Saturday, December 4, 2010

Fred Reed On Hook Up Culture and Feminism

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.

Friday, September 10, 2010

I Respond to Reader Comments

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

Jack Celliers said...

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

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

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

But I would pay to see.

I would as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't hold your breath. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"True, males exist to serve females' needs"

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 3, 2010

My Response About Men's Groups and Misogyny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 2, 2010

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

HL writes at The Spearhead with a thoughtful article:

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.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Excellent Post From the Blog Toy Soldiers

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

A True MGTOW Scene From American Beauty

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 . . . "

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Beauty Is Only Razor Deep Redux

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.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Yeah, I'm still around

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

Monday, May 24, 2010

Welmer On Women "Shooting Themselves in the Foot"

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.

Monday, May 17, 2010

A Legend Has Passed Away: RIP Ronnie James Dio

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

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Forever Feminist Fail(ure)

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!

Friday, February 19, 2010

Crystal Gail Mangum In the Hot Seat (article)

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

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Women, Head Games, and The Sensitive Man

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.

Monday, January 18, 2010

A Classic Re-posted: Hate Bounces

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

Post image for 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 - and here –

Monday, January 11, 2010

Something I had to slap on here

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

Friday, January 8, 2010

Jack Donovan on "Mother May I" Masculinity

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."