Thursday, December 13, 2012

The delayed father-son bond


The world beckons at the young male adolescent, offering him promise of untold adventure, not just adventure but what feels like to him, (no question due to the brashness and naïveté of youth) like infinite adventure. He is at the budding stages of a male fascination with the world, a desire to explore, to challenge his senses and intelligence, to see how much he can extract from this chaotic world. These feelings turn him toward his father, he begins to realize that his father is far from the massive unflinching all knowing mediator of all things, but that he too went through this awakening, this great questioning of the world around him. He realizes that his father's seemingly inexhaustible stores of knowledge was a result of this same great questioning just beginning to trickle into his adolescent consciousness. It dawns on him that his father is a human being.

The death of the mother son bond correlates with the first time he recognizes the humanity and vulnerability of his father. All in an instant it occurs to him just how much of a thankless sacrifice his father has made to put food in his mouth and a roof over his head, and he recognizes that his mother was nothing more than a passive spectator along for the ride the entire time...thus the mother son bond dies, he can no longer respect his mother, at least not in any way approaching this new found respect he has for his father.

He has realized that:

A) His father is not an inexhaustible god that goes off to do god things for half the day and comes back home to encroach upon his child like comfort where mommy knows best.

B) His father is mortal, and that his father will eventually die, and that he will eventually become his father.

If the aforementioned lack of cognition surrounding a father's humanity sounds familiar, its because it's the way women view men in so called happy fulfilling traditional relationships...she doesn't acknowledge his humanity because like the pre-adolescent boy who can't conceptualize his fathers humanity, the full grown traditional wife can't fathom her husband's humanity either.

It is up to men to reject traditionalism, as it deprives men and their sons of an understanding of each other that could be forged much earlier in life... Instead, ironically the adolescent male and his father are alien to each other until they become aware of the harshness of their societies disposable view of them. Its time that men demand just as much of the formative years of their son's lives as the supposedly more "nurturing" mother gets.

 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Feminist thought police and the Warren Farrell debacle

The above video elucidates clearly what feminism is really all about. A bunch of brainwashed fools who have secured themselves from scrutiny, trying to silence any and all who dare pose opposition to their stranglehold on university culture. The particular female feminist calling men interested in what Warren Farrell had to say "rapists and scum" didn't even bother to hide the contorted rage in her face, the seething hatred in her voice, the pure indignation that free speech contrary to the feminist victim narrative would be allowed on the same college campus where she is earning her useless women's studies "gender expert" certification (I won't insult those pursuing education in the hard sciences by using the word "degree" to describe her 4 years of victim-indoctrination).

 

If you notice at 3:57 to 4:40 , while this particularly nasty feminist was harassing a non threatening man about his attendance of the Warren Farrell seminar, after calling him "rape apologist scum" she says "these are the men that are going to rape"-- and then she catches herself for a moment, a slight inflection of the voice belies the deeper motivation behind her outrage before she continues-- "men that are going to rape the women in your lives". Her body language, the way she caught herself, is the behavior of a bully who lost situational awareness of the cameras documenting her. Much like the mass hysteria that labels you "unpatriotic" or an "America hater" for not supporting various senseless middle eastern wars, this feminist rape culture hysteria labels you a rape supporter for wishing to hear opinions contrary to the feminist narrative.

 

Listen to how she yells "fucking scuuuum!"(at exactly 4:27) as the police officer allows the gentleman to pass. She yells it out like a child throwing a temper tantrum because her daddy (govt. in the form of a police officer) has finally decided to not give her what she wants this time, no matter how much she stamps her feet or holds her breath. As I've said in previous posts, feminism operates on mimetic repetition of lies, a police officer choosing to ignore "rape culture, Rape Culture, RAPE CULTURE!" and choosing to instead preserve the right of free speech is a symbolic rejection of feminist power indeed. This feminist victim hood tyrant couldn't hide her anger that her oppressive gender narrative was, even for an instant, successfully challenged and dispatched.

That this is our societies reaction to a man (Warren Farrell) talking about issues that effect men, for the purposes of helping men, speaks volumes about societies vested interest in suppressing independent male thought. Just keep working, so you can get married and reproduce little men, nothing to see here...

 

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Political correctness in the mens movement.

Stardusk has made an excellent video in response to my latest upload in regards to the self depracating manner in which many MRA's will obfuscate the complicity of the female, with the misandrous juggernaut that is feminism, by saying something to the effect of...

"Well men do it too, if men were given the legal power to destroy women in divorce proceeding they'd be divorcing in equal numbers" etc.

This is standard operating procedure (for self depracating, koombaya, and upon the collapse of feminism men and women lived in wedded bliss forever and ever) MRA types.

Never mind the study that I mentioned in my anti traditionalism videos, showing two and a half decades worth, of women exhibiting a 40% increase in initiating divorce if they were the primary breadwinners in the household. Here it is directly quoted from the article itself.

 

But career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources, according to a 25-year study by Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash.

researchers found that the tipping point is when the wife pulled in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. And it didn’t matter how rich or poor the pair were. Race, however, is a factor; more impact for whites than blacks.

 

According to this study, women, regardless of whether or not they are affluent or poor, will still chose to trade up and marry more successful men for wealth/status. This is hypergamy in its purest sense, and yet pointing it out in the manosphere will trigger knee jerk grand mal seizures from self loathing, utopian MRA's that have declared a war on pointing out any correlative behavior women exhibit with feminism.

In the land where unicorns roam, and correlative female behaviors must not be named, the ministry of love regularly gins out tripe such as the quote below for export to my channel's comment section:

If women could get off their ass and earn/invest at the same rate as the men we would see 50% divorce rates (roughly).

Unless you can aptly demonstrate hypergamous behavior as being STRICTLY a female trait then it is useless for MRAs or MGTOG to obsesses over.


Who said it (a troll with multiple sock puppet accounts) is irrelevant at this point. What matters is that we acknowledge this indigestible pig slop for the complete and utter NAWALT deflection that it is. Men won't progress in our understanding of women and feminism until we do. These types will invariably give you the "women are the great victims of feminism" conned by those evil evil...(insert your preferred bogeyman -Marxists, Rothschilds, the "Left"-) conspiracy theory. The qeustion they never ask is if feminism was a big bad conspiracy to destroy families, then why were ONLY women given the power to divorce without consequence?. If the goal was to destroy families, surely they would encourage and legally empower both men and women towards frivolous divorce.

Or wait, could it be that... (Nah never mind -shudders-)

Eh..fuck it I'll say it. Could it be that women are naturally inclined to divorce men the moment they don't need them anymore?. Could it be that men (generally speaking) are very much less likely to abandon their families than women are?

What am I doing contemplating such thought crime, we have feminism to destroy...right after we convince a few hundred thousand more women that we don't hate them. Onward ho! to the perpetual mens rights public relations campaign!

At the very least judging by the highest rated comment on stardusk's video, at least some men are catching on to the PC creep seeping into the mens movement these days.

 


More to come my freinds. Stay tuned.

 

 

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Male Contraception: Where do we stand?

 

Male contraception, for the men’s rights activist, it is the quintessential technological milestone of our time. It is almost pointless to say, yet point it out i shall, that there is immense power to be gained in the development of an effective and safe form of male contraception, of higher efficacy then conventional prophylactics and confirmed reversibility as opposed to the invasive and permanent male vasectomy.


A man, imbued with the powers of temporary infertility will find himself perched comfortably atop a pedestal of immunity, high above the shifting sands of heavily biased child support courts, which default to the presumption of motherhood in the overwhelming majority of child custody disputes. Pregnancies, planned and unplanned, as well as the extortionary legalities surrounding them are routinely used by women as a means of legal theft against the fathers of their children. A man caught in the gears of the western child support system can expect to pay a sizable chunk of his annual income to the mother, as per the mandate of a court system that will more often than not, refuse to enforce his visitation rights, and provide to him no process of confirmation as to whether or not the money he pays to the mother is expended solely for the benefit of his children. Consider the following graph:

2001 statistics, (the most up to date i could find) show us that a full 48% of American pregnancies are unplanned. It is a fact that women, with access to a plethora of effective birth control methods, ranging from female condoms and the intrauterine device, to the pill and the option to abort post-conception, have complete control over when they have children. The morning after pill can be had, free of charge at your nearest planned parenthood, a woman, more so than a man, and more so than at any other point in history, has complete power over when she chooses to procreate.

Knowing this…that just under half of all pregnancies are unplanned, at a time when women have so much control over their fertility, in a society where women can use children in custodial disputes to extract money from the father’s of their children, the conclusion must be drawn that a great many of these 48% of pregnancies are far from “unplanned”. Meal ticket’s, that is what many of these pregnancies are functioning as…reproductive extortion against men on the part of dubious, dishonest women. How can a man know, which woman may blindside him with one of these “accidental” pregnancies? He cannot, with the advent of male contraception, he wont need to. A man, in complete control of his fertility would find himself free and clear of this pesky 48%, free and clear of paternity fraud, he is free, completely, to never have children, or to have a dozen all on his own terms. It is imperative then, that men keep a very watchful eye on the development of such a contraceptive. Below is a (far from complete) list of some of the more promising efforts currently underway.

RISUG

Unlike female contraceptives, which rely heavily on a hormonal approach to controlling fertility, RISUG (Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) employs a method involving the use of a polymer formed by the chemical reaction of dimethyl-sulfoxide with styrene/maleic anhydride. This polymer is injected into the vas deferentia, where sperm travel through during ejaculation. It is believed (though not confirmed) that the polymer, being an Anhydride, hydrolyzes on contact with water in spermatic fluid, this renders the polymer complex with a positive charge which, upon interaction with the negative charge of the sperm membrane renders them incapable of fertilization. The neutralization effect of the risug polymer can last a decade, and reversal is achieved by another injection of sodium bicarbonate solution into the vas deferens (although reversibility has only been confirmed during primate studies). Phase III clinical trails are currently underway in india under the auspices of the Indian health ministry, and is currently being marketed in the U.S. under the name vasalgel, where it is just beginning clinical trails. Regular updates are posted on the vasalgel facebook page.

The implications of risug can indeed be far reaching, it is low cost, minimally invasive, reversible, and does not sever the vas deferens like a vasectomy would. The fact that risug allows for extended efficacy at extremely low cost does not bode well for pharmaceutical companies who would prefer a relatively expensive, pill based, more than likely hormonal method of contraception to bolden their bottom lines with, something to keep in mind in predicting whether it will ever receive sufficient marketing here in the states. The market however is real; unlike India, who suffered from a dismal volunteer rate for phase III risug clinical trails, I believe that American men would be much more receptive to such a procedure. There are however, major hurtles to be cleared before the safety of risug can be confirmed up to American clinical trail, and FDA standards. Dimethyl sulfoxide is marketed and classed as a “dietary supplement” in America, allowing it to evade a more sringent inquiry by the Food and drug administration, its carcinogenicity and teratogenicity have not been sufficiently determined to clinical trail standards, only time, and the required science will determine the safety of risug, until then, we wait.

Genetic vasectomy

The Hutterites, an anabaptist communal religious sect similar to the Amish, which reject all forms of contraception, and encourage large families among their people, have provided to modern science an ideal population to investigate the genetic causes of infertility. Scientist’s, conducting genetic study on Hutterite men with one or more children identified over 40 genetic regions responsible for influencing Hutterite male fertility, many of which are of course, universally related to fertility in all men. These fertility influencing genes were then examined in animal studies, where rodents were given drugs that would cause genetic mutations relating to the suspected fertility influencing genes. The mice that displayed infertility after the administration of the drugs were then studied to see what genetic change occurred which caused infertility.


It was found that the gene Katnal-1 was essential in the formation of fertile sperm in mice. Without the genetic information transcribed from this gene, a specific protein responsible for sperm maturation cannot form. It is believed that Katnal-1 has this same essential function in human sperm formation. If a drug that inhibits the production of the protein that correlates to the Katnal-1 gene can be synthesized,we will have a functional male pill on our hands, better yet if advances in the science of gene therapy, and epigenetics allow us to effectively silence Katnal -1 gene expression all together, we will have a non-hormonal genetic vasectomy at our disposal. Of course for such a procedure to be technically considered a contraceptive, not a vasectomy, it would have to allow for a repletion of Katnal-1 associated protein… Scientists are predicting such a form of contraception in 5 to 10 years.

Contraception via ultrasound

James Tsuruta, assistant professor of pediatrics at University of North Carolina School of Medicine, has conducted a study on the effects of ultrasound on sperm production. It was found that mice, subjected to regular doses’ of ultrasound produced sperm counts of 3 million per milliliter of semen, in humans any sperm count under 20 million per milliliter is considered low. Human Sperm need very specific temperature conditions to retain its fertility, sperm cannot survive if it is exposed to temperatures exceeding past or decreasing below, a small temperature window of approximately 37 °C. When undergoing an ultrasound, the targeted tissue vibrates as it comes into contact with sound waves, this creates heat which when applied to the testes of mice, killed sperm on contact.

The effect of the heat from the ultrasound is believed to be working in concert with other factors that aren’t completely understood, since the sperm levels of mice who received heating without ultrasound did not decrease as significantly as those that underwent the ultrasound treatment. It is possible that the ultrasound may manipulate cell behavior and gene expression, in the testes, thus until extensive, further animal studies are performed there will be no human testing.

Feminist efforts to stop development of male contraception

Dr. Elsimar Coutinho, a Brazilian endocrinologist and a human reproduction scientist, was attempting to develop a low cost non-hormonal male contraceptive from an extract of Levant cotton (Gossypium herbaceum). The video below describes his appeal at the world population congress in Budapest to garner support for a male pill, to witch prominent American feminist’s, including Betty Friedan were vehemently opposed; he quotes Friedan as saying:

“Dr. (Coutinho) do you think we’ve fought our whole lives to have in our hands the decision of having children or not…do you think we’re abdicating that?, men say they’re on the pill, woman believe them?…Do you know what you are, what you all deserve?…to have credibility ,swear you’re using pills just to get laid and leave?…leave us with the responsibility and then ‘the pill failed’”

He then claims that the feminists’s present began chanting “no male pill” repeatedly, and claimed he was told:

“WE take the pill. When we want to get pregnant, we stop taking it”


The implication is clear, since the presence of a male pill would not negate the existence of female birth control, the only motivations behind the suppression of male contraception is that of denying them reproductive control, the same reproductive control that women have enjoyed now for decades. Despite “moderate” feminist’s that swear by their ideologie’s benevolent aim for gender equality, we see feminists time and time again, training their sites on the advent of truly benevolent advances in male power, we see feminist’s resisting the male pill for the purposes of securing and upholding a female monopoly on reproductive rights; it is of paramount importance then, that men actively fight for and pursue all avenues of male contraception unapologetically and as fervently as possible, stopping when, and only when it is a glaring reality shining in the face of feminist in the face of feminist hypocrisy for all to see.

 

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Introducing the Trad-fem

Lately I've been noticing a trend of traditionalist and feminist entitlement mentality, showing up in interviews with women in various media outlets. These women generally acknowledge the damage feminism has caused, but only in terms of how it has affected women and/or how men have been rendered unable to meet the demands of "real manhood", they exhibited under traditionalism. The whole thing makes for some weird hybrid of traditionalist feminism (Trad-fem).





As you can see from these interviews the general trend is "We're thankful for feminism and all the rights it gives us (blah blah blah), but we still need our "real men" where have they all gone?"etc.


These women are dripping with expectations, entitlements and selfishness. Make note of them, and know that they exist.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

A response to Fidelbogen's becoming ambient

Thank you Fidelbogen for your clarification, which I have cited below.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/hypergamy/becoming-ambient/

I wanted to make a video response to this, but unfortunately I don't have the time. I will however highlight a few disagreements and/or clarifications in regards to several points you've made. -apologies ahead of time for grammar as I'm typing this from my phone-

You wrote:

"Now, I too wish to filter and forestall harmful human behaviors -- which, needless to say, includes the female kind. However, my take on hypergamy, Briffault's law and all the rest of that, is purely agnostic. I declare no opinion on these matters, because I do not claim to know.

That's agnosticism for you!

So, when it comes time to filter out harmful female behaviors, I use a simpler method. Simply stated, I hold women morally accountable. And if they don't measure up, I filter them out. So, any harmful behavior that might arise from the dark workings of primitive programming, would be "cut off at the pass" by my system of ethical standards and security clearances. There is a word for this sort of thing: "civilization".

I should add that this would work for anybody -- even if they secretly do believe in hypergamy et al. Just calibrate your tests and standards according to your theoretical model, without talking about your theoretical model."


To this commentary on agnosticism,

Again you say

"However, my take on hypergamy, Briffault's law and all the rest of that, is purely agnostic. I declare no opinion on these matters, because I do not claim to know. "

My question to you is why the agnosticism? Why the claim of not claiming to know, when my assessment of these things can in fact be known, if one is simply willing to asses it fairly. What me and stardusk have created in essence, (I use the word -created- loosely since our theories borrow from past assessments), but all me and stardusk have created on our channels is as you've called it, a predictive model for general female behavior, that's it, nothing more. Our theories do not and have never been claimed to predict individual female behavior because it's not possible to do so.

So all one has to do to know the validity of our theories is...to test them. When we speak of hypergamy, Briffaults law etc, we are in fact discussing all the manifestations of "big better deal, provision at all costs" behavior exhibited by women in general. There is instinctual hypergamy and politicized hypergamy, (women voting in the majority for the party who provides to them the most benefits and entitlements). I claim that women will express this politicized hypergamy even if its playing a major part of their nations bankruptcy. To test this simply look at the fact that women have been voting democrat in the majority for decades now. Why can we accurately predict the way women will vote in the majority? Because we can infer from the nature of women their voting patterns, financial decisions, marriage fidelity and a great many more things that will follow general trends, which is once again all that the theories I posit claim to do.

The purpose of agnosticism is to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of something that is untestable, something that we may suspect, but is to enigmatic for us to understand and grasp. There is nothing enigmatic about female nature, im sure many advertising companies construct their entire business models around the exploitation of it, Barack Obama exploits it, joe Biden exploits it, in fact, I'm sure a large amount of their campaign was dedicated to understanding and exploiting it. Shit even women do it, Oprah is one of the richest people in the world because she exploited it. Advertising agencies and politicians exploit female nature to extract wealth from men, so it's only fair that mgtow exploit and understand female nature to keep from having their wealth and happiness taken from them.

So in short I talk about hypergamy and Briffualts law because historically it seems that everyone but the average everyday man is clued into female nature and is using it to their advantage. And In a time where women default to their most base biological imperatives, after expertly exploiting male nature, to justify what can only be described as legal theft of male wealth, (divorce being one of a myriad of examples of this) there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of reciprocation on the part of men. Keep in mind that our goal is merely to conserve our wealth, economic power and freedoms, where as the so called fairer sex's goal is unfortunately all to often to deprive men of theirs, which is why I follow a basic rule when deciding the importance of what I should or shouldnt say in my videos.

I ask my self... if I had a son, would I want him to know about a particular topic, no matter how un-pc or offensive to women it may be? if the answer is yes then I have no problem talking about it in a video of mine. If its important enough to warn a son about, it's important enough to warn men and boys about, and if it has to be said in a way that sounds sexist against women...so be it.

This variant of Mgtow is designed to instill both cultural and economic sovereignty in men and boys. In short, we are not concerned with the "nature of women" for any other reason than the fact that male ignorance of it leads to male suffering, misery and disenfranchisement. We have no interest in faulting women for hypergamy, we have no interest in coaxing women toward repressing it like our traditionalist predecessors, what we want is for men to understand when and how it expresses itself, because it is dangerous for them not to.

This context allows feminism to be viewed as an expression of female biological motives, and the rest is simply an exposition of how the state is capitalizing on this. We don't see feminism as being some great novel evil that corrupted womankind, we see it as being an eventuality of technological advancement and inefficient traditional familial norms that projected what are generally male qualities (familial fidelity, loyalty etc) onto women, (who were only there for children/protection/provision), which resulted in the evil effects of feminism being carried out against men.

There is nothing random about feminism, it behaves the way it does, not because of feminist's or Marxism or leftist's, but because women and men behave the way they do, and certain taboos are no longer in play. Since women have categorically refused to not indulge their base biological drives for the benefit of men, I've drawn the conclusion that men should take control of their base biological drives for their own interests. Since male biological imperatives are so interrelated with those of women, we must learn to discern when and how these imperatives interact -precisely-, so that men have the capability to protect themselves.

Hence the need for a comprehensive understanding of hypergamy, and all other associated male/female drives that can be harmful to/exploited against men. We wish the Mra's much success in their goal of reforming marriage laws, but if they fail, mgtow will not have gotten married in the first place, why? Because we understand that marriage in the historical sense, was in many respects, nothing more than a repression of female hypergamy. We've seen what happens when these restraints are lifted, and as such, for our own male interests we will NEVER participate in the institution of marriage again. So essentially, we are not MRA's and are positing different solutions to similar problems, there need not be any conflict over this, simply an understanding that our approaches are different.

So when Fidelbogen says something like:

"Now, there are considered politic reasons why a person might choose not to speak publicly about hypergamy and such. For starters, you are making it easy for people to call you a "misogynist" or whatnot. And do I personally give a snap if somebody calls me that? No, not personally. I've been called a misogynist plenty of times for no clear reason, and I've got a mighty thick skin for it.

But look, here's my game: I make it hard for them. I make them WORK for it. For the plain truth is that I never make anti-woman statements. I attack feminism savagely, ferociously. I call it a social cancer and all manner of bloody awful things, but I never say bad things about women."

We see this as a way of saying, something to the effect of:

-I don't personally care if they call me a mysoginist, but I'm going to play their game and expend energy on making myself sound non-mysoginist- (they'll call you one anyway btw)

What I do is simply say to myself:

-they derive their power precisely by the fear others have of being called misogynist, thus I'm going to say what I please and let the cards fall where they may-


I think one of the biggest mistakes we make is to assume that if we just make our case logically enough, if we just take extra care to phrase things in a way that cannot be said to be misogynist, that feminists won't still successfully portray us as such.

They care nothing about your not giving them an opportunity to call you a misogynist, they actually know you're not one. The people we're up against are the actual misogynists, they go along with affirmative action for women because, although they'll never admit it, they believe, deep down that women are inferiors. They are the bigots and they know it, they don't fluster because you show them through measured rhetoric that you aren't one.

Bigots recognize bigots just fine. Their(feminist's) power to exist as bigots is derived from their ability, or rather their social authority to define what a bigot is, and they define it in a way that thier bigotry is always beyond scrutiny, that's why they nestle thier bigotry deep into their programmed rhetoric of violence against women, domestic violence and rape, because once a Fidelbogen, even broaches the topic of violence against women in any way that doesn't acknowledge feminism's victim narrative, it will put women on the defensive, and furthermore once they hear you talking about how domestic violence is usually reciprocal, and that women are just as violent, if not more violent then men are, you can successfully be branded a misogynist.

That's all it takes. It doesn't matter how non-misogynistic you phrased it, they've got you squarely pegged as a misogynist. Feminist's know that if they can cordon debate around the primal fears of women, no amount of male logic will win him the debate, feminists are extremely good at this, women are extremely susceptible to it, hence my belief that it is a waste of time trying to convince the masses of women on this subject. In the general sense, the only ones that can objectively understand it (in large numbers) outside of thier hind brains are men. these people (feminist's) know they're the mysoginists and they also know that the more you point it out, the more society will perceive you as a misogynist. And unfortunately too many women are willing to blindly defend this lie because they know that the benefits made available to them by feminism are intimately related to the this authority given to feminists to obfuscate their bigotry by defining anyone who points out thier bigotry as being bigots themselves.

Victimhood is power in our society as we all know, and victimhood status must be maintained at all cost's. The feminists and the large blocks of women that support them, and even the men that support them aren't going to let a trivial thing like fidelbogen or barbarossaaaas tactfully phrased non misogynistic refutation of feminism get in the way of that power.

Feminism is a power grab, (read female [em--powerment]) , most women don't even identify as feminists, but start attacking the privileges that feminism gives them and they behave in a way that suggest an unspoken understanding that feminism is a well organized female privilege/advocacy group. Feminists provide women with female privilege, often times directly at the expense of men, women provide feminism with the majority of thier political capital. It's a symbiotic relationship that we caught a glimpse of, when republicans targeted vawa and the whole Sandra fluke birth control fiasco kicked off. What did feminist politicians call it? a war on women, not a war on feminists but a war on WOMEN. What does that tell you? Where were the women that lecture MRA's on how bad it is to generalize women then, when feminists decided to call an attack on laws passed by feminists, an attack on women themselves?, women didn't quite have that much of a problem with that conflation of women and feminist's did they?

so when we hear or read

-feminisim is an ideology women are a gender, we shouldn't conflate the two-

This is correct, this is absolutely correct. And yet somehow this phrase conveniently overlooks that this also holds true for the millions of women divorcing thier husbands. Are we to believe that it is millions of feminists, who see men as either inherent opressors or rapists deciding to marry, start families with and subsequently divorce and extort millions of men? No. These women arent feminists, and neither are most of the women filing false domestic violence/rape accusations, they are everyday average women, taking advantage of privileges given to them by feminism, in order to destroy men.

So the question I ask men everywhere, and particularly men concerned exclusively with gaining legal equality between men and women, is what evidence do we have to suggest that women even want equality?, because I can show you plenty of evidence to suggest that they don't, and as it stands feminists offer women privilege, protection and provision, while all we have to offer is equality (with all of its implied loss of privilege), what incentive do women have to choose equality over privilege?

The answer to that question is in my honest opinion none, and all I'm saying is, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put any hard earned cash in favor of women voluntarily relinquishing their privilege anytime soon, would you?

Again I don't classify feminism as a female supremacism movement, I classify it as a female advocacy at all costs movement, (although supremacism exists within its ranks) female advocacy is what feminism is really about. Behind the veneer of male hatred and misandry, there is an interconnected-ness between women and feminism, where the female advocacy for the female vote trade off functions as feminism's blood brain barrier.

This is why unmarried women in particular backed president Obama in the election by a 38% margin, those type of election demographics don't happen by accident. There must exist huge incentive for record breaking numbers of women to vote for what is the most feminist president in history in such large numbers, were the millions of women that voted for president Obama all radical feminists? Or even feminists at all? No, most were everyday women that simply understand the bottom line, which is i(she) give feminists my support politically, they keep my privileges in-tact.

So saying for the purposes of clarification that feminism is a political ideology and women are a gender doesn't really clarify anything for men, instead we ought to propose saying that feminism is a massive political female advocacy group that women support in the majority, as an actual statement that will help men understand feminism the way it actually exists in the real world. At the very least this is the statement that I would give to any man who has simply given up on working within the system and with women (whom I view as a competing social, political and economic class that will look out for their own interests, regardless of what men think their relation to women is),

Again it comes down to differing approaches to similar problems between Mra's and mgtow. This is the exact reason why I don't call myself an MRA any more, I simply do not approach our mutually acknowledged problems in the same manner. And am quite happy to explain to others that my words and arguments should not be taken as MRA rhetoric.

In regards to Fidelbogen's splc commentary:

"And yes, I am famous for getting onto the SPLC hate list, but the people who posted that list are a tiny clique of intellectual cowards. They are NOT the general public, for the general public would never throw a second glance at somebody like me. Furthermore, the general public has no idea what the SPLC is up to, and the SPLC knows this, which is why it has the gumption to do what it does."

This is incorrect for the same reason that most people have no idea who pens the annual list of new/current groups likely to espouse or engage in terrorism. I couldn't possibly tell you which terrorist watch group said it, but I know that there is a big push to label the "new terrorist threat" as being homegrown, "patriots" "lone wolves" etc. The vast majority of people don't know it either, and yet the media is repeating it, and this meme will surely be used to ram some constitution scrapping post patriot act monstrosity through congress, the meme self perpetuates, the consequences don't care who said it.

Feminism operates on mimetics, it's method of propagation is the constant repetition of lies. A constant mimicry of an authority figure's talking points, (so and so said 1 in five women are...), it's a reflection of our societies abdication of critical thought to the "expert class". The reason it doesn't matter that many people don't know what the splc is, is because it makes no difference in terms of the danger that their classification of mens groups as hate groups poses. It's the same reason why so many lies and so much pseudoscientific drivel is so often prefaced by the words... "Experts say" or "scientists have found", or the "authorities have discovered" etc. In this society, for all intents and purposes, we have now been conflated by the splc with white suprmacists, the new black panther party, the Westboro baptist church and so on, and when the mens movement actually starts to receive television interviews on CNN or other mainstream media outlets, believe me, the general public will be reminded of it.

The fact is that if the splc had no use for classifying the mens movement as a hate group, they wouldn't have bothered to do it in the first place. It doesn't matter that we're not a hate group at all, because in Oceania all that matters is that it was said by an authority figure that we are. The rest is taken care of by female solipsism and herd thinking. Remember what Winston said about women in George Orwells 1984,

"He disliked nearly all woman, and especially the young and pretty ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy"

This amazing little quote encapsulates our situation perfectly, and is the reason why the particular feminist in the recent Warren Farrell debacle, equated MRA's with "being pro-rape and incest"...she knows that women will parrot it. Can you find misogyny in Orwell's statement? if your looking for it, sure, and if you look deeper you'll notice that there isn't a disgust here for any inherent femaleness, but towards the oppressive behaviors they exhibit, the destructive memes they perpetuate, and that my MRA friends is a source of feminisms power, whether it sounds mysoginist or not.


Lastly fidelbogen wrote:

"As a parting thought, I note with interest that Barbarosssaaa declines to call himself a non-feminist. Well, since I am pretty sure that he would also decline to call himself a feminist, what does that leave? Yes Barbarosssaaa, it looks like you are a non-feminist whether you like it or not. Unless you prefer to be a feminist? Well no, I didn’t think so.

But fear not. Non-feminism is a wide open frontier territory with room to spare for any non-feminist man or woman who wants to carve out a homestead. We are all non-feminists, after all. Or do we prefer to be feminists? Well no, I didn’t think so."

You've (Fidelbogen) referred to feminism as a cancer, i perceive it differently, but similarly. i perceive feminism as a malignant tumor. Cancer is caused by genetic predispositions (male and female nature), environmental factors (the changing roles of men and women that technology has facilitated) and a host of other usually unseen factors (govt figuring out that they could guarantee female votes by exploiting hypergamy). Tumors on the other hand are the symptoms of the cancer. We do not treat this tumor cell by malignant cell, we deal in collections of cells, cell masses and growths, tumors and whatnot. When a tumor is found we radiate it, we target it with chemotherapy, we know some healthy cells are going to be affected by this radiation, just like some women will be unfairly generalized, and yet the tumor must go, and the generalizations must be made, because the tumor, (feminism), has the potential to be a hell of a lot more dangerous then a couple of misplaced generalizations.

That is my simple metaphor for feminism. And that is why I can accurately say that I am not a non feminist or an anti feminist. I simply exist outside of such a binary. Saying that I'm non or even anti feminist is like saying I'm non or anti tumor, one cannot be anti tumor, but i am pro cancer prevention, before our poor guy ends up on a chemo radiation cocktail, I wish to sit him down and tell him... look, you have a predisposition to lung cancer, and cigarettes cause lung cancer, and lung cancer causes malignant tumor's so DON'T smoke cigarettes.

Similarly I sit men down and tell them, you have a predisposition to want to please women, things like hypergamy are explained to him in the same way that one would explain the dangers of cigarettes to someone with a predisposition to lung cancer. I'll explain to him that cigarettes have always been carcinogenic, but recent developments in technology coupled with zero regulations on what cigarette manufacturers can put into cigarettes have resulted in a cigarette with dozens of more carcinogens then the first cigarettes ever had, the equivalent of telling men that women have always been hypergamous, but our current level of technological advancement and the loosening of checks on hypergamy, the collapse of traditionalism, has brought about women which exhibit advanced hypergamy, such that it has now become politicized and this is what we collectively see and identify as feminism.

Hopefully this will clarify some of my reasons for speaking on these topics.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Halo 4 will issue lifetime bans for "sexism"

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/showthread.php?t=395753
Well I'll still play the game, but this ensures that as long as this policy stands, I'll never spend a single dollar on a halo game. If the poor darlings can't handle trash talk, then don't play halo.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Tidbits of misandry

I'm a bit of a Netflix addict, as it allows me to watch a television series all the way through without having to wait all week for a new episode. I've decided to start compiling the worst instances of blatant misandry I've seen in the various television series I've watched, and I need help narrowing down exactly witch episode a certain misandric scene on the television series "the shield" took place. A bit of background information first:



David Aceveda, plays the character of captain of "the barn", a fictional LAPD precinct known for some very questionable dirty cop antics in the also-fictional Farmington district of Los Angeles, California. During a gang bust on an apartment complex Aceveda had reason to believe that incriminating evidence on Victor Mackey(a rouge detective member of the barn strike team) was present in the apartment being searched. After the uniformed officers assisting in the bust left, Aceveda remained in hopes of finding credible evidence on Mackey. During his search, two gang members returned to the apartment he was searching, disarming and overpowering him, after which he was forced at gun point to perform oral sex on one of the gang members. Eventually Aceveda confessed to his wife Aurora what had happened to him during the gang bust. In response to the horrific news of her husbands rape, she reacted with disgust, as though it was his fault. When he continued to show signs of trauma months afterward, she eventually treated him to one of the cruelest versions of "man up you pussy" modern tv has ever produced.



This was an excerpt from the a season recap, if you could not understand her clearly enough, she, in no uncertain terms told her raped husband, "I'm tired of feeling like I was raped too, whatever it is you have to do to get over it (the rape) do it already". It goes without saying that this would never, ever fly on prime time television if the genders were reversed. I wish to catalogue these little tidbits of misandry, but unfortunately I can not find the exact episode to record the scene in its entirety. If any one is willing to help determine the episode in question it would be greatly appreciated.


Friday, March 23, 2012

Heterosexual Suicide Serially Ignored In Misandric West

video
I want to start by saying that im fully aware that family guy is known for its controversial humor. And this video does not in any way advocate for the censorship of the show in any capacity. In fact I think its important that shows such as this are allowed to push the envelope of what appropriate and inappropriate humor. I say this out of a basic desire for the maintenance of free speech rights, but more importantly in this case…. I say it because it allows us to gauge certain standards of humor, specifically the boundaries that a society erects in the form of inappropriate and appropriate humor in hopes of minimizing the amount of humor that can be derived from another human being's suffering.

In every society there exists a fine line between humor and an insensitive attempt at it, and each individual society has different tolerance levels for just how much humor can be derived from the suffering of a specific group. In this case we have the heterosexual divorced male, and what this scene tells us is that it is in fact OK to ridicule heterosexual male suicide and in a way that graphically depicts the actual suicide taking place. Even in an animated media format, with a show known for controversial humor, I simply do not think that in this PC climate, and especially with the recent suicides involving female and homosexual high school youth… I don’t think for a second that family guy would depict, these scenario's, the actual act of suicide for any of these two groups.

I believe that society would deem it insensitive and cruel, I believe that a humor boundary has been erected within our society in terms of gay suicide, and I also believe that no complementary precautions exist for heterosexual male suicide. Specifically when dealing with the issue of suicide prompted by divorce, homelessness, and post traumatic stress disorder. The question is why?

The lack of empathy towards male suicide is a function of female entitlement, in its purest form. That being that the female … on perhaps even a biological level, believes she is inherently more worthy of life than her male counterpart. Female biology dictates to women that they should do whatever it takes to not find themselves fighting in the middle of a warzone, and if men, that cant handle being fashioned into trained killers, and being dropped back into society after murdering people reach their breaking point and start killing themselves off in record numbers that’s okay so long as women don’t have to.

As a result our society has furnished sex specific draft registration for men only.

A 2009 CBS study that gives the suicide rates per 100,000 veterans compared first to the general public, and then broken down by gender.

The results show that for 2005 and 2004 suicide records indicate that over double the rate of suicides occur In the veteran population , then in the general population and they cite this as evidence of an epidemic of suicide among the veteran population. But the fact that by gender, for both years three times the amount of male veterans committed suicide, than female veterans was not attributed to an epidemic of suicide amongst the male population. Why? Because if we give men a reprieve from the societal expectation that only they should have to carry the burden of war, who does that leave to pick up some of the slack? The gender that believes that they are inherently more entitled to live.



In regards to divorce and suicide we have the Marital status and suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study Quoted as such:

“Divorced and separated persons were over twice as likely to commit suicide as married persons. Being single or widowed had no significant effect on suicide risk. When data were stratified by sex, it was observed that the risk of suicide among divorced men was over twice that of married men . Among women, however, there were no statistically significant differentials in the risk of suicide by marital status categories.”

The implications are of course that women are given the vast majority of wealth during divorce, when most of the times she put in minimal effort into the acquisition of it. Shes granted custody of the children 90% of the time as a means of facilitating this wealth transfer, and often times granted alimony payments which simply have no moral justification. Predictably male suicide spikes, after divorce, this isn’t exactly news, but what isn’t discussed is the deeper meaning behind these statistics. Society has furnished for these purposes an incredibly biased court system because they put more importance on the financial security of women, then the lives of the husbands that are driven to suicide from the effects of the divorce that women initiate in the majority.

We see this willingness to bail out women over and over in this society and to be frank im not going to cite evolutionary psychology as a cause, because to be quite honest I could give two shits about a highly speculative branch o psychology that places women as the justification for every ignored male hardship this misandric society manages to produce. And im not going to tell women to change either, what I am going to do is to tell men that they can drop out.

You're not the quality of woman you can attract with your bank account, you're not Saturday night at some ridiculous bar that you would never be at otherwise, you're not designed to live this way. Escape from society and along the way deprive it of every last damned male expectation it has of you.

Every possible interest you have that society attempts to ridicule due to its lack of ability to attract women, do it and enjoy it unapologetically, every dollar you earn, keep it spend it on yourself, not shoes not manipedi's not dinner or dancing or whatever other insufferable bullshit your supposed to learn to further your chances of getting laid. Game included. Do you and plan your escape. That’s what im doing… im using this society to garner an engineers education and then im doing everything possible to get the fuck out of dodge, and you, you can come with me… not literally of course but you can do the same. The marriage strike, the man up articles, they are simply a harbinger of things to come. We want out, men wan out. And when we do get out, don’t be surprised when a precipitous decline in mal suicide follows

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Radfem calls porn "commercial rape industry"

video
The following is an excerpt from a radical feminist blog titled "rage against the man-chine" on a post titled "Porn Part 10: The Rutting Dogs of Capitalism"

"For those of you new to the site, I call the porn industry the “commercial rape industry” because the women in porn are paid for consent they would not otherwise furnish. If someone has to be paid to consent to something, they have not actually consented to it but have rather agreed not to make their non-consent an issue in exchange for money."

The author of course will neglect to mention that everybody who is currently gainfully employed is paid for their consent to services they wouldn’t otherwise furnish. The male worker drown working seventy hours a week is being paid to do things he simply does not wish to do in any capacity. He does so because he needs to pay his bills... this isn’t rape what it is, is a foreign concept to feminists known as money in exchange for labor, otherwise known as work, and women in porn are doing the exact same thing. They are 100% voluntarily providing access to their own bodies in exchange for money. Whether or not its degrading to women has as much to do with it as whether or not garbage collecting is degrading to a garbage man... its his job. Nobody put a gun to his head, he sought out that job and if he doesn’t do it, someone else will and not a single aspect of it could possibly be defined as rape at all.

For the record I don’t think that being a garbage collector is at all degrading especially when I personally know some of the garbage men in new work city and ive seen their houses and heir cars and believe me these men are certainly very happy with their work routine and I can comfortably make the assumption that not a single one of them considers themselves “raped” by their employers. Their is a demand for waste management, they meet that demand, they are paid well for doing so. Theres a demand for porn, women meet that demand voluntarily they are rewarded for it, and much more handsomely than their male counterparts I might add.

Women are the essential component to the porn industry, if you could somehow remove every pornographic image or video that included women, the porn industry would collapse, which is the very reason that women in porn are the highest paid employees in the industry. If anybody is to blame for a so called "degrading proliferation of internet porn" its women, since common sense dictates that the very existence of internet porn confirms the existence of a massive population of women that are willing to voluntarily engage in activities that these sanctimonious radical feminist parasites have deemed on the authority of their womens studies bigot licenses to be degrading to women.

Pointing this out is of course coming dangerously close to telling women to take responsibility for their own problems so instead it’s the patriarchy. It’s the patriarchy's fault that, a completely consenting adult wants to engage in a legalized contractual exchange of sex for money. There are invisible guns floating around women's heads, under the employ of the patriarchy, that only feminist can see that are forcing these women to meet the demands of the porn industry. Their desire for easy money has nothing to do with the proliferation of porn, nope it’s a worldwide male conspiracy…. that makes perfect sense to me.

Lets define for the purposes of sanity and honesty what a rape involving porn would actually consist of. If a woman decided that she wanted to do porn for money, and in the middle of doing so she demanded for it to stop... if her demands where ignored and the sex continued against her will, that would be rape. If she did not demand that it stopped that would be what you would call an exchange of cash for services rendered… and the attempt to extend the definition of rape in hopes of hiding the fact that the vast majority of men do not wish to and will never commit the crime of rape will be exposed every chance I get here on this channel.

It is a particularly vile and worthless type of human being to be so devoid of character, that she has to extract fabricated definitions of rape from a completely consensual exchange of sex just so her sad and hateful little life can have some meaning. This is the reason… feminists like her are the reason that the mens movement is growing everyday. She wants men to just sit there and agree with her fabricated lies, and her depictions of us as rapists and violent thugs, and she has, and continues to have the state, backing her up, and so feminists like her reached and reached until the lies became so odious, so patently false and violent in their nature that men, and even some women are taking notice, and we are intent on the systematic debunking of your their vicious passive aggressive, victimhood dependent ideology of violence and hatred against men.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Women surpassing men in - insert feminist talking point - ....



Im so tired of hearing women boast about how much better they're doing than men... Do you honestly believe that we aren't aware that the state has bent over backwards like a contortionist just that women could reach parity?.... Is it possible that women as a whole have not the intellectual honesty to admit to themselves that a massive figurative leg up has been extended to them?... one which is at the expense of men?


You simply don't understand your degree means nothing in terms of breakaway scientific achievement... There is male learning and there is female learning... Male learning is typified by it's independence of deadlines and curricula, no matter how much one attempts to trap it in ordered snippets of learning it follows it's own path, and is experimental. Einstein so eloquently put it by saying.

"i want to know Gods thoughts; the rest are just details"

Male learning is exploratory its conquistadorial if you will. Is conquistadorail a word? Is it found in the dictionary? I don't know and I don't care, because it has conveyed to you a characteristic of what I call male learning. It doesn't have to be in the dictionary, the purpose of words are if course to convey meaning, I took the my basic understanding of the English lexicon and instead of rigidly limiting my use of it to words found in a dictionary, I chose to add to it, since I am not bound by the English lexicon in my study of it, I can challenge it and add to it.

That is male Learning, we learn the basics of something and challenge it, until we arrive from already established knowledge to something that is unknown, and yes my example is a rather simplistic one, but this type of learning can be scaled up to challenge to the most enigmatic and obscure questions of science and discovery, men aren't afraid to learn and challenge theoretical physics either we simply aren't content to absorb knowledge, it won't suffice we. Must add to it

That is why men excel and women don't, because we don't like to be told that this scientific concept causes that scientific concept we have to know why, and when were provided with the established and accepted reasons for why one of us is bound to say to himself

Hold on this doesn't sound right
If the established reason for said phenomenon is a then why does b behave in such a way that so on and so forth yata yata and I present to you the next revolutionary scientific concept

Male learning to sum it up is taking things you know, and extrapolating to find something unknown.

And women listen and listen good

All the degrees in the world won't make you think this way, all of the help from affirmative action and women's only grants won't catalyze the spark of brilliance in your minds, if you want the privilege of thrusting yourself into the unknown and returning triumphantly with whatever your mind can grasp then you will have to earn it, you have to pay for a ride on that caravan and begging govt to tax men for you in hopes of decreasing your fare won't get you there you can't pay by crafting lax standards for women

you wont make the net great scientific discovery by getting straight A's and turning your assignment in on time, Einstein was a below average b student, and as result couldn't even find employment as a physicist or even a scientist of any sort, his best employment prospect was the swiss patent office, and it was there, where through sheer imaginative brilliance he thought up the theory of relativity, not in a classroom full of brain dead memorizers trained to regurgitate what the teacher wants you to say.

I myself make sure that before i take any college math or science course, i by the book ahead of time and teach it to myself, im not happy unless i taught it to myself and questioned it first, and more often than not what you discover is that even phd'd mathematicians and scientists teaching thee courses have incredibly inefficient and redundant ways of teaching, id rather learn myself locked up in a room with nothing but coffee time and pen and paper, and the fact is that most women would like to instead be told exactly how to solve a math problem step by step, without ever challenging or exploring the math, and until this changes women will simply not excel or even compare to men in regards to science..

Inevitably ill see a comment on this video... yknow a woman, implying that i just dont want to see omen do good in these Fields or some other nonsense. no to the contrary, i celebrate intelligence.. true inquisitive intelligence in women as much as i do men, i find intelligent capable women the anomalies that they are to be intriguing and interesting and even attractive, i enjoy coming across such women. probably due in part that so many other women are simply too lazy to put in the necessary work to learn.. not memorize but to learn. spare us this pitiful bragging about how your outperforming men. we all know the reason and your not fooling anyone.