk, it begins with friends having a good time, laughing amongst each other and taking on one of many adventures, and quickly after which, the main character, a Scottish young woman named Sara (Shauna Macdonald) loses both her husband and young daughter in an abrupt and brutal accident that will leave her haunted and traumatized.
Fast forward a year later, where the friends gather again in order to present her with some sort of therapy, Juno (Natalie Mendoza) style, for a spelunking expedition somewhere amongst the Appalachian caverns (echoing hints of Deliverance and The Howling). Her closest friend from England, Beth (Alex Reid), is not too keen on the idea for herself or for Sara, especially considering Sara is still raw from her ordeal, but she goes along anyway because despite Juno's alpha female goading and prodding, Sara seems to be okay with it at first. And since they are professionally equipped and fairly athletic, all pretty much everything appears to be well, even though we are treated to a brief nightmare to suggest a bad omen, and Sara imbibing psychotropic drugs to remain psychologically balanced.
Gradually, over time, things start to unravel. Sara gets a bind that displays her claustrophobia wasn't merely in her head. The ever hyperactive Holly (Nora Jane Noone) breaks her leg in a zeal to find a quick exit. Rebecca (Saskia Mulder) confronts Juno's overt deception when they find out that they are not in a tourist trap, but an (allegedly) unexplored cave that yields no sign of daylight the further they press on. Accusations fly, and the young gals are often at each others throats, in anxiety, what to do next. They had been strong, independent, fun loving young women at the onset outside of damaged Sara and the weight of her tragedy. Now they are encompassed by a sense of impending doom. And worse, Sara seems to be hallucinating---at first, until the others discover to their horror---in the dank caverns they have entered a lair at their own peril---they are being stalked. And their adversaries aren't human.
What are we to make of The Descent and its characters? What is it trying to say? It's clear that the alpha female of the pack is their Captain Ahab---Juno willingly or not, sets up betrayal after betrayal, including a hint that she had an affair with Sara's late husband (Oliver Milburn). She leads them into serious danger and even death when entering a cave unlisted and unnamed for the sake of high adventure and risk taking, and even involves one of them in an unsettling accident, the only truly nurturing friend that is Sara's rock. It's that event which sets the pivotal tone for Sara's psychological crack up. In a way, The Descent unveils its dark motivations for the women just as it pits them against a primal and fierce backdrop; the women are, in the beginning, rather giddy and shallow, only to expose their other (true?) selves when adversity strikes: adulterous, backstabbing, jealous, vengeful, fearful, and panicky.
And once Rebecca's sister Sam (MyAnna Buring) discovers the nature of their predatory terror, and the rest try to take a stand with Juno in a damaged need for redemption, it is perhaps way too late---Sara becomes horror incarnate (recalling Carrie and perhaps Predator in the visuals). Call me reaching and playing the role of a pseudo-Jungian philosopher, The Descent is just as a metaphor for abysmal feminine lunacy, a trek downwards into the psyche in which Woman cannot truly escape her suffering from Pagan Earth without the archetype of The Male Principle, whether it is savior, warrior, hero, or magician. It is devolution, a one way trip into the underworld.
It has been suggested that Sara may have died in the vehicle with her family and she is in an astral Hell, or that she was engulfed by her own insanity and what we see is that made manifest. Director Neil Marshall only implies these theories, never answering the dark enigma but leaving us with our own thoughts of its onscreen violence and treachery, and while I am not certain it's what he truly intended, the largely all-female presence leaves us to speculate that a post-feminist matriarchy, as a closed circle, Western women, American, British, or what have you, would be left to their own devices . . . engaging in in-fighting in a decaying coven that would implode upon itself in the face of feral nature and predation.
And like many movies of its ilk, it begins with friends having a good time, laughing amongst each other and taking on one of many adventures, and quickly after which, the main character, a Scottish young woman named Sara (Shauna Macdonald) loses both her husband and young daughter in an abrupt and brutal accident that will leave her haunted and traumatized.
Fast forward a year later, where the friends gather again in order to present her with some sort of therapy, Juno (Natalie Mendoza) style, for a spelunking expedition somewhere amongst the Appalachian caverns (echoing hints of Deliverance and The Howling). Her closest friend from England, Beth (Alex Reid), is not too keen on the idea for herself or for Sara, especially considering Sara is still raw from her ordeal, but she goes along anyway because despite Juno's alpha female goading and prodding, Sara seems to be okay with it at first. And since they are professionally equipped and fairly athletic, all pretty much everything appears to be well, even though we are treated to a brief nightmare to suggest a bad omen, and Sara imbibing psychotropic drugs to remain psychologically balanced.
Gradually, over time, things start to unravel. Sara gets a bind that displays her claustrophobia wasn't merely in her head. The ever hyperactive Holly (Nora Jane Noone) breaks her leg in a zeal to find a quick exit. Rebecca (Saskia Mulder) confronts Juno's overt deception when they find out that they are not in a tourist trap, but an (allegedly) unexplored cave that yields no sign of daylight the further they press on. Accusations fly, and the young gals are often at each others throats, in anxiety, what to do next. They had been strong, independent, fun loving young women at the onset outside of damaged Sara and the weight of her tragedy. Now they are encompassed by a sense of impending doom. And worse, Sara seems to be hallucinating---at first, until the others discover to their horror---in the dank caverns they have entered a lair at their own peril---they are being stalked. And their adversaries aren't human.
What are we to make of The Descent and its characters? What is it trying to say? It's clear that the alpha female of the pack is their Captain Ahab---Juno willingly or not, sets up betrayal after betrayal, including a hint that she had an affair with Sara's late husband (Oliver Milburn). She leads them into serious danger and even death when entering a cave unlisted and unnamed for the sake of high adventure and risk taking, and even involves one of them in an unsettling accident, the only truly nurturing friend that is Sara's rock. It's that event which sets the pivotal tone for Sara's psychological crack up. In a way, The Descent unveils its dark motivations for the women just as it pits them against a primal and fierce backdrop; the women are, in the beginning, rather giddy and shallow, only to expose their other (true?) selves when adversity strikes: adulterous, backstabbing, jealous, vengeful, fearful, and panicky.
And once Rebecca's sister Sam (MyAnna Buring) discovers the nature of their predatory terror, and the rest try to take a stand with Juno in a damaged need for redemption, it is perhaps way too late---Sara becomes horror incarnate (recalling Carrie and perhaps Predator in the visuals). Call me reaching and playing the role of a pseudo-Jungian philosopher, The Descent is just as a metaphor for abysmal feminine lunacy, a trek downwards into the psyche in which Woman cannot truly escape her suffering from Pagan Earth without the archetype of The Male Principle, whether it is savior, warrior, hero, or magician. It is devolution, a one way trip into the underworld.
It has been suggested that Sara may have died in the vehicle with her family and she is in an astral Hell, or that she was engulfed by her own insanity and what we see is that made manifest. Director Neil Marshall only implies these theories, never answering the dark enigma but leaving us with our own thoughts of its onscreen violence and treachery, and while I am not certain it's what he truly intended, the largely all-female presence leaves us to speculate that a post-feminist matriarchy, as a closed circle, Western women, American, British, or what have you, would be left to their own devices . . . engaging in in-fighting in a decaying coven that would implode upon itself in the face of feral nature and predation.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Standing up for Masculinity
Voodoojock, of his own site I linked to as well as others, enjoyed this response to "I am a feminist" so I am reproducing it here.
I am masculinist because of the following:
-It was obvious that I would be subject to more violence (across the board) because I am a man, and our justice system is more protective of women and the local authorities more reticent to look out for men.
-I had to pay much of my college courses and programs out of my own pocket, and special funds for my own sex simply did not exist.
-When I woke up to the fact in high school the elitist young women, whether they were sluttish or prudes would never consider me as a love interest because of my working class male status.
-I am a masculinist because women believe they have an inherent right to demean my sexuality and masculinity without consequences, or without protest, and if I do, I am considered a misogynist by default.
-I am masculinist because the Supreme Court historically favors American women in spite of feminist propaganda claiming otherwise.
-I am pro-male because I know that false charges of DV, sexual harassment, rape, and paternity fraud possibly leveled at me women are believed even in the face of ZERO evidence, the former three of which far outweigh any ersatz charges by men.
-I am this way because I will have to work harder than any female for recognition, job security, and status, and that employers are more fearful of firing and laying off women than men. When women can take more time off OUTSIDE of just pregnancy and use sick leave as an excuse more than I can.
-I am pro-masculinity when I know that women in clubs or lounges will always believe they know me, men, and relationships despite never truly accepting me for the holistic totality of my being, and would rather dismiss me out of hand than face true intimacy.
-I am pro-men because I realize that men's health, their pain and suffering, their burdens, and their loneliness and alienation is still overlooked, ignored, or even invisible according to this culture.
I AM A MAN, Virginia . . . deal with it.
I am masculinist because of the following:
-It was obvious that I would be subject to more violence (across the board) because I am a man, and our justice system is more protective of women and the local authorities more reticent to look out for men.
-I had to pay much of my college courses and programs out of my own pocket, and special funds for my own sex simply did not exist.
-When I woke up to the fact in high school the elitist young women, whether they were sluttish or prudes would never consider me as a love interest because of my working class male status.
-I am a masculinist because women believe they have an inherent right to demean my sexuality and masculinity without consequences, or without protest, and if I do, I am considered a misogynist by default.
-I am masculinist because the Supreme Court historically favors American women in spite of feminist propaganda claiming otherwise.
-I am pro-male because I know that false charges of DV, sexual harassment, rape, and paternity fraud possibly leveled at me women are believed even in the face of ZERO evidence, the former three of which far outweigh any ersatz charges by men.
-I am this way because I will have to work harder than any female for recognition, job security, and status, and that employers are more fearful of firing and laying off women than men. When women can take more time off OUTSIDE of just pregnancy and use sick leave as an excuse more than I can.
-I am pro-masculinity when I know that women in clubs or lounges will always believe they know me, men, and relationships despite never truly accepting me for the holistic totality of my being, and would rather dismiss me out of hand than face true intimacy.
-I am pro-men because I realize that men's health, their pain and suffering, their burdens, and their loneliness and alienation is still overlooked, ignored, or even invisible according to this culture.
I AM A MAN, Virginia . . . deal with it.
Friday, April 20, 2007
A Rant; Just a few words to the wise and the foolish
People will probably ask me what drove me to to do blogging myself, and why I didn't just stick with writing occasional commentary on feminism, the current male-female dynamic and state of affairs, and how our culture seems to support certain observations I've made despite repugnant justifications for the way men are (mis)treated and how it keeps skirting the issues . . . and not declaring what's wrong.
I honestly didn't want it to come to this, but I am fed up with so many things I see that I can't ignore any longer. Burying my head in the sand will not do; not anymore.
Without going into vast detail, after my rather troubled high school years, I wanted to attend college, excel and obtain a degree in a profession that would satisfy me. Eventually, I would enter another completely unrelated field and pick up a far different sheepskin. Along the way, for those early years that I struggled I yearned for a significant other, a woman that I could truly declare as a soul mate and live the rest of my days with. While I dated and even had a few relationships, it would never manifest. For whatever reason---I will list some of my own foibles as well as factors against it beyond my own experience alone---without being totally fatalist, it seems that I am destined to be without. So be it.
But I will save that for now. Currently, I am fed up with a myriad of anti-male attributes our American society seems to either overlook or even thrive on. There is a large truism that much of our existence is dependent on the blood, sweat, and tears of the men that came before us and the men that quietly uphold and maintain the mechanisms of anything to higher institutions to sanitation and the dirty jobs no one wants to do. That's part of my reasoning to create this blog---men have been voicing their opinions online because other outlets in the media simply refuses to do so or simply doesn't care enough about men from most walks of life. Plus, I relate to certain injustices men face because I have endured them myself.
. . . and ruminating why I have decided to become active in some ways, and withdraw myself in others.
There's many other items I could go over here, but one thing I'd like to discuss is the most hot one---women. On occasion, I will make comments about female behavior. Just like other blogs/websites, I'm sure some people will claim I'm overgeneralizing and being harsh. I'm not taking every single woman on earth to task, but just writing about what I see and from a man's viewpoint, no matter how subjective. Yep, the cry that "All women aren't like that" is fine and well, but it doesn't help much if there are women that ARE just like I write about.
I make no apologies, however, for revealing things people don't want to hear. They don't want to hear that chivalry favors women at the expense of men. So does marriage. So does divorce. So does the "save the children" spiel that politicians and the clergy touts in order to prey on men's guilts and shame. And why feminism just might be tearing men and women from apart than bridging the natural desire they should have for each other.
Some will believe that I'm a bitter old man raving about the opposite sex and had no luck with them. That doesn't quite wash---I'm in my thirties, and had women desire to marry and have children with me, and even as I write this, despite my reservations, I have a couple of women curious about me. Since feminist bloggers have deemed my serious questions and remarks as "anti-feminist bromides" and male victimhood at times and either resorted to ad hominem tactics or simply zapping what I said, I have no problems with establishing groundwork rules.
I make no bones that will happen here---if you are a MRA, a father fighting for custody, a man sitting out/on the marriage strike, or a woman truly trying to understand why men are becoming like myself and the others, you will be allowed to comment. Others playing around will be kicked off. There are plenty of sites praising women at all costs and hailing feminism, while damning men wholesale for every evil underneath the sun. Use them to vent your spleen instead of wasting your time.
I honestly didn't want it to come to this, but I am fed up with so many things I see that I can't ignore any longer. Burying my head in the sand will not do; not anymore.
Without going into vast detail, after my rather troubled high school years, I wanted to attend college, excel and obtain a degree in a profession that would satisfy me. Eventually, I would enter another completely unrelated field and pick up a far different sheepskin. Along the way, for those early years that I struggled I yearned for a significant other, a woman that I could truly declare as a soul mate and live the rest of my days with. While I dated and even had a few relationships, it would never manifest. For whatever reason---I will list some of my own foibles as well as factors against it beyond my own experience alone---without being totally fatalist, it seems that I am destined to be without. So be it.
But I will save that for now. Currently, I am fed up with a myriad of anti-male attributes our American society seems to either overlook or even thrive on. There is a large truism that much of our existence is dependent on the blood, sweat, and tears of the men that came before us and the men that quietly uphold and maintain the mechanisms of anything to higher institutions to sanitation and the dirty jobs no one wants to do. That's part of my reasoning to create this blog---men have been voicing their opinions online because other outlets in the media simply refuses to do so or simply doesn't care enough about men from most walks of life. Plus, I relate to certain injustices men face because I have endured them myself.
. . . and ruminating why I have decided to become active in some ways, and withdraw myself in others.
There's many other items I could go over here, but one thing I'd like to discuss is the most hot one---women. On occasion, I will make comments about female behavior. Just like other blogs/websites, I'm sure some people will claim I'm overgeneralizing and being harsh. I'm not taking every single woman on earth to task, but just writing about what I see and from a man's viewpoint, no matter how subjective. Yep, the cry that "All women aren't like that" is fine and well, but it doesn't help much if there are women that ARE just like I write about.
I make no apologies, however, for revealing things people don't want to hear. They don't want to hear that chivalry favors women at the expense of men. So does marriage. So does divorce. So does the "save the children" spiel that politicians and the clergy touts in order to prey on men's guilts and shame. And why feminism just might be tearing men and women from apart than bridging the natural desire they should have for each other.
Some will believe that I'm a bitter old man raving about the opposite sex and had no luck with them. That doesn't quite wash---I'm in my thirties, and had women desire to marry and have children with me, and even as I write this, despite my reservations, I have a couple of women curious about me. Since feminist bloggers have deemed my serious questions and remarks as "anti-feminist bromides" and male victimhood at times and either resorted to ad hominem tactics or simply zapping what I said, I have no problems with establishing groundwork rules.
I make no bones that will happen here---if you are a MRA, a father fighting for custody, a man sitting out/on the marriage strike, or a woman truly trying to understand why men are becoming like myself and the others, you will be allowed to comment. Others playing around will be kicked off. There are plenty of sites praising women at all costs and hailing feminism, while damning men wholesale for every evil underneath the sun. Use them to vent your spleen instead of wasting your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
