Feminist Apocalypse

Ruminating About Misandry

2011-12-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

I have found in my frequent journeys online as well as observations of misandry in daily life, the media, or in the political arena that it never seems to let up. Granted, in there's always a place where I escape from the unfettered ding of its raucous call in order to maintain a seamblance of peace---I have a few devices; cooking gourmet dinners for myself, walking around a local beach late at night or the grappling sessions I attend twice a week.

Still, I find that cannot sever myself from writing about this cultural malaise. Men are being removed as main authority of the family and sometimes even kicked out, with the ever-widening grip of the state encroaching in our lives. Young men are not as scholarly inclined or even discouraged to be more ambitious in school and college, and will have a significant effect on the economic course in our future. Despite some efforts to push for dual child custody in divorce court women are still favored as primary caretakers while many fathers have pay up for CS with limited access to their kids. Debtor's prison, an Unconstitutional situation, is still enacted in many cases when man cannot financially maintain support payments. Maybe a mother has leveled false charges of abuse against a man to restrict visitation entirely or has found another lover while he slaves away. The ludicrous burden---what I consider should be illegal---of alimony is rewarded to greedy and vindictive-minded ex-wives. In the workplace, false accusations of sexual harassment have men walking on nails and although some countermeasures have been implemented as policy to curtail them, there are women that will still employ this a weapon to be rid of men they don't like or find "creepy" on a whim. Don't get me started on health funding, depression and suicide rates, hypergamy, slutwalks, and domestic violence.

What have feminists, feminism, and their counterparts have done to help men in dire need? If anything they have aided in spearheading legal and social misandry with no signs of letup. With the lie that feminism is supposed to be for legal and social equality, it has clearly shown its true colors---female supremacy---and anyone not giving homage to its poisonous credo is demonized, marginalized, or punished in some fashion. With the Radfem Hub now made visible and its posters true thoughts laid bare, it is evident what they really think of men. Many of the statements were particularly cruel, but one of them that troubled me was the suggestion that mothers could starve male infants and boys of affection and nurture in order to (essentially) let them die.

How heartless. Unbelievable.

One most note that many of these same women that have made these venomous statements are not exactly in the shadows in the first place; among them are career women and those in influential positions. And yet, these feminists are the oppressed and victimized---or so they claim. In reality, they want the power sans responsibility, and burden men further with absurd expectations. It's the hideous irony that those purporting to champion equality secretly desire to regulate men to the status of second class citizens. Or worse.

Given all of this, it's not surprising that there are men gradually men drifting away in a sense---refusing to support women without mutual reciprocation, tired of contributing to society with little reward, suspicious of Ameriskank behavior, and cynical of any romantic ideal after being hurt by women for too long or told over and over it's all their fault. There's a lesson from the Radfem Hub revealing from Agent Orange; men are considered expendable. Period. And no matter how profound our efforts to uphold civility and society, as well as . . . oh hell . . . just expect a modicum of love and affection from a woman that treats us halfway decent in return, we are still inferior by virtue of our Y chromosome.

Feminism has always tried to control men, and by extension, male sexuality. In turn, women's sexuality is paramount and should be always given precedence over men's, which is clearly seen in anything with reproductive choice, child support, cuckolding, and the like. This appeals strongly to women who don't completely share the outright hatred of the more extremist type; after all, it's something that has permeated our culture like a bonfire that seemingly cannot be doused. Add this with massive redistribution of wealth from men via the state to women (supposedly for the sake of the children). Imagine if the latter were to fall through (including welfare, CS, and alimony ground to a halt); if the doomsayers are correct, it is a possibility. If more men wake up to realize they are being extorted, indirectly or otherwise, by a system that basically cares nothing for them outside of production and utility purposes---walking ATMs and sperm banks---things will be vastly different for the sexes, and all the cries to return to bullshit notions of chivalry would dissipate.

By means of comparison, the feminists spouting hatred have a more insidious viewpoint than your average, smug, selfish Ameriskank. Men are disposable, superfluous. And although without men we would not have the advances in our historical evolution as we know it, we truly are perceived as deserving as the expendable sex. I am still a little surprised that they still feel it should clandestine about it, considering how misandry extends to both the radical left as well as Necons. Obviously, some of it is out in the open. It would be a sick joke if they were not so earnest.

As Men Going Our Own Way, there are no hard and fast rules for every individual man, but spreading the word about the truth has become crucial. For those that have no respect for men and masculinity should ask themselves this: why should we have any respect for them when they continue to smash any underlying social contract asunder and leave no benefit for men?

Robert O'Hara Exposes Feminist Hatred

2011-12-20T22:58:00.000-08:00

This is from the site A Voice For Men.

There has been much discussion about this recently and I could probably add more than a few words of my own. There has been some digging up of feminists posts about what they really think of men. This is actually recent writings and not just the classic cases of quotes from the your Dworkins of the world; it's proof of how they view men in general, and it gets even worse---they are in certain career positions that will surprise some. While I consider myself rather cynical, I still find the implications troubling. Another point here is that unlike the constant protestations that feminists don't have real power and clout in the status quo, this will be another blow to that notion. In fact, it's something I've stated for years; it is ingrained (currently) in our society and quite active in many social and workplace circles. I'm not the only one who subscribes to this, but I do think they should be held accountable in accordance to whatever damage they ultimately do.

I want to thank everyone involved from AVFM for shedding light on this serious problem and Agent Orange for his work; some may say that it will not effect great change, but it truly is another blade (as one poster used to say, and I miss him) how feminism will disseminated by a thousand cuts.

From the article: Radfem Hub: the underbelly of a hate movement

Imagine that you are a fly on the wall of a private meeting. The attendees include a legislative lobbyist, an arts council member, a political writer, a bestselling novelist, a communications assistant for a national chamber of commerce, a web developer, a special education teacher and a child care worker.

What do you imagine you would hear in that meeting? Maybe plans to improve children’s education, especially those with special needs? Perhaps a call to mobilize resources to ensure school kids are not attending class hungry, or that they are safe from abuse and exploitation? Maybe you would hear concerns about the quality of education and school budgets during the global recession, or other problems faced by the upcoming and developmental generation of world citizens.
Well, one such meeting has been happening, conducted by well-placed individuals who fill the job descriptions listed above. But educational and welfare improvements were not the topics they discussed. The agenda of the meeting was the shared desire to abuse and murder children, to trap people in wooden buildings and blow them up, to throw children from, through, windows, to pursue infanticide and forced eugenics, and to seriously entertain and secretly pursue ways to exterminate half the population.

If you are waiting for a punch line, don’t.

Radfem Hub (Radfem is short for Radical Feminist), is a website featuring articles from well-known activists, many of whom are in significant real-world positions of political and social influence. The site has been the focus of some attention since Simon and Schuster novelist Pamela O’Shaughnessy, posting under the name Vliet Tiptree, penned an article there advocating human scientific experimentation and forced eugenics, in order to “extirpate” certain aspects of masculinity.
The publishers of Radfem Hub frequently profess and promote philosophical solidarity with the late Valerie Solanas, author of The Scum Manifesto, a violent ideologue who advocated the extermination of men. She also gunned down artist Andy Warhol, maiming him for life.

Some well-known figures are closely associated with the Radfem Hub. Loretta Kemsley, publisher of Moon Dance Magazine, which was given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is listed as having a “board presence” on her public profile there. Sheila Jeffreys, feminist author and professor at The University of Melbourne has a public presence there and frequently provides articles. Julie Bindle, author and columnist with The Guardian, a well read newspaper in the U.K., has also posted there. (see Wikipedia Links Below).

Underneath Radfem’s veneer of social consciousness, however, and hosted on the same website, is a private forum; the underbelly and engine room for the site as a whole. The discussions there, assumed to be out of the public eye, are virulent and hateful; often peppered with calls for violence. For a long time, they have been successful and maintaining both secrecy and anonymity. Until now.

Over the past several months an operative ,who will only be identified as Agent Orange, has successfully infiltrated the group and has collected trove of information, including over a hundred screen shots that document what can only be called the most shocking evidence of extreme hatred in the feminist movement seen to date.
Not only have these conversations been documented with screen shots but Agent Orange, with the help of an investigator, has tracked down the identities of several of these individuals. The confidence level of the information is compelling, and more is on the way. Here is a portion of the individuals identified, along with some of their statements.

Danielle Pynnonen (screen name “Allecto”), a child care worker whose employer is unknown;

click to enlarge

Kat Pinder (screen name “Amazon Mancrusher”), a community development coordinator for the City of Perth in Australia and former U.K. Game show Big Brother contestant;

Click to enlarge

Isabelle Moreira (screen name “Izzie”), a web developer in Curitiba, Brazil;

Click to enlarge

Mary Syrett (screen name “Mary Sunshine”), a writer and member of the City of Kingston Arts Council in Ontario, Canada;

Click to enlarge

Julie LeComte (screen name “Rain”), a communications assistant for the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Australia;

Click to enlarge

Lorraine Allen (screen name “White Tiger”), a special education teacher at The Center for Discovery Hurleyville, New York;

Click to enlarge

Laila Namdarkhan (screen name “yabawife”), a well known feminist activist who was instrumental in passing legislation in the U.K. Regarding the mental health of women in prisons;

Click to enlarge

And of course Pam O’Shaughnesey (screen name changed from “Vliet Tipree” to “karma”), an established writer, publisher and lawyer. In this post, the complete depravity of O’shaughnessy’s ideology shines though with a clear willingness for mass murder as a “last resort.”

Click to enlarge

These screen shots represent just a sample the images and other data that document real people engaging in what can only be described as an orgy of gender hatred. What’s more, these are not individuals who live on the fringes of society. They are people who hold public offices, positions in academia and the media. Their voices and ideas are heard in legislatures all around the world and even in the chambers of the United Nations.

In the very near future, the complete body of data collected by Agent Orange will be made available to the public at large. This means that anyone interested learning more about these people and publicizing their own analyses on their blogs, Youtube channels or other media will be able to do so. It also means that interested members of the general public can voice their concerns regarding these individuals to the press, as well as anywhere these individuals may pose a direct threat, particularly to the welfare of children.

For a long time men’s advocates and others have tried to point out to politicians and the public that feminism was, at its heart, a movement rooted in hate. Those contesting this point of view claim that radical feminism isn’t recognized as legitimate by most feminists and that radical feminists aren’t taken seriously. This new information demonstrates those assumptions are false.

This data, and the mountains of it to soon follow, reveal that radical feminists with bigoted, violent leanings are thoroughly entrenched in the media, governmental and education systems worldwide, and that they are exerting their influence to further legislation and policy that reflects not only their hatred of men and boys, but a desire to put themselves in a position to inflict as much harm on them as possible.I will be joining Paul Elam on AVfM Radio tomorrow night, when we will be speaking live with Agent Orange, who has a great deal more information and perspective on what has been happening at Radfem Hub. Another surprise guest will be appearing.

Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondance_Magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/

Remembering Michelle

2011-12-13T22:23:00.000-08:00

To be honest, I really didn't know how to start off this post. So I will say it; Michelle is only one of two women in my lifetime that I truly loved, and while I was young when it came onto me like an incessant whirlwind you could not dissipate, being young made it no less potent. If anything, it amplified all the rawness and pain that I felt for it being unrequited. I do remember her from even before I had been a high school sophomore and that she was exceedingly beautiful and feminine, unlike women now days that feel they have to festoon their bodies with tattoos and gradually wear on their physiology with drugs and partying.

If "alpha female" equated to Michelle, she was quite the prize at the time. She was a senior, and not only was she gorgeous, but academically bright, lady-like, kept her nose clean, and had the warmest smile I had ever seen. There were many things to adore about her to a driven but gangly, introverted teen such as myself. I don't recall exactly at one point that my lionization would infect my loins like a raging fever I couldn't rid myself from, but I do know when she discovered it. Perhaps the death of a couple of relatives at that period only added to my dismay; they had died in an abrupt car crash. Now life and love had another meaning; it could be profound but taken away at any time. She needed to know how I felt because life was fleeting.

Of course, Michelle it not know how strongly I desired her; never before was I moved so deeply by a woman. Yes, lust was a part of it, but if it had been only sexual I could have moved on. That was not so easy. At fifteen, I was floored by it---I'll be up front and state I didn't know how to come to terms with it. At the time, I wondered if it had been any more powerful I would have moved proverbial mountains just to be with her.

Not that it mattered. I was a somewhat nerdy younger guy with a crush. That was it in her world. That fact alone was eating away at me, but would be even more brutal when I would see her with a bone-headed football player she had befriended. Sometimes, I wondered if she had latched on to him as a token boyfriend to prevent me from continued pursuit, although she would smile that particular smile to me on occasion and speak to or about me in passing. It wasn't just the idea she had a trophy beau on her arm that was devastating; it was because I was not even considered despite her coy and wispy acknowledgments of me. I was in a lower caste, regardless. I even ruminated if I might as well have been dead, and that my passing would only been thought of momentarily in her life--and she would continue without that much fanfare.

What is paramount is that I was a romantic soul that truly did believe in loyalty, self-sacrifice, passion, and devotion to a woman that I was enamored with. It is somewhat difficult to convey that belief now despite other posters finding me fairly articulate and direct. There were other young women, but in my world Michelle was like the chosen one; I wanted her as a soulmate so badly that it tore at the fibers of my being. For an entire year, I burned with that core fire that would eventually yield to a colder, more darker flame that would not be the same ever since.

Oh yeah, I did mention that I loved another woman later on. But even then, I was not the same. Andrea refused to understand that about me despite (supposedly) adoring me to the point of fixation, and as much as she wanted me, I had changed at a younger age. A crucial part of not loving simply every woman that came along is that very few would ever appreciate what I would have done for Michelle to be at my side for a lifetime, and it transformed me unalterably. I don't give my respect and love out to just any woman, because Ameriskanks don't respect and love men back in the same fashion. Michelle would not do the same for me at all. I had to come to grips with that notion, and it was like trying to grapple with a venomous tiger. And once that proverbial struggle was over, I came out the other side scarred and stoic.

There are women out there that think nothing of how heartbreak effects men. They will even deride and openly mock those same men, not regarding the former and also not realizing their derision leads to more cynicism and even bad karma for those women. You do get what you give, and those women in kind---in their hubris---refuse to come to terms with how mistreating, demonizing, abusing, and marginalizing men creates the problems that poison the well---even in our culture. If men took the personal as political (as feminists do) the landscape of the relationships between the sexes would look very, very different. To say the least, most women would think twice about purposefully hurting men on one level or another, and at the more extreme, the feminist nightmare of what they perceive is oppression and men's anger---one which they are reaping despite their claims to the contrary---would be made manifest. It is quite a testament to men's reluctance to be at war with women, if anything. We are not bred to hate them. But we are not their punching bags or drones, either.

There was not one real pivotal moment that lead me to become as I am now, but the Michelles of the world will not know the influence they have. The magic has been constrained like a hermetically sealed talisman; it may just never return. Women cry for that romantic soul will not come back, at least not in this lifespan. And they should be very worried about that.

My experience may seem to pale in the view of men in child support custody battles or dealing with a violent woman bent on destroying their partners somehow, but I have changed. I have become that man that can say "No" to anything a woman does in my personal life I don't like at all, to the one that can walk away without looking back. This frightens Ameriskanks more than the guy that cheats, the one that is emotionally or physically abusive, or the one they purport is a "lazy, no good bastard" that lets himself go. We are dangerous in the light that we are looking out for ourselves since none of them would bother to do the same. After all, if they truly don't need us, perhaps we can return the favor and let them stare in the mirror at their own real cause of their problems.

There is more I could say, but Michelle has contributed to the man that has walked away. There is a heavy price tag to pay for creating men like me, whether is was indirect or not---or if they realize it or not.

If any substantial number of women begin to wonder why they're suffering, and really want to know why, the information is available. The Buddha explained it all quite clearly 2500 years ago. He was surely not the first, nor will he be the last. Afterwards he simply walked away from the melodrama. ---Philalethes

My Thoughts On Ameriskanks Losing Their Appeal To Men Over Time

2011-11-11T02:58:00.001-08:00

Very recently it was brought up that there are women who still cling the idea that their ability to attract the best of men lasts with them regardless of the ravages of time and an unhealthy lifestyle---or at least men that were perceived good catches, as opposed to men Ameriskanks typically look down upon with scorn. This includes men which nowdays are typically good men that are often marginalized or even demonized in some fashion.

If you are a good man in the viciousness and cruelty of a misadrist society, you always have to watch your back. You have to find some kind of support system that same society which expect you to "man up" and "deal with it" even though that support is barely there. Regardless of what any feminist or white knight has ever believed, most men have to make in through their lives with little backup of their own. Even women that aren't as hateful or skeptical about men cannot seem grasp this in concept. The fact of the matter is that many women have always had some sort of supportive element(s) in their lives that often outrstrip their men cohorts, and since we supposedly live in a "patriarchy" that allegedly benefits men, they are bereft of the understanding that men receive far less of these support structures (including emotionally) than women do on average. It is a sad commentary on our culture, indeed.

But, as a good friend of mine used to say before his passing, let's cut through the bone and get right to the marrow of the matter.

I've said this before in conjuction with this topic, but you would think a woman that has gone through the gaunlet of self-abuse, excess, addiction, and a catalog of toxic relationships that gave her a hefty amount of baggage would be grateful for a what they would deem as an "average Joe's" attention as being lucky. The arrogance of the modern Ameriskank helps them thrive on their delusion about Prince Charming still riding in to rescue them from their largely self-crafted problems---even when they have spent a great portion of their lives passing up good men and wondering why those same men they treated with a snear and disrespect will not invest much time with them. On one of the forums I frequent, a poster writes:

AR:

This is why we have this overactive "rape culture". I really think women get off on being scared that they can be raped or hit on at any time. It must mean they're soooooo attractive and hawt. These women would rather believe that a guy is suffering inside with wanting her and not going to get it than the fact that a guy might not be interested at all. That just doesn't compute.
You can REALLY piss off a woman by asking her why she thinks ANYONE would want to rape her? A friend of mine did that once at a bar and she was LIVID! Gawd, it was funny! Wouldn't you think that would be one less thing to be worried about?

And my response in continuation of the thread about this very same subject (although slightly edited):

I've been called conceited because I look years younger than my age, I'm in fairly good shape, and I don't bow down to just any woman that walks by. Even one woman called me "Fabio" because I'm tall and muscular with long hair. With her skewed sense of humor I don't know if it was a compliment or a slam.

With women, however, their hubris and desirability is not to be questioned.

Hell, even with online dating sites (which are pretty much a farce stacked against men and in women's favor), if a woman showed off in her pictures it was okay, but if you are shirtless and musclebound as man you are often labelled as a narcissist. I think it's a way of control, and a way of cutting down men's esteem while lifting women's own at men's expense. They want to dominate the dating, sexual, and procreative marketplace. With feminism it is proverbially and literally law designed for women's choice and men's responsibility----even if that means there are men that will never find someone remotely suitable as a mate at all.

The irony is that usually the women who are damaged secretly wish they were more desirable, but will not openly admit they have their flaws. It eats away at them in all seriousness, and, of course, how dare you point it out. They want men to trip over themselves for access to their rarely given affection and approval but hate giving up that personal, sexual, and social power. Even with dating, Ameriskanks want to control just about everything, even with ultimate veto power to reject you as a mate (unless they consider you a celebrity alpha or something).

The idea that most men would not want a burnt out, used up skank is not something they will readily come to terms with. I honestly think if women had to deal with the rejection, scorn, criticism, and even hatred men receive as desirability is concerned they would be near lunatic mania with it---and (in all seriousness) even the actual suicide rate would skyrocket, as opposed to the bogus suicide attempts.

"Can an ideology teach hate?" From Toy Soldiers

2011-09-30T02:08:00.000-07:00

From the blog site:

One of the curious changes in the online community over the last decade is the growth of the men’s rights movement. Driven by concern for men’s issues, men’s rights activists formed online communities. The movement garnered the attention of several people who have since led offline activist campaigns to help men and boys. But perhaps more than helping men, the men’s rights movement has spawned a feminist backlash against the movement and the discussion of men’s issues.

The most common accusation against men’s rights activists is that they are part of a hate group. Feminists claim that the ideology guiding men’s rights activists is rife with misogyny, particularly as it relates to violence against women. Feminists claim exposure to men’s rights groups causes people to support and potentially commit violence, although no self-professed men’s activist has ever been reported to have hurt anyone, whether on his own or in the name of the movement. Feminist bloggers like Manboobz owner David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer, and dozens of others list examples of comments and posts from men’s rights sites to try to prove their claim. As far as feminists are concerned, the men’s movement or any concern for men’s issues teaches nothing but hate.

Coincidentally, men’s rights activists argue the same thing about feminism. Part of their core beliefs is that feminism seeks to oppress men and shift all power to women. Of course, feminists cry foul at the mere assertion that any feminist is capable of hurting men, let alone that feminism as an ideology teaches misandry.

Case in point, on a recent Manboobz thread I mentioned my experiences with my feminist aunt. Futrelle posted a rhetorical question from a men’s rights blog, but the comment section revolved around a joke one of the men’s rights’ commenters made involving shooting feminists with boiled potatoes until they renounced feminism. To this I replied:

[...] I would have much preferred my feminist aunt to jokingly fantasize about shooting me with boiled potatoes to get me to accept feminism than have her actually maliciously shove dildos and strap-ons up my ass when I was a child to teach me how evil “patriarchy” is.

This prompted a number of comments, the gist of which was that feminism had nothing to do with my aunts actions, that feminism never causes bad behavior, and that my aunt is not a feminist. I received a similar response from feminist blogger Barry Deutsch several years ago when I mentioned my aunt (which also prompted Barry to ban me). My response to the Manboobz comments that an ideology can inform a person’s actions led to a host of retorts, the best of which came from Rutee Katreya:

Find for me where feminist thought says the rape of boys is a requisite action to promote equality for women. What your aunt did was fucking horrible. I don’t really see a reason for you to be on board with feminism because of it. But I simply will not allow you to slander an entire movement trying to prevent similar for hundreds of people (Not women, girls, boys, or men, people) because of one person, who can’t even get people to agree with what she did, and who nobody within has apparently defended. Trying to say we’re ‘like’ or worse, *worse* than a movement that just wants to perpetuate enslavement for a gender, because one woman who is a feminist did a horrible thing to you, is not going to fly.

This is the the same feminism that teaches that men collectively oppress women for the sole purpose of keeping all the power for themselves. The same feminism that claims that every male, regardless of his age or social status, benefits from this “patriarchy” at women’s expense. The same feminism that holds the fraction of men with power and the fraction men who commit violence as representative of the whole male population. The same feminism that views men as the ultimate enemy, one to be feared, distrusted, and suspected.

Would it surprise anyone that an ideology espousing that kind of hatred might cause a person to hurt someone?

It certainly does not surprise feminists. The core of the feminist argument is that society’s ideas about women cause men to commit violence against them. Yet how is it possible for the men’s rights movement and conspiracy theory called “patriarchy” can cause violence, but an openly anti-male ideology like feminism could not possibly cause a woman to hurt her nephew? This blog is full of accounts of feminists using feminism to hurt, punish, and discriminate against men. Numerous men and women have written and spoken about the negative impact feminist ideas had on them. Plenty of people have discussed how feminist policies have hurt boys and men. The misandry within feminist doctrine is obvious that feminists feel the need to create a Feminism 101 blog and constantly remind people that feminism is not about hating men. And they do this all while claiming that “patriarchy” makes men rape, beat, and kill women. Everything from stiletto heels to make-up comes back to one pseudo-ideology making men oppress women. It is a glaring contradiction that so far none of the feminists responding to me over at Manboobz can seem to get around.

I do feel for them. They are essentially trying to defend the feminist version of “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. They cannot just admit that feminism as an ideology can be and has been used to hurt people, and something inherent in the ideology makes that so common. As such, I can forgive the insults and the wild straw man arguments claiming that I stated my aunt represents feminism or that I stated that feminism supports child rape. I suppose I would pull at straws too if someone said a thing I do not believe possible happened to them.

(Note: Needless to say I admire TS's fortitude with the feminist circles he engages. I have no patience for them, personally or otherwise).

Omega Virgin On "A Question No Woman Or Mangina Will Ever Answer"---And My Response

2011-09-07T03:28:00.000-07:00

From white and nerdy . . .

Lots of women and manginas say that the reason why I can’t get a girlfriend/get laid/am hated by women is because I’m a “misogynist asshole” or something similar. They say that women are staying away from me because they don’t want misogynists.

Knowing that claim, here is a question that no woman or mangina will ever answer. I wasn’t what they call a “misogynist” most of my life. I had a much better opinion of women most of my life. I was not born with my current opinions about women. They came from experience, especially my experiences with being the victim of false sexual harassment charges. Since so much of that happened before I developed my current view on women, then why did women treat me EXACTLY THE SAME as they do now? Why is not being a “misogynist” getting the exact same results as being a “misogynist”?

My response is here:

One of things they will never acknowledge is that no matter how your perspective is, the feminists, white knights, the media misandrists, and politicians will not come to grips that they have a mammoth hand in crafting the anti-male environment we have now. Openly admitting it would be confessing their guilt even with all the blatant disgust for men and masculinity that has been ongoing. Yet when men criticize feminism and its supporters and adherents for what they are and what they do, we are automatically branded as misogynists. It’s damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

Of course, white and nerdy, they will claim you were bitter all along. It’s absolute nonsense, but as you know they will not ever expose their own complicity, or look in the mirror for the answer as to why men are ever coming to more of the conclusions we have about them.

I also have been accused of being a woman hater more than anything else. Regardless of what that’s supposed to mean to them (hell, even ignoring a woman’s whim has now been labeled as abuse or misogyny), one thing is clear—men who discover that Ameriskanks are far from flowers and light glean this from interaction and experiences with them, not from being shunned. I know some men that would actually prefer being ignored by women after a time considered all the abuse and lies hurled at them over the years. Anyone from Burton to Zed/Zenpriest has made this known; a man who has his eyes opened about the dark side of women does not become cynical and wary because they were like that to begin with—they become wary through dealing with them. Most men I know grew up with an almost idealistic view of women, if not placing them on pedestals. Unfortunately, some men never learn to grow out of that, and even get punished by their denial of skank and feminist behavior. Still, they will defend skanks, golddiggers, single moms, and feminists to the brink of hostility even though they will suffer in the long haul for it.

We have to look out for ourselves and promote our rational self-interest, with or without women. If this is “misogyny,” so be it.

They despise and fear men they ultimately can’t control. That’s what it’s really all about. Even abusive men still gravitate toward women, and there are women who will welcome them. A man that truly has power over a woman is one that can walk away—even one who has loved her in the past, but will no longer tolerate personal jabs and exploitative efforts from one.

I have pondered a few times why so many women have such open resentment and even hatred towards men. In the past, I thought Whiskey is not wholly correct about how Ameriskank women perceive beta men as disposable and loathsome, but now it’s seems much on par with what how they treat men as such. My own opinion is that they pretty much don’t give a shit about the majority of men, and it’s all about them. Period. Granted, that sentiment is in gradients, but it still holds true. But there is a counter to this, and one I hope catches on eventually.

I think enough is enough—I don’t care where that hidebound resent or even seething hatred comes from, and if feminism fuels that fire or not (which is most certainly does). I do not give credence to it. Feminists can bitch about patriarchy until the end of time and justify why they are so angry with men even while being underhanded about—it will never be something I will accept. Not as a man. No way. Not ever.

I honestly believe the MGTOW philosophy, in part, is a reaction for being mistreated as much as we are getting sick and tired of being looked upon as second class citizens (or less so) and want our sense of worth and rights as men upheld in general. I think Zed hit upon something when he pointed out your typical American skank doesn’t see as holistic human beings, and women are shocked when many men reveal we are deep wells that have more depth than they want to realize. This would mean we would have be treated as real equals on every level, and this is precisely what they don’t really want. Herein lies the difference between MGTOW and feminism . . . the latter is about female supremacy, power, control, and lack of accountability while still shunting the onus on men with almost everything.

No wonder more men are gradually awakening up.

"It's Only Sexist When Men Do It . . "

2011-07-24T15:24:00.001-07:00

A couple of good vids on the mockery of a recent gruesome castration perpetrated by the psychopathic Catherine Becker---these were on Sharon Osbourne's caustic joking and the reactions to it. I still find not only the atrocious and extreme crime disgusting, but the responses to it have been also abhorrent:

It's Only Sexist When Men Do It

Man's penis severed: Sharon Osbourne "quite fabulous"

William Norman Grigg on Tom Ball

2011-06-26T03:57:00.000-07:00

From Lewrockwell.com

When the State Breaks a Man

by William Norman Grigg

"How much does the State weigh?" Josef Stalin asked an underling who had been ordered to extract a confession from an enemy of his regime. Stalin understood that, given enough time, agents of State-sanctioned cruelty can break any man.

Thomas J. Ball, who committed suicide by self-immolation on the steps of New Hampshire's Cheshire County Courthouse on June 15, was a man who had been broken by the State. A lengthy suicide note/manifesto he sent to the Keene Sentinel, which was published the day after his death, described how his family had been destroyed, and his life ruined, through the intervention of a pitiless and infinitely cruel bureaucracy worthy of Stalin's Soviet Union: The Granite State's affiliate of the federal "domestic violence" Cheka.

Ball and his family were casualties in what he calls a federal "war on men." He wasn't exaggerating – and he has a lot of company.

The federally subsidized domestic violence industry operates a bit like the hypothetical Von Nuemann Machine: Placed into a material-rich environment, it will sustain and replicate itself by destroying and assimilating everything within its field of influence. One useful sci-fi example is the robotic Planet Killer from the Star Trek episode "The Doomsday Machine" – an immense, funnel-shaped engine of destruction propelled by the remnants of the worlds it destroys (according to one deutero-canonical source, the Planet Killer uses the same material to generate replicas of itself).

That monstrous device was "self-sustaining as long as there are bodies ... for it to feed on." The same is true, of course, of the State and all of its components – including what Dr. Baskerville calls "The Divorce Regime."

As Baskerville points out in his horrifying study Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, "it is no exaggeration to say that the existence of family courts, and virtually every issue they adjudicate – divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even adoption and juvenile crime – depend on one overriding principle: remove the father." When a family is broken up, each child "becomes a walking bundle of cash" – not for the custodial parent, but for a huge and expanding population of tax-fattened functionaries who "adopt as their mission in life the practice of interfering with other people's children."

Thomas Ball, like millions of others, learned that the people who choose this profession have an unfailing ability to exploit even the tiniest opportunity to invade a home and destroy a family.

One evening in April 2001, Mr. Ball suffered a momentary lapse of patience with a disobedient four-year-old daughter and slapped her face. He left the house at his wife's suggestion. When he called her a short time later, he learned that his wife – "the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about" – had called the police, who told her that her "abusive" husband wasn't permitted to sleep in his own home that night. Ball was arrested at work the following day. Under the conditions of his bail, he wasn't allowed to ask his wife what had possessed her to call the police.

Years later Ball would learn that if his wife hadn't called the police and accused her husband of abuse, she would have been arrested as an accessory – leaving the children at the mercy of New Hampshire's utterly despicable Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).

Dot Knightly, who tried vainly for years to win custody of three grandchildren seized on the basis of spurious abuse and neglect accusations, recounts how a DCYF commissar contemptuously batted away both her pleas and her abundant qualifications to serve as a custodial caretaker: "Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire. The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."

Despairing over being wrested away from everyone he loved, Dot's grade-school age grandson Austin – who had literally been dragged screaming from his grandparents' home – tried to commit suicide. This led to confinement in a psychiatric hospital and involuntary "treatment" with mind-destroying psychotropic drugs. For New Hampshire's child-snatchers, the phrase "nobody gets their kids back" translates into a willingness to destroy the captive children by degrees, rather than allow any successful challenge to their supposed authority.

The instant the police intervened in the domestic affairs of Thomas Ball's household, his family's destruction became inevitable. The officers were required – not by law, but by official policy that followed profit incentives created by Washington – to make an arrest. In a similar fashion, and for the same reason, prosecutors are forbidden to drop domestic abuse cases under any circumstances.

Ball recalled that he was eventually found not guilty, much to the visible disgust of the be-robed dispenser of official injustice who presided at the trial. But this made no material difference: His wife – who divorced him six months after his arrest – was now a consort of the State, his children were its property. His innocence notwithstanding, Ball was given an open-ended sentence of serfdom – and the prospect of being sent to debtor's prison – through government-mandated "child support" system. Furthermore, he wasn't permitted to see his children, despite the fact that a jury had found him innocent.

"I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge ... decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite."

The policy options that are rewarded by federal subsidies don't include allowing an innocent man to reunite with his children. Consigning him to the State-aligned "domestic counseling" industry – which was apparently co-designed by August Mobius and Franz Kafka – is a much more profitable alternative.

"Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips," Ball explained. "Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term 'Your Honor' any more. I just call them judge."

Ball's experiences, once again, are all but identical to those endured by millions of others. Dr. Baskerville offers a potent and infuriating summary:

"A parent [generally a father] whose children are taken away by a family court is only at the beginning of his troubles. The next step comes as he is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds of even more of his income as `child support' to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name will be entered on a federal register of `delinquents.' This is even before he has had a chance to become one, thought it is likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be a delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough, and the backdating is far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest."

The sinews of this system are the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) and its state-level affiliates. Some idea of the scope of the Regime's war on fathers is found in this comparison: In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the spearhead of the "war on drugs," employed a total of 4,600 armed field agents; the OSCE at the time boasted more than 60,000 enforcement agents, all of whom are permitted to carry firearms under the "Deadbeat Parents Enforcement Act."

When brought to bear against an isolated individual, the weight of this State apparatus will eventually destroy the victim. With each year, Ball's financial condition deteriorated and he became deeply mired in intractable despair. By the time he ended his life on June 16, Ball was a 58-year-old Vietnam Era Army Veteran who had been unemployed for two years. Owing to the fact that he couldn't pay the amount of child support extorted from him, Ball was quite likely going to be sent to jail on the following morning.

His only consolation, the company of his children, was sadistically withheld from him. The unfathomably arrogant and completely unaccountable functionaries who did so are people who have learned how to monetize the misery of the innocent.

Ball's manifesto is a work of tortured eloquence. Although marred by occasional errors of diction, it is not the chaotic outpouring of a deranged personality. It is cogently organized and laden with impressive amounts of detailed research. The lucidity Ball displayed in explaining his decision to kill himself by the most painful method imaginable underscores not merely the depth of his despair but also of the entrenched corruption and viciousness of the people who had demolished his family.

The leitmotif in Ball's letter is the phrase "Second Set of Books," a phrase that refers to the "policies, procedures and protocols" actually followed by bureaucrats and their enforcers in defiance of the "First Set of Books" – that is, the federal and state constitutions.

"You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school," Ball pointed out. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books." The Second Set of Books contain writings that are too holy to be inspected by mere Mundanes. Those of us who don't belong to the Sanctified Brotherhood of Official Coercion are required to behave as if there is some continuing relevance to the First Set of Books. Maintaining this official fiction is necessary in order to convince the credulous – well, those who pay attention to such matters – that it is possible to receive redress of grievances through the same system that has aggrieved them.

Like millions of other victims of the State's "domestic violence" apparatus, Ball came to understand that the system cannot be reformed from within:

"On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well. So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges." Rather than voting them out, Ball insists that it is necessary to "Burn Them Out" through arson attacks on the appropriate bureaucratic facilities.

He hoped that his self-immolation would be the symbolic spark that would ignite that revolution – just as a similar desperate act by Tunisian street vendor Mohamad Bouazizi sparked a nation-wide rebellion against the fetid dictatorship ruling that country.

While I hope that God has granted rest to Ball's tortured soul, and pray for the comfort of his family, it must be said that his proposed strategy is as tragically mistaken as his suicide.

Rather than attacking the architectural manifestations of the State, we should withdraw from contact with it. In other words, don't call the police under any circumstances, and insulate your family, to the extent possible, from any contact with "welfare" bureaucracies of every kind. This will mean being prepared as parents to take appropriate evasive action when one of the State's tentacles reaches out, with malign intent, in the direction of one's children. It also means being prepared and able to employ purely defensive force where all other alternatives have failed.

Human beings have an instinctive, primordial fear of fire. Burning to death is a prolonged agony in which pain receptors operate at full capacity. The torment Thomas Ball experienced was sufficient, in his mind, to eclipse the horrors of death by fire.

On the same day that this tortured man poured gasoline on his body and struck a match, pundit Ann Coulter used her syndicated column to emit a thick stream of snotty abuse at Rep. Ron Paul and others who insist that the State must be removed entirely from any role in regulating or overseeing marriage and the family.

Hey, Ann – do you get the point now?

June 20, 2011

The Last Statement by Tom Ball

2011-06-18T09:59:00.000-07:00

(Note: This has been circulating around a few forums and I have linked to these articles about him. Tom Ball immolated himself in front of a courthouse just recently and wrote a powerful and lengthy letter that described (in detail) his motivations. Rather than provide commentary now I will let the readers absorb his testimony. While dismayed at his death, I was so highly moved by his words that it had to be posted here.

Also note what he says about the legal system, our misandrist culture, and how he openly talks about feminism as well. Articles about it can be found here and here)

Last Statement by Tom Ball

A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. And everyone wants to know why.

Apparently the old general was right. Death is not the worst of evil.

I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.

I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.

There are two kinds of bureaucrats you need to know; the ones that say and the ones that do. The bridge between them is something I call The Second Set of Books. I have some figures of the success of their labors. You and I are in these numbers, as well as our spouses and children. But first let me tell you how I ended up in this rabbit hole.

My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.

After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested.

Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.

This country is run by idiots.

The police sergeant Freyer screwed this up from the get go. When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.

Labeling someone's action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930's. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany had his family literally annihilated.

Arrests are mandatory for the police in New Hampshire for domestic violence. That is not law. That is police department policy. Laws come from the Legislature and the Governor's office together. God only knows where these policies come from. The State's Attorney General also has a mandatory arrest protocol for domestic violence. I call these policies, procedures and protocols The Second Set of Books. You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books. This is America-we have the rule of law.

I am a regular guy, a coffee and cheeseburger type of fellow. As remarkable as my life has been, I figure that what happens to me must be happening to others as well. I was 48 years old when I got arrested here for my first time. So I went looking for the arrest numbers for domestic violence, this new group that I had unwilling joined. I could not find anything. So I wrote the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Washington. They wrote back that they did not keep track of domestic violence arrests. The FBI keeps track of all other crimes. How come not domestic violence? I thought some low level clerk was blowing me off.

At the time, I had mailing addresses in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. So I wrote to all six Congressional offices, the two Senators from each state and the two Congressman. They like doing favors for constituents hoping you will favorably remember their name in the voting booth. All six offices reported back the same thing. They do not know how many arrests for domestic violence have been made. I immediately knew something was wrong. And I also knew this was not going to be good.

Improvise, adapt and overcome. The Army teaches that to every soldier it trains. They say that no battle plan survives the first five minutes of combat. So your people on the ground had better be able to think for themselves. Taking casualties in war is just an occupational hazard. Taking casualties and not accomplishing your mission is a disaster. After 21 years of Army service, I am pretty good at improvising.

The first thing I found was a study not of domestic violence arrests but of domestic violence injuries for 18 unnamed states and the D.C. in the year 2000. In the study 51% of the injuries were 'no injuries'. So I knew I had a study of police reports. Who else but a police officer would record no injuries? I populated that out to the 50 states and came up with 874,000 arrest in the year 2000.

I had originally populated the number back to 1994 when the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted into law. I would later find out these arrests stated with the U.S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence ten years earlier in 1984. As individual states data became available for various years and states, I would incorporated in to my informal study. The number I have now in 2011 is 36 million adults have been arrested for domestic violence. I have a gut feeling this number could be as high as 55 million. But I only have data to 36 million. So 36 million it stays. And there is a really cool trick you can do once you have this number. You can find out how many American men. women and children ended up homeless because of these arrests.

Most of the domestic violence statistics I have seen break down with 75% male and 25% female being arrested. So I am going to used the male pronoun for the one arrested spouse and the female pronoun for the victim spouse. That should make the domestic violence feminists ecstatic-man bad, woman good. But that is okay because that is probably the last nice thing I am going to do for them today.

When then a man is arrested for domestic violence, one of two things can happen. If they are only dating and have separate apartments, then he can head home. But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle. A feminist name Pence who wrote that was absolutely giddy at that outcome. So he can get his own place if he has enough money. Or he can move in with his mother, his sister or another relative. He might have a girl friend who would let him stay with her. And if none of this is possible, well then I guess he is sleeping in his car down by the river.

If he has minor children, money will soon turn into an issue. Most men I know do not mind paying child support. They want their kids to have food on their plates, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. But it does stress that man's finances. Child support is usually 33% of the man's gross income. Withholding for taxes, social security and health insurance can range up to 28% of his gross paycheck. So a man making $500 a week gross has only $825 monthly left over after withholding and child support. That is not enough money for an apartment here in Central Massachusetts. That does not include other expenses like heating, electric, gas, groceries, telephone, cable, car payment and car insurance. So he is in a financial hole. Estimates of homeless men run 82% to 94%. I am going to round that down to 80%.

After the King has left his castle, his wife runs into a problem. She was use to getting his whole paycheck for the household. Now she get a third for child support. Figure they both work and made the same money, her budget went from 100% down to 66%. If she was running the house on $3,045. a month when the King was home, now without him she only has $2,220. Most households in America cannot withstand a 27% hit on the household account. She'll juggle the bills but eventually most wives figure out that they can pay all the smaller bills if they just does not pay the big bill. That would be the rent or the mortgage. So six to nine months after the King is out of the castle, the Queen, the Princes and the Princesses are also on the street. Domestic violence feminists state that 50% of victim spouses of domestic violence end up homeless at some time in their lives.

The last group of homeless from these arrests are children. The domestic violence feminists state that 70% of domestic violence couple have children. So 50% female times 70% children equals 35%. But children is plural. So we will double to 70%.

(Odd isn't it? They know that 50% of victim spouses end up homeless and that 70% of them have children. How can they know the percentages when they do not know how many total arrests were made? Those people at the U.S. Justice Dept. cannot even pull off a credible cover-up. )

Men are 0.8, women are 0.5, and children are 0.7 for a grand total of 2.0 homeless Americans for every domestic violence arrest. Multiply that by 36 million and you get 72 million men, women and children ending up homeless at some point in their lives over the last 25 years because of these domestic violence arrests.

That is a really large number even by Washington standards. That is almost 25% of the entire population of the U.S. using 2010 census figures. Which begs the question did these homeless people contribute to this latest economic meltdown, or did they cause it? Because if they did cause it then the recovery will not be measure in months or years but in decades.

Some of the boys in the Father's Movement think Congress might have shot themselves in the foot over this one. Personally, I think they shot themselves some place anatomically higher. No wonder the Speaker of the House is always crying. The Dummies on the Potomac.

Twenty-five years ago the federal government start pushing these arrests on state's legal systems. Now, we have an economy on the rope. They have thrown a huge amount of money at banks, big business and local and states government. And we are still in the mud. But no economist either at the Treasury Dept., Federal Reserve, universities or think tanks are even looking at the impact of all these broken families. If that 36 million arrest is correct, then 72 million men and women, have been throw out of the middle class into subsistence living. Or is the number 55 million and 110 million? No one knows and no one is even looking. But why should look? According to the Attorney General, we do not know how many arrests we have made.

And if the Tea Party is any indication, insurrection is brewing in the land. Just a coincident? Not likely. This is what happens when the government wipes out the middle class.

The idea for these arrests came from something called the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) of 1981-82. In the experiment police offices were given pads with one of three words written on them; counsel, send or arrest. Counsel meant the officer was to try to mediate the couple's spat. Send was to send one of the spouses out of the house for eight hours as a cooling off period. Arrest was arrest one of the two spouses. The officer was to do as the top paper on the pad said to do. The experiment was set up by the Police Foundation and Lawrence W. Sherman was the lead researcher. The results show counseling resulted in a future assault in 24% cases, send was 19%, and the arrest option resulted in a future assault in only 10% of the cases. Perhaps a cheap way of cutting down future domestic violence.

In 1984 The U. S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence recommended arrest as the primary weapon in domestic violence assault. Lawrence W. Sherman recommend not using the arrests because the MPE was just one study and it could be wrong. They ignored him. And by 1992, 93% of the police departments in the nation had adopted some form of mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases.

But by 1992 five more addition studies similar to the MPE became available. Lawrence W. Sherman reviewed all five studies. Then once again he wrote that the police should not use arrest. In two of the five studies, they found the same result as they did in the MPE, that an arrest cut down the odds of a future assault. But in the other three studies an arrest actually increase the odds of a future assault. So arresting someone in a domestic violence situation to cut down on future assaults did not work any better than just flipping a coin. I do not know if Lawrence W. Sherman is still alive. But fortunately he wrote a book call Policing Domestic Violence that was published in 1992.

So we have 800,000 American police officers arresting one in every six adults in the country and throwing 25% of the men, women and children out on the streets in an effort to enforce a policy that they knew did not work back in1992. And I had always assumed that you needed a man to really screw something up. Oh well, there goes another glass ceiling.

Why would they push an arrest policy that does not work? There are two schools of thought on the reason why. The first comes from Lawrence W. Sherman. He calls it the Law of Just Desserts. Revenge for slights and offenses, real or imagined. I am sure there are some that would argue that women are not vengeful. But what is that old saying? Hell hath no fury.....

The second idea comes from the mother of the second wave of feminism. I do speak of the brilliant Betty Friedan. In the Epilogue Chapter of the 20th Anniversary Edition of her book The Feminine Mystique, Betty relayed why she resigned as the first president of the National Organization of Women in 1970. Betty wrote that she, "was unable to openly fight the man haters and unwilling to front for them any more..." So man hating bigots no only existed 40 years ago, they were also grabbing power. Now Washington is funding them. Makes you wonder what bigots they will fund next. Maybe the Klan?

Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.

The third wave of feminists do not like to call themselves feminists. The word feminist could be perceived as gender oppression. These third wave of whatever-we-call-you got that right The treachery of our legal system over the last 25 years may end up giving all feminists a bad name. Which would make us as bigoted as the man-hating feminists who got us into this mess to begin with.

So let us talk about those bureaucrats that do. These are the ones that actually carry out the evil deeds. I like call them the do-bies.

Any one swept up into legal mess is usually astonished at what they see. They cannot believe what the police, prosecutors and judges are doing. It is so blatantly wrong. Well, I can assure you that everything they do is logical and by the book. The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright. And do not bother trying to argue with me that there is no Second Set of Books. I have my own copies at home. Or at least a good hunk of the important part of it.

I got my Second Set of Books when I sued the Jaffrey NH police department. Under the discovery rule, I write them with the material I wanted and it would arrive in the mail a few weeks later. I got the Police Academy Training Manual. I got the Department's Policy and Procedure Manual. I got the no-drop protocol that the attorney general sent to all his or her prosecutors. I even got the domestic violence protocols for the court system, one hundred pages worth. Once you read it the material, then you will know what the police, prosecutors and judges will do. They are completely predictable once you know what set of books they are using.

The police academy training manual states that an arrest in a domestic violence call is the preferred response. They cite the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) as its justification. But the author of the MPE, Lawrence Sherman, said do not use arrest because five follow up studies show that it did not work. The would be a violation of the 4th Amendment in the First Set of Books against unreasonable search and seizure. Then there is that whole issue of whether the police have the right to arrest for any reason other than they believe a crime was committed.

The Jaffrey Police Department Policy and Procedures Manual states that if a wife says she does not want her husband arrested, the police are to ignore her, arrest the husband, and get with the prosecutor to see what they can work out. In other words, make the arrest and then see if you can Mickey Mouse it. The wife is eligible for spousal immunity. If she invokes it, then no statement she mades, written or oral, are admissible because she cannot be cross examined about it under oath. ( Did you say that? What did you mean when you said that?) With no statements the police have no probable cause in most cases to make an arrest. Also a violation of the 4th amendment in the First Set of Books.

The actor Nickolas Cage was drunk in New Orleans with his wife. Everyone else is drunk in New Orleans, so why should Nick be any different. He and his wife were arguing over which house the rented for their stay. Nick grab his wife's arm and started to lead her to his house. The police arrested Nick for domestic violence. His wife was stunned. That was not domestic violence. "Nothing we can do," the police explained to her. "Just following orders."

That is an accurate explanation for victims, even if they do not think of themselves as victims. The police have a zero tolerance towards any physical contact. Things might get worse in the future is the feminist logical for this present iron fist approach to domestic relations. I would have to agree with them. After all the arrests, poverty, homelessness and misery, I can assure you-things are going to get worse.

But that nothing we can do, just following orders the officers explain always sounds so timid and lame. The police need to punch their explanation up a bit, make it more authoritarian. And there is a quick, low cost way of doing it. The police officers only need to say it in its original German.

The state Constitution in NH said the prosecutors job is to promote justice. The Attorney Generals protocols said that domestic violence case are no-drop cases. (Unless, of course, they take the Deal. Continue the case for a year, go to counseling, and everything falls off the books after the year. They did after all find some way of getting rid of all these cases.)

The Attorney General can hire, fire, layoff, promote, demote, commend or award bonuses. The constitution is some old, quaint, dusty document up in the Statehouse some where. So which one do you think is going to get obeyed?

Prosecutors are funny. Some, maybe most, have egos the size of Cape Cod. But of the three, police, prosecutor and judges, prosecutors have the least protection. Micheal Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, was fired, disbarred, convicted of a crime, and actually jailed for trying to enforce the no-drop prosecution protocol for sexual assault in the Duke case.

The prosecutor in my criminal case fared a little better. I filed a complaint with his boss for summoning my two daughters, ages 7 and 4, to court. I had already conceded that the facts were not in dispute. The trial would be about the law. No witness were need much less a couple of toddlers. He still summoned them. (The Second Set of Books tells the prosecutors to get a sympathetic face in front of the judge or jury. What's more sympathetic than toddlers.) The prosecutor could not refute my allegation because I enclosed a copy of the trial transcript. I had to pay for the transcript. When the prosecutor read it, he gave his two weeks notice and then blew town. That transcript was the best $46 I had ever spent in this life.

There is a name for what happens when a bureaucrat is destroyed by the First Set of Books for attempting to enforce the Second Set of Books. It is called the Abu Ghraib Syndrome. The people within the law enforcement community no longer seem to know the difference between the law, with its checks and balances, and the policies, procedure and protocols that constitute The Second Set of Books. In some cases you do not even know who wrote the policy, procedure or protocol. It could have been the local high school gym teacher for all anyone knows. Many of these bureaucrats are eventually going to learn the different between the First and the Second Set of Books. And my guess is that many of them are going to learn it the hard way. Because the only checks and balances in The Second Set of Books is The First Set of Books.

Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips. Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term 'Your Honor' any more. I just call them judge.

Alex Baldwin, the actor, wrote that you have never seen a coward until you have seen a Los Angeles County judge. I call my judges-Sullivan, Arnold and even Runyon-cowards, too. When I first started observing them, nothing made sense. Arnold was completely infuriated when he was maneuvered into ruling not guilty. He verbally went up and down me so many times I lost count. What was the big deal? If I was not guilty just say and then we could all go home. But that was back in the days before I knew about The Second Set of Books.

I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge, Sullivan, decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite. I told the judge that the decision on whether these two girls had a father or a fatherless childhood was not leaving this courthouse. There would be a couple of reason for that decision.

First, by then I knew of the Second Set of Books. As much as I had prayed for the return of my children, I knew that this counseling might get thrown in the way. Judges are addicted to counseling like a meth-head is addict to crystal meth. Sullivan wrote in the divorce decree that he envision only one or two meetings with the counselor. There is no counseling done in the first meeting or two. It is intake-who's the players and what are the issues. But Sullivan was not interested in counseling. He merely wanted to unload the decision out of habit. And if we do not shut them down now, they will be doing it to our kids in twenty years from now when they have little ones running around the house.

Second, just exactly where does the buck stop with our legal system? Police have to make an arrest. The prosecutor has to pursue the case. Judges now also walk a away without rendering a verdict, and passing the buck does not constitute a decision. Can those mental health counselors slide the decision over to someone else? Just where does this end? Who is responsible? Who is accountable?

The mental health crowd is the third reason I said no. Some people think they are geniuses with their Masters and PH D's. Others think they are so wacky that they call them fruit loops. Well, I have a third name for them. Suckers. They did not get hired for their medical ability. They got these because they were willing to take these cases off the judge's hands. Which has done nothing for the credibility for their profession. We are not here to help-we are here to unload. And they created a liability that did not previously existed. If a judge releases a defendant and he goes kills someone, that judge or the judiciary cannot be sued. But a mental health worker, and their employer certainly can be held liable. Our judiciary is now using the mental health field like a ten dollar whore.

I sued Monadnock Family Services to make them go away. I told their lawyer Byron that they were a legitimate target for men. We settled for no money. They would have nothing to do with this reconciliation. The counselor was released. And they would no longer get involved in any domestic violence cases.

Every time we ended back in court over whatever squabbles, I would ask Judge Sullivan for my children back. The decision belong to the counselors he would tell me. But he knew he had screwed up. I could see it in his face. But he would not fix it. He would not step out of that box those domestic violence/sexual assault advocates had built for him. After five years, he retired to a part time position at the Littleton courthouse 120 miles away.

So when guys like Alex Baldwin and I call judges cowards, we have legitimate reasons for doing so. It is not good for judges to be called coward. It is unlikely that it is good for the rest of us.

I do not claim to have all The Second Set of Book. I know of one book that I do not have. And I would have love to read that one. That would be the seminar that the domestic violence and sexual assault advocates put on periodically for legal personnel including judges. These advocates are camped outside every state, not federal, courthouse in America. The U.S. Dept of Justice provides 50-100% of their funding depending on the program. They have three day seminars at resorts where everything is paid for except the liquor. Judges in NH are ordered to attend. Neither Sullivan or Arnold would confirm or deny they had attended. They actually said nothing. It must be like the Masons where they will not say anything about the organization until you show them the secret hand sign.

Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis once wrote that the best description of a judge is the impartial guardian of the rule of law. How does three days of wine, women and song contribute to impartiality? It does not. So it should not have been any surprise that they would not answer me. After all, they were not on trial. I was. But they are going to be. They were suppose to protect to rule of law not collaborate in its demise. They have failed miserably.

A guardian ad litem is an attorney appointed for a child. The attorney solely represents the child. I got one when I was first separated to get a neutral pair of eyes and ears on the family. I was disappointed in his findings.

A few years later, another guardian was appointed for one of the kids. A regular report filed with the Court painted me as some sort violent psychopath. I thought that was uncalled for seeing as we had never met. It start a flurry of nasty letters between until we both came to the conclusion that this was not about us. We ended on a friendly note.

At a Court hearing later on I approached him. I asked him if he had had any domestic violence training. He said yes, that it was required to become certified as a guardian ad litem. Another chapter for The Second Set of Books that I never managed to acquire.. So men, if you were thinking about getting a guardian ad litem for an unbiased assessment, then you should ask for the domestic violence material that certified the guardian. And do not worry that you are not sure what you are looking for. It will stand right out.

There are more sections of The Second Set of Books. Medical personnel are supposed to report suspected domestic violence. The college professor Angela Davis has a story of a Latino couple in California getting in trouble feeding the dog his liver for dinner. Mental health employees are also required. Think of Wendy threatening our kids with foster care. Teachers, day care providers, the list just goes on and on. The East German secret police, the Stazi, had 25% of the population on record as informers. The United States is not that high yet, but we are still growing.

These people-police, prosecutors and judges-are suppose to protect us. They are checks and balances to prevent injustice. That is why we spend so much money of police training. But if the police screw it up, the prosecutor can catch it. If the prosecutor misses it then the judge can step in to fix it. But if all three have been compromised, then what does one need to do to get justice? Go to the appeals court or the Supreme Court? That seem a little ridiculous particularly when the zero tolerance has arrests for something as trivial as touching.

On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well.

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.

In the last 25 years they have arrested one in six adults in this country and forced 25% of the men, women and children into homelessness. In 50 years it will be one in three adults arrested and 50% of the men, women and children ending up homeless. Most of our kids will live to the age of 68 years old. As bad as it was for you, your children will have twice the odds of it happening to them.

Some of you will say that 50% homelessness sounds absurd. But 25% is absurd and that is already here. There is no evidence that the police, courts, or government is planning to do anything different in the immediate future. And they will not do anything different until we make it so uncomfortable that they must change. Bureaucracy at its worst. So burn them out. This is too important to be using that touchy-feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA trailers. If they still do not get the message, then burn down the trailers.

The easiest way of burning a building is with the Molotov cocktail. It was invented by the Finns when the Soviets invaded in 1939. You fill a bottle with gasoline and stuff a rag in the end for a wick. You light the wick and throw bottle, It shatters on impact spraying gas everywhere and the wick ignites the gas. Simple, readily available, and effective. And only two things to remember.

First, use a glass bottle. Thinner glass is better than thicker glass. You want it to shatter on impact. When I was teaching a kid at the high school on the West Side Worcester, MA. threw a Molotov cocktail into his school. Fortunately, he used a plastic bottle. It burned about three square inches of carpeting. I had to laugh when I said to myself, "Thank God for dumb kids."

Second, you need to tie the rag to the bottle. Nothing worse that throwing a Molotov cocktail, landing where you wanted it, and having it shatter perfectly. Then you noticed the wick had fallen out on the way to the target. No wick-no fire.

Some of these building will have brick faces and metal roofs. Just break a window and throw the Molotov cocktail inside. Carpets, furniture, computer plastic, even paint on the walls will burn. It is okay if the sprinkler goes off. I wonder if you can get hip waders over a gun belt?

We had a kid in my hometown that burned down the old junior high school. He walked up to the front door one night with a can of lighter fluid. The applicator on the end squirts the lighter fluid out. He squirted under the door and along the seams and lit a match. The kid took out the entire old part of the building. Why are kids so competent when it is something they should not be doing?

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

Now, nobody wants to get killed. But let us look at your life. You are broke after paying child support. She and the kids are not doing any better. None of you are middle class any more. You have no say in the kids education, their health treatment, you may not even have visitation with your sons and daughters. And everything you thought you knew to be true-the rule of law, the sanctity of the of the family, the belief that government was there to nurture your brood-all turned out to be a lie. Face it boys, we are no longer fathers. We are just piggy banks.

So you are not losing anything by picking up the Molotov cocktail. It may be too late for us. But without something changing, your kids will have double the odds of it happening to them. That will knock them out of the middle class again, providing they ever get back in. And their kids, your grandchildren, will end up damaged goods before it is over. So it is okay to run. You just need to turn around and run at them. They are no way as imposing as they seem. They only do what they do for a paycheck.

Television would make us believe that people get arrested because of fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition, and instruments that can tell where a substance was made and here is the local distributors. It is Hollywood crap. Most of the people in prison are there for one key reason. They could not keep their mouths shut. They told someone. That someone told others. The cops hear it and start looking at them for a suspect. That how it works in real life.

This need to confess seems to be primeval. Just human nature. But if you cannot keep a secret, do not expect the one you tell to keep their mouth shut. There is only three people I know for certain they will keep their mouths shut. That would be Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out

Some where along the line I picked up the crazy notion that it is better to be dead as a free man than to live as a serf. The government needs to be a little more careful about what they teach in our schools.

And bring a can of spray paint to these fires. Paint the word COLLABORATORS ( two L's with an S on the end) on the building before you burn it. Maybe we can shame them back to the rule of law. And we do want the police to know exactly who burned the building. Then the police can start interviewing the usually suspects, all 36 million of us.

We have covered the do-bies. Now let us look at the bureaucrats that say-ers.

The Second Set of Books originated in Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) which is part of the United States Department of Justice. Some of these policies, procedures and protocol were developed locally. But the local results would be sent up to OVW and, if approved, would disperse it out to all 50 states. They are smart, clever, bigoted and able to lie as well as any politician that ever called Washington home. In other words, they have now become Washington insiders.

But what makes them so uniques is their anger towards men, any man. They are so twisted in their hatred of men that they are positively scary. And it is not what they are doing to men that makes them frightening. You would expect that. No, it is what they are doing to the women and children that makes them so twisted.

When the Pentagon drops a bomb on innocent civilians the military calls it Collateral Damage. It sounds better than, "Yeah, we killed a bunch of women and children." Those poor, innocent, stupid civilians have always been caught in the middle since the time we were fighting with rocks.. Your wife and kids are Collateral Damage in the war against you, the man in the family. For 25 years these feminists at OVAW have been willing to sacrifice the women and children to get you. And they cannot claim ignorance about what they are doing. Under the VAWA the federal government is funding at least 1,800 homeless shelters. As long as the Office for Violence Against Women exists in the U.S. Department Justice , no American man, women or child will be safe in their own home.

If you ask these feminists why are the shelters all full, they will not say because of all the arrests. The shelters are full because of men. But they knew from the beginning that this was not man bad-woman good thing. The year was 1976. Two things would happen that year.

First, someone at the U.S. Dept of Justice decided to count the dead bodies. In 1975 there were 1522 women killed in domestic violence. And for men killed in 1975? The dead for men was 1506. Statistically equal a friend tells me so.

If you had asked me before the study, I would have assumed that women were getting the worst of it. But I would be looking at it by genders. What I should have been looking at was species, homo-sapiens, human beings. Men are human-women are human. Being the same species you would expect the same results from both genders. And that is exactly what the dead bodies told us.

The second thing that happened in 1976 was the first domestic violence survey was released. It was so new the time that they called it family violence. Murray Straus of UNH and Richard Gellars from a school in RI were the researchers. They did not find two perpetrators of domestic violence, but three. Men initiated violence 25.7% of the time: women 25.2%, and the other 49.1% was the two going after each at the same time. These two people going after each other at the same time is well recognized in law. The law in NH calls that mutual combat. Men are human. Women are human. And once again we found both genders acting the same manner.

So how did we end up with the theory of man bad-woman good that the government at all levels is using? The feminist writer Susan Brownmiller wrote In Our Time that," the way you get funding and church donations is to talk about the pure victims. If you talk about the impurity of the victim, the sympathy vanishes." If women get to be good then men get what is left-bad. Man bad-woman good was originally a funding raising technique. After 35 years, it has turned into official government dogma at all levels, from the local cop on the beat to the White House. Men need to be punished, restrained and retrained. Your wives and children are, unfortunately, just collateral damage in this effort to punish men. So you were not dreaming it. There really is a government pogrom against men.

When a man batters or kills, there is no excuse. When a woman commits the same act, there is nothing but excuses. Simple though inaccurate. But there is one redeeming aspect to men being demonized. Now we men can act like devils. And we do not even need to apologize for it. Men are going to start acting just like they made us out to be. As an old high school semi-punk I can assure you boys of one thing. This is going to be fun. You guys are going to end up laughing like hyenas.

The money funded under the VAWA is split in two when it leaves the Treasury. Part goes the Health and Human Services for fund these domestic violence homeless shelters. If that 36 million number is correct, and it is all that we have, then the 1.44 million arrests a year will be made producing 2.88 million homeless Americans each year. Women and children constitute 60% of these homeless people, 1.7 million Americans a year. Shutting down these shelters would be cruel. What would these women and children do then? Go live under a bridge. No, we are stuck with these shelters for a while. But there is one thing that Congress needs to fix when they fund them again.

These shelters do not allow men on the property let alone inside the residences. Why is it against the law to use federal money on organizations that discriminate against black, Jews, gays or even women but it is okay to do so against men? Men contributed half that tax money. Eight years ago a man in California fled with his children after the police warned him to get out after they had arrested the wife and mother. None of the shelters would take him and the kids in because he was a man. I wonder if this would survive a legal gender discrimination challenge in a federal court?

A society without men is freakier than a world without blacks or Jews. That is not to say blacks or Jews are any less worthy. It just that there are more men in the world than blacks or Jews even if you combined them. If these feminist had to deal with men on a regular basis, then maybe the country would not be in the pickle we are in now.

There is a third reason to end this discrimination, something of a more practical nature. Apparently, some women like to have sex with men. But men are barred from the property. Suddenly, that 15 year boy two doors down starts looking real good. It might even be fun breaking in this new meat. So this woman driven into insolvency by the push for domestic violence arrests now finds herself charged as a pedophile because someone barred men from her world. With domestic violence advocates as friends, who needs enemies.

This shelters came up with a novel approach to fixing the pedophile problem. Male children over the age of thirteen are barred from staying there. Too troublesome. The family broke up when the father was thrown out of the house. Now a second break up is happening with the teenage boys. Perhaps a relative has one bed available. Maybe the family of a high school friend would take him in their home. If neither option works then that is okay. He can move in with his father. Then they will both be sleeping in the car down by the river.

Children of these parents also suffer. They used to have their own bedroom in a safe town with good schools. First they have a shelter, then Section 8 public housing. An urban school. Maybe good-maybe not. Kids learn how to be tough in an urban environment. The kids might go bad or they could come out just fine. But there will be no clunky car as a teenager. There will be no saving fund for college. There will be no monetary gift to use as a down payment for a starter home. This tradition of the older generation giving the younger generation a financial leg up has been ruin due to the older generation's lack of money. Financially, the older generation is merely treading water. It will take generations after these present two generations to repair the economic damage to these families.

So we are stuck with funding these shelters for a while. These women and children have no place left to go. Some of you guys may think that these feminist caused the problem and then created the solution. But homeless shelters are not a solution. They are just barely a band aid.

The remaining money under VAWA goes to the United States Department of Justice for the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). As long as OVW exists then the government is at war with men. As long as there is a pogrom against men, then women and children are going to end up as collateral damage. So there is no need for discussion about OVW going. The only thing we need to figure out is which of the two ways we can use to get rid of them-the easy way or the hard way.

And boys, do not try to burn down Washington's Dept. of Justice Building in an effort to get rid of the Office of Violence Against Women. Their offices are over at N Street.

The easy way is using Congress. The VAWA comes up for funding every five to seven years. Next time it comes up, Congress votes no and everyone at the OVW gets a pink slip in late September. Nice and simple except nothing is simple in Washington. We, the people out here in the sticks, do not always know what the dynamics are in Washington. There might be one method of getting Congress on course. Have Congress demand that the Attorney General get, and release the arrests figures. Or have the President order it. He is usually fearless after he makes up his mind. And this is too large and too well known to continue the Washington plausible deniable routine. Then they will know how much trouble they are in because of these arrests.

There are 220 million adults 18 or older in this country of both sexes. If my figure of 36 million is correct, then that is 16.4% of the adults have been arrested. It could be as high as 55 million or 25%. It might be as low as 22 million or 10%. Whatever the number there are two things that Congress should know. First, is the fellow who discovered the arrests in Minneapolis back in 1992 said do not use it because it does not work. And second, the people arrested now constitute a Fifth Column here in the United States. Our loyalty to Washington is gone. But what did these genuises on the Potomac expect? They have harmed our children. If they think Al Qaeda is a pain in the ass, wait to they see what Americans can do once their fuse is lit.

I am certain the Attorney General will sit for months on the request for the number of domestic violence arrests. Then he will explain that they do not readily have the number and that some sort of Manhattan Project effort will be needed in time and money. Nonsense. When Washington started these arrests in 1984 over 6.3 personal computers were sold here in the U.S. That figure does not include all the mini's, midi's and mainframe computers sold that year. There is no way they can pretend that this data does not exist in electronic storage. A request to Ohio for the arrests 1984-2010 would tie up a state clerk for an hour, including their 15 minute coffee break. Time for the truth boys and girls. Because this is not going away.

The hard way is more time consuming, cost more money and is full of headaches. Because the only way of removing a department from the federal government without the consent of Congress is to take out the entire federal government.

The first time I heard that, I said that is ridiculous. We cannot run this country without a federal government. But we will replace the old government with something new and improved. The new government would honor the debts incurred by the old government. There are a lot of useful reasons for starting with a clean slate.

The bipartisan debt commission released their recommendation for cleaning up the $14 trillion we have borrowed over the years. Convention wisdom has it that Congress has no stomach for any of the recommendations.

But a new government could install those recommendation on day one. Three years later, most Americans will not remember that anything is different. The old government laid off its employees when it closed. The new government is hiring. But instead of 65,000 employees at the Dept. of Education, the new government is only hiring 45,000. Instead of an average federal wage of $70,000 a year, the new average will be $52,000. The new government will have to write a tax code. Everyone pays 15% with no deductions. How many IRS employees could you get rid of if there were no more deductions? Any thing is possible with a new government.

Normally over-throwing a elected government is considered treason. Treason is punishable by death here in the United States. But there is one way of over throwing the government. That is through the ballot box. Then it is not treason but democracy. Allegedly, Washington is in favor of democracy, particularly if their candidate wins.

There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution or the Federal code of the United States for dissolving the government of the United States. So that is what we need first. Congress would need to write it. We get them to do it through the ballot initiative.

A ballot initiative is when enough registered voters sign a petition to get a question on the ballot for the next election. The following would be a sample of what the question would look like in New Hampshire.

That all elected representatives from the state of New Hampshire to both houses of the United States Congress are to propose and advance a bill that would set up a legal mechanism to dissolve the United States government should the people decide to do so in a general election by a simple majority.

If this initiative passes in all 50 states then Congress will be stuck. They will have to write the law to dissolve. If they do not I suspect within ten years they will be standing in a stairwell at the British or French embassy with a suitcase in hand waiting to get to a rooftop helicopter. I doubt if they will be thinking about the humiliation of being thrown out of the country. They will be far too busy worrying about what will happen if the mob gets their hands on them.

Washington has not got a friend in the world. Even the British and Israelis loath them now. Kind of a bad time to be losing domestic support. And what they done over the last 25 years? They have wiped out the middle class pandering to a special interest group of bigots. And in typical Washington fashion, they did not even know they did it.

This Ivy League inbreeding in Washington has produced an elite that knows what best. Everyone else-husbands, wives, police officers, prosecutors, judges, attorney generals and guardian ad litems-are to shut up and do what they are told. The rule of law is gone, replaced by the policies, procedures and protocols of The Second Set of Books. Which means the federal government will be going shortly. For the government being unable to deliver the rule of law is like an auto mechanic who claims he does not know how to change the engine oil. A certain minimum competency is required. So it looks like the parents of the Washington elite were right. One can be too smart for their own good.

Betty Friedan wrote that the feminist revolution, like any revolution, would have its excesses. Losing the rule of law is too great to call it a mere excess. It is a catastrophe. It is the heart, mind and soul between the people and their government. These feelings of betrayal by losing it may be permanent. I have 21 years of Army service going back to the Vietnam War. My loyalty to the government should be a given. It is gone. I am certain it will never return regardless of how long I might have lived.

It was another woman that lead us in to this decision to clean house inside the beltway. Something she taught us fifty years ago. You simply look at those folks in Washington and then ask yourself the old Ann Landers question, "Am I better off with them, or without them? Are my children better off with them, or without them?" They are sinking like stones.

Washington, DC was chose as the capital because it was the geographical center or the old Colonies. Today, the geographical center of the country is just west of St. Louis Missouri. The new government can set the capital anywhere in the United States it wants. Imagine how many rodents, insects and parasites they could lose by moving 1500 miles west.

Whether you replace the federal government or not, men are still going to need a legal defense center for men. Something like the NAACP used to get black people their rights. The only checks and balances in the Second Set of Books is the First Set of Books. Which means lawsuits. Now I know you guys are broke. Some of you have had your wives and kids thrown into homelessness. So I completely understand when you tell me that you are broke. But if everyone who has been arrested throws in $10.00 a year then the legal defense center will have a war chest of $360 million. You can buy a whole bunch of lawsuit with that kind of money.

The Ball family has been supplying sergeants to the Army since at least the Revolutionary War. Elijah served as a sergeant in Cushing's Regiment at the Battle of Bennington. His commanding officer was a general from NH with a name of John Stark. General Start was a clever warrior. He was responsible for the bulk of the heavy casualties the British suffer at their victory at Bunker Hill. His orderly, fighting withdrawal allowed the other units on the hill to not only retreat but collect their wounded on the way out.

General Stark would repeat this performance on three hill tops outside the village of Bennington VT one hot August day in 1777. At the end of the battle, the British lost over 900 men killed or captured. The Colonists suffered 30 dead. Two months later, the depleted British army would surrender at Saratoga. That victory at Saratoga would bring the French into the war. John Stark was the most competent general this country ever produced. For that reason alone his men loved him.

But as brilliant as he was on the battlefield, General Stark would become even more famous for something he said. In 1809 the veterans of Bennington decided to have one last reunion. A delegation called on the General with his invitation. But the General was old and frail. He could not attend. But he did send a message, "You tell the boys I said live free or die. That death is not the worst of evil." Since 1945 the State of New Hampshire has stamped Live Free or Die on every pen, coffee mug, license plate and highway sign that they have gotten their hands on.

I think the General and his sergeant would be please that his words have elevated from the novelties and bric-a-brac to something more dignified like a courthouse door. Neither of them would give a second thought to the mess left over after the fire was extinguished. War has always been a grim business. Civil wars are usually worse.

But they would be trouble by the new enemy. Oh, they understood when a government betrays it people. They took up arms against the super power of their day to get relief for their grievances. But the enemy we face now is the government that these men birthed at places like Bennington, Saratoga and Bunker Hill. Government is no different than the food in a refrigerator. Given enough time both will go bad.

The smartest person I knew in this life was my mother. Perhaps that is true of all of us. Maybe I just got lucky. She was a nurse by trade. She worked in a time when Western medicine made that final transition from butchery to science. But it would not be her nursing skills that made her extraordinary. No, it would be this one incredible knack she had that I had only modest success at mimicking in my life. If she had something important to say to you, she would say and then never mention it again. She would talk about it if you raised the issue. But she never mentioned it twice on her own. And, oddly, you always heard her.

But she did have one favorite saying. I must have heard in a thousand times in the eighteen years I lived under her roof. It always came at the end of the conversation as she peeled away to see if it was time for Perry Mason or Lawrence Welk. She would turn her head to the side, and over her shoulder she would say, "And the only thing you really have in this world is your family." Now, thanks to the United States Government, neither we nor our children have that.

I have three things to say to my children. First, Daddy loves you. Second, you are my three most favorite people in the world. And last, that you are to stick together no matter how old you get or how far apart you live. Because it is like Grandma always said. The only thing you really have in this world is your family.

Comments sent through

2011-06-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

I've been busy, but I had the chance to get some of them up. Special thanks to PhantomMRA for a different perspective; I welcome difference (and even dissent) conveyed intelligently.

Unfortunately, there are few slagging remarks, but that's to be expected. To anyone that wants to have an articulated discussion, my advice is to refrain from the personal attacks to others or myself. It's very telling that those employing such hostility refuse to do so---so I reserve the right to prevent my blog from being their bullying playground until they shape up.

Kudos to all MGTOW----SR

Dancing With the Night Wind III: Deconstructing the Feminist View of Privilege

2011-05-14T01:49:00.000-07:00

I wanted to give another shout to two of my friends that have diedaway for years now, but as it stands, this post is (in part) about that---and will segue into the topic I also wanted to discuss.

As someone that has not entered his twilight years, I am old enough to have experienced the pain and loss of family members and friends. I often wonder what Bryon and Marshall would have done with the rest of their lives had they lived as old as, perhaps, my maternal grandmother, who before entering a coma and passing in her 80s still had concern for me. She wanted to see me well loved is this lifetime, and even with the last conversation with me had on the phone, weakened, she still asked how I was doing and to keep myself healthy and strong . . . although her own health was gradually failing hers.

That's real love. No question.

I can't say definitively that a misandric culture could be directly attributed to two my friend's deaths. But as someone who has been critical of how society views and treats men and masculinity, there's a something to be said about it. I ruminate how if their quality of lives could have been improved, possessed the support structures that were lacking, and if something could have prevented them from dying younger than they should have. I have my own guilty thoughts about what I could have done, although there is only so much one can do.

Marshall and Bryon struggled in some ways that were different, and a few that were similar. Both had encroaching serious health problems for the last year or so of their lives. While I think Bryon would have---superficially---disagreed with me on the goals of feminism, with more revelatory examination, he would have realized that there was no real good that would ever benefit him with it.

Both, throughout their length of experiences, never enjoyed a life of an ivory tower academic or high-powered CEO. Any ground they gained was generally up to them as well as failings. Their struggles, as myriad as they were, were not the concern of feminism. As with so many men, men's issues are not a priority. These men were not born of privilege, just like most men---find themselves . . . having to sort through life battles of different areas. As some posters have stated on The Spearhead, it can take until a man's early 30s before he even begins to find himself mildly successful.

One serious mistake feminists and their cohorts make is to believe that men have dominance and privilege in our "patriarchal" system without examining how that manifests outside of their myopic perspective. Of course, they claim that transforming "patriarchy" would help men from their restrictions as well.

Guess what. Feminists, manginas, and their counterpart white knights cannot have this. Not one bit. By truly freeing men up, it would also mean that that men would no longer be in the service of women and rational self-interest would be a cardinal rule. No longer would the hideous talons of feminism would clutch us. People, feminists deeply hate this even if they are not completely certain why they loathe it. A man they cannot shame, scapegoat, blame, or control is perceived as either dangerous or useless.

Ultimately, though, feminists are concerned with power and control; with minimum accountability. They could not care less how men have made the modern world around them an environment more comfortable and safe to live in. This is one thing they mean by demanding men give up their "male privilege;" it's not about equality or egalitarianism. It's about who is the master symbolically holding the barbed whip, all the while justifying the use and abuse. And if anyone thinks that feminism is a deflated force in the social and legal circles, they are in earnest denial. Mary Kellett is one of the legions.

Of course, without men fulfilling utility purposes, you might as well be dead to them; after all, as an old Rush song says to the effect of there as to be someone to talk to and someone to sweep the floors. If you are the janitor, you're still beneath them in status, but you'd better be damn well working hard on your daily sanitation and getting things done. Or else.

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again---the real motive behind the shaming of men for alleged privileges is actually eroding away of what little men have as rights, what we are fighting for, and ultimately control of men; their labor, their money, their sexuality, and even down to the attention Ameriskanks desperately crave despite the label of being "independent." That's really what it's all about.

Good Quote about Western Men and Women---and the System

2011-05-04T02:36:00.000-07:00

"It takes good men to rebel against all this evil, unfortunately, in order for these good men to have a chance and be sane, they need the support of a good woman. And Westernized women will never support a man who doesn't buy into the system and makes a wad of money, they like their security too much to invest in a risk taking male. So good men do nothing, play along, act like jerks, or become a selibite living a miserable lonely life sent to the fringes and diagnosed with mental illnesses."
---MegaAvalonn

W.F. Price: "Mangum Facing Murder Charges in Boyfriend’s Stabbing Death"

2011-04-22T01:37:00.000-07:00

We'll see how this develops . . . from The Spearhead:

Crystal Mangum, Duke Lacrosse false rape accuser, has had a number of run-ins with the law in recent years, and they have culminated in the stabbing death of her boyfriend Reginald Daye. Mangum and Daye were heard arguing over money before the stabbing, which prompted a police call. Police visited, and left without making any arrests. After the police left Mangum picked up a kitchen knife and plunged it into the 46-year-old housepainter. Reginald Daye lingered for a while, dying on April 13.

Daye may have been unwise (to put it mildly) to begin a relationship with the notorious Ms. Mangum, but he did not deserve to die for his error in judgment. In any event, the narrative pushed by feminists – that women are eternal victims of men – probably leads a number of less circumspect men to exercise less caution in their relationships with women.

That Mangum, a tool of the feminists who sought to destroy the lives of innocent young men in a false rape case, is now facing murder charges is little surprise. Feminists seized onto Mangum’s vicious lies as justification for condemning young college men across the country, using the false accusation as yet another weapon in their jihad against men. Mangum probably does not identify as a feminist, but she is a soldier for their cause nonetheless.

Although feminists may have been deeply disappointed that her false rape accusations ultimately failed under scrutiny, perhaps now they can derive some satisfaction from the fact that one of their tools has at least ended the life of one man, momentarily sating their bloodlust with a singular act of butchery. Lest anyone think this is an exaggeration, we should take care to remember the feminist defense of child-killer Andrea Yates and glee over Lorena Bobbit’s genital mutilation.

Dancing With The Night Wind II: Kay, You Don't Get It

2011-04-01T00:40:00.000-07:00

Hymowitz has written another book about men called Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys. While I haven't read the book, I wouldn't be surprised at its contents---for years, Hymowitz has capitalized on the thought that much of the current generation of men are "child-men" and "pre-adults." Perhaps some time I will borrow it from the library if I care; I refuse to financially support such nonsense.

The underlying sentiment is nothing new. Even in the 80s men who would not bow down to convention and be beasts of burden for women were considered Peter Pans. They were criticized to the point where in the last few years men that tread warily around women are considered suspect; maybe suffering from a serious personality defect or even dangerous. I've seen this notion on so-called romantic forums; men that are not married by a certain point are deemed dysfunctional, while women are liberated and practicing their options.

Nevermind the fact that deep-rooted societal misandry---and those procuring that misandry---could have anything to do with men apparently not "manning up." Whatever that means anymore. Of course, being viewed as a grown up is contingent on what women ultimately think, not how men define their own masculinity.

And just recently, she was interviewed in the National Review, where she also states something about feminism as the interviewer asks:

Lopez: How much are feminists to blame for the mess men’s lives are in today?

Hymowitz: It depends on which side of feminism you mean. I don’t believe that the feminists’ demand that women have a role in the workplace or in politics has to be bad for men.

But there has been a powerful strain of anti-male hostility in feminism. At its worst, it implied that men were all potential child molesters and rapists. More commonly, it appeared as a low-level drone of scorn and mockery. Think of the doofus TV dads — Homer Simpson, Ray Romano — the T-shirts saying, “girls rule, boys drool,” the “strong single mother” who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and the insistent chant of girl power. A lot of middle- and upper-middle-class boys got the message that confidence and decisiveness could come across the wrong way. That’s why you sometimes see a kind of passivity and uncertainty in young men. Women have been saved from their self-esteem crisis, assuming it ever existed; now men are the ones who appear to need an intervention.

Hymowitz doesn't go completely all the way with something she probably is aware of, but ironically is a contributor in a way; many men do have serious issues that need to be addressed, and the continual spread of misandry is rampant. But instead of truly digging deep as to why these problems exist for men, much of her observations are trite and based on pop culture. How does this help anything? Really?

Has she even bothered to listen to men and take to heart what they are saying on men's blogs? Doubtful.

How does such a guy man up? That’s the point: No one knows.

Kay, many of us are finding that out without your opinions or help. We are men that desire to craft our own futures, not hinge it on the fickle whims of those who incessantly deride us. The idea that more feminism is the cure was proposed by a feminist without even any thought to men's needs; it is sick and laughable. Our government cares nothing or the woes of men, either. There are men that have lived in denial that we are our own saviors of sorts, but we are gradually waking up to that fact. Feminism also wrecked the protector and provider role in the past and present, and now we are supposed to come around to fulfill those proverbial shoes in order to "man up" for the very Ameriskanks that spit upon us? Are you kidding me?

She skirts the fact that there are women out there that are guilty for adding fuel to the fire in a culture that coldly mistreats men in they are not wanted unless they are beasts of burden, walking ATMs, and supporting mischief and irresponsibility of someone else. Hymowitz and her ilk needs to acknowledge that Ameriskanks are smashing the social contract between men and women with glee, while still shaming us if we don't uphold it when destroyers decide maybe it wasn't terribly bright (or perhaps, realize that out of some sort of selfishness).

That said, the economy is dynamic and competitive, sometimes ruthlessly so. Not only do people have to work hard, they have to be acutely alert to shifts in taste and demand. They might have to travel or move for six months or a year. Those are conditions that don’t tend to promote stability or settled adulthood.

Must be nice to feel untouched by the He-cession---it's very real, and even has effected me.

Hymowitz: The pre-adult is a self-contained unit, largely disconnected from social institutions like the church. Later marriage is a necessary response to some big economic and cultural shifts, but one of its problems is that it leaves people in their twenties and sometimes thirties isolated from civic life. They’re renters, not buyers, and they move around a lot as the knowledge economy requires. Unsurprisingly, they don’t take much interest in local schools or community issues, and they don’t vote in very large numbers.

Again, it doesn't seem she wants to get at the heart of the matter, nor acknowledge the alienation and embitterment men truly feel with the workplace, institutions, and cultural malaise.

Men were furious at me. But they were also — and this I wasn’t prepared for — furious at women more generally. It’s not our fault if we’re not behaving, they said — it’s the women. They’re entitled, they’re bitchy, they’re hypocritical. They want it both ways: They want to be equals, and they want us to pay for them. They want gender neutrality, and they want us to have the muscles of Stallone. I interviewed some of the men who had written to me, and I started spending a lot of time on dating websites (reading comments, I mean) and pondering the personal blogs of twenty-somethings. I was pretty taken aback by the toxic level of bitterness and confusion about the opposite sex among pre-adults.

Let's get one thing straight here once for all----we are men, Kay, and if you can't come to grips with this you have a serious problem yourself. Apparently, you have something to sell with your labeling of men as "pre-adults." Ameriskanks and self-righteous manginas eat this up. And yes, those men are telling you exactly what has happened with them and Ameriskanks; are you glossing over this reality?

I guess, though, in the end I’d have to say I feel especially sorry for young women. I’ve met wonderfully smart, attractive, successful, and competent 35-year-old single women who are in deep despair as they come to the recognition that they may not find a man they want to marry. Some are freezing their eggs; others are just going to the sperm bank. Whatever your view of these decisions, they illustrate that the urge to have a baby remains very, very powerful even among very, very busy women. As I put it in the book, pre-adulthood is in tension with women’s biology — not with men’s.

My response is tough shit. Young Ameriskanks decided they were too good for men that would treat them with fairness and grace, and in their zeal to look for a secure mate are now feeling despair because CaptainSaveAHo hasn't arrived? Or perhaps the engaging in hypergamy lessens the appeal for hardworking blue collar men who would be good for professional women, or expect men to gloss over and forgive the bile they have received from them so that can transform into wedded bliss?

Get real. Ameriskanks have poisoned the well and ruined things for anything hopeful for a lasting relationship based on love and trust. I despise it, but I accept it---and as a MAN I adjust and adapt accordingly and continue to find my own path---with or without them. For AWs, they will get what they give, or as The Eternal Bachelor once stated aptly: Give modern women the husband they deserve. None.

Fun With Dick and Jane by Zed/Zenpriest

2011-04-01T00:27:00.000-07:00

From The Spearhead . . .

(Warning: this is a very long post because it deals with a lot of issues which can be very subtle and can’t be done justice in a handful of sound bites.)

Every once in a while we have experiences which allow us to integrate a number of vague observations into a flash of insight. Previously held ideas fall away and are replaced by a new understanding of something which had made no sense to us as long as we held onto our old beliefs. It is that “aha” moment which allows a quantum leap in understanding of a problem or issue and seeing it in an entirely new way. An example often used to illustrate this experience of sudden insight is Sir Issac Newton’s moment when he perceived an apple falling from a tree as “the apple and the earth falling toward each other.”

I had such a moment regarding the topic of sexual relations back in the late 90s. It was not a spontaneous revelation by itself, but rather the culmination of years of dealing with a certain woman and how her behavior eventually forced me to abandon a lot of the beliefs I had once held.

One concept you will see mentioned frequently in the manosphere is the concept of “the narrative.” It is very important for men to understand the narrative and how it has been used by the cultural Marxists to create a belief system which is totally contrary to reality, but is so relentlessly pushed that it actually overrides reality and people’s real experiences. It is at the heart of Political Correctness – what is socially acceptable takes precedence over what is real.

Today we live in a world controlled by the feminist narrative. Feminist theories about the nature of the world and human interactions are ruthlessly enforced through social attack against anyone who dares speak the truth. Most readers here will be familiar with the case of Larry Summers being hounded out of his job as president of Harvard for even daring to suggest that there might be innate differences between men and women. Despite mounting evidence that this is true, it is a truth none dare speak – like “the emperor has no clothes.”

Today men are faced with a situation like seeing a picture of the ice palace in the film “Dr. Zhivago”, while the narrator’s voice-over says something like -

“And the blistering heat and brutal drought continued unabated.”

We see examples of the feminist narrative around us all the time – “men have ‘oppressed’ women for 10,000 years, and now it is payback time”, “gender is just a social construct and women are capable of anything men are, as long as we have affirmative action, reduced standards for women, and a huge body of law and government enforcement on our side”, “women STILL only make 75 cents for every dollar men make, not because of women’s choices, but because the dreaded ‘pay-tree-arc-keeee’ is holding them down.”

One of the best recent examples is the Duke Rape Hoax. The accuser was a stripper, drug addict, child abuser, and later arsonist, who in any sane society would have been considered a low life with zero credibility. But, the narrative of the inherently moral and pure woman, “oppressed” by “privileged” young white males from affluent families, trumped even photographic evidence of one of the accused being somewhere else when the fictitious “rayyyype” supposedly occurred.

False rape accusations depend entirely on a narrative and body of lies which women have worked relentlessly for the past 4 decades to establish and promote – males as the “designated initiators” and females as inherently pure sexless beings who only engage in sex because those dastardly men pressure them into it, and who, of course, would never, NEVER, NEVER lie about it. Males are cast as the villains in the narrative, as the “designated initiator” in any sexual interaction between a male and female – even those cases of adult women statutorily raping boys. Instead of being seen as the targets of sexual predators that they really are, such boys and young men are viewed as “getting lucky” – even in those cases where teenagers are forced to pay child support to their own rapists.

One of my biggest concerns as an MRA is this stereotype of men that we are saddled with as mindless horny beasts in a perpetual state of rut. False accusations are so easy to make against us, and so easy to make stick, because so many many people subscribe to the narrative and are incapable of comprehending that the reality is much different and more nuanced.

More than 30 years ago, feminists escalated their campaign to criminalize male sexuality. Rape on one side and “pornography” on the other became the twin sticks to beat men with for their misfortune of being born with a powerful instinct to be attracted to women. It was the perfect sting operation. The only better way to trap more men would be to somehow make breathing simultaneously shameful and criminal. The crusade by feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon to make laws and the legal system conform to females’ subjective whims started by claiming that porn led directly to rape. Thus, it was justified to suppress porn in order to “protect women” from these horny beasts that the narrative claimed all men were.

Now, 3 decades later, we have Naomi Wolf toeing the feminist party line that porn is bad, but now for the opposite reason – instead of making men have too much desire for women as Dworkin hallucinated, it is now bad because it makes men have too little interest in women. Women are now being harmed by men’s indifference. But, in the hierarchy of atrocities, a crime of omission is seldom considered as bad as a crime of commission.

There were many comments in response to Elusive Wapiti’s recent post, pointing out that it isn’t as much that porn pulls men away from women as it is that women themselves have driven men away from themselves and porn is just a conveniently available substitute. As always, women seek to place the blame outside them themselves and their own choices and behavior, and project it onto men or some vague concept.

It certainly does seem true that women in general just are not capable of grasping cause and effect. And, more than anything else this one phenomenon explains their senses of powerlessness and helplessness. If I understand that something I am doing is bringing about the results that I am getting, either positive or negative, then that gives me the power to adjust my behavior to get the results I want. But, having any power at all requires a sense of responsibility – “What I do affects the results I get, therefor I have power to affect my results by choosing appropriate actions.” But, people who absolute refuse to take any responsibility give up any chance at having power because they then have to change the entire rest of the world, and all the other people in it. Not bloody likely to happen.

I used to believe that women understood this. In fact, I had a very hard time grasping that anyone could be stupid enough to not understand it. If you point a gun at your foot and pull the trigger, you are gong to end up with one badly hurt foot. Don’t want a hurt foot? Then don’t point a gun at it and pull the trigger. Simple, right?

Ah, never underestimate the power of the Rationalization Hamster.

Over the years I have watched woman after women determinedly follow her hamster until it totally screwed up her life, and the lives of a lot of people who were involved with her. Here at the Spearhead you will see story after story about women doing this. Throughout my life I have watched women as they destroyed relationship after relationship, even marriage after marriage, simply by being so self-centered and self absorbed that they just used people up and those people got tired of allowing themselves to be used. And, it would be bad enough if they only screwed up their own lives – but most of them leave the carnage of a debris field a mile wide and a totally scorched earth in their wake. They affect not only their own relationships, but the relationships of people whose lives they touch as well.

This is the story of one such woman. It isn’t about an ex-wife or GF of mine, but about the ex-wife of a buddy of mine – one of the women I detest most among all that I have met. I’ve been wanting to tell this story for a long time, because it cuts across so many of the issues we grapple with here at the Spearhead. What spurred me to get down and write it all out was Elusive Waipiti’s recent post about how the pornification of western culture has affected relationships between men and women. The point I am making is that a man doesn’t even need to be intimately involved with a woman directly in order to get ensnared by “the narrative.”

Chapter 1 –

I’ll call them Dick and Jane. Dick was my best buddy for years and years – close to 25 years in all. We had almost perfectly overlapping interests and hobbies, and really enjoyed spending time together pursuing our mutual interests. We could go into one of our darkrooms at 6 in the evening, and come out at 4 in the morning, and have a sense that almost no time had passed. After the normal string of replaceable girlfriends for men our age in those days, he met Jane and things seemed to be going in the right direction for them.

They got married back in the early 80s and ended up having what people called a “starter marriage”. It lasted about 4 years. She was driven, ambitious, and wanted to make a lot of money. He didn’t need to stop to smell the roses, he considered smelling the roses his full-time occupation and only went to work to make enough money to be able to do that. He was so “laid back” that he made most type Bs look like type As. He had been my buddy for years when they got married, and I stood up with him as his best man.

They didn’t have any kids, so at the fatal 4 year mark, when they couldn’t think of any good reasons to stay married, they didn’t.

After they had separated, but before the divorce was final, he told me she was coming back to stay with him (he got the house, because this was during the killer interest rates period, and the house would have sold for much less than they paid for it.)

“Oh?” I asked. “Yes, she is having a ‘problem with her breasts’ and has to have some surgery, and is going to stay here and I’m going to take care of her after the surgery.” he told me.

(” ‘Problem with her breasts?!?!?!’ OH SHIT! BREAST CANCER!!!!!)

Except, it wasn’t. The first time I saw her after the “surgery”, I saw that the “problem” had been that she had been an A cup, when she wanted to be a C, or at least a B+. After she had moved out again, I confronted him – “Hey, dude, we have been friends for a long time, and I thought close ones. Why did you lie to me about the fact she was getting fake boobs?!?!”

“I didn’t know anything about it until I picked her up from the hospital” he told me. That should have been the first telltale clue about her real personality.

Anyway, the marriage was over at that point. She went west and he went east. I kept in contact with him, and through him heard about her once in a while. It was one of those supposedly very civilized 80s divorces where they parted company with no real hard feelings – it “just didn’t work out.”

Chapter 2 -

About 10 years went by. She got married again, and he lived with a couple of women for short periods. Then, one day I got a call from him. Both of them were going to “happen” to be in town at the same time, and wanted to get together. So, we made arrangements to have dinner and a night on the town together – kind of an “old times” thing. A platonic woman friend of mine went with us and saw right through them, even though I fell for their lie. “They are having an affair” she said. “Nah,” I said, “she’s gotten married again and they managed to divorce without hating each other, so I can understand them remaining friends.”She looked at me with one of those “you are such a sucker” looks.

She was right, and I soon caught them in a lie and confronted them on it, and the whole story came out. Her husband had no interest at all in her sexually, so she had approached her ex (the safest man in the world for her considering the circumstances) about having an affair. He had never gotten over the sense of failure regarding their marriage, and jumped at the chance to “win her back.”

They had been going at it for about 3 months when this took place, and within another month or 2 he had applied for a job transfer to the area where she lived. Since I lived between the 2 locations, he got me to help him move.

I spent a few days hanging out with him after we got there and got the truck unloaded, which also meant hanging out with her a lot. The topic she most wanted to talk about was how bewildered she was that her current husband didn’t want her sexually, in front of the ex-husband who was doing everything the could to “win her back”, including listen to this drivel of her whining about another man.

I felt both a bit sorry for him and a bit disgusted by him – where the hell was his backbone? But, hey, he was a Niceguy™ and thought that if he was nice enough that would turn the tide in his favor. Today I would send him to read Roissy.

The 3 of us ended up going out to eat together most nights that I was there. I have no idea what she told her husband about where she was (or if he even cared, which I was beginning to suspect he might not) but she was spending almost every evening with my buddy, and since we had once been friends in the habit of doing things together we fell right back into that pattern. Only this time the difference was that the topics of conversation she wanted to talk about were almost exclusively the problems she was having in her marriage – with her ex-husband playing the role of her emotional tampon, and me as an annoyed and impatient 3rd wheel observer.

One evening during dinner she made some statement about the “political differences” between her and her husband. I was operating in that “yadda, yadda, autopilot” mode that men often adopt with women and nodding my head like I was actually listening to what she was saying and offering appropriate cues for uninterrupted verbal output whenever she paused. So, I asked “What sort of political differences?” (mistake on my part, I know – I can only say in my defense that I was only listening to her drone on and not really thinking about what she was saying.)

“Well, let me give you an example” she said. “If a woman goes into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties and later gets raped, did she ‘ask for it’? ”

I was in full bore MRA mode in those days, so I was neither going to let that pass nor play into it. I could tell that she was stacking the deck like a typical feminist with her addition of the “no panties.”

After much discussion, and using the example of me going into a poor part of town and waving around a handful of $100 bills just to rub in people’s faces that I had something they wanted and didn’t have and that they might just decide to knock me in the head and take it from me, I finally forced her to concede that if the hypothetical woman had acted differently that, yes, she would have experienced a different outcome.

But, the hamster was not going down without a fight, and she finished lamely “BUT, I still think a woman ‘should’ be able to go anywhere she wants, wearing anything she wants, and do anything she wants, and still not have anything bad happen to her.”

I took that statement as an admission of defeat.

But, that was back in the days when I was in full-bore MRA jihad mode, and I had had a belly full of her pissing and moaning about her current husband and how he didn’t want her, in front of her ex-husband, who at that time I still considered a close friend, who was desperately trying to woo her back and was in full-bore AFC/emotional tampon mode, so I was going to shove her bullshit back down her throat.

I asked what the hell was the woman doing in the bar in the first place – attention-whoring and hustling attention and free drinks, obviously.

Male “attention” is not “free” and women are not “entitled” to be the center of male attention the way many of them seem to think they are. They are playing a high risk game which will sometimes get them hurt, and very often will incur the hostility and animosity of men. A woman who attracts male attention by wearing low-cut tops forfeits the right to bitch about men paying attention to her tits, because all of her actions are designed purely for the purpose of attracting attention. A woman who goes into a bar dressed to attract male attention – down to shoving her panty-less twat in men’s faces in a gesture that is as old as time and has always meant “mate me” – is not going to be able to maintain absolute control over exactly what kind of attention she gets and who she gets it from. By acting as she did, she is taking a risk.

But, typically feminist (or FEMININE-ist) Jane absolute refused to even see the way that the woman actually had power over the situation – by acting differently she would have certainly gotten different results. And there is the core of the sore point – you are always hearing women demand how MEN have to change, and the whole world has to change, so that they can do whatever they want to and still get the results they want to get. But, the world does not work that way – never has and never will – and the fact that it doesn’t is not some plot men have hatched for the purpose of frustrating women.

Men are not warm-blooded vibrators who exist for women to flip on and off like light switches purely for women’s entertainment. We are human beings with our own set of needs, and will keep demanding that women respect those needs as long as they continue to refuse to do so.

What Jane is talking about and committing is interpersonal fraud at the most fundamental level. It is essentially the same as a man who lies through his teeth and says “I love you” frequently just to get women to sleep with him. People who play that sort of vicious exploitive game have already violated the social contract of mutual civility, and thus do not deserve to have the benefit of it keeping them safe.

I responded to her hypothetical panty-less woman with 3 hypothetical men in the bar and pointed out to her how her beliefs and attitudes were contributing to the very pain that she was boring the shit out of me with having to listen to.

Man #1 is your typical naive “NiceGuy™” He hasn’t seen enough of women to have wised up to the vicious games they play, so he reacts to the woman’s mating display the way men are hard-wired to react. He is your basic AFC just waiting to be taken for a ride. He buys her a drink or two, she shuts him down and blows him off believing that she is just entitled to his attention and free drinks, and he slinks away feeling hurt and pissed off. Man #2 is your typical low-IQ semi-thug. He is the type of petty criminal who is poorly socialized, and considers selling meth or burglarizing houses to be perfectly acceptable vocations. He is already a criminal, so additional criminal behavior don’t bother him one bit. Where the NiceGuy™ gets hurt and slinks away to lick his wounds, BadGuy™ decides to not let the bitch get away with jerking him around and decides to push the issue and make her deliver what she was seeming to promise.

Rape is a crime, and people who rape are criminally-minded. But, all this will get denied and swept away and NiceGuy™ will get blamed and branded a rapist for the event even though he was well socialized and did not commit a crime. The rape hysterics are doing something very evil, and in the long run very bad for women, when they do not differentiate between ordinary men and criminals. More on this later.

Which brings us to man #3. He is Jane’s husband, and has seen this game being run before. He knows enough to know that the woman is committing sexual fraud to feed her inner attention-whore. So, instead of falling for the sexual scam she is running and allowing his instinctive and reflexive responses to be used to manipulate him, he shuts them down, turns his back on her, and turns his attention back to the ball game on the TV.

And, when he gets home, and Jane would now like a little bit of attention – on her schedule and strictly according to her demands – he remains shut down and wants nothing to do with her. So, rather than face being such a stupid bitch that her own husband doesn’t want her, she goes out and cheats on him. But, remaining as gutless and dishonest as ever, she doesn’t take the risk to put herself out on the open sexual marketplace and take the risk of having to compete with other women and possibly be rejected (she was, after all, at this point almost 50 years old). No, she approaches the safest man in the world for her, a man who still loves her enough that he would just about cut off his own arm rather than hurt her, and enlists his cooperation in cheating on her husband.

Am I managing to convey the depth of my contempt for this woman?

And, through it all, she cannot and will not step out of the narrative. The very concept that a man might shut down on women in general, or on a particular woman – her, for example – simply will not fit into her nicely furnished hamster cage.

Well, the day of my flight home finally arrived. She was going to take me to the airport and we had lunch before my flight. My eyes were not yet opened to the full depth of her game playing, and I bought the narrative that she was “confused and conflicted” about the whole thing. I laid it out for her and told her that I thought she was behaving in a reprehensible manner. “Don’t keep playing these two guys off against each other” I said. “If you realize now that you made a mistake when you divorced Dick and want him back, then tell your husband that, and get a divorce, and marry Dick again. But don’t keep playing these guys against each other in a bidding war to see who will offer you the better deal.”

I could tell by the look on her face that I had hit nerve. I flew back home thinking she was one of the stupidest, vilest, most self-centered, cunts I had ever met in my life, and for all his good heart and being a Niceguy™, that he was dumber than dogshit to put up with her. But, stupid me, there was still enough of that damned Leo loyalty in me that I still saw her as a misguided friend and not as an evil selfish, self-centered bitch.

Well, my faith in her was justified in one respect – she would eventually help me over that hurdle.

Chapter 3 -

(and this is where the plot curdles)

Another 3 years or so go by, and she sends me an email that she is planning a big surprise party for his 50th birthday and since I was his best friend, she wants me to come. I was “between jobs” at the time, didn’t want to spend the money, and not too hot on birthdays or her, so I declined.

Then, another friend of his that I had met started working on me. This guy stated that if I came, that Jane would dance naked. (they live on the left coast)

“Yeah. Right!” was my response. This woman was so sexually uptight that she would go to a beach or something like that, wear a 1 piece bathing suit out of the 50s, and still spend her time huddled up in a beach wrap. I expected the next thing the guy to do was try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge.

They kept at me for several weeks and finally figured out that I was serious about not wanting to spend the money, so they finally offered to pay for my plane ticket. “Now, you’re talking!”

It was Californication to the max. The “theme” of the party was “leather, lace, or nothing at all” and everyone there was either pretending to be a biker-wannabe or part of the nudist crowd. It was supposed to be a total surprise, so everyone hid in the next room when he showed up.

The ruse was that the 2 of them were going out to dinner with another couple. When he showed up, she started this elaborate game of “I planned something special for your birthday” and dropped the coat she was wearing to reveal that she was wearing nothing but a body stocking. Then, the female half of the other couple came in and dropped her coat, wearing nothing but a similar stocking. Of course, everyone was tittering over how excited Dick was going to be over the idea of a threesome with these 2 women.

At that point all the guests walked in shouting “surprise.”

The evening wore on with some of the most bogus, shallow, game playing I’ve ever had to endure. The women were all half or completely naked, and never got too far from their male SOs. There were enough single-unattached males there that the women got plenty of attention, but were perfectly safe from having to follow through on the reason they were getting it, because they had their protective husbands or BFs close at hand.

Many drinks into the evening, Jane stood up and started telling the story of getting me to the party. Of course, the idea that any man would pass up the chance to drop a few hundred bucks on a plane ticket and rush halfway across the country to watch any woman take off her clothes (including a 45-ish one with fake boobs and a saggy ass) was just too unbelievably funny.

Trapped in the narrative – any male of any age will of course spend any amount of money it takes to be able to see any woman naked.

It was my best buddy’s birthday, and I was a bit socially trapped – having been picked up at the airport and taken to a location I had no idea where it was, and dependent on these people for transportation and lodging – so I played along with the joke. I could have walked out, and if I had known in advance what shit she was going to pull, I probably would have walked somewhere and gotten a taxi to a motel and then one to the airport. But, there I was – so I played along.

“Show me the money!” I said.

She then went on to set the stage that she really was going to dance naked, but that she was going to “make him” (meaning me) “work for it.” The game was going to be Trivial Pursuit about Dick, since I supposedly knew him better than anyone else in the world. For every question I got right, she would take off one piece of clothing. She made a BIG deal out of exactly how many pieces of clothing she was wearing right then – which was 3 if you counted each of her shoes as a separate article, plus a totally see through body stocking which left her breasts, nipples, pubic hair, and even cameltoe, totally visible. (BIG, LONG, ELABORATE DRAMATIC buildup here – totally giving away her intention to do something unbelievably bogus)

So, the “game” commenced, with cheering squads for each “side.” Every time I missed a question, the women cheered, every time I got one right the men cheered and the women booed – the battle of the sexes in microcosm – Team Woman against Team Man, played like a sick version of the child’s game “keepway”with the sexuality of a woman in whom I had absolutely no interest being dangled as the “prize” – as the narrative dictates.

So, we got into the game with questions like “What is his niece’s pony’s name.” The funniest thing was that she was so drunk by this point, that she would ask me a question like this, and when I didn’t know it and she told the answer, she would come back and ask me the same question again – at which time I would give the answer she had just told me, and claim the “point.” The women always booed, but the guys stood by me – “asked and answered!”

So, I got about 12 points for 3 items of clothing. By her own rules she was going to end up completely naked. However, I had followed the running gag in the Peanuts cartoon strip about Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football, long enough to know she was going to weasel out of it somehow.

She disappears for about half an hour with a couple of female helpers, then an accomplice cued her music and she made her grand entrance.

She must have brought a damn trunk full of clothes with her and put on every one of them. She left with 3 items of clothing on, and returned with about 30.

She started out dancing to a song from the movie “9 1/2 weeks” that Kim Bassinger danced to. By this time, she had had to get so drunk in order to do this at all that she was basically falling off her shoes.

I looked around at the people in the room cheering her on and thought to myself that if there had been one damn person in the room who cared about her even a little bit they would have dragged her out of there, stuck her head under cold running water, and slapped some sense into her.

But, that was the weirdest and saddest part of the whole macabre scene – not one person there cared enough about her as a person to intervene in her making a complete ass of herself. Obviously, she had manipulated me into a situation where I couldn’t do it, and by this time I was pissed off enough at her that I probably wouldn’t have even if I could have.

The dance ended at some point, with her wearing a hat, a pair of panties, and some sort of scarf arranged so that her fake boobs teased out without being actually “on display.”

I wandered off to ponder what amazing insanities the human race is capable of and a little while later she sought me out.

“Are you having a good time?” she asked.

“Not really”, I replied. “Being around all these nearly naked women with their men just makes me really aware of being here alone.”

“WELL, at least you have all these beautiful ladies to look at”

What a glib cutoff and dismissal. In her unbelievable narcissism, she seemingly thought that because being looked at and having her ego fed by being the center of attention and being able to pretend that she was still 18, that gratifying her ego should be equally gratifying to me.

I made the simplest of human comments, that no, I really wasn’t enjoying it, and she had to cut me off and silence that. A simple human gesture of understanding on her part would have made me feel very warm toward her, but what I got from her made me hate her guts.

Skankus Americanus. She played the victim game with her boob job by insinuating that she might have cancer, worrying the shit out of my buddy, and still her husband at that point in time. She pledged with complete sincerity to be his wife for life, and didn’t live up to that for more than 4 years. She made the same pledge to another man, and when their differences (and behavior she supported other women in doing) resulted in him turning off on her, she sought out the safest man in the world to have an affair with (no risk for her, no way). She strung my buddy along for 4 more years playing on his hope that she might leave her gravy train (oops, I meant “husband”) and come back to him. She “celebrated” his birthday by demeaning him over his sex drive and fantasies, played a bogus game she never had any intention on following through with, and when a man who she had known for 20 years and had been pretty much a friend that whole time told her that he really wasn’t enjoying the whole charade, she blows him completely off in the belief that gratifying her ego should gratify him.

In a blinding flash of insight I grasped all at once what Ferdinand Bardmanu would later come to call “The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind.” Every idea I had had about friendship, and how people conducted themselves toward people they called (or thought of as) “friends”, got thrown out the window. Her utter and complete lack of conscience about using men in her life who were or had been her husbands, or anyone else within her circle of acquaintances, would have seemed cold blooded and ruthless if she had appeared to give it any thought. It was the complete lack of any thought or concern which was the most chilling and enlightening.

I realized then that she was simply incapable of regarding other people as human beings with thoughts, desires, and needs of their own, and simply regarded them as resources to use to gratify herself – much like someone might regard a tree as nothing more than a source of lumber to cut down and saw into planks to use to build a house or garage. She was incapable of regarding or dealing with people as people, and saw them merely as objects.

While my experience doesn’t even come close to what some men have had to go through with divorces, or child custody fights, or false accusations, it still illustrates the need a lot of men have to TOTALLY rethink what they believe about women – and about other men as well.

- Epilogue –

Several months went by – close to a year – and I got an email from my buddy. They had taken me to the airport the day after the party and I had spent the flight back reflecting on what was one of the most bizarre events I had ever experienced in my life without pharmaceutical assistance. His email was just standard “hi, how you doing?” chit-chat. I wrote back and almost idly asked how things were going with him and Jane. He said that he hadn’t seen her for about 6 months after the party and then she showed up again. At least he was no longer carrying a torch for her and had copped the attitude “If she shows up and wants to fuck, I will fuck her. But, if she doesn’t that is fine, too – I have other women to spend my time with.”

Well, if you have hung with me so far through this long prologue, here comes the punch line.

As usual, being a feminist, Naomi Wolf gets it all wrong. The “porn” that women really should be concerning themselves with is the kind walking around on stupid uncomfortable shoes all around us every day. It is the women shoving their tits, and panty-less twats, in men’s faces, and absolutely demanding that none of the men that they do not want to react to them do so in any way – but if they do, calling it “rayyype” and “sexual harassment.”

FEMININE-ism is about absolute and total control of the external environment by women who refuse to exercise any control over themselves. It is also about absolute and total control of men – demanding they not even think about being human beings, and instead exist only as manbots, whose only option is to follow the instructions given by women – always in the form of a sentence which includes the world “should” - with a grinning army of brain-dead manginas and White Knights as their enforcers.

Women, en masse, have been subjecting men to a sort of culture wide Ludovico technique, in which women are allowed, “empowered”, to beat on men’s instinctive reactions to female sexuality, and then clobber any man who reacts that they deem “unwelcome” with the full clout of the criminal justice system, destroy their careers, reputations, and everything they have worked in life to achieve. And, just like the ultimate anti-hero in the film, Alex, men begin to associate a stimulus they previously considered quite nice with nausea and all sorts of unpleasantness.

Like the old Aesop’s fable about the boy who cried “wolf”, women who dishonestly cry “wolf”, or “rayyype”, or “abuse”, or “mate me”, and lie about it eventually destroy all their credibility and people no longer believe them – even in those cases when it is true. That is the hidden long-term cost of using lies to manipulate other people to get what you want in the short term.

Unfortunately for men, the sex drive is extremely powerful. And, it takes a whole lot to suppress it. But, once a man masters the skill to do so, he immediately starts to reap lots of benefits. It makes him much more difficult to manipulate. He is able to evaluate women not on their sexual attributes, but on their character. And, he puts a layer of insulation between himself and a false rape accusation of the “he said, she said” type.

I contend that the real underlying cause of women and girls having to become so outrageous in flaunting their sexuality in order to get even a little bit of attention from men is women like Jane – who consider that it is a god-given right of women to shake men’s trees, whether or not they actually want any of that man’s peaches. It is the women shoving their tits, and their panty-less twats, in men’s faces and then demanding, under threat of punishment by law, that those men not react as they hare hard wired to react, who force men to learn not to react even when those women change their minds and start wanting a particular man to react.

And, this totally solipsistic exploitation by men, and the women who support it, eventually erode away even the strongest of relationships. Jane went from being a woman that my buddy Dick would have done anything he possibly could to win back, to being a woman who he will fuck if she shows up and wants to fuck. TOS limitations prevent me from being totally candid about my opinion of this woman that I had thought was a friend for close to 20 years.

I have always believed that men would get through these social changes we are living through. I didn’t think that women would like how men adapted, but I had no doubt that they would adapt. The problem for women is that they have thrown away their power base in exchange for unlimited “empowerment.”

It does not matter that “NAWALT.” Sooner or later we are going to have to face a cultural admission that SOME women really are like that, and that the ones who are can do a great deal of damage to the people around them – especially including the NAWALTs.

And, here is the core of that damage: not only do fewer men want those women at all, having been trained by walking pornography to shut down their desires, but to return to Jane’s hypothetical woman – if she goes into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties, in order to use men’s instinctive and reflexive reactions against them in order to feed their inner attention whores and get free drinks, and later gets raped…

… the question is not whether or not “she asked for it”, but instead “who gives a shit?”

Dancing With The Night Wind 1

2011-02-25T22:20:00.000-08:00

I had a curious---and uninvited---experience the other day.

Many years ago I had worked a low-paying job that eventually had me scrambling for another another within a matter of a few months. I was let go as someone that (allegedly) was not suitable for the position I had been offered, and being young and somewhat naive I didn't bother to seriously question the decision that my employer made or fight back---which I would have done now days even if it meant taking legal action. Of course, being a job that held little promise didn't make me want to stay to begin with; some might think they had done me a favor by canning me, but at the time I was dismayed despite finding another fairly quickly.

One of my co-workers was openly feminist, brazen, loud-mouthed, antagonistic, and harassing. While it was the owners choice to cut me from their fold, I truly believe she was instrumental in getting me fired. Ironically, if I had displayed the same behavior she possessed I would have been in hot water in an instant. There was a brief witch hunt (of sorts) that occurred there and I wasn't the only one to be axed, but she wasn't one of them. I remember being rather defensive around her and feeling uncomfortable in her presence---I believe my employers had toyed with the idea of keeping me, but with her word they were swayed otherwise.

I'll call her Rose here.

Rose, I believe, wanted to cheat on her husband with me and felt spurned. She was constantly hitting on me and making sexual comments. Again, being a man and rather intimidating looking, I would have lasted even less if had I done the same with her and it had been unwelcome. Rose conjured up falsehoods about me being an employee that was unhealthy to deal with (ultimately) because she could not manipulate me one way or another, whether it was anything to demeaning me to sleeping with me.

Many years later I was coming out of one of the gyms where I practice mixed marital arts I saw Rose. For a few weeks I completely ignored her, and at best I quickly glanced at her without acknowledgment or a lingering gaze at all. I made no effort to contact her or act as if I cared or knew who she was.

One day, an instructor and I were leaving the building to train with another who specializes in groundfighting/grappling, when Rose trots up to butt into our conversation out of no where. In her audacity, she asks me if I remember working with her and was surprised that if had remembered her it "didn't register in my eyes." I swear if she had been any closer she would have bumped into me.

I told her she looked familiar but didn't know her. I quickened my pace and turned away stating coldly, "We have to go," and cut her off.

There are reasons why I relate this story. The Roses of the world cannot be trusted, and it isn't just because she was a catalyst in getting me fired, which I don't think I deserved, nevertheless.

They are born from the "in your face" style of feminism that embraces the mentality that they should reap the benefits of both traditionalism and license. Rose went around making sexual innuendos when a man doing the same would have faced a charge of sexual harassment. She pushed others emotionally, pretended she was better than men at just about anything, and was clearly vindictive when she didn't get want she wanted---including an affair that had the potential to be dangerous.

Presently, I found her temerity and lack of respect for my personal boundary offensive. She knew back then I was growing wary of her, and the passage of many years and my desire to shun her did not stop her from being an arrogant lap dog for the moment. Insensitivity and hubris, thy name is feminist. She was stupid to not understand my cues or purposefully overlooking them; it is not my problem.

Within another week, the one instructor and I will find another place to train that has nothing to do with the event, but I won't miss her, obviously.

Years after I had been fired from the bed and breakfast, I worked at a bistro for several years. Another "Rose" worked there also, for a time. When I was falsely accused of harassment by her, I turned the tables and stood up for myself. The end result was that she was not to speak to me about anything personal, and she was suspended for a few days to get her act together. And her job was on the line for once.

There is a lesson for the Roses of the world, and feminists in general. Regardless of one believes in karma or not, we, Men Going Our Own Way, do remember the stings, the betrayals, the wrongs, and the hate that feminists create in our lives. Forgiveness means little if we cannot forge our own path with traps, snares, and venom from them. If it means avoiding them completely outside of fending them off socially and legally, so be it. They will get what they give in some fashion or another, and we will go onward without their insidious influence in our souls as much as possible.

Comments Sent Through

2011-01-24T07:17:00.000-08:00

Sorry for my delay on any of the articles with remarks---I'm around although pretty busy, but I have checking in more often again. Thanks for your patience everybody. SR.

Chuck Ross On Gifford, Feminism, and Maligned Masculinity

2011-01-12T08:07:00.000-08:00

Article from The Spearhead

Masculinity Blamed for Lunatic’s Actions

by Chuck Ross on January 11, 2011

Jessica Valenti – with help from Amanda Marcotte – would have us think three things: Jared Loughner’s attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords stemmed from systemic misogyny which targets women; gender norming, “violent masculinity”, and “man up culture” is the cause of political unrest in the States; and conservative men are the cause of the rhetoric coming out of conservative women’s mouths.

At the end of it all, in J.V.’s view, Jared Loughner isn’t the only man to blame for the murder of six people, the near-assassination of a member of Congress, and the wounding of 13 others: masculinity – maleness, men – are the root of this evil.

It is no coincidence that J.V. wrote this article about violent masculinity precisely when a female politician was the victim. One would find it difficult to imagine that J.V. would adopt a similar slant if a male politician – a Democrat as well – was targeted. Precisely because J.V. sees a difference (I am assuming), she informs us of her article’s true intentions which causes us to overturn every rhetorical rock as we proceed.

“This is not the kind of history we want to be making,” writes Valenti, both at the beginning and the end of her article published by a foreign press and consumed by a readership unfamiliar with the feminist. Bookended is the story of a country consumed by “violent masculinity” which exists at the hand of conservative men who have forced conservative women to adopt the gendered behavior as a prerequisite to holding political office.

According to J.V., this demeanor serves as a buoy amid the turbulent political sea which grants political extremists like Loughner the confidence and audacity to carry out their deranged political agenda. At the extreme end – the one-in-a-billion – lunatics like Loughner magically “man up” and take matters into their own hands.

A seasoned Valenti watcher will notice two things about her article. Immediate to her opening and closing salvo, she mentions that Congresswoman Giffords is both the “first female politician in America to be the subject of an assassination attempt” and the youngest woman to be elected to Congress. Another victim mentioned at the end of J.V.’s piece, was nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. The most salient fact that J.V. could find to eulogize the little girl’s life was “that she loved activities “from ballet to baseball””. She also loved politics at a very young age and was elected student council president at her school. Somehow her norm-defying hobbies were found fit to mention.

I feel bad using the little girl as a sort of prop to drive my point home. I wonder if J.V. felt that way too. My only defense is that I’m mentioning the girl to drive home a larger point about Jessica Valenti. While J.V. didn’t directly say it, she attempts to appeal to the stereotype of the depraved man preying on women precisely because they’re women. Giffords was young and women had never before been targeted for assassination in this country. Somehow that is supposed to lend significance to this assassination attempt and make it worse than any other. Through this, J.V. deftly ties “man up” culture to the attack of a female representative.

What Jessica Valenti won’t come straight out and say, feminist Amanda Marcotte, who served as an aide to John Edwards (a fine upstanding man), does: Jared Laughner targeted Gabrielle Giffords because she is a woman. According to Marcotte, because Giffords joked at Loughner’s expense during a 2007 townhall meeting, and because men can’t handle being upbraided by outspoken women, Loughner sought revenge on the woman who made him feel stupid. Marcotte reads a lot into the exchange, but her theory depends entirely on something that is unprovable: that Loughner wouldn’t have tried to assassinate a congressman if he made the same joke.

By appealing to emotion and chivalry, J.V. hopes that the attempted assassination takes on some quality that sets it apart from others – the ones in which almost all the victims have been men.

But political assassination is an undesirable yet inevitable consequence of politics. It is systemic. Politics are a consequence of the push-pull relationship between representative and constituents which are categories derived from a desire for social order. Thus political assassination, and attempts at it, are a function of society itself. Just as cancer is a function of being alive.

Political assassination is as old as politics itself – which is to say, it is as old as society. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, dynasties from China, the Middle East, Africa, and Tudor England had to deal with the problem. In America’s short history, political violence has befallen men who enter public office or the public realm. Nine presidents, one president-elect, three Presidential candidates, eight governors, seven senators, nine congressmen, eleven mayors, seventeen state legislators, eleven judges, and men like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. have been either killed, maimed, or targeted because of their high public profile.

As women make their way into the public sphere, acts of violence aimed at political candidates who happen to be female are inevitable. While nobody, even a feminist, should cheer assassination attempts leveled at female politicians – none of this “Yay, we’ve arrived” celebration that occurs when women attain other political milestones – it takes an entitled person to believe that any demographic of politician should or would have a protective bubble as Valenti does by insinuating that this event is more significant than it already is merely because Giffords is a woman.

From that we can deduce a strain of entitlement that is often found in feminist rhetoric. That women can have the rose without the thorn. It may be harsh to say it in this manner, but women can’t enter the political realm without some of them falling victim to violent political attack. When those attacks do occur, they happen because the person is a politician – not because they are specifically female.

**********

Now, what about those buoys? What psychological anchor did Loughner latch on to as a reference point to justify his horrific actions? J.V. begins:

“What’s not being discussed, however, is that a fair amount of this violent language and imagery is coming from female politicians on the right.”

She cites the various “man up” castigations uttered by Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Jane Norton in the recent election campaign. Gendered language and other references to violent rhetoric – like crosshairs on political maps and allusions to the Second Amendment are supposed to outweigh Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto (plus Peter Pan) as the impetus towards political violence.

After tackling conservatism as a whole, J.V. deigns to take down the male cohort by citing a reference that “masculine and violent behavior is often used in elections and campaigns – especially by men on the right – because of a fear of being perceived as feminine.” She adds:

In a sexist society, what could be worse than being called a girl? So it doesn’t seem unlikely that conservative female politicians feel the need to peddle their ideas in gendered and violent language in order to fit in with the masculinised right.

J.V. would have us think that politicians who didn’t get elected (none of the four women she cited were elected to office in their most recent campaigns) have such a profound impact on society that male secret assassins in Congressional districts with female representatives are robotically activated – taking to the streets for political justice.

She would also have us believe that conservative female politicians are so incapable of developing their own style that they must adopt that of their masculine betters in order to attract votes. That they must morph into men in order to be elected. But at what point does women’s speech become feminine? Why must the negative rhetoric that comes out of women’s mouths be considered masculine and therefore bad? Why can’t it be feminine and bad as well?

Valenti has to pretend that men are using women as puppets to do the bidding on the part of evil men. Because she draws the connection between the words coming out of the woman’s mouth and the string dangling from the Man’s hand, those women are actually absolved of all of their gender norming sins. That horrible gender norming, the one responsible for the near death of a Congresswoman and the death of a little girl, is laid directly at conservative men’s feet.

J.V. ignores the s0-called violent masculinity emanating from the left during this election cycle. One could only suppose that she ignored female Democrat Robin Carnahan’s suggestion that Roy Blount man up over health care or Democratic Senate hopeful Kendrick Meek’s advice that Charlie Crist act like a man or the Democrat’s use of targets on maps with Republican districts or the gender-shaming liberal magazine articles because such masculine language was tempered by the larger female base of that particular party. Double-standards abound. Whatever is deemed to be “safe” or “feminine” is given a free pass and cannot be considered violent rhetoric.

Jared Loughner is vermin. His actions are deplorable, and I feel sorrow for all of his victims. To a much smaller degree, I feel contempt for Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcott for theorizing an angle to this story that is only rooted in their biased gender activism. Because their claims are impossible to test, the feminists are able to float wild ideas that only serve to further demonize maleness and masculinity. Just as Valenti posits a buoy of conservative rhetoric that serves as a launch pad for extreme right terrorism, she also posits that masculinity serves the same function for “violent masculinity”. In both cases, if she successfully ties the extreme to the normal, she can sink everything. And that is not the kind of history we want to be making.

Crystal Gail Mangum Convicted of Child Abuse

2011-01-02T09:40:00.000-08:00

Anyone surprised?

Duke lacrosse accuser convicted of child abuse

By EMERY P. DALESIO, Associated Press Emery P. Dalesio, Associated Press – Fri Dec 17, 5:49 pm ET

DURHAM, N.C. – A woman who authorities said falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape four years ago has been found guilty by a North Carolina jury of child abuse and damaging property.

A Durham County jury on Friday convicted 32-year-old Crystal Mangum of contributing to child abuse or neglect. She was also convicted of injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer stemming from a February confrontation with her live-in boyfriend. All the charges were misdemeanors.

The jury deadlocked 9-3 on a felony arson charge, and Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones declared a mistrial.

Police said Mangum piled her boyfriend's clothing into a bathtub and set it on fire while her three children and two police officers were inside the apartment.

Fred Reed On Hook Up Culture and Feminism

2010-12-04T00:07:00.000-08:00

From Fred Reed's site Fred On Everything:

Getting What You Want, Wanting What You Get

An Unbiased Study of Feminism

June 29, 2010

I see where women, or college girls anyway, are honking and blowing most fierce about how they don’t like the way sex works nowadays. Yeah. It seems that the hook-up is in flower. This means that the girl meets some guy on a bus or in a remedial-reading class in college or finds herself in the same elevator, and he says, “Let’s screw,” and she does, maybe right there in the elevator, and then she’s all mad because she did, and because he did, men, the bastards.

I was born too soon.

What seems to get their panties in an uproar is that they offer their favors to passersby like soap companies handing out shampoo samples, but without the intimacy, and then grouse because the guy doesn’t call them back. Why would he? Give me one reason.

What I don’t get is, why are gals bitching? This is the world they wanted. They clawed and scratched and burned their bras and had court cases and threw fits to get exactly what they have. They hated men because, they said, men weren’t letting them copulate frantically like men had always wanted them to. Men, or more likely their mothers, didn’t let them make themselves unattractive by dressing like hod-carriers and swearing like sailors. Finally men gave in and now women hate them for that. Whatever happened to gratitude?

When I was a young stud—well, young anyway—in high school, girls were still oppressed, which meant that a guy knew he probably wasn’t going to get laid, so he might as well find a girl he really enjoyed being with. The idea slowly leaked into his hormonally disabled psyche that girls were kind of special. You could actually like one. Sure, a guy made pawing motions because he was expected to, and she went along to a minor extent. But that was it.

So she didn’t feel used or hooked up with because she hadn’t been, and he thought he was damned lucky to have her. It was a concept of sorts.

But then came fem-lib. A torrent of really nasty dykes with politically-significant hairy armpits started yowling about how it wasn’t fair that men could cat around and women couldn’t. Then the Pill shifted the paradigm into high gear. Girls could now Do It in relative security, and abortion, also championed by feminists, provided sure-fire back-up. There was now no reason why a woman shouldn’t say Yes.

Which meant—Oh bliss!—that she had little excuse for saying No. Sally Sue might have teeth like pearls and brains and perky tits and a wacky sense of humor and actually be quite a prize, but sex trumps art. If Sally didn’t say Yes, she knew that Greta would. Women had commoditized themselves. It was a marvelous thing for the testosterone wads we think of as college boys.

It quickly came to the old country saw with fangs: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Guys learned that they could say, “Check your oil, lady?” and it worked. Praise de Lawd! Gloria Steinem and Andrea Fire-Plug-with-Leprosy Dworkin had done what men had failed to do in millennia: produce a race of obligately loose women.

Women, never happy, discovered that they didn’t like this either. They wanted the right to rut, but not the duty. Unfortunately the two were a package. What they really wanted was to…get married. Being less adept than men at getting outside of their own heads, they didn’t understand why a lot of men were happy single. For a guy, serial monogamy was fine. So was hooking up. Soap flakes are soap flakes.

But it was what women had deliberately brought about.

Not being too good at abstraction, they didn’t understand that a man can be perfectly happy with casual sex, scuba gear, and a Harley Sportster. Left to himself, he would never think of having a Volvo station wagon, a boring McMansion with a backbreaking mortgage, or a wedded termagant who wouldn’t let him go out with his friends. He doesn’t see himself as exploiting his one-nights. He didn’t tell them he was looking for a soul mate, and may well have told them he wasn’t. (Fortunately they never believe it.) He probably isn’t contemptuous of them. He just wants a shot of leg, and figures she must have been taken by the idea, since she did it.

Certain dialogs become common:

“All you want is sex!”

“Uh…what else have you got?” or “So what?”

Or, “Marriage? Why? Would sex be better? Would food taste better? I don’t get it.”

Or, “Marriage doesn’t make sense. Do you want to eat in the same restaurant all your life?”

Marriage of course has only the function of getting the woman’s legal hooks into the guy. It’s a set-up aimed at child support and nothing else.

Anyway, it was the world women crafted, but somehow it didn’t suit them. Nothing does. They relapsed to their default position: Furious.

To make matters worse, women decided that they wanted to be men, or like men, or one of the guys, or some equally awful thing. Enter Anti-Viagra: the little blue blazer with shoulder pads, and the floppy pants-suit suitable for a trailer park outside of Las Vegas. These had the appeal of truss ads and alone would have dropped the birth rate below ZPG, but then came the Chip. As women entered what had been a male workplace, they found that they didn’t much like it, precisely because it was male. Angry as always, they set about neutering all things male, with wild success.

The Chip was the view that they weren’t going to take any crap, accompanied by a constant search for crap not to take. Hating men gave them a horsepower unavailable to males, who didn’t hate women but just wanted to get away from them.

Here again, women got what they wanted. Much favored them. Though they knew less about politics than do men, they voted in larger numbers and, since they did the shopping and liked buying things, they discovered that they had tremendous economic clout. They couldn’t compete well with men, but didn’t have to: Affirmative action worked just fine.

Except somehow it didn’t. One triumph after another somehow didn’t make them happy. They chased boys out of college, providing the satisfactions of vengeance for a crime never committed, but it engendered the hook-up culture, and they hate men for it. They pressured the divorce courts to rape men, and now hate men—the beasts—for not marrying them.

I dunno, Brothels and Cisterns. It seems to me that the feminists got just what they wanted. They made their bed. Now let them lie in it. But quietly. Oh please, quietly.

I Respond to Reader Comments

2010-09-10T00:25:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-03T06:18:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-09-02T19:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Excellent Post From the Blog Toy Soldiers

2010-07-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

Blame Men First

Everyone has problems. Everyone experiences some relationship issues, job issues, family issues, and a host of other trials. Some of these problems occur because of social ills. Others because of the person’s own behavior. However, it is improbable that any one group’s problems are solely the responsibility of another group of people. The broader the group of people, the more likely that several factors converge to create or cause problems for them. More so, it is highly improbable that any one group is solely responsible for all its own problems. Again, the broader the group of people, the more likely that several factors play a role.

So when Hugo Schwyzer makes the bold claim that men bear sole responsibility for all their own problems, he ironically has a problem.

One of the major flaws in Hugo’s arguments is he deals in absolutes. Things are the way he says they are and can be no other way. The problem with this type thinking becomes apparent once Hugo dives into his argument. Hugo tries defuse Tom Matlack’s position that men should speak up for themselves and voice their concerns considering that feminism and feminists do the same in for women, first presenting a red herring about the media not supporting feminism, followed by changing Matlack’s position altogether:

But perhaps what Tom means is that the media celebrate women’s breakthroughs into traditionally male spaces, while spending very little time discussing the crushing burden of successfully occupying those spaces. That is a worthwhile topic for discussion.

Of course, that has nothing to do with Matlack’s position. It does, however, set up Hugo’s actual argument, which is that if men have problems to actually complain about, those problems are all the fault of men:

But the real problem, of course, is that both men and women live and work in a system that was designed and is maintained by men. Wealthy men, yes, but men nonetheless. When men complain about being overwhelmed by the demands of wives and bosses and children, they are complaining about a system that men themselves erected. When women complain about the old boy’s network (which still thrives in many public and private institutions today) they do so as outsiders; even affluent white women are still outsiders in a world where women make up 51% of the population and 17% of the US Senate. When men complain about the crushing burden of expectation, they do so as (to use one of my favorite expressions from Twelve Step programs) “architects of their own adversity.”

As mentioned above, Hugo deals in absolutes. One of these absolutes is that women never cause any social problems. Another is that all men benefit at all women’s expense. The illogic of both those positions is so apparent that Hugo feels inclined to acknowledge that it is actually wealthy men who designed and maintain the “system” that men and women live and work in.

Hugo does not explain why he holds wealthy (presumably white) men as representative of all men despite those men making up a fraction of the total male population. The vast majority of men are working class or middle class, do not own businesses, probably work at jobs they could get rather than in careers they wanted, struggle from pay check to pay check, may not have had access to educational opportunities, and in no tangible way control any aspect of the United States government, businesses, or institutions. Hugo provides no justification for holding the majority of men responsible for the economic and class disparities they experience. More so, the red herring about women’s population rate and power within the US Senate in no way explains how men are responsible for being overwhelmed by the demands of wives, bosses, and children.

However, rather than prove that his assertion bears any veracity, Hugo moves on to absolving females of any responsibility for the problems males face. He states:

It is absolutely true that wearing the straitjacket of masculinity makes most men miserable in the end; many do lead the lives of “quiet desperation” that Thoreau described more than a century and a half ago. For most of these men, that straitjacket doesn’t feel like a choice, as they learned to wear it when they were little boys. Many of these men blame women for demanding that their husbands wear it, some blame their kids, some blame their bosses. Some blame themselves. But the real culprit isn’t individual men, and it certainly isn’t women or children. The real culprit is the “man code”, a set of rules created and transmitted by men through generations.

Again, Hugo offers no evidence to support this assertion. Men’s experiences do not occur in a homosocial vacuum. How likely is it that women, as Hugo posits, in no way impact how men behave? How likely is it that the relationship problems men have with their female partners is unrelated to the women’s behavior or demands? How likely is it that the problems men have with their bosses is unrelated to the bosses’ behavior or demands? How likely is it that the problems men have with their children is unrelated to the childrens’ behavior or demands? Hugo attempts to deflect these questions by stating “the real culprit isn’t individual men,” however, that deflection does not parse with his overall assertion that men are collectively and solely responsible for any problems they face.

Hugo continues with:

Both men and women suffer, but they don’t suffer equally. As Robert Jensen and many others have pointed out, the reason a woman can’t walk safely in a parking lot at night and the reason her boyfriend can’t cry in front of his friends are the same: fear of men. But the cost of not being able to cry is hardly comparable to the cost of rape and the fear of sexual violence. It’s false equivalence to suggest that the fear of being ridiculed as insufficiently manly and the fear of being raped and killed are remotely the same. Those who claim that “the patriarchy hurts men too” need to remember that the potential injuries are rarely as severe.

Firstly, males are far more likely to be victims of violence. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey:

Characteristics of victims of violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 were similar to previous years. Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger experienced violent victimizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older (table 4). Females were more likely than males to be victims of rape or sexual assault. Males experienced higher rates of victimization than females in all other violent crimes measured by the NCVS.

In regards to type of violence:

The percentage of violent crime committed against males and females by someone they knew (i.e., nonstranger) is driven by assault (table 6). Male victims knew the offenders in half of all aggravated and simple assaults against them. Female victims knew the offenders in approximately 70% of assaults against them. Offenders known to the victims were most often identified as friends or acquaintances, accounting
for a similar percentage of violence against male (42%) and female (38%) victims.

Strangers were responsible for about a third (36%) of all violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 (not shown in table). The percentages of overall violence, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault committed by strangers were higher for males than for females. Robbery was the crime most likely to be committed by a stranger. Strangers committed 61% of robberies against men and 45% of robberies against women.

That women may express more fear about being assaulted does not change that the majority of victims of violence and the majority of victims of violence by strangers are male.

Secondly, Hugo takes two completely unrelated examples — women’s fear of random violence and social expectations for men — asserts that someone considers to the experiences the same, and then declares that the comparison is a false equivalence. That he is correct that the comparison is a false equivalence does not change that Hugo presented a strawman argument. He provides no example of anyone stating that women’s fear of random violence and social expectations for men are similar. Matlack, whose article prompted Hugo’s post, certainly does not make that claim.

Hugo simply created a strawman to attack, and it appears the reason stems from his absolutist views. If he wanted to make a fair comparison then he could have compared women’s fear of random violence to men being taught not to fear violence. While the two social norms do cause the same reaction, they both stem from concepts about men and women created and maintained by both men and women.

Ironically, Hugo skips the most obvious way in which men are victims of violence in favor for using the analogy of war. However, this dodge only serves to demonstrate Hugo’s absolutist bias. For the most part, women do not directly participate in war. They are usually not soldiers, not officers, and not combatants. So to state that “men tend to be the ones who started these wars, be they on the global stage or on the mean streets of the inner city” is a moot point.

However, to claim that “[men] started these battles not infrequently because of an unwillingness to consider compromise, or because of a hypermasculine, hyperfragile sense of honor” gives a false impression of the reasons behind warfare and unfairly tarnishes the boys and men who sacrificed the lives for very good causes. Some wars are fought for the reasons Hugo mentioned; many more are fought for a host of complex, convoluted reasons having nothing to do with “a hypermasculine, hyperfragile sense of honor.”

Of course, that sort of biased comment is necessary in order to facilitate Hugo’s view that men and only men are responsible for their own problems. Acknowledging anything else would undermine Hugo’s argument and demonstrate that the situation is not black and white. Hugo’s unwillingness to acknowledge the shades of gray leads to comments like:

I’d like to point out that in [inner-city communities] it’s still men who are perpetuating the problem: absent fathers abandoning their children, adult men choosing a life of violence and indoctrinating young men into it. And if you want to blame policing, it’s a male-dominated white power structure that creates the culture of incarceration for young black men.

Mothers and sisters are not responsible for fragile urban hypermasculinity. Absent (and present) fathers are; distorted images of machismo in the media are; appalling institutionalized racism perpetuated largely by a male police force and the male-dominated prison industrial complex are. If racism and classism weave their way through every aspect of our lives, so too does sexism, with equal (if not greater) deleterious effect on those who are its victims.

And the ubiquity of sexual violence can’t be ignored either — young girls are raped and molested (often by family members or at least members of their same race) across all social classes. Statistically, a middle-class white woman is more likely to have been sexually violated than is a young black man in the inner city (or a young white man in the suburbs). Rape is as soul-scarring as any form of gang violence.

Who kills young men? Boys, taught by older men, not women. Who rapes young women (and young men)? With a few spectacular exceptions (Mary Kay LeTourneau, take a bow), it’s predatory sexual violence committed by men. Racism and classism are awful and real, but misogyny is just as real, with the wounds it leaves just as deep and soul-scarring and community-destroying.

PM, my blood boils when I read that young women of color risk less “injury” than their brothers, as it reflects a grossly distorted understanding of what injury is. Is rape and sexual molestation not injury? Do you think boys and men suffer sexual violence equivalently at the hands of women?

So severe is Hugo’s absolutist view that women never cause any problems that he makes the unfounded, indefensible statement that mothers in inner-city communities are in no way responsible for their sons’ self-image and behavior. Never mind that violence in the home against children is often a precursor to violence committed by the children when they grow up. Never mind that the majority of the violence against children is committed by women. Never mind that abused children are more likely abuse drugs and alcohol. Despite that all of those are factors for why inner-city communities experience violence, and likely some of the many reasons why fathers in those communities are absent, Hugo skips them in favor of blaming men.

He goes on to mention sexual violence against females, first by making an unsubstantiated claim about middle-class white women being more likely to be sexually assaulted than a young black man from the inner-city, and then by asserting that no women outside of ”a few spectacular exceptions” commit sexual violence. He balks at the sexual violence committed by women against boys and men while also downplaying the general violence young men suffer, the latter of occurs far more frequently than any violence against females.

As I noted on Hugo’s blog, according to a study featured in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40% of men abused as children reported that their rapists were female, which disproves Hugo’s assertion that women never rape boys. Hugo harbors extremely disturbing and hostile views towards male victims of female rapists, so it was unsurprising, particularly in light of Hugo’s absolutist views, that he dismissed the above study, although in his dismissal he misrepresented the statistics listed on the Wikipedia page concerning child sexual abuse.

This level of intellectual dishonesty by feminists like Hugo is part of the reason why men like Tom Matlack would state:

…the media are still consumed with the old feminist battle cry, to the exclusion of the predicament of boys and men. Maybe guys need to complain more publicly about how hard it is to be a good father and husband, and still bring home the bacon. Maybe we should have our own cable network — not for ultimate fighting or pornography, but for guys to talk about trying to do it all while the wife, kids, and boss expect more than ever.

It is not just a matter of men not talking about their problems, but also feminists like Hugo misinforming people about the reality of men’s experiences. Feminists like Hugo are not interested in addressing Matlack’s position or addressing any of the issues men face because doing so would require them to throw aside all their preconceived notions, admit the flaws in their theories, and actually require those feminists to listen, really listen, to what men have to say. Instead, feminists like Hugo attack males, masculinity, and even male victims of rape and abuse, deriding them, minimizing their experiences, and blaming them for their own problems.

The irony of all this is that these feminists do this to men as they complain about people doing the same thing to women. None of the dozens of posts Hugo wrote about women holds women responsible for anything they experience, whether it is something done to women or something women do to other people. It is not just a double standard. It is the result of an unrelenting assuredness coming straight out of abject bias against men. That kind of open bigotry never fixes problems. It only worsens them and leads to people writing their convoluted theories on double-sided chalk boards

A True MGTOW Scene From American Beauty

2010-07-20T08:48:00.000-07:00

God, I love this clip. Absolutely love it. Kevin Spacey absolutely rocked here---this was a counter-agent against the 90s hangover and rampant misandry turning that period. Interestingly enough, Fight Club was released roughly around the same time; although it had a different vibe it's certainly another flick that could be MGTOW worthy.

Forget all the dumbed down stereotypes of what an alpha male is---Spacey nails the real deal effortlessly.

American Beauty Clip

"Don't interrupt me, honey . . . "

Beauty Is Only Razor Deep Redux

2010-06-23T10:48:00.000-07:00

I rarely debate the feminist minded online anymore unless and I am completely bored or just want to stir things up for those on the fence, but the other day I was having a not-so reasonable discussion about domestic violence with a few members of the pro-feminist crowd about DV. Here it goes.

They come from the "men bad, woman innocent victim" mindset, and rather than continue to present stats over and over---which they deny often anyway---I made the controversial suggestion that an unhealthy amount of Western women are attractive to abusive men because of several reasons outside of being "trapped." Including that "love" to them is so skewered and corrupt, a gentle and kind man would never have a chance . . . their idea of a loving relationship is an ongoing war.

Over the course of the conversation, one of them claimed to be a social worker for damaged women and called out that I (apparently) agreed with women being abused in a DV context, perhaps, as a good thing---simply because I didn't comply with the idea women would NEVER be consciously attracted to abusive partners if they had seen the red flags. Not to mention any reason I gave why they would continue the cycle were really legit whatsoever, and how dare I suggest that certain women would gravitate towards that prototype of man over and over. Or be abusive themselves in the fray.

Now, I'm not a psychologist, but it's pretty clear that there are factors as to why abused---and abusive---women continue the dynamic of engaging men that are bad for them. Perhaps because I don't care to kow tow to the politically correct mentality of why women stay with brutal men is one element as to why I was called out as condoning DV. I cannot stress enough the hubris of someone---such as our alleged social worker---that would do that. And employing a logical fallacy and demonizing me all at once with personal attacks. Lovely.

Here's an example of the name calling and game playing I'm talking about, and why I rarely bother arguing with hopheads about feminist subjects---with them, it's all about winning and looking good and righteous, while making the other debater look as bad as possible. Hell, even prefacing an argument with the notion that domestic violence is negative doesn't always help, and I will tell you why.

Let's say that Sally dubs herself as anti-racist and takes a moral position, all the while advancing an assertion that---in her mind---is not subject for scrutiny. And any person that disagrees with her, even with evidence, is still wrong, and therefore a racist by default.

See what I mean?

That's one of the reasons why straight up argumentation is often pointless with these people. They bully. They are passive-aggressive. They dominate all sides of the argument. They are disingenuous with their approach, and like any self-righteous feminist, mangina, or moral hack they have to somehow not only paint their opposition as fools, jerks, or demonize them, and just as significantly, they have to create their own boogeymen, often as a why to justify their ersatz ethical ground and assuage their own insecurities and fears.

I give props to those who have the scrote for cluebatting in such an environment, but I largely leave it to those want to tread darker waters. My patience has almost worn out.

Yeah, I'm still around

2010-06-04T15:53:00.000-07:00

To have a quick post here, I haven't abandoned ship. I have been working a lot and trying to set my life in order---in the last year too many changes happened, so on occasion I have posted articles I found interesting to keep it active outside of my own tribute to the late Ronnie James Dio. Many things, including my father's health, changing jobs, moving into another state, and changing residences have been several factors my quasi-hiatus.

I haven't run out of steam or things to say---quite the opposite, in fact. But as time goes by I continue to stop in and check comments, so feel free to remark on anything I post. They are screened but I am here at least every other day, and more thoughts and contributions are on the way.

Kudos, SR

Welmer On Women "Shooting Themselves in the Foot"

2010-05-24T09:49:00.000-07:00

How Women Are Shooting Themselves in the Foot

by Welmer on May 20, 2010

I’ve written before about the decline of the matriarch, and how women used to have a high-status role within the family in traditional societies after they reached a certain age. This role of matriarch was, of course, partly dependent on the status of the husband (but not entirely), and therefore created a vested interest in cooperation between husband and wife throughout the many years of marriage. For example, if a man and woman got married while young, the husband would strive to work his way up to a position of stability and prosperity, and the wife had an interest in helping him do so, because she would share in that.

This is one reason homewreckers – younger women who used their youthful allure to steal older, more prosperous husbands – were held to be one of the worst examples of womanhood. Women who did this were cheating by leaping over all the hard work and dedication to jump directly into a position of affluence and comfort.

Today, however, women’s well-being has been severed from their husbands’ prosperity by government programs and family law. Although many women may see this as a liberating victory, all they are doing – in most cases – is trading in future stability and status for a short-lived power trip during their youthful, attractive years.

Some men may strike it rich while still young, but this is rarely the case. For the large majority of successful men, making their way to the top requires decades of uninterrupted dedication to their career. In their 20s and 30s, a lot of them are on a knife’s edge, and only well into middle age do they finally get a chance to rest on their laurels. All it takes is one misstep in the long path to success to derail them, and having a supportive, helpful wife throughout that journey is immensely helpful. Unfortunately, most wives no longer foot that bill. They are a dangerous liability rather than a rock of support. At any moment they could blow the entire thing apart and send the family and man’s career spiraling down in flames. Rather than partners, women have become land mines buried under the path to success.

The result of this is that the homewrecker type has become more and more the norm, as evidenced by the rash of scandals involving married, middle-aged politicians and single women. Rather than hanging in there for the long haul, women are going for the hail mary shot at the big time while they are still fertile and attractive. This has a lot to do with the lack of success younger men, who are still relatively unknown quantities, are confronting. Women figure that they have over a decade to keep shooting for the big time that could well be wasted on some guy who isn’t by any means sure to do well in life. In their minds, they are making a rational choice.

This contemporary reality is exacerbated by the fact that while young, women often make more money than men. In fact, in many parts of the country men’s and women’s salaries equalize in the 30s, and only in middle age do men begin to substantially out-earn women. Women’s greater social power when young and attractive does translate into higher salaries, but this boost wears out after the steep decline in fertility of middle age. Perhaps this explains why women are most likely to leave their husbands in their late 20s, when they feel that their status is higher than their husband’s.

Unfortunately for the women who pursue this strategy, it often doesn’t work out as well for them as they imagine. Nailing Mr. Big is out of the reach of most women, and although they may have a few passionate nights with those kinds of high-flyers, the successful men who fool around with ambitious women are usually smart enough to avoid entrapment, and very rarely marry a de facto tramp. Instead, these women end up having a string of relatively short relationships with men who know how to act the part of the alpha male, and when they hit their Wile E. Coyote moment end up in a decidedly lower status position than they would have had they married young and stuck with it for the long haul.

In coming years there will be a lot of washed up women out there working low-status jobs, unappreciated by any men, and without any financial support except their own. Men have been paying the price for a few decades now, but that isn’t going to last forever; we will adapt to the new reality and learn to avoid the walking bombs in our midst. No amount of shaming language will trump self-interest and economic reality, so cultural change is inevitable. My bet is that when the boomers start to lose power and economic clout, their outdated views will be rejected with alacrity, and there will be a return to normalcy in domestic relations. It’s a shame that they will have left so much wreckage in their wake, but human societies are known for fitful progress and reckless defiance of nature, or God if you will.

A Legend Has Passed Away: RIP Ronnie James Dio

2010-05-17T06:02:00.000-07:00

You're a runner
But you're chasing yourself
Feel the hot breath on your shoulder

You're emotion
Running cold running warm
The young just getting older

We are sunlight
We can sparkle and shine
And our dreams are what we're made of

-Dio, Hungry for Heaven

The above pic is of singer Ronnie James Dio with the "Mob Rules" line up for Black Sabbath/Heaven and Hell, Toni Iommi, Geezer Butler, Vinne Appice, and RJD.

I wrote some of this to a friend and shared this with others, I and figured I would also write something about him on my own blog because his singing and music meant so much. There is no exaggeration that his music---and the bands he belonged to over time---had gotten me through good and bad times---and a couple of serious nadirs. I had seen him only once in concert years ago, but what an incredible experience---Dio even gave me the sign of the horns several times personally (although I made the effort to get his attention at first by practically standing on my seat!)

There's so much I could say, and throughout his music has been with me---and many others---through most my life. It has touched so many people, and when thinking MGTOW-wise, no politician, no skank, no feminist, or any or their associated and assorted ilk will NEVER bring the happiness and enjoyment to someone like Dio did turning his lifetime; the former seeks to control, ruin, and tarnish, the latter to uplift and move you. That is a testament to the power, the magic, and the inspiration he bequeathed to all of us.

This is depressing beyond belief that Dio has succumbed to stomach cancer. Our wizard for a modern age has crossed over.

Getting through work was a bitch just knowing what happened. The odd thing is that I had been listening to Dio material from the 70s all the way up to Heaven and Hell moniker, and then learned about his condition. I was hoping for the best, but at his age you can't always tell. As much as I still find it hard to fathom he isn't here with us incarnate, there is no doubt his legacy is great---there is such a wealth of material that he gave us---The Prophets, Elf, Rainbow, Dio, Black Sabbath, Heaven and Hell.

Catch the Rainbow, Ronnie. You are always with us in spirit.

Catch the Rainbow . . . by Rainbow

A Sobering Article by Paul Elam

2010-05-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

How to Build a Man Bomb

by Dr. Paul on May 13, 2010

We have seen it through the ages countless times before. Whether in the French Revolution, or the dense and decaying inner city enclaves of Los Angeles and Detroit, the suppressed outrage of marginalized populations can erupt into mob violence, setting buildings and entire cultures ablaze.

The same precursors are always there, though by tradition, and perhaps by design, we ignore them. The discrimination, oppression, bigotry and other human failings we justify or disregard are the tools in the Great Societal Bomb Making Kit; a kit that has been a permanent fixture in human civilization. It is as though the occasional burning city, streets littered with the dead, or even toppled governments are every cultures proof of human authenticity. And we ignore the ticking down of the timer until the body bags begin to fill.

Until it is too late.

And now, in keeping with the annals of our rigorously ignored history, we are setting about the business again of orchestrating a future catastrophe. After a bloody revolution for our freedom, the scourge of slavery, an even bloodier civil war, and a civil rights campaign that we handled with police dogs, riot guns and water cannons, we have put ourselves right back on the course of an inescapable social crisis.

This time we are building a man bomb. And when this one detonates it could make the American race riots look like a Thanksgiving Day parade.

The misandric Zeitgeist, the system of feminist governance that most are sill loathe to acknowledge is about to head toward its inevitable and ugly conclusion, and the results of that will inflict another deep wound on the psyche of the western world.

In the men’s rights community, a minority in its own right, we have long lamented the cruel and destructive war that has been waged against men and boys for the past half century. We’ve shouted endlessly at a deaf world that we were on the path to destruction, and we have watched our predictions of men being reduced to indentured servants to a malicious matriarchy come true, even as society continues to dismiss and humiliate us for speaking.

The buzz words and catch phrases have gone largely unchanged. They are now part of the common lexicon for those no longer blinded by the wool of a matriarchal matrix being pulled over their eyes. VAWA, child support, Title IV-D, false allegations, family court corruption, paternity fraud, male bashing, assumed guilt, man bad/woman good paradigm, phony wage gap, phony DV stats, media bias, etc., etc., etc.. All these terms and more are familiar to men and women who have seen through this transparent culture of hate and into an awareness of the problems we face, but do not acknowledge; problems we suffer from, but from which there is no relief.

Some have reacted with anger, some with hate, some with righteous indignation and others with resignation and hopelessness. But during these dark years there has been little public outrage, thanks to the benefit of human denial. For many men, it is always the other guy who gets raped in family court. It is someone else that lands behind bars on a false rape charge; some other unfortunate loses his career and reputation because the culture and the legal system assumes he must be guilty of whatever claim is made against him by a woman.

We have been a culture of head shakers, quick to say “tisk, tisk,” and move on about our business, blind and indifferent, because it is not happening to us.

But there are forces in play today that will almost certainly unleash a fury that few can comprehend, and that nobody wants.

A recent Wall Street Journal article, Meet the Unemployable Man, predicts that over the next several years, one in six men between 18 and 54 years old, or 18 million, will be unemployed, and unemployable.

That is 18 million men who will look for work and find none; millions of others who once carried briefcases or hammers and nails, but who will, in the days ahead, push brooms make French fries. There will be 18 million men who become the other guy. And that is in addition to the millions of other guys that are already walking among us.

In other times, this would just be a run of economic bad luck which would pass with better times. But all the indicators are that better times will not find these men.

The typical escape route from poverty is education. But that route, too, for men, is being cut off by the very forces that are the source of the problem. Men are now only 40% of college students, with the indicators pointing to even more drastic reductions in the future. College, like employment, will soon be a woman’s world.

And the 18 million men with nothing to do but worry and stagnate cannot be expected not to notice. And they may well begin to notice a great many things that they never did before, because they were happening to the other guy.

The ticking should be as thunder in our ears by now.

Oh, but wait, some might say. We can fix that. We can address what is happening to these men before their being marginalized and disenfranchised results in problems that no one can ignore.

We can, but it is not likely we will. Look at how the educational establishment is reacting to the proposed male studies initiative, an idea that actually would seek some answers. Men’s studies activists like Michael Kimmel and American Men’s Studies Association President Robert Heasley, are doing everything in their power to ensure men remain in trouble. These feminist ideologues appear roundly offended that any amelioration of these problems would come to men, and are proving it daily in word and deed.

The ranking members of the matriarchy, like social terrorists, are partnering with and guiding government toward the inevitable explosion, and when it goes off they will be the first to point the finger at men, even at MRA’s, for the fallout.

It won’t help them, though. Because whatever tragic end this comes to, it will not be at the hands of MRA’s, but in spite of our efforts to prevent it.

If the streets erupt again, as they have so many times before, they will be filled with average men who never heard of the men’s rights movement. They will just be poor men, many of them young and fatherless due to the current system, acting our their rage against a world that includes and idealizes women, but that treats them like social pariah.

They won’t be thinking of VAWA or domestic violence hypocrisies, because they will be in large part the same men who have denied these problems all along.

We may see them in a tax revolt, or at tea parties gone violent at some point in the future when things are much worse than they are now. Or they may not have any political affiliation at all. But one thing is certain, that many desperate and hostile men are not going to remain silent. They will act as men have always acted in similar circumstances throughout history. And during the process, they will be looking again at many things they have ignored in the past. There will be volumes of information, long ignored, that will suddenly make devastating and dangerous sense to them.

It is a testament to men, and an exposure of lies perpetrated against them by gender ideologues that we have come this last half century without blood in the streets. It has always been in men’s nature to take care of others better than themselves, and they have proven that with their silence in the face of so many constant abuses. Betting on that silence to continue when men are hungry is foolish.

It is possible that none of this will come to pass. I do not pretend to be a social prognosticator and I do not have a crystal ball. But I can add two and two and still get four, even in this crazy world. And I know that anyone, even men, if backed into a corner and kicked long enough and hard enough, will come out swinging. The 60’s were not just peace, love and dope. They were cities on fire and bodies on the ground.

And because of that I write this genuinely afraid. The men’s movement, the only bomb squad we have, had better catch on in grand fashion, I think. And even if it does, we better hope it happens before the society we live in finds itself at ground zero when the clock ticks down.

Forever Feminist Fail(ure)

2010-04-08T05:06:00.000-07:00

The Amazing Atheist has caused quite a stir on the 'Net, but whether you share his beliefs or not, his complete OWNAGE of this feminist is utterly fantastic. I absolutely love it.

Enjoy, MGTOWers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1paR4fFrXAo

Crystal Gail Mangum In the Hot Seat (article)

2010-02-19T00:35:00.000-08:00

Crystal Gayle Mangum Charged in DV Incident

February 18th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Here's our old friend Crystal Gayle Mangum again (WRAL, 2/18/10).

She first won national fame by falsely accusing three Lacrosse players at Duke University of rape. From the outset, Mangum's claims were patently unbelievable, there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of any of the young men and what evidence did come to light clearly pointed to their innocence.

Despite all that, the rape charges were splashed across the national television, radio and print news media, with prominent national commentators engaging in the most scurrilous tactics to impute guilt to the innocent. Duke University itself got in on the act when 88 faculty members signed a document that essentially convicted the young men without trial.

The rape charges hung over the young men like a sword of Damocles for over a year before the North Carolina Attorney General finally dropped all charges and pronounced the players 'innocent.'

Now Mangum is back in the news. She was arrested last night and is charged with attempted murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer. That's quite a night's work.

Those charges stem from an altercation she had with her boyfriend, and are unquestionably overblown. I mean, attempted murder? Please. The bottom line seems to be that she attacked Walker, scratched him, tossed his clothes in the bathtub and set them on fire. She lied to the police about her identity and resisted arrest. None of that is résumé material, but it's also not attempted murder.

Still, Mangum seems to have abused the children in some way and in any case exposed them to her domestic violence. Of course it looks like she did the same to Walker.

And speaking of domestic violence, that term is nowhere used in the article linked to. The almost invariable refusal by the news media to call domestic violence by a woman against a man "domestic violence," is an ongoing scandal. It contributes to the public's widespread inaccurate belief that domestic violence is overwhelmingly a male-on-female phenomenon. It's not, as 35 years of research into the matter show clearly. In fact, about 50% of DV is done by women to men and more than that is initiated by women. The most recent study to show the same pattern recorded data from Scotland. It came out in December of 2009 and showed that 5% of men and 5% of women said they'd been the victim of a DV incident in the past year.

For her attack on the reputations and liberty of the three Lacrosse players, Crystal Gayle Mangum was never charged with a crime. Now she's charged with attempted murder for what looks like a relatively minor DV incident. Of course if she had been in prison for her false rape claims, the DV incident would never have happened.

Interesting Video With Angry Harry and Erin Pizzey

2010-02-19T00:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwxgavf2xWE

Women, Head Games, and The Sensitive Man

2010-01-30T09:01:00.001-08:00

I consider this a gem of sorts---it's been on the Internet for a while now, and there's a great deal of truth here.

Women, Head Games, and The Sensitive Man

By BusterB

I've said it before and I'll say it again: modern women don't want a sensitive man. Traditional women didn't want him either. If you become a classic "new age" sensitive man, you'll invite scorn from both sides of the female spectrum. As much as women may say that they are looking for sensitive men, they act in exactly the opposite way: as though they are looking for insensitive men.

Have you ever noticed... I mean, really sat down and thought about how women react to emotional situations versus how women expect men to react to those same situations? Women judge the reasonableness of their own reactions based on how they feel; they judge the reasonableness of men's reactions on how those reactions make women feel. An angry woman will rant and rave and do her best to make her man feel bad. She calls this, "Getting [her] point across." That same woman will expect her man to keep a level head and watch what he says when he's angry so as not to upset her. If he says things to make her feel bad, then suddenly he has done something far worse than what she did in the first place to provoke his anger, and it is he who must apologize.

I have never in my life hung around with or dated a woman who didn't play head games on mates or prospective mates, although I've been out with only a few women who would admit to it. A woman will often tell her man that she doesn't love him, that he doesn't love her, that he never listens to her, or that she has done something outrageously stupid, all just to get him going. What she says doesn't have to be true; it doesn't even have to resemble the truth, and in fact it's better if it doesn't. A woman will bluff her way through something like this until he buys into what she is saying, at which point she will giggle and tell him that she was fooling, or add insult to injury by getting angry at him for believing such a thing of her. Women call this "teasing" and they love it. I used to be bewildered by this teasing, but recently the penny dropped. Now I understand it. Now it makes sense.

All of this teasing is women testing their men and preparing them to react properly in emotional situations. By "properly" I don't mean that she is teaching him to defend himself, or follow his own moral compass. She is not helping him to get in touch with himself. Quite the opposite, she is trying to find out just exactly how out of touch he is with himself, and help that along if possible. She wants to know where his breaking point is, so that she can use that information to control him.

By "teasing," she is sowing confusion, seeing how much emotional battering he can take before he snaps, and finding the hot buttons that make him feel guilty and apologetic. All three of these things help map the territory for her, and tell her how to manipulate him.

"Teasing" teaches a man not to trust his mate and, ultimately, not to trust his own feelings. She tells him that she mistakenly threw out his paycheque. His gut reaction is that this is a joke. She couldn't possibly have done anything so stupid. As she continues to insist that she did, and chides him for leaving it on a pile with the newspapers, he is torn between believing his wife and believing in his wife's intelligence. Finally, he caves in to the repeated assurances and gets angry, at which point she tells him that she was only joking, and gets angry at him for believing that she could be so stupid.

She has now taught him that he can't trust his own feelings. He knew in the beginning that it was a joke, but she convinced him that he was wrong, then turned the tables on him and blamed him for believing her. If she repeats this process often enough he will become completely confused and rely on only her to tell him what is right and what is not.

She has also determined just how long it takes him to cave in and simply believe whatever she says, no matter how outrageous. She has tested his boundaries to see how self-assured he is. The quicker he acquiesces the better, as it means that he is easier to control. She can encourage this by repeating this exercise over and over, causing him to simply accept whatever she says is the truth sooner and sooner each time.

Finally, in the process of blaming him for the whole event, she may have come across one or two hot buttons that will cause him to break down, feel guilty, and apologize. These can be anything from calling him a certain name, to shouting, to crying. She will remember these for use later when the two of them get into an argument.

If you think that this is over the top, consider how a woman would react to the same sort of "teasing" coming from a man. He tells her that he accidentally released her pet bird and it escaped out the window. At first she doesn't believe that he could be so stupid. (In the case of American women, they might skip this step due to their extremely low opinion of men.) After his repeated assurances, she gradually comes to accept the truth until she is finally in tears. At this point he brightens up and tells her that he is kidding and that the bird has flown into the den and is hiding behind the TV. He then explodes at her for having such a low opinion of him that she believed in his feigned stupidity.

We have a word for this in Western society: it's called "emotional abuse." We call it "abuse" because the intent is clear: to sow confusion and doubt in the person being "teased" until they no longer trust their own feelings or judgement. Notice, however, that it's called "emotional abuse" only when visited by a man upon a woman.

I claim that the motivation and methods involved in "emotional abuse" of women by men and "teasing" of men by women are exactly the same. To illustrate this, let's look at how women eventually use the information they gain through "teasing" and the conditioning that they instill in their mates through "teasing."

A thoroughly teased man no longer trusts his own feelings. He doesn't dare trust them. He has learned that to trust his own feelings means that he often has to accuse his wife of lying to him through a perfectly straight face. If it turns out that he is right and she is fooling him, then all is well, but if his feelings are wrong and she is not fooling him, she will make him wish he had never been born. In short, teasing dramatically raises the stakes for the man. Trusting his own feelings becomes an extremely risky endeavour, so he doesn't bother. He trusts hers instead.

A woman who teases her man mercilessly knows how long it will take him to cave in and believe whatever she says. She can use this to decide whether it is worth her trouble to talk to him and discuss her point of view or simply bulldoze him into agreeing with her. While men place a strong emphasis on reasoning and discussing options, women are primarily interested in simply winning the argument. Knowing his limit helps her make a more informed choice about which tactic is more likely to achieve the desired result.

She knows how long it will take him to get angry. This is perhaps the most important side-effect, as it tells her how far she can go in using him as an emotional punching bag when she's having a bad day. Women who are having bad days typically smile at everyone around them then come home and take it out on their mates. Women rarely if ever feel guilty about stomping around the house and yelling because they're in a bad mood. Their earlier experiments with teasing and mercurial emotions tell them how far they can push their mate before he snaps and gets angry too.

She also knows how to make him feel shameful and repentant. She will use this at every opportunity to turn the tide in arguments that are not going her way. Again, women place little emphasis on reasoning and discussion. To a woman an argument is a fight to the finish, and whoever wins, by whatever tactic, is the winner. Add to this the fact that women win arguments not by reason but by gaining emotional superiority, and one can easily see where the knowledge gained from "teasing" comes in handy. One day, if she really does mistakenly throw out his paycheque, she will use the knowledge that she has gained over the years to make him feel that it was his fault, and he should apologize to her.

Frequent teasing by women establishes them as emotionally superior, and sets them up to win every argument that they have with their man in the future.

Frequent teasing also affects men: it reduces their emotional security and increases their confusion and emotional pain, just as constantly prodding a caged animal with a stick reduces its sense of security and increases its confusion and pain. Most men cope with this by feeling less. Given a choice between "stuffing" their feelings and feeling anger and resentment toward their chosen mates, men usually choose to "stuff" their feelings. In this sense, women work to make their men less sensitive, not more sensitive.

In order to pull this off, women need insensitive men. A truly sensitive man, who was also sensitive to his own suffering, would become angry with his mate for his mistreatment. Only an insensitive man could tolerate women's emotional terrorism and continue functioning as if nothing were wrong. If a man starts off somewhat sensitive, his mate can and often will discourage his sensitivity with teasing, mercurial emotions, or plain unreasonable behaviour backed up by repeated assertions that she's done nothing wrong. All of these things have the same effect: they help turn him into the very same insensitive clod about which women complain endlessly.

So, if you're a truly sensitive man you can look forward to a lifetime of rejection as women discover that when they cut you, you bleed. Blood—even emotional blood—makes women feel bad, so they move on and look for someone with thicker skin. Thin-skinned, sensitive men make lousy emotional punching bags on bad days. They can't be bludgeoned into acquiescence during arguments because they feel the guilt and shame too readily and break down too easily. They can't be told that black is white and white is black because they're paying attention. They're not as easy to manipulate.

Even if you manage to become that peculiar kind of "sensitive man" who doesn't feel anything other than what his mate wants, you'll still lose out. Even if you manage to attune your sensitivity to her and only her needs, you will still likely be too sensitive. You will become too compliant. You will be too easy to manipulate, and she will lose interest. Most men think that they want a young, vapid, voluptuous nymphomaniac, but when a man finds one, he quickly becomes bored and leaves her. Men think that they want sexy, easy women, but in the end such women present no challenges and no opportunity to grow and learn. Similarly, most women think that they want caring, sensitive men, but when a woman finds one, she quickly becomes bored with him. She thinks that she wants a man who is kind, gentle, and agreeable, but in the end such men present no challenges and no opportunity to grow and learn. So she dumps him for a "real man" who won't pay her too much attention as she fumes and stomps about the house. She wants him to finally break down and give in, but she doesn't want it to be too easy. It's more fun that way.

A Classic Re-posted: Hate Bounces

2010-01-18T09:41:00.000-08:00

Hate Bounces: How man-hating and man-bashing harms women – the making of a misogynist

by zed on January 18, 2010

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens.

The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that person’s faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.

Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called “Women’s Liberation” which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it.

And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert I’d like to talk to you about.

I learned very quickly that feminism wasn’t about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little.

The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising “power” seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didn’t need any g– damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee.

“Shock” is a totally inadequate word to describe my response.

I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldn’t have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of “mentally defective,” “hate filled,” and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company.

A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist “consciousness raising” group as consisting of “perfectly satisfying man hating sessions.” Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so “perfectly satisfying.” I don’t remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me.

It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president spoke of “my hatred of men” in the same matter-of-fact tone that she might say “my nose.” It was just an integral part of her.

Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a loving relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love?

So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of “commitment” became one and the same as “trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me.” I was indeed one of those men who “wouldn’t make a commitment.”

The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree – greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how “satisfying” man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women.

That is the personal side. And, I won’t bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not “whether” a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but “when” and “how soon” it would happen.

On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively – just for being a man.

I remember the first time I saw the slogan “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman’s life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.

Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men – no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair – and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said “no, that is wrong, there is another point of view” I’d get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women “in their place,” was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.

There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 3000+, but in time it did become true.

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man – then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday’s garbage. In short – I viewed them as nothing but users.

Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called “Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s.” Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldn’t figure out why she couldn’t get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn’t realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity.

I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called “misogynist.” I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.

And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it – when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said “I don’t know why you are making such a big deal about it,” I caved in and really did begin to hate women.

Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says “Beware of VERY bad dog.” Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into “love” for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women. I simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.
When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke – “What does a ______ say instead of ‘fuck you?‘” Answer “Trust Me.”

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. That’s fine. She’s a fish without a bicycle – I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.

Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back – eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.

Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can’t stand them, or anything about them.

I’m sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I’m sick and tired of their victim games, I’m sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don’t ask for directions.

How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like “Your uncle was a fine man,” not, “aren’t men headstrong and stupid?”

Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like “get over it,” or “why don’t you take the gender out of it?” In return I ask, “Why the hell don’t you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?”

I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don’t get our guns and shoot a few women; we don’t beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, there’s no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends.

Videos of Argus Eyes reading this essay are available here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A87VbJUY6g and here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH4poAZKeak

Something I had to slap on here

2010-01-11T10:24:00.000-08:00

I'll leave the commentary for the readers at the moment; it says a lot in itself.

Jack Donovan on "Mother May I" Masculinity

2010-01-08T00:58:00.000-08:00

From The Spearhead, another good article.

"Modern women balk at any suggestion that men should be able to tell women how to behave. Many believe that a woman should be able to do whatever she likes without worrying “what women are supposed to do.”

When feminists talk to men, they pretend to offer the same sort of freedom from social expectations attached to one’s sex. But this talk of freedom is always a lie. This new, “free” model of manhood approved by feminists must, after all, serve the interests of feminism. Many traditionally masculine behaviors and ideas are clearly “off limits.” So, while the new woman does whatever she wants and explores her world unfettered, the feminist male is carefully restricted and monitored for signs of disobedience or treachery.

He’s a rhinestone collared lapdog with a humiliating barrette in his hair, free to run in a yard bordered by an electric fence.

At best, he’s allowed the manly privileges of opening jars and taking out the garbage.

The pro-feminist male is a wretched, guilt-ridden creature who must at every turn make certain he is not impeding the progress of women in any way. He willingly accepts guilt for crimes against women he never committed, perpetrated by men he has never met. He must question any interest he has in sports or any admiration he might have for traditional male role models—for fear that he is perpetuating cultures of honor or patriarchy that could somehow result in the oppression of or violence against women. He must be careful to include women in every activity, even if he would prefer not to. He must avoid pornography. He must “Try hard to understand how [his] own attitudes and actions might inadvertently perpetuate sexism and violence, and work toward changing them.” He must never collude with men to work for the interests of men—unless those interests have been certified as completely harmless to the interests of women. He is encouraged to work with women to support their interests with little or no regard for how those interests might have a negative impact on men. He must “create systems of accountability to women in [his] community.” He must reject any advantages he receives that seem to be tied to “systems of male privilege” but he must support and defend programs that help or give advantages to women based on their sex alone.

The only “freedom” that feminism offers men is the freedom to do exactly what women want him to do. The freedom to serve.

Moderate feminists sometimes make the argument that feminism is truly “humanism” and that the interests of men and women are essentially the same. This is a debatable belief—not a fact—and we must respect it, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Men and women do share some key interests—especially when they are not in competition with one another. But so long as men and women remain physically different and demonstrate different psychological and political tendencies, some conflicts of interest between them will naturally continue.

No woman is expected to burden herself with concerns about how her words or actions might have a negative impact on men. The idea that women should serve the interests of men is explicitly anti-feminist, but the same is not true of men serving the interests of women. Serving the interests of women—possibly at the expense of your own—is required of men who support feminism.

What kind of a man must ask women “what kind of man may I be?”

Not a man, but a boy—a mere child picking flowers for a kiss on the cheek and a pat on the head.

Any assertion of his manhood hinges on the question “Mother, may I?”

If men are not supposed to tell women how women must behave, what right do women have to demand that men cater to their interests? Who are they to tell men what manhood means? Why should men accept their authority? What the Hell do women know about what it means to be a man?

A woman’s commentary on the masculine experience is warped and distorted by her own interests, and should never be regarded as authoritative. If, as feminists have said, the personal is political, it is foolish to trust any woman not to filter her thoughts on men through her own experience and interests as a woman. The pose and the language of unbiased thought do not guarantee it.

These new, independent women should have no need to exploit a man’s vestigial sense of chivalry. If they are truly suited to compete with men, they should be able to do so without special rules, privileges and protections. Men should not have to curb their behavior so that women can achieve. If “equality” were truly desired, men would never have to ask, “Mother, may I?”

Now, within any relationship or friendship between two people, compromise is inevitable and healthy. Every relationship is different, and a man and a woman should be able to make their private arrangements as best serves them both.

It is also true that some compromise at the public level is necessary to maintain even the most rudimentary civilization. But to ask men to radically alter their behavior to facilitate the success of complete strangers with whom they may well be in direct or indirect competition is absurd. That’s not “equality” any more than asking a boxer to fight with one hand tied behind his back is a “fair fight.”

And yet this is exactly what feminists ask of men.

“Hobble yourselves so that we can crawl over your backs.”

Men need to reject this.

In the UK, there was recently some controversy over the formation of what looks like the most benignly pro-feminist men’s therapy and health education group you could possibly imagine. But it was too much for some women to entertain the possibility that men might have any valid concerns or complaints of their own, or that they should have access to the same kinds of sex-specific support networks that now abound for women. The group’s leader fell all over himself trying to justify his existence to female critics, trying to prove that he was “one of the good ones” and that his focus on masculinity wasn’t a threat to women or gays or the transgendered. Perhaps this appeased his masters.

Men are doing this everywhere. They’re apologizing and appeasing and asking for permission, cowering and begging and finding out that it will never, ever be enough.

Maybe some men believe that unless they hold their tongues and surrender to the never-ending demands of women, they’ll never get laid again. Maybe they’re afraid of being alone, unloved or scorned by women. Maybe they’re afraid that if they really look into the abyss and see the situation for what it is, they’ll be consumed by anger and hatred and they’ll no longer be able to smile and nod their way through the crowd of oblivious and obedient consumers who are their friends, families, employers and clients. Buckin’ the system ain’t great for business. So men lie to themselves and pretend everything is fine to keep things on an even keel.

Damage control.

It’s a little too easy for me, having little use for women and few reasons to compromise with them, to tell other men what I think they should do. So I’ll just ask:

“How’s that working out for ya, fellas?”

Change will begin when men stop working from willingly handicapped, defensive positions.

Men need to stop apologizing for being men.

And most of all, they need to stop asking for permission to be men."

I just wanted to say . .

2009-12-24T13:48:00.000-08:00

A Merry Christmas to everyone, I'm off to a Christmas party. SR

A Classic Quote That Is Still Very Relevant

2009-12-07T06:05:00.001-08:00

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. ”

---Henry David Thoreau

The Antagonistic Economy

2009-11-20T11:05:00.000-08:00

A fascinating video that may not be completely MGTOW, but something to ponder about a rat race style society.

The Antagonistic Economy

Another Powerful Post . . .

2009-11-07T01:10:00.000-08:00

From a man going his own way. This is from The Spearhead, which is highly recommended if anyone has not already checked the site out.

This is from the article and thread-starter by Zed; Why Western Women Are So Empty And Unhappy:

Jabherwochie: Not that this is relevent, as there are always outliers, and hell, I’m actually very emotional, but I’m pretty good at looking at things dispassionately. I even understand the female side of this war more than I would admit, and I would never bring up their legitimate gripes or concerns about men, as it wouldn’t advance my sides position and instead would rather hinder it. I might play more fair than I should, but I’m not going to help the other side out. I do allow much of my emotion to seep through because I feel it is a powerful tool of persuasion, especially for people prone to relate more on an emotional level. One mans crying over his lost children in a custody battle may be worth a hundred rational arguments to the unthinking masses.

On that note, one thing I find quite rational, but I still can’t get across to the female population because it is about my personal male emotional experience, and therefore hard for females to empathize with, is that growing up in sex saturated culture, surrounded by sexually signaling females in their sexual prime, and being (I have solid reasons to believe this if you want me to go into them) far hornier than the average male, my developmental and adolescent years were nothing less than pure -PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE-. No hyperbole intended. This torture existed from 5th grade, all the way through college. It was psycho-sexual solitary confinement. It was being starved my whole life by slave masters who kept me chained by the table from which they ate feast after feast. Kis, do you understand this? Do you understand why I have resentment for female sexual power. A power that is often misused, as in your case probably, by using it to attract the wrong type of man, abused, as many girls think flirting and playing hard to get is just a game, when it is really more like a cat playing with a mouse before it devours it, or not used at all, which means it is wasted and not used for any good at all. How many women reward nice, honest, caring men with their sexuality. How many pity fucks do men get, who are so broken by the opposite sexes rejections that they can no longer even approach a women? Zero. How many women look down upon men for being so affected by their sexuality, as if that biological imperitive is just an itch, yet at the same time demand that its power holds sway over and tame the most untamable of Alpha beasts.

Maybe I’m a pathetic looser. That doesn’t change the fact that my pain is ignored or dismissed by every female I have ever shared it with. It is outright mocked by Feminists. They often say MRAs are loosers who can’t get laid and have mommy issues, and in my case, that is the case. In shaming me with those words, the psychological torture I endured is openly mocked by them, like I’m some pathetic creature not deserving of the most basic human consideration.

Of course I’m not horny anymore and get laid whenever I want. But sex barely does it for me now. My psycho-sexual development has twisted me that much. That is why I’m into the BDSM community. My sexuality feeds off of my anger. Now, instead of always being horny, I’m simply angry. Women created my rage. That rage still fuels me, and I suspect it always will. I’m 31 and don’t see myself stopping this war against Feminism until I die. Tell all the women you know that they have naively created a monster by weilding the power and gifts granted to them by God in selfish ways. Tell them you fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant.

Your failed relationships, your failed marraiges, are nothing compared to existential hell I went through. Keep in mind I left out the details, which paint a much worse picture than even described.

Anyone who thinks this is too much information can go jump off a cliff. I hardly can be affected by words at this point. I remember all the fights I used to get into, and how alive I felt after them, even after the ones I lost. That pain was the most life affirming thing in my life. I’m that damaged. I’m here to see it doesn’t happen to anymore young men than it has to.

Zed On Gaming and MRAs

2009-10-16T01:08:00.000-07:00

This is a recent post by Zed from the outstanding blog The Spearhead---which I have recently linked to if anyone is not acquainted with it yet. Without further ado, I'll save the commentary and let the prose speak for itself---enjoy!

Upping MRA "Game": Honing Our Rhetoric of Ridicule.

by Zed

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”?

Gems of Wisdom From Philalethes

2009-10-16T01:02:00.000-07:00

Philalethes is enigmatic and doesn't seem to write in a prolific manner. He is also unorthodox in his writings, and perhaps anyone in MGTOW can glean something from him with his different perspective.

------

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."

Apologies about the Comments And Personal B.S.

2009-09-24T22:28:00.000-07:00

I haven't been here to publish them because I have been out searching for another job, even though I currently hold one. Sorry.

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

Smashing the Social Contract Asunder

2009-09-07T01:47:00.000-07:00

There's been more talk about the roles men are supposed to enact concerning masculinity, and while I don't intend for this post to ramble on too much about it, it is rather concurrent with the "child-man" bashing that occurred last year or so.

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?

You Guessed It---I'm writing about George Sodini

2009-08-18T01:14:00.000-07:00

Well, not exactly.

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.

A Trend I Simply Don't Like

2009-07-25T19:31:00.000-07:00

This is actually nothing new but I figured I'd bring it up.

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.

Notes on Father's Day

2009-06-23T01:28:00.000-07:00

There's a plethora of MRA material on Father's Day, but suffice to say that I am very grateful that both my own father and my maternal grandfather are still around to talk to and spend time with. That time in itself is precious considering how my grandfather is nearly 90 and my father struggled with bouts of chronic depression for the longest time. I am thankful that I can still be with them either in person or in spirit. Not everyone can say that.

To any and all the fathers out there reading this, I salute you.

Overburdened Skanks, Datelessness, and A Modern Dilemma

2009-06-18T02:10:00.000-07:00

On occasion, I will casually glance over the complaints of women about men on forums and blogs concerning their own love lives. Certain things spring to mind any time that I indulge, and it only confirms what I already know.

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?

Unorthodox Thoughts Revisited

2009-05-18T00:50:00.000-07:00

I always get spurned to write about things when something I read, observe, or get even personally effected by. One woman I work with is convinced I'm a "woman hater" and yet seems to have little problem with trying to get my attention.

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.

On Men and Women Today; Insight From Bonecrkr

2009-04-30T02:05:00.000-07:00

MarkyMark posted this on his blog recently; this commentary was lifted from someone that had a wealth of material when he was active, and I wish he was still around---I'm wondering what happened to him. Regardless, I think it's important to distribute, as his work had influence on mine just like Zenpriest.

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).

A Resentful Rant: Ex-Pornstars

2009-04-26T01:18:00.000-07:00

Living inside your mind
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?

About Comments, Catching Up, and Argumentation

2009-04-16T02:36:00.000-07:00

I'll be quick here and state that if anyone wishes to comment that I screen them. If you don't see your response, please be patient.

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.

Beauty Is Only Razor Deep II: A Cold Fire

2009-04-06T00:16:00.000-07:00

As always, I write on other forays and (unfortunately) my blog suffers from neglect at times. I figured I'd share this one here, and the first quote in italics is from someone I'll merely dub as Guy here.

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.

Beauty In Darkness II: The Music

2009-03-21T01:14:00.000-07:00

I'm certain people will be a little surprised that an avowed metalhead like myself would tread into musical waters such as this, yet it's concurrent with both my sentiment for my Beauty in Darkness themes and certainly not at odds with my personal catalog. Far from it, actually.

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.

Claire Voyant-Silence

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.

A Post Valentine's Day Trashing: Two Videos

2009-02-16T02:48:00.000-08:00

From outlaw2747 . . .

And ramzpaul.

Good stuff.