Saturday, January 17, 2009

Feminism is Doomed

To my fellow MRAs, MGTOW, Ghosts, and just men in general who find this world to be hostile to men:

Take comfort, for feminism is ultimately doomed. It is doomed because unlike the Democrats and Republicans, a society system based on 1 party gender politics cannot survive. Unlike politics, gender politics is a 2-party system where both parties are inexplicably linked together no matter what. This is why feminism is doomed. There are other reasons.

Marriage and Male Birth Control

Marriage seems to have been redefined in our culture. Looking back, we see that marriage, the backbone of civilization and human society, used to be a lot different. It used to be more... binding. It used to be... an actual legal contract.

Marriage was the legal contract whereby a woman would sell access to her womb and ownership of the products thereof (children), as well as her labor as a homemaker, to a man who would in turn provide her with access to his status, income, and protection. The marriage contract could be considered "breached" if the woman engaged behaviors that had negative impacts on the home, the family, the children, and the husband, as well as any form of adultery. The man could be considered in breech of contract if he refused to support his wife financially or abused her or the children.

In short: Marriage was not about "love"; love for the children was a given, but love for "each other" could always develop later. Marriage was an economic contract that could not be broken unless one of the other parties was at fault.

This was not "oppression" of women- if you want to argue that, I can argue (and more effectively) that it was "oppression" of men, as well. Whoever broke the contract (whoever initiated divorce), suffered a penalty unless they could prove the other party was at fault (spousal abuse, alcoholism, unemployment, crazy, etc). If a woman divorced a man (and she has always had the right), he kept the kids and his money unless the woman could prove that he was at fault and thus she would recieve a compensation for this. Marriage was an economic contract that produced children and served as the backbone of the very civilization in which we live.

Feminism has created a social and political climate that has altered marriage. It is no longer a binding contract; a woman (and far less often, a man) can initiate a divorce at any moment for "no fault". For men, marriage is now about finding a woman "he loves". For women, marriage is still about finding a good provider/protector. However, modern marriage is now a fraud that turns men into economic slaves- he still pays for the product (children, access to reproductive rights), but the woman can steal this property back and force the man to continue to pay. What do we call it when your labor (working 9 to 5) is taken away by someone else (child support payments, alimony) for a product (child, sex) you don't own and in many cases never see?

Slavery at worst, theft at best.

Feminism has turned marriage into an "act of love" for men, into which he is often manipulated, through which a woman can steal back the products she has sold as well as steal the other products of a man's labor; his house, his car, his reputation, and indeed his future income, thereby making it harder for him to enter into another marriage contract with another woman (seen now as a competitor for income not only in the workforce, but for a man's income and assets.)

However, feminism has literally shot itself in the foot by making one big mistake: The Sexual Revolution. Men no longer need to marry to have access to a woman's reproductive organs. Premarital sex is now widely accepted and engaged in in America. A man need no longer enter into this (now dangerous and trecherous) social arrangement with a woman to access her sexuality. And for some men who are smart and crafty enough, he needn't ever pay for it, either.

If the plethora of anti-feminist, anti-marriage, and anti-American women websites online are any indication, less and less men will be willing to marry. By the time a woman is in her late 30's and beyond and probably already has one or more children, she becomes less and less marriageable as the men she seeks (men of status, income, success) would rather marry a woman in her 20's who has no children and is more attractive or, more frequently, date multiple women for sex and never fully commit. Feminists, and indeed many women, will rail about how sexist this is and how it objectifies women. Yet, I ask them, are they not also objectifying men as sources of income and status symbols?

This article by Lori Gottlieb is a perfect example. Notice how she lays right on the table for all to read that even if the marriage to "Mr. Good Enough" doesn't work out, she can still rely on child support and alimony to pay her way. She writes as a woman playing a game that is completely rigged in her favor. Except no man is willing to play with her because of exactly that.

The women of my generation are going to find themselves even more worse off than Lori. With the rise in teen pregnancy, an increase in women's ignorance of how relationships actually work, and the increasing sense of entitlement from women, marriage is practically doomed. Women in their late teens and early 20's now will find themselves 40, cold, and alone, with kids to support, no dad in sight, and no future husband anywhere on the horizon.

And this, my friends, is why so many women, not just feminists, are against the male pill. Because once there is a male pill, men will be truly liberated from women. Men will be liberated from the task of providing for more than themselves, from putting themselves second in their own lives, from compromising away their free time and hobbies for women. Men will be free to have sex as they please, as often as they want, without the risk of being forced into a contract similar to marriage- child support. So what if taxes raise as child-care becomes fully subsidized? Us men will have no expenses but ourselves.

And this is why feminism will be doomed: Because ultimately they cannot control men as they sought to do. Men will invariably, and with few exceptions, Go Their Own Way. The result will either be that women will have to change to make themselves more marriageable, or America will become so weak that it will be annexed by a nation with stronger gender relations.

The Declaration of Sentiments

The Declaration of Sentiments is a good example of women trying to play men: and failing. They even try to model their Declaration after a document written by a group of men a century earlier. However, it's riddled with ignorance: Any movement which seeks to change the world, without first understanding the world it seeks to change, will utterly fail no matter how much power it wrests in the meantime.

Let's go over the Declarations and look into them a little:

"He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise." - This was written at a time when voting rights were restricted to the nobility. Though it was not directly written into the law, suffrage was limited in many areas by the following legislature: Men who held land (an indicator of wealth), men of higher education (an indicator of wealth), and men over the age of 21 (at a time when the life expectancy of the poor was much lower than it is today, limited by disease, poor nutrition, unsanitary living conditions, and warfare). So we see that the laws were set up to limit voting to only a select few men, the "social elite". Also keep in mind that many soldiers in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were under the age of 17 - they were, by our standards, considered minors, had no say in the war, politics, or wars, but were still required to fight and die. The authors of the DoS would seem to be akin to the Women's Suffrage activists of later decades- upper class women who wanted to vote alongside their upper class husbands and brothers. They did not care about suffrage for the poor and disenfranchised working class families.

"He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice." - As mentioned above, even most men could not vote during the time the DoS was written. Therefore it can be said that most of society's participants, men included, had no say in the formation of laws.

"He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners." - This statement is telling and validates many of the inferences made throughout this article. It gives the feeling of an upper-class woman bemoaning the fact that lower-class men have rights which she does not; and indeed, this was the nature of the entire Woman's Suffrage movement. However, what the DoS doesn't take into account, either on purpose or through ignorance, is that the "rights" being mentioned were mostly non-existent amongst lower-class men.

"Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides." - There has never been any law, in the entirety of US history, which bars women from participating in office.

"In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement." - At the time the Declaration of Sentiments was written, laws had been passed decades earlier prohibiting wife-beating. Also, marriage is a contract, and contracts are often limiting in one's behavior. A married woman was expected to bear her husband children and to play a supporting role as a homemaker. A married man was expected to bear the financial burden of supporting a family, even if it meant he had to work in a coal mine and die of cancer.

"He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a woman, and giving all power into his hands." - As I have already pointed out previously in this essay, marriage is a contract. Every contract has written into it contigencies in which it is held proper to breech or terminate said contract. Removing the proper causes for contract breech, and removing the penalties for contract breech, indeed destroys the very essence of a contract. Where children are concerned: woman entering into marriage is selling to the husband the rights to her womb and the products thereof. Therefore, since the man has paid, the children become his property. If a woman should breech the contract of marriage (divorce, adultery), why should she retain the rights to the products that she has sold?

"He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration." - Since men were the sole economic providers for families, that meant that every woman working equal to man in a career, profession, or trade was competition against an entire family somewhere else. This declaration, in essence, is bemoaning the absence of the right of a single woman to starve a family and it's children for her own selfish purposes.

"He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known." - The avenues of wealth and distinction are not closed to her. All she had to do was enter through the marriage of contract into a union with a man of wealth and distinction, and then those things would be transfered to her. It is also interesting to note that, like modern feminists, the authors of the DoS are complaining that they don't have access to "wealth and distinction", *not* that they don't have equal access to slaving away in coal mines, on battlefields, or many of the other jobs that men often undertook. This should bring the moral and ethical nature of the document into question, however, this question has only been raised recently, over 150 years later.

"He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her." - This statement, while somewhat true, is very misleading. At the time the Declaration of Sentiments was written, women did have access to higher education. A simple glance at Wikipedia reveals that "Women's colleges in the United States were primarily founded during the early 19th century. According to Irene Harwarth, Mindi Maline, and Elizabeth DeBra, "women's colleges were founded during the mid- and late-19th century in response to a need for advanced education for women at a time when they were not admitted to most institutions of higher education." [1] While there were a few coeducational colleges (such as Oberlin College founded in 1833, Antioch College in 1853, and Bates College in 1855), most colleges and universities of high standing at that time were exclusively for men." So women did have access to higher education. It should also be noted that the general public, male and female, did not have the access to higher education that the American public enjoys today. Only upper class men and women enjoyed access to higher education during the era that the DoS was written. In fact this declaration makes little sense as the entire mood given by the DoS is that of upper-class women who would have had access to higher education. It should also be noted, that limited access to higher education for women was not a form of discrimination; as men were the primary breadwinners for a family, women simply did not need higher education. As mentioned earlier, a woman in the workforce was a family starving somewhere else- the same could be said for a woman in college.

It would seem that modern day feminists echo the ignorance of early feminists when it comes to the way society is set up. Society isn't inherently set up to serve or oppress anyone. It is set up to run efficiently and to raise children into adults to perpetuate the species. Slavery, though contemptible, was the economic backbone of the South: when slavery was abolished, the south was destroyed economically and in many places still has not recovered.

Though when viewed from a certain angle, marriage can be seen as "oppression" of women, it can also be seen as the "oppression" of men. What feminists call "oppression" is really the systematic slaughter and servitude of men in favor of women. A man works in the coal mines, the factory, and dies in war so that his wife and children may be safe and have a chance of a better world tomorrow. Feminists, like spoiled children, were ignorant to all of this and had the audacity to complain.


After some research, the supposition that the authors of the Declaration of Sentiments were upper-class women holds somewhat true. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the principle author, does appear to be a woman of privilege. Her father, Daniel Cady, was a prominent attorney who served a term in Congress, and later became a New York Supreme Court Justice. Her mother, Margaret, was the daughter of James Livingston, who served as an officer in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. The prime requisite to be an officer in the Continental Army was status and education. In other words, money. As an aside, Stanton's cousin, Gerrit Smith, was a presidential candidate and a politician.

So this is obviously a woman who comes from money, status, and privilege.

Her husband, Henry Brewster, was also a politician and an attorney. However, his law practice failed and he moved his family (including his wife Elizabeth) to Seneca Falls in 1847. The Declaration was written 1 year later. Could it be that Elizabeth was just resentful and bitter that, as a woman who had come from so much privilege, her husband wasn't living up to her expectations? Possibly. If this should be true, then it would seem that the entire Feminist Movement was sprung from the musings of an embittered and resentful woman who did not receive the prestige and economic status she felt herself entitled to. If the writings of Betty Friedan, Andrea Dworken, and other feminist authors are any indication, this inference may not be far from the truth.

The Nature of Feminism and Men's Response

The nature of feminism has always been a movement of spoiled middle and upper-class white women wanting even more than they already had. Not only did they demand to be regarded as equals to their husbands, they also demanded the right to systematically ruin lower-class families by forcing themselves into the workforce and educational systems. The effect has been two-fold: It has impoverished women with lower-class backgrounds and alienated higher-class women from the men they would seek to marry. It has completely destroyed the Negro family; for very few Negro men can support a Negro woman and her children as well as government subsidy programs can. A Negro man who leaves his family is practicing economic prudence and actually providing his family with the best possible chance. Feminism has contributed to Negro violence, drug use, and youth gangs because, as numerous studies have shown, fatherless children are more prone to drug use, violence, membership in gangs and dropping out of school. It is not an issue of "race" so much as it is the issue of the economic and social effects of feminism.

Feminism has created a "battle of the sexes" in which only women showed up in their offensive campaign against men.

Men's reaction has been slow to start, but is now picking up momentum and will prove to be unstoppable. Men's reaction has been to objectify women as sex-objects (pick up artists, viewers of pornography), and women have participated in this with full vigor while at the same time condemning men. Men's reaction has been to shy away from marriage as women divorce in unprecedented numbers condemning men as "commitiphobes." A man who refuses to marry a woman is practicing economic prudence, as he is giving himself the best chance he has.

Active MRA's stand up for men's and father's rights. Passive MRA's, those who are not yet aware of the MRA movement but are silent participants, withdraw from women into computer games, hobbies, sports, and all other "male pursuits".

Feminism will fail because it will take away from women the one thing they need most: men- they will find that the very men they bash, demonize, slander, abuse, stereotype and attempt to understand with feminist pop-psychology will no longer be there. And the sad thing is:

Women, in their cosmic ignorance, won't have a damn clue as to why.

1 comment:

  1. Very interesting blog. I mentioned you on my blog.