I Respond to Reader Comments

This is a rarity for me, but I think many of you might be interested. Since I skipped out on submission fighting due to feeling under the weather (I almost never get sick, but there's always that one day) I seized the moment. So without further ado . . .


Jack Celliers said...

Go to Chile, where a group of workers is trapped deep underground suffering things we cannot imagine.

Now, these workers are miners, all men of course, because the labour market reserves this kind of jobs to male workers.

Feminist (even male ones) told me this is because they are enjoying a "privilege". They say it seriously. I don't know if they would repeat this in front of those poor guys.

But I would pay to see.

I would as well.

I've always been puzzled the idea that feminist-minded people believe this to be a privilege.

Apparently, being ordered onto the front lines and risking being maimed or killed in war is somehow a privilege as well, although (supposedly) men are the ones who are stupid to begin wars so somehow we deserved the repercussions of them.

Unreal. This perception of privilege would change very quickly when put to the test.

Fidelbogen said...

" the onus is on them to address and disown the serious misogyny within the group. Are they working on this?"

Wrong. There is NO onus on men, or men's "groups" to do anything whatsoever on behalf of "women" -- and certainly not at the behest of women who call themselves feminists!

Misogyny (sour feeling toward women, by men) is set to grow and grow and grow. This is happening for a reason. . .

Feminism is mainly responsible for fostering the conditions in society that virtually guarantee the growth of bad feeling between men and women.

And do you believe that the feminists will EVER admit their guilt, and assume responsibility, and do something, anything at all, to clean up the mess which THEY created?

Don't hold your breath. . .

I don't expect them to until it's a too late. And even then, it will always be framed in the attitude of how they want "real men" to fix things they trashed.

As Zenpriest aptly said, misogynists aren't born, they are made. The more I live the more I realize the truth of that.



curiepoint said...

It seems that having men stop other men from so-called 'misogyny' is a condition of being taken seriously by those who state that we must; in short, the women.

The very real issue is, we don't care if we have credibility amongst women.

None of the MRA or MGTOW sites out there have a thing to do with appealling to women. We are not saying "Please don't hurt us. Please take us seriously". We are in fact saying just the opposite.

Let's assume that men begin doing what women want. It may well be that things will start going our way, and our situation will gain credibility in law and family. What would the women do? They would take credit for making things better for us. Women are terrified that men themselves will affect change regardless of what input women have.

I think that we need to stick to our guns, and win the day for ourselves. To involve these monsters in feminine disguise just makes me think that I would not like those to whom I owe thanks.

We don't need them, guys. The only way to defeat injustice served up by women is to recognize them as being against us. I don't care if it makes me sound like I am using the same tactics as feminists. They won the first round by deploying them; they work.

We must in fact recognize that we are at war. In order to win a war, you have to fight as the enemy does. Greater firepower and higher ideals alone will guarantee loss of the war, and a great deal of what we have right now. We will be mired even deeper into slave status.

I think there is something to be said about not caring whether one is branded as a "misogynist" or not.

There comes a point where appeasing someone who has damned a man with such is a matter of control. With Ameriskank behavior, nothing is ever good enough unless you are of great stature/status---a minor celebrity of sorts. And even then, the capability of being torn down because she's on to the next bigger, better deal because of makes them vulnerable as well.

And a second part to this---years ago I perused a discussion about whether or not men should employ the same tactics feminists use in order to gain ground. While I agree that degrading and abasing one's self is ultimately defeating (witness Ameriskank mentality in regards trends and hedonistic nihilism), at the same time, trying to be the ideal of the better man doesn't always work..

Case in point---on my last job I had allegations of unfounded sexual harassment in a write-up. It was completely false, and instead of agreeing to play the nice guy and sign the document I refused and even pulled the owner aside about the issue. I even kept documentation of the employee's interaction with me and she was completely aware of it. She walked on eggshells with me ever since then. I figured if push came to shove I would let it be known that I wasn't going to let her get away with lies, damaging my rep, and placing my job in jeopardy.

If she would have followed up (she didn't), I would have procured the services of a lawyer. There were men's rights lawyers in town were I resided at the time.



Jennifer said...

Hi there, um, Socio. I think you have many good points, and I've seen even otherwise normal women twist men's words to the point where I was left red-faced with anger listening to it; honesty is most definitely not part of the feminist agenda.

There are a few misogynists in the mix; in the past week, I've heard one man admit to fantasizing about a day when women are carted off by the truckload to be raped while men do nothing; another man said women should be sent, unarmed, to the front of a battle-line to be slaughtered so the male fighters, the fit soldiers, would be spared. Undeniable hatred. But there has also been hatred from women, unbelievably so. Unfair sexism and hatred wil never solve the problem.

Maybe you might think I'm splitting hairs on this, but there are people out there that define "sexism" and "misogyny" on there own terms. Even ignoring a woman when she wants attention has been dubbed as sexist, as inane as it seems.

In all honesty, I wonder if the caustic remarks you have read was the result of men being kicked around enough to be fed up. I don't really think all of them would actually do what you described, but such wish-fulfillment of ill will is nothing new. It takes a man a good while before he even starts to ponder atrocities on women even if it's nothing more than hateful sounding fantasies. After half a life time of anti-male sentiment compounded with the notion that he should still throw himself under a bus for those who see him as expendable, that attitude is (in part) result of that sentiment. Especially when in dealings with Ameriskanks that are about expediency instead of honor or affection.

I can tell you that death wish fantasies from women are far more common, at least vocally and on the Net. I don't know if remember how popular Kill Bill 1 was with women when it was released, but I do. A woman slicing and dicing through (mostly) men is a revenge tale; a man doing the same is a exploitative slasher flick that garners low ratings with movie critics. I know one woman that went as far to dress up as the lead role at Halloween; I can also tell you that she viewed 90% of men around her as beneath her station despite having trysts with drug users and lowlifes, and felt men deserved the punishment they received in life perhaps because of her own self-induced foibles.

"True, males exist to serve females' needs"

Aww, that's truly humble and amazingly kind, but I don't think it's true. You men were created to serve God, just as we women were; only when both sexes stop trying to rule and/or extinguish the other will we be able to run God's Earth together as He planned.

Well, I'm not too terribly religious to begin with, but rather than focus on that I will focus on the statement. Today, we are seeing men place women on a pedestal just as ever, but there is no real mutual reciprocation for it. The social contract as been split asunder, and men are being raised to kiss women's asses with no reason other than the fact they are born women. It truly is a recipe for disaster, and yet another reason why you see "misogyny" festering. Men do not naturally shun, resent, detest, and exploit women as a whole. You will always have cads and brutes, but still . . .

It's interesting that that same quote says harmony must begin with women. I's another testimony of the fact that women have such inate influential power and must, for humanity and morality, use it for good.

Remember the social compact I mentioned? To a large extent, the ball is in women's court, and with your typical Ameriskank they are failing. It's true that women will have to make a big step in making amends and being harmonious with men---the big question is will they? As you can tell from some comments here that there are men that are ever cynical or just plain given up the idea. Call it a shame, but men have to adapt accordingly. Believe me on this point---men did not start the gender war, and if any real understanding happens, the earnest effort on women's part has to manifest. Otherwise, we will continue to have what we have now, incessant conflict and distrust that only reaffirms what this blog is all about.

My Response About Men's Groups and Misogyny

Every one in a while I come across someone who claims that in order to be taken as legit there are certain men that have to rid themselves of their own bitterness and even hatred. When concerning one specific group, someone posted this online as thus:

the onus is on them to address and disown the serious misogyny within the group. Are they working on this?

And my response, somewhat quick and dirty---but as it stands:



It's pretty easy to throw the "misogyny" tag out. It's another whole ball game to try to examine why there are men that are deeply resentful and continue to be. And their numbers are growing over time.

Let's face it. It seems that so many women out there do not want to legitimatize men's bitterness and even anger, but there's also a problem with that----women can be angry (often at men) and be seen as empowered, and men still have a limited array of emotions they can show and still be perceived as "masculine." And yet their anger is still not right even if not directed destructively or channeled away from somehow mistreating women. And on the converse, men who do show too much emotion are eventually stigmatized as well. It's a no-win situation. Defensive and guarded men are too sensitive are seen as self-absorbed and even assholes, and men who are too hurt are seen as crybabies and weak.

When I was a kid in the 80s, the idea of what a misogynist was a brutal, controlling man that threatened, manipulated, and used emotional and physical force on his wife or close relatives. He probably drank heavily and slept around, and believed the world should bow down to him. He was "that guy"---the man that neither men nor women particularly liked or wanted to emulate.

Times have changed. Certain women have always gravitated towards such men. Now there are women who even justify it and still reign judgment, mockery, and scorn on good men. So-called nice guys are the majority of men; they are not the alpha men at the top, which so many are lusted after by Ameriskanks with a fervor.

Now days, if a man speaks out against things that women are doing he doesn't like, he's a misogynist. If he doesn't like the dating scene, he's a bitter loser. If he's strange---and not in a fashionable way, he's a creep that's probably a closet psychopath.

Men are more interested in men's rights groups not just because of the laws---certainly father's rights and other issues are as serious as any---but the underlying currents that affect men personally even outside the courtroom. The general misandry towards men ingrained in our culture, all the while women are being elevated all time, is an unhealthy recipe that cannot last. We will have to grudgingly make amends, or something will eventually break.

I know I've went a roundabout way of explaining things, but "misogyny" or not, I do know that if the anti-male assault on men doesn't lesson, men are going to be more demanding, stoic, distrustful, and even resentful of women's "progress"---i.e., wanting the benefits of both traditionalism and equality without the accountability, and burdening men even more.

Of course, I'm sure they will be dubbed as sexists as well without other camps remotely attempting to understand why they have become more fed up over time, and not help BUT continue the cycle they created. When will feminists acknowledge this? Only when they have not other choice, I suppose.

Hawaiian Libertarian---"There is No Sexual Double-Standard"

HL writes at The Spearhead with a thoughtful article:

There is No Sexual Double-Standard

by Hawaiian Libertarian on September 2, 2010

A female reader was apparently looking through the Spearhead archives, and came across my book review for The Garbage Generation. She e-mailed me the following:

I have read part of the book and a lot of the book I agreed with. I just want this question answered by another man. Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango.

If you agreed with a lot of the book, you really shouldn’t be even asking this question, because one of the basic premises of Dr. Amnues’ seminal work, is based on defining what comprised the original marriage contract between men and women. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.

Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.

Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.

It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.



There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because men’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.

Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.

Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.”

This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.

In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.

My inquiring e-mailer thought she was making some kind of irrefutable point with her quip, “No matter what, it takes two to tango.” She misses the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.