A Nocturnal Rumination

It takes an adult woman to realize they need adult men, but in order for women to come to terms that men are not second class citizens to be demeaned, toys for their amusement, or the enemy, they need to stop the interpsychic and gender war with men. This era we are in a serious chasm in spite of obvious couplings, and I honestly hope it doesn't reach some sort of sexual armageddon..

Men are gradually waking up to their belittled status in a culture that is woefully anti-male on many fronts, but the saddening thing is that there exist women that aren't reconciliatory, but up the ante even more when men start asserting they are people, too---which was one of the basal claims of feminism for women . . .

. . . which turned out to be female supremacist in outlook rather than for "equality."

Let Me Entertain You . . .

Many, many moons ago, I joined up with a free dating site that had a discussion forum where members could, with some restrictions, write under several topics. While some of the discussions were intriguing and even have me still lurk on occasion, whether it be about science, nutrition, or philosophy, or a myriad of other that comes to mind, a solid bulk of the forum rested on relationship and dating issues.

Lest I remind someone, even with some indication to who you are conversing with and how they perceptually approach subjects, the vitriol from your typical resentment-filled skank ranged from subtle to complete male-bashing. Granted, there were a few posters here and there that tried to be rational and not attempt to slide into an embittered sex war on the site. But the male bashing and bitterness reared its ugly head time and time again.

It seemed that favoritism towards women and preference guided the mods' hands. Any act of protest from men could have been criticized by a feminist-minded single mom or skank as "misogynist" and either dismissed or a borderline hate-filled rant that ended in an anti-crescendo of typical accusations---from slagging calling out the man as anything from a sexist jerk to someone that couldn't get laid (odd that, considering the idea that "jerks" and "bad boys" from the stereotype are supposed to be more sexually desirable among skanks, but whatever).

There was even one incidence I recall with a feminist and a definant man going round and round. The latter did not feel sorry for a woman that had slept with bottom-feeder mates as a young woman and had children from these dregs which she could barely support. He kept arguing that the woman in question should have took responsibility for mate selection and the consequences from that past life, curtly stating near the end he didn't feel much for the apparently troubled gal.

The feminist responded with a quite the unsurprising retort. Instead of trying to promote compassion for another woman or persuading him that he was not seeing it from another's lens, she did what so many do in order demostrate her lesson with a recap that resulted in the vicious slam, "You should be crucified, you bastard."

I'm not making this up.

And the male poster had refrained from direct personal attacks, merely providing his opinion, no matter how tough love oriented it had been. He didn't lose his cool or slam womendom entire. But his alleged lack of empathy was met with something altogether more fierce. And very telling.

It makes me wonder what goes on in the minds of feminist women and skanks like this. Does the fliter of cyber semi-anonymity provide them with the impetus to be more caustic and hateful? Or are they truly as malevolent, blame-shifting, self-righteous, and embittered as they came across in tone?

I think some of them are. They are the ones I avoid on every level now.

Clearly, many of posters on the forum are engaging in nothing more than pissing contests, attention whoring, and a mini-celebrity of sorts to boost an ego. And it's a sad commentary that there are skanks that will do just about anything to be relevent and get attention from men rather than be shunned. Ostracism and ignoring them are utterly crippling, especially outside of cyberspace. They might even resort to anything and everything up (and including) threats of violent thoughts in order to get their bullying across.

That, to me, is truly aborrent.

My pivotal point wasn't just one moment in time, a true epiphany, but I decided when a woman that claimed herself as feminist abandoned (at least) an attempt to stick to the tenets of debate in argumentation---and kept employing non sequiturs, argumentum ad personnams, and continual self-projection was not worth the time or the energy. I have become a conscientious objector, and have uneventfully left the building. And it feels better than ever, that peace of mind!

One event in particular sticks out in mind; I conveyed to an older woman that most men simply do not have the reproductive rights as women on various levels, and she never ONCE conceded for a moment that it was a fact after several posts and a couple of days of sparring back and forth, utilizing red herrings and being evasive in order to show she was for female supremacy and not equal rights.

I have come to the point where hooks arguments and going toe to toe with them is a hideous waste of my time. Even without the overt abuse, hatred, gross assumptions, and negative vehemence, having heated discussions with feminists would have to yield a modicum of mutual respect. If that is not possible, they are utterly shunned. Yes, I see the value in cluebatting, but the irrational pitch of hostile feminists are nothing that I desire to be privy to outside of lurking. And that's that.

After all, they didn't need us men, why should they now? Why should they give a damn what we think (as if they did, anyway). Or is "benevolent sexism" (i.e. chivarly and protectionisms that benefit them) something out of "patriarchy" they don't want to give up just yet from us?

If you're branded as a misogynist, no matter how poignant your truths are, is is best to congregate with anyone that respectfully disagrees or at least sees you more than a second class citizen. If suggestion, facts, or persuasion do not yield a greater understanding and cohersion in the gender war---a war that feminists clearly started, and we have to pick up the pieces and move forward for ourselves---not to live our lives for battle just for the sake of it.

Let them deal with the darkness in themselves by witnessing their own reflections in the mirror. Perhaps, they can't handle it, but I would rather leave them to their own devices than let them project it onto the unwilling That's damage I don't need..

There is no saving them, but only ourselves in the long haul. .

Anti-Male Court Rulings

Surprisingly, from AskMen.com . . .

http://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top-10-anti-male-court-rulings.html


No.10 - Wrongful paternity

Consider this: You just got a divorce, which requires you to pay child support. No problem, they’re your kids and you’re here to support them. But then DNA evidence shows they’re not your kids and you’ve been paying for another guy’s offspring. Now you want your money back, which seems fair and reasonable. Not according to some judges.

Parker v. State (Florida)
Richard Parker found out his 3-year-old child wasn’t his. The twist: The court ruled unanimously that he has to continue to pay child support, which is expected to total $200,000 over 15 years.

********

No.9 - Deadbeat-dad rulings

A deadbeat dad is a negative label given to dads who fall behind on their child support payments. This largely refers to men who consciously avoid paying every month. The stigma also includes fathers who may have been laid off and can’t keep up on their payments.

State of Wisconsin v. Oakley
This defendant -- David Oakley -- will never win father of the year. The guy has outstanding child support payments for nine children from four women. Here’s the issue: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled he could no longer procreate until he proves he can support kids. This sets a precedent that could hurt dads who may have legitimately fallen behind on payments from being laid off.

********

No.8 - False rape cases

Rape is a serious crime that deserves to be punished within the full extent of the law. When it’s a false accusation, however, rape can destroy an innocent man’s reputation as soon as the claim goes public. By their nature, these cases prove a man’s innocence, but suspicions and a tarnished reputation aren’t as easily abolished.

Hudak v. Johnson
RCMP officer Hudak was accused of sexual assault. The judge threw it out after the female accuser admitted to lying about it. Hudak transferred to a new detachment, but women still refused to work with him. He then moved to a different province where someone said she "didn’t want a rapist on the force." Redemption: Hudak was awarded a provincial apology plus an undisclosed settlement from his $5 million claim.

********

No.7 - Putative Father Registry law

This law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex to register with their state. This is done so that you, as a man, can be contacted if a woman you’ve slept with gets pregnant and she puts this child up for adoption. If you don’t sign up, you might not even know you were a father.

Huddleston v. State (New Mexico)
Mark Huddleston’s child was adopted when he was just 3 days old. The issue: Huddleston didn’t even know he had a boy until two months later. The adoption agency that gave away the boy did not contact Huddleston to tell him. The result: Mark Huddleston was denied the chance to bring up his biological son.

********

No.6 - Bradley Amendment

This law states that men’s outstanding child support payments will not be reduced for whatever reason. Just laid off from your job and want to reduce the amount of your payment until you find work? Nope. Had a medical accident and been out of work recovering in hospital? Pay up.

Sherrill v. State of North Carolina
This defendant was a Lockheed employee and a divorced father working in Kuwait during the Gulf War. One day, he was captured by Iraqis and held as hostage. He was released five months later. The second night he was back in the U.S. a sheriff came to arrest him for owing $1,425 in payments that accumulated when he was held hostage. Ouch.

********

No.5 - Proposition 13

Proposition 13 was recently voted in as Texas law. It states that any father accused of domestic violence will be denied bail before trial. Sounds OK on the surface, but if you read closely you’ll see it says any father "accused" of violence is denied bail. This means that if a woman simply says her husband was violent, her husband will be denied bail. While its intention is a noble one -- to keep abusive husbands from hurting their wives -- the side effect is that any spiteful, angry wife with a cross to bear can send an innocent guy to jail.

********

No.4 - Restraining order laws

In truth, it’s harder for an adult woman to buy a pack of cigarettes than to get a restraining order. She can tell a judge she simply "feels unsafe" with her husband or boyfriend and the court can issue an order against her husband. This, of course, forces him to move out and reorganize his life. For this reason, many people have dubbed this law "shout at your spouse, lose your house."

McLarnon v. Douglas and Jokisch
The father, Edward McLarnon, was issued a restraining order by his ex-wife with the help of her social-worker boyfriend Douglas. Douglas used his social-worker status to testify that McLarnon was an abuser when he’d barely met him. McLarnon lost the right to see his son.

********

No.3 - Trust assets from divorce

Sure, it’s one thing to split marital assets fifty-fifty, but what about an offshore trust or limited partnership you set up to build capital? Sorry guys, tack it on to the bill. Even in cases of private business practice, rulings on trusts generally favor women.

Riechers v. Riechers 1998, New York
The husband in this case set up a trust and a limited partnership. The reason: He was a physician and wanted to avoid a malpractice suit. He named his kids and wife as beneficiaries, but his wife’s name wasn’t explicitly mentioned. This meant, in a divorce, she would not have access to the trust. But she got it regardless, as the court ruled in her favor.

********

No.2 - Alimony/Spousal support

"I want half, Eddie." You don’t have to watch old Eddie Murphy stand-up to know divorce can cost men a lot of money. Until now, most U.S. states leave the length and amount of settlement up to each judge. In Florida, it’s on the books that men have to provide lifetime support. The result: Men can be on the hook for a long time for a lot.

Polksy v. Polsky
Trivia: What’s one of the largest divorce verdicts in U.S. history? Answer: $184 million dollars to Maya Polsky, wife of Michael Polsky, a successful power industry businessman in Chicago.

********

No.1 - Custody

It’s widely accepted that women will be granted custody for children in child custody cases and that men will simply make child support payments. Of course, men who are good fathers and want custody of their children suffer for it thanks to this scenario.

John Doe v. Province of Saskatchewan
The man in this case unknowingly impregnated a woman. Later, he found she was putting this child up for adoption. He took a DNA test to prove he was the biological father and applied for sole custody -- but he was denied. The judge ruled in favor of a couple to adopt him.

Feminists and Guilty Redux: Are Men that Evil?

Now, when I was just a little boy,
Standin' to my Daddy's knee,
My poppa said, "Son, don't let the man get you
Do what he done to me."

'Cause he'll get you,
'Cause he'll get you now.

---Born on a Bayou

I have often seriously questioned that the majority of pedos are men, even though women take a more "seductive" style approach while men are more of a "hunter," loosely speaking. Considering how many articles of women having sex with underage boy and girls, eventually the truth that women are just as sexually abusive will come out.

There's a similar thing about serial killers. While men are more methodical or "stalker" types, a good deal of black widows, angels of death, and women who kill for money or vindictiveness over time, while using more indirect means like poisoning men and children. They are not typically classified as serial killers say like a Night Stalker or BTK murderer. Even though women are capable of repulsive crimes, including ripping a baby out of womb, cannibalism, and blood ritual murder. As sensational as it sounds, they only make headlines once in a while, while a killer like Ted Bundy or The Son of Sam get the attention of the media because they slay pretty, young women.

The one thing feminists got right to some extent is that men are fit for battle and fighting. That also should scare the living shit out of them: we are good at it. From anything to the CQC I practice all the way up to bombing the piss out of another country leaving destruction in that wake, men are "built" for war more than women, generally. But this doesn't provide the whole picture.

If men were so horrible concerning warmongering and being anti-woman, however, we would be utterly dominating them and leaving them in chains and shackles if they didn't obey, and do terrible crimes to them if they didn't meet our whims. Most men are not like this at all, but if you read feminist rhetoric you'd believe otherwise. Considering the protections and great license Western women have, they are utterly full of it. Nothing in Western culture sanctions slavery of women and systematic abuse. And men generally find it repugnant.

Even if men are excel at battle and combat, it doesn't mean women are any less violent, or inherently less so internally. Deep down, most men, even teenage street punks are aware of the ramifications of moderate to extreme violence and that it's not pretty. Most men are actually reluctant to engage in long term skirmishes and military excursions as they are to wail away in a bar fight despite claims of gung ho male bravado. There are always consequences and risk, and going headlong is done with either deliberation or as a last resort when all options are exhausted.

Not to go on a tangent, but I rarely have met a woman that has ever really needed to worry about urban altercations and meeting the reality of getting seriously injured or killed, unless they already live in crime-ridden areas. The brutality that R's son personally experienced [edited here for anon purposes---me] is one of many examples of what has happened to young men; it's a reality that most women are shielded from and probably will never happen to them their entire lives. As far as DV, it's rare when it's a one-way street and I've already discussed how women instigate and continue that cycle a few times.

Feminists, all to ready to spread fear and demand men change, act as if they get the brunt of the raw deal, and when men are locking horns with other men, they eschew the complexities of male violence and mock and scoff at it---including not understanding saving face and unleashing anger rather than be shamed and humiliated. Rather than examining the roots of a severe problem, to paraphrase Willard's character from Apocalypse Now, they try to place a bandage on a gaping wound in order to mask the truth in hopes that men will clean up everything and it will go away.

With women, it's easy to judge men on the sidelines and possess an attitude of smug self-righteousness when you are sitting on your fat ass watching American Idol and blasting men as cowards because they don't allegedly fight for home and hearth (usually a political or religion rationale trumped up by politicians). Women rarely take the blame for instigating war and men fighting for agendas that are often illusionary and elitist-driven, all the while women are usually safe and sound unless their own home turf is attacked. Anyone from the UK feminists in WWI to Hilary Clinton have pushed men into fighting for causes with no thought of ever sending their daughters to possible death and slaughter . . . only their sons. And you can forget, as Ronnie James Dio sang, "even mother's a solider now . . . " being sent on the front lines in a significant amount.

And make no bones about it, there are women create their own vicious warriors, and feminists fail to understand that anything from single mothers to so-called "traditional" women, that if they don't want men to be too hardened and forceful, they have to comprehend their hand in the deal in fashioning young men, from gang members to legitimate misogynists. IF women who find they are raising young men in this fashion actually do this is yet to be determined. Shifting the blame and pointing fingers is hard to give up. I'm not defending venomous criminals---far from it---but they started from someone and somewhere.

The hand the rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

I seriously believe if that men en masse became passive overnight, women would up the ante so badly on men that their provocation would eventuate into a far larger scale of their own violence and aggression with primal outbursts towards both men and other women that pales in comparison to how they behave now. Do I think that all women are extremely animalistic? The short answer is no. Do I still assert that women are capable of an unstable and virulent matriarchy if men consciously gravitated towards civil disobedience and refusal to fight for women and "culture?" The obvious answer I have is definitely yes.

Many moons ago I wrote a review of Neil Marshall's The Descent. While it's just a movie committed to celluloid, it's truth is still clear to me; without men to fight for women's honor and their protection, to be their white knights, engage in self-sacrifice for the benefit of women and guide them as, perhaps a Jungian psychologist would describe as the "male solar principle" an all female tribe would be as cutthroat and filled with deception and in-fighting as any amount of men could be. And when they finally realized their cohesion would save their own backs, that moment would be all too late with the maelstrom and chaos they caused, advertently or not.


(Obviously, this is from another forum, but I couldn't resist placing it here, regardless).

Too Young to Fall in Love . . . and Women and DV

Yet again another post taken from another forum. While the first comments are from members with screen names, I've abbreviated them for anon purposes, although one occasionally frequents here.

And again, I'll let the remarks speak for themselves.

A:

I'm tired of seeing this portrayal of "domestic violence" considering that an extremely small percentage is of the type depicted in this commercial. There are assholes who are serial beaters, yet they suffer from no shortage of women considering how many women are absolutely sick and are attracted to and stay with these types of scumbags.
A much greater majority of the cases are the rare instances where the woman pushed a few too many buttons and picked a fight hoping he would snap, and he does. Or worse yet, she initiates it physically, but he still ends up being hauled off to jail since the default move for police is to arrest the man.

I'm so jaded that whenever I hear of a woman getting hit, my first question is, "what did she do to piss him off?".

MM:,

I agree with you! Knowing how women can say those 'sweet nothings' to insult your manhood, stuff like that, I think the SAME THING you do. Most guys I know won't take a swing at someone else unless they have DAMN GOOD REASON TO DO SO, know what I mean?

And my response, slightly edited.

It's like about what I've said how these women really try to get underneath men's skin---degrade and attack their masculinity, and public and private humiliation. Couple that with their own levels of abuse, sense of entitlement and emotional bullying, and even physical instigation over time, and it's a recipe for disaster. Since women pretty much think they can do anything to men and get away with it, they are in for a rude awakening with the wrong man.

I remember one of my ex-girlfriends, despite all her claims of being pro-masculine and "women suck" (an admission of honesty for once), pushed my buttons near the last quarter of our relationship. It was the nail in the coffin for me; never again have I tolerated such garbage in the context of a relationship. That's a reason many men are still single; their refusal to be women's punching bags. There exist women out there that believe that being a bitchy cunt and passive-aggressive, all the while demanding that men be what they want do be, is being powerful and independent. It's utterly piss poor way of approaching men and conducting relationships.

Most women I know don't even know the art of seduction on most levels and don't know what in the world in means to be a muse---if you are going to manipulative, at least be charismatic and reward your "prey." But there's several men over time that are tired of being cruelly dumped on and are finally having enough.

Like I've always said, it's a scary thing when the hunted prey starts laughing at the hunter.

While I'm no "Mike Tyson" of Muay Thai or Machado or Fedor of grappling, I've often wondered if I trained in sport combat incessantly beyond my two days a week routine and had a bad attitude towards women coupled with it. I never provoked a physical altercation with any woman in my life, but it reminds of recent training I did with younger guys on Mondays (I'm in my 30s). I choked out everyone I rolled with in the last three weeks except one of them---which was the instructor. When I couldn't get a rear naked choke, I got a neck crank on him instead. His words were, "It's like you were going to tear my fucking head off with that." This was just practice.

Imagine that same ex-girlfriend, her bullying, my skills at that level, and little self-control if she had physically unleashed on me. It's not bragging to let you know she'd be hospitalized if I returned the favor.

Granted, I always advocate men avoiding women like that and knowing the red flags first. I don't get off on seeing violence towards women. But there is a dark turn that I'll touch on in a moment. And with DV, all we (mostly) hear about is innocent young women being brutalized. It's always a one-way street. I don't buy it.

Women did not give men any credit for self-restraint considering their penchant for pissing men to the point of violence---including perpetration of violence themselves. They've bought too much into this "grrl power/tough gal" shit and don't acknowledge the boundaries anymore. Augment that with single moms raising young men that are resentful and don't have the guidance of a paternal figure/biological father, and you have a situation that feminists adamantly deny---they helped create men that are potentially explosive to women in DV.

Feminists have never taken any responsibility for fashioning their own dark golems, and summoned demons. And if they are "oppressed,' they are oppressed by their own creations.

I've been accused and suspected of being that anti-social prick that would strike women down if they really crossed my path. It's a far cry from that romantic fool I was in my teens. But that never happened, even with women loving their drama, dumping toxic filth on men, and driving men to destruction---all the while not accepting accountability.

I remember when I discovered bands like Slayer, Bathory, Kreator, and Morbid Angel and joking about glam rockers like Motley Crew as posers, but I do remember when they actually had a metal sound to them in the early 80s, and one song that I actually could identify with that was legitimately profound---maybe a stretch for a party group like them, but it was true, nevertheless . . .

You say our love
Is like dynamite
Open your eyes
cause its like fire and ice

Well you're killing me
Your love's a guillotine
Why don't you just set me free

If this is the idea of Ameriskank "love" in this present time, they can have it. I'm done. I'm done with all of that bluster and noise.

And instead of a virulent, sexist, hate-filled bastard, they've turned me into someone who questions their cries of abuse and often turns a blind eye to women in need. It's all the same to them any how---why not just quit the dangerous game and go out strong.

Feminists hate men that don't support them and women by default, and since they hate good men that turn cold over the years and reward shitheels and scum, it's all the more reason to lock them out. When any form of masculinity is mocked and damned and every turn, the irrational pitch of expecting men to suddenly be still socially obligated to them rings hollow.

It's been said before, and even better, but I'll say it anyway: the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Women condemn themselves when men finally have enough of their wants and whims when it's never good enough, and always battering men in their own ways in order to model men for their own devices. And they wonder why men don't rescue them when the wolves are at their door. It's those wolves they pretty much wanted there, anyway.

Are feminists really that oppressed?

This is an excerpt from a forum where I was discussing this. While I thought about modifying and adding to it, it isn't a bad piece by any means and a bit edgy, so why not run with it . . . .



The irony is that the ones who perceive themselves as "oppressed," generally snotty, upper-class white female feminists, are the ones that make the rules for everyone else and expect us to abide by them---all the while breaking them when it's convenient or because "that's different" because they are perpetual victims that can justify anything, including nefarious crimes against men and children. It's the hallmark of the mind of a fascist.

The oppressed, in a real world situation, would have little or no power. That includes no VAWA 2.0, no ERA, no right to vote and skip out on the draft, no reproductive choice, no Title IX, no sexual harassment law, no CS, no alimony, no nothing. Not to mention they would not be able to dictate this shit and push it so much as lobbyists and control-mongers would make it public policy.

Seems to me that the "not-so privileged" feminists have more choice and power then they are willing to admit; by offering this admission, it would mean that their ultimate goal of fashioning a world with maximum choice with minimum responsibility would have a serious flaws in that approach. It would reveal that's exactly what it is, alongside the hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and female supremacy that is inherent in its manifestation. With freedom comes responsibility, and these women want the former without the latter, all the while men paying for the tab one way or another.

By saying they still have no real power, they mask their intentions and the fact they do have power, and that it's never enough for them until they have complete and utter control. Which is largely unearned power, because they are too myopic, abusive, and untrustworthy with it.

Not to mention that with all the talk about "we don't need men," they still do. They need men as protectors, men to make the gears of society run, from anything from paving the roads to picking up the garbage. Women, by in large, still refuse to do it. Feminists are so full of shit in this regard---with all the talk about benevolent sexism, which is another term for chivalry, they still whine and cry for it at the end of the day.

An 80s heavy metal song from Dio contained the line, "Protection, I never needed none . . . " and I think many men pride themselves in the fact they don't need to call upon someone 24/7 in order to thrive and survive. Not to say we don't need people, but on the converse, feminists demands for needing men and helping women at any cost----there's that social obligation thing again---is tantamount to a kind of fixated insanity. And it turns men off. You cannot force men to give and give without giving back. It's human nature; even all but the most generous manginas will eventually burn out and feel like a sucker in the end. Which in most cases is true---they have been exploited.

After years of feminists stating they don't need us men, reigning judgment on us and acting like we are second class citizens at best, now that they are playing the victim card and bitching about us not wanting to be their valiant knights, they can permanently and implacably fuck off.

Yep, that's me . . .

Feminists often complain that us "anti-feminists" don't show ourselves.


I walk the walk, not just talk the talk, Virginia.

I think look a little pissed off, but I was actually having fun with my camera. I thought it wasn't the best in the world, but there is neat software for editing not just shots, but film and audio as well.

Who knows. I may just start reading a few of my writings, and quote works I find significant one day on audio. You never know.