Wednesday, November 26, 2008
And if anyone is still recently in touch with him, tell him that Chris/SR wishes him well, and that he's welcome to drop in any time, even if it's just in cyberspace.
Why are men so angry?
One of the most common men's issues I see discussed on NGs is men's anger. Everybody is obsessing about men's anger, characterizing it as uniting force among men - "male" anger, telling men how to manage it, and express it and suppress it.
What no one is doing is acknowledging WHAT IT IS that men are getting angry about. And every time some man brings up all the man bashing in the culture, or how shittily men are treated, everybody tries to "hush him up", so he gets angrier and keeps getting angrier until he feels like he has been HEARD or SEEN JUST AS HE IS. Instead, he keeps getting told how he "should" be and, even when the prescription is impossible or completely nuts, having people ANGRY AT him for living a life of reality rather than their fantasies of what they want him to be.
The anger you see in a man is directly proportional to the anger which he has absorbed over the years. Letting that anger out is essential to ever being able to let go of it and leave it behind. But it is very takes a very long time to learn how to be focussed and articulate with anger. It is a mature skill and takes lots of practice. It is something older men could teach younger men, except that younger men distrust older men these days.
Men are expressing a lot of anger these days. It comes from 25 years of having their collective character assassinated in the public consciousness. Men have been turned into criminals for trying to be good fathers. Everything has been turned upside down for them. Where they expected recognition and appreciation, they received blame and hatred.
The extent of men's anger can easily be seen in their withdrawal, not their violence. Boys are bailing out of schools because the schools hate boys so much. Men of all ages are quietly going against the impossible demands and expectations placed on them. Silencing them did not immobilize them and they have found ways to express that anger even if they couldn't win a semantic word game about how they expressed it vocally. They are expressing it by their absence.
The men still arguing with women are the ones still trying to reach understanding. They are the ones who still believe in women. The rest have quit talking to women completely. Or rather, they have quit listening to women while they rag on incessantly.
Anger is a natural reaction to a feeling of being attacked. Anyone who doesn't see how men are under attack every day just isn't looking. The cultural role and contributions of men have been "deconstructed" into rubble during the course of the past 30 years. Men have been tarred with the broad brush of "the enemy" and women have refused to let men be their allies. Everything men do has been under attack, and people still wonder why men are so angry. No one ever acknowledges that the culture decimates any man who quits doing that which the culture also ridicules them for doing.
The notion of benign intentions on the part of men has been replaced by universal suspicion of malice. The very valuable social asset of a reputation has been destroyed culture wide. The social fracturing which has resulted in migration of large percentages of the population into urban areas makes it harder to get to know people individually and leads directly to the formation and use of stereotypes. Social transgressions like lying, which would reflect so badly on an entire family with long standing social ties that the individual lives with an awareness that his/her actions can harm other people indirectly, go undetected when the only thing that people know of each other is what they see in front of them. The entire notion of internal controls of behavior, what one might call a sense of ethics, has been discredited by radical feminist theory.
Thus we have moved into an era where there are no ethics, no internalized cultural controls and substituted an massive snarl of government regulations and the much touted RULE of LAW. Except the laws are so incredibly biased against men that men have lost faith in the both the justice system and the government.
And when a man expresses anger about any of this, he is essentially told to shut up.
The more trapped a man is in situations which are eating him alive, the angrier he will be. The more verbal abuse and criticism he takes for his efforts, the angrier he will be. The more he has had his own needs used to manipulate and exploit him, the angrier he will be. The more condesending bullshit he has had to put up with from women, the angrier he will be.
The key to resolving the anger which comes from being under attack is to take oneself out of the line of fire, if possible. If you are not called upon to do battle several times per day, over time the battle reflex will die away. All the arguing with women is counter-productive in two ways. First, it just keeps the frustration level high because the arguments fall into such stereotyped patterns. Second, it reinforces the stereotype of angry men which women already have.
A better solution is turning one's back on the source of the anger. Anger is like an animal that needs to be fed. It is far easier than most people realize to starve it to death. At a certain point of not being heard, it is best to unhook from the attempt and accept the fact that this other person is simply never going to accept the truth about you. Cut that person loose immediately.
This is not to say don't speak out. When someone says or does something incredibly offensive to you, point it out and point out how obnoxious it was. DON'T get into an argument over the other person's "right" to have done it. They will always feel righteously justified in their bigotry.
But, speak out and then turn your back. Don't waste your time on these people.
Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time. And it ANNOYS the pig.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I have to thank Kim at Equal But Different for her true compassion for men and even moving a cynic like myself to promote it, even if she was not satisfied that it was as good as she wanted it. I wish there were more women like you.
And don't worry, it's good enough.
Imagine what must it be like to be a man in today's society.
I want everyone to take the time to ponder that.
What must it be like to be a little boy? An innocent, sweet child....so full of love and joy. Of course, that love and joy must fade into insecurity and self hatred when you go to school and are treated differently because you're a boy, when you're expected to behave differently, better, toward the little girls while they're allowed to treat you any way they choose and you must simply endure it because they are girls and you are a boy.
Imagine what it must be like to be a little boy who's father, his hero, is made to leave the home when Mommy files for divorce. You know that your father is who you're most like, the person you emulate and hope to grow up to be like.....the person Mommy has renamed *sshole, screams at on the phone and says horrible things about to her family and friends.
Imagine what it must be like to be that sweet, innocent boy and to be subjected to a constant stream of negative images and portrayals of men, knowing all the while that a man is precisely what you'll grow up to be.
Imagine what it must be like to be a teenage boy. You go to high school and college and all you see and hear are rape statistics and how boys and men are dangerous predators. The father you sorely need has been alienated from you for many years. He tried and tried but Mom made things as difficult as possible and now your relationship is awkward at best.
Imagine what it must be like to be a young man. All you want is to find that special girl to fall in love with, to marry and to start a family with, but even though you are a nice guy and have always tried to be a good person, every girl you meet assumes the worst of you. You want to fall in love, but you become more and more jaded as every relationship you have is with someone who is shallow, selfish, materialistic and narcissistic.
Imagine what it must be like to be a young man. You enlisted in the military. You did your duty to your country and served with honor. You watched those with whom you served, men you'd come to view as brothers, return home in coffins and sometimes you can't sleep at night because the things you bury away during the day come back to haunt you in your sleep. For your efforts, you have health problems that nobody cares about and hear that whatever happened to you and your brothers was your own fault....because you're men and, afterall, it's violent men who are the ones who start the wars.
Imagine what it must be like to be a man. You've given up on marriage, now that you're older, even if you found someone you wanted to spend your life with, you don't dare. You realize that the family court system is stacked against you and should your marriage not work out, you'll risk losing everything. You've given up on your dream of family and children because you don't want your son to ever go through what you went through. You're not a coward, but you've decided to fore go the joys of fatherhood because you think it will be easier never knowing such love than to know it and have it ripped away from you. For your efforts of self-preservation you are called a loser, a perpetual child; there must be something wrong with you, it just isn't normal.......
Or, perhaps, you did find that special someone and you decided it was worth the risk. You got married, you had children. You worked hard to provide the very best for your children. You wanted to spend as much time as possible with your family, but work requirements kept you away from home more than you liked. You told yourself it was o.k., a sacrifice you were willing to make in order to provide for your family. You wanted to give them all the things they told you they wanted and needed.....and then one day, your wife tells you she isn't happy, you work too much, you're always gone, you're not taking care of her emotional needs. All too quickly divorce papers are filed and since, according to the judge, you were not very involved in raising the children, you are relegated to the status of non-custodial parent. You now come home to an empty apartment, no more do you hear cries of 'Daddy' when you walk through the door or get to tuck somebody in at night. You see your kids when your ex-wife allows, when it's convenient for her and as long as you remain in her good graces.
Imagine what it must be like to be a man. You walk down the street, children avoid you and women watch you warily. Although the words are not vocalized, you can see the accusation written clearly in their eyes and on their faces.....rapist, pedophile, abuser. You know that all it takes is an allegation, a few words, and your life can be ruined, simply because you are a man.
Imagine must it be like to be a man.
Playerdom is a numbers game. For someone who wants success with women, it's good advice to hang around women a lot and keep a solid attitude but not get too phased by the bullshit and game playing. I think one of the crucial points that make a percentage of men here fed up is that men generally tend to be direct and honest about things when Ameriskanks are infamous for being drama princesses and thrive on petty conflicts and ambiguity. It's no surprise that it could bore and annoy someone to the point on not caring; funny how women will place personal ads that state "I'm not into drama and playing games" when they either did it heavily in the past, are in denial, or just liars.
You have to remember that your typical young woman acts pseudo-cynical, yet are pretty gullible to the feedback loop that you just outlined---so many Western women, despite protests to the contrary, are typically sheep and will go after men that other women subconsciously appoint as desirable, whether he's a legit alpha or not. There is some truth to the "fake it 'till you make it" PUA mentality, although a guy will have to enjoy the chase and tactics along the way.
This means a lot of work that I'm sure members here would rather forsake. To me, it's a source of amusement; I take personal ads and women's desires posted on them with grain of salt. I confess there is a bit of a loverboy in me, but as time goes on I choose not to engage that much because it's a great deal of effort for a modicum of payoff.
Again, many here have stopped dating and seeking out AW altogether, but there is a benefit for juggling women when you're dating to seek out which is better for you. If there's no ring on your finger, you're obligated to no one. "Single" women do this all the time. Hell, most women don't care about marriage vows nowdays, but that's another thread (although they they are in love with the wedding day fantasy---yuck!).
It makes you more desirable, believe ir or not, even to women that claim they are monogamous if you are wanted by other women. Plus, it prevents getting stuck on one that will drag things out indefinitely or try to mindfuck you while never making up her own.
That's high school crap you don't need, when you can be seeing someone else. And yeah, while it's not the salient attitude on this forum, I've been honest about a few past exploits with women, including mentioning to C.V. and Al. that I've flirted with women and implied I may have been a male stripper or polyamorous without overtly saying it, and it actually made them more intrigued. Since I'm tall, athletic/muscular, and a bit of a trickster, it would be an approach that might help again if I was more ardent about fucking and chucking. At this juncture, I'm more proud that I'm STD-free and spend my time improving my MMA/TMA game instead.
It says something about the nature of these women in particular, including those who present the facade of being a nice girl that they are attracted to wayward and men who seek out multiple partners. It's not something that the stand up guys here would prefer to do and I certainly respect that. As for myself, since I lost a truckload of respect for AWs it's something I play with---that is IF I feel like it. It's come to the point where I'm generally too busy with other personal and professional garbage to bother.
Which brings me to another foray. I've (admittedly) gotten laid through personal ads in the past, but it's a tough road to walk and no matter how little or many women you attract, you can't expect too much and just use them as another tool. Even with the proliferation of free personal ads and the growing numbers of women using them, there is a MAMMOTH amount of attention whores on them that rarely meet men in person and get a kick of seeing men fall over themselves in cyberspace trying to get them for relationships, for better or ill. If anyone wants to be even remotely serious about meeting a woman for anything from a causal sexual tryst to a LTR, just view is as an avenue and nothing more, one of many. It's only one option.
For example, there are women on certain sites that have been there FOR YEARS and continue to complain about not finding a good man, and simply won't because it would shatter their worldview of the nice guy/bad boy complex they have towards men. They are fixated with it despite decrying men (who use it with a fraction of energy and intent) as losers and asocial creeps. They have something to prove, axes to grind, and are a vicious as any feminist online because they can be. It validates their sense of worth and self-righteousness. They are complete and utter liars when they act as if they want a good man; good men aren't that difficult to find and chances are fairly likely these women have an assortment of problems, including anything from financial, addictions they try to hide, and even mental illness.
Avoid the forums of any personal ad site like the plague even if you're simply looking for hook up for coffee; the anti-male venom is paramount and if you get branded as a misogynist they are nothing short of ruthless---unless you don't care what they think and don't mind being suspended or banned. There are quite a few women there that love to have enemies; never give them a chance for interaction at all.
All of this is, of course, anyone who still bothers to navigate the waters. Obviously, pretty much most of the posters here know my view about Ameriskanks anyway, especially considering I refuse to marry or procreate with any of them, as it stands, for obvious reasons.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Men are gradually waking up to their belittled status in a culture that is woefully anti-male on many fronts, but the saddening thing is that there exist women that aren't reconciliatory, but up the ante even more when men start asserting they are people, too---which was one of the basal claims of feminism for women . . .
. . . which turned out to be female supremacist in outlook rather than for "equality."
Lest I remind someone, even with some indication to who you are conversing with and how they perceptually approach subjects, the vitriol from your typical resentment-filled skank ranged from subtle to complete male-bashing. Granted, there were a few posters here and there that tried to be rational and not attempt to slide into an embittered sex war on the site. But the male bashing and bitterness reared its ugly head time and time again.
It seemed that favoritism towards women and preference guided the mods' hands. Any act of protest from men could have been criticized by a feminist-minded single mom or skank as "misogynist" and either dismissed or a borderline hate-filled rant that ended in an anti-crescendo of typical accusations---from slagging calling out the man as anything from a sexist jerk to someone that couldn't get laid (odd that, considering the idea that "jerks" and "bad boys" from the stereotype are supposed to be more sexually desirable among skanks, but whatever).
There was even one incidence I recall with a feminist and a definant man going round and round. The latter did not feel sorry for a woman that had slept with bottom-feeder mates as a young woman and had children from these dregs which she could barely support. He kept arguing that the woman in question should have took responsibility for mate selection and the consequences from that past life, curtly stating near the end he didn't feel much for the apparently troubled gal.
The feminist responded with a quite the unsurprising retort. Instead of trying to promote compassion for another woman or persuading him that he was not seeing it from another's lens, she did what so many do in order demostrate her lesson with a recap that resulted in the vicious slam, "You should be crucified, you bastard."
I'm not making this up.
And the male poster had refrained from direct personal attacks, merely providing his opinion, no matter how tough love oriented it had been. He didn't lose his cool or slam womendom entire. But his alleged lack of empathy was met with something altogether more fierce. And very telling.
It makes me wonder what goes on in the minds of feminist women and skanks like this. Does the fliter of cyber semi-anonymity provide them with the impetus to be more caustic and hateful? Or are they truly as malevolent, blame-shifting, self-righteous, and embittered as they came across in tone?
I think some of them are. They are the ones I avoid on every level now.
Clearly, many of posters on the forum are engaging in nothing more than pissing contests, attention whoring, and a mini-celebrity of sorts to boost an ego. And it's a sad commentary that there are skanks that will do just about anything to be relevent and get attention from men rather than be shunned. Ostracism and ignoring them are utterly crippling, especially outside of cyberspace. They might even resort to anything and everything up (and including) threats of violent thoughts in order to get their bullying across.
That, to me, is truly aborrent.
My pivotal point wasn't just one moment in time, a true epiphany, but I decided when a woman that claimed herself as feminist abandoned (at least) an attempt to stick to the tenets of debate in argumentation---and kept employing non sequiturs, argumentum ad personnams, and continual self-projection was not worth the time or the energy. I have become a conscientious objector, and have uneventfully left the building. And it feels better than ever, that peace of mind!
One event in particular sticks out in mind; I conveyed to an older woman that most men simply do not have the reproductive rights as women on various levels, and she never ONCE conceded for a moment that it was a fact after several posts and a couple of days of sparring back and forth, utilizing red herrings and being evasive in order to show she was for female supremacy and not equal rights.
I have come to the point where hooks arguments and going toe to toe with them is a hideous waste of my time. Even without the overt abuse, hatred, gross assumptions, and negative vehemence, having heated discussions with feminists would have to yield a modicum of mutual respect. If that is not possible, they are utterly shunned. Yes, I see the value in cluebatting, but the irrational pitch of hostile feminists are nothing that I desire to be privy to outside of lurking. And that's that.
After all, they didn't need us men, why should they now? Why should they give a damn what we think (as if they did, anyway). Or is "benevolent sexism" (i.e. chivarly and protectionisms that benefit them) something out of "patriarchy" they don't want to give up just yet from us?
If you're branded as a misogynist, no matter how poignant your truths are, is is best to congregate with anyone that respectfully disagrees or at least sees you more than a second class citizen. If suggestion, facts, or persuasion do not yield a greater understanding and cohersion in the gender war---a war that feminists clearly started, and we have to pick up the pieces and move forward for ourselves---not to live our lives for battle just for the sake of it.
Let them deal with the darkness in themselves by witnessing their own reflections in the mirror. Perhaps, they can't handle it, but I would rather leave them to their own devices than let them project it onto the unwilling That's damage I don't need..
There is no saving them, but only ourselves in the long haul. .
Monday, September 15, 2008
No.10 - Wrongful paternity
Consider this: You just got a divorce, which requires you to pay child support. No problem, they’re your kids and you’re here to support them. But then DNA evidence shows they’re not your kids and you’ve been paying for another guy’s offspring. Now you want your money back, which seems fair and reasonable. Not according to some judges.
Parker v. State (Florida)
Richard Parker found out his 3-year-old child wasn’t his. The twist: The court ruled unanimously that he has to continue to pay child support, which is expected to total $200,000 over 15 years.
No.9 - Deadbeat-dad rulings
A deadbeat dad is a negative label given to dads who fall behind on their child support payments. This largely refers to men who consciously avoid paying every month. The stigma also includes fathers who may have been laid off and can’t keep up on their payments.
State of Wisconsin v. Oakley
This defendant -- David Oakley -- will never win father of the year. The guy has outstanding child support payments for nine children from four women. Here’s the issue: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled he could no longer procreate until he proves he can support kids. This sets a precedent that could hurt dads who may have legitimately fallen behind on payments from being laid off.
No.8 - False rape cases
Rape is a serious crime that deserves to be punished within the full extent of the law. When it’s a false accusation, however, rape can destroy an innocent man’s reputation as soon as the claim goes public. By their nature, these cases prove a man’s innocence, but suspicions and a tarnished reputation aren’t as easily abolished.
Hudak v. Johnson
RCMP officer Hudak was accused of sexual assault. The judge threw it out after the female accuser admitted to lying about it. Hudak transferred to a new detachment, but women still refused to work with him. He then moved to a different province where someone said she "didn’t want a rapist on the force." Redemption: Hudak was awarded a provincial apology plus an undisclosed settlement from his $5 million claim.
No.7 - Putative Father Registry law
This law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex to register with their state. This is done so that you, as a man, can be contacted if a woman you’ve slept with gets pregnant and she puts this child up for adoption. If you don’t sign up, you might not even know you were a father.
Huddleston v. State (New Mexico)
Mark Huddleston’s child was adopted when he was just 3 days old. The issue: Huddleston didn’t even know he had a boy until two months later. The adoption agency that gave away the boy did not contact Huddleston to tell him. The result: Mark Huddleston was denied the chance to bring up his biological son.
No.6 - Bradley Amendment
This law states that men’s outstanding child support payments will not be reduced for whatever reason. Just laid off from your job and want to reduce the amount of your payment until you find work? Nope. Had a medical accident and been out of work recovering in hospital? Pay up.
Sherrill v. State of North Carolina
This defendant was a Lockheed employee and a divorced father working in Kuwait during the Gulf War. One day, he was captured by Iraqis and held as hostage. He was released five months later. The second night he was back in the U.S. a sheriff came to arrest him for owing $1,425 in payments that accumulated when he was held hostage. Ouch.
No.5 - Proposition 13
Proposition 13 was recently voted in as Texas law. It states that any father accused of domestic violence will be denied bail before trial. Sounds OK on the surface, but if you read closely you’ll see it says any father "accused" of violence is denied bail. This means that if a woman simply says her husband was violent, her husband will be denied bail. While its intention is a noble one -- to keep abusive husbands from hurting their wives -- the side effect is that any spiteful, angry wife with a cross to bear can send an innocent guy to jail.
No.4 - Restraining order laws
In truth, it’s harder for an adult woman to buy a pack of cigarettes than to get a restraining order. She can tell a judge she simply "feels unsafe" with her husband or boyfriend and the court can issue an order against her husband. This, of course, forces him to move out and reorganize his life. For this reason, many people have dubbed this law "shout at your spouse, lose your house."
McLarnon v. Douglas and Jokisch
The father, Edward McLarnon, was issued a restraining order by his ex-wife with the help of her social-worker boyfriend Douglas. Douglas used his social-worker status to testify that McLarnon was an abuser when he’d barely met him. McLarnon lost the right to see his son.
No.3 - Trust assets from divorce
Sure, it’s one thing to split marital assets fifty-fifty, but what about an offshore trust or limited partnership you set up to build capital? Sorry guys, tack it on to the bill. Even in cases of private business practice, rulings on trusts generally favor women.
Riechers v. Riechers 1998, New York
The husband in this case set up a trust and a limited partnership. The reason: He was a physician and wanted to avoid a malpractice suit. He named his kids and wife as beneficiaries, but his wife’s name wasn’t explicitly mentioned. This meant, in a divorce, she would not have access to the trust. But she got it regardless, as the court ruled in her favor.
No.2 - Alimony/Spousal support
"I want half, Eddie." You don’t have to watch old Eddie Murphy stand-up to know divorce can cost men a lot of money. Until now, most U.S. states leave the length and amount of settlement up to each judge. In Florida, it’s on the books that men have to provide lifetime support. The result: Men can be on the hook for a long time for a lot.
Polksy v. Polsky
Trivia: What’s one of the largest divorce verdicts in U.S. history? Answer: $184 million dollars to Maya Polsky, wife of Michael Polsky, a successful power industry businessman in Chicago.
No.1 - Custody
It’s widely accepted that women will be granted custody for children in child custody cases and that men will simply make child support payments. Of course, men who are good fathers and want custody of their children suffer for it thanks to this scenario.
John Doe v. Province of Saskatchewan
The man in this case unknowingly impregnated a woman. Later, he found she was putting this child up for adoption. He took a DNA test to prove he was the biological father and applied for sole custody -- but he was denied. The judge ruled in favor of a couple to adopt him.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Now, when I was just a little boy,---Born on a Bayou
Standin' to my Daddy's knee,
My poppa said, "Son, don't let the man get you
Do what he done to me."
'Cause he'll get you,
'Cause he'll get you now.
I have often seriously questioned that the majority of pedos are men, even though women take a more "seductive" style approach while men are more of a "hunter," loosely speaking. Considering how many articles of women having sex with underage boy and girls, eventually the truth that women are just as sexually abusive will come out.
There's a similar thing about serial killers. While men are more methodical or "stalker" types, a good deal of black widows, angels of death, and women who kill for money or vindictiveness over time, while using more indirect means like poisoning men and children. They are not typically classified as serial killers say like a Night Stalker or BTK murderer. Even though women are capable of repulsive crimes, including ripping a baby out of womb, cannibalism, and blood ritual murder. As sensational as it sounds, they only make headlines once in a while, while a killer like Ted Bundy or The Son of Sam get the attention of the media because they slay pretty, young women.
The one thing feminists got right to some extent is that men are fit for battle and fighting. That also should scare the living shit out of them: we are good at it. From anything to the CQC I practice all the way up to bombing the piss out of another country leaving destruction in that wake, men are "built" for war more than women, generally. But this doesn't provide the whole picture.
If men were so horrible concerning warmongering and being anti-woman, however, we would be utterly dominating them and leaving them in chains and shackles if they didn't obey, and do terrible crimes to them if they didn't meet our whims. Most men are not like this at all, but if you read feminist rhetoric you'd believe otherwise. Considering the protections and great license Western women have, they are utterly full of it. Nothing in Western culture sanctions slavery of women and systematic abuse. And men generally find it repugnant.
Even if men are excel at battle and combat, it doesn't mean women are any less violent, or inherently less so internally. Deep down, most men, even teenage street punks are aware of the ramifications of moderate to extreme violence and that it's not pretty. Most men are actually reluctant to engage in long term skirmishes and military excursions as they are to wail away in a bar fight despite claims of gung ho male bravado. There are always consequences and risk, and going headlong is done with either deliberation or as a last resort when all options are exhausted.
Not to go on a tangent, but I rarely have met a woman that has ever really needed to worry about urban altercations and meeting the reality of getting seriously injured or killed, unless they already live in crime-ridden areas. The brutality that R's son personally experienced [edited here for anon purposes---me] is one of many examples of what has happened to young men; it's a reality that most women are shielded from and probably will never happen to them their entire lives. As far as DV, it's rare when it's a one-way street and I've already discussed how women instigate and continue that cycle a few times.
Feminists, all to ready to spread fear and demand men change, act as if they get the brunt of the raw deal, and when men are locking horns with other men, they eschew the complexities of male violence and mock and scoff at it---including not understanding saving face and unleashing anger rather than be shamed and humiliated. Rather than examining the roots of a severe problem, to paraphrase Willard's character from Apocalypse Now, they try to place a bandage on a gaping wound in order to mask the truth in hopes that men will clean up everything and it will go away.
With women, it's easy to judge men on the sidelines and possess an attitude of smug self-righteousness when you are sitting on your fat ass watching American Idol and blasting men as cowards because they don't allegedly fight for home and hearth (usually a political or religion rationale trumped up by politicians). Women rarely take the blame for instigating war and men fighting for agendas that are often illusionary and elitist-driven, all the while women are usually safe and sound unless their own home turf is attacked. Anyone from the UK feminists in WWI to Hilary Clinton have pushed men into fighting for causes with no thought of ever sending their daughters to possible death and slaughter . . . only their sons. And you can forget, as Ronnie James Dio sang, "even mother's a solider now . . . " being sent on the front lines in a significant amount.
And make no bones about it, there are women create their own vicious warriors, and feminists fail to understand that anything from single mothers to so-called "traditional" women, that if they don't want men to be too hardened and forceful, they have to comprehend their hand in the deal in fashioning young men, from gang members to legitimate misogynists. IF women who find they are raising young men in this fashion actually do this is yet to be determined. Shifting the blame and pointing fingers is hard to give up. I'm not defending venomous criminals---far from it---but they started from someone and somewhere.
The hand the rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.
I seriously believe if that men en masse became passive overnight, women would up the ante so badly on men that their provocation would eventuate into a far larger scale of their own violence and aggression with primal outbursts towards both men and other women that pales in comparison to how they behave now. Do I think that all women are extremely animalistic? The short answer is no. Do I still assert that women are capable of an unstable and virulent matriarchy if men consciously gravitated towards civil disobedience and refusal to fight for women and "culture?" The obvious answer I have is definitely yes.
Many moons ago I wrote a review of Neil Marshall's The Descent. While it's just a movie committed to celluloid, it's truth is still clear to me; without men to fight for women's honor and their protection, to be their white knights, engage in self-sacrifice for the benefit of women and guide them as, perhaps a Jungian psychologist would describe as the "male solar principle" an all female tribe would be as cutthroat and filled with deception and in-fighting as any amount of men could be. And when they finally realized their cohesion would save their own backs, that moment would be all too late with the maelstrom and chaos they caused, advertently or not.
(Obviously, this is from another forum, but I couldn't resist placing it here, regardless).
Monday, July 21, 2008
And again, I'll let the remarks speak for themselves.
I'm tired of seeing this portrayal of "domestic violence" considering that an extremely small percentage is of the type depicted in this commercial. There are assholes who are serial beaters, yet they suffer from no shortage of women considering how many women are absolutely sick and are attracted to and stay with these types of scumbags.
A much greater majority of the cases are the rare instances where the woman pushed a few too many buttons and picked a fight hoping he would snap, and he does. Or worse yet, she initiates it physically, but he still ends up being hauled off to jail since the default move for police is to arrest the man.
I'm so jaded that whenever I hear of a woman getting hit, my first question is, "what did she do to piss him off?".
I agree with you! Knowing how women can say those 'sweet nothings' to insult your manhood, stuff like that, I think the SAME THING you do. Most guys I know won't take a swing at someone else unless they have DAMN GOOD REASON TO DO SO, know what I mean?
And my response, slightly edited.
I remember one of my ex-girlfriends, despite all her claims of being pro-masculine and "women suck" (an admission of honesty for once), pushed my buttons near the last quarter of our relationship. It was the nail in the coffin for me; never again have I tolerated such garbage in the context of a relationship. That's a reason many men are still single; their refusal to be women's punching bags. There exist women out there that believe that being a bitchy cunt and passive-aggressive, all the while demanding that men be what they want do be, is being powerful and independent. It's utterly piss poor way of approaching men and conducting relationships.
Most women I know don't even know the art of seduction on most levels and don't know what in the world in means to be a muse---if you are going to manipulative, at least be charismatic and reward your "prey." But there's several men over time that are tired of being cruelly dumped on and are finally having enough.
Like I've always said, it's a scary thing when the hunted prey starts laughing at the hunter.
While I'm no "Mike Tyson" of Muay Thai or Machado or Fedor of grappling, I've often wondered if I trained in sport combat incessantly beyond my two days a week routine and had a bad attitude towards women coupled with it. I never provoked a physical altercation with any woman in my life, but it reminds of recent training I did with younger guys on Mondays (I'm in my 30s). I choked out everyone I rolled with in the last three weeks except one of them---which was the instructor. When I couldn't get a rear naked choke, I got a neck crank on him instead. His words were, "It's like you were going to tear my fucking head off with that." This was just practice.
Imagine that same ex-girlfriend, her bullying, my skills at that level, and little self-control if she had physically unleashed on me. It's not bragging to let you know she'd be hospitalized if I returned the favor.
Granted, I always advocate men avoiding women like that and knowing the red flags first. I don't get off on seeing violence towards women. But there is a dark turn that I'll touch on in a moment. And with DV, all we (mostly) hear about is innocent young women being brutalized. It's always a one-way street. I don't buy it.
Women did not give men any credit for self-restraint considering their penchant for pissing men to the point of violence---including perpetration of violence themselves. They've bought too much into this "grrl power/tough gal" shit and don't acknowledge the boundaries anymore. Augment that with single moms raising young men that are resentful and don't have the guidance of a paternal figure/biological father, and you have a situation that feminists adamantly deny---they helped create men that are potentially explosive to women in DV.
Feminists have never taken any responsibility for fashioning their own dark golems, and summoned demons. And if they are "oppressed,' they are oppressed by their own creations.
I've been accused and suspected of being that anti-social prick that would strike women down if they really crossed my path. It's a far cry from that romantic fool I was in my teens. But that never happened, even with women loving their drama, dumping toxic filth on men, and driving men to destruction---all the while not accepting accountability.
I remember when I discovered bands like Slayer, Bathory, Kreator, and Morbid Angel and joking about glam rockers like Motley Crew as posers, but I do remember when they actually had a metal sound to them in the early 80s, and one song that I actually could identify with that was legitimately profound---maybe a stretch for a party group like them, but it was true, nevertheless . . .
Is like dynamite
Open your eyes
cause its like fire and ice
Well you're killing me
Your love's a guillotine
Why don't you just set me free
If this is the idea of Ameriskank "love" in this present time, they can have it. I'm done. I'm done with all of that bluster and noise.
And instead of a virulent, sexist, hate-filled bastard, they've turned me into someone who questions their cries of abuse and often turns a blind eye to women in need. It's all the same to them any how---why not just quit the dangerous game and go out strong.
Feminists hate men that don't support them and women by default, and since they hate good men that turn cold over the years and reward shitheels and scum, it's all the more reason to lock them out. When any form of masculinity is mocked and damned and every turn, the irrational pitch of expecting men to suddenly be still socially obligated to them rings hollow.
It's been said before, and even better, but I'll say it anyway: the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Women condemn themselves when men finally have enough of their wants and whims when it's never good enough, and always battering men in their own ways in order to model men for their own devices. And they wonder why men don't rescue them when the wolves are at their door. It's those wolves they pretty much wanted there, anyway.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The irony is that the ones who perceive themselves as "oppressed," generally snotty, upper-class white female feminists, are the ones that make the rules for everyone else and expect us to abide by them---all the while breaking them when it's convenient or because "that's different" because they are perpetual victims that can justify anything, including nefarious crimes against men and children. It's the hallmark of the mind of a fascist.
The oppressed, in a real world situation, would have little or no power. That includes no VAWA 2.0, no ERA, no right to vote and skip out on the draft, no reproductive choice, no Title IX, no sexual harassment law, no CS, no alimony, no nothing. Not to mention they would not be able to dictate this shit and push it so much as lobbyists and control-mongers would make it public policy.
Seems to me that the "not-so privileged" feminists have more choice and power then they are willing to admit; by offering this admission, it would mean that their ultimate goal of fashioning a world with maximum choice with minimum responsibility would have a serious flaws in that approach. It would reveal that's exactly what it is, alongside the hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and female supremacy that is inherent in its manifestation. With freedom comes responsibility, and these women want the former without the latter, all the while men paying for the tab one way or another.
By saying they still have no real power, they mask their intentions and the fact they do have power, and that it's never enough for them until they have complete and utter control. Which is largely unearned power, because they are too myopic, abusive, and untrustworthy with it.
Not to mention that with all the talk about "we don't need men," they still do. They need men as protectors, men to make the gears of society run, from anything from paving the roads to picking up the garbage. Women, by in large, still refuse to do it. Feminists are so full of shit in this regard---with all the talk about benevolent sexism, which is another term for chivalry, they still whine and cry for it at the end of the day.
An 80s heavy metal song from Dio contained the line, "Protection, I never needed none . . . " and I think many men pride themselves in the fact they don't need to call upon someone 24/7 in order to thrive and survive. Not to say we don't need people, but on the converse, feminists demands for needing men and helping women at any cost----there's that social obligation thing again---is tantamount to a kind of fixated insanity. And it turns men off. You cannot force men to give and give without giving back. It's human nature; even all but the most generous manginas will eventually burn out and feel like a sucker in the end. Which in most cases is true---they have been exploited.
After years of feminists stating they don't need us men, reigning judgment on us and acting like we are second class citizens at best, now that they are playing the victim card and bitching about us not wanting to be their valiant knights, they can permanently and implacably fuck off.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Feminists often complain that us "anti-feminists" don't show ourselves.
I walk the walk, not just talk the talk, Virginia.
I think look a little pissed off, but I was actually having fun with my camera. I thought it wasn't the best in the world, but there is neat software for editing not just shots, but film and audio as well.
Who knows. I may just start reading a few of my writings, and quote works I find significant one day on audio. You never know.
Monday, May 26, 2008
This is a personal salute to those men who have passed on.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
For most single men, there are a volume of dating problems facing us if we decided to actually bother to date American women at all. Which over the years, considering the sexual, social, personal, and even legal minefield, it's understandable if men grow cynical about dating. It sucks.
I realize that I'm emulating a lot of what MGTOWers have already covered ground with considering single moms, but after only one LTR I learned my lesson. Never again. It's been over five years. Thankfully.
Some men never seem to grasp that it's not in their best interest---but since our current feminized culture doesn't particularly care what is it men's best interests, many men have been instilled with the idea they are not useful unless they are pandering to women's whims---which is patently false, but it's one of the more damaging lies that men are exposed to.
Barring accident or horrendous disease---widowers---or single moms that are that way because of some other rare occurence, it's usually the result of piss poor decision making. It could be sexual licentiousness, seeking out bad boys to tame, trying to get pregnant to "have something to love" because of the lack of affection in their lives . . . up to risking pregnancy by not employing contraceptives and being irresponsible.
Of course, that's "sexist" in many of the feminist-minded---expecting women to be sexually responsible as men, but we'll move on for now.
Simply put, most single mothers don't feel bound by men who are playing surrogate father to their children---offspring that they have sired from someone else. There's always a possibility that the father still will be involved, and if the split was amicable or not, that's something to contend with. At brass tacks, you are still a provider, one in which whatever contributions you make isn't valued enough.
Sex? Many men don't receive the affection they'd like, simply because honey is too exhausted from juggling work, kids, and who knows what else. This includes addictions they are nursing after binging. And usually single moms are in financial stress to even dire straits. They bitch about not having enough CS from their ex-spouse or any at all, yet with their own spending habits usually aren't disciplined, always in debt or having nothing to show for it at the end of the month.
Make no mistake about it---if you decide to date a single mom, there are compromises that you are going to make that are far more of a price if you had simply dated someone else that was childless. Whether or not they admit it, single moms view men that date them as a meal ticket and a means to an end to their lifestyle, and when the shit hits the fan, not obligated to you if you are not there for the children (which is often what they state in order to comfort and accommodate themselves with their own whims---it is often a mask for their own selfishness).
The non-biological parent is expendable to the single mom if the kids end up liking you and she ends up hating you. If the kids don't like you or never get attached despite their tolerance of you---you are still not their real father, no matter how bad he was (or how bad SHE paints him, which is fairly common), it still won't last. Most reconstituted families don't go through adversity very well, and at the nadir you if you don't hold up the threads of the relationship, you are shown the door. You will never be completely viewed as an equal partner, but an on-call babysitter.
And if she even claims to have an abusive past---made up or for real---perhaps it's best to move on. You don't want her to make you pay for her ex's sins or replay what she knows as a "loving" relationship.
Avoiding that type of hollow relationship is the best thing you can do. Deep down, despite education and even possible success in the workplace, the lurking fear that they, single moms, are failures at a marriage or haven't made the best of choices for life-altering decisions that have left them embittered and even angry at men. Still don't believe me? Read the amount of barbs single moms have against men---the younger ones are volatile, the older ones take up the mantle of feminist causes---even to the point of fighting tooth and nail that women get screwed over in the mythic pay gap, to arguing that alimony should be a women's right, and not a gift.
And the of the darkest secrets, if that's the word, that single moms use their condition as a rationalization to be selfish about the things they do in daily life. We don't want to talk about. Women don't want others to face it. They don't want to take the time for self-exploration to accept it. "It's all for the children" becomes a sad cover for pettiness, bad money habits, addictions, and control-mongering. They will lash out if you dare state their place their own needs above their kids, but it does actually happen in many cases---look at how many children suffer neglect because of a mother that still wants her cake and eat it, too. And if that's true, how in the world are they going to fulfill yours?
The last word of warning I have is this---if they treat their peers, friends, and pets better than you, why bother in the first place?
Monday, May 19, 2008
-Paying a significant sum for little result is a sign of a McDojo---unless your school is run by a well-known pro fighter with a ton of good coaches---and it's open several hours during the week. If you can pay as you go and nobody mentions it at first, ask---don't be afraid to appear as less devoted if you can only pay monthly or per session. If the instructors have that policy but frown upon its use, perhaps it's better to find another school that will be flexible with your needs.
-It's been declared that BJJ and MMA have revolutionized the martial arts world, but the same time, it doesn't mean you have to give up the "older" art you enjoy. I know that some will disagree with this because usually more sport styles heavily emphasize contact, and I admit I prefer those unarmed styles, but let's face it---not everyone likes boxing or grappling. Or maybe they have a taste of it and find that something else is more suitable for them. Yes, sports combat is very useful for one-on-one street defense no matter what detractors have said . . . however, I'm going not into style versus style here, but ultimately one can only find fulfillment in one they discover enrichment in.
-A MA that practices with drills, resisting opponents, and (at least) occasional sparring is generally better than one that does nothing but forms and theory. I'm not dead set against kata even though I prefer to train with styles that don't normally use it but still possess foot work/positioning that is vital (Muay Thai, BJJ, Judo). However, I've noticed my joints and base getting somewhat stronger with traditional stances, believe it or not, in "old school" Karate. There's no other way of putting it; you don't know how good you are progressing if you don't have a uke that's fighting back to some extent, and you won't know how to truly defend yourself to the fullest unless you don't practice some form of aliveness training.
From my last post I mentioned guys that had shown up to Thai boxing, even rough and strong young men that didn't realize how getting punched in the face, kneed, elbowed, and kicked---not to mention the clinch work, which was exhausting to some of them---was going to feel like even with some protection. They dropped out. It's true---no one likes getting hit even with moderate contact, but nothing will prepare you for a serious altercation like resistance training. Reality self-defense often protest that's not the "real thing" and it's "dueling," but what alternative (to prepare you) do you have if you can't diffuse the situation or run?
-Technique is the major cornerstone, but strength, speed, accuracy, cardio, and conditioning are not something to forsake. Far from it. Yes, proper technique in any style is crucial and there is no substitute---look at how powerful a full-body strike can be, or a textbook lock can work, but to ignore the factors is forging serious holes in your game. Let's face it; you will come across those who may not hit as hard but will exhaust you if your cardio is lacking, or a big bruiser that will thwart your armbars and chokes only to land you on your back and crush you. The best fighters out there aren't just doing crescent kicks or perfecting the jab---they are doing roadwork, lifting weights to be explosive, learning control and target recognition.
I used to train in a Japanese style of a rather controversial nature whose popularity has waned because a myriad of reasons, and I can imagine why---one of them even the instructor voiced with sincerity which I merely shrugged off, but he said it anyway when concerning one competitor of another style wanted to fight him. He was bigger guy that had a bodybuilder physique, the instructor bragged, "Good, so his pressure points will be easier to find." Does that sound bold, arrogant, or ignorant? Nevermind that his would-be challenger had high rank of his own. I realize brute strength isn't everything and a seasoned fighter can do serious damage to someone that is inexperienced, but completely writing off someone bigger and stronger may be a mistake.
-Shadowbox when you can't train in a style at the moment, or if you only train once or twice a week. It's pretty much a given if you are in styles that are form and/or competition oriented, or ring sports like boxing and Muay Thai. It's also a good idea if you can't always find that gym you used to religiously show up at---or if you don't want your ability to diminish. Yes, it's not substitute, but nearly all good fighters shadowbox in some way or another.
-Train to eventually go beyond your limitations, but know your limits and don't seriously hurt yourself. A moderate injury will probably put you out of commission for a while---do you want to risk no training for weeks, months, a year, even, if it's something you enjoy? If you are in pain, think you think something is going to give out, or so exhausted you can't perform, stop. Don't fear looking wimpy in front of vet fighters; they may have been in the same situation more than once and are understanding. It's better to save yourself for that day when you're better overall.
This, of course, means getting proper rest and not overtrain, which is also one of the leading causes of burnout and injury. For me, it's difficult because if I have to bail on a session for any reason, I feel guilty. Life happens. A dojo or gym that doesn't give some allowance for periods where you have to recoup or acknowledge your life priorities is questionable---while it's true that many reward those who are disciplined and respectful, your career field and personal life still come first no matter what.
-Gi versus no gi. I've benefited from both although I confess I prefer training without, but through Judo and gi-oriented BJJ I'm getting used to it again. I've also noticed an increase in grip strength even in the past two months, which is important in Judo especially.
-Be wary of a school that has a cult-like atmosphere. Granted, I know some men that actually seek out specific ones that are heavy on New Age philosophy blended with watered down Eastern mysticism and feel very comfortable there. It's not dysfunctional if it "works" for them, but in my opinion spirituality is best served elsewhere. In some cases, it's grounds ripe for exploitation and has little to do with MA; there are a wealth of instructors that love feeding their egos and even convince themselves of their guru greatness, all the while demanding lower rank students do the same. If you feel uneasy about it, leave without fanfare.
-The martial arts aren't the be all, end all of self defense. My advice, without going into a lengthy essay about home defense and weapons---for those who believe that MA will make them practically invulnerable, is that their illusions will be shattered. That's once they discover no matter what skill level they've obtained, they are all still too human. Hey, why not buy a gun, learn to use it, stay away from troublesome areas and situations, and be aware of your surroundings during nighttime hours? I certainly can't argue with that notion. A branch of fighting doesn't cover all aspects of self-defense and even survival---but this shouldn't dissuade one from development in MA. It is one piece of the puzzle, and for those who commit to life long study, they find brotherhood, self-improvement, physical challenge, and personal strength in that commitment.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
I've benefited from my experiences. Even right now, as I sit here and type this, I'm bruised up, sore, and even nursing a couple of minor sprains. The swelling isn't bad at all. I don't injure that easily, but contact fighting of any sort---especially when you jump into the fire again and again, you'll get roughed up a bit. In BJJ and Judo I submitted others more than I got submitted (I tend to be a stubborn bastard and rarely tap, unless I'm dead tired/gassed out), and went further than I originally planned, but going further always reaps rewards.
It's the nature of the game; regardless if reality defense instructors decry, "that's just sports combat," let's face it: it is the closest you can get to the real thing, and sometimes it's at a level that your armchair hack will never experience. It surprises some when I say that ring, mat, and cage fighting is more difficult than your typical bar brawl with a liquid-courage emboldened asshole. That's until they decide to check out how intense Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Judo, boxing, and even contact Karate (yes, I wrote that) really are in a good school/dojo, with solid fighters in their ranks. I'm not surprised at the amount of would-be students and tough guys that quickly drop out.
I claim no marital art greatness at all, but I pretty much enjoy giving nearly everyone a hard time, improving my skills and trying to strengthen my weaknesses. To say I've reached a level of mastery in anything would not only be hubris, but prevent me from learning more and evolving. It's probably one of the reasons it doesn't bother me I don't have a black belt in any art---I seriously desire to discover that next level and bust up any plateaus.
I've rolled my eyes at the bullshit spewed by co-workers and lounge lizards that could not understand what I do, or why I do it. Even then, it's just "Karate," and giving them a curt and informative "basics" of what I'm engaged in is often futile. Even with the UFC's popularity, I rarely talk about it unless people are more receptive. And on another angle, don't even get me started on the mysticism and armchair theorists that refuse to test their subjective arguments. And I'll bet most of the mockery and dismissal comes from fear and misunderstanding; no doubt about it, if I pummeled them in stand up/striking or choked out/arm barred them out in BJJ within a moment, it would pretty much shut them up.
Okay, my two cents worth of advice post is coming up eventually---I'm almost itching to write it now, even with time being of the essence. I will leave with this, however, which is so common now that it's practically a given---if you have the time, money and the means, cross train. The benefits outweigh any cons, and you'll get a taste of what you like and what you don't. No one style has everything (regardless of what any instructor claims) . . . constantly learn, research, practice. Yeah, I know that's pretty obvious for the most part, but I'm amazed at how many people---even serious practitioners,don't even break out of their self-imposed circles to broaden their horizons.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Another response to a skank on a "romance" forum that doesn't get it. I'll call her DR here.
Another rant I think speaks for itself. From yours truly.
DR: Most men (60% or more) refuse to recognize that a woman's work in the home is worth anything, never mind paying them a dollar an hour.
It's because that's something you, as an adult, should have learned to provide for yourself and not outside help, leeching off of someone's funds simply because of an entitlement complex, or the fact that I know many men that already do these things for themselves and get no appreciation for it, either. Cooking and cleaning is something that isn't a job unless that's the field you are legitimately and actively doing a service for someone else---to think otherwise Western feminist hubris.
Tack on the fact that the idea that men pull their weigh far more t in career avenues that are tedious, dangerous, require odd hours, or time away from friends and family with little vacation or down time. Women are not barred from jobs like this, and there are laws over the decades to prevent them from signing up. Guess what---many women still aren't applying for them, and maybe it would be a reason to complain if they were in logging, truck driving, or firefighting to be pampered once in a while---but they are not joining en masse for careers that are hazardous and not that fun. To cry about work at home when men are still the majority of the workers in jobs that are soul draining and potentially injurious is rather weak in more than one aspect.
The abysmally stupid argument about toilet seats and who takes out the garbage seems a bit trite when a guy working in a foundry all day only gets a decent, nutritious meal because he makes it himself since several women have opted to believe cooking and cleaning are oppressive and demeaning. Not all women think like this, but a lot of women believe being a "strong woman" is controlling men and doing a minimum amount of shit work . . . when most men realize that grunt work (around the home) is something that has to be done regardless. And if you don't think many men think and act this way, you're purposefully seeking lazy men to enact a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I've cooked gourmet dinners, scrubed toilets, took out my own garbage, dusted, done laundry, vacuumed the carpet, and done dishes largely for myself for over 23 years. Hell, I've had girlfriends that were PROUD they didn't know how to cook and got around to cleaning only when the dishes and clothes got unbearable. I don't expect compensation because most men don't get any.
Cry me a river about work at home
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Kudos to you, dear sir, if you are reading this. This message can never be spread enough, online or otherwise.
If women truly want equality then why do they fight to keep their 100% reproductive rights. If women truly want equality then why do they get custody of the children 95% of the time regardless of which parent is more capable, has more financial income and is more emotionally capable of doing so. If women want true equality then why do they expect men to finance their lives and give them gifts at all holiday’s. If women want true equality then why do they freak out when a man asks them for a prenup. If a man asks a women for a prenup he is an insensitive greedy jerk but if a woman asks for a prenup she is being fiscally responsible.
Why is this?? I’ll tell you why. Feminism is a scam. Women are a scam. Women don’t want equality or happiness for men. Women have been taught since they are able to speak that men must be fought and battled to get everything out of them possible. They are taught from puberty to use sex and their looks to manipulate and abuse men at every opportunity. They are taught that women have been oppressed for thousands of years when the exact opposite is true.
Men have died protecting women for millenium. Men jump in front of bullets to save their wives and children and it is men who have created everything that exists in the world from roads to cell phones and everything in between and women never thank men for doing this. All they do is bitch and complain and abuse men at every turn. I am single (thank god) with no children and every man I know that is married is miserable and says the same thing about their wife. That she was nice and normal before they got married, but as soon as they got married she changed into an evil bitch who does nothing but suck the life out of their man and act like freaking child their whole lives while their husbands busts their ass 50 hours a week, pays the bills, takes care of the kids, fixes the house, and jumps in front of bullets for them.
My advice to non-married men out there is to not get married at all costs to a western women. Don’t get them preganant and don’t finance their lives.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Now, I realize things are different from men in their elderly years compared to their 20s. Often far different. But does this mean all of sudden we are useless? Give me a break.
Did I fail to mention that the OP who started this is almost 50? Apparently, she feeling her own morality and lack of being desirable, and probably is expunging it on men.
Of course, I get someone a tad upset at my own apparent callousness---I took the OP to task, and she didn't respond. Can't say I'm surprised---I can be a terror at times, and that's excluding personal attacks. I can dig deep.
Anyway, here's the one poser which I will call Z., and further down, another man (S) makes a comment I liked. Read the rest for yourself, since I think it's strength in context is already pretty much there.
I don't know SR..I mean I'm all for your point that men have been mistreated to some extent..and some of the points you make....but, do you really believe all women are mean and bitter? And does humor or irony escape you? You, yourself, never say anything nice about women that I've read, and how is that different?
I will give the OP credit for not slagging everyone who vehemently disagrees, even her actions are questionable.
And you must have missed my posts on how there were women that stated men should have the same options to find themselves in their younger years, just like women are given license to do so. I agreed with them and found it refreshing. It's uncommon on this site. When a woman is blatantly pro-masculine, even if I didn't agree with every detail, I might even encourage it. Unfortunately, it's almost a rarity, and since my Internet time has spread thin between several avenues, this area is where I become more polemic and leave stronger barbs. There's reasons for it.
The OP has made herself clear and will not take any responsibility for it. She's opened herself and her message up for criticisms, and plays a half assed evasive tactic in one of her posts, but the thread was meant to be self-promoting while at the same time degrading towards men in a fashion.
I maintain that if the same topic had the genders reversed, the thread would have garnered a slew of angry responses (mostly from women and a few men that defended them) and eventually deleted. Here, we have only a handful of posters reacting towards it as biased and a few pot shots, but no where near the caustic remarks the hypothetical situation would have generated, and the thread hasn't disappeared.
Very telling, isn't it?
You say something that virtually no one here wants to consider because even the mere possibility is actually frightening to them. While I don't believe that all women are bad and malevolent, I do think a staggering amount do not truly realize what men go through. I don't think this modern condition is germane to women throughout time, but I have come to the reluctant conclusion that many women simply don't respect or love men very much, and it's far from my own experiences.
Call me cynical; time and experience will only continue to bring that truth to the fore.
This thread is one of God knows many that is amply evidence of this, even in cyberspace, it reflects what I usually just hint at. It's not the only theme, but I reserve them for other sites where people will actually debate them rather than dismiss what is obvious. At this point, I don't even completely blame "feminism" for the resentment many women have towards men, as much as the people who embrace garbage that's anti-male.
At some pivotal point, you have accept the ramifications of your beliefs, especially if they make you appear sterling and good while hurting others in the process. If men cannot be exempt of this, then neither can women.
Many men don't ruminate about how this effects us; we're supposed to be tough in the face of adversity and take the abuses, both social and personal. And speaking of what men go through and mistreatment, I think if many men sat down and thought about the myriad of injustices against them, they would be outraged. But even men get sucked into their own denial of being "real men" to those who would use them so they can look and act the part. In some sense, I suppose it's what keeps things going and that the societal machinery doesn't grind to a halt, but men also have to rise above themselves to a certain extent Western culture calls for; self-sacrifice and compromise.
I think you can safely assume I am not one of those men that views nobility in that for myself, but exploitation. If it makes me a "misogynist" simply because I value my person above social obligation (which is often code for elitist pricks that use others to advance their gain and push their own agendas), I really wonder why anyone would care. I think it strikes down deeper than many here, of either gender, is often willing to admit. And if it means taking a devil's advocate viewpoint and deepening my talons on a poster that acts untouchable and beyond sexual critique, so be it.
The odd thing is that, for the longest time, I was very much into gender reconciliation. Just about everyone talks as if it's a good thing; most don't really want it. I'm just firing off a few proverbial shots now and again to make sure no one gets totally absorbed in this matriarchal-style slumber which ultimately benefits very few.
S: Maybe those stable guys are finally coming back to saying, "Hey, what about me" ???
I think men in general should have to ask that of themselves more and more, out of rational self-interest, and ignore all the hollow chants of "sexist" and "arrogant" that would deviate them from their own vision.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Don't get married:
The Bachelor Lifestyle:
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
But as anyone who knows me, in person or in cyberspace, there's much more to explore and discuss.
But damn, a month has passed without one peep from me here? That's got to change. This battle hardened warrior isn't hanging up his sword just yet---not by a long shot.
There's also few more links I'm considering---more on that subject later.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
There's been a certain fervor over the buzz about Kay S. Hymowitz writings (Child-Man in the Promised Land) and her ilk; much of it I could dissect and examine, but I honestly believe that two factors are pretty crucial here; for one, she doesn't see the inherent hypocrisy concerning women acting like perpetual adolescents, and the other salient one, I seriously wonder if there is an underlying attack not just against masculinity, but that men that are happy and content are somehow dysfunctional.
Of course, we can't inhibit women from their goals and happiness, but trashing men for their pursuits is okay.
God forbid men find leisure in activities that aren't centered around her overdriven, bloated histrionics; it would mean that the Kays of the world aren't all that and a bag of chips. Perhaps her creeping age is also bugging her; I suspect since youthful (and youthful looking and acting) women that actually cherish men are getting more attention than her. Instead of slagging the women she's mad as hell with, it's easier to write an "expose" on men rife with stereotypes. She also never examines why men aren't marrying as much as they used to---never mind the fact that the marriage institution has been a raw deal for so many men and the ever possibility that a woman can divorce a man simply because marital bliss has gone, and the damage men can face in divorce courts.
Of course, there's the usual banter about how men are threatened by empowered women. We're not. We're sick of being demonized and told how to live, and that despite our imperfections we are somehow lesser human beings (or worse) simply because we are not women, but men. We're sick of government intervention fueled by unnatural and illogical feminist agendas forcing its way into our lives when we are pretty much trying to overcome our struggles without the baggage and toxins of anti-male bias no matter where the source. We aren't afraid of "empowered" women; we are, however, fed up with the facade of so-called "independent" women acting like spoiled brats and bitches, the manginas who defend them at any cost, and that that the feminist-minded---in their zeal to prove themselves as superior, will hold men down and cripple them in some fashion . . . and then tell men to "grow up" and embrace them after years of abuse and having clear advantages.
It it too much to ask them to let us live our lives in peace? There's no doubt about it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Here's Jong's rant reposted here first:
I am so tired of pink men bombing brown children and rationalizing it as fighting terrorism. I am so tired of pink men telling women (of all colors) what to do with their wombs--which connect with their brains--in case you forgot. I am so tired of pink men telling us we should stay in Iraq for generations. I am so tired of pink men buying bombs and cheating schools. I am so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television. I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone--a brown, black, yellow or white woman--will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages. I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired of pink men spouting nonsense on TV. I am so tired of pink men arguing, blathering, bloviating, predicting the future--usually wrongly--and telling women to shut up. I am so sick of hearing that another pink man has dropped his children out a window, off a bridge or killed his pregnant wife or killed his unpregnant wife because he was infatuated with another pregnant woman. I am so sick of pink men making war and talking about peace. I am so sick of pink men appointing their mediocre cronies to judgeships, to political advisors, to cushy jobs, to columns in the paper, to multimillion-dollar posts as CEOS or actors (while the actresses make less) or producers or writers or newsreaders or talk show bloviators or supposedly sage counselors at law. I am so tired of pink men.
And by the way some brown men and tan men and wheaten men do these things too.
Don't tell me about women who kill. I know there are some--but fewer. So let's just remember our mothers--who bore us, protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.
It takes no bravery to speak up against heterosexual men, the men that helped provide women with the protections, laws, special treatment, the advances in medicine and technology, and the civility that her and Jong completely and utterly take for granted. Men are routinely attracked in the media and so many believe it's fair game or "just joking," even if their cavalcade of resentment and jealousy has been entrenched for a long time now.
Camille Paglia was right; upper class white women are the most spoiled on the planet, and Jong can spout off her hate diatribe without accountability or guilt. Men aren't telling them to shut up; if anything, women's voices have been the dominate one for many years, and making biased articles like this are one of countless examples. If a man wrote this (about women) and it got by editors, he'd be either suspended or canned, and his rep smeared in public to prevent him for being employed at other publication.
So much for equality. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"---right?
If Erica Jong thinks so lowly of us and doesn't need us, she can put her money where her mouth is and stay away for good. Men like me will give her what she truly deserves---our non-presence. And it was Steinem who made the comment that women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. But even she could not live up to her own ideology and hype.