Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
---Henry David Thoreau
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
This is from the article and thread-starter by Zed; Why Western Women Are So Empty And Unhappy:
Friday, October 16, 2009
Upping MRA "Game": Honing Our Rhetoric of Ridicule.
Feminism is cultural-level Game being run by women, collectively, against men, collectively. Men and boys swim in a sea of negs, and the purpose is exactly the same as using negs in game – to keep the other side off balance.
While some serious practitioners of Game may be fine with the relative advantage that knowing Game gives them over a lot of other men, others cannot help but be aware that the playing field is tilted signficantly to the advantage of females and that leveling the playing field in general would probably help their overall percentages. As the trailblazers of Game have studied individual female behaviors and learned how to use those behaviors to their advantage, I think that men can certainly study collective female Game, or feminism, and use that understanding to improve conditions for men at the cultural level.
Nilk just made an interesting comment – “I don’t have the answers, but I suspect a part of it comes from beating the enemy at their own game.”
Let that one sink in for a minute.
In order to do that, first we must define the enemy, then identify their game, and finally analyze it so we can devise tactics to defeat it.
So, let’s start with who is the enemy. Are women “the enemy”? Yeah, yeah, I can hear the chorus of objections coming from all directions. Stow it. I’ll come back to this.
Is the NWO the enemy? They make a convenient scapegoat – like hobgoblins, evil spirits, and “patriarchy.” Sorry, but there have been more “new world orders” or “new orders for the ages” throughout history than wannabe prophets and messiahs, and there have been plenty of those.
Maybe Alphas, or SoCons, or maybe even “card-carrying-Kommunnnists!” And then again, maybe not.
Or maybe all of them are for one simple reason: their interests are not our interests, and they are going to pursue their interests and show no concern at all about ours – leaving that job to us. And if we don’t do the job of looking out after our own interests, then we are the ones who dropped the ball, not them.
So, let’s start with the enemy that looks back at us from the mirror and tackle that one first. What keeps us from actively advocating for our own interests? I’m looking for reasons, not excuses. (”Excuses are LIES, plebe!”) Identifying obstacles is the first step in the process of problem-solving, which we men are supposed to be so good at. Sorry, dudes, based on the performance of the past 45 years I would have to say we really suck at it. Let’s start by seeing if we can get out of our own way and start to do something effective.
Which brings me back to women and the game they have been running on men and boys.
While they may not be “the enemy”, they are certainly not our allies, either. Feminism has convinced a great many women that their interests and men’s interests are in conflict, mutually exclusive, and a zero sum game. That makes many of them our opponents, our competitors, and a group of people who generally view any gain for men as a loss for women. Many of them also view any loss for men as a group to be long overdue because every man throughout history has led a life of unbroken “power and privilege” don’cha’know.
So, one answer to this has been to run game on men and boys collectively with an unbroken and constant stream of negs – sometimes hidden behind “cuteness” and sometimes just flat-out man-bashing. The tiresome litany of complaints has become so cliched that most of us could write the entire kvetch based on the first line or two. Recently Novaseeker did a post about a post on another blog titled “94 reasons the guy I’m dating isn’t right for me.” A better title would have been “94 cliches negging men, repeated for the 10 millionth time.”
Whether they are “enemies” or not, you can pretty much count on most women playing for “Team Woman.” They are going to high-five each other over cutting those “over-inflated male egos down to size”, and nod their heads in enthusiastic agreement as the “you go grrls” give men their what-for.
And, betas just sit there with stupid Prozac grins on their faces and take it. Why?
There are a lot of reasons, but I want to focus on just a couple of them.
First, men have a very difficult time internalizing the fact that they are dealing with an opponent dedicated to stonewalling them and preventing from making any progress. For some odd reason, a lot of men unreasonably and irrationally cling to the “reasonable and rational” approach despite the fact that it has never worked.
Second, men generally lag behind women in the psychological warfare being waged. They do not realize that they have walked into a gunfight with a plastic spork, and when their patient explanations do not win over their opponents, they often get angry, flustered and inarticulate.
I think the next stage of evolution of cultural-level game will be for men to upgrade their skills in the rhetoric of ridicule. As things often play out now, one or two representatives from “Team Woman” can usually easily keep the issues confused and keep stinging men like hovering wasps with their crafted words which are skillful personal attacks designed to stonewall and derail discussion.
Our friend Anakin has done a very valuable piece of work with his “Catalog of anti-male shaming tactics” by identifying the most common games run on men to try to shut them up. I think it needs to be taken farther, however. While he identifies the mechanism – the emotional response of shame – it needs to be taken to the next step and how those tactics fit into an overall strategy needs to be subjected to the same sort of analysis.
This is why I have suggested no longer calling them “shaming tactics” and instead calling them “Personal Attacks and Mind Games Used to Silence Men.” The strategy is to shift the discussion from the subject at hand to being about the person, and with a personal attack put that person on the defensive.
So, this leads us back to the idea of beating our opponents at their own game.
The naive and simple Charlie Browns, thinking that they are not dealing with people who are actual opponents but simply people who don’t understand yet because it hasn’t been properly explained to them, will plunge doggedly ahead making points their opponents do not want to hear and will do everything in their power to prevent from being heard. The wasps will swoop in and start stinging – “loser, you hate women, you live in your mother’s basement, you must have a small penis” until they land one that hits a sore spot and triggers Chuck’s anger.
At this point he will lose his train of thought, and pop off with some terribly imaginative comeback like “bitch” or “whore” or “slut.” Contrary to all the nonsense about “slut shaming”, these terms don’t bother the attack wasps of Team Woman in the slightest. In fact, they are clear signals the wasps have hit their target, accomplished their objective, and reduced poor Chuck to barely articulate profanity.
So, it’s time for MRAs to up our game, and improve our own negging ability – to start honing our rhetoric of ridicule so we can sting our opponents as deeply as they are trying to sting us. This is where the masters of Game have a real advantage. They know how to go for the throat, how to undermine, and how to do it with a light touch so that objections can be dismissed as being thin-skinned, or having no sense of humor, or taking themselves too seriously.
Now, of course, this being Game, there will be the cultural level version of cockblockers. Most of these will be SoCons, or knee-jerk chivalrists, or manginas – “HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT WOMANHOOD!!! Up with this, I WILL NOT PUT!!!”
That is probably where we need to start developing wingman skills. Instead of leaving our intrepid Man Who Is Concerned About The Status And Future Of Men (MWICATSAFOM? Nah, fuggit, “MRA” is much simpler) hanging out there on his own, we need to give him an assist.
Unfortunately, this will probably require going for the throat. It will require analyzing the areas where women really are insecure and beating on them the same way operatives from Team Woman will attack a man’s potential areas of insecurity in order to shut him down.
It’s nice to see that Paul Elam has resurrected Voice For Men after a hiatus of several years. On his front page, he poses the interesting question which a lot of long-time MRAs have pondered -
“Suppose they had a gender war…and men showed up.”
Are men ready to start taking the sticks of dynamite that Team Woman has been throwing at us for more than 45 years, lighting them, and throwing them back? Are we/they ready to take off the kid gloves, abandon their romanticized Victorian notions about women, and realize that many of them have no concern at all for us (best case) and some actually harbor intense and active malice toward us (worst case)?
Is Team Men ready to take the field? Is it time for “Game on”?
For one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I've seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris' classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species' sexual signals may be olfactory (scents--which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it's never an accident: it's an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.
If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.
Once again, women don't make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males "can't keep their eyes to themselves." It's just more testing. If nothing else, it's a test of the male's ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. "I'm not logical. Deal with it." What does not destroy you ... makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; She will escalate every contest to the ultimate.
In "traditional" cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behavior, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn't cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.
In our "modern," revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it's a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don't feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the "patriarchy" women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our "enlightened" social order, where women are "free to be themselves." The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don't know what's best for their own welfare.
People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you're selling what you're showing? But of course, as our "modern" culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures' restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behavior becomes the norm.
Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I've encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behavior of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn't know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, "This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?" It was sad.
I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments":
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.
The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less "nasty, brutish and short" than that of the animal world from which we came--and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Here's my personal struggle of the moment. Once I'm settled again I will write more.
There's been rumors that the establishment will not survive another year and that's ironic; I was laid off months ago because the last place I worked at for nine years closed its doors. I'm going for another interview tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath---people have tried to take advantage of my skills since everyone was out on the street from the upscale restaurant became a dead zone.
Yes, I am a gourmet chef. No, I don't do recipes online. But I can relate a few stories once I settle in another place. The luck I'm haven't isn't great, I'm half a step away from getting a gig at assistant restaurant manager at a francise instead if offered. Not glamorous, but when you what to save for retirement and don't have the excess income to do it, what do you do? "Selling out" isn't as bad as you might think.
They are looking for a sushi chef full time. Not my expertise, but maybe they will offer a deal that I can't refuse. Not to mention it's closer to my family from way back---I'm hoping it's destiny but hope springs eternal.
Oh, btw, I have the culinary degree as well. It would be shame to place on the backburner. If I get too restless I am going to Chicago or something---bigger towns still grapple with the idea of gourmet perfection, so does my current boss who is a past drug addict and current alcoholic. I've also talked to three people who predict the proverbial ship is going down in a year. I wouldn't be surprised; he's been charge of two buildings that had business failure and had been axed from a job for drinking. Why the fuck did I bother to work for this guy? Oh yeah, I wanted to remain in gourmet cooking.
I may have to place the blog on hiatus if I move---which I intent to do from anywhere from two weeks to half a year, but it will be up and running and I will check in now and again.
I've been here for a couple of years---hope you will, too, and when I'm on a roll and get a good job (outside of this Captain Ahab I'm slaving for) I'll be writing more often. SR/Chris
Monday, September 7, 2009
Funny thing is, you read and hear about the lament from women about the lack of "real men"---whatever that is supposed to mean anymore---when all the possibilities of their other exploits have been practically exhausted---someone is supposed to pick up the tab and pay for all the mistakes and foibles from the past. I don't know why anyone would want to be the brunt of all the resentment because of a misspent youth, but the code of chivalry that runs deep within many men doesn't die easily.
But it can be mangled for good after being abused for only so much. And the long term results aren't always pretty.
When feminists were hell bent to rearrange gender roles, something particular happened. While many will attest that feminism would free up men from the confines of traditionalism, if anything, it has not occurred. Women have choices and license, and men still have responsibilities---and then some. Hell, even a male feminist openly stated that miltary men should be employed to save foreign women from their perspective cultural constraints, without a word about women doing the same. When in doubt, use men by proxy and claim all the credit.
It's curious that the gender that was so oppressed can vote without having to sign up for selective service, or that they are now the majority of college grads and get advanced degrees often with more support, or aren't the victim in a greater percentage of violent crimes, or still (somewhat) out live their sexual counterparts. Not to mention that women are often given lighter sentences than men, even with murder.
As far as benevolent sexism, it still benefits those who decry it, and that's why many will not refuse it. After all, giving up priviledge is not easy to do---especially those who complain that they were oppressed and lack the certain benefits they are already comfortable with, expecting more out of men who already may not realize they are being shafted as I write this.
And yet, people are still puzzled as to why men are dropping out or turning off, so to speak. When skank behavior is excused and praised, and men suffer in the advent of divorce and custody battles, or when women still jump start divorce and others witness how little sympathy men still receive, can they be blamed not when they don't want to engage at all? We still are, anyway. Sure, the older traditional compact had it's drawbacks, but with any social obligation there was a checks and balances of sorts.
And after all this, there are people who want to go back to the old rules. The audacity of this way of thinking is simply stunning.
When men see that there exist women that change the rules in mid-stream to suit themselves and adjust the odds so they win no matter what--and societal norms, policies, and the media to back it all up---if Johnny Normal resorts to playing Xbox on the weekend and slipping on cheap alcohol instead of beefing up his PUA skills anymore, should anyone be surprised? Or are anyone stunned when he avoids single moms like a leper colony in his 30s and 40s because they cry for a beast of burden to raise someone else's offspring, which smacks of a matriachal setting hypocritically demanding the trappings of a patriarchal nuclear family?
When men are shunted with social obligations and women given the illusion of freendoms with universal support from anyone from selfish politicians to the dim witted skank in a local club, it's an imbalance that cannot last.
Let's hope the women that have their heads screwed on straight can convince men not to resort to a crushing backlash, but I'm afraid it's going to be huge. And several of us simply won't listen to their needs after being exploited and then told it's all our fault for this mess. But hey, men's needs never were the order of the day, right?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
What I'm going to write about is the reactions and ramifications surrounding the event. George Sodini shot and killed three women at a Philadelphia gym, wounded others, and killed himself in the process. In spite of apparently longing for a real relationship, Sodini harbored a tremendous mounting anger towards women and at the surface level, it would seem that he had scapegoated them not just for his alleged lack of success, but failure to have a deep bond with one in many years.
Much has been written about the act and the hows and whys. Much of the responses are typical---that we still live in a misogynist culture that breeds or instigates men perpetrating violent acts towards women. Or that Sodlini was a mentally imbalanced misanthrope that would have done this eventually, and who women have to guard themselves against male malevolence and aggression even more.
Clearly, this is faulty because most men obviously don't go on mass shooting sprees towards women. The whole thing raises the spectre of Marc Lepine, which has been a cypher, a symbol for feminists who want to prove that male hatred of women is alive and well although most men are reluctant to vent their spleen on women even in a far less extreme manner. Listen up feminists and you chivalrous men---most men don't like hurting women or get off on it.
The other remarks have been rather unfocused and simply not correct. Being socially awkward, possessing a background of a convoluted family history, living a rather isolated life, and being rather hung up on appearances describe a plethora of men, and yet there are so many critical comments to paint Sodini as a Stephen Kingish bogeyman that (by all purposes rendered) looked like the guy next door. There's also some conversations about the psychosexual development of Sodini, although his rage unleashed is not the same as the sexual sadism of certain serial killers. Far from it.
Now, perhaps, every man is suspect, no matter how affable and successful he is, or possessing the mask or normalcy.
There's a number of things that may have prevented Sodini's violent outburst and suicidal end. I honestly don't think he was born evil nor wanted to harm women for a good portion of his life. Obviously, he had worked himself up to enact and expunge what he felt was his vindication for being marginalized, even though (apparently) he did attract some female attention. I don't approve of his actions and maintain his own responsibility for it, but I can't help but wonder something.
Years upon years of feeling unwanted and undesired in a culture that is patently anti-male in more that one aspect didn't help this at all. I realize that the crime against others and himself rests on his shoulders, and no matter how much one can rationalize it, it's still tragic and ugly in of itself.
But I don't think many want to understand how crushing feelings of alienation, chronic, deep rooted emotional pain, and the sense that you are not a potential mate and a object of desire truly is. And lack of a support network compounds that. Most people who experience this don't engage in mass murder. But they often live sad and unfulfilled lives, drowning themselves in addiction or materialism, and our society does little to lighten the load---including branding those as different as creeps and losers even if they would never step forward and do what George Sodini did.
Is this what contributed to his personal malaise to finally lash out? I've been wrong before, but I do believe it's a crucial element.
I've read on a couple of feminist blogs that a few MGTOW men view this has a victory of MRAs. They are wholly wrong. If anything, it makes it more difficult for men's rights proponents to place men in a positive light. We are not going to bear the collective guilt here, but the cloud of darkness remains. Sodini is not a posterchild whatsoever, and yet despite the "gender is a social construct" crowd and claiming the damage he had done is the result of patriarchal oppression, more than few have expressed glee at Sodini being demonstrative of male hate and that maybe there is even something wrong about masculinity.
And as the owner of Toy Soldiers blog has pointed out, there are feminist-minded blogs that have shown their own colors and jumped on this for their own cause:
Real people were hurt. Real people died. Yet, instead of even trying to discuss that in a rational way, feminists resort to the typical “blame it on teh menz” nonsense. It is beyond disrespectful to the victims to do that, just as it is beyond conceited to view oneself in a “holier than thou art” grandiose manner. The victims deserve much better than to have their injuries and deaths reduced to an infantile attack on people who had nothing to do with Sodini’s actions.
That is, by far, the greatest irony of this. Sodini reached his final point by scapegoating and blaming an entire group of people for all his problems while demanding quite a lot from them. Yet some of his critics seem, rather stupidly, content to engage in the same ill-conceived logic.
I've always said if gender feminist and enablers couldn't find a nemesis, they would have to invent one. And now, for years to come, George Sodini will be one that they can point to for their smug attitude to condemn and slag masculinity no matter how good men struggle or their protests and ordeals legitimate.
I find that repellent as well.
Oddly enough, the real danger here is that if our environment does create George Sodinis, the disparaging output is that men that do go through emotional torment and isolation from intimacy and love from women is not violence and hatred---it's turning their backs on women when more anti-male sentiment and agendas get credence because of situations like this.
Shame, blame, and embitterment toward men after events like this do not create amends and forgiveness between the sexes---it further continues the chasm. And those who have been mistreated throughout a lifetime don't celebrate. They either understand that it's another battle to forge forward, or acknowledge that any healing is questionable, and instead of risking being stigmatized, coldly go forward and rather than protecting and praising skankdom and female supremacy, let themselves drift further rather than be lumped with fringe individuals.
That's something the detractors should learn. Maybe they never will.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
There are those in MGTOW that do have concern about their writings coming back to haunt them. I don't have that concern---it's not that I haven't faced the charge of "misogynist" before and while I don't care for it, I have had to fire backs socially before in order to procure something, whether it was my rep or my job. Doing nothing, in my world is worse than letting someone get away with rumors that get out of control or allegations that could get you in the proverbially firing squad.
Of course, there is the converse of that. Letting sleeping dogs lie because, it seems, there are people that are looking for a fight, and turn around to play the role of victim in order to justify any possible action.
I understand the need for being quasi-anon; I am to a certain extent and don't care for cyberspace wars. Many moons ago, apparently, a few blogs brought up on feminist circles raised their ire, and even a couple mentioned physical violence against the owners. Idle threats on the internet are a dime a dozen, but coming the source I'm not surprised. I realize the feminist-minded would say; no real feminist would ever do that. Oh, really? Nothing like the no true Scotsman fallacy to be employed again.
Needless to say, I'm sure if a man threatened violence---even in jest---that would prove that so many Western men hate women and would rather put them in their place in extremis than live and let live. Most men don't grow up wishing pain and hatred on women, and still don't. But if the situation I described above happened, they would be all over it.
I've been lurking off and on. Once thing I've noticed, while it may seem minsicule, are certain women out there that are posing as well meaning LTR seekers on personal ad sites, and then turning around and posting the contents---pictures, personal messages, and private emails for all the world to see on other forums and blogs as targets for ridicule and scorn. As if bots, fake ads, spam, attention whores, mangina mods on forums and personals were not enough to turn off an honest man looking to broaden his potential pool of dating material with clear intent.
It sucks because no personal information is really sacred if displayed in the cyber realm. There really is no reason for this other than a mockery device for female supremacists, emotional sadism, fixation, and the notion they can say and do anything they want towards others while acting righteous and elistist to feed their impoverished egos.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
To any and all the fathers out there reading this, I salute you.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
If anything, I find it curious that someone would not only price themselves out of the market, possess a mammoth laundry list of items in which they expect a man to live up to (and not adhere to herself), all the while wondering why she can't find a good man. Yep. All men are bastards. Lazy. Fat and indolent. Homosexual. Boring. Little character or integrity. Womanizing. Emotionally bankrupt. And yet our prime example of skankdom can't figure out that she has expired herself into dating oblivion.
Take note on the single mom who writes about her kids and how she places them first above all else. Fair enough. But most men read that and realize they are not at the high end of priorities. Further that with reality that many men simply do not want to raise someone else's progeny. Ask them; most would rather have their own DNA passed down and be provider for children that they are certain of paternity, or in a minority of cases, opt out and be childfree.
It doesn't seem to sink until later in life. Of course, when darling figures out that she's not attracting men 24/7 and not receiving free drinks and drugs at the club because her looks are fading, she can always blame men wholesale and become bitter at the prospect that the alpha male celebrity is not coming to save her as a white knight riding a horse.
The shock that these women meet head on when they find that they are not having men gravitating towards them---as they had in their younger years---is maddening. I've read essay-length laments on how romance and sex is dead in their lives.
Guess what sweetheart---welcome to what many men have had to face since high school on upwards. There are men that have had to navigate through skank and gender feminist infested colleges and other institutions in order to find a gem in a pile of mediocrity. They've faced alienation, depression, mockery, constant rejection, sexual frustation, incessant insults to their masculinity . . . all the while being told to grin and bear it.
Well, I guess it's just natures's way of telling sweetheart it's her turn.
And here's even something to inspire more eye-rolling. I was lurking on one of the forums in question, and a particular single mom exclaimed, "as if we are supposed to feel grateful a man would date us!"
You should Virginia---you are, to a large extent, a product of seriously damaging social engineering that is gradually backfiring. Hard.
All assumptions about cuckolding and sociobiology aside, when push comes to shove most men who want to engage in parental investment desire that the infant you birthed had attributes of his genetic legacy as well. A man who takes up the banner of playing surrogate daddy and entering the arrangment of a reconstituted family has a uncertain future, and like it or not, the instinct to protect those children are not same as yours. Period.
Not to mention men, over the long haul, don't like to find they are second fiddle to everything when they are giving their all. To add insult to injury, the more hardened ballbusters exude more toxic attitudes and entitlement than their mispend youth---a youth that should been employed to attract a good, hardworking man that they damned as boring and geeky during their party-til-ya-puke daze.
Hence the dilemma. Instead of being more seductive, accomidating, and understanding of a potential male partner, they carry the scars from their whoring and broken relationships and expect other men---in their hubris---to pick up the tab and "man up."
What reasonable man who---in his right mind---would possibly embrace this?
Let me tell you a story. A while back I had the inclination to do something I thought was rather ego-gratifying, but there was also a method to my madness here.
There exist free profile sites that either rate or allow you to show a little more than church attire in a way to attract the opposite sex. My curiosity got the best of me, and since a plethora of women were quite content to display their taut bodies in tiny bikinis, I did a series of my own beekcake shots. Now, before you think this has gone to my head, I was a little surprised at my own athletic look, although years of off and on training in grappling, boxing, Muay Thai, and working out on a regular basis tends to mold your physique. I was also ambiguous in my ad, neither stating that I was looking for an eternal covenant or good old fashioned sex.
You can see who's checked out on the sites. Not surprisingly, I received many, but what was paramount was the ones who did write me off the cuff, including a couple of women who were not exactly shy about how much they liked what they saw.
They were almost all older women. And I can hear the MGTOWs right now thinking about the expiration date factor, or perhaps a cougar who wanted to snag a younger buff guy before the twlight of her years were upon her.
Believe it or not, I didn't give them that pleasure, even.
These were the women, I am sure, that would have shunned me as a creep or cannon fodder when I was a gangly teenager if they had been an age peer. Suddenly, I was "hot" and "gorgeous" even if my pics were rather histrionic. That's what I would have been dubbed not so long ago.
Of course, rather than entertain them other than the obvious, I did what the bitchy, haughty, game-playing skanks have done in their prime years to would be suitors---I simply shunned them with my silence and drifted from cyberspace to my own peace with my own terms in real life.
Payback is a bitch, isn't it?
Monday, May 18, 2009
I suppose someone she deems lower than her status cannot possibly think better of himself to not kow tow to her; how dare I, right?
To her, like many of her ilk, refuse to understand that simply because I choose not to interact with her or kiss her ass it doesn't mean I hate women. I just don't like her specifically, and it puzzles her that I pay more credence to women that give and take respect while she (also like her ilk) believes it should be there by default. I'm not sorry; being blond and "cute" to a lot of men she encountered isn't enough to win points with me, nor does it make me magically chivalrous because of it. She's fairly passive aggressive, and not surprisingly, bosses her husband around killing him with kindness while still wearing the pants in the relationship. Not my type.
Even more ironic is that one evening she was playing bartender to a plethora of men getting intoxicated. She knew that I do contact fighting as a hobby, and even remarked I should be her bodyguard against their tipsy advances. Tough shit. After all the cutesy (but not so veiled) snips about I'm how I'm supposedly bitter and don't like women, I'm still obligated to protect her? I don't think so. I stated, "Pay me for it, and I'll think about it."
I honestly try not to get too disgusted at the self-entitlement she exhibits. As if we're supposed to feel privileged to be in her presence and shower her with gifts or something. Yeah, right.
That's my way of weeding out the weak and the self-absorbed.
I saw a pretty darn disturbing French exploitative film the other day. Maybe it's a little misleading to brand it exploitative; it was legitimately well crafted and acted, and had deeper meanings concurrent with the violence and depraved dynamic on the screen. But that's what made all the more troubling; couple that with a character that was on a rampage that ended in her brutal and tragic suicide. Being a beautiful Chinese woman that she was, it did not help matters at all.
MGTOW men will wonder why I bother watching such fare to begin with. Sometimes dark material can have visercal impact; what did I just see, and why did I react the way I did? Oddly enough, it made me wonder about how skanks in the US have it so good, and yet ever complain how nothing is never good enough, and most men are never good enough. I was perturbed and moved by her character's rage and sorrow.
It's probably another reason why I identify with foreign or minority women far more than your typical ivory tower feminist. Cultural barriers aside, kindred souls often can see something of themselves in another gender where the self-righteous cannot. Or simply consciously deny.
Our Ms. skank is the one that carries a grudge while living the life of part slut, part reactionary, a dose of wannabe celebrity, and the rest of her time carrying anger towards eighty percent of men she comes across . . . believing all the while that we supposedly have it so well off. Maybe the top apex of men do---that's who feminists are really envious of, anyway. They want license with minimal responsibility; something that often accompanies high level positions with those men---being held accountable when something goes terribly awry. And the guy that picks up the garbage or does industrial maintence might as well be invisible. That's "men's stuff" anyway.
Men won't commit because of several things. They have been deeply hurt or betrayed by one or more women and eventually feel marriage/relationships are more of a painful trap than a haven. Or they see broken families, the drama of divorce where the men gets crushed by the wife in court, thus seeing it end in misery rather than happiness. Some men also find it difficult to find a decent women and are selective about who they get involved with---and since many women don't initiate contact or chase after men, it's all the more covuluted.
There are men that either don't want to commit out of avoidance---or gasp---like being single. Or maybe prefer a FWB and don't care about the stigma attached to being a player. Oddly enough, many women will see this as a challenge, and rather than go for men that really want a commitment minded women will go for emotionally unavailable men instead. I've read about women in their 40s and 50s complain about this, and about themselves. You would think they would learn . . . and then wonder why men don't commit to them.
There are women that will take full advantage of a man's kind soul and generosity, and blame him full out for being naive. Yet if he is like an iron fist with his approval and affections, he's a bastard.
Skanks really need to STOP telling men what they should look for in a mate. We have preferences, too. That's life. All the articles in the world are not going to shame us out of what we want. Deal with it.
Men who have standards about who they desire in a mate are considered arrogant and judgmental; a woman who does the same thing is to be lauded and considered smart.
Marriage has nothing to do with real commitment, as the last few decades have shown us with infidelity and divorce rates.
One of endless double standards: men who play the field, even if not a womanizer per se, are players and should respect women and stop toying with them. A woman that plays the field is above reproach, liberated, and what she does in her bedroom is none of your damn business.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Without further ado . .
Men and women are two sides of the same coin. Without each other, there can be no fulfillment and no peace of mind. Together, there is LIFE. This is the way it has been since the very beginning. It is an active thing, not a passive one. It’s not enough for the people to just show up, in each others lives. Each of you needs to actively love the other. Many American men are willing to do this. Almost ALL American women are NOT. To make matters worse, these women do not value the men who are willing to love them. Instead, they value the men who could give a shit about anything. He gets laid constantly and gives nothing to anyone (even himself). Since this type of man is good for nothing and is often a criminal, the last thing he is interested in or capable of, is taking care of a woman or a family. Women are also like this themselves, but pretend they are not. That pretending often extends towards making a phoney marriage and having several children she has no intention of putting any effort into raising. Most of the time, the POINT of the marriage is to manipulate the system into fleecing a good man of all his possessions…..rinse, repeat, until she gets too old. This is NOT normal. For whatever reason, it is a problem endemic to westernized countries but is worst in the US, where our laws seriously enable these behaviours. What many American men are figuring out though is they don’t have to put up with this. By understanding the problem and its various aspects and, most importantly, the actual depth of the problem, he can avoid most of it, even fight back. The biggest obstacle though, is he is incomplete without a legitimate love in his life. American women use this fact as their greatest source of sinister manipulation. They will dangle the image of this in front of you constantly, but never, ever give it to you. The reason is simple, they can’t. Because they can’t, they are completely unacceptable as anything but a casual sexual fling. But one that is constantly trying to do you harm, requiring extreme vigilance and protective measures. Hopping from one loser to the next, in the vain hope that the next one might not be like this, is a depressing way to live. Rather than find a rare jewel, most men simply give up after awhile and retire from “the game”. Most men don’t know that this is abnormal. They think ALL women are like this and have always been this way. That’s a dirty lie. A lie that women in this country foster in an attempt to keep men from looking around. It turns out, that things were never like this for our grandfathers and great grandfathers. It’s a RECENT problem. More importantly, it’s a localized one. In large chunks of the world, women aren’t like this. They are the way, they are supposed to be. If you bond with one and then love them, they will love you back. Although this is only the bare MINIMUM needed for a good marriage and a good life, it changes things DRAMATICALLY. This means that it is a good idea to date a number of women from these places. Because you WILL find a jewel there eventually. No matter what, you will find a large pool of women who are sincere in their attempts to be with you. Some of these women will be sexually promiscuous. Some of them will be nuns. Most will be somewhere in between. Luckily, sincerely loving women will be common, no matter what she is like elsewise…….because IT’S A SEPERATE ISSUE. If you want a nun or a tart, a schoolteacher, a welfare mom or a doctor, you will find someone sincere. Since you will also find the occassional evil person mixed in, you must learn to tell the difference. But the odds are stacked in your favour. That just doesn’t exist in the US anymore (but it was once, the rule, not the exception).
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Who knows the things you'll find
There could be hell or rainbows
But it's a funny thing
The more you feel the sting
You're just a leaf that the wind blows
You've been this way before
One step and you're through the door . . .
"Breathless" by Dio
To be honest I didn't know how to approach this at first, other than to say to those born again porn stars who continue to sell themselves and make people feel for you for the almighty dollar is thus: you suck, and not in the way you used to on the job, either.
That's right. I don't buy into your lousy stories of patchwork abuse as well. Bite me.
And fuck off.
Maybe some of them legitimately were. Who knows. Even feminist accounts I have read shift from time to time. Of course, if you challenge that notion of how much they have endured, you're a misogynistic asshole, even if that apparent abuse is used for justification of hating all men and punishing them.
For the record, I feel for those have went through even a moderate amount of abuse of any form in their formative years. I find it troubling, and would never wish such a predicament on anyone innocent. I hope people reading this embittered piece keep that in mind; men, in particular, still don't as much sympathy as women in regards to this matter, and while I would hope neither gender would never have to experience anything as damaging as chronic emotional, sexual, or physical abuse, it still happens, and its long term effects are nothing to dismissed or mocked whatsoever.
But what I don't like are the self-righteous opportunists that use their exploits in erotica as a springboard for still staying in the limelight, to gain sympathy, or even worse, make money off of the gullible. It's parasitical and telling of the hubris of the so-called reformed sex worker.
Chances are high that your dyed blond, artificially enhanced white bread smut shyster has convinced her egocentric self she's devoted to a good cause to help others. Perhaps in some cases, but it others, it's because STDs and addictions are NOT the root cause that would kill her; it's lack of being in front of the camera lens and willing admirers that would send her dead husk blown away faster than a Hammer horror vampire caught in direct sunlight.
Let me also state that I am pretty much Libertarian on matters concerning prostitution, porn, and strippers. What consenting adults decide to do, and the possible transactions involving the activity, should still be their business. After that, it is a moral decision to weigh out for the individual concerning non-violent adult activity.
Keep in mind what I just said above in the aspect about men and women who have chosen another route, and worked and studied hard in order to procure a career. Ex-porn stars, in the past, often about made padded sums of money in a short span of time that skilled workers and those spending long hours in the office never will see in that same allotted time. Yes, several porn stars have had difficult lives of addiction, failed relations, alienation, and broken spirits, but remember, no one held a gun to these skanks' heads.
Since my political position has been made, it isn't a matter of jealousy because of the cash changing hands. It's because becoming an ex-porn star-turned-born again is disingenuous.
I'd rather see someone make terms and acknowledge their fucking and sucking flicks without reservation than lay claim to conversion, no matter how wanton and carnal it had been. I'm quite serious.
I remember watching one aging woman extol her regret and alleged pain on an expose for a rather popular Christian show. Her history was fairly typical, although in further examination of her life (from what I've read about it) there are plot holes of sorts. And in a particular interview, she burst into what was the most pathetic shedding of crocodile tears I've seen in ages. Ugh.
People buy into this stuff, and I don't know what is more disgusting. The pallid display of ersatz guilt and resolution in order to be still in the spotlight, or the outpouring of febrile sympathy that borders on neurosis itself.
In more insult to injury, any sucker that gets romantically involved with an ex-porn starlet has all that baggage to content with, and probably a questionable sex life to begin with. Maybe one can rationalize and gloss over the past. I don't know. I'm no saint myself, but I really can't imagine having a constructive relationship with someone that would have dived into a career of nihilistic hedonism and now expects me to play traditionalist man in a whitewashed household. Fuck that.
Maybe I'm not in the best of moods about this stuff, but when one's eyes are open to the reality of it all---and I'm sure someone will, say, "But, Chris, you've never lived it, so how can you judge?"
My succinct answer can be expressed pretty neatly---is it that hard for you to see these people who they really are, a fake suffering saint to allay your own insecurities with because you actually admire them? I mean, WTF?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
I apologize for any brief absence and will get to your writings soon enough. I usually check my blog every couple of days and---eventually---want to make in more active again. I come and go in cycles, and in no way has my main viewpoints or themes changed; this is also a place that, while not perfect for networking, can be also used to keep in touch with me if need be.
While I don't have strict rules on posting because I don't receive a bulk of negative remarks, as usual I reserve the right to restrict or prevent the ones riddled with personal attacks. I feel that they are not only untruths, but designed to veer away from the purpose of this blog. Invariably, they often follow a typical pattern or motif and usually have tone of someone carrying the mantle of self-righteousness while either casting scorn or asking their target to prove themselves worthy. Obviously, my patience fell through the floor ages ago, and stopped giving attention whores and smug online arrogant bickerers any license. Once that happens, they tend to leave pretty quickly when they know I don't care.
When I started, I did receive a modicum of constructive criticism and even welcomed the counter points. That, to me, is part of the essence of argumentation, and devil's advocacy isn't an innately bad thing. While I don't incite it here, I can (and will) receive contrary views if they are civil and articulate. Boorish and offensive material are a waste of my time and will not be entertained.
Of course, there exists an occasional kind of debater that resists anything remotely like Occam's Razor, resorts to circular reasoning, and resorts to sophistry. Admittedy, it does get rather tiresome, but I'd rather deal with that than the banal ad hominem barbs that have little or no basis in fact. Fielding off the same name calling horseshit eats away time and energy.
In the past, I actually did post on feminist sites when I had the time and inclination. After reading the inevitable logical fallacies for the Nth time (you don't agree with me, therefore, you hate women, blah blah blah) I did the right thing---I expressed my opinions elsewhere.
Harry Potter, one of the blog owners of a provocatively-titled link, has made a point concurrent with mine about pointing things out and exposing the truth; it isn't "hate" for doing so, but the scorn and accusations leveled at a poster because of this can be legion, and after a certain junction they become pointless to react to. I have used the expression The Empress Wears No Clothes as an apt term, and those proclaiming the hows and whys are often treated with embittered resentment and stigma for doing so.
The irony is that despite all the nasty and unfounded attacks, it only serves to strengthen the rationale to continue forth.
Monday, April 6, 2009
My absence is always temporary. There is always something to reveal, explore, and uncover.
Without further ado . . .
What turned out to be the best luck for me was that girls in high school were so contemptuous that I learned the important lesson that basing my dignity or happiness on their approval would be suicidal. So I did not do that, and never made that mistake in college.
I learned at the age of twenty-two that if a positive sense of self hinged on what women thought of me I would have gone crazy. (And I might add that our culture sees men as "less than" if we do not attract women or have their sexual and loving affection most of the time--ed.).
I do not employ that last word lightly, either. I may come across here as controlled and thoughtful, but as a teenager I was so passionate about things women who toss passion around in their usage have little idea what that means.
Oddly enough, it was somewhat around that time when I had met an older woman that led me down the path to MGTOW without me (or her) even really knowing it. That's something I've wanted to blog about for a long time. I will soon enough.
There was a profound side-effect, and it's something that I try to impress on women that aren't so ready to throw out personal attacks and listen for a moment---if that's possible. A year later I turned a bit colder and even a tad sinister, although I don't consider myself an "evil" person whatever connotation that implies. I'm more reticent about being that way now, but that period where I had changed has not ever completely left me. Maybe I shouldn't forget those lessons and how I was.
I had seen and experienced just enough to come to an eerie realization---I could walk away from just about anyone, burn bridges, and never look back. While it's true that I relish the nucleus of friends and family I adore . . . there exist many people, and that includes a woman that had pulled any number of stunts that Ameriskanks are known for--could be proverbially dumped by the wayside and I would forge on, no matter how much it hurt.
I lost a lot of patience for pretension, drama, pettiness, and my tolerance level for childishness came crashing way down.
There is a danger is losing men like me. And there are more out there than some would care to investigate.
I'm sure there are ones that would say, "I don't care about assholes like you, anyway, I'm young and hot and can get someone else." I say go for it. Because that doesn't last forever, and once they are in their 30s and 40s those same overgrown brats discover that shitty entitlement attitude doesn't always work anymore, and men have wised up and stopped yielding to it. The women that are broken and encumbered at that age have lives that seem more like drudgery and a liability than a warm haven.
I think there are Western women that hate this.
The idea of an unburdened man that has the strength to tear away, no matter how painful, is more scary than the feminist fears of brutal and angry men. They will protest this notion all they want, but let's face it; the impetus to control men is very strong, and a man that isn't easily manipulated or emotionally dominated is a source of resentment and even wariness. Even moderately violent men that still stick around is a man that still has something to be harvested on some level.
As much as there are women out there that claim they like "bad boys" akin to this, those same women generally and bitterly resent men that cannot be domesticated completely. Even those bad boys give women approval and validation.
I came to the conclusion then that those same skanks would prefer someone who cheats, perpetrates DV, imbibes drugs, is chronically lazy, spends his money on alcohol and other trivial pursuits---or a combination of the above---than someone who doesn't put up with too much bullshit and emotional game-playing. That same bad boy role has the same purpose as the traditionalist man---to ultimately appease his partner at the end of the day, even if that relationship's foundation is shaky and the dynamic tainted.
If those same women had to face the dark void of solitude and self-reliance that men are forced to endure without a loving spouse, a good number of them, without any other support, would crumble and go insane. Let's face it; many men, even at an early age, would embrace the situation of a understanding, respectful, attractive woman of depth and inner strength. Once it dawns on them that may not ever happen, we have to walk on regardless of the dark shadows and personal struggles.
I don't believe American skanks can make that same claim. It's a lie, a myth, and chimera, and everyone is supposed to buy into it.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
I realize many MGTOW have their own tastes and they vary, but for those who are welling to take that trek filled with rich texture and depth, I hope you sincerely enjoy what I've presented here.
Lycia - Drifting
What an amazing duo this is. This is the type of music I can dwell on for hours---dreamy, surreal, depressive yet thoughtful and strangely uplifting. It's difficult to pick which album I like the most, but Cold is an outstanding collection of ethereal tracks.
Queensryche - I Will Remember
Unless you've been hiding under a rock for the last couple of decades, you've probably (at least) heard of this band. But their CD Rage for Order is often criminally overlooked. I selected this one because truly haunting and remorse quality; I've heard this off and on since my teenager years and it never fails to make an emotional impact.
I don't think this post would be complete without something from this California trio. It's a shame they never reached anyone outside of a select audience; this truly is a siren song in more than one aspect---and I'll let the music do it's own magic rather than continue here.
Witchfynde - Crystal Gazing
Years ago I was fixated with finding gems from the 70s and 80s and the album Cloak and Dagger popped up. I liked what I heard and yet after discovering this I had to track it down no matter what the cost---mysterious and eldritch, it left a mark and I picked it up online surprisingly quickly for an enigmatic cult act. Take the "softer" moments of Judas Priest, Mercyful Fate, and Black Sabbath and you have this tune. Sadly, another glanced over NWOBHM band.
Deep Purple - Anthem
I had always heard Rod Evans voice from Deep Purple's song Hush and preferred Ian Gillian's vocals---then this comes along as a backdrop to the German film Requiem and I couldn't get it out of my head. A plaintive track with a truly classical touch.
Rainbow - Catch the Rainbow
Let's put it this way; Ronnie James Dio, Ritchie Blackmore, and all in the Rainbow fold crafted a beatific masterwork here. Another track I will let the listener experience without too much commentary; so sad and yet just lush and astonishing.
Iron Maiden - Children of the Damned
I'm sure that some may be puzzled why I included an Iron Maiden song even if they like Maiden. After all, this is about beauty in darkness, among many levels, right? And I think the music, lyrics, and Bruce Dickinson's passionate vocals are completely appropriate. From their staple (and maligned from the stodgy critics), Number of the Beast.
Lycia - Broken Days
Yep---Lycia again. There are simply a wealth of material to choose from, but I think this captures the mood I want to present. The accompaning (homage) video is also something to behold.
Akira Yamaoka - Theme of Laura
From both the movie and the video game of Silent Hill, another composition that is both wonderful and haunting. I've listened to anything from Yamaoka's dark ambient to the works that are more akin to this, and he can do no wrong.
Black Sabbath - Under the Sun
Trying to decide which tune for this post, considering my love for the classic lineup and era, was just about impossible, but here's one regardless.
Xasthur - Funeral Of Being
Xasthur's output usually consists of oddly yet compelling underground-style black metal that is caustic and hate-filled. This instrumental is a step away from (Malefic's) dark and spectral arrangements for something ponderous and entralling; this may surprise some, but he was clearly influenced by Lycia for this in particular.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Uh huh. And where is the mutual admiration?
That's one of many reasons I refuse to heed or acknowledge all of it. When it comes down to the marrow itself, it shouldn't be one significant day that a couple has to shift the attention and gifts in a one-sided manner. Both persons should treat each other as the real gift to each other, and any importance on material or superficial gestures downplayed in favor for what really matters.
A day about love should not focus solely on one gender.
Funny how so many would agree with the above sentiment, and yet I've heard compliants aplenty from single gals about the lack of attention and affection on a holiday they acted as if didn't hold any weight. Those same ones were getting drunk or stoned, making a ruckus and allaying their insecurities with hanging out and acting foolish. Nothing wrong with a good party, but it's something when a person would rather get brain dead intoxicated and puke among the company of trasient drinkers than face the abysmal mirror of their own loneliness.
Welcome to what so many men face. Often everyday. Despite all the remarks about equality and women seeking men out, many men would live lives of quiet desperation without actively reaching out and pursuing women. I am no snaggletooth or hunchback by any means, but women don't aggressively ask me out every day, either---and this is from someone who could have bedded more women than I choose to. It's easy to be a loner as a man; making your presence known isn't "offering" anything to your mercernary-minded shrew. Men that don't have a pile of cash, high visiblity, a goldmine of social connections have to work just to gain some form of attention at all. Worse still, there are quite a few gals that would rather compete over a man and be tenth in line rather than ease into the haven of a man women aren't fawning over.
And trouble is, as one cynical commenter pointed out, there are "average Janes" that don't want your "average Joe;" she is ever vigilant about meeting her knight in shinning armor while men stuggle to gain a foothold in the dating scene. Since it's the order of the day to find something to reject in a potential suitor rather than a trait to allow an attraction to grow, it's become even more difficult for men. And with all the exclaimations that's it's a man's world, even in anything from hook up culture to trying to discover a mate for marriage and family, what man in their right mind would want a dynamic that is even HARDER to meet a good partner to be with? Not many, but that is what has happened over time.
There are so many things against men at this point without going into the legal ramifications on any level, it's a testament to men that don't give up on the impluse to find that special someone. For those that have, it's not a hopeless situation.
One man in particular remarked---all too late, however, that making the need for a woman as the center piece of your life will never make you happy. Our culture, with its massive undercurrent of gynocentric trends ingrains the injunction of please the female without recognizing that our own welfare must be taken care of. Ultimately, it's up to us how that manifests. Regardless of the good and bad women you come across, individual men have to carve their own path and find their own way FIRST and completely be at ease with themselves and their lives. Most, if not all, of the petty roadmaps and romantic tomes about women and relationships dictate how men should change for women---this is serious mistake. If you are not happy with yourself and somehow need to adjust and compromise your integrity for a possible lifetime partner, it's the wrong situation and the wrong person.
Yes, there is darkness out there. We, as MGTOW, despite a growing number of men waking up, are still forced to define how and what the real beauty that exists for each and every one of us truly can be. Politicians, gender feminists, the media, and mass commercialism isn't going to give one whit or demonstrate any real empathy for our dilemmas unless we decide for ourselves what is good and right for us. One may face scorn and mockery because that person stands alone behind their principles, but at the end of the day it isn't the mob that has to live with maintaing self-respect, but that man that continued to forge outward and seek his own inner light.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
With all the info out there I'm dying to write more myself, and if I mined all of the vids and posts I enjoyed this blog would be overflowing. So I have to pick and choose here and there.
Here's one of many I liked, and I hope everyone who hasn't already plundered around this corner of the site likes it as well.
How Feminism Screwed My Generation
Friday, January 16, 2009
I normally don't post many articles here, but there seems to be more proof that Western culture allows abused women to kill a partner, but husbands who do so under the same circumstances cannot provide similar rationalizations.
In Britain, it's become clear as day. And even overt.
Can any feminist (and feminist minded) person give me a reason why this is being made legal policy? And the injustice of it all?
I think not.
The underlying assumption is that women kill because the have been abused to the brink of retaliation, and men should never come to that point. One of my questions remains as such: what if a man is acting out of self-defense for his very life? Or that women have (and can) kill men and fabricate claims of abuse in order to get away with murder?
Husbands who kill cheating wives in a so-called crime of passion will no longer be able to claim they were provoked, ministers will say today.
Stripping husbands of the right to claim that infidelity was the spur for their actions means they will face a charge of murder, rather than manslaughter.
But women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.
The most sweeping changes to murder laws in 50 years are part of the Government's controversial Coroners and Justice Bill, to be published today.
Women who kill violent partners will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence. They must establish only that they were responding to a 'slow burn' of abuse.
The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a 'sudden' loss of control.
But, in cases where a husband kills, the existing 'partial defence' of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether. The move means that the law will no longer recognise adultery as a 'serious wrong'.
Currently, men can escape a murder conviction because a provocation plea allows them to be tried instead for manslaughter.
Ministers say the law needs reform because it allows men to 'get away with murder'.
Harriet Harman, the minister for women, said: 'For centuries the law has allowed men to escape a murder charge in domestic homicide cases by blaming the victim.
'Ending the provocation defence in cases of "infidelity" is an important law change and will end the culture of excuses.'
Provocation will be scrapped as a defence altogether, and be replaced with two partial defences - that a person feared they could be the victim of serious violence, or could prove they had been 'seriously wronged' by the victim's actions.
The fear of further serious violence offers specific protection to women victims of domestic attacks. They will be able to claim they were responding to a 'slow burn' of abuse.
Equally controversial is allowing a person to claim they killed because they had been 'seriously wronged' by a person's actions or insults.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Ultimately, I think both get the gist of what I've been saying for years---that it shifts the balance of reproductive power more towards men, when men don't really have much reproductive choice to begin with. Hope all of you enjoy them. SR.
Male Birth Control Pill
Male Birth Control Pills and Women