skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I think the idea of the "Nice Guy Syndrome" has to be revamped, especially when dealing with feminists.
I lurked on a blog which there was rather extensive discussion about it. It's a fairly trafficked feminist one with an OP that has made quite a name for herself, including not apologizing for attaching stigma to white men she blasted years ago. It's curious has to why exactly she feels the need to perpetuate the nice guy mythic nonsense. Of course, she's a towering moralist so she's above the very subject she claims righteous indignance. But being a feminist, that's a given.
It was also worthy of note the virtually all of the posters blamed the "nice guys" they interacted with were at fault for their own behaviors. Nevermind these same feminists attested quite many experiences with them. Give me break; if they detest the mentality so much, perhaps shunning them would be in order if possible. Is this an option they would rather not eschew?
Also don't even bother to think for a moment that these women are capable of the traits they state they abhor. They are, but will not readily admit it even under pressure. This includes passive-aggressiveness, selfishness, ulterior motives, self-entitlement, and even feeling scorned if not expecting the sex they want at command. It's quite concurrent with Ameriskank behavior. Too bad they largely refused to see their own projection of those attributes themselves.
If they were so adamant about not rewarding "nice guys," they would procure not even dating them in their personal lives. Before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, if I continued to date clear cut Ameriskanks and got burned over and over, I wouldn't expect a lot of sympathy once I woke up to the fact my attraction was part of the problem and did nothing to curtail it. These same feminists don't bother to proclaim they are rewarding those same men they bitch bitterly about. Again. And again.
I'm sure they believe they are the better half of their foibles concerning their toxic relationships. They are egregious liars.
***
I think the term "nice guy" should be laid to rest.
It's intriguing how everyone believes they aren't, or don't want to be perceived as such. Granted, I think that the expression should be purged and another take its place; one that would describe certain levels of traits that can be identified. Social introversion isn't a handicap or synonymous with dysfunction per se; it has some aspects it can be positive or self-defensive (such as avoiding toxic relationships), but so many people seem to get the term confused.
Not to mention the moronic pseudo-adage, "Nice guys aren't really nice guys anyway." Okay . . . you towering moral bastion of feminist morality---ahem, to pardon the phase---nice try.
It's often employed as an excuse to gravitate towards creeps and cads. And treat good men like shit. It's truly a pathetic rationalization.
Contrary to common belief, you push a man against the ropes enough, even all but the most Caspar Milquetoast of men will come out (proverbially speaking, at least) swinging. It's human nature. It's inevitable. Men have a large capacity to take a good heap of dung they shouldn't without much complaint (as women think they do often). But some people have more sensitive triggers than others, and saying and doing anything and expecting a man to take abuse as a "real man" is the hubris of fools, masochists, fake alphas, and, of course, feminists.
The stunning conceit of an Ameriskank is thus: "I can get away with anything I want with a nice guy, he should be a real man and take his lumps and not bitch too much and still cherish me."
By dubbing someone as an average frustrated chump or nice guy---in the negative sense that many utilize---people categorize someone in a confining box and give excuses to treat them as such. And they are surprised when that same labelled man defies expectation or protests being a doormat. Suddenly, he's a royal prick when he's not ripe for personal (or other types) of exploitation. And yet the social perps who treat a man as such get dumbfounded and pissed because men refuse to conform to the false dichotomy of nice guy/bad boy, and clearly don't want to acknowledge that they created the problem in the first place.
***
There has been some heated debate about MRA+ and how men can possibly find real love despite the pitfalls and dreaded landscape of US relationships, whether it be casual dating up to marriage and family. I ultimately believe that it is the choice of each man whether or not he engages women---and what type of woman he desires and the nature of his relationship to that said woman. Men who choose not to involve themselves with women should never be shamed or stigmatized; it is obvious that there exists risks for men dating US women and I don't have to craft a list for many to understand that point. But it is not my position to belittle those who seek the depth of a profound bond.
Unfortunately, most men---myself included---grew up with an idealized conception of what their mate was going to be like. And had their hopes dashed and crushed again and again. By leading men down the primrose path and not providing them with a grounded sense of realism and what women can be like is anything from naive to irresponsible. There are quite a good percentage of them that are reproductive opportunists; even irrational self-interest in a woman is still self-interest. Men who are practicing rational self-interested are often viewed as selfish misogynists; a woman doing the same is pragmatic and smart.
For the longest time, I pined for my own Kate Beckinsale, a woman who possessed a set of qualities so many women profess they generally have without feeling a need to demonstrate them very much. Even those who are not starry-eyed dreamers will wax that if I don't believe in it somehow, it will never happen no matter what the odds.
Trouble is, I actually did believe I had a soulmate that would fulfill my desire for a deep companionship. It took some doing, but after a time I awoke from that dream. I cannot tell you enough how painful and even traumatic it was in the process---I made it on the other side, although I'm not entirely unscathed.
Even seeking the equivalent in a mate is exceedingly difficult as a realist; and as a man you are typically blamed if you don't attract the right women---even if you avoid the bad and walking damaged for a legitimate female cohort.
It is for the better I no longer buy into the feminine mystique and peer behind the veil; I honestly believe this wonderment was one of the main factors why a good friend of mine slowly drank himself to death. Granted, it was one of a few core elements, but it was obvious to myself. After the second break up of the only woman he openly declared his love for, he went into a such a bout of heavy drinking and depression he almost died two years before his actual passing.
It is truly up to us to educate ourselves on the nature of the female dark side, feminism, and Ameriskank behavior and spread the word. Men have been living under the lie of how without women they are nothing; we have to smash this modern myth like Thor wielding his Mjolnir hammer with a calculated fury.
***
Zed/Zenpriest has stated something profound about gaming a future wife or one in practice; if one feels the need to constantly employ player tactics to gain the upper hand with a spouse, you will never feel true intimacy.
There's a lot to be said about that. I'm not as overtly critical of pick up artistry all the time, but "game" has little answer to obtaining real trust and intimacy with someone you must constantly game in order to dominate and lead. If you are not in the position to steer naturally and have to employ a set of manipulations to keep personal power going, it is not exactly a happy situation and can even lead to resentment and mistrust.
If you have to game your wife so she doesn't move on to the bigger, better deal or gradually steamroll you, you don't have a marriage that is wholly sound. It's just a matter of fact.
Trust is vital to any healthy relationship. Many relationships aren't always short-lived, but those that don't have trust as a cornerstone are certainly strained to begin with. In all seriousness, those who practice game may have some answer that could help, but I haven't seen one outstanding one that would work in a satisfactory manner.
If one wishes to have that deep bond between husband and wife, brinkmanship should not be an overriding portion of it. Sadly, even in marital situations where gaming hasn't been known, it's often present as well.
One of the things I've been ruminating about on my vocation has been a topic that has captured my attention for some time---male disposability. Despite what occurred with the Costa Concordia (which I believe is not the only incidence of apparent lack of selflessness on men's behalf for women) there has been a strain of belief even in the MRM that most men are somehow hapless in a sense regarding protecting and providing for women. It's ingrained in us, it's in evolutionary psychological make up of men, it's in our DNA.
Argue as many might attest to this, it's obviously not completely set in stone.
I do believe that our Western culture amps men's alleged "drive" to engage in self-sacrifice not just because of civilization's sake; it's because someone is benefiting and even exploiting a huge percentage of men. Whatever belief system you come from perspective-wise, clearly there are forces out that that are pretty darn insecure about men losing faith and trust in society and the tenuous pact between men and women. Now days, our culture wants women to be supported no matter what foibles and failures they engage in; if men don't comply, the state will, although the state often garners financial and the toil of men by "legalized" extortion.
We're supposed to be content with being model beta males, and if we don't like it, it's tough shit---even if we are given nothing return. This is not the most healthy condition, obviously.
Men's interests and needs are always at a backseat, if salient at all. We're supposed to be happy being fem-serfs (although so many women incessantly seem to be happy at being unhappy) and not place our happiness first. A man that does strive to carve is own path is somehow seen from anything to useless or a pariah. He's a narcissistic jerk even if he's not intentionally harming someone else. Shame and even vile contempt are often heaped upon men who break ranks and even question why men should ultimately appease your modern Ameriskank; nevermind parasitical sociopaths that are no good for society get admiration by the truckloads---that are at or near the apex of popularity---and are rewarded by so many women who are eager to even be in a harem of sorts with them. And, of course, the rest of us have to scramble for the leftovers or don't have a good mate to spare.
If you don't kow tow, you're a self-centered, misogynist asshole. Hell, there are some women online practically screaming it and demonizing any man that they deem as such.
If men really understood the biases and embitterment against them and let it sink it permanently, the landscape of the dynamic of between the sexes would be very, very different. It truly terrifies women if men were to stop self-sacrifice and expect women to own up. Real, raw equality is something that very few women can rise to the challenge and uphold. While there are no hard and fast rules for MGTOW, I do believe there is a strong, deep undercurrent that is the root of men's rights issues---acknowledged or not---that more men are gradually perturbed by being perceived and treated as second class citizens and are waking up to that fact.
And no, "bitter" or not, it goes deeper than not getting a date for a time or just not looking like the cool metrosexual Ameriskanks claim they want. It cuts to the core of our souls, and it's surprising that more men aren't downright furious about it. Feminists have no idea how much men show restraint and control in this aspect; we are not given merit points or anything of the sort, and no matter how much scorn and abuse are lobbed at us, we are supposed to be still loving and forgiving at the end of the day.
Whatever the reason, there are people who have an awful time of seeing men as human beings rather than just human doings. The irony is that feminism has been stated as the belief that women are people, too. This is hogwash; feminism was (and is) about female supremacy and having women possess ultimate say-so on anything to legalities to sexual intimacy; somewhere along the line men's priorities were not of import.
Now, I do think it will come to pass that men will have to be viewed as people, too, regardless if feminists and their cohorts like or not. Perhaps it will not be in my life time, but the meme is out and about, and no amount of politically correct brainwashing or grooming men to be white knights will dampen the word.
From the spirit runs poison, and the wheel of
Fortune is ever still,
Sweeter than the light, the darkness of your soul,
Immaculate, deception.
Something has touched, the spirit inside,
Once there was love now there's a void.
Nights of deception, ghosts in my mind,
Am I bewitched, slave to desire.
It's knowing that times keeps rolling on, night after
Day, day after night,
It's knowing that feeling of coming home, to where
My spirit lies.
"Immaculate Deception"---Black Sabbath
The curious thing is that as I grow older I don't feel the need so much for companionship. Sure, I lament that feminism, as well as certain factors have made things highly difficult for men to find a truly decent partner and I certainly don't dismiss the pain from that---notice I didn't employ the word "frustration," it implies that the yearning so many men feel for a woman that would stand beside (them regardless of what happened) is trivial, when it's certainly not. It truly is a deep human need to desire a profound bond with the opposite sex, and so many sources seem to make it trite when men express it while thwarted, as if it's always their fault.
Of course, if a woman can't find a man and desires to have one, it's not her fault. There's no good men out there, right?
And after all, withholding affection, acting superior sans merit, lack of human decency---and even being callous and emotionally cruel---are more hallmarks of Ameriskank breed. It's a way of control and passive-aggressive dominance. If men returned the favor in kind, they would have a pulmonary infraction. Men desire to be with women, and despite the fact women have a level of desire for men, the malignant maze that is erected in order to obtain affection could make one question why men have to "earn" something women just should receive bountifully because of their gender. Men have been subjected to such misandry to view themselves as lesser than women, and that will be never be good enough for what Warren Farrell dubbed as the "genetic celebrity." And Ameriskanks believe that they are that genetic celebrity by simple virtue of their vagina, even though very few will look remotely like Monica Bellucci when they are her age.
Not that I don't think about it time and again. When I was a teen and a hopeless romantic, I found even then that one could cry to the heavens for love and receive nothing. Now that I'm a doer more than a dreamer, the shine that our culture regards the feminine mystique has turned lackluster. It's been said before, but very few women really love and respect men for what they are. We truly are a means to an end, and if we treated women with the same behavior it would be deemed exploitative and selfish. I can visualize women having serious breakdowns when men have conditioned themselves against the same.
Even more troubling is how men's issues are viewed as trite compared to the smallest whims and fancy if a woman. Our society, in this aspect, is guilty as charged. If it was the opposite----men's needs trumping women's every time---I could see why feminists would protest and have a legitimate gripe, but it's far from the truth and proof our culture smacks of a matriarchy with the external trappings of patriarchy.
It's also been said that men don't just look for relationships just for sex. Some do, but many are looking for that very love, respect, comfort, and admiration that just doesn't seem to be happening so much. If you are a sensitive man and long to show yourself openly, flaws and all, expecting kindness and warmth in the arms of a woman is a mistake; you are going to eventually have a rude awakening. Not to mention that a really sensitive man would be upset at continued mistreatment and the experience that he is not on par with the woman he is interacting with. An Ameriskank cannot possibly have this because she must have the upper hand no matter how she would be resentful of a man that isn't the leader. Hence their cognitive dissonance concerning men; despite being attracted to alpha traits, they disapprove of men taking the lead because of feminism and perceived "inequality." But a man that will acquiesce is a doormat, a pushover. A dull beta male.
As a youth, there was a period where I found little solace in many things and would have given a welcome relief if a young woman had been even mildly supportive. I let that go by the wayside even with a couple of serious relationships. Despite what anyone has told you, Ameriskanks despise "weakness" (i.e. kindness and empathy) in men because it would mean that they would have to see us as truly human beings rather than second class citizens. Or worse. One could argue it is an extension of an Ameriskank's own self-loathing; treating a man has fully human and a deep well would mean that perhaps her vain illusion of her own superiority (in a culture that constantly polishes her bloated ego) would shatter . . . and she would have to re-evaluate her own self-worth and deal with her inner anger.
At the beginning of my post I mentioned I don't concern myself with being with a woman in the long haul. I still wish something good could have happened between myself and a decent woman, but I don't waste time wishing upon a star. I have to live my life, and hope springs eternal. Even finding someone roughly equivalent seems improbable.
The really damning thing is that men like me are "dangerous" in some sense, but not in the way feminists want to portray us. We stand up for ourselves, do activity in our own circles, and while societal demands us to be slavishly obligated to women without reward, the more it does so, the more we push away. This is truly frightening to those are championing their lie of being strong and independent while ever being resentful of the fact they can no longer use a man who's eyes have been opened. They condemned good men as boring and useless, once they truly need us we will give them what they really deserve . . . even if it is nothing but scorn and silence. I truly believe that given the chance most men would be loving and compassionate with women, but after a large part of a lifetime of embittered male-bashing and resistance, why are they still surprised when men opt out?
A while back, MarkMark had a post on the Costa Cordordia ship disaster and a poster named Ping Jockey had had this to say:
This has shown them something that they hadn't planned on -- that men are fed up with their hypergamy, solopsism and entitlement attitudes, and are becoming more indifferent to them and don't really care about what happens to them. (Witness the recent articles about the concern of some women about the growth of MGTOW and growing male indifference to women. The getting scared about what could happen when enough "Good Men" become totally indifferent to them and their interests.)
It's been said that women's greatest nightmare is not men's hate, but men's indifference -- because it is only the concern of Good Men" about women that protects women against the depredations of "Bad Men". When women lose that concern, they have a LOT to fear.Based upon what has happened in this incident, I have a feeling that the next large accident or disaster where women are thrown upon their own resources without government intervention, protection or assistance is going to be VERY, VERY interesting indeed!
Much could be said about the phenomenon on the ship and the heavy-handed articles that followed. Not surprisingly, there was an outcry about the alleged selfishness and shamelessness about the men who clamored to protect themselves first---women be damned. Even (so-called) conservatives demonstrated their hypocritical true colors on this issue---it's okay for women to have equal rights, but when it comes to self-sacrifice, especially in a dire circumstance, men have to be expendable. I wonder if these same people would do the same; I have a distinct feeling that they would not. I would bet even a few sell their own mothers to save their own skins, yet have the stunning audacity to imply that men who do not abide by the (fairly modern, by the way) quasi-dictum of "women and children first."
It was the same message. Women can have their cake and eat it, too, and glean the benefits of both "equality" and the protections that traditionalism yields. Men have to bear the brunt of societal situations that call for it---whether we let it or not. And if we don't like it, we are heartless, misogynist bastards to boot.
I have had a rather passing interest in how organisms survive despite environmental stressors and conditions, and human beings are on the apex of that list. Do men really have a genetic proclivity be the ones who are willing to sacrifice their very lives more than women when needed? At first observation, it seems to be the case. Superficially, at least. After all, it was all part and parcel of the order of things, and Western culture hinged on this bedrock of sorts . . . right?
After many years of witnessing what had happened to other men---and not just myself---and even possessing a keen sense of self-preservation despite societal attempts to dampen it, whatever left of that attribute of self-sacrifice is now numbed. I became disgusted by with a misandrist culture that exalts women at the expense of men. I viewed self-abnegation as no virtue whatsoever, and getting rid of traces of it became far easier over time.
While much has been debated about how true sociobiological drives are truly involved in this or not, there has sprung up more examples that if this somehow has some biological fact, it can be overridden. Even more so, it can be changed in the long term. Feminism is quite the culprit. Despite the concept that feminism is all about equality, it never was whatsoever. One its latent---but very powerful and ingrained---thrusts of feminism is that men are here to ultimately serve men. If we do not in some fashion, we are not just considered useless, but even possibly dangerous in some manner.
I've always thought that as a man that a woman by my side would make rational self-interest one of the main roots of our relationship. It would be paired with a mutual understanding and trust that would serve us both. This is not just from my experience alone, but I have discovered that there are women out there that refuse to grasp this as a concept, much less in practice. So many expect men to love them unconditionally while they walk all over them; they expect men to work soulless jobs and not complain while women discover themselves and dump men on a whim.
On top of this, they've gotten Betty Friedan's disease; forever happy being unhappy, and what "beta males" do for them is never enough while rewarding the perceived alphas ceaselessly. Even women who believe themselves loyal engage in shameless hypergamy. Of course, men are supposed to accept all of this, and when we don't there are women out there who express shock and anger when we don't "know our role." My retort to them is thus; what the hell do you expect?
There are lessons from the Costa Concordia disaster. This is where Ping Jockey's post comes into play here, and his statement has been concurrent with one of my themes for MGTOW; women have a lot to fear when good men show indifference or turn their backs on them---or decide the alternatives---foreign women, minority women, expating, womanizing, engaging in semi-reclusive modes, or simply waiting it out until a better woman comes along.
Deep down, it is an absolutely terrifying thought that men can up and leave any time a woman that gets too out of hand and abusive. It should be, but the intriguing thing is that so many women still do the wrong actions and behavior that do not make men more willing to make it a go. This is far more dangerous and still alien for many women, who would rather risk a known evil in a man who is corrupt and brute than compassionate and tender.
When Ameriskanks smashed the social compact between men and women, the old role of man-as-pack-mule gradually become more of a source of drudgery rather than pride. As much as I detest feminism, there is a good thing that has come out of it; if women do not obligate themselves to men in a fashion, men need not, either, and we are freed up to seek out what our true bliss. Whether or not American women will get the hint and decide to grow and learn with men or still mournfully cry out for the "traditional" roles they damned in the first place remains to be seen.
I have found in my frequent journeys online as well as observations of misandry in daily life, the media, or in the political arena that it never seems to let up. Granted, in there's always a place where I escape from the unfettered ding of its raucous call in order to maintain a seamblance of peace---I have a few devices; cooking gourmet dinners for myself, walking around a local beach late at night or the grappling sessions I attend twice a week.
Still, I find that cannot sever myself from writing about this cultural malaise. Men are being removed as main authority of the family and sometimes even kicked out, with the ever-widening grip of the state encroaching in our lives. Young men are not as scholarly inclined or even discouraged to be more ambitious in school and college, and will have a significant effect on the economic course in our future. Despite some efforts to push for dual child custody in divorce court women are still favored as primary caretakers while many fathers have pay up for CS with limited access to their kids. Debtor's prison, an Unconstitutional situation, is still enacted in many cases when man cannot financially maintain support payments. Maybe a mother has leveled false charges of abuse against a man to restrict visitation entirely or has found another lover while he slaves away. The ludicrous burden---what I consider should be illegal---of alimony is rewarded to greedy and vindictive-minded ex-wives. In the workplace, false accusations of sexual harassment have men walking on nails and although some countermeasures have been implemented as policy to curtail them, there are women that will still employ this a weapon to be rid of men they don't like or find "creepy" on a whim. Don't get me started on health funding, depression and suicide rates, hypergamy, slutwalks, and domestic violence.
What have feminists, feminism, and their counterparts have done to help men in dire need? If anything they have aided in spearheading legal and social misandry with no signs of letup. With the lie that feminism is supposed to be for legal and social equality, it has clearly shown its true colors---female supremacy---and anyone not giving homage to its poisonous credo is demonized, marginalized, or punished in some fashion. With the Radfem Hub now made visible and its posters true thoughts laid bare, it is evident what they really think of men. Many of the statements were particularly cruel, but one of them that troubled me was the suggestion that mothers could starve male infants and boys of affection and nurture in order to (essentially) let them die.
How heartless. Unbelievable.
One most note that many of these same women that have made these venomous statements are not exactly in the shadows in the first place; among them are career women and those in influential positions. And yet, these feminists are the oppressed and victimized---or so they claim. In reality, they want the power sans responsibility, and burden men further with absurd expectations. It's the hideous irony that those purporting to champion equality secretly desire to regulate men to the status of second class citizens. Or worse.
Given all of this, it's not surprising that there are men gradually men drifting away in a sense---refusing to support women without mutual reciprocation, tired of contributing to society with little reward, suspicious of Ameriskank behavior, and cynical of any romantic ideal after being hurt by women for too long or told over and over it's all their fault. There's a lesson from the Radfem Hub revealing from Agent Orange; men are considered expendable. Period. And no matter how profound our efforts to uphold civility and society, as well as . . . oh hell . . . just expect a modicum of love and affection from a woman that treats us halfway decent in return, we are still inferior by virtue of our Y chromosome.
Feminism has always tried to control men, and by extension, male sexuality. In turn, women's sexuality is paramount and should be always given precedence over men's, which is clearly seen in anything with reproductive choice, child support, cuckolding, and the like. This appeals strongly to women who don't completely share the outright hatred of the more extremist type; after all, it's something that has permeated our culture like a bonfire that seemingly cannot be doused. Add this with massive redistribution of wealth from men via the state to women (supposedly for the sake of the children). Imagine if the latter were to fall through (including welfare, CS, and alimony ground to a halt); if the doomsayers are correct, it is a possibility. If more men wake up to realize they are being extorted, indirectly or otherwise, by a system that basically cares nothing for them outside of production and utility purposes---walking ATMs and sperm banks---things will be vastly different for the sexes, and all the cries to return to bullshit notions of chivalry would dissipate.
By means of comparison, the feminists spouting hatred have a more insidious viewpoint than your average, smug, selfish Ameriskank. Men are disposable, superfluous. And although without men we would not have the advances in our historical evolution as we know it, we truly are perceived as deserving as the expendable sex. I am still a little surprised that they still feel it should clandestine about it, considering how misandry extends to both the radical left as well as Necons. Obviously, some of it is out in the open. It would be a sick joke if they were not so earnest.
As Men Going Our Own Way, there are no hard and fast rules for every individual man, but spreading the word about the truth has become crucial. For those that have no respect for men and masculinity should ask themselves this: why should we have any respect for them when they continue to smash any underlying social contract asunder and leave no benefit for men?
This is from the site A Voice For Men.
There has been much discussion about this recently and I could probably add more than a few words of my own. There has been some digging up of feminists posts about what they really think of men. This is actually recent writings and not just the classic cases of quotes from the your Dworkins of the world; it's proof of how they view men in general, and it gets even worse---they are in certain career positions that will surprise some. While I consider myself rather cynical, I still find the implications troubling. Another point here is that unlike the constant protestations that feminists don't have real power and clout in the status quo, this will be another blow to that notion. In fact, it's something I've stated for years; it is ingrained (currently) in our society and quite active in many social and workplace circles. I'm not the only one who subscribes to this, but I do think they should be held accountable in accordance to whatever damage they ultimately do.
I want to thank everyone involved from AVFM for shedding light on this serious problem and Agent Orange for his work; some may say that it will not effect great change, but it truly is another blade (as one poster used to say, and I miss him) how feminism will disseminated by a thousand cuts.
From the article: Radfem Hub: the underbelly of a hate movement
Imagine that you are a fly on the wall of a private meeting. The attendees include a legislative lobbyist, an arts council member, a political writer, a bestselling novelist, a communications assistant for a national chamber of commerce, a web developer, a special education teacher and a child care worker.
What do you imagine you would hear in that meeting? Maybe plans to improve children’s education, especially those with special needs? Perhaps a call to mobilize resources to ensure school kids are not attending class hungry, or that they are safe from abuse and exploitation? Maybe you would hear concerns about the quality of education and school budgets during the global recession, or other problems faced by the upcoming and developmental generation of world citizens.
Well, one such meeting has been happening, conducted by well-placed individuals who fill the job descriptions listed above. But educational and welfare improvements were not the topics they discussed. The agenda of the meeting was the shared desire to abuse and murder children, to trap people in wooden buildings and blow them up, to throw children from, through, windows, to pursue infanticide and forced eugenics, and to seriously entertain and secretly pursue ways to exterminate half the population.
If you are waiting for a punch line, don’t.
Radfem Hub (Radfem is short for Radical Feminist), is a website featuring articles from well-known activists, many of whom are in significant real-world positions of political and social influence. The site has been the focus of some attention since Simon and Schuster novelist Pamela O’Shaughnessy, posting under the name Vliet Tiptree, penned an article there advocating human scientific experimentation and forced eugenics, in order to “extirpate” certain aspects of masculinity.
The publishers of Radfem Hub frequently profess and promote philosophical solidarity with the late Valerie Solanas, author of The Scum Manifesto, a violent ideologue who advocated the extermination of men. She also gunned down artist Andy Warhol, maiming him for life.
Some well-known figures are closely associated with the Radfem Hub. Loretta Kemsley, publisher of Moon Dance Magazine, which was given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is listed as having a “board presence” on her public profile there. Sheila Jeffreys, feminist author and professor at The University of Melbourne has a public presence there and frequently provides articles. Julie Bindle, author and columnist with The Guardian, a well read newspaper in the U.K., has also posted there. (see Wikipedia Links Below).
Underneath Radfem’s veneer of social consciousness, however, and hosted on the same website, is a private forum; the underbelly and engine room for the site as a whole. The discussions there, assumed to be out of the public eye, are virulent and hateful; often peppered with calls for violence. For a long time, they have been successful and maintaining both secrecy and anonymity. Until now.
Over the past several months an operative ,who will only be identified as Agent Orange, has successfully infiltrated the group and has collected trove of information, including over a hundred screen shots that document what can only be called the most shocking evidence of extreme hatred in the feminist movement seen to date.
Not only have these conversations been documented with screen shots but Agent Orange, with the help of an investigator, has tracked down the identities of several of these individuals. The confidence level of the information is compelling, and more is on the way. Here is a portion of the individuals identified, along with some of their statements.
Danielle Pynnonen (screen name “Allecto”), a child care worker whose employer is unknown;
click to enlarge
Kat Pinder (screen name “Amazon Mancrusher”), a community development coordinator for the City of Perth in Australia and former U.K. Game show Big Brother contestant;
Click to enlarge
Isabelle Moreira (screen name “Izzie”), a web developer in Curitiba, Brazil;
Click to enlarge
Mary Syrett (screen name “Mary Sunshine”), a writer and member of the City of Kingston Arts Council in Ontario, Canada;
Click to enlarge
Julie LeComte (screen name “Rain”), a communications assistant for the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Australia;
Click to enlarge
Lorraine Allen (screen name “White Tiger”), a special education teacher at The Center for Discovery Hurleyville, New York;
Click to enlarge
Laila Namdarkhan (screen name “yabawife”), a well known feminist activist who was instrumental in passing legislation in the U.K. Regarding the mental health of women in prisons;
Click to enlarge
And of course Pam O’Shaughnesey (screen name changed from “Vliet Tipree” to “karma”), an established writer, publisher and lawyer. In this post, the complete depravity of O’shaughnessy’s ideology shines though with a clear willingness for mass murder as a “last resort.”
Click to enlarge
These screen shots represent just a sample the images and other data that document real people engaging in what can only be described as an orgy of gender hatred. What’s more, these are not individuals who live on the fringes of society. They are people who hold public offices, positions in academia and the media. Their voices and ideas are heard in legislatures all around the world and even in the chambers of the United Nations.
In the very near future, the complete body of data collected by Agent Orange will be made available to the public at large. This means that anyone interested learning more about these people and publicizing their own analyses on their blogs, Youtube channels or other media will be able to do so. It also means that interested members of the general public can voice their concerns regarding these individuals to the press, as well as anywhere these individuals may pose a direct threat, particularly to the welfare of children.
For a long time men’s advocates and others have tried to point out to politicians and the public that feminism was, at its heart, a movement rooted in hate. Those contesting this point of view claim that radical feminism isn’t recognized as legitimate by most feminists and that radical feminists aren’t taken seriously. This new information demonstrates those assumptions are false.
This data, and the mountains of it to soon follow, reveal that radical feminists with bigoted, violent leanings are thoroughly entrenched in the media, governmental and education systems worldwide, and that they are exerting their influence to further legislation and policy that reflects not only their hatred of men and boys, but a desire to put themselves in a position to inflict as much harm on them as possible.I will be joining Paul Elam on AVfM Radio tomorrow night, when we will be speaking live with Agent Orange, who has a great deal more information and perspective on what has been happening at Radfem Hub. Another surprise guest will be appearing.
Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondance_Magazinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreyshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindelhttp://radicalhub.wordpress.com/
To be honest, I really didn't know how to start off this post. So I will say it; Michelle is only one of two women in my lifetime that I truly loved, and while I was young when it came onto me like an incessant whirlwind you could not dissipate, being young made it no less potent. If anything, it amplified all the rawness and pain that I felt for it being unrequited. I do remember her from even before I had been a high school sophomore and that she was exceedingly beautiful and feminine, unlike women now days that feel they have to festoon their bodies with tattoos and gradually wear on their physiology with drugs and partying.
If "alpha female" equated to Michelle, she was quite the prize at the time. She was a senior, and not only was she gorgeous, but academically bright, lady-like, kept her nose clean, and had the warmest smile I had ever seen. There were many things to adore about her to a driven but gangly, introverted teen such as myself. I don't recall exactly at one point that my lionization would infect my loins like a raging fever I couldn't rid myself from, but I do know when she discovered it. Perhaps the death of a couple of relatives at that period only added to my dismay; they had died in an abrupt car crash. Now life and love had another meaning; it could be profound but taken away at any time. She needed to know how I felt because life was fleeting.
Of course, Michelle it not know how strongly I desired her; never before was I moved so deeply by a woman. Yes, lust was a part of it, but if it had been only sexual I could have moved on. That was not so easy. At fifteen, I was floored by it---I'll be up front and state I didn't know how to come to terms with it. At the time, I wondered if it had been any more powerful I would have moved proverbial mountains just to be with her.
Not that it mattered. I was a somewhat nerdy younger guy with a crush. That was it in her world. That fact alone was eating away at me, but would be even more brutal when I would see her with a bone-headed football player she had befriended. Sometimes, I wondered if she had latched on to him as a token boyfriend to prevent me from continued pursuit, although she would smile that particular smile to me on occasion and speak to or about me in passing. It wasn't just the idea she had a trophy beau on her arm that was devastating; it was because I was not even considered despite her coy and wispy acknowledgments of me. I was in a lower caste, regardless. I even ruminated if I might as well have been dead, and that my passing would only been thought of momentarily in her life--and she would continue without that much fanfare.
What is paramount is that I was a romantic soul that truly did believe in loyalty, self-sacrifice, passion, and devotion to a woman that I was enamored with. It is somewhat difficult to convey that belief now despite other posters finding me fairly articulate and direct. There were other young women, but in my world Michelle was like the chosen one; I wanted her as a soulmate so badly that it tore at the fibers of my being. For an entire year, I burned with that core fire that would eventually yield to a colder, more darker flame that would not be the same ever since.
Oh yeah, I did mention that I loved another woman later on. But even then, I was not the same. Andrea refused to understand that about me despite (supposedly) adoring me to the point of fixation, and as much as she wanted me, I had changed at a younger age. A crucial part of not loving simply every woman that came along is that very few would ever appreciate what I would have done for Michelle to be at my side for a lifetime, and it transformed me unalterably. I don't give my respect and love out to just any woman, because Ameriskanks don't respect and love men back in the same fashion. Michelle would not do the same for me at all. I had to come to grips with that notion, and it was like trying to grapple with a venomous tiger. And once that proverbial struggle was over, I came out the other side scarred and stoic.
There are women out there that think nothing of how heartbreak effects men. They will even deride and openly mock those same men, not regarding the former and also not realizing their derision leads to more cynicism and even bad karma for those women. You do get what you give, and those women in kind---in their hubris---refuse to come to terms with how mistreating, demonizing, abusing, and marginalizing men creates the problems that poison the well---even in our culture. If men took the personal as political (as feminists do) the landscape of the relationships between the sexes would look very, very different. To say the least, most women would think twice about purposefully hurting men on one level or another, and at the more extreme, the feminist nightmare of what they perceive is oppression and men's anger---one which they are reaping despite their claims to the contrary---would be made manifest. It is quite a testament to men's reluctance to be at war with women, if anything. We are not bred to hate them. But we are not their punching bags or drones, either.
There was not one real pivotal moment that lead me to become as I am now, but the Michelles of the world will not know the influence they have. The magic has been constrained like a hermetically sealed talisman; it may just never return. Women cry for that romantic soul will not come back, at least not in this lifespan. And they should be very worried about that.
My experience may seem to pale in the view of men in child support custody battles or dealing with a violent woman bent on destroying their partners somehow, but I have changed. I have become that man that can say "No" to anything a woman does in my personal life I don't like at all, to the one that can walk away without looking back. This frightens Ameriskanks more than the guy that cheats, the one that is emotionally or physically abusive, or the one they purport is a "lazy, no good bastard" that lets himself go. We are dangerous in the light that we are looking out for ourselves since none of them would bother to do the same. After all, if they truly don't need us, perhaps we can return the favor and let them stare in the mirror at their own real cause of their problems.
There is more I could say, but Michelle has contributed to the man that has walked away. There is a heavy price tag to pay for creating men like me, whether is was indirect or not---or if they realize it or not.
If any substantial number of women begin to wonder why they're suffering, and really want to know why, the information is available. The Buddha explained it all quite clearly 2500 years ago. He was surely not the first, nor will he be the last. Afterwards he simply walked away from the melodrama. ---Philalethes
