Ithaca Men's Rights

Men and Women: Views on Abortion

2009-03-09T16:32:00.000-07:00

One big Hot Button issue between MRA's and feminists/women is abortion rights. This topic always spurs a heated debate, usually the feminists/women wanting to retain their privileges and options, keeping the men in a no-win situation - while the men stand up for ideas like "equality". Here was a discussion from a dating website (one has to wonder why these women need a dating website - sarcasm...)

Scotty starts off the discussion in his opening post: Why are men not allowed to have the option of raising a child (fetus,blob, whatever), that a woman, he has slept with, has chosen to terminate. We are expected to take responsibility if the woman chooses to not terminate. I think it should be a crime to abort a pregnancy without first notifying the father (sperm donor, whatever), if at all possible. Why is it that we are given this option. And how is it not a violation of my right to the pursuit of happiness.

OreoBabe chimes in with some feminist wisdom: Why don't you get a say? Because you don't have to carry it for nine months, that's why. Don't insist that an accident come to define the lives of you, the woman, and your child.

Apparently for this feminazi, children are just annoying little "accidents", pesky "side affects" to having sex, and no one should let an "accident" (read: human child) define their lives. However, doesn't a woman let this "accident" define the life of the man who she forces to pay child support for 18 years? Once again, woman retain privilege, men remain obligated.

BigSur, in typical mangina fashion, replies: Unless a man wants to take FULL responsibility for care and upbringing (this doesn't mean your mom raises it) of an infant, his say in the matter should be "yes, dear".

So, once again, women have the privilege/options of having the child and raising it as a single mother (living parasitically off child-support and state/federal aid: having her Daddy government help her), but if a man wants to keep the child, he has to raise it 100% with "FULL responsibility" (huh?) without any outside help. Yeah, give men a semi-option but make it more difficult for them. Wonderful.

Surrealiste backs BigSur up with: It's a woman's body.

Men should be able to talk their partners about it, but the final choice is not theirs. Would you like someone telling you what to do with your body and 9 months of your life? Of course not.

But she fails to take into consideration the MAN'S body. A woman doesn't want to be told to do with her body for 9 months... but it's okay for a man to be told to do with his body for 18 years (after all, you use your BODY to work and earn money). Once again: Women get freedom and independence, men get... the consequences of her choices.

Arrrghr shows a modicum of enlightement (at last!): Women ultimately have the final say in whether or not to keep the child, as physically it is their burden to bear. However, if the woman decides to keep the child when the man does not, then I think there should be a process for the man to receive a "social" abortion. It is unfair that women should have ultimate say in the matter if men are not allowed at least the ability to remove themselves from unwanted obligation. There would of course need to be a special process to determine the legitimacy of the man's claim for desiring a social abortion, but I think the process should exist.

Yes, it is a woman's "final say" whether the human child lives or dies, because it's "her burden to bear" - and in fairness, it should be the man's option to have a "social abortion" and opt out of child support for 18 years. Hey, don't get made: it's called equality.

Scotty makes a second appearance and trumps it up with some cold hard logic and the concept of personal responsibility - yes, women have that, too!: surrealist- if she doesn't kill the child(fetus, blob, whatever), then the courts will take the effort to ensure that he is held accountable for a least 18 years. But, wow, 9 months. How about this. Don't fuck someone that you wouldn't be cool, potentially starting a life with. If you do, accept the consequences of your gamble. But, please stop with whining about "it's my body". Yes, it is your body. However, if are going to be adult enough to play the game, you should be grown enough to accept the responsibilities.

Yes, finally, more men, who aren't even aware of MRA, standing up with logic against the feminazi regime of death and slavery. It warms my heart to see.

Neurotica86, a fat bisexual gal, lives up to her name: Okay, I'll make it very simple for you...you will never understand the pain (both physical and emotional) that comes along with pregnancy and labor...so you are not qualified to judge. I firmly believe that any time a man makes a statement like that, his manly parts should be put in a vice and squeezed until he sees the error of his ways. Or until they're rendered useless, thus doing a huge favor to society.

Any time a man dare say "Don't kill the baby, I want it, I'll raise it, I'll nurture it." he should have his genitals removed. Because... we don't want responsible, loving, caring father's in society? We want the deadbeat dads, right? I guess a woman's physical and "emotional" pain trumps a man's physical and emotional pain... at either losing his child and being robbed of raising his own child... or the physical pain of working to pay 18 years (in some states 21) of child support payments.

Onlyeyes4u, another fat bisexual gal, concurs with Neurotical in the same ignorant, gynocentric "our pain trumps your pain" statement: Totally agree with Neurotica86. Well said. A man can not possibly understand not only the physical and emotional things a woman goes through during pregnancy. Pregnancy actually does a lot of internal "damage" sort to speak. And who usually gets stuck taking care of it? Who's the one who usually has to give up their hopes and dreams for this accident? Not the man. He sends the check and that's usually the end of it. Until you have to make the choice of carrying and birthing the child, a man has no say over what a woman does with her body. In fact, I advocate not even telling the man, avoid the drama if he's narrow minded like the types who don't get it.

"Stuck with"? Who usually gets "stuck with" the child? These are obviously women who have no bussiness bearing children in the first place! But don't they realize the reason women get "stuck with" the child is because Family Court gives it to them? Because... almost every single woman tries her damned hardest to get "stuck with" the child? Because women have campaigned for decades to engineer this situation? The man just sends a check... which means a financial burden impeding his lfie and dreams for 18 years - whether he wanted it or not! But the woman has the option. The man is stuck with "whether he wanted it or not" - the man has no options. The man has no options because the "pain" and "burden" of 9 months pregnancy. What ever happened to the smiling happy mother who was exuberant that she was going to bring a precious new human life into the world? I guess that's all a "burden", an "accident" that forces her to give up her "dreams" of climbing the corporate ladder.

What a sad world? Let's take a look at some more replies:

... I read the rest and it's more of the same old "it's her body", "pregnancy is hell", "children are accidents", "children are a burden", bla bla bla. Thank God for abortion, really, in these cases it is desperately needed!

I saw surprisingly few manginas. What a relief.

Most of the men seemed very aware of the concepts:

Pregnancy is 9 months - and if you take better care of yourself than the average lazy American whore, isn't actually that bad. Same with the birthing process.
Child support is 18 - 21 years.
A man and woman's life is changed by bringing a child into the world - both financial and as far as "dreams" are concerend - however, women have the option, men have the obligation.
"My body, my choice" logic was applied to the man's side (it's his body, it should be his choice too, right? I mean, men aren't slaves, are they?) and the idea of "social abortions" and "opting out" the same way women do physically was mentioned. There was outrage at this idea, because it's "the man's responsibility, after all, he's the one who had sex with her" (but, apparently, women never have sex with anyone, right?).

Men and women seem to be at a crossroads - at least on this issue. Women are going one way (special privileges, options, entitlement, having a male slave...) and men are going another way (actual equality, actual fairness, actual logic).

The funny thing is that the men were using FEMINIST'S OWN LINE OF REASONING and TAKING IT SERIOUSLY - which, in this case, was a very bad thing for women because it meant men should have options as well - thus putting equal responsibility on women. *gasp*

Women... with responsibility?
Men... with reproductive rights?

My god, what is the world coming to?

PERSONALLY I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE!

You can read the thread in it's horrid entirety here: http://www.okcupid.com/forum?low=1&tid=16241858694255923483

Feel free to sign up and set those women straight!

MRA Gaining National Awareness

2009-03-02T15:37:00.000-08:00

Where I live, liberalism and feminism are rampant. It's a bad place to be a conservative, an even worse place to be pro-life or pro-heterosexuality. Liberal ideology runs the town. In fact, even the local police department was banned (by their lesbian chief of police) from wearing the American flag on their uniforms.

However, a strange thing happened today. I picked up a free newspaper called the "Herald Examiner". After years of reading the Ithaca Journal, I decided to try something new. The first article I read blew my mind away.

Culture Check: Love According to Darwin
by Kay Hymowitz
Reprinted from CITY JOURNAL

The article itself is a follow up to responses the author received from a previous article "Child-Man in the Promised Land". The original was about how "too many single young males (SYMs) were lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with "South Park" reruns, marathon sessions of World of Warcraft, and Maxim lists of the ten best movie scenes."

The original premise followed the standard cultural stereotype of men as immature, boyish, and unwilling to grow up and face the responsibilities of adulthood. But for the first time that I have ever seen, men responded accordingly to set the record straight on this outdated and erroneous cultural cliche. The author goes on to write:

"It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that piece inspired as a proof positive of the child-man's existence. But the truth is that my correspondents' objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood-one wife, two kids, three bathrooms- not because he's immature but because he's angry. He's angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He's angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He's angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for me."

Here are some responses that his original article illicited:

Jeff, from Middleburg, Florida: "I am not going to hitch my wagon to a woman who is more into her abs, thighs, triceps, and plastic surgery. A woman who seems to have forgotten that she did graduate high school and that it's time to act accordingly."

Another SYM, Alex writes: "Maybe we turn to video games not because we are trying to run away from the responsibilities of a 'grown-up life' but because they are a better companion than some disease-ridden bar tramp who is only after money and a free ride."

One more, from Dean in California: "Men are finally waking up the ever-present fact that traditional marriage, or a committed relationship, with its accompanying socially imposed requirements of being wallets with legs for women, is an empty and meaningless drudgery."

The part that shocked me was this little paragraph: "You can find the same themes posted throughout websites like AmericanWomenSuck, NoMarriage, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and Eternal Bachelor ("Give modern women the husband they deserve. None.")"

Not only does this article talk about the growing Ghost Nation and give constructive and pertinent thought as to why, but it also proves that these websites are becoming mainstream. They are becoming a part of our cultural awareness. This is exciting because it shows that the common feminist response to MRA, the whole burying their heads in the sand and saying "Meh, no one is gonna care about some misogynist chauvinists or take them seriously. They're isolated occurrences on the web, probably virgins living in mom's basement." is wholly and totally: Wrong. There are books about the subject... from Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" to my latest acquisition, "The Decline of Men: (How the American Male is Tuning Out, Giving Up, and Flipping Off His Future" by Guy Garcia. There are at least half a dozen more that you can purchase at Border's right now. Sure, any hack can write a book, and just about anyone can put up a blog. However, the sentiment behind these writings is valid and is now being the subject of newspaper articles.

Whether the publicity is positive or negative, as newspapers and soon perhaps radio broadcast pick the subject up, the fact is that more and more men will be made aware of this movement's existence, and seek out more information. It will be hard for many men, men who have not been completely feminized, to read the literature and not be persuaded.

Also exciting is the growing idea that men aren't playing computer games, delaying marriage, and opting out of college, career-oriented lives, and seeking a lifestyle of seduction (Pickup Artists, or PUAs) because they are immature and mature slower than women, or because men are simply boorish dumb neanderthals... but because men are simply frustrated and angry at a society that leaves them alienated and exploited.

This is what upsets feminists so much about the MRA and the Ghost Nation. Because if they can't blame men for the way men are, then the only other entity to place blame upon is simply the prevalent mainstream male-bashing culture and the slutty, manipulative, picky, entitled, arrogant and gold-digging Western women. Both spawns of the feminist movement.

Really, the only entity to place blame upon: is them.

I'm sure more articles and literature will pop up over time. I'm sure that more newspapers will write stories about this. I'm sure more men, more father's who have had their children stolen, will protest in front of city hall's and the courts. I'm sure more awareness will be raised, and the movement will grow until it reaches critical mass. At that point in time, critical eyes will be on feminists and Western women.

The movement can be dismissed as misogynist, as immature, as being "scared of strong women", or as a display of male chauvinism, or whatever other shaming language feminists try to use. The fact is, I have met an increasingly large number of women in my day to day life who are sympathetic to the movement. I have met an inordinately large number of men who are sympathetic. Their numbers are growing.

It may take time for the movement to grow - a few more years, perhaps, or even a decade. This is because the Men's Rights Movement truly is a grass roots operation. While feminism operated from the top down - with privileged women such as Betty Friedan writing books that seeped down to the masses, the men's right movement works mostly in reverse; with disenfranchised dad's standing up to speak out. Every man who suffers the real oppression of having his child stolen in divorce, who suffers the extortion of child support payments, of living in a world where women are "liberated" and he's expected to fullfill the same traditional gender role of the Walking Wallet. Every man who suffers under the oppression of "women's reproductive rights" whilst men have virtually no reproductive rights. Every man who is tired of how women behave and act in highschool, college, the workplace, and the dating scene. All these men are sleeper cells for the MRA, and it only takes one hyperlink, one article, or the title of one book they notice at Barnes and Noble to activate them.

And as the movement grows, the shaming language will become meaningless. Men, who suffer silently, will finally stand up and force society to start asking the deep, hard questions.

While the article posits that "the reason for all this anger is that the dating and mating scene is in chaos. SYMs of the postfeminist era are moving around in a Babel of miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional.", this is only part of the reason. Lack of father's rights, lack of men's reproductive rights, a prevalent male-bashing culture, a culture that demonizes and shames men, a culture that is becoming more and more anti-boy, however overt or subtle, are the factors that play into the scenario.

Only time will tell. But maybe soon men will finally become liberated and empowered.

Beware of "Feminist Allies"

2009-02-26T09:59:00.000-08:00

A while back, I approached a woman on Youtube who was feeding people the same tired "well not all feminists are like that, there's feminists who care about men's issues" etc etc. I challenged her for proof of this, as I've always done when dealing with the "trend and befriend" brand of feminist, and to my surprise she was able to conjure up a link to an obscure feminist website called "ifeminists.com". I browsed the website a bit and I must say I was honestly fooled by this woman when she said she was sympathetic to the Men's Rights Movement.

Until of course I posted some of my musings on the relationship and similarities between feminism, socialism, communism, and fascism in an exploratory essay, here.

Apparently she didn't agree with some of the viewpoints I presented, and like the typical fembot faced with a disagreement, she reacted accordingly: with vitriolic, condescending shaming language. These are just a few of her messages to me:

"Sorry sunshine, but you're so wrong. I got what you were saying, but what you wrote, in its context, read otherwise. And if you'd spent a little time reading and trying to understand what you'd written then you would have picked up on that. Because, yes, you were declaring, that you will tolerate no questioning from your readership, unlike feminism which demands we question everything.

You question nothing because you believe in nothing. You read like a nihilist, you have to realise how you sound! My god. Next time you write something for your blog, sit on it for a week and then read it again. This week you sound like a facist, god only knows what you'll sound like next week."

The above message was a response to one of my closing paragraphs: "While I will most certainly be labeled a misogynist, a rape apologist, a paranoid conspiracy theorist, a male supremacist and many other allegations up to and including erectile dysfunction and homosexuality, it is important to note that all such reaction to this document will only confirm my supposition: that feminism is a radical political ideology of fanatic gender-fascist communists, and that anyone who questions this current status quo must be shamed and humiliated into silence. I refuse."

Yes, I question the current feminist status quo and, like I predicted, I was accused of being a male supremacist. I was also accused of dating a transvestite (implying that I am homosexual).

"Fascism is a political perspective. You dont strike me as a male supremacist as much as you strike me as being a biggot. Male supremacy is not a political view point. It is an unrealistic viewpoint based upon assumption. You are very good at assuming things so maybe you are a male supremacist, you certainly dont talk much about equality, and when you write of egalatareanism you only do so with derogatory statements. I think that is because you associate the word with feminism. Which you dearly are sooo misinformed about that it actually is hilareous."

Yes, I often use derogatory language. However, it is important to note the appropriate response to this sort of shaming language in The Catalogue: "Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue."

She goes on to further show her true colors, here:

"Re: Feminists The Real Fascists? by the way, you lot will NEVER silence the womens movement and the feminist discourse because we have legitimate causes.

get real and enjoy your pathetic little life in ithica."

Striking, because she's almost implying that the MRA is not a legitimate cause. But if it's not a legitimate cause, how can she be a sympathizer? Oh, because she's not a sympathizer, she's merely a wolf in sheep's clothing who wants to get her foot in the door, so to speak, so she can start spreading subtle feminist propaganda.

What really struck me was this gem, though:

"Whatever it is thats going on in you it is very blatant that it comes from a deep rooted hatred for the opposite sex. All females, except your girl friend, how she is so lucky to escape your wrath will remain beyond me, unless perhaps she is atransvestite. I fail to comprehend how every american woman except your girl friend is in the firing line. Hell I'm even in it and i'm not even a yank."

This just goes to show that there are no sympathetic feminists. If a woman calls herself a "feminist", she is an enemy of men's rights, because it is feminism that has infringed upon men's rights.

If you truly want to see a feminist's true colors... simply disagree with her. It's a good way to test if she's an ally or just an enemy putting on a facade of sympathy to get her foot in the door and start spreading feminist propaganda. If she responds with shaming language, then she does not agree with the goal of equality - she is an enemy to equality who wants men to stay in the same traditional gender role - which is why she resorts to shaming language based upon traditional male gender roles.

The funny thing is she'll never be able to comprehend why my girlfriend "escapes my wrath" (lol?). No, she's not a transvestite (lol?). She's simply not a feminist.

Feminism: Fascist Communism

2009-01-18T21:51:00.000-08:00

Feminism has been compared with nazism and communism many times throughout the years. It is known, though not popularized, that early feminist leaders held communist beliefs or were outright communists and soviet sympathizers. It is ironic that during the Cold War, when America was fighting against communism, that a form of gender-communism was taking root upon it's own soil. Indeed, this lends some insight to feminists leading the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era, which as we all know was a war fought to slow the spread of communism.

The purpose of this article, then, is to further illustrate the comparison between feminism and communism/fascism. It is a work in progress, and as time goes on the grammar and arguments presented will become more refined.

****

To really understand feminism and get a full grasp on it's goals, it would be important for us to study and examine critically the lives and writings of the prominent feminist leaders and authors. Many feminists rightfully claim that they are "not all like that", and while it is true that the constituents of a movement may not hold to every view expressed by the movements leaders, it is the leaders and writers of that movement that inspire the general thoughts, views, and doctrines of that movement. Therefore it is important for us to hold feminist leaders in a critical light.

Here are just a few quotes from prominent feminists, past and present. Although I admit that the source could be viewed as biased as it belongs to the Men's Rights sphere, the quotes contained on the page are true and anyone can pick up any feminist literature and view it for themselves.

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129..

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." - Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

Feminist women are seemingly free to write this sort of misandric drivel, indeed, to shovel it out by the pageful in their writings, without any consequences. Even female members of Congress are able to slander and generalize half the population and get away with it scotch free. When criticism of these writings are offered, it is either ignored, or the two most common responses are "Well I'm not like that." or "Men have oppressed women for hundreds and thousands of years, so it's only fair."

The first argument, "I'm not like that." or "Not all feminists are like that." is very ad hoc and while it may stand to reason and be very true, it misses one glaring point: As a constituent of the feminist party, it would be your responsibility indeed duty, to stand up to this sort of sexist hatemongering crap. If you indeed stand for equality, if you indeed want equal treatment of men and women, and if you indeed sympathize with men's issues and hate the idea of sexism, then it is your very duty as a feminist of that camp to stand up and actively and openly criticize remarks such as "all men are rapists and that's all that they are." Here actions, not words, are to be judged. And judging actions, we see that yes, all feminists are like that, because there is very little protest against misandry within the feminist literature and blogsphere. Even such statements as "I hate men because..." go unchallenged by fellow feminists.

The second argument is just crap, and takes past grievances (which have been shown to be exaggerated or wholly untrue) as a justification for current behavior. IE, men oppressed women in the past, so it's okay for women to spread hate-speech against men. This of course is not a valid or logical argument and doesn't stand up against rational scrutiny.

When the sexism inherent in feminist writings is exposed or questioned, it is either ignored or justified by crap arguments. But if any man stands up and merely disagrees with any tenet of feminism, however minor, he is instantly labeled a misogynist and a sexist brute, even though he may not have said anything at all sexist or misogynistic.

I would like to take a moment to study some feminist leaders, past and present.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the first well-known feminist woman, was the main author of the Declaration of Sentiments. I have refuted much of what was written in this intellectual refuse in the second half of a post I wrote here. The thing I want to point out about Elizabeth was that she was a woman of privilege, as you can find out for yourself if you read about who her father was, who her mother's father was, and who her husband was. She was obviously not a woman who was ever in want for anything.

Later on during the first wave of feminism, a woman named Millicent Fawcett emerged. She played a key role in women's suffrage in England. If you read about her, you'll see that she, also, was a woman of privilege. She attended University for medicine, and her friends were also educated women of privilege. Hardly an "oppressed" woman.

Another prominent feminist author, the woman who sparked the second wave of feminism, Betty Friedan, was also clearly a woman of privilege. In fact, it's reported that she never did a day of housework in her life, and was also a communist party member and Soviet sympathizer. One questions her credibility given the idiosyncrasy of being a privileged enough woman to have a maid in her service, with enough money to go to University, but who also counted herself amongst communists and other radical politics.

The early feminist leaders really knew nothing of the "plight of women", having never actually experienced it themselves. Though Friedan came from a poor background, she didn't stay there for very long and by her 20's was traveling the globe and studying at different colleges. These were women of privilege who wanted even more privilege; namely, they wanted to be equal to their male counterparts who were chiefly doctors, laywers, etc.

There was little they could do about this, except to appeal to the masses of women with whom they really had nothing in common. As we can see with most political leaders, be they democratic, fascist, communist, or anarchist, the leaders rarely have much in common at all with their constituents, however, the constituents sympathize with the leaders and indeed take on many of their doctrines and theories as their own. This is how leaders, though unrelated to their followers via socio-economic background or education, represent the majority that follows them.

Feminism really gained momentum in the 1960's, after a few middle class white women wrote some books blaming a lot of stuff on men. Feminism, a movement of hatred towards men, really began when women were at their most unoppressed. Let's look at that next.

The telephone, the refrigerator, the microwave, the vacuum cleaner, washing machines, drying machines, gas stoves, electric stoves, chemical cleaning sprays, and a myriad of other little inventions: these were all geared towards making life easier for women. It was during the time that these things were starting to make women's lives easier (and indeed, many had been around for decades), that women started to complain about how bad their lives were because of men (note: all these devices were invented by men.) It is doubtful that these women, who could now be comfortable even in lower-class situations, would have ever blamed their husbands for buying them a dishwasher to grant her more leisure time, for working 9-5 and sometimes longer to provide a roof over her head, and for financially supporting the family of a wife, a pet goldfish, and x number of children, had it not been for the political poisoning of a few radical upper-class women who stood to gain even more than they already had.

It was a "capitalism of idealogy" - these authors wanted more, more prestige, more money, more power, more status, so they exploited the naivete and gullability of the masses of women of lower status to gain.

Ironic, isn't it?

That is the nature of feminism: The Doctrine of Spoiled Brats. Most of the early feminists and feminists authors, after a little research, were middle to upper class, if not outright rich, women. Their lives were easy, especially compared to men of lower status. It would seem that this entitlement, this status and prestige and being spoiled, went to their heads. It was not enough now that they were prominent women in society, that they had educations most men were denied, that they didn't even have to do "woman's work" because they had others (maids, machines) do it for them: No, they wanted to be able to do what their husbands do, namely, work. But it was not the typical work they wanted to do: not coal mines, factories, fishing boats, soldiers. Nope. They wanted to be things like doctors and university professors- you know, the top 5% of jobs, the glamorous jobs that earn a lot of money.

If you don't believe me, look around you. How many women do you know who do physically strenuous jobs? Can you name five? When you go past some state workers who are repaving a road, do you see any women? If you do, what's her job? Directing traffic, right? Go to a school: how many of the teachers are female? Most, right? How many firefighters are women, and of them, how many actually rush into burning buildings? All of the police and firefighters who died during 9/11 were men, although female police and firefighters were present (you can see them in the videos).

Nobody raises awareness for coal mining or oil drilling. But these jobs are open to women. Nope, everyone raises awareness for ENGINEERING, LAWYER, and DOCTOR... three of the most prestigious and top-earning jobs in the nation.

There's very little talk, blogging, writing, lobbying, or awareness campaigns to get women into active combat roles. That subject gets almost 0 attention. However, listen to the news, read MSNBC, or Time, or even the plethora of countless feminist blogs, and what's it all about? Rape, rape, sexual harassment, the debunked "wage gap", and of course how "hostile the blogsphere is to female bloggers."

So with vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, electric freezers, automatic car starters, cars with heaters in the seats, AM/FM radio, people to make our clothing for us... women lead relatively comfortable lives. They can even go to University and get a degree in anything they want and become successful. Yet, they still manage to complain about how shitty it is to be a woman!

Ever notice how everything bad seems to be men's fault? I mean, even from the Declaration of Sentiments, one of the first American feminist documents, all the blame is placed on men for how "shitty" women have it. If something bad happens to a woman, like, say, if she goes to a party full of men she doesn't know, gets so drunk and high on drugs that she passes out, and someone, God forbid especially if she was taking the initiative, has sex with her sometime during that night, it's rape. Which is, of course, men's fault and if anyone tries to place any responsibility on her for her life (after all, how wise it to get mentally incapacitated in a room full of men, when "all men are rapists and that's all that the are."...?), they get called a "rape apologist".

But if something bad ever happens to a man, well, that's entirely his fault. Even if he's drafted and dies in war, well, that's because men start war, even though women are the majority of voters.

(Do you know who voted the most in the 1970's? Women. Majority by 5%. Not much, you say? Doesn't matter. If they were the majority by half a percent, they're still the majority. What about the 1980's? Men, by only a small margine. In the 1990's? Women, again. And the 2000's? Women, by a longshot. So since the 1970's women, overall, have been outvoting men. It's safe to assume that when a woman goes to the poll, she's only thinking about herself and whether the new guy will make her life easier.)

What if Hillary Clinton became president, and America found itself at war with some other nation? Well, it would be the fault of the (male) leader of that other nation, because, after all, men start war!

Another issue to be looked at: Female sexuality.

Women wanted to be sexual liberated. So they could do stuff like this, and be in pornography and walk around at 15 years old in a miniskirt with no underwear on (and kill their unborn babies).

But then another group of feminists stood up and said this was wrong, this was sexism, this was the objectification of women, this turned women into nameless sex symbols, etc.

And of course it was men who were at fault for it even though modeling, porn, and being in commercials for make-up and beauty products to wearing miniskirts and sexual clothing is the woman's choice, not anyone elses. So men are at fault for... women turning themselves into sex objects? I mean what about Natalie Dylan, who's supposedly selling her virginity and there's some proof coming to light that she is in fact a virgin. She's turning herself into a sex object that you can buy, but I guess the man who gets to take her cherry will be some "creepy perverted dude" or something.

But what we really see in the topic of "female sexuality", and female "sexual liberation" is really nothing more than the sexual repression of men.

Men's sexuality is shamed. When he buys pornography, he is supporting the objectification of men. We are told that pornography depicts violence against women and the domination of females by males (even though there is much pornography that depicts the same power-dynamics in reverse- but feminists never complain about, and indeed sometimes endorse, that sort of thing). We are told that pornography makes men violent; correlation not proving causation is completely thrown away as a concept and we are told that "serial killers often possessed pornography".

When men want sex, they are shamed. If his partner is "not in the mood", he is shamed for "coercing" her, and shamed for fulfilling his desires elsewhere and escaping a sexless relationship. If a man manages to escape a sexless relationship, he is seen as a pig only after 1 thing. (But if a woman escapes a relationship in which she is not financially supported, she is "empowered"to be rid of the "bum"...). A man is labelled a "rapist" if his wife or girlfriend consents to sex with him even if she's not very excited about the idea or not entirely in the mood.

A man who is married is sexually repressed because he is trapped. If he cheats, he is blamed and divorced and since the fault is his own, he can lose his house, his assets and a portion of his income. If he stays, he is forced to endure the repression of his sexuality vis-a-vis his wife. He has financial incentive to stay and sexual incentive to leave- imagine the frustration that goes along with being trapped in this way.

All these situations and dynamics in society point to an alarming conclusion:

Feminism: A Doctrine of Socialism for Women and Fascism against Men

The Points of Fascism

Point One: At Once Victim and Superior
Fascist ideology always asserts that they are at once oppressed and superior. For instance, Nazi's didn't believe the Germans lost WII — they couldn't, because they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. Who stabbed them in the back? Their scapegoat- the German Jews who did not do their part to support the war as German citizens.
Feminists will at once assert that women are superior: better communicators, more loving, more intuitive, and in some cases outright divine (see also the myths of matriarchal societies here and here.). When the question arises "If women are so superior, how come...", feminists attempt to explain how they are the victims of male oppression in a "patriarchal" society. Men "betrayed" women millenia ago and siezed power, and then men are the ones who rewrote history to hide this fact from women.

Feminism is a conspiracy theory against men just as German Nazism was a conspiracy theory against the Jews.

Also interesting to note that feminist will often deny the general instinct or behavior of men to protect women ("all men are rapists") but at the same time use that behavior to their advantage (victim-feminism and "men are responsible for stopping rape.").

Point Two: Rewrite or Reinterpret History
Part of the Nazi tactics was burning books that explained history contrary to the Party's tagline. New literature, inspired and written by the Thule Society, was introduced that gave a skewed and often fabricated version of history. The Nazis literally rewrote history and explained that the German people were the descendents of Atlantis, and that "inferior people's" such as the early Hebrew tribes contributed to the destruction of Atlantis. Here, their scapegoat is rewritten into a a psuedo-history. This is only a minor point, but worth noting, as many radical feminists and female chauvanists attempt to reinterpret history and in some cases rewrite history; depicting peaceful and superior matriarchal societies, claiming that God was originally refered to as a "She" and that God is indeed a female entity, etc. Like the Nazi writings and propaganda, there is 0 archealogical evidence and 0 recorded historical evidence for these claims.

Also notice the Nazi conspiracy theory that the "Jews were oppressing them", just like the feminist conspiracy theory of the "patriarchy" that took roots millenia ago and has sought to oppress women for men's benefit. We see here that a paranoid conspiracy theory runs throughout all of the major points of fascism, and is, indeed, the foundation of fascism.

Point Three: Blame their Victims
The Nazi regime blamed their economic troubles, lower education, and just about every malady they could on the Jews, turning them into villians, criminals, and a scapegoat. Indeed, every fascist regime has a scapegoat. The purpose is to villianize and create animosity towards a group of people, so sympathies towards them are low, setting them up for injustices, slavery, and genocide without public intervention in said policies. Here, when someone is "guilty", it's okay to exploit them, which moves us onto the second point:

Point Four: Theft and Exploitation
The Nazi regime siezed Jewish assets, transfering the wealth of Jewish businesses and families to Germans. Jews were inducted into concentration and forced labor camps, where they were starved, forced to labor, and then systematically exterminated when they were no longer useful. Minimum input, maximized output, and discard the components of the system that have run down to minimize upkeep expenses. When the Jews were gassed, the expoitation continued when the Nazis began removing gold teeth and jewelry from the bodies.

Feminists have state sanctioned wealth tansfer systems: namely, no-fault divorce, alimony, and child support. They also have the option of killing their husband, either descretely through poison and indescretely through direct violence while he is sleeping, and then claim a "battered woman syndrome" defense and still recieve his life insurance policy. When the man becomes obsolete and his life insurance policy (his metaphoric "gold teeth") exceeds his yearly income, a wife has the option of disposing of him and then seeking a new man to exploit.

***

The Nazi's were famous for their propaganda, twisting the facts, rewriting history, and blaming everyone else for the economic crisis in Germany. Through scapegoating a group of people, they were able to exploit them economically and become a world power once more.

We see this happening in America with the feminist party and their propaganda, twisted facts, dirty statistics, and in some cases even attempting to rewrite history. Of course, everything bad is blamed on men, who have become such an accepted cultural scapegoat that misandry is now a lucrative venture for fields from writing to t-shirt manufacturing.

(Click for Larger View)

Communism/Socialism - How the "radical left" relate to the "radical right".

Interesting to note that despite it's similarities to fascism, feminism also has components of communism and socialism, namely social welfare and egalitarianism. This should not be surprising, however, when the similarities of radical politics are highlighted.

Indeed, the word "Nazi" dervies from the German word "Nationalsozialismus", which translates into "National Socialism". The Nazi party's full name was the "National Socialist German Workers’ Party". In other words, they preached German superiority to their target group: the working class. So the Nazi party was left wing in function, and right wing in idealogy. This gets overlooked and rarely mentioned, as lefties would never tolerate a comparison between themselves and the "fascist right", although the comparison has been made many times and with more credibility than liberals condemning conservatives as "right-wing fascists!"

Nazism, communism, and socialism all seek to target workers (or another economic minority of appreciable population size; a "bio-mass majority" but "monetary minority", the mass of exploited peasants, serfs, proletariat, etc) to instigate social reform. It is in this way that these radical political groups gain their power; by targeting the mass of workers and convincing them that they are being exploited and oppressed by a group; in fascism, namely the rich members of a minority group, in communism and socialism namely the rich entreprenuers, or "bourgeoisie".

In feminism, the bourgeoisie or exploiter-class can be equated to men. It is men who have "the power", therefore, women who don't have "the power" are oppressed by men. A woman's labor was "exploited" (unpaid for) by her husband, in the same way that the proletarian's labor was exploited (underpaid) by the bourgeoisie. (However, feminism rears it's ignorance: the housewife's labor is not unpaid: the man supports her financially).

Feminism can be described as fascist communism, "one law for them, one law for us", or "a socialist network for women, based upon the oppression of men."

The socialism for women are the options she is granted at the expense of men: affirmative action programs that get even underqualified women positions in whichever field they desire, the state subsidized support of childcare at the expense of men (men pay the majority of taxes) or privately through enforced child-support (a woman also has the option to recieve both welfare and WIC as well as child support). At the same time, she has the option to be directly financed by her husband and, should he change his mind (or, more likely, she changes her mind about him), the state can strip the man of his assetts and grant them to who for, really, no good reason since the woman still has the option of entering the work-force, indeed, any field she desires.

There is state subsidized school loan programs for women, private funding for women's education, welfare programs for women, outreach compaigns for women, shelters for "battered" women, organizations trying to stop all forms of violence against women, birth control, etc etc.

Men, relatively, have very little options except to support themselves through direct labor, while at the same time supporting women through his taxes whether he recieves the benefit of sex and children, and when married to still support a woman who can legally steal everything away from him while at the same time supporting women he recieves no sex or children from.

Women seem to have a seperate society, a socialist society, that is built upon the backs of men's labor, reputation, and sexuality.

Feminism: Exposed.

Conclusion

While I will most certainly be labeled a misogynist, a rape apologist, a paranoid conspiracy theorizer, a male supremacist and many other allegations up to and including erectile disfunction and homosexuality, it is important to note that all such reaction to this document will only confirm my supposition: that feminism is a radical political idealogy of fanatic gender-fascist communists, and that anyone who questions this current status quo must be shamed and humiliated into silence. I refuse.

While I do not proport that men and women are inherently inferior or superior to one another, I do posit that there are real, scientifically measurably differences in the physiology, psychology, brain structuring, and roles that men and women ought to play in society. These roles had one purpose: To bear children and bring them to adulthood.

The roles that men and women play have been tampered with. The family is being destroyed, and social havok is ensuring. Some places see it worse than others; in England, there is a whole generation of fatherless children running around like feral primitives, stabbing and shooting one another and forming youth gangs. In America, there is a gender-war in which men are only now beginning to see the implications of.

Feminism, from the beginning, has had insideous intentions. Though there have been positive gains made from feminism, one could also argue that positive gains were made through Nazism. Do the ends justify the means? I do not think so.

It is obviously time for men to stand up, men who have had their communication networks, their clubs, their families taken away from them now have an important resource: The Internet. We must guard this resource jealously and be vigilant against any attempts to impair our freedom in this medium of communication, the Last Bastion of Free Speech.

Early Morning Ramblings

2009-01-17T06:45:00.000-08:00

Just some ramblings before I head off to work.

There's been a lot of talk over the past few years about how boys aren't doing so good academically, they're falling behind, they're dropping out, they can't pay attention in class, they're on Ritalin, etc etc. Most of this it's plain to see is due to the absence of fathers, which was caused by feminisms "No Fault Divorce" thing, which really turned marriage into a joke at best and a fraud at worst.

Well, feminists don't really seem to care about this whole thing. If you read the blogs, it's all about the same old things. "Fat is beautiful, too." "The media objectifies women." Rape issues, more rape issues, and more rape. Hunting and pecking for examples of sexism against women, which really must take up a lot of their time because you really have to stretch the definition of "sexism" to really find any examples of anti-female sexism in America these days. In fact it's interesting because as they keep stretching the definition of sexism to keep finding examples of it against women, they're really just making examples of anti-male sexism more and more exposed.

But anyway, so the feminists don't care about the boys falling behind. Which is really going to have some negative impacts on women in the future. Everyone knows most women marry up, that is, they marry a man who has more income than she does, and if he doesn't, well those marriages don't really last very long. Not that marriages last that long anyway, but a man has a better shot if her earns more money than she does. Well, with male college enrollment dropping, while women make up to 70% of college students in some areas, with boys dropping out of highschool and getting doped up on Ritalin, these boys aren't really on the path to becoming very successful or to earning a high income.

So what's going to happen is we're going to have this workforce full of women earning lots of money, and while there'll be men in that category too, there'll really be more women than men. So we're going to have all these career women trying to find a man who earns more than she does to marry, but those men just won't be there. Coupled with the fact that by the time the average American woman is in her late 30's, she hasn't married and has 1 or more kids, which just makes her so unappealing to a successful man who could easily date a 20-something who has no kids, these women are really going to find that it's nearly impossible for them to get married. We're going to have this huge generation of spinsters who are really going to be bitter towards men, or just turn around and look at the past couple of decades and go "Oops."

What's sad is that they won't even notice until it's too late; until feminism has directly interefered with their life plans, they won't even pay attention to this sort of thing.

Which is really why feminism has to stop being so gynocentric right now. Of course the feminists will alway ssay "oh, we're not gynocrentic, patriarchy hurts men too." but that sort of idealogical tokenism is so played out, I mean the proof is really in the pudding if you ever take the time to read that drivel they call blogs. It's all women's issue after women's issue after women's issue, with some man-hating and self-righteousness injected into it. And a lot of recent articles I've read have really been trying to take some obscure news articles about this or that, I think one of them was about a Muslim man or something in California "selling" his daughter into marriage, of course it wasn't a "sale", it was more like a bill for the wedding ot the groom's family, but anyway these feminists were trying to use this story, this obscure little story about a misunderstanding in a small farming community, as the justification for the continued existence of feminism.

I mean if you have to stay up all night looking for these sorts of articles to justify yourself, I think that really says a lot.

So anyway, that's my early morning rant. You have all these gynocentric feminists really falling behind the times and just focusing on the same old tired issues, meanwhile there's an entire field of research on boy's falling behind, and of course the feminists don't care and it's really setting a lot of American women up for maritial and emotional failure in the future.

MRA Trolls: Voices of Dissent

2009-01-17T05:31:00.000-08:00

A little blog background on myself: I used to have a blog containing about 20 different posts. I was starting to gain a bit of popularity amongst MRA bloggers, and really thought I was on my way to raising awareness about Men's Rights.

I spent a lot of time on that blog. Then one day I made the mistake of sparking debate on a feminist blog and, like magic, my blog suddenly vanished and my password no longer worked. I became busy in real life and didn't have time to make a new blog, until now.

This was one of the only posts which I saved in an email to myself. I decided it still holds pertinence, so I'm reposting it here:

Trolls have been a HUGE problem on this blog lately.

I am decently sure that there is a group of the same trolls that is plaguing a number of our blogs.

Sigh. A group of trolls that I think might somehow be related to yours and Female Impersonator's hae been bothering me as well. Maybe it's national troll week and we missed it?

We have been experiencing a lot of trolling on this blog lately.

It pleases me that so many men are speaking out against the ideas these feminists are presenting. While it is true that some of us could do it in a more mature way *coy grin*, I am more interested not in what these "trolls" are saying in particular, nor in the way they present their dissent, but in the fact that dissent is indeed there. And it is growing.

The number of anti-feminist blogs, and miscellaneous blogs that contain anti-feminist writings, have been growing over the years. More and more information is becoming available that debunks and refutes feminist claims, rational, and logic.

MRA groups, pigeon-holed as "masculists" by the media, have even been taken to court. Public awareness is growing.

First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.

At first, the feminists largely ignored the blogs. There were only a few of them, and many of their writings were reactionary and "misogynistic". As it was the most irate and disgruntled men who began to speak out in inflammatory ways, this was largely true. At first. But these men did something important: they sparked discussion and thought amongst other men. More mature men. More professional men. Each man who was divorced and taken for a ride financially in court. Each man who had his child ripped from him. Each man who has had to pay unfair and exorbitant child support sometimes in excess of $600 dollars a week; exceeding the cost of living when he was married, even! Each man who has been burned by the current Gynocentric Feminist Society, who may have ignored the blogs years earlier, began to read, research, and educate himself. And every man, tired of seeing men on TV portrayed as ignorant, oafish morons who are subject to the authority of their intelligently portrayed wives who has gone on Google and typed "reverse sexism" or "male-bashing".

And the blogs began to increase in number. Men began to post vlogs on Youtube. As the voices of dissent grew, feminists responded with dismissal, ad hominem attacks, and flaming.

And that is what the feminists on these blogs are currently doing. If you post something contrary to feminism, voice disagreement, or find an error or flaw in a statistic or in the logic, they will find a reason to delete your post. They will find some real or imagined slight, insult, or patronization, and cite that as the reason the comment was deleted. And they will never pay any mind to their own insults, flaming, and the insults and flaming posted by other Feminists. As two Feminist exchanged: Maria - "What particularly pompous patronising asses" Dirtyrottenfeminist - "Maria-- You rock. These guys are just gonna blast anyone that disagrees with THEM and try to turn around on us. As long as we are united, we are strong." Apparently, it's okay for them to team up and bully a man with a different opinion. But it's not okay for a man to disagree with Feminism.

Of course, if you point this out, the feminists stoop down to the ultimate cop-out: "It's my blog, I can do whatever I want."

Never mind that feminists criticize the "Patriarchal" idea of "might makes right"- that is, when it's not in their favor. But when it is in their favor, it seems to be perfectly alright.

Then you win.

But as the voices of dissent grow, and grow they shall, it will be harder for feminists to just dismiss us all as "angry men", or as "trolls". They will be forced to address the inconsistencies, the dis-logic, the dis-rationale, and the flat out lies that feminist thinking is filled with. And they will have to answer for every child without a father, and their contribution to violence, crime, and poverty in America.

And it will be at this point in time that feminist thinking, forced to look at itself in a critical light, will simply implode.

Trolling

Yes, there may be a problem with trolling, with men (and sometimes women) posting inflammatory comments and responses to blogs. However, this isn't the "real issue", as my friend Feministgal is so fond of saying. The real issue is this: The voices of dissent are growing and speaking out more and more. This is just a sign of things to come. And these feminists are scared shitless.

But one day they won't be able to just press the delete key.

That day is fast arriving.

More Rape Madness

2009-01-17T01:29:00.000-08:00

I rarely read Feministgal anymore. It's all a nonsense girl's club feminist echo-chamber. She used to allow an MRA named "Ennui" to comment and argue his point of view, but I guess he was too logical and backed them into a corner too many times, so they had to moderate comments. Now 0 debate takes place and 99% of the comments are in agreement with the feminist status quo- this is what makes it an "echo chamber".

Anyway, I saw this article on her blog, because I occasionally do check back on my old friend there to see what nonsense she's cooked up to make me laugh.

Basically, Palin is getting slammed because supposedly she "made a law" where women have to buy their own rape-test kits. While there is actually 0 evidence pointing this to Palin, and since no single person can actually "make a law", I do partially agree with that sort legislature.

I only agree partially because it leaves out so many other things that should be implimented.

1) Rape-test kit results should be required evidence in all rape hearings.
2) Rape-test kits should cost upwards of 2 grand ($2,000).
3) If rape is proven, the woman is refunded the money. If rape is not proven, then the money is not refunded and that is considered her fine for making false allegations.
4) Rape-test kits are available on loan: if rape is proven, the loan is forgiven. If rape is not proven, then the woman now owes the court money.

A common feminist retort is: "What if she waits too long for the kit?"
The response: Most people who are raped report the rape almost immediately after. People who report it much later are probably bullshitting.
Another common feminist retort is: "What if she's ashamed and takes time to build up the courage to report it, and in the meantime the evidence has healed/washed away?"
The response: As Judge Judy would put it: "I don't give a damn how you feel, you have a responsibility to report a crime as soon as possible."

The other common feminist retort will be: "But less women will come forward because they'll be scared of the cost."
The response: Boohoo honey. It'll save a lot of men from spending 20 years in jail and a ruined reputation just because some girl said so.

The result:
Fewer false allegations wasting police time and driving statistics higher.
More actual rapes will be fairly tried and convicted.

Feminists will oppose this because, I guess in their thinking, rape is such a horrible crime that if it costs 10 men going to jail on false accusations just to get 1 actual rapist in jail, then that is the price that must be paid for a woman to say "He raped me!" and her word to be golden.

Of course this will never happen in the current political climate. As Palin and McCain have clearly shown, anyone who deviates even slightly from the Feminist Agenda or is even percieved as wanting to "infringe" upon "women's rights" commits political suicide.

Update

After some thought, I've come to another conclusion. Merely being accused of rape or sexual assault can tarnish a man's reputation. Even if the accusation is unfounded or proven false, or if the woman does later admit that she was lying, the damage to a man's reputation is permanent and can bar him from education and employment.

Thus, rape cases should be handled in private courts due to their sensitive nature.

If the man is convicted, there is no problem publicizing it.
If the man is not convicted, but no false allegation is proven, the case is filed away.
If the man is not convicted and a false allegation is proven, the man remains anonymous but the woman is made public as a false accuser.

Of course, this will bar many women who make false claims of rape from entering relationships with men who know their history. Good! This will protect men from false claims.

And that is all I have to say, and probably will ever say, about the rape issue. Too often it is used by feminists as a red herring to distract from an important issue at hand. Rape in and of itself is not a men's issue. False allegations of rape are a men's issue. If I talk about rape, it will be about mitigating and lowering the occurrence of false allegations. Thank you and goodnight.

Feminism is Doomed

2009-01-17T00:22:00.000-08:00

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.

Feminist Copy-Cats, or "Cunts Can Play Bingo, Too!"

2009-01-16T04:40:00.001-08:00

A while back, Fembot Bingo came out. Like The Catalog, it listed a series of responses that one would predictably receive dealing with feminists. It was a way to mock feminists. It exposed shaming language like The Catalog, but took it one step further and made a game out of it.

Feminists copied the card in an attempt to mock MRAs and other anti-feminists. They claim that they came up with it first (are the kindergartners or something?), however, the proof is in the posts: Their version came out in April of 2007. The MRA version was being discussed as far back as 2006. If their version came out first, how come MRA's were talking about it 1 year before it ever appeared?

At any rate, their attempt at a mockery failed utterly because 1) feminists never use the card because 2) their card brings up *valid* anti-feminists points. Let's look at some of them:

Version 1:

"If you want to be treated like a lady, you'd better start acting like one." - This one stands to reason. If a person wants to be treated a certain way, they must possess the merits. For instance, in order to receive special favor for a handicap, you must indeed first posses that handicap. A male who wants to be treated like a man must first earn the merits of manhood and become a man. If a female wants to be treated like a lady, she must earn it. Wanting to be treated like a lady (special priviliges, doors held, etc etc) but not having to act like a lady is an example of Entitlement Feminism.

"Women just can't be objective about gender issues." - This one, also, stands to reason. Just as it would be hard for anyone to be objective on gender issues based on the fact that we are all a member of either of the genders, feminists have shown an inability to be objective on gender issues; their views on gender issues are invariably biased by the fact that 1) they are women and 2) they are feminists, focused solely on women's issues as evidenced by *all* of their blogs and *all* of their literature.

"You'll never get laid with that attitude." - It's doubtful that a real man ever said something along these lines and inspired the mockery. Men don't use sexual manipulation; women do, feminists in particular. "Stop acting that way or sex will be withheld from you." is a common feminist ploy. However, what may have inspired this mockery was an allusion to the Marriage Boycot t and the growing awareness of men that marriage in it's current state is fraud. "You'll never get *married* with that attitude." or "In the future, women like you will find themselves unable to find a man to marry." Both these statements hold merits as the declining marriage rate proves.

"You give feminists a bad name." - EVERY feminist gives feminists a bad name. Every feminist that you will ever meet online is either condescending towards men, petty and vindictive, rude, hostile, male-bashing gynocrentic sexists who use ad honinem attacks, straw men, red herrings, and dirty statistics in their arguments. They have 0 academic honesty, 0 research credibility, and 0 accountability through peer review. Feminism does not hold up to peer review.

"You've just got a victim mentality." - Female supremacists and entitlement feminists aside, most feminists do have a "victim mentality". It's how they leverage more power. They make up false statistics, such as "150,000 women die every year of anorexia and bulimia" (actually, annual anorexia deaths are about 100, bulimia near 0), or "1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime." (it's actually near 1 in 20), or "women suffer from violence more than any other group" (actually black males suffer violence more than any other group), or "women only make 75 cents for every dollar men earn". The statistics are either misleading, or outright lies. The truth is right there in plain sight for anyone to look up (like the FBI's violent crime report), but for some reason when feminists repeat a mantra enough times, governments and employers begin to listen and all this nifty new rules and laws pass that give women *more and more power*. For instance, the "75 cents on every dollar". Taken at face value, it's justification to give all women a 25 cent raise. However, coupled with the reality that there *is no gender wage gape*, the outcome is that women earn 1.25 for every dollar a man earns. Play the victim: Get the power.

"You're being silly and overemotional." - This one is also granted. Considering that men suffer from violence 3x more than women (even when "rape" in it's current broad definition is included), all the hype and hysteria from groups like Take Back the Night, and the countless blogs and talking and talking and talking about "domestic violence" is, in reality, overemotional. Most feminists are overemotional about such subjects.

"You feminists all hate men." - After reading "all men are rapists" and "1 in every 4 women is raped" and "men are the leader perpetrators of domestic violence" and "1 in 3 women is the victim of domestic violence" and "the patriarchy, oh the patriarchy, men oppress women" over and over and over, how can feminists *not* begin to hate men? Their movement has sprung from hatred and resentment towards men.

"I'll tell you what's wrong with feminism..." - With so much wrong with feminism that is easily and readily identifiable, this statement has nothing but merit.

"But I want to talk about this. Listen to me!" - Feminists often shut down debate- Shaming language, deleted comments, bannings. They are all examples of censorship. A political movement based on lies and misinformation cannot exist outside the vacuum of censorship and "political correctness."

Version 2 -

"More ment han women died on the Titanic!" - True. More men die in war. More men die of murder. More men die at work. More men die from suicide. More men die from cancer. More men die in general. This is one of the many glaring inconsistencies with feminism: if females are so oppressed, why is it men who do all the dying?

"Men do all the dirty, dangerous jobs." - Like giving up a seat in a lifeboat on the Titanic so the woman can live and he can freeze to death in North Atlantic waters? Like... marching off to war to get blown to hamburger meat by a mortar round? Yes, men do all the dirty and dangerous jobs: plumbers, roofers, crop dusters, coal miners, Alaskin fishermen, police, EMT's, surgeons, firemen... male dominated fields and they all have the same thing in common: They are dirty and they are dangerous.

"The courts are biased towards women." - Anyone with a modicum of sense knows this.

"Hard-working men built this country, and the internets too. You women ought to thank us." - This is spot on. Throughout history men have done pretty much all the work; construction, warring, inventing, etc. Feminists refuse to give credit where credit is due and instead invent their "Patriarchy" conspiracy theory to imply that women would have done it, "if they only could have..."

"What use is it to me to care about other people's issues?" - I can't imagine this being said, however, it was probably derived from an MRA saying "If you won't care about men's issues, men won't care about your issues." A very valid point, but feminists don't seem to get it.

"Why isn't there a Men's Studies class?" - A valid point. Women have so much geared towards themselves in higher education. We do need men's studies classes. Another point: If history is the study of men then... how do we know *anything* about women throughout history? We know it from... history books!

"... feminist echo chamber." - That's all the blogs are, really, with any noise to the contrary removed.

"I mow the lawn and fix things, so it's fair." - Men's housework is not even listed as "housework". If a man mows the lawn, or lays new roof, or paints the house, fixes a window, repairs a faucet... these things are not even considered "housework". If a woman drives her son to soccer practice, it's called "housework". If a man drives his family to a relatives house, this is not counted as "housework". Men's housework is often more strenuous and often more dangerous... just like men's jobs. Yet, feminists do not count these contributions.

The feminists, in their attempt to co-opt and make a mockery of an MRA game, have really only made a mockery of themselves. The MRA bingo points out the virile behavior of online feminists. The feminist bingo goes further and points out even more that is wrong with feminism.

Shutting Down Debate: Beyond Shaming Language

2009-01-14T02:37:00.000-08:00

Shutting Down Debate: Beyond Shaming Language

-The IthacaSkin

A few years ago, the "Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics" came out. For the MRA movement it was a godsend. For feminists, it felt like they were being told by their doctor "I'm sorry. The medication is no longer working. The virus has become resistant." The introduction of The Catalog made it easier and much more simple for any given man to logically and rationally confront shaming language without stooping to the same level as feminists. Whenever insulted, all an MRA need do is refer to the catalog, figure out which tactic was being used, and decide on his own from the list of suggestions the appropriate response. So while many MRAs and men in general became aware of shaming language and either began to ignore it or point it out not only in post-to-post debates, but in the very articles written by many feminist bloggers, the feminists did what you'd expect any mentally ill or irrational person to do: they kept repeating the same actions expecting different results.

The awareness of shaming tactics basically put up a wall that before allowed entry into male insecurities. And, like any good infant, neanderthal, or robot not programmed "for this contigency", (or just crazy people in general), feminists are still bashing their head's against it.

Until recently.

Many times a feminist will be confronted by an MRA (or a father who's child has been stolen from him and turned into weekly payments) about many issues men face which feminism doesn't address, or may in fact caused. Such as draft legislation, denying women combat roles (which discriminates against men), unequal medical research, etc etc. In the past, feminists used shaming tactics to bash men and shut down debate. It worked for a little while, but men quickly caught on. Now they are using more sneaky ways to shut down debate. There are basically two new tactics now being employed in this ideological guerrilla warfare.

The first tactic: Kill'em With Kindness or Ad Hoc Tokenism.

They say something along the lines of "I agree with you. That's something that we have concerns about, as well." Here's why:

For starters, because it's very difficult to argue with someone who agrees with you. If you accuse them of gynocentrism, or bring up any male issue, they may reply with something along the lines of "patriarchy hurts men too, men suffer this, and we care about this or that men's issue". Tthat is a clear use of "tokenism"- they include 1 small issue so they can stand up and say "See, we care! We're not sexist gynocentrics!"

The tactic has two hoped outcomes:

1. It'll shut your debate down and steal your thunder, leaving your speechless.
2. Perhaps they'll convince you that they're "the good feminists, with bright happy smiling faces" and you'll go bug some other blog or person.

However, feminists don't really agree nor do they really care and we can never let them fool us into thinking that there is a such thing as a "good feminist". By agreeing with you, they're simply trying to "defuse the situation" and steal your thunder right from under you and leave you speechless. They've stopped trying to flame you into silence, but are now attempting to "kill you with kindness". It's a tactic taught in many courses about "conflict resolution". It actually does not "resolve" the conflict, but it makes the other person (namely, you) feel like the conflict has been resolved. And if you feel like the conflict is over, well... you stop fighting.

So realize that all they're trying to do by saying they agree is to make you stop. To silence you.

The retort: Simply ask that if they care about men's issues so much, why is not a single one of those issues represented in their blog? If they say "men have MRA blogs" or "it's up to men", point out this cop-out and tell them to put their money where their mouth is: there are male feminists just like there are (some) female anti-feminists.

The second tactic: The Apologetic Feminist

This tactic is essentially a mental smoke-grenade. It draws a little bit from Ad Hoc Tokenism by attempting to convince you that they are the "good feminists" and might sound a little like this drivel:

"You can't just lob all feminists together and cast broad generalizations on them like that. Yes, there are feminists out there that are like that, but we're not like them."

A statement like that is typically used in a combo, directly followed by some attempt at polishing up their PR by apologizing for all the "bad feminists" out there. It's a double pronged assault designed to either shut you up, or more insidiously, to make you more receptive to what they have to say.

The retort: This is a tricky one. It helps to point out the posturing and the pittiful attempt at "making nice nice". Point out that no matter how much they apologize, you will not feel differently about them and it doesn't change what they are: feminists.

The third tactic: We Need to Team Up

The third tactic is probably the most insidious. It is not ad hoc; it is an ongoing and growing tactic within the feminist movement. It draws on both the first and second tactic and pulls them both together for a deadly spreadshot:

Feminists are begining to tokenize ("we care about men's issues, see, we posted 1 article!"), then apologize ("we're sorry that so many of the 'bad feminists' have jaded you and turned you against feminism.") and then attempt to assimilate you into the Femiborg: "Instead of fighting eachother, I think it's time we teamed up to address these issues."

I fell for this third tactic once before with Feministgal. She emailed me, seemingly in good faith, expressing an interest in my viewpoints. However, she couldn't resist the "yes, buts..." and I found the discussion about men's rights to subtly and inexorably shift to feminist discussions. She may have been genuinely trying, I don't know, but the outcome was basically the same: Nothing got through to her, and her blogs continues unabated with it's gynocentricity.

The Solution - The solution to my long ramble is simple: Feminists can apologize all they want. They can posture concern and empathy all they want. Hell, they can even *have* empathy for all I care. The simple fact is, and men should never hesitate to point this out *constantly*, is that actions speak louder than words, and until these feminists put their money where their mouth is, until they start addressing men's issues and posting about them more, and with genuine effort, they'll only alienate those they pretend to want as allies.

Edit:
If anyone has more to add to this, different thoughts, please send them to me and I'll turn this into a collaborative post and give you full credit for the contribution.

Toothed Vagina - Fac t is Stranger than Fiction

2009-01-13T18:46:00.000-08:00

There is a term as old as Western civilization, a concept that dates back millennium. This is the Vagina Dentata, a tale warning of the dangers of sex with strange women- and, incidentally, the dangers of female "liberation", feminine "empowerment", and the sociopathy of breaking the traditional marriage roles through promiscuous sex. A tale to keep men chaste, or wary of casual sex, to avoid STDs thus keeping men and women healthy for marriage and raising children. This is the crap drivel that Gynosupremacists come up with in response, us usual, missing the point in their quest to bring the world to an end.

The Vagina Dentata was a myth, however, in our crazy world, fact is often stranger than fiction, and indeed, like the "communicators" on Star Trek foretelling cell phones, the stories of old often predict future situations and innovations. Like this, the modern and very real Toothed Vagina.

While lauded for it's innovation and ability to protect women from rape, it serves another purpose: It is indicative and illustrative of the danger men face from women in our society; particularly the danger we face when approaching them from the very natural standpoint of wanting to engage in relations to them. Sex is dangerous in our society; 25% of women are infected with herpes; and the number is believed to be higher and rising. When all forms of HPV are considered, as much as 80% of women are hopelessly infected. These numbers are not inflated; they are available from the CDC.

But My Point is Something Else: Rape Allegations

You can't talk about a subject like this and not come to the topic of false rape accusations. If you read feminist literature and articles, they want rape allegations to increase, with more incarceration for the "perpetrators"- they have little or no interest in better means of discerning real and false accusations of rape- they only want to send "those bastards" to prison.

Rape tests are going nationwide- allowing circumstantial evidence to be used to prosecute alleged rapists. Circumstantial evidence such as... actually having consensual sex with a woman. Circumstantial evidence such as... she had access to your bathroom, and thus, stray hair in the shower. All a woman would need to do is place some of this hair in or near her vagina, and accuse of a man of rape: now she can sue him, or send him to jail and ruin his life because he wouldn't sleep with her, or buy her a fancy ring.

The fact that two people had sex is not evidence of rape. It's evidence of sexual intercourse, of penetration. But in cases like these, it will be his word against hers again, and courts are notorious for swallowing circumstantial evidence, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Divorcing your wife? Want the kids? Sorry old chap, she had one of your pubic hairs in her cunt and she said you raped her. You understand good fellow, that there's no way we can give you your kids now. Oh, and, your alimony has doubled for "damages".

This is so ridiculous.

Men, be wary of who you go home with. You may find yourself charged with sexual assault even if you didn't sleep with her. And if you do decide to sleep with a woman, I would suggesting fingering her first- you never know if she has a latex Vagina Dentata just waiting to sink it's teeth into you phallus and prove her false allegation of rape.

The Feminist: Adolescent Mindset and Real Women

2009-01-10T22:21:00.000-08:00

People who want rights without responsibilities are like adolescents who want the rights to the car without the responsibilities for the payments, the gas, the insurance, or the repairs. A person who talks more about women's rights than responsibilities is not an adult feminist, but an adolescent feminist.
-Warren Farrell

Unfortunately in my entire life, I cannot remember ever once meeting a feminist who spoke about "women's responsibilities." They all seemed, like Farrell said, to be adolescents, whining and crying about the rights and privileges that men have which they don't, but never once mentioning the obligations and responsibilities that it takes to earn those rights.

For instance, child-care. "My body, my choice." A feminist who chooses not to marry but have a child anyway expects the government or public to assist her. Just like an adolescent who wants to drive the family car but expects mom and day to pay for it all, feminists want the right to drive the car of motherhood, but instead of marrying a man, they marry the government and expect the public to pay for it all. Food for thought: If you cannot afford to take care of a child, you shouldn't have a child. Isn't that why we don't let minors of child-bearing age marry and have children without parental consent? It would seem that feminists, though adult in their years, are acting like nothing more than 14 year olds when they want to have a child but expect other people to pay for that child.

In my next post, to which this is just an introductory food for thought, I'll discuss a man's responsibility and obligation to register for the Selective Services and serve his country during a national emergency, and women's right and privilege to choose whether or not to join the army at all.