Similar posts

Larry Solomon #fundie #sexist biblicalsexology.com

(This is a follow-up to a previous post.)

What God Wants Women to Want From Sex

In Exodus 21:10-11 we read “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money”. The phrase “duty of marriage” refers to her conjugal rights or in other words, the husband’s duty to have sex with his wife.

So, in similar fashion to Proverbs 5:15’s comparison of sex for men to the human need for water, in Exodus 21:10-11 God compares sex for women to the human need for food and clothing. So, we can rightly say based on the Word of God that sex is a need for both men and women.

And it is because of this truth, that both men and women need sex that God gave these commands found in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4:

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife”.

But just because men and women both need sex does that mean they need it to the same degree?

If we look at the needs that the Bible compares a woman’s sexual need to and then look at the need it compares a man’s sexual need to, we can answer this question.

Which can the human body go longer without? Food and clothing or water? Under temperate climate conditions the human body can go for an extended and perhaps indefinite period of time without clothing. And while food is a more important need than clothing, the human body can go weeks without food. The human being can live 30 to 60 days without food. But most human beings cannot go more than 3 days without water or they will die.

So yes, men and women both need sex. The Bible makes this very clear. But it also shows in how it compares the need for sex in men and women that sex is a far greater need for man. And that is a realization that every Christian woman needs to come to.

Now that we have established that sex is a need for women, even if women do not typically need as often as men. We then have to look at the difference in reasons that men and women need sex. While men need sex primarily to fulfil their physical and psychological thirst for the female body, women need sex for two primary reasons.

The first is that just as God created man with insatiable thirst for woman’s body, God also created women with a strong desire to be desired by man. When a man takes his woman in the act of sex, it fulfills her need to feel beautiful to him, to feel desired by him and ultimately to feel loved by him.

In Psalm 45:11, in a prophecy concerning Christ and his Church, the Bible says “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”. When we remember that man’s created purpose is to image God with his life then we understand the strong desire of men toward the beauty of woman. Man’s desire for the beauty of woman’s body symbolizes Christ’s desire for the beauty of his church.

And when we understand that woman was created for man, then we understand why women have a strong need to feel beautiful and desired by men. Men desire the beauty of women, so God designed women to desire to be beautiful for men. Men desire to take and use a woman’s body for their sexual pleasure and to meet this desire in men God designed women to desire to taken by men sexually. It is sin that corrupts these desires in women or causes them to deny these desires they have toward men.

This is why we read from the wife in Song of Solomon 7:10 “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me”. The wife wants her man to desire her beauty. But not just her beauty. She wants her beloved to desire to take her body and use it for his pleasure. In Song of Solomon 4:16 the wife invites her husband to feast upon her body when she makes the following statement:

“Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits”.

And in the Song of Solomon 1:1 the wife says of her husband: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine”.

When we take all of these Scriptures together what do we see that women should want from sex? They should want their husband to desire their beauty and to take and use their body for his pleasure. They should would want him to embrace them and kiss them and by doing all this show his love and desire for them.

But the second reason for a woman’s need for sex, that God has placed in her nature, is her need to have children. This is a defining need of a woman.

Let me illustrate from my own life origin story. My aunt, my father’s brother’s wife, told me recently that when their son was born my mom and dad came over and my mom held their son in her arms. That same evening, when my mom went home, she jumped my dad’s bones and boom, she was pregnant with me.

But outside these two powerful needs that drive women to have sex with men there is another spiritual reason which should drive Christian women to want to have sex with their husbands. And that reason is that they fully realize they were made for him and specifically to meet his need in this area of sex. It pleases him and gives him passion toward them and toward everything else in his life. This should drive any Christian woman to want sex as often as she can have it with her husband.

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

8 Factors That Are Destroying Healthy Relationships Between Men And Women

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of 'Man's Fight for Existence'. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature. Visit his new website at primalexistence.com

Most men, even if they’re still swimming in ocean of blue pills, have some awareness that something has gone awry with the relationship between men and women. Statistics prove this as well as divorce has been epidemic for a while now with record-number of children growing up with single parent around the world while young people are having less sex than before. And whether you be a feminist or part of the manosphere, I think both sides can agree on one thing: that a war between the sexes have been heating up in the recent years.

Why is all this happening? While men and women tend to play the blame game to avoid taking any responsibility, there are greater forces at play. The fact is, the continuing transformation of our society is making the antagonism between the sexes inevitable. Feminism is just a symptom, not the cause of our problems.

Before we look at why today’s sex relations are in a dismal state, consider the single factor that makes relationships prosper: Mutuality based on different but compatible roles.

All relationships work best when two parties have something different to share for their mutual benefit. For example, humans and horses have enjoyed a close relationship together throughout history (unlike, say, humans and bears). The relationship works because in exchange for food, protection, and care that humans provide, the horses offer themselves as transportation.

The relationship between men and women was also mutually beneficial for the entirety of human existence with men offering their services in exchange for having the women bear their children. But now, with the advent of modern society and its conditions, things have changed drastically.

1. “Equality”
image
At least these men had their male privilege.

“Equality” for women is the most abominable lie to have ever perpetuated on mankind.

Men have always provided for women. Men hunted for food, labored to build everything, and fought battles to defend their tribe. To say that men oppressed women throughout history is an insult to all those who sacrificed themselves in the factories, the coal mines, and the trenches. If women didn’t have certain rights that feminists like to cherry-pick, it’s because women weren’t drafted to fight wars. In exchange for their toil, the only thing men asked of women was to be supportive in their roles as wives and mothers.

But fast-forward to today, now that women have “achieved” social and political “equality” and even various advantages just for being born a female, many women today no longer feel that it’s necessary to exchange values with men for mutuality. It’s like when humans developed automobiles and didn’t need horses anymore. The difference is, humans and horses don’t need to be together; men and women do.

However, men’s sexual desire—which is greater than that of females—is still alive and kicking. So what we have today is a situation where women have gotten their social equality while sexual inequality persists for men (which is why many men choose to give up sex entirely to level the playing field). This is what happens when you standardize human beings into economic units.

2. Education and career over family

Stressed out from balancing between work and family? Yup, it’s the men’s fault that you tried to do both.

To maintain their advantage over men, women today are dedicating themselves to their education and career. Western women, in particular, have been so thoroughly sold on the idea of status and consumerist orgy that they are no longer interested in relationships. More and more women today are delaying marriage (if not outright rejecting it). And when they do get married, they are using it as a means to trap men into donating their sperm and cash, only to bail out when they want to.

3. Slut culture
image
Wow, what an achievement! I’m sure your failed parents are just as proud.

The advent of contraception and the decimation of whatever feminine decency that was left has turned the vast majority of young Western women into drunken sluts. The increasing number of sluts is diminishing the availability of quality women that men want to start a family with and has social implications for the society as a whole.

4. Government supplanting men
image

The only way women were able to “liberate” themselves from their supposed oppressors was by latching themselves on to a new alpha provider: the government. As said before, men form relationships with women by exchanging values, with his strength to provide and protect being his greatest asset. But now, the government (along with corporations and education system) fulfills those roles that men previously occupied. And not only that, but the government is deeply involved in the affairs of marriage, sending professional white-knights to extort and arrest men who’ve been used up and thrown away by women.

It also doesn’t help that the government is increasingly monopolizing violence, one of the most important value that a man possesses. And that leads to my next point.

5. Too few wars, too many men
image
I doubt these men had to think of ways to entertain women like a monkey to get their attention.

The recurring theme across patriarchal societies of the past and present are violence and warfare. And the most commonly associated traits of masculinity are also traits of warriors such as strength, bravery, aggression, discipline, and so on. It’s quite simple: the more violent the environment is, the more masculine men become. And the more conflicts and wars there are, the more the women depend on men—thus keeping the collective value of male population high.

It’s no coincidence that Western societies have started to feminize as they endured decades of relative peace since the end of WWII. The lack of warfare also means that there are now more young men per woman (practically 1 to 1) than there normally would have been under a warring society. Excess of men—who are also emasculated and feminized—means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low, upsetting the balance of sexual marketplace in the process. Only the top 5-10% of men with the warrior traits and wealth are able to enjoy a semblance of a balanced relationship with women—and even they have to play the game.

6. The decimation of Western women

Declining marriage rates? Don’t worry, some simps will try to put a ring on their fingers.

Many Western women have been corrupted by our toxic materialist society. They are fatter, uglier, more narcissistic, more entitled, hedonistic, superficial, less faithful, and seem to think that having bitch attitude makes them hip. Women can afford to stoop low because their sex drive isn’t the same as men’s, while they couldn’t care less for love and companionship when they’re too busy with their travels and careers.

And because of all the thirsty men, women’s collective sexual market value hardly suffers while the value of those who are merely average becomes inflated beyond their real value. You only need to check out the gross discrepancies between the sexes in dating sites and apps to see how bad things are.

7. Anti-male culture

Men are all rapists waiting to be hatched out of their facade, men merely uttering a word to a woman is a harassment, men are always “mansplaining” to women, men are insecure cry-babies, men open their legs too much when they sit, men and their toxic masculinity need to be controlled, men have to do more for women, men are dominating in tech fields because of sexism, men shouldn’t say this, men shouldn’t do that, etc, etc… And of course, if men push back, they’re “misogynists.”

And we’re we still wondering why relationships are getting harder to form these days?

8. Lack of shared values

As social beings, we humans need more than economic incentives and passions to form a relationship for a family to prosper. There must be shared values.

With traditional family values under constant attack from all directions, the bonding between males and females have been reduced to mere hook-ups and economic unions. To make matters worse, many from both sides are resorting to predatory behaviors to exploit one another for either money (for women) or sex (for men), augmenting the distrust between the two sexes. Others, who either don’t want to play games or have become overtly hostile to the opposite sex, have given up on relationships entirely. This is the end result of atomization and extreme individualism under a system that destroys all values for the sake of economic advancement.

Conclusion

The destruction of sex relationship is having a negative effect on society as a whole and is transforming the demographic landscape of many Western nations. Unlike what the aesthetically-challenged feminists and the man-children crying their own way believe, men and women are not adversaries. You don’t have to be a traditionalist to see that the sex relations have gone awry due to the development of modern society and its destructive cultures.

Many Western men have already checked out or gone out to find traditional women elsewhere. But that is merely adapting to the situation; it doesn’t solve the problem at a societal level. The continuing antagonism of the sexes will eventually spread around the world. Unless the current course is somehow reversed, we can only wait and see how far the damage will run its course.

Junon #sexist islamicboard.com

Salaam

Another comment piece on the damage feminism has done to western society. Lessons to be learned.

Why Men (and Women) Hate Feminism

A while ago I received an e-mail from one of my female readers. She was being honest and polite, but wanted to know precisely what I had against feminism. It was along the lines of "feminism is about the equal treatment of women, so what is so bad about that?" However, like many other women, I don't believe she was fully aware as to just how far the feminist movement has gone, co-opting women and how far from the truth it is. Thus, I believe it would be to everybody's benefit to explain in detail why most readers here in the Capposphere and elsewhere are against feminism (and to see if I'm missing any other reasons).

Reason #1 - Myopic View of the Sexes

If there is a "primary" reason I would have to say this is it. Feminism started demanding changes in regards to women, with no consideration as to what would happen to the other half of society, ie - men. They also did not think it through and consider children as well. It was a very female-centered approach and nobody considered (let alone, cared) how actions/changes/etc. in women would affect the rest of society. You still see this today based on the policies advocated by feminism in that it is all about women. A secondary concern is given to the children (more often than not, using children as a means to extract government resources), and maybe a tertiary concern is given to men.

Reason #2 - Lies About Human Nature

A close second is the ludicrous concept that men and women are not just equal, but the same. Women can do what men can do. There are no biological differences. And any difference is viewed as sexism or oppression.

The problem is these differences are what makes men and women great. Men like women. Women like men. Men don't like manly women, and women don't like girly men. We enjoy the difference. All feminism has done is ruined the love lives of millions of other women (and men's as well) lying to youth about "being a sensitive 90's man"or a "strong independent woman." That men are "shallow" and "cheap" for liking long legs and big boobs, and that any man who is worth his weight in salt will "like you for you." Women now ignore these basic biological facts about male sexuality, even mocking and scorning them, and fail to attract men.

These lies about the "exact sameness" of men and women also destroy a vital component of our economy and society - the division of labor. Though nobody is ordained or condemned to play these roles, traditionally the wife would stay home, while the husband would work. This allowed for not only better families, but better reared children. It also allowed for happier people (as men are predisposed to go out and work and women are predisposed to stay at home and rear a family). Neither role was inferior to the other. Both were vital, but it was feminism that lied to millions of younger women telling them the grass was greener on the other side. The result has been an increase in divorce, less stable family, less financially stable families, and problem children incapable of becoming functioning adults in society. This has also resulted in women being less happy.

Reason #3 - False Claims of Sexism

The thoroughly debunked "wage gap" is getting mighty tiresome. It is a false argument used only to gain "victim" status by feminists to result in legislation that unfairly benefits women. Affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination against men. Most men resent this

Reason #4 - Not Pulling Your Weight

The wage gap, however, does prove something. Women, for all their clamor of independence and "what you can do I can do better" are failing miserably and only achieving about 76% of what men do. This in spite of all the handicaps of affirmative action, a media that is always supportive, and limitless educational and government programs. Of course, the wage gap is not 100% "proof women aren't pulling their own weight." Many women still take on traditional roles and rear children, some drop out of the work force to take care of their families. But when it comes to majoring in rigorous studies, producing things of economic value, and being economically-contributing members of society, they disproportionately fail. They account for more government workers than men, they account for easier subjects in college than men, and they are nowhere to be seen in dangerous or risky jobs. Women on the whole are NOT equal when it comes to economic production.

Reason #5 - Poor Stewardship of the Right to Vote

This is more of an opinion, but I believe it is an opinion held by the majority of men (and surprisingly, women) who hate feminism (so you may not agree the the political opinion, but it IS a reason some people hate feminism). In short, feminists have been poor stewards of their right to vote. I say this because they have consistently as a group voted for more government and less freedom since given the right to vote. I believe this is because it is in women's nature to be more caring than men, and thus tend to vote for "nicer" things. Children, health care, education, etc. However, "feelings" and "caring" have no place in government finances. That requires passionless thought and consideration, research, mathematics, and an understanding of history and economics. It also requires an appreciation for the freedom granted to us by our forefathers and an understanding of the role government was intended to play. Feminists have proven ignorant about these topics and vote with their hearts, not their heads (and more recently, just for plain politics).

Reason #6 - Replacing Men With the State

Closely related to #5 is that feminists and feminism advocates essentially replacing the husband and father with the state. This is abundantly clear when you see how much money and support single mothers get not to mention this macabre desire by some feminists to eliminate men from the birthing process altogether. Not only does this take away the two most important things in a man's live (his theoretical would-be wife and children), but essentially forces men to compete against the government as a much-better financed suitor. Not only do men lose out on love and family, any children brought into this world via Daddy Government are missing a real father and will suffer incredibly later in life.

Reasons #7 - Hypocrisy

While most hard core feminists will claim they're "independent," they're anything but. They are usually the first to have some kind of make-work government job, some kind of professorship nobody asked for, or begging and pleading for donations to some kind of "activist group." They typically produce nothing of value and require the state to transfer other people's money to create jobs for them. They even point out, point blank, they want more government money for them and/or their children in government policy. And while, yes, there may be that one feminist computer engineer, the vast majority of them are hopelessly dependent.

Reason #8 - Backlash for the Ruination of Women/Men/Lives

In general and summarizing some of the above, most people haven't sat down to think things through to the point they can articulate why the are so frustrated or angry with the opposite sex, let alone what role feminism played in this angst. But both sexes are painfully aware of the lower quality men and women of today. Modern day western women are on the whole unmarriageable, and modern day western men are no where near capable of being a provider or protector. As they ponder these things, however, they will start to realize just what a bunch of BS and lies they were fed in their youth. Lies about the sexes, the roles people were supposed to play, how the sexes were to interact with one another, and what people "should and should not like." As people age, they will see the best thing in their lives (namely, members of the opposite sex) ruined and spoiled, and consequentially the quality of their own lives ruined as well. Men now have to settle for women they're not attracted to, women have to settle for men who are effeminate and clueless, all because a bunch of women in the 1970's were miserable with their lives and (as far as I can tell) merely wanted everybody else to be miserable like them. When people put two and two together, they will see it was feminism that warped and thus ruined this aspect of their lives and they will get angry.

Those are the 8 primary reasons I could come up with. I think there may be more, but at minimum I hope it debunks feminism as simply being the "equal treatment of women" and clears up some things on both sides of the aisle.

SkinjobCatastrophe #sexist #psycho incels.co

[It's Over] Women are not evil, they are even worse than evil

I have placed a tl;dr at the bottom for your edification if you dont want to ingest this ludicrously verbose wall of text

I am so tired of women. They poison EVERYTHING with their entitlement, terrible attitudes, bullying, lookism, and subconscious manipulating of men. They are so empty and lifeless. They have no soul. You can see it in their eyes - there is nothing there. No passion, no desire, no purpose, no meaning, no morals or even common decency. They are just soulless husks of people. Completely empty, without even the substance of a ball of dust.

If they were truly evil then there would be something to fight against. We could point and say, THERE is the problem! THAT is the source of our suffering, our oppression, that is why we experience the bullshit we do on a daily basis. But there is nothing to women, they are empty, so we cant point at anything.

The real source of our suffering is the men who work on womens behalf - but what is it that women want? Most men dont know what women want and even women dont know what they want. Women say what they want, and then men do all the heavy lifting to make sure that happens, but then what? Women complain and say thats not what they wanted and that men are the source of all their problems. But what are these problems? They are not actually problems, women like these things, many of which women have created for themselves, but then they complain about them and a man rushes to do their bidding like a slave minion.

So women complain about “problems” that they actually like - for example, being given attention for their looks, or as they call it, being “objectified”. Then, men rush to do whatever the women want done. Being men, they are able to listen and follow instructions very well, and so they do exactly as they are told, and then what? The women complain. “All women are beautiful, why havent you told them that they are pretty? They are not just your tools to use for working and, they want to feel pretty and sexually desirable too!”

And then the cycle either repeats, or more often, creates a ludicrously more complex system of interwoven bullshit that soyboys have to keep track of just to appease their female masters. “All women are beautiful! B-but- their looks dont matter! They work just as hard or harder than men! But men and women are equal! Except we need to give them special privileges and help them because they can't do it on their own! But they are strong and can do anything without a mans help!” Etc.

Many would say to blame these men who enable women and do their bidding, and I would agree. But just like everyone on this forum, men want to be with women. Some men are lucky enough to get to be with very attractive women, some can only get with landwhales, and some, like us, are left with nothing. If everyone wants to be with women, how can we do away with these problems?

Many people say that we need a more traditional culture that places women in the position of household caretakers as a requirement and keeps them out of the workforce and any position of power. But in this society, romance and mate competition would still enable womens behaviors. Just as it did even long ago in america and europe or even a very long time ago in ancient greece. Competition over women is a main source of these problems. Men will step over each other and hurt each other to gain access to higher value females. They will subvert, manipulate, and of course directly physically attack other men to win the attention of females. Women like this and encourage it, and we would be directly back to the root problem - men hurting each other and causing wide scale societal problems to appease women.

Let us say that we have a muslim state type society. There women are removed almost entirely from all public interactions. Marriages are largely arranged and many times you cannot even see the woman because of full body and face coverings. But then we arise at yet another problem. Men want to have sex and be with attractive women, of course, so what happens to these emotions and pent up feelings that are hardwired into the brain like hunger and thirst? Well, nothing good, obviously. Muslim states are not known for their peaceful and diplomatic nature. Men are angry and can only cope with other things, even if they have a wife and kids.

A mans sex drive can never be done away with. It cannot be suppressed. It is like thirst or hunger, it will be there until the day he dies. So what is the solution that can make the most people happy and let men finally have sexual contact? Well there is none. At least, there is not a good solution. Nature is cruel and cares nothing about morals or fairness.

Roughly 50 percent of males from the history of the human race likely never mated. Nature is designed to put a few men at the top and leave the rest of the men either fighting for scraps or suffering with nothing. You cant fight nature, its like stopping a hurricane with a fan or melting Antarctica with a space heater. These are not solvable problems.

It would be best if people accepted that the world is imperfect and did the best that we could instead of acting like if we could institute some massive social or cultural change that inceldom would be fixed. I cannot change the nature of humans. It always has been and it always will be over for many men.

When I say women are not evil, they are even worse, I mean that they are responsible, in a way, for an unsolvable problem. They are so empty and lifeless that they cannot be the ones responsible - men are. But even if we were to kill every soyboy and cuck and IT poster, the problem will still exist. Men would fight over women, they would hurt each other for women. All men want sex and female attention/companionship. But women are the source of these problems.

Its as if your only food source was poisoned potatoes. You have to eat them, but when you do they damage your body and put you in great pain. But you can never be not hungry. You will always want to eat them even though you know they will hurt you. You cannot think “these will cause me pain - so therefore I shouldnt want them and I will not be hungry”. You will ALWAYS be hungry if you dont eat, that is all there is to it. And you will always want women even though you know how terrible they are

Although maybe .0000000001% of the world population can take a step back and realize that fighting over women and simping for women is just a terrible idea, most cant. Even super geniuses who design particle accelerators do these things. Even intelligence cant help. Although intelligence has been has been used to solve just about every other problem throughout history, this problem is too much.

Tl;dr ITS OVER

Bob Gray Sr #fundie bobgraysr.com

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT
Pants On Women - Is That All There Is To It?

Same-sex marriage, mothers no longer working in the home, families going their separate ways with no time together, the feminization of men, the masculinization of women. These are the things I see as I look out over the landscape of our country. I find myself asking, "Where has manhood gone?" and "Where has femininity gone?"

As I read the messages preached and the books written by my mentor, Dr. Jack Hyles, I sense in him a concern for the direction in which our country was moving with regards to manhood and womanhood. He even preached a sermon, which later was published in booklet form, on the subject of the unisex movement.

Today we seldom even think about it yet so many of the things about which he warned us have now come true and for the most part we have accepted them. We have lost the distinction between the sexes. We've lost the pride of masculinity and femininity. In fact, society derides both.

Perhaps nothing has brought more criticism to Dr. Hyles than did his strict position on women wearing pants for those in church leadership. He never wavered on that position, however he never treated women who wore pants with disrespect or unkindness. He NEVER made the issue of a woman wearing pants as proof of whether or not she was a Christian, or whether or not she loved the Lord. The issue really was not as much about the individual as it was with the whole.

He saw us moving away from the distinctiveness of the sexes towards a homogenous sameness that he felt was wrong. He saw the issue in ways that others did not. It was more of a philosophy that he preached. Deuteronomy 22:5 meant more to him than just a matter of women wearing pants. It stood for something much bigger. It stood for the fact that men should dress like men and women like women. Even in Bible days the distinctions were very clear and he wanted for them to remain clear in our day.

Did we somehow become lost and confused as to what the issue was really about? Does it really not matter if men dress differently than women and women than men? Is it really important that there be a distinctiveness between masculinity and femininity? The issue wasn't as much about pants as it was principle. He was looking at a much bigger picture than most. Perhaps we saw the issue to vaguely. Perhaps we missed the point entirely.

Many men who once agreed on the issue of pants have now changed their position. Perhaps the position was too small or too narrow in the first place. Perhaps pants in and of themselves was not the issue. Perhaps the real issue was the matter of the distinctiveness between the attire of men and women. Pants gave us a focal point for the real issue, which was that men ought to dress like men and women like women.

Has that changed? Does it matter? Should we care if boys dress like girls? Should it matter to us if girls dress like boys? Is it really relevant? There has always been a focal issue that rallied us behind a principle. Long hair on men rallied us against rebellion, which was the bigger issue. Pants was the focal point for the principle of women not dressing like men. Yet when it comes to the issue of women wearing pants we seem to have missed the point. What is the point? The point is the Bible principle.

What is the Bible principle? The principle is that men should dress like men and women should dress like women. Has that changed or is the Bible still true? Should men wear clothing that pertains to a woman? Should women wear clothing that pertains to a man?

If you are an honest person you will have to admit that females in public have taken the half off sale seriously. Hip hugging skinny jeans revealing mid riffs. I travel every week of the world around this great nation of ours. It is embarrassing for a man who is doing the best he can to keep his heart right with all of the female flesh on display.

Then I go into some of our churches and find myself wondering who is standing for the Bible principle of distinction in God's house. The decline of American morality is reflected in our distinction. The decline of our churches is also reflected in our dress distinction. 50 years ago it was not so in public and for sure it was not so in our churches.

The Mrs. Cleaver look was in almost every home in 1950's. Not so in either the home or the house of God, in a lot of cases, in this new Millennium. If God wanted a distinction in the Old Testament how much more does He desire it in the New Testament.

Murder was brought to a higher level and was identified in the word "hate." (Matthew 5:21-22) Adultery was brought to a higher level by Jesus Himself in the New Testament to the word "lust." (Matthew 5:28) This "second mile" level we find in the New Testament I am afraid is certainly not prevalent in this new Millennium.

Distinction was brought to a higher level in the New Testament. (I Timothy 2:9) Deuteronomy 22:5 has been elevated to "modest" clothing. No skinny jeans here! The Bible principle is for today.

So, if the principle is still true why are we criticizing those who took a stand regarding women wearing pants? I for one must allow others to disagree on the issue, but I'm concerned when they ignore the importance of the Bible principle upon which we built that position. If we lose the principle then we lose the purity of the Scripture.

If we begin to criticize those who took a stand then we should be explaining how we then are carrying out that principle. What should women wear that which a man shouldn't? What should men wear that women shouldn't? Does it matter? It has to because it is covered in his word.

Should we fight over the issue of pants? No, however many of the ones who are fighting the most are the ones who are fighting against those who took or still take that stand. I do not fight the women who wear pants or the preachers who allow it nearly as much as they fight me.

They don't know my heart because they haven't taken the time to understand why I take my position. My position on this issue is based on principle not preference. I am tolerant of those who disagree with my application but should we be tolerant to those who ignore the principle entirely?

The principle is not up for debate, so why would you criticize my commitment to a principle even though you may not like my application of that principle? The principle is that men are to dress like men and women like women and there must be some distinction.

What is the distinction? If you tell me my position is wrong then simply explain to me what the distinction is that you are making between the attire of men and the attire of women. I'll be satisfied with that.

If you're going to criticize me because I have put some kind of distinction into the principle then tell me what your distinction is based upon that same principle. Whether Deuteronomy 22:5 means pants on women or not it must mean something? What does it mean? Explain it.

Don't tell me that men wore robes in the Bible as your excuse? Trust me, the attire of men and the attire of women in those days was very distinctive. There was no question as to what was a man's clothing and what was a woman's clothing. My challenge to you is not proof of whether pants on women is right or wrong but whether or not you know what it means to you.

Let's face it the breaking down between the sexes has taken place. We no longer have the distinctions we once had between men and women including the way they dress. Dr. Hyles and others warned us of this danger more than they warned us of women wearing pants. He warned us of the danger of losing the distinction between the sexes. Pants was a symptom of the issue, but many have turned this against those who warned of the true danger.

We've been called legalists because of a standard based upon a Scriptural principle found in Deuteronomy 22:5. We were not trying to set the standard for everyone. There was a time when public schools made the same distinction and female students were prohibited from wearing pants. There was a time when only women that society considered loose wore pants.

I'm not suggesting that's true today, but what I am suggesting there is a Bible principle that we are not discussing honestly. Those who take a position are being ridiculed by those who have no position on a very clear principle.

I remember in 1959 when the PTA of our public school held a meeting discussing whether or not they should promote a "Slack Friday" for the girl students. I have often wondered why they did not allow "Skirt Friday" for the boy students? Now in the public work places it is "Slack Week."

Tell me pastor what should women wear, or does it matter? What should men wear? Does it matter? This is not legalism. This is applying principles to our lives. There's a legitimate reason that we took the positions we took. I'm saddened by the condition of our country, but I am not surprised. Same sex marriage is a result of the casual way we have dealt with issues in our country and even in many churches.

This smacks of a "oneness" move in fundamentalism that wants to absorb all issues into a "distinctness lessoning" position. I read the BLOGS and it worries me that if you take a contrary stand or an aggressive stand on issues you are causing the cause to not dwell in unity. We are not Catholics! We are not a part of a "universal body." When the cause becomes greater than the truth we are on a downward spiral spiritually.

We are a nation that has completely lost its mind and its morality. Yet we are criticizing men who say women shouldn't wear pants, because women are commanded to dress differently than men? How dare you be so concerned about a man who preaches against women wearing pants that you neglect to acknowledge that the distinction between the sexes has been broken. Yet, it is a distinction God gave us.

So, now I put the responsibility back on your shoulders. Tell us what to do? If there's no problem then there's nothing to worry about, but I think we all know there is a problem. Dr. Hyles was right. The unisex movement is a satanic pursuit to blur the lines between the roles and identity of men and women. How do we fix it? What's the standard going to be? Is there going to be no standard? I think it's time to give it a second thought.

If the pastor's wife has no distinction in her dress, then no wonder the pastor has lock-jaw and is like the Ant-Artica and frozen at the mouth. This makes it difficult to lead a local church let alone a movement.

Christians who believe in traditional marriage were shocked at the in your face sodomy display at the NFL draft. The truth is they may have to look in the mirror and figure out what happened to the distinction of the sexes as having laid the foundation for this and other woes. This is NOT hate speech, this is Scriptural speech. We are losing ground because we have lost the distinctiveness God gave us!

David J. Stewart #sexist jesus-is-savior.com

Feminism is not the same thing as women's rights, people sometimes get these confused. Every woman is entitled to her rights. Feminism is rebellion...rebellious women refusing to submit to their husbands (or refusing to marry at all). Feminazis like to help destroy other marriages (especially marriages that are new or struggling). Often, feminists refuse to marry (and resent any woman who is happily married). The feminazi movement in America is trying to castrate men by weakening their authority. The idea that it takes a man to do certain jobs is constantly under attack by the feminists. It offends feminist women when I say that I don't believe a woman belongs in The White House. Like it or not ladies, men and women are different. There's just some things that women can do better than men...and some things that men can do better than women. God made men to lead, it comes natural for them. Women are natural followers. For a woman to try to lead men is silly, she is taking on the disposition of a man. I have met a few "He-women" (the opposite of a He-man) in my lifetime. These are the "toughies." These are the feisty women who like like to start fights, run their mouths and cause trouble for men. These feminist women act like little babies because they have never grown up in their minds. They are immature. You can be liberated.

Woman are always poor leaders over men. The women who are successful leaders have lost their femininity and act more like business men than women. The price to pay to be a career woman is very high. I read about women freezing their eggs and holding off on having children until their careers are over. How insane can you get? God wants women to marry, bare children, guide the house, and live above reproach (1st Timothy 5:14). Feminism is an insane form of thinking in the mind of a woman.

"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." -1st Timothy 5:14

Sadly, most women in America are fools and have little regards for God or His Word. They have turned aside after Satan and sin.

"For some are already turned aside after Satan." -1st Timothy 5:15

Have you turned aside after Satan? Are you living for self and sin? Do you care at all about God in your life?

It's not an over exaggeration to say that some women literally HATE men with a passion. Some women don't even want to have a baby by a man, they'd rather have artificial insemination and live with another woman. Whoa! Talk about bizarre. The entire lesbian community was created by feminism. Yes, it true! Feminism confuses both women and men about who they are. Feminism is one of the most destructive forces in the United States today, if not the most. It is also the primary cause of divorce. The divorce rate has been steadily increasing ever since the turn of the 20th century. As feminism has crept like disease into our homes, women today rarely wear dresses anymore. Increasingly...American women are becoming arrogant, boisterous, rebellious, hateful, perverted, psychotic, home-wreckers. A virtuous woman is hard to find nowadays.

TFH #fundie dalrock.wordpress.com

[Note: this quote is two comments made back-to-back]

What is stunning to me is the total lack of self-awareness. Consider the following :

1) Women are desperate for men to be more attractive. Their desire for this is greater than a man’s desire for an attractive woman, as evidenced by how women want every aspect of society and government to be rigged to favor them in SMV terms. Men are not remotely near the point where they think that everything should assist them in the sexual market (if men were, then at a minimum, we would have a female-heavy immigration policy). Plus, women really do think that unattractive men (the bottom 70-80%) should have many basic human rights stripped from them, while almost no men say that ugly women should suffer the same just for being ugly.

2) Yet women have no idea how to teach men how to become more attractive. Women infact misguide men, without even knowing that they are misguiding them. I have only ever come across 2-3 women who could discuss parts of Game with enough detachment as to instruct a man about it (and that too, only conveying material that men created and published).

3) So forget the fact that men produce almost 100% of all valuable knowledge, and that women are utterly uninterested in subjects that are serious, profound, and move civilization forward. Even that is not as profound as the fact that 99.99999% of women simply cannot teach a man how to do better with women, despite how a woman’s desire for the most attractive men greatly exceeds even a man’s desire for a 10.

Despite all this, women just cannot teach men to be what women want men to be. Women actually give advice to men that makes them repulsive to women. If women had any grasp of their own psychology, they would at least make Game a subject mandated in public schools or whatever.

This is a damning indictment about how incomplete the female psyche is…..

...

In summary, despite the fact that women are more desperate for highly attractive men than even men are from women who are 9s and 10s (as evidenced by how women think this should be the primary purpose of government, the economy, and judicial system), women, almost without exception, are utterly incapable of guiding a man on how to become more attractive. On the contrary, women give terrible advice that makes men repulsive to women, which in turn frustrates women……

Women just don’t understand how women think. To be this inobservant, this incapable of actually guiding men on what women really find attractive, despite how badly women want this…. This makes it impossible to think highly of the female intellect…

No wonder just about every successful society that ever existed realized that ‘tingles’ had to be deprioritized into utter oblivion, because there is just about no greater waste of resources and productivity, and no greater fountain of perverse incentives….

Various commenters #sexist reddit.com

Re: Because your degree matters more to women then your personality apparently.

image

A Good Man Is Getting Even Harder to Find

Women with college degrees outnumber men by a significant margin. That means trouble for the future of love and relationships, writes Gerard Baker.

(wazzoz99)

I remember a few years ago, if anyone ever discussed the “hypergamy” question in the context of the earnings gaps and why it’s sometimes necessary on public forums , you would have immediately gotten the misogynist or even the incel label, for suggesting that men must outearn women for a rational reason. Now, as more empowered progressive women ironically complain about men not meeting traditional and sexist expectations, hypergamy is no longer a taboo topic to discuss. Although it’s important to note that no one in the liberal feminist leaning media has mentioned the term hypergamy to describes this phenomena, owing to its problematic links to the manosphere and Redpill philosophy.

Anyway, observing a lot of the so called progressive women who are reaching their early 30s being incredibly vocal about this issue tells me that eventually, we will have a neofeminist/neotraditionalist/5th wave feminist movement that will attempt to address the problems of modern women, one of which is the inability of men to outearn women. This movement will call on men to tolerate women expanding their gender roles and transcending gendered expectations whilst simultaneously calling on men to fulfil their gender roles and expectations for the good of women/western birth rates/marriage rates. And society will condone this inconsistent movement because prioritising female happiness above all else has become a western secular religion. I wonder if future generations of men will comply or will they stand up against hypocrisy and call out women?

(FastFourierTerraform)

Yeah, but not because of the women.

This men unmarried men means that any major problem will shatter our society like a hammer. Women won't be there when the shit hits the fan. And men with no families will prioritize themselves over society--as will literally every single woman.

That's assuming these men don't simply choose to tear civilization down.

We're doing a pretty good job of it right now. This is classic Jordan Peterson. It's incredibly dangerous for society to put so many men in such a shitty position. Even if most of them just wither and die in silence, there's a minority that will lash out, and that has the potential to topple society.

(reKSanity)

This is what happens when liberal schools make it easier for girls to succeed and harder for boys...I’m glad I have a daughter, i can’t imagine having a 14 year old son today.

I’m 34 and married maybe I’m lucky. It seems women want men who:

are older

taller

smarter - higher education

make more money than them

That will be a problem if schools are still making it harder for boys to succeed...girls will need to lower their standard because the only boys who will look at them soon will be beta male feminists...ugh...

(whynotbothey)

A good man means a man with a degree, but he should also be the one cooking in the house because women no longer cook at all, since being in a kitchen as a person with a vagina is very awful and demeaning. one who should shut the fuck up and stand back and never talk back and never, under any circumstance, stand up for his rights, one who should expect his woman to go around and talk about how they have sex and how big his dick is because it’s his body, her friends’ subject of discussion.

Also, you should never address the issue of whether you and your woman are a bit too overweight and should solve it because that means you are controlling her body and shaming her. Maybe cut down on drinking that beer in the evening because you’re a drunk and men who drink are rapists 100%.

And maybe never tell a girl she’s beautiful because that means you’re a creep. Don’t tell her you’re not interested in her either because then you’re a dick. Basically don’t breathe next to them at all because who does that to women?

Fucking hell, I’ve seen way too many posts about relationships lately on reddit and I must say I want to put bleach in my eyes. And i’m a girl.

“Girl, he asked for your number?! That piece of creeping shit!!!”

Now it’s about degrees. Because that was a thing I gave a shit about when I met my man.

But you know, on one hand, it’s good if this type of woman ignores men like these. Dodging a bullet.

(ludwigvonmisess)

Isn't this just biology though? Women are driven by their nature to seek out a mate that has the most resources and highest possible social status, a college degree is one of the main ways you'd gauge that in our society.

Yes, obviously. But feminists claim gender is a social construct and men and women are the same. Further, when men out earn women, they claim to be oppressed. And now that women out earn men, it’s men’s fault there aren’t any good partners.

... are you just trolling or did you legitimately not understand the reason this was posted here?

(The_toast_of_Reddit)

I see a reset where having a high school sweetheart will be in more of a demand than a degree holder. I'm talking about a really dependable man who cares about how his lady is feeling.

Degrees are becoming the next taxi medallion. The car is now worth more than the medallion. There are a lot of nice men who're debt free & working the trades. If there was a college debt reset I could see a flow of woman that want to snag up one of those nice men because they no longer have to worry about debt because at that stage in their life they're looking to settle down.

Basically women in the near future will demand a hallmark channel movie and not a degree.

(dongkong01)

I'm gonna get me a 20 year old village girl when I'm ready to get married (in my home country) . Cos the difference between her at 20 without degree and 23 with degree, is the loss of skin elasticity. Probably the hardest thing to hear for carousel riders

(Hirudin)

Women have outnumbered men in higher education since 1983. It's been a long time since gender-specific education programs have been justified.

Currently, the imbalance in favor of women is greater than the imbalance in favor of men that inspired the passage of Title IX, but the pile of government-sponsored educational freebies for women only just keeps getting bigger.

(Svenskbtch)

We often hear that men feel intimidated by strong - in this context read: better educated or higher earning - women.

To me, this seems like one of those things that most of us believe, but for which there is not by far as much anecdotal or empirical evidence as we would expect.

Rather, from the little I have observed, the problem is more that it is difficult for women to respect lesser earning or lesser educated men. In fact, many of my female friends admit something like this openly. And this appears to be not so much because they are concerned about financial stability (most of them are high-earners in their own right), but rather some kind of deeper, evolutionary drive. In fact, in most of the scarce instances of couples where women are better educated that I know, I sometimes observe a disturbing tendency towards condescension among women. Not because my friends are bad people, but because it frustrates them.

True, better educated men may also be condescending, but the dynamics are different and the effects often innocuous.

The only true exception to this that I know are good friends where she is a specialised surgeon and he a photographer and part-time house husband. She makes a multiple of what he does and runs the household finances. I am not sure how they manage to overcome these instincts, but one idea comes to mind: he is a brilliant photographer, close to the top of his field - the issue is only that it pays much less than hers. So maybe that is why she is able to respect him?

I would love to hear about your anecdotes on this.

(mrmensplights)

also possible that not all guys are secure enough to date girls with higher education or career

I can't believe this kinda thing get's taken seriously. You can bet any argument based on "Men are just insecure" or "Men are just toxic" or "Men are just weak" can always be traced back to anti-male sources. There was never any evidence to back up that claim. It's just feels.

In fact, it's not just feels but projection. Many studies have been done that prove men will marry up or marry down. However, women are hypergamous and have a strong preference for 'marrying up'. Their own behavior mixed with the advantages society bestows upon them has lead to fewer men they prefer to be available. It has nothing to do with men being insecure or male behavior at all. Men are rational actors in the sexual market place. Why in wouldn't men marry up and improve their quality of life? In fact, now that women vastly outnumber men as graduates of universities you see exactly this happening:

Partnership shift. Men are now more likely to marry up

A Record Share of Men Are “Marrying Up” Educationally

Women's progress boosts men who 'marry up,' study says

Men Are Now More Likely Than Women to “Marry Up”

More Men Than Women Are "Marrying Up", A New Study Finds

fschmidt #fundie mikraite.org

In Defense of Feminism

Here I will defend feminism, but not for the typical reasons. In order to understand this post, you must understand these two previous posts of mine:

Human Evolution where I explain why women in feminist cultures are attracted to stupid immoral men.

The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture where I explain how American Christianity failed in the 1800s, meaning lost the ability to impose morality.

In the "Human Evolution" post I explained that women simply choose the type of man who is evolutionarily optimal in the current environment. Let me take this one step further. Probably the most important thing for a woman is which men she has sex with, because this will determine the future success of her genes. Because this is so important, one can reasonably assume that a significant part of a woman's brain is dedicated to this issue. This means that women can intuitively determine which men are genetically "good" much better than men can using analytical reasoning. In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability. When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment. And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.

One of the worst things that can happen to a woman is mating with a genetically unsuitable man. A woman can only have a limited number of children, so who she chooses to be the father of those children is critical. Mating with an unsuitable man is almost like the loss of a child because that child's genetic future is bleak. The word to express this tragedy is "rape". Men badly misunderstand rape because we interpret it from a male perspective. We think that the critical element is violence. This is because for men, violence is a huge risk for our genetic future since many men are killed through violence. But for women, this simply isn't the case. Violence plays a much smaller role in the genetic success of women. So now let's consider a woman in modern culture. If a violent thug forces this woman to have sex with him, is this rape? No it isn't because the violent thug is well suited genetically for modern culture. So there is no issue of mating with a genetically unsuitable man. Now let's consider the case of this woman being seduced into sex by a nice guy who studied seduction techniques. This clearly is rape since nice guys are genetically unsuitable for modern culture. Whether the sex was violently forced or voluntary is irrelevant, all that matters is the quality of the man's genes. In modern culture, any sex with a nice guy is rape regardless of the circumstances because nice guys have unsuitable genes for modern culture.

Throughout history, women have depended on society to protect them including protecting them from rape. Men in society have always played a role in protecting women from mating with unsuitable men. But of course it is ultimately up to women to decide what types of men are unsuitable. In an effective patriarchal society where promiscuity is heavily punished, intelligent moral men are optimal and stupid immoral men are unsuitable. In such a society, women expect society to protect them from stupid immoral men. And similarly, in modern culture where stupid immoral men are optimal and intelligent moral men are unsuitable, women expect society to protect them from intelligent moral men. In both cases, the motive is exactly the same, to protect women from rape, namely sex with unsuitable men. This is why modern society is currently implementing all these strange sexual consent laws. These laws are very well designed to protect women from intelligent moral men.

At this point it should be clear why feminism makes sense for women in modern culture. All feminism is really about is allowing women in modern culture to mate with genetically good men and avoid mating with genetically bad men. Why should women be prevented from this? But now let's move away from women's perspective and consider what is best for humanity.

The optimal society is a moral patriarchal society. In such a society, promiscuity (outside of prostitution) is strictly limited. Women are expected to virgins at marriage. Adultery (sex with another man's wife) is severely punished with the guilty being removed from the gene pool one way or another. Seducing virgins is also punished. In such a society, moral men are the optimal mating choice for women. So women in this society will be attracted to moral men and will consider immoral men to be losers. There is absolutely no chance of feminism occurring in such a society because women there simply wouldn't want it.

Now let's consider what happens when such an optimal society starts to break down. What happens is that for some reason society loses its ability to enforce sexual morality. This means that promiscuity and adultery become a viable evolutionary strategy for men. Women realize this, and these immoral men become exciting for women. And so the evolutionary decay of the society begins.

Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.

What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.

If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture.

(Submitter's note: Emphasis added)

SnowWhiteQueen #racist stormfront.org

Re: Black female university journalist writes that it's racist for White males to exclusively date White females

Where are all of these white men who only date or prefer white women? I seriously doubt any white man ever told her that he only dates white women.

I see white men with black women all the time where I live. It's the latest trendy interracial couple and has been on the rise for about 10 years in my town.

As for this idiot and her whining.

At the root of your exclusion of women of color from your dating pool

All white men should exclude 'women of color' form their dating pool.

Further, straying from white women as your partners of choice could have dastardly consequences that result in the dilution of your family and your own perceived whiteness.

Yes, racemixing will kill off white people. White people need to see that the only thing dating or marrying interracial will do is result in the death of European people. Any white person who doesn't see this or doesn't care is an idiot.

And perceived whiteness? No you fool. European people exist genetically like any other race.

and white privilege is as valuable as gold in a country overflowing with Trump apologists and white resentment.

There you go again getting hung up on this fictional non-existent white privilege and blaming it for why white men choose to date white women. In your stupid ignorant mind the only reason any white man would ever prefer white women is because of white privilege.

Many women of color are encouraged from a young age to use skin-lightening creams, use apps to make their eyes wider and conform to white societal standards of beauty. The entire world is tied into this white privilege.

Boohoo cry me a damn river. Black women are the ones who choose to adhere to these beauty standards. No one forced them to. You black women only whine about white beauty standards because you know that 'black is beautiful' is a bunch of bull**** and an attempt to make black women feel better. There is a very good reason that a whole entire industry exist around making the hair of black women look nothing like real black African hair. And that's because black women know that that black peoples hair is complete crap and they have to change it to look nothing like their natural hair. Don't blame white people for the beauty standards you choose to copy.

Saying that you prefer certain women to others not only reinforces stereotypes about women of color, but white women too. Arguing that you prefer white women based on the presuppositions that white women are inherently more beautiful, passive, kind or financially-stable is — you guessed it — racist!

And not only is it racist, but it’s insincere.

Who cares what black women think is racist? They think everything they don't like or agree with is racist.

It's not a stereotype to say that white women are more beautiful, kind and passive than black women. It's the truth most of the time.

And black women are the last people on earth who should be complaining about stereotyping people or being insincere.

So she's trying to nag and White-Guilt some poor sucker into dating and/or marrying her. Yeah right.

And it'll probably work. I have no doubt some wimpy white male loser will date her. I see it all the time where I live. I can't go anywhere now without seeing some loser white male wimp out with his hideously ugly black girlfriend.

Black females have like a triple race card they play. They get mad when White men won’t date them. They get mad when Black men pretend to like them and then bang them but then leave immediately and turn them into single mothers. They get mad when Black men date White women. But when a Black woman is somehow able to date a White man, they oooohh and aaahhh over it like it is the most amazing thing on earth, because they know that the best a person can get for themselves is a White. Black women (and men too, but mostly women) were the most hysterical about Meghan Markle marrying Prince Harry. It was all they talked about on Twitter for months. They think that just because we have now broken some kind of magical race barrier because a sheboon married a White prince, that somehow this fantasy can possibly happen for them too. They believe that maybe White men may be more open to dating them now because of Prince Harry. But that was a one time fluke, and Harry most likely has undetected tumors or cysts in his brain that caused a severe lapse in judgement. Either way. They are already having marital problems, even the lying Jew press admits it here and there. I don’t expect them to last more than five years, even though they are now unfortunately having a kid together. Blacks are even saying on Twitter that they hope the kid comes out really dark skinned, just to rub some more crap into the Royal family’s face. They really can’t get over this psychotic love and hate thing they feel for us.

Black females are a bunch of hypocrites. When it's white women dating black men they whine about how white women are stealing black men from black women. As if black men can't decide who they want to date and have to be manipulated into dating white women. But when it's black women dating white men that's ok, not a problem at all.

They see black women dating and marrying white men as a way to get back at white women who they can't stand, as a way to push black women as being better, more attractive and more desirable than white women and as a way to get their filthy hands on the white man's bank account. For black women dating or marrying white men is about revenge and money.

Some white men will go along with this and date or marry black women, if only because it makes white men look progressive and anti racist. Throwing their genetics into a pile of dung all so they can be seen as progressive and get liberal and multicultural brownie points.

It’s already being said that if a man doesn’t date a “transgender woman” he’s a bigot and transphobic.
When You Say “I Would Never Date A Trans Person,” It’s Transphobic. Here’s Why.

I would never date a guy who dated anyone transgender. Eww! That's just nasty. But if white men are stupid enough to date black women then dating trannys is just right around the corner. That will be the next dating trend. Men dating girly dudes instead of real women.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: Dumbass has Tinder experiment with GF....ends predictably

image

(TheVantablackPill)
Wanna know the worst part? I GUARANTEEEE you she is fat. You don't just get an eye opening at 27 unless you are a whale. When you are sexy, you just KNOW.

She is fat & unattractive, probably dating her looksmatch because she believes no one else wants her.

(C0nserve)
Dumbass. Women will hate you if they think you have no options.

There are studies out there that show women actually like married men MORE than unmarried, something about their brains causes them to go for things they couldn't possibly have. Proves that women are status-chasers.

(jeremyjimmy)
Yep! That's exactly it. Even decent looking guys get almost no matches, he's so fucking stupid for thinking he's just able to do a normal experiment with a girl as if she'll react like a guy and go "wow, unfair double standards, that's horrible."

Her brain, predictably, goes to "holy shit I can exploit this, how did I not realize this shit? Why am I with this fucking loser?"

(feministsonredditare)
They're are literally insects, and share a hive mind. That's why they're all attracted to the same things (and roasties wont be able to argue this in the future when male designer babys all look the same and are the same height), and why they all have the same favorite sexist insults.

(Votetojudge)
Women are very insecure compared to men. They have minimal reason to try and be different than other women, because most men by far have no interest in or attraction to a woman’s status compared to other women’s. When women try to be different, it’s almost always in a way that some other women around them are already doing. They follow trends to feel safe because they are obsessed with what other people think of them at all times.

(livear)
All your life you think women are so fucking complicated.

Turns out they are primitive and mercenary, and all that energy was spent trying to turn a blind eye and not understand.

Understanding is easy, internalizing that all women are like that is heart-wrenching.

(lurkingnormie987)
Men are objects to women, like clothes. Women only value men for our ability to make themselves feel superior to other women. They dont really care about us, they basically just seek to use us to improve their own status.

She sees that other women apparently dont want him, so she automatically loses attraction for him. She now sees him as inferior, its over for him. Women treat clothes the same way: She sees she can afford to get a higher value, more name brand handbag, so her current regular handbag now seems pathetic. She sees other women dont want to wear her current handbag and now feels less good about wearing it herself.

Do you think AWALT? This behavior sounds rather primitive, it’s hard to believe there aren’t women who value a loving partner and won’t just lose interest because his perceived value drops.

I think that so many women are like this that awalt is a fair thing to say. Enough women are like this, that saying awalt isnt a large exaggeration.

Women are wonderful effect - Men never want to see women for how they observably are if its negative. Men project their masculine way of feeling love onto women and this is largely wrong. Men are not attracted to a womans status, but status means so much to women.

(Tyronesthrowaway)

Women know men want them. What she didn't know was no women want him

Accurate. Most women really think most men have similar options as females. Its a combination of apex fallacy and a victim complex that wont let them accept that men could have it harder than them.

(Administrative_Worth)

She will cheat on him in 2 months max

it'll start slow, where she can maintain her belief in her own morality. Just re download tinder to see if the same results hold up. Oh they do. Well there's no harm in chatting to the guys and seeing their experiences. Oh they are so ncie and friendly and handsome. I've told them I have a BF. Oh they still want to have coffee. Well I just I can meet one or two just as friends. Oh they are so charmng in real life. Oh I just want to kiss him, I know it's bad but I can't help it. Alright I'll go see your place but no sex. Oh now I'm riding your cock half an our later. Well it was all just an innocent string of accidents, I don't need to tell BF, what he doesn't know won't hurt him.

Describes 99.99% of cheating women. fuck, this sub has telepathy or what? JFL at inceltears for thinking this sub doesn’t understand females.

I actually ascended for a short period of my life before become a disabled/cripplecel. Brutalblackpilling. Seeing how women justify things to themselves to preserve plausible deniability.

Then overnight, hardly being able to move, post an injury, and the look of disgust they would give me. The minute the value perceptions change, it's over. Doesn't matter who you are inside, you just lost societal value. She could honestly care if you go die in a hole.

(jeremyjimmy)

I don't want to dislike women but fuck shit like this makes it so hard.

I said something similar recently. I was never a misogynist but it's like women are trying to change me into one.

IceMountainFire #sexist icemountainfire.wordpress.com

[NOTE: Posting this in two parts to make it at least somewhat readable.]

Men Are Not Broken [Part 1]

Looking back on my posts so far, I realise I have written a lot about how liberal feminists are failing other women, and relatively little about the root cause of the miserable state the planet is in: Men.

There is a reason for that. Men are utterly unimportant to me. There is nothing to be expected from them.Writing about what anti-feminist women and men should do is pointless. Anti-feminist women make choices I can only view with disgust and contempt; a sentiment that without a doubt is mutual. And men? Men can’t change.

Their fundamental set-up is faulty. When a man does horrible things to girls and women, he is doing what his very nature commands him to do. Men can’t be reformed, they can’t be reasoned with, and they can’t be fixed. They are not broken.Their lack of intelligence, depth and human emotion is built-in. Even ?matriarchal? societies suffer from men’s inbuilt shortcomings.

Men are biologically brittle. Their Y chromosome is a joke, and their rates of life expectancy, disease, injury, addiction, education failure etc are evidence for their fundamentally faulty design. They can manage to somehow keep the upper hand as long as they manipulate the stakes against women. But even the most timid changes towards some sort of fairness (never mind liberation) make women outrun men in no time. Boys and men are not failing at school and university because these places all of a sudden have become matriarchal habitates, as certain anti-feminists suggest. They fail because as a group they are less intelligent than women. Boys and men excel only when they get to manipulate the testing method: They create IQ tests to favour white Western males, they give each other Nobel prizes and trump this as ?proof? for their intelligence. IQ tests and Nobel prizes are tightly monitored instruments. But schools and unis exist all over the world, with millions of teachers and billions of students. Schools and unis are not controlled by a relatively small gate-keeping elite like the Nobel prize committees or the opinion leaders in the field of psychology who have the power to declare one test valid and to disregard another. Schools and unis can’t be controlled as tightly, and so boys and men are failing in them. I wonder how badly they’d fare if the schools were indeed female-centered.

Even the most intelligent of men are still incredibly dense. Talk to science phDs or techies. I had to do with this demographic more than I ever wanted, and their sheer ignorance often took my breath away. Context, history, depth, complexity, ambiguity and beauty are completely lost to them. It is like talking to vaguely human-like machines. I suspect that this is the reason why so many men are drawn to machines, instruction manuals and lifeless things.

At this point men usually come up with the last two arguments for their existence: Physical strength and sperm. They argue that they are needed for the hard work (or, according to delusional anti-feminists, ?exploited? to do the hard work) and that without them ?mankind? will die out.

But reality shows that all this male strength and sperm is completely wasteful and unnecessary. If tomorrow all men fell down and were dead, the biggest problem would be the stink. Sperm banks would enable the surviving women to bring just enough men into the world to stock up the banks again. There would be far less people on earth, but they would live in peace.

As for strength, nobody needs to be able to lift hundreds of kilograms. It is just not necessary. Make smaller loads and go the way twice. Or build a tackle. There is no industry – including the notorious mining industry which regularly is brought up in such discussions – impossible to function with exclusively female workers. In the very moment men step back or vanish from the picture, women do fine for themselves. Mining, metal work, construction work, fishing, hunting, making timber, finance, business, women simply don’t need men. The truth is, that men are actively keeping women from learning ?male? skills and from working in ?male? professions. By this they secure their financial dominance and keep women dependant on them.

And if that doesn’t help, they use violence.
Men are violent and predatory by nature. Even little boys and very old men are violent. Ask the family of Jamie Bulger (1). Other boys may not kill random toddlers, but they terrorise girls or torture animals. A male toddler squashing ants or dragging around the family dog by the tail isn’t even perceived as violent by most people. A boy hitting, insulting, bullying and harrassing his sister is not perceived as violent – siblings quarrel, that’s just how things are, and boys will be boys.

As for old men, not even physical weakness stops them from attacking girls and women. There is a reason why the phrase ?dirty old man? exists. With the onset of the general mental decay so typical for aging men, their self-control slips and they start to make mistakes. Every ?dirty old man? used to be a dirty young man who just was quick-witted enough to cover up his crimes, and every dirty young man is a grown up violent boychild.

Last year, there were two men prowling my neighbourhood and bashing in women’s heads from behind. One of them was 21 years old and used a crowbar in order to steal money and phones. The other one was 89 (!) years old and used a wooden meat hammer. His reasoning? He married a woman from Thailand 30 years his junior. When he abused her, she divorced him and moved back to Thailand. This made him so angry that he sneaked up on random women and hit them in the head with the meat hammer he specifically bought for this task.

No amount of oppression, weakness or illness keeps men from being violent and predatory.

Logically, men adore death. They bring death. They like death. They like dead things.
Men see women as things, as useable goods, as animated corpses. Some don’t even bother with ‘animated’. Men admit openly in the media that they prefer pornography over sex, as if the women raped on the screen weren’t real. Men work hard to develop realistic sex robots or wife robots (2). Men literally will rape dead women.

.
.
.

Men are usually very much aware that they are scum. Their delusions of grandeur and the demands towards women to cater to them are a reaction to this deep inner awareness of their inferiority. Occasionally men even will admit that they are scum.
Commenters on this article did it: http://valleywag.gawker.com/peter-thiel-admits-the-paypal-mafia-built-bombs-in-hi-1632734435
Look how many commenters casually point out that it is normal for teenage boys to build bombs just for the fun of it.

Dave Armstrong #fundie patheos.com

Truly obscene, crude, sexually-oriented language is beneath the standards of the Bible and the Catholic Church. The way some (many!) talk today was confined to locker rooms, bars, and bachelor parties when I was in college 35 years ago (and mostly just to men). And I think that was a good thing.
Oh, for sure we had Woodstock and George Carlin and R-rated movies and punk rock. But it wasn’t everywhere; in-your-face, mainstream, on TV, inane, and obscene hip hop songs blaring from the next car over at the gas station . . . People instinctively knew that it was to be confined and strictly limited. It was “behind closed doors.” It wasn’t the stuff of public articles and Thanksgiving dinners. People were scandalized in 1972 when they learned (through the notorious Watergate tapes) that President Nixon said “GD.” They really were! It wasn’t just prudes and 70-year-old ladies in purple tennis shoes who taught Sunday School. I’m old enough (58) to personally remember all that.

Society has regressed, as it has in so many other ways. Now women can swear like sailors or pimps (even publicly, even in Catholic circles!). “You’ve come a long way, baby.” People not only see nothing wrong with that, but wonder how anyone possibly could, as if objection to it were the strangest thing in the world and confined to the most ridiculous, antiquated, almost self-parodied “fundamentalists.” Thank God for Netflix, used DVDs, and many cable channels, so parents can still get good quality TV and movies for the family, amidst the nearly universal cultural decline of language.

I think it’s pathetic and disgraceful. Men have so looked up to women and admired them, traditionally, precisely because we feel they are on such a higher level (morally) than we are: the finer creatures. It’s why there is such a huge fuss made about Mother’s Day, while I always joke that Father’s Day is about on the level of Groundhog Day. “Mom, baseball, and apple pie”, etc. I have always sincerely believed this. If that’s now considered old-fashioned and quaint, so be it. Count me in. It used to be called “chivalry” till the radical feminists (not feminism per se) did all they could to mock and destroy it as a cultural norm. My wife and all the women I admire are up on the pedestal.

St. Paul stated that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; RSV). It’s not an unequal scenario at all. We’re equals under God. I’m not advocating at all that there should be a double standard: with women held to a higher level. Let’s get that straight. A few people on Facebook, reading an early version of this post mistakenly thought that.

I’m not against women having freedom to act as they please, as men do. I’m disappointed when they become coarse and crude like so many men are. What a shame. Why in the world would women seek to emulate men’s worst characteristics? Even the Catholic / Christian / cultural notion that one doesn’t speak a certain way “in mixed company” is now lost. That was out of respect for women, in deference to them as finer creatures: not as crude and vulgar as men are. Now women join right in, and talk the same way themselves!

We all fall short in many ways. I’m not talking about the occasional slip, use of strong language in an outburst of passion, or in tragic situations, exclamations when we hit our head, etc., not even the relatively minor “swear words” (though obviously those should be tempered in any sort of professional or church setting), but rather, about brazen, consistent use, vulgarity, obscenity, sexual gutter language, and (above all) trying to rationalize it away as a non-issue, as if it is perfectly fine, and unfathomable that a Catholic organization would ever consider dismissing a writer on the grounds of persistent bad and insulting language.

My friend Patti Sheffield, on my Facebook page, outlined some of the biblical data regarding proper language:

"Ephesians 5:1-5 is pretty explicit on the conduct expected of Christians, and verse 4 specifically condemns “obscenity or silly or suggestive talk”, not just taking God’s name in vain. Ephesians 4:29 [“Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear”], included in the list of rules for new Christians, explicitly forbade foul language. James also warned in his writing that we must learn to bridle our tongues. That means, simply put, have a filter. If someone is going to proclaim the Gospel (by being an apologist or a writer), then at least, have a filter."

"If we can’t be bothered to do that, we’re just conforming ourselves to the world instead of transforming it in Christ. And as Christ warns us in Matthew 12:36-37, we will be called to account for every careless word we make, and that will be a big factor in our final judgment. Why risk it for the sake of what some call humor?"

And let’s not forget the sage, stinging advice in the book of James:

"James 3:3-11 If we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies. [4] Look at the ships also; though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. [5] So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! [6] And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell. [7] For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, [8] but no human being can tame the tongue — a restless evil, full of deadly poison. [9] With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. [10] From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. [11] Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish?"

Again, I’m not saying that women are held to one ethical standard and men to another: the old ridiculous double standard. No! It is us admiring women because they voluntarily chose to be more moral than we knew ourselves to be. It has to do also with men and women being fundamentally different in the first place. Ideally, we look up to each other, because of the complementarity that God designed.

The Catholic tradition is what taught the beauty and necessity of waiting till marriage, while the sexual revolution has brought us wonderful things like ubiquitous pornography. That really raises women’s stature in the eyes of men, doesn’t it? We need to understand what chivalry is in the first place and what has gotten our society into the sad, pathetic state it is now, after 50 years of wonderful sexual liberation. Everyone’s ecstatically happy, aren’t they? Families and marriages are better than they have ever been. Not! How’s the culture doing on marriage and treatment of women, post sexual revolution? How well has that pitiful social experiment / wholesale rebellion against sane, sensible tradition worked out?

As long as women continue to give out the “benefits” without demanding the commitment, we’ll be in the mess we’re in. That’s just about the root of it: caving into mens’ sinful sexual desires and emotional manipulations. It’s what has caused illegitimacy rates in the inner cities to rise to an astounding 80%. That and the broken home that usually results are some of the leading sociological indicators (my major) of poverty and a life of misery.

In practice, traditionally, women have been more moral sexually than men have been. Whether that was due to the double standard or the fear of pregnancy or the social stigma, or actually understanding the goodness of waiting till marriage, or various combinations of the above, it is a demonstrable fact. That has now mostly broken down.

And in practice, traditionally, women controlled their language much better than men did. All I’m saying was that men admired that. You admire what someone does better than yourself. I’m not in any way, shape, or form saying that men get a bigger pass and have less responsibility to follow Scripture and the Church. I’m simply describing the usual sinful reality of it. It’s the distinction between prescription (the should and ought) and description (the actual fact).

I still think women have the edge in sanctity: in practice. But radical feminism and unisexism are working very hard to make sure that women are equally as sinful as men in all areas. For the most radical feminists, their working philosophy has been to “hate men and to simultaneously do everything possible to be exactly like them in every way.” Sort of the “identifying with the oppressor” routine.

Language is one of these areas. Premarital sex is another. This is my point. There used to be a pronounced difference [no pun intended!] in how women talked. So we men admired them for that. Now that distinction is rapidly diminishing, and I think it’s a shame, because it means that women are relatively more sinful (as a generalization) in this area than they used to be, and that’s a very sad thing and a loss of yet another element of Catholic tradition and the traditional relationship between the sexes.

Feminism (mainstream, not radical) actually gives credence to my argument here, by its own rhetoric and self-understanding. If women are not higher creatures than men in some sense, how is it that feminists are (and indeed the thrust of the secular culture also is) always urging men to be more like women: more sensitive, nurturing, and communicative in particular? This presupposes that women have these traits that men desperately need to learn and emulate. Now how could that be if women were not indeed “higher” than men, for whatever reason, in those respects? And that leads back to my point. We look up to y’all because you really do have characteristics that we lack.

It can work both ways, though. My wife often complains about groups of women going right into gossip and complaining about their husbands. This is a major fault in women, and one where they can learn from the generally better example of men. Men almost never run down their wives in public; hardly even in private, one-to-one. They instinctively regard that as low-class, cheap, utterly inappropriate, and a bad reflection on them (since they chose to marry this woman). It’s just not done. So this is an instance where women could be raised up a bit by imitating what men almost always do. Both genders have their characteristic besetting sins. I would say that the biggest ones are lust for men and nagging / complaining for women.

But this is another instance of women themselves thinking they are superior to men. If they didn’t, the many women who do this wouldn’t sit there for hours gossiping about their husbands and assuming they are dolts who “don’t get it” and who don’t grasp the simplest things, like being able to openly, honestly express their feelings (like most women do), and often assume at the same time naively, foolishly assume that they are perfectly innocent as to the origin and continuance of various marital difficulties: as if it doesn’t take two.

Of course, historically, there was indeed the dreadful double standard, with the “good girls” and the “bad girls.” That was because men demanded immoral sex (this being our leading fault). It was very wrong, and it was primarily men’s fault. There will always be women willing to take advantage of men’s weakness and leading sin, for profit. Hence, prostitution.

Likewise, the Victorians went too far in terms of being anti-sex (though this is often exaggerated). The devil exploits everything to his ends. If a culture adopts a fairly Christian outlook that premarital sex is wrong, then there will be the tendency, because of sin, to go too far and get to the place where sex is regarded as “dirty” and “evil”: even marital sex.

That was what started ancient gnosticism. But this isn’t the Catholic position. The Church Fathers strongly tended towards this error, too. I’ve read them. I compiled three books of their quotes. They were opposing the rampantly sexual pagan Romans, and so they sometimes went too far in the other direction. This is the human tendency, and the devil exploits it to the max. The true biblical view is found in the Song of Solomon: unashamed sexuality within the bounds that God set for us, for our own good and pleasure.

IllimitableMan #sexist reddit.com

Men are superior to women and therefore have more responsibilities than women. Women are superior to children, and therefore have more responsibilities than children. Superiority means "leadership over" due to increased maturity and reason, it does not come with a connotation of hate. Women do not hate children because they're superior to them in the same way that men do not hate women because they're superior to them. Although plenty of men have their hang-ups with women (just as the reverse is true.) Men are more mature than women, who are more mature than children. This is about a hierarchy of maturity, of which men are at the top. The less mature you are, the less reasonable you are. You wouldn't want an immature person in charge of you, and assuming you found someone competent, you wouldn't say you were equal to the person in charge of you.

The problem with people today is women have been told it's bad to let a man be in charge of them, and men have been told to treat women as equal partners rather than subordinate dependants they care for. You are superior, and you have to be in order to be eligible. That's reality. For the sake of ego preservation on her part, she will want to think of herself as your "first mate" or "partner", but you're not the captain, you're the ship. Without you there is nothing, no base nor foundation. She relies on you VASTLY more than you rely on her, and any functional relationship between a man and a woman is always based on this model.

It doesn't mean she's not important, it means you're depended upon more than you depend on her. It means the distribution of burden is disproportionate in order to reflect your difference in maturity, your burden is greater because her need is greater, her need is greater because she is more immature, and by extension of being less mature, less competent. In fact, it's dangerous for you to depend on her emotionally, but the reverse is perfectly acceptable and fine. This is the burden that comes with being at the top of the maturity hierarchy. Emotional loneliness. Accepting you cannot confide all your deepest secrets and fears, not unless you're a schmuck who wants to see your relationship fall to shit. Women are so upset they're not really equals that they're completely ignorant to the fact that not being the final person everybody depends on is a privileged position.

That when push comes to shove, women want someone to lean on and someone to blame, that true equality to men is something they could never handle. Like a child who wants to stay up late and eat unlimited amounts of candy, they only see the privileges of being a man, not the burdens. Notice how women always go on about maturity in a way men don't seem to give a fuck about They're like the damn maturity police. This reminds me of little kids who insist they're grown-ups out of insecurity. "Women are equal to men!" touted by women is the same infantile narcissism as a child claiming "I'm not a little kid anymore!". It stems from the desire to be taken seriously by people you're less mature and capable than. This is all ego, remember you will find the truth in action rather than words, for in words they claim equality to man, but in action they demand superiority from him. In relation to the statement "women are children", this is hyperbole, what /u/redpillschool concretely means is "women are childlike" - if they weren't, you wouldn't want them. Feminine charm comes from a certain present-orientation, feminine beauty comes from a lack of ageing.

Women play up innocence and play down their cunning because this is what makes them attractive to men. Innocence is an inherently childlike quality. Men don't try to seem innocent because it's not masculine, things that are childlike are inherently unmasculine, but they aren't unfeminine. Why? Because women are closer to children than men. Stop thinking this is some way of talking women down or some sad attempt at dehumanisation. It isn't. It's a truism regardless of whether it suits your sensibilities. Shrewd women constantly leverage the appearance of innocence to get people to help them. Women pout, men don't. Women have strops, men don't. Women cry more than men. Women are less rational than men. In summary: women are more mature than children, but less mature than men. You can teach a woman to behave well, but she is still a woman and so requires discipline in the same way a child does. She craves it. She will not "be good" because "she's a good woman" she will only "be good" because you convey authority, and in order to convey authority, you must be superior, superior meaning more mature and more competent. This is the natural order of things. Egalitarianism is an indoctrinated ideal, it is normal to you because you grew up brainwashed by feminist garbage, but it is not normal in nature, and it is not indicative of reality.

Women's childlike qualities are not just physical (smaller, less hair etc), but their neonatality is likewise echoed mentally. The hottest women have greater neonatal traits than uglier ones. She's not your psychological equal. You can love her, care for her, even depend on her for small things, but she's not your equal and never will be. As Schopenhauer said, she is somewhere between a child and an adult, an adolescent perhaps. If you can't accept that, if you need to believe in the feminine ego porn that she's your equal in every which way, fine. But that doesn't mean TRP is wrong, it means you're unable to accept an aspect of reality that discomforts you.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: Why even try as a manlet

image

(Nigrum-Turcam)
They aren't like this in real life, especially if they have no buddies around to back them up. If I was even a quarter as cruel as them I would bully them into submission but I don't. It's all so tiresome.

(Incelebrity)
and if fake-up was banned they would be their timid selves a lot more too

ever seen some foids irl without makeup? they dont act up for shit because they know they look ill in comparison to their usual masked selves

(IqRaterMan)

A lot of insecure women gravitate to social media specifically for validation, and taking the piss out of men for things we cant control is a great, socially acceptable way for them to achieve some validation with minimal risk from other like minded insecure women. Lots of men would do the same thing, but its not socially acceptable for men to "body shame" women. Nobody checks women for seeking validation and approval this way, so they gravitate towards this method as it is a low effort way for them feel better about themselves.

When it comes to people like her, its better to take their opinions for granted. Insecure height queens like this are an extremely vocal minority of women that are distorting how most women actually look at men. Most of the time if a girl likes your face and how you carry yourself she wont care about your height.

For a second I thought this was r/short or something, these are cope levels that shouldn't be possible. All women care immensely about your height. I actually haven't met a single woman in over two decades who has answered even "maybe" to the question "would you date someone your height or shorter?"

(Watchwhattheydo2)
The only way a short guy can attract foids is if he’s really good looking, or has a big dick, or is famous/high status. Otherwise it’s betabux.

Normal regular short guys all struggle immensely with women unless they betabux an alpha widow, and even now that’s less common as chad harems/poly relationships are beginning to normalize.

Women don’t want no short short man, they hate them and seriously see them as inferior. All foids see short men as a fate reserved for inferior women who lost at the game of love and are forced to settle. If a male is short, he seriously isn’t even a real man to women.

I went through his post history, at the least he’s delusional, at most he’s humble bragging about his success with women.

The worst part about being a shortcel is that both inceltears and braincels deny the heightpill. You're the ones coping: https://old.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/a3hq0u/the_ultimate_heightpill_compilation/

All women care about is how big a man is, how good looking a man’s face is, how big his dick is, and how much money he has. Lmao men need to wake the fuck up, women don’t love men.

It’s more important to be tall or well hung than it is to be a good person when it comes to attracting women. The fact that the exact opposite is what people want to believe is pure women are wonderful effect delusion.

Men are trying to deny what’s plainly in front of their faces lmao. Men need to wake the fuck up.

(Votetojudge)

Tell me how what I said is cope.

Because most women by far are like the woman in this post and you don’t want to believe it.

If men started body shaming women, guys would pop up to defend women. Women dont defend short guys because they are silently agreeing. If this foid was talking about tall men in a derogatory way other women would probably shame her.

You are in denial, most modern women literally value men as status objects and height is a big part of a man’s status to women, particularly today. If a guy is short today, almost all women disqualify him right off the bat, because his stature prevents them from getting the status out of a bf they all feel they deserve.

Some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

(GonnaNutInYourButt)
I think we need to recognize that women's online communities are radicalizing women into holding harmful beliefs about men.

The number of communities for women online absolutely dwarfs the number of men's communities. There are women's communities for just about anything you can imagine. Some of them welcome men, usually under the condition that the men not contradict their comments. Others actually exclude men entirely.

But the more I see these communities, the more I feel that they have a radicalizing effect on women who visit them to discuss women's issues. There are three especially alarming trends on them.

(1) The nonstop posts about men doing bad things to or around them

Reddit is home to the largest women's community on the internet. Since its creation, there have been thousands--possibly tens of thousands--of posts made about men engaging in all sorts of bad behavior.

Right now, if you visit the front page of that community, you will see the following posts:

A boy sexually assaulting a girl.

A woman stepping in to stop a domestic violence incident with a man losing control of his temper.

A post about women regretting giving men their phone numbers.

A woman about her relationship troubles with men and their unreliability.

A woman getting catcalled/sexually harassed outside of an adult store.

A woman with persistent dreams about close male friends of hers raping her.

I'm legitimately just reading down the list of top posts there right now. These are the top six.

Of course, it is natural that someone may want to discuss something that happened to him/her, but we have to take a couple of things into account. The first and most important is that a forum being spammed with these posts in a flood of examples of the wrongdoings of a social group is going to affect people's outlook on that group. If you were to do the same thing about Black people, your subreddit would be indistinguishable from the long-banned coontown and other knockoff communities.

In addition, you have to take everything you read on the internet with grain of salt. I'm not saying that all women lie, but I am saying that of the posts made on any women's board, there are going to be an enormous number of lies. People engage in attention seeking behavior online constantly. It is safe to call the internet a never ending stream of liquid bullshit with a few true stories mixed in here and there. Even a story that is based on a real life happening is often doctored and details are added in order to make a more entertaining tale. Not only do you have constant stories about bad men doing bad things and nobody stepping in, but many of them are either completely fabricated or partially altered to look especially dastardly.

It's purely and simply an echo chamber that indoctrinates women. Feminists will, by the way, frequently point at stories posted to these communities as evidence of #YesAllWomen.

(2) The enabling

One of the most difficult issues to tackle in men's rights related issues is the fact that women have in-group biases multitudes stronger than men's. In simple language, women love women, and are far more tolerant of their bad behavior than they are of men's.

Reddit is not as bad as many other women's communities, but the amount of enabling that occurs in these communities--usually in regards to male/female relationships where the woman is clearly wrong but her compatriots assure her that she's right--can turn even the strongest of stomachs.

Men's bad behavior is typically exaggerated, highlighted, and has a spotlight pointed on it. Women's bad behavior is minimized and excused.

(3) The outright hostility towards male posters

Have you ever been ganged up on in a discussion about women's issues by women?

Obviously it's not something that will hurt the average guy's feelings, as usually the feminists shrieking at you are barely coherent and usually just calling you an incel, but this affects the way that women inside of these communities will view men outside of them as well. Here's an example of a comment string I've seen, slightly paraphrased to avoid Googling:

(+5000~ post) Manbabies mad about Gillette's ad

(-141 comment) Isn't calling men manbabies just encouraging what you call toxic masculinity? That's hypocrisy.

(+274 response) Shouldn't you be on an incel subreddit right now?

We're all perfectly aware that feminists feel entitled to engage in any coordinated harassment of any man, and it's not like the real misandrists will ever change their way of thinking. But the onlookers who actually don't hate men can gradually be indoctrinated to by this sort of attack.

Conclusion/TLDR

Women's online communities are unbelievably toxic, and they constantly reinforce negative stereotypes about men. Yet nobody bats an eye at them.

I think the only "issue" with MGTOW at the minute is this obsession with feminists. Far be it from me to tell you chaps what to do (It's Men going THEIR own way) but I think this emphasis is pointless.

Feminism/sisterhood is a cult. I'd no longer try and convert a creationist to Darwinism than I would to a feminist to equalism.

It's their church, it's their nice comfy blanket which tells them whatever they do it's not their fault. It's an excuse, a safety net, a shield. It's a way of ensuring no accountability for their actions, it's a way of demanding society shifts to their expectations whilst never having to pick up a spade and help dig the fucking foundations. They actively want to put themselves in the same bracket as children, and demand the same protections (whilst substituting their parents for government.) No one likes to admit when they make poor life choices, feminism gives them an out. Can you not see why it's attractive to them? As men we don't or at least shouldn't do that. Make a poor life choice? Fucking learn from it brother and come back stronger, don't whine to strangers on the internet.

They need those sorts of communities (online or in real life) because they're pack animals. They cannot do a single thing for themselves without demanding validation. They love sharing problems rather than dealing with them because it lavishes them with attention, which is a woman's number one goal in life.

If we are MGTOW, do just that. They want these radical beliefs noticed because guess what? Attention. Much like a teenager wearing clothing their parents feel is inappropriate, these women want any sort of attention good or bad. They want it from their peers first, and men as an added bonus. Let them have their communities. So fucking what? They achieve the square root of fuck all 95% of the time with their various demands. By all means read, digest and deconstruct, but only if it adds value to YOUR well being. Never engage with that bullshit. I couldn't give a badgers dick on my toddlers opinions on the socio-political state of the country right now, so why would I care on a woman's? If you have the burning desire to engage, don't. Not your circus, not your monkey's.

As far as I am concerned, the more of these communities the better. If it stops them fucking moaning about how hard their lives are and how shit their interpersonal relationships are in mixed public spheres where I might come across it by accident it will be totally worth it.

TLDR: SO WHAT? WHO GIVES A SHIT?

Never apologise. Never explain

I'm afraid your point is missing a whole lot.

Women, both qualified and unqualified, are being put into positions of power faster than ever before. This is partially because it is an easy and brainless way to make a company look good.

On top of that, because of the systemic discrimination against men in schools, the proportion of male to female graduates - those put into positions of authority in the future - is going to grow more and more skewed towards women.

This isn't something we can ignore. The women undergoing this indoctrination are going to be the teachers, managers, doctors, CEOs, and world leaders of the future. They're going to be the ones pushing men to the farthest outskirts of society and punishing boys for being born the wrong sex.

I know that if my son's teacher had participated in man hating communities online I wouldn't want her (or him) to be anywhere near my son. It would be like an incel teaching your daughter ballet.

It's not as simple as what you're making it out to be.

(user_miki)
Women abuse each other ,much more than men abuse women.

If you think correctly, feminist women especially the ugly ones abuse normal women(nicer ones) by brainwashing and scaring them into submission with this appalling ideology.

For me it sounds like...... If I cannot get good looking,provider guys, you cannot have them too.They will not allow it and will shame the other women into submission.For this reason you can see many many nice good looking girl from decent families ,made themselves ugly, with blue hair , tattooed with piercings ..to fit ,be accepted into sisterhood and not offend the other(leaders)with their look.

You are right, it is a cult.Satanic cult.

(Cristi_Tanase)
Oh boy, you don't know half of it. Is not only men, in other parts they even destroy each other.

We had here in Romania a facebook group that had about 75.000 members, most of them women.

This group was supposedly made from "moms", young moms to be exact. And here goes the news.

A gynecologist (male) had seen his wife facebook and read the comments of the "moms" in that group. What that guy seen there was so incredible toxic that he marched right into a news media group and started to vilify the entire group of women.

2 days later, the entire group was deleted

Apparently what happened was a circle-jerk of insults, abuses, open hate, from one mother to another, on various topics related to pregnancy, eating disorders, sleep patterns, kids, child care and so on.

They were simply abusing each other! And we are talking die hard abuses, not just name-calling and insults. They were even violent in real life...

Couple more people stepped in, mostly fathers, a preacher and so on, and couple of posts from this group of "moms" were posted on the media.

The group was deleted in an instant.

Remember, this is woman-on-woman abuse in absence of men! There was absolutely no men involved, most men did not even knew about this group existence, and plenty of women got a ton of abuse (some got sick, others depressed, a ton of them quit the group due to abuse and harassment).

Women-on-women, on-line, on top of that this was a "young mother's support group", you know to offer "help, comfort and advice".

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

7 Ways Modern Women Treat Men Like Dogs

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of ‘Man’s Fight for Existence’. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.

For all the feminist criticism of men supposedly treating women like dogs, it is actually today’s feminism-infected women that are treating men like domesticated animals.

While the majority of women still prefer masculine men for relationships, I’ve been noticing how more and more women today are defying their biology for ideological reasons and are pursuing long-term relationship with men they’re not even attracted to just because they are supplicant and effeminate. If this trend continues unabated, I expect the entire male population to turn into weak and feckless bonobos who grovel around to serve female interests.

Observe the following comparisons to see how men are being turned into dogs for both women and the state:

1. Dogs are optional

Dogs as pets are optional. People get a dog only when they want one; it’s not a necessity. Men today are also increasingly becoming an object of utility for a woman rather than a man whom she forms a bond with for a nuclear family. She will marry a man when she wants to (if at all) and she will dump him when she feels like it.

2. Once attached, dogs offer unconditional loyalty

If you want a picture of what the feminists want from men, just imagine a world where all men are male feminists.

Once dogs have a human to call a master, it doesn’t care whether he is a scumbag, loser, criminal, or homeless. Dogs are faithful no matter who their master is and what he does. In fact, they’re so loyal that they’ll even remain with an owner that mistreats them. And that’s exactly what feminists want men to be.

If you observe the rhetoric of the feminists, you’ll notice two general themes: first, the desire to be free from all criticisms. And second, for men to believe them and “support” them no matter what. Feminists want their prospective low-testosterone boyfriends and husbands to fully accept them for who they are no matter how disgusting, slutty, crass, and toxic they are. They want their men to show unconditional loyalty so that they can openly cheat on them and brag about it. And men, if they don’t want to be called a misogynist, must never question their partner’s past or present behavior and remain faithful even if they’re treated like garbage.

3. Dogs do what they’re told

Once the owner has secured his dog’s loyalty, he can train it to behave on command. Some owners enjoy the power they have over their companions and they will order their dogs around for fun.

Western women today have discovered that there are truck loads of desperate men who will do just about anything for them to win an ounce of female approval. These women have successfully used men to take them out on expensive dinners (only make fun of them on their blogs afterwards), buy pizza for them for free, shovel snow for them, and so on. The women who order these men around like dogs didn’t even have to train them as they’ve already been conditioned from birth by the society to do what women tells them to do.

4. Dogs are treated for good behavior
image
Dogs need to be treated to reinforce good behavior; the same is true when you want to domesticate men as second-rate citizens.

Women understand just how desperate the general male population is for affection and sex. Women today are leveraging this power over men to make them behave the way they want them to, rewarding these simps with faked compliments so that they’ll continue being good boys.

5. Dogs defend their masters
image
One serves a man, the other serves the government and its harem of women.

Besides companionship, the main roles dogs play is to defend their masters. In spite of all the calls for equality, the reality is that women still expect men to defend and save them. The men suffering from white knight syndrome will go as far as sacrificing their own lives to rescue women they don’t even know.

Feminists also don’t mind that many men are serving the police and military force to serve their alpha boyfriend: the government. Women are innately attracted to power and the government is the new protector and provider of women that grows bigger and stronger each day while ordinary men are becoming weaker and irrelevant.

6. Dogs are neutered

Although men aren’t getting physically neutered the way dogs are, other methods are being employed to psychologically castrate men. This includes the epidemic use of ADHD drugs to tame boys, ridiculous laws aimed at controlling men’s sexual interactions with women, and the overall cultural currents to shame masculinity while promoting all sorts of degeneracy that dilute it. Today’s wives don’t even want to get sexual with their husbands.

7. Dogs that are not domesticated are pests

“Masculine men are organizing a meeting? They must be rapists!”

When a dog is not owned by a human being, it is considered a pest that needs to be controlled.

Men today who do not submit to the feminist agenda are constantly attacked as being losers, sexists, misogynists, rapists, and so on. In today’s feminist society, you either serve the female imperative or you’re a Neanderthal who is out of touch with the times. Steps are already being made to control every aspect of male behavior in public.

You should also remember that dogs are natural pack animals (think of their cousins, wolves). By being removed from the pack, they become isolated and dependent on their masters. Can you see how the same applies for today’s men?

The Differences

In addition to being dogs, men are also expected to serve as drones to keep the feminist nanny-state running.

In spite of all the similarities, there are differences that need to be addressed.

First, unlike dogs whose owners house them and feed them, men are not supported by women. Women are free to throw men away like used tampons or divorce their husbands to extract their cash. If anything, men are usually the ones who must provide for their wives.

Second, whereas dogs are under the responsibility of their owners, men are expected to be fully responsible in all their interactions with women. It is the man’s job to ensure that a woman is giving consent even if both parties are drunk; it is men who must watch over their own behavior to ensure that what they say is non-offensive and conforming; and it is men who must ensure that women feel perfectly safe and comfortable in all their interactions. If you so much as walk past a woman in the wrong manner, you’ll be accused of rape. Again, it is the man’s responsibility to ensure that he is acceptable enough to share the same space as women, not the other way around. Feminists want “equality” without accountability.

Are men becoming collectively domesticated?
image
The domesticated cows we see on farms didn’t end up the way they are now naturally. It was through thousands of years of herding and selective breeding that they became smaller, more passive, and accepting of their conditions. But the fact is, it doesn’t take thousands of years to transform entire species. In this article which I recommend you read, a Soviet project to domesticate foxes have shown that it only takes several generations of selective breeding to transform wild foxes into effeminate and tamed versions of themselves.

The global testosterone level around the world has been mysteriously dropping for the past few decades. While chemical toxins in all the products we consume and come in contact with has been given as one possible explanation, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that we as species are gradually becoming emasculated at a genetic level through the selective breeding process. In other words, we are becoming socially engineered to be effeminate. It’s not something impossible when you consider that easily tamable beta males, the sperm donors, are usually the males women select as their mates after they themselves are done riding the cock-carousel. I think it’s a factor we should consider besides the emasculation through cultural degeneracy that we’re already familiar with.

Men are supposed to be men unleashing their primal energy through raw adventure instead of getting tamed into submission. I have no doubt that the systematic domestication efforts of today is what is causing collective male nihilism, depression, and frustrated energy. Men who are awake must allow themselves be men.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[When you actually agree with the feminist argument that domestic violence is political and about control]

A pernicious point of difference amongst men concerned with men’s issues is the debate over violence, and how to approach it. There are those who point out that women are as violent as men in interpersonal relationships, those who scoff at this idea, and even some who condone some degree of violence within relationships (these sorts exist on both sides, of course).

The problem with the violence debate is that the issue of violence has been so thoroughly politicized that we have lost sight of what the argument is really about. Violence is force. Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. It pervades our society, and is how we – Americans in particular – keep people in line. The obsession with violence against women – a considerably smaller problem than violence against men – on the part of feminists is all about “who? whom?” (kto? kogo?).

We can’t honestly discuss violence without acknowledging that violence is a reality that overshadows our lives. Every time we see a cop with a gun, a patrol car, a prison and even a courthouse we are reminded that we are subject to the state’s violence if we incur its wrath.

Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law, which is why one of the founding principles of the American republic was that the use of force against the state is justified when it sets itself above the law and in opposition to The People.

If we are to follow the logic of the law, therefore, we must accept that we are all subject to violence if we behave in certain ways. Those who don’t accept this are by definition lawless. For example, if I were to steal from my neighbor, I would expect to be arrested and jailed if caught. To assume otherwise would be a sort of civic hubris.

However, there are certain classes of people for whom different rules exist. Children, for example, are subject to a different standard where force is concerned. To be sure, they are not immune to it, but in general violence against children is of a far milder variety, and usually involves little more than being shut in a room for a spell or dragged into the principal’s office. Even when the state deals with children different rules apply. A child who kills, for example, will generally not face the same sentence as an adult. Furthermore, the state delegates a certain amount of force to adults in the child’s life. Rather than have the police deal with every infraction, parents and other adult authorities are expected to use force as they deem appropriate.

The logic behind this is that children are not “equal” to adults. They have neither the faculties, judgment nor physical capability. They are therefore not deemed to be fully participating citizens, but rather “in custody,” which means that they are under the authority of adults.

Likewise, women are formally held to a different legal standard. In times past, they were legally in the custody of one man or another, and under his authority. Although emancipated women have always existed, they were rare, and I would argue that they still are, because the only serious attempt to make women equal citizens under the law failed spectacularly within a span of only about a decade (1970s).

In the old days, when women were considered to be wards of men, society expected men’s superior force to keep those in their family in line in much the same manner that the law uses superior force to keep men in line. This isn’t to say that force was always applied, but rather that it existed and could be applied, just as a bailiff exists in every courtroom. There was a chain of command that went like this:

Men are subject to the law

Women to men

Children to women

Each relationship was backed by some degree of force. As one goes down the scale, the amount of force deemed appropriate was less severe, but probably more frequent. For example, an arrest and a stint in prison is quite rare, affecting only a small fraction of the male population, but it is a severe punishment. A domestic squabble involving some use of force was also rare, probably affecting a minority of couples, but more common than incarceration (and still is if DV stats are to be believed) and inconsequential compared to prison time. Finally, children were punished relatively frequently, but mildly.

The old system was simple, but effective. It lasted up to about the 1970s, when domestic violence became politicized. We could point directly to feminism as the cause of the old system’s breakdown, but feminism was actually more of a symptom of other changes than the cause. Men’s authority in the home had been breaking down for over a century as urbanization and industrialization proliferated throughout the West. Women found themselves alone as the sole authority of the family when their husbands went to work at the factory or office. Many women also worked under an authority other than their husband or father. It no longer made sense to delegate authority over women only to one man in their lives. The private and public sector found themselves managing women as well as men, and as their authority over them increased, that of their husbands declined.

There was a reversal of this in the idealized 1950s, when a deep social conservatism, partly a result of the return of millions of citizen soldiers who were empowered by their victory, characterized society, but the relentless growth of capitalism guaranteed that this couldn’t last. The economy was growing, and more workers were needed. Women gradually returned to the workforce starting in the 1960s, and the process started again where it had left off.

Since then, husbands (and fathers) have lost essentially all of their old authority over women. However, this is not to say that nobody has any authority over them, but rather that it has passed into other hands. Today, there is still a struggle over who has claim to the women of our society, but it is between the private and public sector. Both presidential candidates understand this quite well, which is why, in pandering to women, one of them is promising state support and the other good jobs. It is almost amusing to see the public and private sector wooing America’s women like a couple of suitors singing to an undecided girl.

Both the public and private sector exert most control over women through economic incentives and punishments rather than physical force. A company keeps its females in line by threatening them with loss of income if they misbehave, which is called abuse or “contempt of court” when husbands do it. The public sector retains the option of using physical force against women – again, called abuse when husbands do it – and also provides (or withdraws) various goodies through bureaucracies.

The public and private sector have come to wield far more authority over women than the men in their lives. Men are ordered to provide for women in their lives no matter what, and never to use physical force on them, but the state follows neither mandate, and the private sector only the latter (which could be a powerful selling point for the Republicans). Given that very few single women make a living from their own businesses, most being dependent on the state or a job in the private sector, the proportion of women who could be said to be truly emancipated remains as low as ever.

However, despite the state and private sector’s current authority over women, a different standard is still applied. Not only a different standard as far as the use of force, but in terms of provision as well. Equality of men and women is widely assumed to be enshrined in law, but this is not the case. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass back in the 1970s, largely because women didn’t want it in its unadulterated form, and considering the Hayden rider there was nothing equal about it. For some interesting background on the fight to pass the ERA, see how, according to suffragette Alice Paul, NOW (the National Organization of Women) essentially killed it by supporting the Hayden rider.

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, originally written by Alice Paul, is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

However, the Hayden rider was added in the 1950s:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

This rendered it self-contradictory and not at all different from the status quo, yet it is the version supported by feminist groups, and that is why the amendment never passed. It was too much of a sham to make it through the full process of ratification.

So, according to US law women are still a special class of citizens, like children, who are afforded protections and benefits not extended to men. They are exempt from the draft, they are given special accommodation at work and school, their activities are subsidized at men’s expense (e.g. Title IX), and far more social welfare is directed their way.

Although the myth of women’s self-sufficiency and independence is widely repeated, it is ignored in practice, and contradicted by law.

Because women are acknowledged both by the law and custom to be a special class, and not fully equal citizens, it follows that others are responsible for ensuring that they are taken care of and kept in line. Because the state has arrogated the responsibility of managing women to itself and taken family choices entirely out of the hands of fathers and husbands, male citizens’ responsibilities toward women’s provision and care should likewise be removed.

If we are to remove individual male authority over the women in his life and replace it with collective authority over women, then we should remove individual male responsibility and replace it with collective responsibility over women, and be quite honest about it.

The same would apply to children, of course. Would it be just for the state to remove a child and terminate parental custody and then present a bill for doing so? [Actually, because the overwhelming majority of CPS removals are from single mothers, the child will frequently be placed with a foster family without any input from the father, and then he will be forced to pay child support directly to the state.]

One could view abolishing male authority over women as a liberating trend, because collectively managing females would spread the burden over a greater number of taxpayers, including women themselves, freeing men from so much individual responsibility. And rather than having to control women ourselves, we could allow the police and private business to handle them. The problem with this is that the state is running into problems with expense, and the private sector is starting to face the same issues itself. Because women are a special, legally-protected class with more needs and associated expenses, we simply cannot treat them as men. This is why Barack Obama and a number of other leftist politicians desperately want to collectivize birth control: because single mothers and their needs have grown into such an enormous drain on treasuries.

And here is where the issue of force and violence is bound to come up again. So far, the state has managed to use force mainly against fathers in a bid to maintain the politically convenient facade of female equality while balancing the budget. But it has reached the point of diminishing return. The cash cow that was middle-class American men is starting to dry up for a number of reasons. Young men are marrying at much lower rates, they make less relative to their parents, and a greater proportion of them is now working class or underclass than was the case a generation ago. The marriage issue is important because public expenses for single mothers are considerably higher than for those who live with a man. Even onerous child support guidelines don’t come close to making up the difference, and at this point increasing child support collection will simply start to eat away at tax revenue.

So, eventually the state will have to begin to turn the screws on women, and when the state sees people as a “problem” the treatment they get tends to be very unpleasant. People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them. Even married women who didn’t control their fertility were subjected to these measures. Women who had more than one child lost state support, and were forced into deep poverty, the likes of which most American women cannot comprehend. If that isn’t violence against women, what is?

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong. Leftist American professors in China studies openly endorse China’s birth control measures. The honest ones will tell you that they’d support doing the same here.

I doubt we’ll need to take as drastic steps as China in the foreseeable future, but changes will be made. Control over reproduction – the feminist holy grail – may be handed over to the state in our lifetime and taken away from certain classes of women (e.g. those on welfare). We could see women being forced to take birth control, and punished when they fail to do so. Women who defy the state on these matters will be dealt with forcefully — just like men. Women could well be coerced into being economically productive, as fathers are today. Single mothers who refuse to work could face some punishment, and as men’s wages decline even farther relative to women’s, married women will likely no longer have the choice to stay home and care for their children themselves. Furthermore, because men no longer have authority over their wives, they have none over their children, either. Ultimately, the state will have the final word on children, and tough luck if mothers disagree.

The Violence Against Women dialog was born out of a desire for throwing off the authority of husbands, but it doesn’t seem the feminists considered that women would only end up with another master. And this time it is a master that sees them as only one of millions — a mere number in a database. Also, a much stronger master that will not tolerate any deviation, and will apply force impersonally without any sentimental considerations.

“Violence” against women will therefore never cease, but only be applied by a different force. In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free. They imagined they would achieve a sort of blissful anarchy, like all utopian fantasies, and answer to none but themselves. However, they eventually find that the office manager, the case-worker, the policeman and the magistrate are less forgiving and caring than the typical husband, and far less concerned about protecting them.

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be needier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight. To be dependent is to be under another’s control, and to be under control is to be subject to some degree of force. Practically speaking, the party responsible for the subject is the one who should have legitimate authority.

The way we need to frame the debate concerning violence against women is in recognizing that the argument is centered entirely on who has authority and the right to wield it — not on the naturally repellent idea of a man brutally assaulting a woman. If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. I’m not sure that will ever be feasible, but eventually we will have to make a choice along those lines.

Lilyofthevallies #fundie disciplesperspective.com

Kids are sponges. No one needs proof about this. We just know that the large majority of kids soak up everything they encounter. Languages come naturally to kids it seems like. My 6 cousins ranging from ages 3-10 recently moved to Brazil for missions work. These 6 kids caught on so fast. Within 5 months, they were translating for me when I went to visit them this past summer. They learn so fast! Unfortunately, kids also pick up and learn behavior that is not conducive to Christian living.

[The first most important above all else, even with what follows, is the child’s relationship with the Lord. Without Christ they are lost completely.]

Children will learn what their role is in life through the ones they are most around (parents, daycare, neighbors, and school). Knowing and following Christ is most important in the child’s life. What’s next after that? What they will do in life? What college they will go to? We as parents need to not forget this: One day, if the Lord wants, your child will grow up. They will become men and women. This culture says there is no difference between men and women (women being forced to sign up for the draft is next, don’t believe me? Type it in Google and see what pops up). Culture is saying that men can fit into women’s mold and women can fit into men’s mold. What they are not saying is the consequences of this belief.

Little girls must be raised to be women. Little boys must be raised to be men. What does this mean? What does this look like? What does the Bible say about this? Is it that important?

If women are to follow the authority of Christ, the church leaders, fathers, and husbands, why in the world are we pushing and encouraging them desperately to be leaders of the next generation? Why are we pushing them to not need men? Why are we loving the movie ‘Brave’ which promotes that women can be just as good and better than men at being men?

Please listen and think very deep about this. Women will never match up to men at being men….because guess what (pause for effect) women are not men. And the opposite is true as well. Men will never match up to women at being women because they aren’t women.

So the question I have is this, “Why did the first statement bother you if it did?” I could possibly have the answer. Because a year ago I would have had a big problem because I was taught wrong.

As a woman, I thought I was inferior to men for being a woman. So I looked down on womanhood, motherhood, and femininity. I fought tooth and nail to reject the essence of who God created me to be. I wanted to fit man’s mold. I was angry at God for making me a woman. I have heard this from so many women more and more that they thought this growing up too. What in the world?? Do boys grow up angry at God because God created them boys? I’m guessing they don’t as much because this culture values masculinity more than femininity. Being weaker is inferior, being beautiful is ‘dumb’ and ‘pointless’. Needing a man to complement what women don’t have is looked down on. No wonder stay at home moms should ‘do something important with their life.’ That is the biggest lie I ever believed. Next week, Lord willing, I will continue the thought that, no….we CAN’T afford to learn how to be women and men later in life…we have to teach and train kids how to be men and women now. While we can…. while they are sponges.

David J. Stewart #sexist jesus-is-savior.com

The feminists (feminazis) have infiltrated movies and television. It has really become ridiculous. It's commonplace now on TV and in movies to see women giving men orders, leading armies, women commanders, women overpowering men, women leading the family, etc. I call them "she-men." It's just not reality. TV is a lie! The truth is that women need men. However, the feminists would lead us to believe that women don't need men at all. Such nonsense is kin to a car speeding off a cliff to sure destruction. The result is a massive lesbian community. Most homosexuals are women. God made men and women to fulfill different roles in life. Like it or not, men are natural leaders...women are not. I realize that some women can lead, but they are generally more like men than women. I believe that every woman should be as feminine as possible. There is something wrong with a woman who has lost her desire to be feminine. This is why I am against women being out on the battle-field fighting. Women don't belong on the battle-field. Women don't belong in Police cars driving around with guns. Women don't belong on a man's job. And by the way, no man should work in a nursery (a woman's job). That's just my opinion. We've got too many sweet men in society today, and too many rough women. Something is very wrong.

God created women to be mother's AT HOME, not to spend their child-bearing years in a "career." You don't need that bigger home or a second car, you need to be at home with your children (1st Timothy 5:14). Money will have meant nothing when your life is over.

Only on TV can a man get away with sexually-harassing a woman. In real life, a man who touches a woman is most likely going to end up in hot-water with a sexual-harassment complaint against him (or worse). Movies are very unrealistic these days.

IceMountainFire #sexist icemountainfire.wordpress.com

[NOTE: Posting this in two parts to make it at least somewhat readable.]

Men Are Not Broken [Part 2]

The evidence for male love for death and destruction is overwhelming. But it would be wrong to assume that this is the end of the argument, that we just have to accept men’s natural dangerousness and adjust to it.

This we do anyway: taking self defense classes, keeping separate bank accounts when married, telling girls not to go with strange men. This is something even the most right-wing women do, however illogical and ineffective their precautions often seem. This is nothing particularly feminist. To – literally or metaphorically – carry a weapon in a world of predators is the bare minimum, not radical. (Many right-wing women carry literal weapons, something radical women should take in consideration for themselves as well.)

But unlike right-wing women and collaborators who simply accept male behaviour or at best demand cosmetical, individual change, Radical Feminists dig deeper. Beside the overwhelming evidence for male dangerousness we also find overwhelming evidence that men actually control their dangerousness when it suits them.

The picture of the man who just can’t help his nature is peddled by patriarchal apologists: The poor man was nagged and mocked by his shrew of a wife and couldn’t take it anymore. The poor man only follows his evolutionary instinct and raped her to assert his dominance. The poor man is the victim of political oppression, he just had to attack women to cope with his feeling of powerlessness. But women’s experiences make it very clear that men are highly selective towards whom they are ?losing control?.

Abusive men don’t attack their nagging and mocking male bosses with their fists. They don’t ambush their male boss on the toilet and rape him to get back at him. When they are oppressed and exploited, they don’t kick the boss from one corner of his office to the other. When their favourite team loses, they are not seeking out the quarterback to use him as a punching bag for their frustration. In a crowded train, they are not driven by some evolutionary instinct to go for the throat of their fellow male who enters their personal space or bares his teeth to them.

Men also are perfectly able to dose their violence. Male violence against women and children follows an escalating cyclic pattern. The escalation is a conscious strategy: How much will she be able to take? How far can I go? How many of my depraved fantasies can I make come true? (We observe the same deliberate escalation in sadomasochism. It is embraced there as ‘slave training’.)

Men are planning their crimes and they are able to cover them. Losing control is adverse to both. Someone who loses control does not build an air-tight terror regime in his own home, by and by cutting off his wife’s and children’s means of refuge and lowering the bar of ?reasons? for his violent outbursts. Someone who loses control does not take upon him the logistics of building torture chambers or digging up graves. Someone who loses control does not buy a new hammer before he goes out again and again to prey on women.

Men can control themselves just fine. They make the active choice to act on the impulses their faulty nature gives them.

So, where does that leave us?

Right-wing women openly collaborate to secure their individual position. If they are just compliant enough, they think they will be allowed to sit at the men’s table. If they are just submissive enough, they will be taken care of and be rewarded.

Many liberal feminists de facto do the same in a more hidden manner, while they are touting an empty ideology of equality. For them, maleness by and itself has worth. Therefore, to them, males can be potential allies, partners, lovers, teachers, people worthy of shaping society. They can even be women. If only they were a bit more friendly, a bit more peaceful, a bit more loving, a bit more loyal, a bit more equality-oriented.
This is nothing new. Contrary to anti-feminist propaganda, ever since feminism came into being – even more so, ever since women started to take action against their miserable situation, pre-dating organised feminism – an overwhelming majority of women preferred the equality approach, the liberal approach. Suffragettes argued that mothers were bringing voters into the world and thusly should be able to vote (6). ‘Bread and Roses’, one of the old songs coming out of the leftist women’s movement, includes the lines ?As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men; for they are women’s children, and we mother them again? (7). Second-wave ?women’s libbers? won out over their radical counterparts, enabling the backlash, sex positivism and the modern mantra of ?I choose my choice!”. Modern third/fourth-wavers with their love of sexual submission, trannies and He-For-She bring this sucking up to men to a logical conclusion.

Many women do this deliberately. They are sell-outs or anti-feminists making use of a liberal feminist mien to gain something from it. TV show creators like Shonda Rhimes or Lena Dunham make good money by catering to a certain urban, slightly feminist, female audience.

Other women are too much invested in the personal privilege they obtain for being compliant to patriarchy: They get to call themselves feminist, without having to change their personal lifestyle or to risk income, while they can keep any convenient patriarchal mind blankie, from religion to sadomasochism. A sizeable portion of these women explicitly doesn’t want to be any more radical. They want to have the privilege AND the sisterhood, without seeing the fundamental contradiction between the two.

But some of them are just not aware of what they are doing. This is an impression I got in the last years. There are plenty of campaigns on Twitter and in the blogosphere (like e. g. #Yesallwomen or Project Unbreakable) documenting the horrors women experience under patriarchy. The thousands of testimonies show two things: Women are reliable, sharp and precise observers of their own lives – and many women are somehow unable to draw radical and long-term conclusions from their experiences.

Instead, they are desperately begging men to be nicer to them because they want to be able to love them. Many liberal feminist suggestions aim in this direction, e. g. trying to make men not use pejorative language. As if a man who does not call them a bitch, a cunt, a whore or a dyke to their faces was somehow rendered incapable of thinking these things in his mind. (Personally, I prefer to be called names, because I instantly know whom never to turn my back to.) On the other hand, liberal women try to achieve their goals by appealing to men’s interests, e. g. when they declare that a ?liberated? feminist is better in bed that those other prudes. Their approach is to be inclusive, as if the oppressed class could make the oppressors relinquish their power by being nice.

These women are actually the ones I expect to do better. Women as a group are not stupid or naive or even close-minded. There is a reason why women are to be found at the forefront of every social cause imaginable. Women as a class – unlike the patriarchal lie of the ‘conservative woman’ proclaims – tend to be more open to new things and ideas than men. They are deeper thinkers than men, capable of understanding the ma-trix rather than the mechanics.

Women have to WANT to think, though. Hoping and wishing and begging is not enough.
The only realistic way for us to shape freedom for girls and women is seperatism. We as women need to put other women – any other woman – above everyone else. Men do that. Men can hate each others’ guts, but they will always close ranks towards women. It is time women do the same. This is the only way for women to make a better future: Stop catering to men in any way. Don’t make them lunch. Don’t listen to their problems. Don’t pick up their dirty coffee cups at work. Don’t have male friends. Give up male family. Don’t have children. Don’t talk to men at all if you are not forced to. Don’t live with them. Don’t sleep with them. Don’t step aside on the street. Don’t take gifts from them. Don’t interact with them online. Don’t imagine the ?perfect? man. Het women do that and when they don’t find any man living up to their ideals, they come to the conclusion that all men are scum while still clinging to their mental image of the perfect man. But the truth is, even the ideal man still is scum.

Start with a small change, e. g. not talking to the creepy neighbour anymore, and work your way. You will realise, the less interaction you have with men, the easier you’ll breathe. This also doesn’t make you more vulnerable. Think about the statistics. We are most likely to be attacked and/or raped by men we know: Family members, boyfriends and husbands, friends, acquaintances. Random attacks by strangers do happen, but they are nowhere as likely as becoming the victim of a man we already know. Living with a man, spending time with men, this is what endangers women most. We have been told the opposite, so this seems counter-intuitive. But it is a fact that the biggest threat to a woman, statistically speaking, is the man whom she thinks of as her protector.

Put women above everything else. Live alone or build separatist communities. Show solidarity. Look for hobbies done in female-only groups. Find the beauty in every woman. Stay away from men and their empty promises.

This is what I do. Cutting one man after the other out of my life. Prioritising Lesbians and women and girls. And I will keep writing about how liberal feminism hurts all of us, because for liberal feminists I still have hope. Not much hope, admittedly, but still hope.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.

...

I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.

If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics.

Moralmoe91 #sexist coalpha.org

Why decent American men are angry and bitter towards women

American women love to be smartasses and say guys like me are just bitter because we aren't getting laid. Let me just say that I don't completely disagree with them but their argument is too simplistic and doesn't tell the full story. Furthermore their argument doesnt acknowledge womens responsibility in the matter. We all know that men like sex and going without does suck. But that's not the biggest reason men are angry at women. So why are men angry at women? It's very simple.... American women ally themselves with evil men. If you look at all the wars in history they have been a struggle between decent men and evil men. And when women ally themselves with evil men they become the enemy of decent men. But this still doesn't explain why women are the main target of decent men's rage today instead of the evil men they are with. I think there are multiple factors at play that are causing this. For one, American women are teases and love sexually provoking men. American women also actively oppose prostitution, thus preventing a significant percentage of men from getting any sort of sexual release. And lastly American women dress and behave like sluts so guys are constantly reminded of what they are missing in life. I think these things are what cause men to focus their anger on women instead of other men. But the fact that women ally themselves with evil men is the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes men really angry. If you look at all the men that have lashed out at society there's a common theme. These guys were bullied by other men, men that are usually very successful with women. I think this is what really drives certain men over the edge. Most men have an idealized image of female morality in their heads and they don't know how to take it when they see women actively engaging in and encouraging evil so they snap. These are my thoughts on the matter anyway. What do you think?

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

various WGTOWs #sexist reddit.com

(violenceandperfume)
What's the worst thing about males?

I think it's good to have a reminder as to why we avoid males at all costs. Maybe sticky the post so we can get the point across. My answer: they're violent. This is inherent and even they admit. It's scary to think how often they think about hurting women.
What's the best action to take then? Avoid. Avoid at all costs. No relationships, because if you bring up the fact that they don't clean up around the house, they lose control and get angry. They throw things. Push you. Yell at you and say you're nagging them.
Friendship? BIG no no. Males only want one thing and if you deny them of sex they'll lost it and hurt you. How many times have you heard stories about women rejecting male friends, and they react with violence and anger?
So... What do you think is the worst quality in males?

(cbatta2025)
Their precious little egos and them thinking they are smarter than any woman. I work in a STEM profession, they are pathetic.

(fatfinger357)
We women don't need men. Men are completely useless. Men don't need women either. We don't need each other. Let's just stay away from each other. My life's Goal is to convince other women to stay away from men and given how toxic and evil men are it is not hard to convince women that they don't need men. What exactly do men offer? Nothing. I am completely happy by myself.

(duljjaegureum)
WHY do they smell so bad?! Do they not know basic hygiene? I recently learned men don't even wipe their asses after taking a shit. They just walk around with the shit smearing their underwear. They call this skidmarks. Men walk around in shitty clothes like toddlers.

(ProgressiveFragility)
they don't have ovaries

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

Insecurity is the natural state of woman. How could it be anything else? Given their lack of physical strength, a woman on her own should be frightened as hell without men to protect her. If society were to collapse, all the Strong, Independent Women™ who read Jezebel and xoJane would last about five minutes before they either found a man to cling onto or got raped and killed. In the bellum omnium contra omnes that is mankind’s default existence, a woman who is alone is a woman who is already dead.

One of the most commonly repeated tropes of feminists and manboobs goes something like this:

“You should be happy that women nowadays are independent, because it means that they’re with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they’re dependent on you.”

This is a fundamental violation of the relationship between men and women. Part of our identity as men based in women needing us, if not necessarily in a material sense, then in an emotional one, though material and emotional vulnerability often go hand in hand. That female insecurity is a crucial ingredient for unlocking our inner masculine instincts. If a girl needs me, feels that her life would end if she were to lose me, I’m doubly inspired to be there for her, to shield her from the cruelty of the world. Frankly, it’s pretty hot. If she just wants me, could take me or leave me, my gut response is one of apathy. “Yeah, whatever babe.”

Confidence doesn’t give men erections; vulnerability does.

In order to love someone else, you need to be emotionally vulnerable, more so women than men (as girls are attracted to confident men). You need to be willing to open yourself up, to give yourself over to their judgment, to risk being hurt and rejected. Without this emotional openness, any relationship you have will never go beyond the infatuation stage. But girls today are told to erect gigantic walls around their hearts, cutting them off from an crucial part of their humanity. The emotional dissonance from this feminist social engineering is why antidepressant usage and mental illness are skyrocketing among young women. Ordinarily a depressed or insecure girl would seek solace in the loving embrace of a man, but daily hits from her good friend Saint Xanax short-circuit her feminine instincts.

In squelching her inborn insecurity with you-go-grrlisms and drugs, the modern woman has become an emotional cripple. Like a fat slob eating Big Macs instead of a juicy steak from the supermarket, she substitutes having a dominant and confident man in her life with lotsa cocka and dating where she considers herself an “equal.” She views men as a life support system for a penis, an accoutrement, no different than her Manolo Blahniks or snazzy new iPhone. When she gets bored of her boy-toy, she tosses him in the trash and moves on to a newer, shinier model, and if she can get cash and prizes for trading in her old clunker, that’s just the icing on the cake.

Essentially, “confident” women are incapable of viewing men as human beings.

When manboobs and feminists say you should be happy that women today are “independent,” this is what they’re arguing for; a world in which romantic relationships are impossible. Where men are nothing more than fashion items to help women show how cool or sophisticated they are. Sorry, but homie don’t play that game. If I’m not the center of a girl’s world, I’m not going to be in her world period.

...

Real life fails the Bechdel test.

Feminists can claim that women don’t need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for “equality”; they’re a cry for help. Girls don’t want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master’s degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

I say we give them what they want.

Roo #racist stormfront.org

Re: Is feminism aimed mainly at White women?

It seems that the vast majority of feminists are white women. That's not to say women of other races are never feminists but it seems a lot rarer.

Feminism is a lot more popular among black women and Jewish women than white women. Israel has a much higher concentration of Jewish men in prison on false charges of domestic abuse, etc., than any country in the West. It gets reported in Israeli publications every so often.

With black women, I believe their natural social structure (tribal societies throughout western Africa), has it so that marriage isn't a common occurrence, and even when it is, men have more than one wife, and/or they tend to avoid family domestic living arrangements. So African women are more independent from men on an emotional level. If you combine this characteristic with gibs from the government (welfar and social programs), you get an entire population of women who "don't need no man."

I grew up in a heavily black area, I've seen this phenomenon with my own two eyes. Black women are terrible feminists. If you think white feminists are bad (and they are bad, don't get me wrong)... trust me, just check out some Hotep channels on YouTube if you don't believe me. Black women will eventually take feminism to levels never seen before. I'm not being funny, either.

The whole agenda of feminism is to make white women believe that they have more in common with say black women or Indian women than they have with white men.

Yes, that is very true.

However, only white women think like this, no black or Indian woman would seriously believe they had more in common with a white woman than men of their own race.

Yes, and that is why feminism is such a joke on white women, ultimately.

Linda Sarsour makes a big issue about the oppression of women, or whatever her shtick is, but she would NEVER come out against the sexual assaults on white women by Muslim men in Cologne - ever, ever, ever. She will never do that. But she'll tell white women how awful their men are all the live-long day. And it's not even true, white men top the list of fellas who are GOOD to their women! Western civilization was not built by men born of anguished mothers!

Feminism is a cruel joke on all women, but it's cruelest on white women (and our men).

It seems to me that for the most part only white women buy into this raceless feminist agenda, non-white women may claim to be feminist when it suits them (usually for the purposes of getting preferential treatment over whites) but most of them don't believe it like white women do.

Yes, but that's because we've been systematically deracinated - men, too. White people are deracinated. White feminists are behaving the way deracinated feminists behave, that's all. It's nothing inherent in white women. If you deracinated black women, they'd align themselves with other women before they aligned themselves with their men, too.

This, among many other reasons, is why I've spent a couple of years trying to convince white people that they are a race. We need our identity. I'm pretty confident that once we find that again, most of our problems will get solved in due time.

Rabbi David Eidensohn #fundie web.archive.org

Men and women must dress separately and live separately, to keep from prostitution. The bible would not approve of women in the army, and the taxpayers who pay for the expenses of training only to see a woman relieved of duty before battle because she is pregnant don't approve, either. The entire area of men and women working together all day in offices is a situation that can only lead to trouble, and it does. The feminist surge to be like men, dress like them and go where they go has destroyed family. The recent mayoral inauguration in New York City featured a past mayor with his paramour and the new mayor with his daughter. There were no wives. Most Americans, 51%, are not married, and of first marriages, half end in divorce. Men are marrying later than ever, and women who work and marry later in life have difficulty having children, because fertility problems begin with age 27 and intensify very much in the late thirties. Thus, the mixture of men and women destroys society and women. When New York City first integrated its police force, in every case where a lovely young thing cruised with a man, the man divorced his wife and maintained a relationship with his partner. This report is hard to believe, but it isn't unlikely. The only way to protect family is to keep men away from women. It is precisely the complete abandon of biblical barriers between men and women that has turned male/female sexuality into a trial and difficulty for so many couples, and has turned many people to despair, homosexuality and even autoeroticism, masturbation for men and vibrators for women. The despair of normal gender relationships drives people to pornography and pedophilia, as well as other perversion.

Today, with the chaos of sexuality, there are men who want to be woman. They dress as women and insist on using the lady's restroom. Some have surgery whereby they remove the male organ and cut a hole for the female cavity. Such people sin when they wear the clothes of women, and certainly if they do so to attract men.

As sad and as evil these deeds are, people don't look for them. Society by breaking the family is responsible. A society where people in the fifties know they may be fired when their global company downsizes is a society of fear and instability. Family cannot function in fear. A society that pressures a woman to go to college, establish herself professionally, and only then think about her womanly needs, is a society where many women do not marry, and those who do often marry too late for children. Every woman, from the time she is old enough to think about life, realizes that she is running the gamut. Her fears and anger are multiplied by the social freedom given to men to take a woman, use her, and spit her out. This leads to gender hate, and raising children who are not men and not women.

A society that refuses to accept that a woman is different than a man, and a man is different than a woman, that a boy is different than a girl, and a girl is different than a boy produces men and women who are confused and perverse. Our American society is the first society in history to truly violate the bonds of gender, and we are the first generation in history to have so many pupils in public school from fine Caucasian homes coming to school and mass murdering, that our schools are patrolled as if they were airplanes.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

A man’s dominance to be ethical and legitimate has to be directed to the woman’s benefit; it has to be part of the general ethic of placing women’s interests above men’s interests. Likewise a woman’s submission is only functional when it facilitates the woman’s well being and the woman’s ability to contribute to others. Male dominance is directed towards the goal of service to the woman while female submission is directed towards the goal of service to others.

An interesting thing I have learned about myself. When I look towards a woman I have found that what I most want is a connection to God. Love and sex is not what I value most in a woman; what I value most is her Godliness, her spirituality, her higher moral purpose, her feminine gift to the world. If all a woman can offer me is love and sex I am not interested; love and sex has to be combined with morality in order for me to be interested. In other words my relationship with the woman has to be moral; it has to serve a higher moral purpose. The woman can’t be attacking me or trying to undermine me or trying to manipulate me or trying to “get something out of me.” All of these behaviors by the woman destroy my moral purpose in the relationship; they all undermine and lessen my value as a man and represent the woman seeking to harm me or harm others for her own selfish benefit. If the woman claims to be my “equal” and is not willing to submit to me this tells me that her intention is to steal from me or manipulate me or attack and undermine me in some way. Additionally the woman should be idealistic so that her inclination is to use my support for her in service to others rather than her being selfish and inward looking. My purpose in giving to a woman is not just to help the woman; it is to help the woman help others.

When I refer to a woman being “in service to others” what I mean is her being in service to her children or our children or my children; in addition her being in service to a wide variety of potential “others.” She may be in service to other children in her extended family, she may be of benefit to the neighborhood kids, she may volunteer in service to the less fortunate in a number of ways, she may care for the elderly, she may mentor younger women growing up or starting out in life, she may contribute to the religious community she is a part of, she might work to spread her religious faith to others, she might write books or maintain a blog to communicate positive moral teachings or practical advice to others. There are many ways a woman can be in service to others. When I financially support a woman what I am doing is giving her her time so that she can then give her time to others.

I do not want an “independent woman.” What purpose do I serve with an “independent woman?” My goal is to help others through my support of the woman so that my relationship with the woman will serve a higher moral purpose that is pleasing to God. Therefore the woman must be dependent upon me in order for me to achieve my full value and my full purpose as a man.

My intimacy, my dominance, and my service to the woman are not just things intended to benefit the woman; they are also meant to benefit me and my sense of higher moral purpose. I want a woman that accepts my intimacy, my dominance, and my service to her in addition to me myself seeking to give intimacy, dominance, and service to a woman.

In order for a woman to be able to offer me intimacy, submission, and service to others she has to be trusting towards me and she has to be idealistic and not selfish. Feminism is the antithesis of these things that I need from a woman. Feminism on principle refuses to trust a man no matter how trustworthy he is; the refusal to obey a man very clearly being an assertion of contempt and an expression of fear. Furthermore feminism is selfishly oriented fixated on “women’s rights” the rights of everybody else be damned.

What I most want is for a woman to be Godly. Conservative religious teachings and the overall religious view of life with God and obedience to God being the central organizing theme; this is very desirable in a woman as these things support a woman’s ability to trust me given my trustworthiness in reality and they support an idealistic generous orientation towards others. A Godly woman true to her traditional religious faith will be able to offer me the intimacy, submission, and service to others that I am looking for in a woman.

The reason for me joining my life with a woman is to gain access to her femininity for myself and to contribute her femininity to others. It is the woman’s femininity that I want for myself selfishly and to contribute to others idealistically. Femininity is the skill areas and abilities that women are better at than men; masculinity is the skill areas and abilities that men are better at than women. Femininity is what I don’t have or at least am weak in. Femininity is what I need and what the world needs that I myself do not possess; it is something I can only gain access to and contribute to others through the means of entering into a relationship with a woman and supporting that woman. Likewise masculinity is what a woman doesn’t possess herself and can only get through a relationship with a man. The purpose of masculinity is the support and empowerment of femininity. The purpose of romantic relationships between men and women is male masculine support of women’s feminine contribution to children and society at large.

What I have to give as a traditional man is intimacy, dominance, and service. What I want to receive from a traditional woman in return is intimacy, submission, and service to others. This is the complementarian relationship between men and women, this is patriarchy as it is expressed in romantic relationships between men and women, this is how the romantic bond between man and woman is given its higher moral purpose. This is what I have to give as a man and what I want to receive from a woman.

mopusvindictus #fundie abovetopsecret.com

1 Reason...

Male homosexuality leads to a disgusting deplorable society in time and women are instinctually aware of that, Female homosexuality leads to... nothing particularly tragic for everyone else.


Before you all bash my brains in just listen and really think about it.

A: Disease

Women barely ever spread STD's to each other... it's that damn garden hose of our spewing stuff all over...

okay, the only thing that keeps Men in check from a constant desire to
Mate is the sanity of women and their avoidance of the topic... (being particular about who they shag)

Left alone Men screw constantly and with far more partners

NOT ALL

But go to a gay nightclub... combine Meth or even Booze with a male sex drive unrestrained it gets Raunchy... some guys keep Hundreds of partners... That's a recipe for Disease

If your wife has sex with a woman are you at risk... no, but your husband gets buggered by a man... are you at risk... hell Yeah you are...of DEATH

Not a turn on

Then there's ANAL... your going to draw Blood in small amounts every time 2 men do it...

Not good to avoid disease

Women tend to be clean and care for themselves more... the risks of Male gay behavior...disease, many partners, involving the Poop Hole... just not a turn on for women, risk, huge risks

Before you bash me...

I was going to the Empire State building with my class when I was 8

There I saw my First Homosexual Male...1978, Gay Orgy Club time pre Aids...

Man wore a shirt on line that said:

"500 Man Fisting party"

Okay NOT HOT to a Chick... guy took 500 fists up his rear end...

That is men left alone with unrestrained sex... NOT GOOD

B: Sexual Reality

Men... despite all bravado and desire... limited sex drive built in chemical process to make us pass out

Women need... more sex, men we burn out

Your man having a Man in his life means... exhaustion, you get nada from either guy, less not more

A woman...when they wear a Guy out... keep going together, it's good sex for HER

Unless 2 guys were focused on her, not each other, she's going to end up with 2 passed out chumps instead of one

Remember... guys sexual peak is 20 Women 35

By the time your that age... man have to work at it to keep up, especially if she has had a couple of babies, giving her the orgasm flow when she is peaked out at my age is not as easy as it is when a girl is 19 and it's all new and your at no 1 position...

There is no viable sex life for a guy exhausting himself with men...

so women are

at risk

and have nothing to gain sexually

So they don't like to think of their guys going Gay


Even more

Gay Men can get sex when ever they want just like women... The world exists on Men doing WORK to impress Women...

Men start Gaying out like Women can just play... they don't need Women so much do they?

Nor do they need to advance much from, waiting tables or painting...

Not much a Womans agenda to take risks with men leaving their position of Financial Bondage is there?

Lets also add cleanliness

Some women might find the thought or image of one Man dominating another Hot

But when 2 women have se it ends in a hot sexy orgasm

2 Men... the ending can be...urrr Grotesque

Not to be graphic but when the last sight you see when your husband or lover cums with a man... might be an explosive organic Enema of a result on your bed sheets

It probably goes from Hot to Not in an instant for most women...

Things like crying in pain from rectal taring, or a giant scat moment just... isn't the same as a beautiful woman orgasming in the Clean and non Bed sheet ruining manner they do...


Lets just bring it back to "The 500 Man Fisting party Guy"

Man..can be damn disgusting... period, it's almost a favor to us that women sleep with some of us at all... Gay sex isn't Hot to Women Mostly
Worst you get from Lesbianism is a Lady with a pack of Marlboro's and a Flannel

Gay guys bring us Drag Queens and Parades and Orgies and ...yeah Diseases and non productivity and allot of social ills

A woman is just at Extreme risk if her Man is Bi on allot of levels...

The same just doesn't apply in the opposite direction... it's FAR from a double standard, there are real reasons one is hot to one sex but not the other

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

[Categorical BS. I'm a blatantly feminist (GASP) conservatively dressed intj woman and I still get more male attention than I can handle. I've mentioned this before on here, but if you need others to pretend to be weak in order to allow you to feel powerful, then what you need is psychological help, not a girlfriend]


This is what feminists says all the time, 'heard this response millions times.
But men like women this way, it's not because we're scared, weak or something. It's our natural dominance/male ego that don't want to be "challenged" (like that would happen with an other "man").

If women want men or her husband to "feel" good, acting feminine is definetely the solution. The longer marriages are the ones where women are traditional.

Men have to "conquer" to have sex with women (and only want that from women), so it's logic that they go to "submissive/weak/fragile" women (Like a war strategy). It incousciously means that their chances to reproduce are higher.

There are also the motherhood qualities that are feminine (caring, nurtiuring, sensitive etc.. )

Women pretending to be men are the ones who need psychological help (aka feminists). But you can't, so now feminists try to turn men into females. Your "gender equity" obsession has no limit.


[I also think that in matters such as rape, women are indeed victims (as are some men) and rape prevention is a feminist issue.]

If rape victimes are also men, why is it a "feminist" issue ? It seems to be about man-hating (99% rapists are men).

["no, her skirt doesn't mean she wanted to get raped"]

If feminists care about women safety, feminists should also say to women that dressing in a certain way can lead to problems.


[We already talked about it at length, so let me summarize : 1, the clothes a woman wear doesn't "lead" her to getting raped, 2, even if it did, it wouldn't mean women have to change something but that men should change their mentality (just because her clothes were sexy doesn't mean she wants sex or that you are entitled to sex), 3, it's a problem if victims are discredited because of the clothes they wore at the time of the rape. I won't go into more details. Read the topic about the slut pride again if you want to.]


Really ? What's the point of dressing sexy then ? Men won't change, yes we want sex 24/7/365 and we have to go for it. It's part of Nature. I think women got it now. You can't shake fresh meat in front of hungry dogs, and then cry because a dog ate your hand.
Not it's not, I think it's good argument. I can't let the door of my house open all night, and then blame people that robbed it. There are certain dangers in our society, you can avoid them or provoke them.


[I find this degrading and insulting to men. As a civilised man, I have self-control and decency which prevents me from acting like a wild animal. How is it that you, yourself, are not in jail for sexual assault by now?]


Because I behave in a civilized manner most of the time. But asking men to stop wanting to have (forceful) sex with provocative women, or hoping that rape will disappear completely tomorrow is useless.


[If you rape a woman because of her clothes, the truth is that you didn't do it because you got so horny you couldn't stop yourself. You did it because you though that because she was clothed that way, she wanted sex, or couldn't refuse sex. It's not biological, it's sociological.]


It's both. If a man is "not" horny and see a woman dressed like a slut, he won't care.


[So he was horny before and just happened to see a convenient victim ?]


Yes, so ? I'm just saying that women have responsabilities in the way they dress. You can't put it all on men and just say to women dress like sluts if you want.

[yes you can. Adults are either responsible for their own actions or they're not.]


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

[
By saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men around her, just by dressing a certain way, you are saying that men should be treated the same as young children and the mentally handicapped when it comes to the subject of rape: incapable of rational self-determination.]


No, if you go to a shitty neigborhood, with all your expensive clothes, you're are provoking danger. It doesn't mean robbers aren't responsible, but you can attract even more danger by your actions.


[If you start justifying rape that way and restricting the way woman's wear, where does it end ? You'll find people who tell you veils are necessary because hair are too sexual, and then other people who think even hands or ankles are sexual so all women need to be dressed in integral veils. I say, you can control your penis.]


Showing all your legs, most of your boobs is universally seen as sexual. Women know it. And when showing it, they definetely want to (or they, at least, accept) men to have "horny" thoughts. Horny thoughs can lead men to rape.


[Also, do you suppose women have no sexual needs ? If I see a beautiful man without a shirt on, and I threaten him with a gun to rape him, is it his fault ? Or is that scenario impossible because men can't get raped ?]


Women can rape men (when they have weapons), but rarely do. Men (that are physically stronger) can do it more easily. So, it's so rare that there's no need for men to do anything. And when women rape, it's most of the time for other reasons than sexual attraction.


[There's a difference between saying "be cautious, don't go there alone at night" and saying "be cautious, never wear a short skirt".]

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


[But by definition it is not her choice to be robbed, assaulted or raped - it was somebody else's, and that person bears the entire fault.]


I never said women dressing like sluts were making "the choice to be raped" or that it's natural that men could rape them in that situation. But, in some situations, women have a (moral) responsibility.

And women dressing sluts are sexualizing themselves, and making them appear as sex objects. Why would a feminist defend the right for women to "dress like sluts", is this how they want women to appear ?


[It is not the woman's fault if she was raped, any more than if you were to go to the gym locker room and got raped by another guy, it would be your fault. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.]

Not comparable. When a woman is dressing like a slut, is drunk, and/or barely conscious when going outta a nightclub, she's putting herself in a situation that could lead to rape. I never said this is how most rapes occurs, but this is also a reality.

SilverGryphon #sexist reddit.com

As depicted in the awesome movie called The Matrix, the act of taking in the red pill allows Neo to see the world as it truly is, a simulation designed to subdue mankind and use them for their bodily energy resources. In our case, the matrix is the social construct in which we reside. Since our childhood we are tricked into believing that acting like white knights is a sure fire way to get laid. Women repeatedly state that they only care about a guy’s character and nothing else and yet they still end up banging the hottest stud that they can lay their nails one. When you try and confront them about this lie, they usually always ignore you or steer the conversation away from the uncomfortable question.

TRP allows men to realise that in reality, women mostly care about your status/looks and are primarily attracted to the bad boys. At the very least, it stops many beta males from being providers of money, attention and validation. This very statement alone is enough trigger feminists into a meltdown, even though there is no misogyny about it. When more and more men take in the red pill, women start losing their obiters. Without beta males answering their beck and call, high SMV women would have to actually get things done with their own hands and for them that is terrible since they are so used to having men to do the dirty work.

We are also told that women are generally not interested in sex unlike their male counterparts, whom are far hornier. Some would argue that since there are far more female prostitutes than male ones is proof of this. In reality women are just as horny as men and they simply have an easier task of obtaining sex, unless they are of a very low SMV. In fact if you ever hang around such low value women you would notice that they can be worse than men in terms of being horny. The disproportion in the number of female and male prostitutes reflects the disproportionate difficulty that the sexes face when finding mates. This is another truth that TRP reveals to men, something which women would rather keep hidden and unknown. Women hate it when men discover that women love sex as much as men do and that we can use this fact to our advantage.

Despite their independence, aggressiveness, brutality and general hatred towards men, the mythological Amazons still needed men, known as the Gargarians to mate and reproduce. In the real world, feminists face the same issue. You require both a man and a woman to be able to reproduce. Even if it is done via IVF, you still need sperm from a man and eggs from a female. We all know that good genetics are paramount to having a strong and healthy species.

This is where Chad comes in. Chad is usually gifted with good genetics and women can smell them from miles away. They instantly know that by having sex with them, their offspring has a good probability of having quality genes. This is why Chad gets to act like a total jerk and yet still get good quality women. The need for good DNA overrules everything else and the human race would suffer without good genetics. Unfortunately for women, Chad is not likely to stick around after conception and so they need to find other men to provide them with the significant amount of resources required to raise their offspring.

In a nut shell, Chad has all the fun and the betas do all the hard and dirty work. This works for the human race since good genes are spread and the offspring is taken care of. Some countries such as France have even enacted laws that make paternity testing illegal without a court order. This is so that Chad can freely fuck and spread his valuable genes with little fear of being forced to pay child support as that is the job for beta cuckolds.

This situation is extremely unfair for the beta males and hence more and more men are realising that our society, which is the matrix we live in, is defrauding them. Just like Neo who unplugs himself and eventually causes the downfall of the matrix, a sufficiently sized group of men can bring the whole system down and pave the way for a completely new society, one in which only the maters are the majority providers. The burden on taxes caused by single mothers would sky rocket. If more and more men choose the MGTOW way, there would be fewer taxes to collect as men who decide to give up on women would work less as they only need to think about themselves. Less work means fewer taxes to collect, which would be a problem for any country.

In such a society, there are those who stand to lose a lot, namely the elite ruling class. Ever since democracy came about they had to devise a new way of controlling the population. One such way is having a bunch of cuckold men slaving away at their workplace so that they can be providers of children which are not theirs or for women who divorced them and are now collecting child support. Being overworked, these men have little energy to follow politics and try and challenge the status quo. The women on the other hand are too absorbed in their self-centred lives and couldn’t care less about what goes on as long as the money comes in.

This is why women hate TRP and anyone who dares spread its teachings. TRP allows many men to turn the table around make women the ones who have to work for the relationship instead of the men. Women fear the eventual social overall that it seeks to create, one in which true equality would prevail. Since men are so used to doing the hard work, most would be fine, but the women would suffer the most as they are no longer used to do any real hard work. The sooner this matrix in which we live is destroyed and rebuilt, the better. However it is not an easy task and the feminists, who were probably created by the ruling elite, would go out of their way to destroy any movement geared towards showing the masses the truth.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty thought there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she has been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

Men and Marriage – Real Marriage – By Mark Driscoll
3:52 to 4:21; 10:06 to 11:54; 23:55 to 25:17

“This is what it means when the Bible uses the language of “head,” that we [as men] are responsible in the sight of God for the well being of our wives and children. And so men in this sermon on Men and Marriage you need to know that if your wife struggles or fails to grow in Godliness, if your children struggle or fail to grow in Godliness, it is your responsibility in the sight of God.”

“Your understanding of marriage has to be covenantal, not contractual. And if I had to break it down into its simplest form I would articulate it this way. Contract is about me [the man] negotiating terms that benefit me. It’s selfish. Covenant is about me giving myself to you for your well being. It’s servanthood. Covenant is about your [the woman’s] benefit. Contract is about my [the man’s] benefit. . . .Covenantal thinking says God wants me to become what you need. God wants me to love you as you need. God wants me to serve you as you need. God wants me to invest in you as you need. Covenant is about what is best for you. Contract is about what is best for me. It’s the difference between selfishness and servanthood. And in a covenantal marriage a husband and a wife are in covenant with God through faith in Jesus Christ and they are to be in covenant with one another and the Bible says as Jesus loves and serves the Church so the man as the covenant head is to similarly lovingly lead his wife. So that she flourishes and grows in the grace of God.”

“So men let me tell you what your responsibilities are. And these apply as well to the ladies. I’ll give you four responsibilities. Number one, your first responsibility. Christian! Repent of sin, trust in Jesus, death burial and resurrection. Read your Bible, grow in grace, pray. Be involved with God’s people in the Church. Christian. First things first. Your covenant relationship with God. You’re here today trying to fix your marriage and you don’t know Jesus? That is not your first priority. Your first priority is to get into relationship with Jesus and out of that relationship with Him He will change you so that you can be a better spouse. Your second responsibility is to your spouse. That means husbands, your wife; wives, your husband. Your next priority, your next responsibility is spouse. Then third, parent. If God should bless you with children; loving them, serving them, raising them, investing in them, and growing them. And let me say this, if you invert these you will destroy your children and your marriage. . . .And number four, your fourth responsibility is worker.”

Now onto the substance of Libby Anne’s critique. Libby Anne focuses on the idea of men protecting women from other men and how absurd this idea supposedly is. In reality men protecting women from other men is exactly how a civilized society works. Male headship in marriage and male authority in general is actually about supporting and protecting women globally from all hardships and dangers they may encounter; dangerous men being only one of the dangers patriarchy is meant to protect women from. Still one of the purposes of patriarchy is certainly to protect women from abusive male behaviors.

In how Mark Driscoll sets things up the father is supposed to guide and protect his daughters until the daughter is “handed off” to her husband who then serves to protect his wife. This makes perfect sense. Using the quote from Mark Driscoll that Libby Anne highlights:

“Let’s say for example there’s a daughter, and she’s got a close relationship with her covenant-head, Christian dad. That headship protects her from other boys who want to come along and be her head, tell her what to do, set an identity for her, abuse her, endanger her. It protects her from other young men who would come to take that place of headship in her life. Similarly with a wife, if the husband loves her like Christ loves the church, and he takes responsibility for her, that protects her from bad men, bosses, men who have ill intent or those who are perverted.”

In the way Driscoll is setting things up a young woman will be protected by her father from miscellaneous boyfriends who may be irresponsible or exploitative or even abusive in their behaviors towards women. Similarly a woman will be protected by her husband from men who might be exploitative or abusive towards his wife.

This makes perfect sense because a girl’s father has a strong connection and investment in his daughter and is also older and wiser than his daughter and is more intimidating than his daughter. This is compared to any miscellaneous guy who might be interested in the daughter but has not shown himself to be trustworthy or to be seriously committed to the daughter or to have good prospects to be able to provide for his future family. If a potential boyfriend passes through the various hurdles and shows himself to be the best man and commits to marriage then he has earned the status of the woman’s husband and can then play the role of protector himself. Until then however the man has not earned the right to take on the headship role in relation to the father’s daughter. Same thing regarding the husband protecting his wife from various men who might mean his wife harm or be exploitative towards her. The husband has already shown his high investment and trustworthiness towards the woman; otherwise he would not have been able to marry her in the first place. The husband then has earned the right to serve as the head and protector of his wife and is in the position to protect his wife from the various miscellaneous men who might harm her. The man who has committed to the woman and has shown good character towards the woman outranks all the other men interested in the woman or in lesser relationships with the woman.

Libby Anne is acting as if the concept of men protecting women from other men is an absurdity since if a man is dangerous by virtue of being a man then nothing is gained from an inherently dangerous man “protecting” women from other inherently dangerous men since the so called male “protector” is just as likely to turn around and attack the woman himself once he is given the trusted status of being the woman’s “protector.” The problem with this line of thinking is that some men are more dangerous than other men. The minority sociopath man is more dangerous than the majority socially well adjusted man. The man who has made a high commitment and investment in a woman is less dangerous than the man who only has a casual relationship with a woman. A man who can act as a neutral third party whose primary interest is the well being of the woman, such as a woman’s father, is more trustworthy than a potential suitor who has the obvious self-interest of trying to gain a relationship with the woman. Women are most protected when the most trustworthy and least dangerous categories of men are empowered over the least trustworthy and most dangerous categories of men. The whole point of empowering fathers to protect their daughters from potentially harmful boyfriends and empowering husbands to protect their wives from potentially harmful relationships with other men is so that the men who are the most trustworthy and protective of women’s interests will be in charge.

ninjamaster #fundie manhood101.com

Our goals:


Expose Feminism: On the surface, feminism appears to be concerned with equal rights for women. But in reality, this dangerous social philosoophy has damaged the proper relationship structure between men and women.

Retrain men: Too many men have been emasculated by Feminism. They don't know how to lead women, socialize with other men, make decisions, meet their needs or stand up to the emasculating "bitch" behavior of dysfunctional women. By retraining men to effectively wield their authority, we hope to improve their lives and make them effective leaders.

Retrain women: Too many women have been cheated by Feminism. They have been erroneously taught to compete with men and usurp male authority. This completely neglects the importance of fulfilling different gender functions, which are meant to complement rather than than compete with each other; men should be in charge of women as a means of caring for female needs while women should be submissive to men as a means of caring for male needs. Feminism betrays women by teaching them that adopting male functions and becoming "equal" to men will improve their lives. But it fails to warn them that such a strategy will not only undermine the attractiveness and value of women, but also inhibit men's ability to properly care for women. By teaching women the value of fulfilling functional gender roles and observing healthy gender restrictions, we aim to raise their quality of life.

Support male culture: Only healthy, happy men are in a position to properly care for others. But this proves difficult when our Feminist society constantly degrades the value of men, demonizes male sexuality and belittles our masculine role in relationships. Men need a community of their own to support and stand behind them. We are building that community of competent men today. We need you!

Unknown author #sexist whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com

There is no issue, there is no complex

As I told you before; I am feminine, I am female, I am woman

We uplift the masculine because it protects us. The women today they would rather degrade themselves and live in filth with men that don’t respect them- to give their bodies away easily as if it gives them autonomy or power in some way. They might find a temporary happiness in this existence, but they will never have true and lasting contentment.

Oh, but I could show you contentment! I could show you fulfillment. Fulfillment and contentment like you’ve never known, never seen.

The world today has become so vulgar because there is no regulation on sexuality; there are no rules. So many are gender-confused and androgynous and we express ourselves in however the individual sees fit. But we must uplift the feminine, uplift the masculine. Not all men are good, but not all men are bad. Look to the men that love you and put your trust in them. Encourage them to be the men they were designed to be, trust in them to speak for you, trust that God or nature has given them that natural authority. Obey that authority and listen to it.

It’s not necessarily that we put our trust in a human being that has faults, but rather a divine authority that has granted to males greater strength and ability. They were designed that way for a purpose. Yes, men might be superior, but isn’t that the way we want them to be? But a woman being under the protection and covering of a man, such as her husband, shows that she as well is favored and beloved and worthy of being given the world.

We were meant to live together as male and as female. We were made for each other. We were not made to be the equals of each other but rather to be as one. There is but one leader, and that is the man. There is but one that carries life and brings it into this world, sometimes suffering severe hardships in the process, and that is woman. And yes, we women are vulnerable when we depend upon a man, but by nature we were designed vulnerable. When we take a man inside of us we make ourselves vulnerable. We were designed to be dependent and weaker by nature.

But letting go, trusting, opening our hearts and our bodies and making ourselves vulnerable, we free ourselves. There is a passion that I cannot explain. It can only be understood by living it. Free yourself to be a woman, to be feminine. If we as women have an issue, the state cannot protect us. Women’s rights are no protection, instead it is about distrust in our men. But we have to trust them. Let them be who they are as men. If we do have problems, the first ones we should confide in are our men for protection or the things we need.

Domestic violence, rape, and single motherhood are things that feminists had no business getting involved in; that the state has no business getting involved in except in special circumstances. They are real and serious issues, but they are ultimately men’s issues as our sexuality and our welfare should be the business of our husbands, our fathers and our brothers.

This doesn’t take away our freedom. On the contrary, it grants to us women the greatest freedoms we have ever known. There is a joy and a peace that I cannot explain. But I know we women today have severe issues. Nearly every woman that I know has suffered some mental illness, even if only temporarily. We have rejected our true natures to pursue independence and shallow relationships with men, if we pursue relationships at all.

When I was younger, I stayed in the home to care for a child. It was work that needed to be done. But the first issue was my bonding with my husband. I lived under his protection, depending on him for the things I needed, listening to what he told me to do and trusting him to protect me. It created an atmosphere of passion and love, where I would wait for him to come home and deeply long for him. Being in the home allowed me to live as one with him.

Having the husband fulfill the breadwinner role was about us being one. It was never, and has never been, about being a “stay-at-home mother” as in some androgynous role that either sex could fulfill or that could be outsourced. It was about contentment and fulfillment that had nothing to do with housework or childcare. There is no “going back to work,” nor has this ever been an issue or in question. Being home is not some temporary thing that I did only because there was work to do in the home and then I would leave to pursue work elsewhere when it dwindled down in a couple of years.

Hate me, love me, but I am who I am. And yes, I have been rejected. But I have been rejected all my life. I care not whether they accept or love me. I can see myself standing there before him as we are to be wed. I can picture him as he lifts the veil from my face to gently kiss me. I can see him standing tall and strong over me. In my mind, how I see it, is that I’m giving myself over to him, to live under his authority, as he is giving himself to me, to cherish, love and be responsible for me.

He covers me with his love and strength and I lovingly accept him. And yes, I know that it might come with pain and hardship at times. What life doesn’t? I know that I am vulnerable in depending upon him and submitting to him, but he is also vulnerable in investing in me. But we are one, made for different purposes in life, but each purpose works together towards a common destiny.

But what happens if something happens to him is irrelevant. A man who is in love with a woman and has committed himself to her is very unlikely to leave her, and we as women must trust overall in our men and in the divine authority that has made men our protectors and providers in the event that we are left alone. That is the way life goes sometimes, and we have no way of seeing into the future to know what might happen even when the sun rises the very next morning, but we must trust that a way will be provided for us always.

How is it degrading to be protect or provided for by a man? You women of today will reject any notion of patriarchy, coverture or genuine male authority from the men in your lives yet you will engage in games and role play literally begging for men to beat you, call you names and choke you until you’re blue in the face and do things that I can’t even fathom just in the hopes of feeling some temporary sexual pleasure.

Yet I need no games. I am not degraded. I feel that my body was made beautiful and precious and what a joy it brings. There is no sexual repression, but on the other hand overwhelming feelings of sexuality and sexual pleasure that make all other pleasures pale in comparison. Sexuality that is deep, that is real, flowing through my veins and defining me as female, distinct from any and all characteristics that are male.

Love is overwhelming, femininity is overwhelming. Love and passion are what makes life worth living, of what humans have spent centuries pursuing and writing about. I know who I am as a woman and I don’t need to compete with any man. I know he’s stronger. I know that, yes, he could hurt me. But when that masculine and feminine polarity is felt, I know inside that he won’t.

And the ways of our modern world oftentimes make me cry. I cry that no man will rise up to defend a woman. I cry at the horrific thought that any man would think it OK to see their women sent off to war or expect them to be, that men no longer cherish their women or think to provide for them or protect them; that women would reject any attempts by men to do so, or worse that any man would be OK with being provided for or led by a woman. It is a passion killer that leaves but a coldness and an emptiness inside.

My first instinct has always been to acknowledge a man as a man, to look up to and admire men in general. I am ever glad that in my life I have had very little workplace experience and that I have never been put in the position of being in authority over any man. It would not be right, and indeed, the concept of women’s rights is wrong on a fundamental level. The concept of female empowerment is not right, it is misguided.

We must uplift our men first. Our issues are men’s issues. It has always been men that have made the laws and policies to give us any protections, rights, or freedoms that we seek. I believe that we can trust them to speak on our behalf. I believe that men want to be acknowledged as men and for the things that are distinct to manhood and masculinity and that a man will love a woman who acknowledges him as such.

Because this is not right. It has become an issue of us vs. them. But there should be no separation between us. Was it not men who legislated that a man should pay for the crimes of harming or raping a woman? Was it not men that always went to war to keep us safe? Was it not men who legislated that a man should provide for his wife, his children? I have seen it with my own eyes how a man, even one hardened against women, will soften and become protective towards a traditional woman who embraces patriarchal and anti-feminist ways.

As women we must let go and trust in the masculine. We must be genuine, authentic and trusting in our femininity. If we do that, things will fall into place as they were designed and meant to be.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Every relationships I got into turned very badly, and when the gal is seriously crying, I try to give a damn but I can't. Sometimes this coldness makes me laugh in my head (because it still surprises me), and the girl can see a little smile on my face while she's in tears, which makes things worse.

And I read this too : "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction, at 31%." Which not surprise me, but when we're objective it's kinda shocking.

Seeing all this destroyed people around me just because of me is getting weird. Am I an asshole, or is it IxTPs people in general ? In both case I know I won't change so it kinda sucks in a way.

And how can women knowing MBTI can look after ISTP or INTP (men), there's nothing likable in us . This is a suicide.


[Just because women are biologically built to have children doesn't mean that we're built to stay home with those children.]

Women are weaker and therefore, less adequate for outside work. Even if most jobs today do not require physical strength, women are more emotional, more sensitive, more unstable (periods), less competitive and therefore less adequate for the workplace.

Men are physically stronger, women weaker. It's science. And denying that men have always searched for weaker, fragile, feminine etc... women, and women for stronger, muscular, tall, dominant men is bullshit.

[The fact that you think of women solely in the context of your sexual attraction to them is an example of sexism.]

I'm telling my way (and most men's) to behave with women is linked to our heterosexuality. Yes we prefer women be weaker than us, more fragile, nicer, sweeter etc... More feminine.


[I know a lot of men who believe they'd like to be stay at home dads and if that's what works for families then it's really not your concern. Babies are still being born, someone is staying home with them, doesn't matter if they have "milky boobs" or not]

First, most men would probably not want that. Second, you just screw with Nature. All women body functions, psychology etc... are made for motherhood. The existence of women is linked to motherhood actually. You wouldn't have your periods every freaking month otherwise.

[HOWEVER, "serial monogamy" (one mate AT A TIME) is absolutely something we're capable of. Essentially, the thing we should be asking for is not monogamy, but "exclusivity".

Exclusivity is the term and condition in a closed relationship social contract.]

Serial monogamy is BS and a social construction. It's the crap women tell us to make us believe "romantic monogamic love" exists (and is the norm). When I date somepne, my love for women don't go away and my dong too. Forbidding men to be themselves can make us go sneaky, hide stuffs and cheat.


Maybe. And because of this, women shouldn't impose "monogamous love" on men. Men and women don't have the same perspective on sex, one is active (and physical), the other passive (and almost emotional).
Sex has nothing to do with love/emotional bonding for most of us (men).

And because women want us to "love" them before we fuck, most of us (unfortunately) lie to get laid.

[Why not install chastity belts on women from the nursery homes until marriage (with a MAN only of course)?]

Women should be "correct" and "modest" about sex. I like women preserving for marriage, like Christians and Muslims. It's more correct and clean.

Men are not meant to be monogamous. Let the man live. We separate love/affection and sex quite easily. It doesnt mean we don't like you, just that other sexy/lovely women are very easy to love for us.

Personally,a beautiful woman sincerly smiling and being kind with me is enough for me to "fall in love". Even a silent/mysterious sexy woman is enough.

I already date women for a nice pair of ass, tits, beautiful eyes or hair, it's about little things sometimes.

Love is very physical for men. Love is more emotional for women. "Physical love" is more easy to have because you don't need a lot of bonding to have it. Men can look "promiscuous" because of that.

A lot of men think like me I guess.

For my sexual life, I don't think I could stay with one woman all my life, it's crazy. It's almost depressing. I would probably cheat on her or watch porn for a change. That's why men prefer submissive women, they won't leave you if you make "some" accidents sometimes. After pregnancies, women generally get fat, stretch marks and all, this is just disgusting. I don't know where the monogamy myth come from, at least for men.

Cuyen #sexist #wingnut #conspiracy #racist incels.co

[Blackpill] The ultimate goal of men

Unfortunately, we are the generation of men raised by women hence we need validation from women, we need to being accepted by them, we need attention, actually, we are hungry for attention. Lack of masculine figures in our generation is caused this. If we had the right masculine figures to take as role models, we wouldn't end up as weak, validation-seeking beta males. Lack of masculine figures in our generation is a result of the degeneration caused by the jews, but that's another topic.

Most of us had weak moms too, with high anxiety problems and shit, which, eventually caused us to have high levels of anxiety. If maybe our dads gave us some beatings, we wouldn't end up like this. Notice how boomers are generally masculine. yeah, they are annoying but male boomers are over masculine, unlike our weak bitch ass, anal-fucked faggot generation. because they had some masculine figures in their lives.

As a child, we wanted attention from our mothers, and as grown males, we need attention from women. We try everything to just get attention from women. You come here and post when your crush looks at you, it's weakness. you feel happy when some random slut talks to you, it's also a weakness. you feel like you are going to bang her when a random female has even a little conversation with you, it's a weakness. in every aspect of our lives, we look for validation and attention from women. it came to a point that people kill themselves over not getting pussy or lack of intimacy.

I can't blame them. that's legit how the society is fucked up in a way that only men are negatively affected and women's standards are sky rocked. but what if what we really want is something else, but not validation from a cock riding whore? media and the brain fucked society programmed in a way that we all should serve women and beg them for validation. from children's tales to movies, we brainwashed to think that we should kneel down and suck female's feet and beg them for attention.

Sure you feel like having a girlfriend would be amazing, but you put some facts aside like women are swallow and they'll never let your mind rest, so your body. they will ruin your life once they enter it. they will brainwash you. and yeah, all women are the same. there's no expectation. just because your mother acts nice to you doesn't mean she is any different. the relationship between you and your mother is a kind of relationship that you'll never have with any female in the world. hence, two are different things.

And here comes another mistake men make, particularly non-black pilled men think that all women are like their mothers, and can tolerate their emotional breakdowns but in reality, you should show no weakness to keep a woman interested its what is it and it's proven by the science. talking to women about your shitty past and lonely life will do no good. you should actually lie them, manipulate them if you can, lie about your life and your interests. you should just make a lie instead of telling her your favorite thing to do is playing fucking Fortnite.

A part of blackpill is coming to the conclusion that women LOVE lies. and they are controlled by manipulation. to prove this fact, just look at how mainstream media plays tricks on women's minds, how to turn them into garbage sluts and cumdumpsters.

you should learn manipulation, compared to women, men have thicker skin so they are more immune to propaganda and manipulation. so you need to be dark triad to pull it off, to manipulate women.

Overall, women are a waste of time. they are really going to fuck your brain up, no matter if you are single or not. they are going to fucking ruin your life. hence why men need to serve for a higher purpose, more than getting validation from women, we need to do something vicious, something holy in a religious or non-religious sense. but something that values our well beings and gives purpose for our lives.

We all should serve for a purpose, live under discipline and that's how we're going to feel our masculinity. that's how we'll return to masculinity. The modern society repeatedly blamed masculinity for doing "harm" so over time, the masculinity is reduced, it became thinner and thinner in the west. Hence why men lost their purpose of life, hence why men commit more suicide than men. we need to return to masculinity, to who we were and what made us men.

Anwesha Sarkar #fundie boldsky.com

Reasons To Beware Of Feminist Men:

1. Against Their Nature: Wouldn't it strike you as strange if a tiger suddenly turned vegetarian? This is because it is against their basic nature. In the same way, feminism is against the basic nature of men and that is why women hate men who claim to be upholders of women's rights.

2. Traitors To Their Own Cause: The types of men who start calling themselves feminists are seen as 'traitors' among men folk. Generally, men despise male feminists much more than they despise female feminists. How do you trust someone who has betrayed their own kind? If they have betrayed their own gender that is men, they might as well betray you.

3. No Chivalry: Usually men who believes in the rights of women usually lack chivalry. They treat women as equal, but not better than men. So when you are an equal, he doesn't have to hold the door for you or pay your bill. Just like Atheists have no holidays, feminists have no concessions for being women. That is why legendary actress said, "Women who want to be equal with men lack ambition."

4. More Liberation Than We Need: When a man turns feminist, he becomes much more radical than the most rabid feminist. They start preaching for much more liberation than women want or need. Now, we may believe in our right to not wear bras as it is a symbol of oppression and gender stereotyping; but do we really want men to be burning bras on the street for our cause?

5. Women Like Bad Boys: No matter how technically correct feminist men are, women hardly ever get attracted to such men. Women have this sinister quality to get attracted to all the 'wrong' kinds of men. The mythical 'bad boy' who is a woman beater and a chauvinist still reigns supreme in the fantasies of women. Put it simply, women are a bit masochistic from within and that is why 'abusive' men is what most women partly want.

All in all, feminist men are not bad, but they are too good to be true. Would you like to date a man who calls himself a feminist?

tiniestlion & gigababejfl #sexist reddit.com

(tiniestlion)
i wish women hated men more. i wish we didn't care about having the moral high ground over men or being better and more reasonable than incels. i wish men would get stalked and harassed until they cry just for daring to post on female majority subs, instead of smugly expecting women to accommodate their voices. i wish we'd see a femcel shooter

I do too, I feel like things nowadays have gone backwards and gen z I think in particular has a lot of girls that are willing to accomodate the vulgar tastes men have. Men refuse to reflect on their disgusting behaviour and cry and stomp their feet like little kids when women dare call them out. I wish women did hate men more make them suffer.

lol they think women saying "i hate men" is the apex of terrorizing, sadistic behavior

I hate men, I don’t pretend to be soft and accommodating to these assholes nit now not ever. A femcel shooter. Lol.

valerie solanas had the right idea tbh

The last thing we need is more hate. Honestly that gets us nowhere.

it would get us everywhere. it would be amazing if hatred towards men was so potent that men became afraid of women enough that they hurt women less. we are only as nice as we are because we have been conditioned not to offend men, the population in power. as it is, men constantly expect women to bend over backwards socially for them while having zero standards for themselves (fucking lol i always get moids bitching about my tone, as if they are owed kind, patient explanations while they're the intruders, and some even think they DESERVE to be here. meanwhile moids tell me "kys cunt" elsewhere and i don't even blink). men have been talking over women for millennia. they need to be told, maybe even forced to shut the fuck up more, and if that's hate? so be it

Comment removed by moderator

lel this mad wurstie crawling over from braincels to comment because he's sooo upset by the idea of women possibly wanting him dead when his own sub is filled with moids fantasizing about enslaving and torturing women. i think you yourself could use a castration tbh :)

(gigababejfl)

I think the better thing would be learning to stand up for ourselves and not just take it when they treat us that way. I don't agree that men constantly expect women to bend over backwards for them, but if they say shit like that, fight back and don't just take it. Mutual fear of each other isn't a good thing. Think Cold War.

If we treat men awfully, they'll only end up resenting women. The better thing would be to encourage respect and not tolerate anything else. Society is better when people are trusting of each other, and so I think that's the ideal we should strive for.

Men already resent women.

While I'm against hate that occurs for no reason, you just sound weak or protected enough to be weak.

Women are already more benevolent across the board. Softer, more empathetic, more openminded statistics reflect how many of us are dead and battered for being defenseless idiots who don't understand the value of strength and pushback.

Considering what comes from the opposite sex and considering we already have no female equivalent of that shit, your comments encouraging more female weakness angers me.

I would not change female nature for all the good things but I would empower and strengthen women by force and remove people like you that weaken women.

Technology is evolving and the men are getting mentally weaker, angrier, less conscious, and more dangerous with it. Because that is what they use to cope with growing up.

Your attitude might have done something nice 60 years ago but yeah, women can't afford any more of this.

Witchwind #sexist witchwind.wordpress.com

UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?

I haven’t been writing in a while, and it’s not because I don’t like writing any more but things have accelerated elsewhere in my life and I can’t be involved everywhere at once. As this isn’t paid work, obviously I can’t afford to put blogging first.

Anyway, there are still many posts waiting to be finished. In the meantime, I’ll start another one.

I often muse about all the things that we’d need to change about patriarchy if we abolished men’s rule over women and the earth. Everything and every single aspect of social organisation is so much the opposite of how it should be, it’s dizzying to even begin to think about all the things we should stop / change.

Mostly it’s about men stopping from doing harm. But stopping men isn’t enough because beyond that there is the entire world to relearn, to heal, and our entire society to rebuild. We would be faced with the immense task of replacing all the misogynist, genocidal, biocidal practices men have ordered our society with for eons. So many of us now are acculturated, cut from land, nature and from one another.

If we managed to overcome men’s tyranny over us, how would we rebuild our world? I just want to throw some ideas here that I often come across these days. I dream for concrete, down-to-earth, simple and easily applicable measures of stepping out of patriarchy into a female-loving, biophilic world. This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!

SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Men’s position in society

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Major serial killers, serial torturers, pimps, pornographers, severe domestic abusers, serial rapists, genocide planners, biocide planners and pedocriminals across the world will simply be euthanised: the decisions will be taken by women in a mass world tribunal for patriarchal crimes. This is by far the best solution, and is the most legitimate, ethical way of reducing male population to more reasonable levels. Such men would otherwise forever pose a threat to women, children, animals, the earth and society as a whole, and we know they have no chance of ceasing their violent behaviour after having reached such an advanced stage of sadism and sociopathy. It would be reckless to spend space, resources and energy in keeping them alive in prisons.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children. Obviously you know my opinion, but let’s say that’s up to the mother to decide what she wants to do before he turns of age to leave the female family circle.

In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus, pollution and toxic wastes men have littered and almost killed the world with. Much of the damage to the earth is irreversible, however with a great deal of effort and genius, women will find sustainable, natural and simple ways of healing a lot of the damage men have caused, and send men off to do the dirty work. No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Family, child-raising and reproduction

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth. Men will necessarily lose all and any power to dominate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

It’s the inalienable right of each woman to control every phase of her reproduction and life creation. Abortion will be possible at any stage of pregnancy, however there will hardly be such a thing as undesired pregnancy since there won’t be any men forcing pregnancies on us any more. Abortion will nonetheless be recognised for the trauma, mutilation and loss of life that it is. The number of children and human population will naturally decrease to sustainable levels, so will the number of males born. Women will be free to experiment parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs.

The nuclear family will be abolished, in particular the parent’s property rights and absolute power over her child. Children will be considered as persons in need for autonomy and all form of punishment, authority or educational manipulation over children will equally be abolished. Raising and caring for children will be a collective responsibility for women, and motherhood / childcare and especially capacity to be empathetic towards children will be taken very seriously, as something that needs to be (re)learned and studied over years before being fully competent for this immense task.

Schools as we know them as punitive reclusion centres for grooming into male domination and female subordination (as well as selection system for elite executors of patriarchal institutions) will be abolished. Boys would definitely not be around the girls, certainly not most of the time, and never beyond the age of puberty. And obviously no adult male would be allowed near children.

There will be no such thing as “teachers” with positions of authority over children. “Guiders” could learn also from the children or students as much the students from them. We’d learn anything we’d want from languages to sciences to art to music to medicine to building to witchcraft to swimming (etc) without restriction of age or time, as long as it’s adapted to our capacities, level and availability. Learning would be autonomous, with guidance when needed, instead of enforced and dictated. They’d be no need for external reward, marking or punishment because the process of learning in itself is so rewarding and fascinating that it’s self-sufficient. Anyway I could go on and on, non-patriarchal learning is truly riveting.

Social structures between women.

All relationships of authority, domination and subordination will be abolished between all women of all ages. We will be able to recognise each other’s strengths, expertise, guidance and capacities (or lack of) without it implying superiority, inferiority, veneration or lack of respect. We would find each other beautiful. We would live our friendships, love and affection for women unhindered.

MEN’S INSTITUTIONS

All oppressive male institutions will be abolished after men have been retrieved from them. We obviously won’t keep these institutions. They will return to the nothingness that they belong, just as a distant, bad memory.

Military:

No more military, no more army, no more wars! It would be illegal for men to hold weapons. Global peace would be the immediate consequence. Most weapons will be destroyed (or recycled into something else), such as weapons of mass destruction, anti-personnel mines, tanks, machine guns, all manners of terrestrial, marine and air-bombers, and all the many disgusting things men have invented. For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.

State:

States, borders, nations, laws would be abolished and totally dispensed with. Laws mentioning the number of prohibited acts will be kept for men only. Women do not need laws to contain ourselves. Laws were created by the male elite to protect their property from other men. Laws are rigid and static, that’s because their purpose is to hold existing patriarchal powers in place. Our own society would be in constant evolution, improvement, creative renewal, yet grounded in reality and adapted to our needs and circumstances.

Women would be able to move freely.

Societal structures and decision-making assemblies wouldn’t exceed roughly 300 women (representing no more than themselves). Keeping numbers low for cooperation is important because the greater the size of the unit, the more horizontal cooperation becomes difficult and requires vertical hierarchy. Possibilities for peaceful, cooperative organisation between women are infinite – as long as they respect the individual integrity of every female – the group should never weigh over the individual but be a source for support and efficient organisation of collective life and space. There could easily be associations of exchange between different groups and peoples in order for women to cooperate regionally and globally where necessary. There would be no limit in age of participation in decision-making for women and girls, which means adapting the format to different ages and capacities.

Medicine:

Men would be permanently banned from any kind of medical practice. All woman-hating, genocidal institutions such as gynecology, psychiatry, obstetrics, big pharma, the torture of living beings in the name of “scientific experimentation” will be banned. Men’s fragmented, objectifying, sadistic view the human body will be part of history, replaced by biophilic medicine. Medical science will no longer be monopolised by a small elite but available to all at any age where appropriate. The (female) doctor’s role will be to guide the patient in her own healing, never to exercise authority over her or take decisions at her expense. Special healing spaces (where surgery is necessary, etc) will be so nice, warm and welcoming that just being there will make you feel better. The soul and life conditions of a person will always be considered part of the body, and symptoms will always be understood in a holistic way. There will be no more chemical, synthetic and toxic products with often worse side effects than the illness itself it claims to heal.

Perfect health would be the normal state of women anyway, as we will learn by experience and observation what we should eat and do to stay healthy at all seasons and times. Most women will have rediscovered our healing, divination and extra-sensory communication powers.

Religion:

Patriarchal religions will crumble down with men’s oppressive system. Religious ideologies, along with its hierarchies and vacuous rituals will cease to exist. I believe a woman’s world would be spiritual. Spiritual connection isn’t based on faith but on critical observation and experience, on a real personal connection to the elements, beings and spirits that surround us, and on the real magnetic power of beings.

Economy (tied to ecology):

Obviously, Slavery, men’s exploitation of women, men’s capitalist systems will be abolished too. The most important aspect of male economy is that it’s based on men’s competitive accumulation of resources (by killing, destroying, commodifying, taking control over, extracting the greatest possible amount of life) and based on production of poisonous, addictive, programmed obsolescent goods — in order to win the patriarchal game of achieving greater domination over women and girls.

This necrophilic relationship to the world and the environment will be abolished, to be replaced by biophilic ecological and economic principles. This will encompass every single process of our life activities, from house building, to food consumption, to communication, travelling, furniture making, cooking, etc. They will have to be carefully designed and thought out in a way as to never endanger the survival of any species, never pollute any environment, never require the use of poisonous, non-recyclable materials, never to require indentured labour or exploitation in order to be maintained. This would obviously impact the nature and scale of our activities. “Work” (exploitation and division of labour) as we know it would disappear. It would be the responsibility of each individual or group to sustain herself more or less autonomously.

We should learn to observe our environment and deeply understand the interconnectedness of all beings around us, as well our own impact before deciding whether or how to transform it. Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone. For instance, if we pick leaves of some plants, it’s important not to rip the whole plant off, to take only parts of it so it can grow again. Or to only take a few plants (or seashells, whatever) where there are many, so to respect the survival of the species where it is settled. If we cut trees to build our house, replant them. There are also infinite ways of making the most of materials for energy, food or production while using it as efficiently as possible. Building houses in ways that don’t require heating in winter or cooling in the summer. It is now widely known that energy such as electricity can be infinitely renewable if we use wind power, magnetic power, water power… And everything can be made DIY.

We will learn to be autonomous again and make our own clothes, food, furniture, houses, soaps, detergent products – or maybe someone else will make them but most things can be handmade and it’s so much more rewarding.

In a biophilic world, nothing is garbage, nothing is pollution. Everything is conceived so as to be part of a life cycle. This doesn’t mean we should keep the same toothbrush for 50 years or never improve on our machines, technology and infrastructure, but there’s no such thing as a dump, or toxic spilling. All materials should be harmless, recyclable or biodegradable, given back the earth if we no longer need them.

Industrial agriculture and farming:

Genetic modification of plants, pesticides, monoculture, field ploughing and consequent aridification of the land will be considered criminal. Our right to self-sustenance would no more be confiscated by mega food corporations – as they will no longer exist.

Agriculture should always be small-scale, local, and as much as possible be modelled on wildlife, self-growing / self-renewing conditions (the less work and intervention, the better), and especially be conceived so as to nourish and sustain rather than deplete wildlife and environmental balance. Again, possibilities are infinite, we have so much to learn.

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely. Maybe after a few decades, after the human population has stalled, male population has decreased, and after we’ve made serious efforts for reforestation and restoration of wildlife on the earth, it would probably be fairer to hunt animals occasionally. Right now, given the extinction rate of animal species, I find it criminal to hunt or fish. We don’t need to eat that much meat anyway.

Rex Infidelis #fundie returnofkings.com

How Fast-Approaching Sexbot Technology Is Making Women Fearful

I just had a funny experience that illustrates the imperious power of the female narrative in our society. I was sitting in my living room with a 25-year-old, who we’ll call Teri, watching a technology documentary when a segment came on about sex-bots and the technological advancements that are making ever-more realistic ones possible.

At first she seemed intrigued and amused at the sight of dozens of featureless rubber torsos hanging from hooks, waiting to have nipples painted on before being attached to jointed metal frames; but a moment later, there was an interview with a guy who had journeyed to the shop to help design a mechanized companion that was being made just for him, and Teri’s expression changed. Here was a man, neither creepy nor overtly awkward, and exhibiting no outward sign of disability, stating without shame that he would rather pay $7,000 or more for a silicone-and-circuitry simulacrum of a woman than take a real live one out to dinner.

She wasted no time with subterfuge (I like that about her), her id marching indignantly to the forefront as she huffed, “I don’t know about all this. It seems like they could just replace women with those things.” As you might expect, I failed fantastically in my attempt to stifle the ensuing chuckle.

A New Enemy Emerges

While most females will never be as direct as Teri, preferring instead to couch their arguments in talk of “dehumanization” and “exploitation,” the truth is they are scared of the competition. It’s bad enough that we already have FleshLights and RealDolls, but the thought of a fully functional female shaped robot who walks, talks, laughs, fucks like a pornstar, and (if designers are smart) knows how to cook and clean?

Plus you never have to feed it, take it shopping, meet its parents, or listen to it cry? Now the ladies are starting to sweat. They know that access to this sort of technology will compromise their bargaining power with men. While you may be tempted to point out that women have had access to dildos, vibrators, and even more complex contraptions involving power tools for quite a while and it has failed to replace us, you would do well to remember that women don’t want the same things from men as men want from women. Men look to women to be their companions, keep their homes, and provide sex. Women, on the other hand, look to men for everything else.

Narrative Under Attack

If women en masse had some way to meet their needs for shelter, protection, child-rearing resources, and status without trading their beauty, companionship, and homemaking skills for it, the power of a man to secure himself a desirable woman through the cultivation of superior provisioning skills would be greatly diminished.

Oh wait… that already happened. If men succeeded in leveraging half the power through technological innovation that women have managed to through modern governments and their myriad social justice programs, the dynamics of the marketplace would tip dramatically in their favor. Basically, the mass production of sex-bots with all the above traits could cause as tumultuous a tremor in the sexual market as the advent of feminism itself, only this time with men getting the better half of the deal.

In today’s world, the men we call betas and deltas, or those who actually produce all the wealth SJWs are so busy redistributing, are incentivized toward all this surplus production by the dream of having a woman to love who will both admire them and help raise a family in their image. While this American dream remains attainable for a select minority, modern society and its many forms of “progress,” feminism chief among them, continuously drive that goal farther into the realm of fantasy for the average man. As women gain more and more “freedom” and use it to pursue and attain (briefly) the minority of men who they desire, your average Joe must submit to ever-intensifying erosion of his bargaining power if he is to even scavenge the leftovers.

As the MGTOW movement illustrates, men have already been feeling the squeeze for a while now, and many are starting to drop out even with the knowledge that this will likely lead to childlessness, loneliness, and a lack of a support network in old age. If that’s already the case, how many men will join them once sophisticated robo-lovers and artificial wombs consign these worries to the dustbin of history? Is our society prepared for the potential results of a precipitous drop in its productive and innovative capacity? The next generation of men could turn a century’s worth of social engineering on its head by dropping out and refusing to produce the wealth that feeds the various organs of the globalist machine.

[...]

Conclusion

We live in exciting times, to be sure. The war of the sexes, like all other wars, has long been influenced by technology. Females of late have been given a huge leg up from male-made technology in the form of birth control, egg-freezing, and in-vitro fertilization. But while women love to shout about how independent they are, deep down they realize they are only afforded a soapbox by the same “patriarchy” they so disdain and the men who pay the taxes to run it.

If sex-bots become as ubiquitous as some hope and others fear, men may find themselves with less and less incentive to maximize their productivity as they opt in large numbers for cheap robots over expensive families. Women better hope the Campaign Against Sex Robots is successful (it won’t be), lest the next generation of men truly go their own way, leaving women to prove how capable and independent they really are.

FA #fundie wehuntedthemammoth.com

get real men, a broad wrote this trying to tell you what is going on in her self created drama of myopic shelf life ruin the world with chemical abandon in her never ending search for the Face Cream of Life so she can keep putting her holes up against the next set of losers holes just so they can cuntinue to parasite off mankind and shower him with udder disrespect.
women are children their entire lives, men and women know this is true, thing is men accept it, women make every excuse and remain children who need to be led through life, protected, corrected, taught and loved. no woman knows anything of love, just the running scared empty feeling void inside they rush to fill with anything they can get their grubby little materialistic hands on while taking Mr. Wallet for a ride because he cares and is capable of caring while all a woman WANTS is attention to beat out the next natural born sluts Marcy and Stacy over there, etc.

Pathetic. And pathetic men have to put up with a creature that constantly attacks them because they made the wrong choice so very long ago. The Great Whore is a mentality and women have it. They think they are so smart but they left themselves behind with their laziness.

One word of advice, do not ever fix what a woman breaks – it’s all a ploy to get you to ‘feel’ for her to get you to do it for her and waste your life on something that wasn’t worth it in the first place. by their own choices. wonder why women are all up in publishing = to rehash just what they got to work with – gash, tits and ass and that’s it.

NAWALT = just another excuse so a woman can keep lies in her pocket to pull out and use because none of them anywhere have any H.A.I.R.E. much less loyalty… they’re always shopping around, including for men but notice how they chastise men for women be an easy lunch?

yeah, it’s called the double standard and they know nothing of G-D. they made their choices, made their beds and they want YOU to take their places? nope. they did it to themselves and Obama was right = a nation of women because you fukn pussies are pussified when it comes to what is really going on.

Patriarchy? Ummm, nope try whore MATRIARCHY… but oh, it’s a man’s fault. women are pretty little desperate do nothing liars by choice = not your problem men, you have a world to keep building while they tear it down for attention because men are creators, women destroyers, men know and women never will. they can’t. this is why G-D HAD a wife also, past tense, LQQK around, see where she is? yes. it’s just like that. now there are good women – your job is to avoid them and not to feed the whores of Cain’s of life. all a bitch ever has, is an excuse – backed by lies, to get what she wants. know why they’re confusing? because they’re fukn with you, lying to you, cheating on you… men, go fuk ’em all… it’s what they obviously want – but oh, you can’t do that. be a man. or be a worthless abusive neglected finger pointing self made drama whores bitch.

hey ‘ladies’ – your feelings don’t pay the bills ya babies, but your tits and ass just might… since it’s all the currency you really have for your udderly disrespectful attitudes and choices.

also notice a woman always attacks first, always… with the excuse of being threatened, notice they always hit first because they’re children, notice how they have every excuse – and Americunt High Society thinks they’re a bunch of smart hoes running men…

nope, just a bunch of rude whores who aren’t worth it because guess what WHITE AMERICAN ANGLO SAXON MALES = YOU ARE THE APEX PREDATOR OF THIS PLANET… AND THE TARGET TO USURP BY ALL HER LIES.

nope, there’s real women, but let’s get real here – most are just self used up natural born whores who gender bent a system to refuse to give men respect. they also started all the chaos for WWi and II…

remember, G-D HAD… a wife too – till he kicked her ass out to the gutter where she chose to belong… choice a = be a real woman choice b = be a whore and they all choose b BECAUSE IT’S SO LIBERATING. They do not care about anything – but sure lie and say they do. nice space shuttle they built, eh? … know your place, men do – but some whores want to be men.

I’m all for real men and women who play life straight and come correct with manners and respect – ya know, a human being. the rest, fuck your feelings, you’re shit and nothing but parasites and worthless fodder to make examples of. you do not care so neither do I. but for those who are True and do care. ” ) Hello. to the rest… fuck your feelings scabs and parasites. worthless human garbage. time to go.

IncelKing #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

High IQ post.

IT won't touch this

No, they wont, they only ever share low IQ posts from this forum onto their sub-reddit. Thats why i wish there were less low IQ posts on the forum, because the only thing low IQ posters are doing is providing IncelTears with the material they need to misrepresent the entire forum as being full of low IQ retards so that nobody takes us seriously (which means the few high IQ and knowledgeable posters here are never able to spread the blackpill to normies).

I think feminism might of had some progressive aspects to it but this aspect was aborted by the female strategy you mention is the root cause of feminism .

Women consider serving their husband and children in return for food, clothing, shelter and all their needs being accommodated for, as being "enslaved," but they don't consider being a wageslave for government and corporations (in order to accomodate those same needs) as "slavery", which makes me think that feminism was never about female empowerment but about liberating themselves from being married to those evil, unattractive men who kept women in concentration camps known as "homes", enabling them to chase Chad dick and have their fill while society foots the bill.

Women are enjoying this new system which has given them so much freedom, although its not women (but society rather) which is paying the price of increased violence and social instability.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

various WGTOWs #sexist reddit.com

Re: I think WGTOW and MGTOW have a *lot* more in common than both sides think, and I would argue that both group's fights are the same.

(fatfinger357)
I am quite satisfied and happy as a WGTOW but then the MGTOWs keep coming in to this sub and start brigading and hating on us. We are just women going our own way and these MGTOWs come here and they are not going their own way.
There is too much misogyny in MGTOW for there to be any peace. It is far better to just block them and shield them from life. It's far too risky to be with men, especially the MGTOW kind. Once they know you're a woman, the abuse and harassment is on you, and in real life men are more or less the same, trying to dominate you and take over and control you. It makes sense of course because men naturally produce testosterone, so that makes them violent and abusive, so it's not exactly their fault, but I feel as a woman it is safer to protect myself with WGTOW than bother with useless things like relationships.
Of course for a fat person, the "no pain no gain" principle applies. A fat person needs to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, high fiber, and they need to exercise a lot, and for a lot if people this is not easy, so they need to go through pain in order to reduce their risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.
However, men are different. Men are not like losing weight. Losing weight actually achieves something. However, with men, if you put in a lot of effort to apply makeup and appease men and make them feel good and give them intimacy, then what do you get from them? Nothing. Most women spend so much time and effort on others than she neglects herself so that, as she grows up, she ends up with less wealth. I'd rather just focus on myself and do what I want rather than sacrifice myself for men. For too long women have sacrificed themselves for ungrateful men. We need to listen to what we want.

(violetreva)
That's where you're wrong! I'm sorry to disappoint you but this is a liberal fantasy and I have no intention of reassimilating into male society ever again. Women are not men. Men are not women. We are not in the same boat. Men oppress women. We do not belong together in any capacity. They can have mars and we can have venus, quite literally. Separatism FTW.

(day01x)
I was just thinking about this on reading a post in another WGTOW thread. One in particular mentioned that "men cannot conceive of a non-transactional relationship", and that everything is about "value" with them. This is the exact language used in MGTOW, too.
Men and women are 'valued' for different attributes, but they are both valued ruthlessly. You can debate the details of which particular group of people have it worse, and while that discussion may be worth having, that's not the point I want to make here.
I think what MGTOW and WGTOW have in common isn't just personal experience, it's a reaction to how brutally dehumanising society can be.
It's as though the idea of the "free market" has entered into sexual relationships. We've adopted the consumer mindset in our social lives. Social media and dating websites exacerbate this, but the mentality was developing long before. We ignore the substance of a person in favour of a good profile. We pay attention not to how they make us feel or think but on an abstract collective value, as though the only measure of their worth is how much others want them.
Think of the kind of relationships that would result from this setting. Imagine what happens to the people who don't, can't, or won't fit into that kind of environment.

(DangZagnut)
I don't hate women, I don't even hate feminism, not that I won't shit post about women or feminists posting outrageously bizarre things into the internet. I also do it with stupid men doing stupid things.
I just prefer to be by myself and traveling the world and having adventures, rather than marriage and children. Children smell and marriage seems like it limits everyone in that equation to a life of exceptional mediocrity.
I've never had a bad relationship. Sometimes they end, and in my relationships, maturely and with both sides realizing its time to move on and no hard feelings.
I encourage WGTOW to go their own way and not be bound by societal conventions. You don't have to be bitter to be WGTOW any more than you have to be hurt and bitter to be MGTOW. Sure, some come to a MGTOW conclusion because they've been hurt, and I'd wish they embraced it from a more positive place, but to each their own.
I don't see any "solution", because I don't really see any "problem" in the first place. To say that either of those exist implies that there's something inherently wrong with going your own way in life, and setting your own path to happiness.

(CasualPie)
There's a bit of difference between "I'm tired of the system because it sucks" and "I'm keeping the hell away from the system because it could legally ruin my life".
In your listing of the disaffected guys, you forgot to list the ones legally destroyed through divorce settlement, child custody arrangement, false rape/assault/abuse accusation, etc.
One of MGTOWs reasons for GTOWing isn't just that the game sucks, it's that the game is mortally dangerous and supported by the legal system.
Hunger games, relationship edition.
I am not disaffected by personal experience. I am MGTOW because of all of the failed, fucked up, and ruinous relationships I've seen in others.
Being in the army, I've seen countless relationships destroyed from women cheating and/or abusing their power of attorney while the guy is deployed. I've seen guys in college get thrown in jail for decades for hooking up with girls when they were both wasted drunk. I've heard countless guys complain that they can't do what they once loved doing because their SO/fiancée/wife doesn't like that they spend so much time on it, hell, my own mother is on her third marriage (I love my mom, but it's hard to believe in marriage when your own mother changes them out every 10-20 years)!
Worst of all, I've heard girls joke about this stuff. "Oh, if it sucks I can change my mind about it, I always have a few glasses of wine to loosen up", "if he breaks up with me I'll tell everyone he was abusive to me", "not paying attention to me is abuse right? : yeah it is!".
When society can casually joke about throwing people in jail over poor personal choices and changed minds, I will eagerly avoid it.

ancap-biochemist #sexist reddit.com

Learning to hate women is the best thing to happen to me

Ever since embracing misogyny my life has become something I can be proud of. My career has taken off, I'm in great shape, my finances are solid, I'm more well rested, better fed, my sexual gratification became better*, I'm more focused, happier, and more philosophically grounded in reality.

. * When I was still sleeping with women (which I've made a conscious choice to never do again earlier this month, after a risky ONS) - there was a marginal increase in my enjoyment of sex. When I used to masturbate (I'm also trying the no-fap thing in addition to celibacy, since early this month) it was also more enjoyable with more misogyny.

If you would pardon a quick digression into celibacy/no-fap, then we can return to the topic of misogyny improving a man's quality of life:

So far, the sperm retention thing has had some predictable results and some unpredictable results; I feel more aggressive, focused, horny, sharp-witted, with more random erections, invasive pornographic thoughts, a push toward old habits of sexual gratification, and I've noticed I'm making a lot more eye-contact with people. I also feel less tired at certain times of the day. And I've been more productive due to a heightened mood. The desire to blow my load can be distracting, and my epididymides are giving me some blue-balls, but massaging my balls tends to help relieve the pressure (no nocturnal emissions yet). No-fap is like coffee, perhaps - it is stimulating with some drawbacks (like how coffee makes you have to piss and shit, makes you crash and jittery, etc.). The alertness and presence of mind (and dominance instinct) come with a price.

Returning to the topic of hating women - it is the best thing to have happened to me because, I think, that women are a disappointment regarding virtues. They've been sold as a panacea for all of men's ills (she will civilize you, make you food, clean your house, give you a moral foundation, massage your sore muscles, listen to your problems, blah, blah, blah). The Woman TM wonder-drug is like heroine... pretty soon you're spending all your time and money supporting a drug habit.

And, make no mistake, love is a drug. Love will blind and stupefy a man into taking a bad deal.

Think about the following; nature endowed men with a survival advantage for using their wits in a hunter-kind-of-way. Man needed to outsmart nature, but women needed to outsmart man in order for the species to persist. If man were smart he would focus on self interest and even enslave woman instead of loving her. However this is not generally the case. Generally, men fall in love with women and want to provide for her and protect her, and give her advantages. This is due to the love drugs of hormonal cocktails which bathe the brain in dopamine rewards (D1 and D2 pathways triggered by oxytocin and vasopressin).

The love-drug lowers a man's IQ to that of the woman (or lower). All that beautiful women see are idiot men. When the men leave the women they become expert hunters and survivors who have brought nature herself into submission, and cracked the very atoms which constitute the [or "a"] fabric of our material existence. Men are smart, but not around women.

Hating women has reversed that weakness which was required to continue the species.

Hating women has made me a stronger person... because, let's face it - there's a lot to hate, and women make you weak.

And I recognize the forces that I'm blaspheming; the white-knight mafia hates men who renege on their natural burden. Those mob wives, which would cuck their white-knights, want the strength of an independent man. Women love powerful men, and fuck them readily... and if a man (unburdened by women) is free to excel due to his natural advantages and without his natural inhibitions (e.g. "the asshole") then he becomes the "alpha" male - women reactively lubricate their vaginas and accelerate ovulation toward the man who has become strong thereby, and their husbands become jealous.

That jealousy is a powerful bulwark against male independence and why they will attack you; you are an affront to their gods, and have blasphemed the holy love-drug.

But...

The freedom and strength is too great of a reward not to raise a middle finger toward those cucks and tell their whores to fuck off.

My life is too great to give up. And hate (toward such an ugly thing as woman/white-knights) can be the most healthy response a man can have.

Granted, this is foreign to everything they [the blue-pills] know, and they "can't even" conceive of "assholes" such as a man who loves his life, succeeds, feels proud of his work, is happy and healthy, and yet hates women.

Don't knock it until you try (or understand) it. Give misogyny a chance (or don't - no skin off my back).

Daniel Amneus #fundie fisheaters.com

[From a book titled "The Garbage Generation" hosted on the linked website]

What IBM thinks of as the promotion of equality is better understood as the undermining of hypergamy, one of the pillars of the patriarchal system. Hypergamy, or the "marriage gradient," means that women "marry up," men "marry down." A cinder girl may hope to marry Prince Charming, but a chimney sweep cannot hope to marry Princess Charming. A male doctor might well marry a female nurse, but a female doctor would hardly consider marrying a male nurse. The female nurse may be underpaid, but in the marriage market her prospects are better than those of the female doctor because there are more desirable males she can hope to "marry up" to.

...

IBM's question implies that society's arrangements tilt in favor of males. The fact is that society's arrangements produce more male winners and more male losers. One principal reason for the success of the male winners is the knowledge that they might well be losers: they must earn their success and are motivated to earn it partly by the greater risk of failure. IBM proposes to intervene in society's arrangements to confer benefits on females which will increase the number of female winners without increasing the number of female losers. What will increase is the number of male losers, since the male engineers will be competing not only with each other but with females enjoying a conferred advantage denied to males. Another question:

WHICH ONE WILL BE PRIVILEGED TO ATTAIN STATUS BY MARRIAGE AND WHICH ONE WILL HAVE TO EARN IT FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF BY WORK AND SELF-DISCIPLINE?

With IBM interfering with "market forces" this question might have to be re-worded: "attain status by marriage or by IBM's largess." As IBM offers women more status, marriage has less to offer them-- men have less to offer them. Men's marriageability is decreased because they have relatively less to offer women; women's marriageability is decreased because they have fewer men to "marry up" to. As IBM transfers status from those more dependent on work and self-discipline to those less dependent on work and self- discipline, men will become less motivated, since the rewards for work and self-discipline are reduced. The effect, though at a higher level of income, will be what is observable in the ghetto, where women enjoying the handouts of the welfare bureaucracy and become economically and status-wise independent of men, with the consequence that large numbers of men become de-motivated and less marriageable.

Two more questions:

WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO DIVORCE HIS/HER SPOUSE? WHICH ONE WILL HAVE HIS/HER LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF FIVE IF HE/SHE IS EDUCATED AND ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT?

...

Let's project IBM's program into the future. Let's suppose the wearers of the blue and pink booties grow up and both become engineers. Then:

WHICH ENGINEER IS MORE LIKELY TO BE CHILDLESS?

IF BOTH MARRY, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM HIS/HER SUPERIOR EDUCATION?

Virginia Woolf thought as IBM thinks: families would make great sacrifices to educate their sons, few sacrifices to educate their daughters. She failed to understand the reason: education enables sons to have families, to provide for wives and children who would benefit from the sons' education economically and by the transmission of the knowledge and the values embodied in the education. Educating daughters does not enable them to provide for husbands, and greatly decreases likelihood of their having stable marriages. The birthrate of educated women is far lower than the birthrate of educated men. (Ms. Woolf herself was childless, as are most feminists.) What Bernard Lentz says of professional men and women of the period l890-l940 is true of other eras:

Even for the "superperformers" [the most successful professional women]...marriage still led to diminished success, resentment, and a distracting tension in their personal lives. In contrast, men at this time found marriage had numerous advantages in their climb up the professional hierarchy....

Ergo, society has a greater interest in encouraging and furthering the education of males. Educating a boy enables him to have and to support a family, to give children an advantage in life, to transmit family values and strengthen the patriarchy, to create social stability. Educating a girl enables her to escape marriage, or if she marries, to escape childbearing or to have a smaller family. Education, which increases her independence, will enable her more easily to expel her husband and inflict upon her offspring (whose custody is virtually guaranteed her) the disadvantages accompanying fatherlessness. Feminists see these options as desirable, but why should IBM or the rest of us see them as desirable?

...

Feminist-economist Dr. Barbara Bergmann offers a little paradigm-story about Pink People and Blue People earning their living by picking berries on an island. Like women and men in our own society the Pinks and Blues have sex-segregated occupations. Dr. Bergmann thus illustrates "the crucial point":

If a group is segregated and furthermore is crowded into a relatively narrow segment of labor-market turf, its members will as a result be less productive, and their economic rewards will be lower.

(It is a sufficient refutation of this to point out that Senators are a segregated group occupying a narrow segment of the labor-market turf, but they do not suffer from low economic rewards.)

...

If men cannot outperform women they will not perform at all, and society will be lucky if male energies are merely wasted in narcissistic display rather than in disruptive violence and machismo. A man with nothing to offer a woman save a paycheck the size of her own is impossibly disadvantaged. He will know, and his wife will know that he knows, that the words "I don't need you, Mister" are always at her disposal and, thanks to the anti-male bias of the divorce court, she has an authority in the family greater than his own. Patriarchal capitalism prospers because it creates an arena of work wherein males are allowed to succeed and create wealth and where they are motivated to do so and rewarded for doing so by the satisfactions of family living.

...

Ms. Wattleton's pitch for "reproductive rights" and Dr. Bergmann's pitch for taking better jobs away from men to confer them on women come to the same thing: men are excluded from meaningful participation in reproduction. Men become superfluous members of families. The basis of civilized society is that men shall share equally in reproductive decision-making, and shall earn the right to do so by working. The program of feminism is to deny men this right by undermining the sexual constitution, the Legitimacy Principle, marriage and the family. When they talk about women's reproductive rights and about making women economically independent of men, this is what they mean.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The report offers explanations for the rise in single mommery that reiterate most of what I’ve written on the topic: namely, female economic independence, State welfare as Daddy substitute, the Pill, and male economic stagnation are the big incentives fueling the increase, largely through the mechanism of reducing the number of fertile-age married women.

...

This is basically the “I don’t need no man, I’m an empowered careerist shrike” phenomenon, which, as you will read, created a premarital sexual market feedback loop encouraging men to demand sex from women without offering marriage in exchange.

The report authors conclude that the cause of the rise in single mommery is NOT primarily a consequence of negative economic trends. Instead, they blame affluence for weakened family stability.

...

When women no longer needed marriage (because women were economically and reproductively self-sufficient), men no longer needed to barter marriage for sex. Now where have you read that before? Oh yeah…..HERE. [Link is to a CH post from 2008]

...

There is a contingent of tradcon-ish righties who balk at the idea that the State and the social norming of working women create disincentives for women to marry; but here we are, data in hand showing exactly that.

The report authors conclude that male economic fortunes aren’t the main cause of the decreasing marriage rate (and subsequent rise in the single mommery rate). However, I note that the authors make the critical analysis error of ignoring the reality and impact of female hypergamy. This is a very common flaw in these studies, but it’s a critical flaw because women don’t judge the status of men in absolute terms; women judge the marriageability (the bux) and romantic worth (the fux) of men relative to other men AND relative TO WOMEN. Read on to see what I mean.

...

I’ll clear it up for the authors: Hypergamy. As women have seen their career prospects and personal incomes rise, economically stagnating men have been hardest hit by women’s innate desire for higher status mates. A working class man is a catch for a jobless single woman, but he brings nothing to a working woman who already has her basic needs met. And as women rise occupationally and financially, their attraction for higher status men than themselves rises along with their own economic status. This leads to working women choosing men based on non-provider mate value cues, or choosing to drop out of the marriage hunt altogether.

...

I’ve mentioned this before [indeed you have]: working women disincentivize male resource provision (there are those sexual market feedback loops again), and the corollary to that is economically vulnerable women incentivize male resource provision.

...

Ensuring the economic self-sufficiency of women has created the single mom crisis.

...

On this subject, I’m a pessimist. Good times create…and all that. First, there’s the loss of purpose that accompanies the Automated Life. This hits men especially hard, because men, unlike women, don’t primarily get their sense of purpose from raising children and chatting up the neighbors hoping for gossipy dirt. Men get their purpose from work, from achievement, and (yes) from sexual conquest.

Filippovna #fundie therightstuff.biz

Be the Chad You Wish To See in the World

Marrying and having kids is one of the most arduous challenges our generation must face. Women are rushing to the edge of the cliff of their youth in droves, and falling to their ruin with a splatter at the bottom of their thirties, covered in bodily fluids, cellulite, and tattoos. Young men are seriously contemplating whether cartoons can be girlfriends, while the abandonment of monogamy and the tremendous risks of dating and marriage keep all but the top stratum of men, the Chads, from even chancing a relationship.

It is no wonder the word cuck hits such a nerve for so many. With divorce being initiated three times as often by women, resulting in her being awarded the children, and most of his income and his assets going towards her new family, the similarities are staggering. Even finding a marriageable woman comes with the high likelihood of her having a plethora of previous partners, men she bedded for passion and for fun, and having settled when she realized she needed to cash in her assets before it was too late.

Add to that the impending threat of demographic displacement, where White men have been granted the privilege of supporting other men’s families, as they are systematically bred out of existence, and it paints a picture of utter defeat to anyone who wishes to have a family of his own.

This is also why Chad receives so much bitterness and envy from the everyman. The highest caste of sexual fitness, Chad is a symbol of what most cannot have: access to the best women. Chad is stronger, cooler, more interesting, and most importantly, the only type of person impervious to many of the pitfalls of the sexual marketplace.

There have been varied approaches to this problem. One is for a man to go his own way, rejecting women altogether, and deciding to not play the game if the outcome is likely losing. The problem with that is he does not get to reproduce. Another approach is to look toward a certain uprising, hoping that sexual disenfranchisement reaches maximum capacity within one’s lifetime, with the multitudes of six-and-unders overhauling the status quo entirely, and sending women back in time, back to the kitchen, while raising monuments and statues which read: THE INSIDIOUS VAGINAL JEW - NEVER FORGET.

The problem, again, is that they will likely not get to reproduce. And even if they do, the minefield of modern marriage is a gamble that makes shooting up a sorority house look like an appealing way to leave the world in comparison. The only way to win, it seems, is to become Chad.

Chad is not an individual, but an archetype latent within all men, not any specific mould or make, but rather characterized by how victorious he is in winning the attention of women. He is the superman of the principal imperative in life, and our relationship to him is like a Rorschach test for how close one is to realizing his potential--anything from jealousy, to disdain, to ambition. He is the sexual Volksgeist of our generation, and much like the literary hero, represents the psychological and physical battle of the most rudimentary of life’s quests.

There is no anguish and resentment reserved for any type of man as there is to Chad. Few Wojaks cry bitterly when contemplating the disheveled genius or the legacy of the celibate inventor. As comforting as denial would be, having access to women of the highest quality and quantity is supremely important.

This means that in order to be a Chad, a man must be appealing to the nature of women. The same creatures who wear fishnets and lingerie in public holding signs that say, “STILL NOT ASKING FOR IT“ are the ones qualifying a man’s SMV, not other men. If the majority of women consider a man a 4 out of 10, a 4 he is. This is a pill so black it burns down its own neighbourhood for a new pair of Jordans.

What women want in a man is difficult to discern, as what women say they want and what women actually want are not just different but contradictory, but it can easily be defined as masculine, or in other words, useful to women.

To men, women are primarily sexual objects. An ideal woman is beautiful, fertile, sensual, and pleasant. This is for good reason, as the other qualities of a woman are generally unexceptional. She is physically weak, her intelligence tends towards the mean, and in most cases anything aside from giving birth, men can do better. A woman has little else to bring to the table on a reproductive level than her looks and fecundity. Men must fulfill a much greater range of qualifications in order to impress a woman.

To women, men are kind of like tools. This is why one of their most commonly used phrases in online dating in 'Looking For' is “can fix anything”. Women are social cultivators of the male ability to subvert the material world, and can rarely advance their social standing in life without riding on the back of a capable man. Women coast on the status and power of men, men do all the work, and women reward men with what they do as sex objects, mainly acquiesce, sometimes enthusiastically.

Chad is, in a way, a multi-purpose tool. He may be funny, goal-oriented, successful, wealthy, or even under 6’2. But he is some combination of traits that women find useful, and carry the potential to help propel her social standing in some way. The antithesis to Chad, then, is a man who is useless. Look to the behaviour of teenage girls for a demonstration of the uncivilized, uncensored reaction to a man who is seen as useless--revulsion, cruelty, or fear, sometimes even at a simple hello. To women, these men aren’t just undesirable people, they may not even be men, or even human.

An interesting study to highlight this point is "Rape From Afar: Men Exposing to Women and Children," in which an unwanted display from a man even in the form of flashing can "have a significant impact on their lives and can be interpreted...he could also rape or murder them." A lesser man even showing arousal in a woman’s general vicinity can make a woman perceive the threat of rape or death.

There are very few perks of being merely a mediocre man, either. He may get to marry and reproduce if he is lucky. He will spend the entire relationship being tested ruthlessly, on the off chance he will lose his grip and give her an excuse to find someone else who is more useful. Many women will not hesitate to climb onto the back of a great man, only to stand on his shoulders and climb higher once the opportunity arises. This is not a comforting idea, but such is the fate of the average man.

Feminist influence in government has proven nothing more than the fact that women will act like women even in circumstances where they are permitted to act like men. Social degeneration leading up to and caused by female-led policy, just like the dating scene, has become much like a harem, as big daddy government coerces resources from men and families and makes it rain on his loyal voter base.

Being an accomplished or honourable man by the standards of men has little real bearing on the realities of the current year’s sexual marketplace. We are in a dysgenic age in which the same demographic of people taking the feel-good flamethrower of uncontrolled third world immigration to Europe are the ones arbitrating who gets to reproduce. Men with valuable things to offer the next generation are being pushed out of the gene pool, or out of the lives of their own children. Counteracting this is an incredible feat of overcoming the odds, but the other options are even more grave.

Chad is the very embodiment of overcoming the odds. He may not have done so on purpose, or worked very hard for it, but he has succeeded in making women believe that he has value to offer them. Whether we like it or not, Chad is the hero of the story of our modern era. He wins. Any approach to this archetype outside of aspiration and the will to power is self-defeating. We are living in a dystopian sci-fi novel, and just like in any story, the jealous foil who attempts to murder the hero always loses.

IncelKing #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] [For IncelTears & Normies] The patriarchy was necessary for maintaining social order via equal distribution of sexual resources (SEXUAL COMMUNISM)

In caveman times where survival of the fittest was the norm, women had sexual preferences for tall men and men with robust, trauma-resistant skull-structure (square jaw, prominent chin, hunter eye area, hollow cheekbones), as these qualities were an indicator of strength and ability to protect one’s tribe from predators/other men. However, the men who possessed these traits only comprised roughly 20% of the male population, yet they were mating with 80% of women.

These genetically elite men (alphas) had harems of women while the genetically inferior men (betas) were left with scraps or nothing. The only way for beta men to mate was to form packs, kill an alpha and take his women for themselves (by force). It was during this time that rape and murder became part of male nature, an evolutionary mechanism which allowed weak men to bypass female sexual selection in order to pass on their genes by force, the same way it became female nature (through evolution) to select the most genetically elite men.

However, this system was one of total chaos and anarchy. Men were killing each other for sexual resources and women were raped. Men of the past, knowing that everything in life comes down to sex, realised that the only way to establish peace and order (where men were no longer being killed and women were no longer being raped) was to create a safe and fair distribution of sexual resources

You see, a society with 100 women and 1 man can still survive, as one man can impregnate all the women in a short span of time. Whereas, a society with 100 men and 1 woman is doomed (a woman can only give birth once every 9 months, and past a certain age she becomes infertile). The men of the past understood the fact that women held a monopoly power over sexual and reproductive resources (sex being the primary motivator of men, who are the creators and destroyers of the world) so the only way to “even the playing field” was to give men monopoly power over all other resources.

Therefore, women were not allowed to work or own property, thus creating a system where a man would provide a woman with house, clothing, food etc. IN EXCHANGE for access to her sexual/reproductive resources. By giving each sex monopoly power over their respective resources, a TRANSACTION of resources was able to take place between a man and woman. This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE, thus giving birth to what we all know as THE PATRIARCHY

The patriarchy was essential for creating social order. You see, the patriarchy was a MERITOCRATIC SYSTEM, where instead of 1 man (alpha) having a harem of 4 women to himself while 3 beta males missed out, every man (irregardless of genetics) had claim to a woman BY MERIT of fulfilling his role in society as a productive member, hard worker and valued contributor.

Because each and every man had a woman to themselves, women were no longer raped (as each and every man was sexually satisfied) and men no longer felt the need to kill other men in order to gain access to women.

IF WE CONSIDER SEX TO BE A RESOURCE, THE PATRIARCHY WAS NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER VIA EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEXUAL RESOURCES, THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF "SEXUAL COMMUNISM"

But many women weren’t happy to be married to an average/below average looking man, they all wanted a chance at being with a good-looking man, even if it meant sharing him with other women (which was preferable over having an average/unattractive man to themselves), so feminism was born, a movement which would enable women to get what they truly want (genetically superior men).

The greatest mistake of the men of the past wasn’t giving women the right to education or even the right to vote, it was giving women the right to work and own property, because this meant women were no longer dependant on a man’s resources for survival, once again allowing them to revert back to their nature of having sex/reproducing with the most genetically elite men, while genetically inferior men “miss out”. SEXUAL COMMUNISM WAS ABOLISHED WHILE SEXUAL CAPITALISM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ITS PLACE, a ‘free for all’ system which gave the upper hand to the genetically elite (the bourgeoise class) at the expense of the genetically inferior (proletariat class).

However, everything comes at a cost, in order for one group to “gain” something, another group must be at a “loss”, such is the nature of the world where resources are limited. Rape and murder were at their lowest during the patriarchy, yet ever since feminism changed the structure of society, the rates of rape and murder have once again increased as average/unattractive men who were previously sexually satiated during patriarchal times have been left sexually unsatisfied in the modern era, hence lashing out at a society which they consider to be against their personal interests.

But women only care about getting what they want, even if it comes at the cost of the greater good of society. As far as women are concerned, the current system we're living in is the perfect one and that the rise in violence in society is just "collateral damage."

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Mjolnir #fundie returnofkings.com

Do Not Work In A Job That Employs Women

Division of labor according to sex has been a feature of human societies since the beginning. There are even theories by some anthropologists that this division was what allowed Homo Sapiens to decisively pull ahead of their competitors. World War II and the ensuing scourge of feminism changed all of that in America and Europe. In part, this was a reflection of how industries were changing. Where farms and factories once employed most of the population, the country workforce shifted towards clerical and service work. Fortunately, there are still plenty of occupations that are dominated by men where you can escape the tyranny that is the modern feminist dominated work place. Given that so many jobs including women are legal minefields, as well as unpleasant and inhospitable to the masculine man, there are many reasons you should consider a change to a job where you can work in an all male environment.

[...]

Learn The True Meaning Of Teamwork

Are men or women better at working in teams? Although men are more individualistic, assertive, and aggressive, it is these very qualities that make them better at working in groups. Of course, it is a tired feminist talking point that “women value cooperation more than men do.” The truth is that women avoid overt conflict, but they love to keep drama bubbling under the surface. This translates to an atmosphere of mistrust in many teams that include women, even if females are experts at maintaining saccharine appearances.

Working with men only, one will find that conflicts are taken care of on the spot, preventing interpersonal problems from compounding; the assertiveness and aggression of men strengthens the group rather than weakens it. Working without the tensions that women cultivate, men are able to coalesce into ruthlessly efficient teams accomplishing feats from the heroic to the mundane that we take for granted (here, here, and here). Cooperative behavior releases dopamine to the brain in humans, which explains the immense pride that comes when you’re part of a group of men able to fight and work almost as one man, sometimes without even speaking. Camaraderie has been the drug of choice for men for time immemorial, and women’s preference for conflict destroys this.

Rediscover A Healthy Sense Of Mystery Around The Opposite Sex

In the past, men and women led lives that were parallel and interdependent but usually very separate. Men and women mingled together only at certain times of the day, or sometimes only certain times of the week or even year in the case of people who lived in rural areas. Every man enjoys the company of women, but most men become fatigued with too much. When men and women work separately, it cultivates a natural mystery and respect, so that time that men and women spend together is more appreciated. Presently, the sexes know each other too intimately, and familiarity leads to contempt. As any man who knows the ins and outs of the female mind will attest, the better you get to know women, the more you dislike them. Working a long day in the world of the masculine workplace, with its attendant cursing, laughing, and rough masculinity, one appreciates the contrasting feminine much more when he goes back to his woman (or women). Compare this with the modern workplace, where many men are so tired of feminine pettiness and drama by the end of the day that the prospect of being around women in the evening is exhausting.

[...]

Ditch The Corrosiveness That Women Bring To All Male Groups

In naval tradition, it was considered bad luck to have a woman on a ship, and this was more than a mere superstion ion. The introduction of a woman to an all male environment changes an atmosphere instantly. Obviously, there is the distraction, as focus that should be used to get work done is funneled into thoughts of fucking. But the really corrosive effect of women in all male workplaces is how it affects the way men treat each other. No longer are other men comrades and friends; they are competitors. This happens subconsciously, as men start to be suspicious of others and subtle posturing and power plays start. Once again, we see that the wisdom of our forefathers is usually superior to modern philosophies.

Conclusion

If you don’t already work in an all male occupation, you should explore ways to move into one. There are many fewer female free jobs than formerly, but they can be found with a little bit of digging. Perhaps I will write a post soon exploring the options available to young men starting their lives and older men looking to restart their lives (as an aside, one direction that I will specifically recommend against is the military; it has been thoroughly corrupted by feminism). If you’re ready to do embark on a path that will give you new respect for yourself and other men, start moving towards an all male job immediately. Your soul and your sanity will thank you for it.

Anonymous #racist misterpoll.com

Have you ever noticed how BADLY black men want White women?? It's the proverbial "every negro's dream". Despite the quantifiable fact (check the next US Census or this url: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ms-la/tabms-3.txt if you're skeptical) that 95% of people in America marry within their own racial/ethnic group (i.e. Whites w/ Whites, blacks w/ blacks, Asians w/ Asian, latino w/ latino), black men still demonstrate a stronger preference for White women than men from other racial/ethnic groups such as Asian or latino.

People are naturally attracted to people who share their physical characteristics. Although I'm able to appreciate the beauty of women from other racial/ethnic groups, I feel no strong, compelling impulse to reproduce with someone from another race. For example, I can tell you from a personal perspective that a tall White male with blue eyes, fair skin, and light brown/blond hair is going to experience the highest sexual attraction possible to a tall White woman with similar attributes. It's only natural, and similar to the preference that light-skinned negroes exhibit for other light-skinned negroes.

So why DO black men want White women so BADLY??? Poor, pathetic black women spend millions (collectively) every year for products to straighten their hair, EVEN DYEING IT BLOND IN SOME CASES, in an effort to look like a "White woman" so that they can attract and maintain a relationship with a black man. I want to offer some insight into this phenomenon.

1) Fat lips, kinky hair, and broad monstrous noses - While these physical characteristics may understandably be considered attractive in certain areas of Africa, they are considered unattractive to other races. The black men simply don't want to curse their descendents with physical traits that are regarded as unsightly by the dominant races, so they endeavor to dilute their African genetic code with a European genetic code. They want a daughter who looks like Mariah Carey or Vanessa Williams, rather than "Aunt Jemima" or the woman who gave birth to (professional basketball player) Patrick Ewing.

2) What better way to get back at "Whitey" for slavery, elevate your status among the "homeboys", and bolster your negro self-esteem, than to have sex with a White woman!!! Never mind that most of these White women are overweight, ugly, have low self-esteem, or have been rejected by White society for some reason and therefore must "settle" for a black man out of desperation... White is White!!! It still gives a reason for a homeboy to dance and clap in the pews at church and shout "Glorbee Hallelujah!!!". It's just a shame that these homeboys regard black women as "second-rate".

3) Forbidden Fruit - (this matter is somewhat complex) As American adolescents enter puberty, they begin to notice and explore media images (TV shows, movies, magazines) of attractive members of the opposite sex that are used to sell products such as candy, soft drinks, acne medication, clothing and anything else that teenagers can purchase with their disposable income. Because of the fact that America is approximately 75% White, and for obvious economic reasons, most of the images used in the mass media are of attractive Caucasians. This is probably the source of the black man's "fixation" on White women, and ultimately the source of great frustration for the male negro. This frustration is caused by societal pressures on white women to not be "social failures" who date negro men, hence the "forbidden fruit", and because the vast majority of White women are not attracted to negro men for the same reason that White men are usually not attracted to negro women. If you don't believe that White men (horny or not) are not attracted to negro women, consider this... How many WEALTHY White men (who are usually favored by most women of any race) do you see marrying or even dating black women??? The "trophy" has always been a young, attractive White woman, and I guarantee you that this situation will never change.

4) Evolution - Perhaps it's an effort to "evolve" and advance their race. In the black man's estimation, a kid who is 50% white is better than a kid who is 100% black (or has two parents of primarily African genetics). When comparing the number of engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, published authors, and successful business professionals who are White verses the number who are black... even Snoop Doggy Dogg could do the math on that one. If the black man wanted black kids, he would pursue a BLACK WOMAN, but knowing that he can never become "white", he does the next best thing. The so-callled "black pride" is sacrificed as the pursuit of the White woman becomes the negro's Holy Grail. The negro males just want to secure for their offspring what they either consciously or subconsciously perceive as "better genetics", i.e. the genetics of better looking or smarter people. If they thought black women were the other half of the "formula" for producing attractive and intelligent children, they would pursue BLACK WOMEN.

If a literate negroid has read this far, he is probably trying to console himself by asserting that White women have sex with black men because of large black genitilia. First of all, ask any gynecologist and he/she will tell you that a woman's vagina comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. Most women do not have a coarse, oversized vagina that needs a freakishly large genitilia to be properly filled. Given that a woman's vagina can expand to accomodate the birth of a baby, and that many women enjoy digital and oral stimulation, size issues are irrelevant. Furthermore, check out any of 10 billion porn sites on the Web, and you'll soon discover that a White man can posess very large genitilia. The myth of the black male genitilia is just that, a myth.

However, other than running and jumping ability, most negro men just don't have much else in which to take pride, so they obsess over their genitilia and live their lives in a state of permanent adolescence. REAL sexual satisfaction has everything to do with an emotional/spiritual connection, and NOTHING to do with the physical aspects of "gettin' a groove on", and this is why most White women avoid black men.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

Various NetEase commenters #homophobia chinasmack.com

[on Taiwan holding its largest ever Pride parade in 2009]

网易上海网友: Men and women coming together to create the next generation is of course not the only goal, but what we can be certain of is, God create people so that only men with women can reproduce the next generation, and not men with men and women with women. If the latter were possible, wouldn’t it have been easier for God to just have created one sex? So, do not violate God’s will, it will bring down Heaven’s wrath, Heaven would not approve!

网易广东广州天河网友: Homosexuals should indeed be sent into a concentration camp to be humanely destroyed, otherwise [they will] infect AIDS and whatever everywhere…

网易黑龙江哈尔滨网友: May those homosexuals quickly contract AIDS, so this world can once again return to normal, thank you.

网易广东广州网友: Those homosexuals are truly fucking disgusting. Especially the fake men, just seeing them makes me want to beat them up, the pussy/cunt on your body is completely a waste of resources!

网易河南郑州网友: Homosexuality is simply against the natural law, a bunch of sick people, a perverted/deviant group of people!

网易广西南宁网友:This bunch of deviant/abnormal things!

From the moment I have become aware of things, I only know that only men and women can have sex.
Women with women, that is called deviant/abnormal.
Men with men, that is called disgusting/gross + deviant/abnormal.

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 3/end, goddammit Jim]

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles. So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

From comics, movies, anime, gaming, and now the more recent kids shows, feminists will use any kind of tactic to promote their evil. Stories like Rapunzel or The Sleeping Beauty have been a part of our childhood, teaching us about gender roles and the importance of them. Now they have been changed in various ways to suit modern women, giving them unrealistic expectations of what they can be. Here are nine characters that show how they have infiltrated entertainment.

Steven Universe

The show deals with an entire species that is genderless but has feminine traits (female human forms), Steven is a male protagonist that is not masculine in a lot of ways. Rather than being the strong fighter type, he acts through femininity despite being male. He cries for help from women rather than helping himself. The show contains trans, queer and homosexual characters which is typical for a show like this. They have women of different sizes and has quite a dark story line for a show aimed for children. Cartoon Network is now giving a way for brainwashing, glorifying obese women and unhealthy diets.

They even place the emphasis on disguised leftist concepts like:

Tolerance – Praising of everything non-white, non-male and non-heterosexual
Minority – non-whites, non-male and degenerates
Inclusiveness – Accepting everything non-white and degenerate
Emancipation – Disregarding rules made by conservative males

But despite all these teachings, SJWs bullied a Steven Universe artist to attempt suicide because she drew Rose (an obese female character) too thin. Hypocritical? Yes. It certainly has one of the most cancerous fanbases, consisting of bronies and white knights.

Wonder Woman

Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

– William Moulton Marston, in a 1943 issue of The American Scholar.

Comics publisher Max Gaines asked him to create a new superhero for their comics, to fill the void he felt existed with something new. The creator knew that he wanted his hero to embrace love over violence, and to value peace over war. He assumed that women value love and peace. He valued independent, educated, and unconventional women.

Wonder Woman remains a feminist icon 75 years after her creation, because she symbolizes the idea of female domination. According to NY Post, Wonder Woman was not ‘feminist’ enough for Social Justice Warriors, because SJWs and feminists are never happy with anything in society until white men are silenced. Most wonder woman comics were terrible, but the media keeps pushing it on readers that they HAVE to give in.

BatGirl

Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon is allegedly a woke male feminist ally. He’s a mangina allegedly known for directing “strong female characters”. His characters are unrealistic as women simply can never be tough. He cares about fake women’s issues like the pay gap and the alleged success of lady Ghostbusters. Joss is directing Batgirl, the story about a super heroine who is basically Batman but a woman. Currently he’s facing back-lash on Twitter, but in smaller amounts due to more and more people accepting these kind of reboots.

Overwatch

This game is tainted by women who blame their problems on men. Basically, every character in Overwatch has different victory pose animations that a player can unlock and choose from. And for the time-traveling character Tracer (one of the female characters in the game), her victory pose gives players a wonderful view of her buttocks, clad in skin-tight leggings. Obviously, if men are enjoying something there must be feminist intervention, so Blizzard changed her appearance and stated:

We’ll replace the pose. We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented. Apologies and we’ll continue to try to do better.

Women expose themselves to men in conventions, and when they are assaulted they complain that “men should respect women,” even when their own clothes were designed to attract men. But when a character in a video game wears skimpy clothing, there is an outright backlash against it. Overwatch is even taking strides to be LGBT inclusive. This marks the end of straight white man in entertainment.

Wandering Son

Wandering Son follows two fifth graders who do not identify with the genders they were assigned at birth. Shuichi Nitori identifies as a girl, and Yoshino Takatsuki identifies as a boy. This series marks the end of an era, modern anime has come to suit feminist tastes. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Splash

The 80s film, starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, is set for a reboot with Channing Tatum starring as the “merman”. The original Splash was about a man, Allen Bauer (Hanks), who falls in love with the mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who rescued him when he was a boy. Their relationship is hampered somewhat by the fact that the mermaid (who later names herself Madison) has to return to the sea after just a few short days, and also by the deranged scientist determined to prove that merpeople are real by throwing water at her.

Since the announcement, many feminists have been celebrating the gender swap on social media – particularly Tatum’s casting as a merman as some kind of feminist victory… but why? Because of the casting of a white, straight male in a role that was originally held by a woman. Hollywood’s content has become more man-hating than ever before. Seeing men in feminine roles is a way of brainwashing men to be submissive and less masculine.

Gender swapping is fast becoming a fail-safe way for Hollywood to shut up anyone who kicks off about equality without actually having to write anything new: Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Ghostbusters. All these films have either been made or are in the works and all of them have some kind of “feminist twist”. I’ve seen these gender bends in anime too, although no one seems to notice because anime gender bending is normalized.

Undertale

Your character is non-ambiguous (genderless) and non-white, which one could assume it is Asian or Mexican. They never refer to you as “him” or “her”. Despite having a small amount of characters, it managed to include homosexual relationships and a transgender robot. There are more homosexual couples than their opposite counterparts, and both the prominent female characters break out of gender roles. Undyne being the best fighter in the underground, another unrealistic feminist expectation that women can be better than men.

Do you see where “progressiveness” in gaming is really heading? Because the game pushes “progressive propaganda”. One of the major themes of the game that people have been gloating about is the notion that gay relationships are wonderful and perfect, straight relationships are doomed, diversity is strength, promoting inter-species romantic relationships, and it’s primarily because of this thematic content that the game gets praised. That is why Tumblr is spamming the votes, and the media is circle-jerking over the game. Nearing the end of the game I dawned upon the similarities of this game and Steven Universe. There’s nothing particularly special about the game except for discreetly lecturing you about homosexuality and political correctness.

Sailor Moon

It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality (lesbian propaganda). The series also makes a point of looking down on femininity, by showing how the less feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.
Though, I somewhat find it astonishing that the creator of the site anime feminist doesn’t care about “fanservice”, which is short softcore porn scenes, it occured to me because they know about the female supremacy in anime.

Life Is Strange

The creators of the game met with resistance to make the protagonist female. It’s a story about a girl named Max who learns that she can time travel. Life is Strange are some of the few games that are telling women’s untold stories in ways that make it seem as if women have it harder.

It’s simply a game made to exaggerate and show how cruel men can be to women (almost every man in the game is either a loser or a woman beating trash). It attempts to lecture you and say things like “these men need to be in check” whenever it finds the chance to. This game was published by SQUARE ENIX who also published Tomb Raider. Why is it that those people who push equality so much then decide to make a game where it’s about the girl, never around the male?

Conclusion

Modern entertainment is becoming more about social justice than hardware, software, story, gameplay, or animation, while we get to endure feminists complain about everything they don’t like, ruining entertainments we were once able to enjoy.

funds_r_safu #sexist reddit.com

Does anyone else feel that all men are evil backstabbers who talk behind your back?

Am I the only one with this experience?

I feel like every man I’ve ever known has betrayed me. They love to talk shit behind your back, lie to you, etc.

I feel like there is no good in them and that they are inherent evil.

in my experience it's mostly females who were talking behind my back. Moids are more direct and insult you directly.

I used to think that too, but men do both way more often. They are just sneakier about it, which makes them worse.

Women bully each other about shallow things like clothes and money and being fat... Things that can be changed with effort.

Men bully women based on things that can't be changed like her race, her family status, or her "caste", or the way her face naturally looks.

Go look at videos of women who have been disfigured in acid attacks by jealous men on youtube. In the comments sections you will see men saying she deserved it, saying she's ugly, laughing at her pain, making jokes at her expense, etc. You'll never see women do that. Women only "bully" on things that people can change, like weight. Even though it's cruel, it's fair. Men bully on things that people can't change, which makes them truly evil.

Men will also make shit up to destroy women literally for no reason. Women don't do that, and no woman would ever think to do that unless it was for pure revenge over something major. Men will put all of his effort into destroying a woman for no reason other than the fact that she exists.

Unknown deleted comment

Yep, men get off on pretending to be in relationships with women, pretending to love and care for her. Meanwhile he's really just using you for sex and even worse, as something to abuse.

Women don't understand that men actually have the urge and need to abuse someone else. Nothing can be done about it, it's just the way it is.

As far as I'm concerned the only answer is antinatalism.

Men can literally never be trusted. They aren't conscious or sentient, they are entities that run on pure hatred. I am not exaggerating and I mean everything I've said quite literally.

Takes one to know one.

I've never had anyone backstab me.

Really? People here are defending moids and putting down women now?

Maybe you’ve just been lucky enough to not find out about them betraying you.

I had a guy who I thought was my best friend and my brother talk trash behind my back when he thought I wasn’t listening. I’ve had it happen a few times.

You’re delusional and naive if you think they see us as people.

Eric Crowley #sexist returnofkings.com

WHY PATRIARCHY IS THE GREATEST SOCIAL SYSTEM EVER CREATED

In the feminist creation myth, patriarchy is original sin. It is the Lucifer from which all evils flow. Without patriarchy, we would all live in a genderless role-less feminist garden of Eden.

However, just as the name Lucifer actually means light-bringer, patriarchy is actually an enlightening influence which has brought humanity out of the mud into civilization. Feminism only exists in the shadow of the massive abundance produced by patriarchy. Patriarchy is not the enemy. Patriarchy is the greatest social system ever created.

soarfrank

The Myth of Patriarchy
Feminists ascribe all social ills to patriarchy. Like a medieval inquisitor looking for evidence of the devil, patriarchy’s influence is supposedly all around us – our media, our schools, and even our most intimate relationships. Patriarchy is responsible for domestic violence, lost promotions, mean comments on twitter – even women’s own feeling about themselves.

Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to feminist dogma is believed to be possessed by the influence of patriarchy and in need of exorcism by an ordained Priest of the Cathedral of gender studies theory. They are forced to renounce their views, or face excommunication from the public sphere. In more honest times, the dominant religion simply called freethinkers “heretics” and burned them at the stake.

Origins Of Patriarchy
In reality, there is nothing so mysterious about patriarchy. Patriarchy is a division of social roles based in natural biological gender differences.

Males and females have very obvious self-evident biological differences. Women can have babies. Men cannot. Women’s bodies are designed for nurturing, with wombs, breasts, and hormonal cycles. During pregnancy, women are unable to physically exert themselves. Men’s bodies are designed for physical exertion, and as a whole, physically stronger.

Imagine you are part of a small tribe in a survival situation. Conquest, war, famine, death – any of the four horsemen could strike at any moment. How would you divide social roles?

As Jack Donovan states in The Way of Men:

Because your group is struggling to survive, every choice matters. If you give the wrong person the wrong job, that person could die, you could die, another person could die, or you could all die. Because of the differences between the sexes, the best person for jobs that involve exploring, hunting, fighting, building, or defending is usually going to be male. This is not some arbitrary cultural prejudice; it is the kind of vital strategic determination you need to keep your group alive.

frank_frazetta_tarzanandtheantmen-smaller

In other words, traditional roles are the basis of our survival as a species.

The Sacrifice Of Men
In patriarchy, men sacrifice their energy, their time, and sometimes even their lives for the betterment of women and children, and women give themselves to nurturing children and families.

Feminists define patriarchy as a system of dominance, in which men oppress women. This redefines men’s sacrifice as an act of control, rather than love. Many men are perfectly happy to have sex with women without offering any protection or value to the woman or her resulting children. It is an act of love that men willingly give up their freedom in order to provide for women, and their young.

Patriarchy is about love. It is about the love of human beings in families, tribes, and small communities working interdependently for the benefit of one another.

Feminism Was Created By Capitalism
Feminism in it’s modern form began in the last hundred years, when industrialization moved our economic survival from requiring hard labor to requiring skilled labor. Work used to require hours of physical lifting, now it requires sitting at a desk. This transition made it possible for even the weakest women to work.

Employees are much easier to manage as interchangeable cogs than as gendered individuals with unique needs. In fact, convincing women to work doubles the size of the work force, allowing employers to half everyone’s wages. It’s simple supply and demand. As the book Revolution From Above chronicles, early feminist movements – even Marxist feminists – were bankrolled by major capitalists in order to increase the workforce and lower wages.

CapitalismAndTheExploitationOfWomen

Feminism is a product of capitalism. The “you can have it all” message is an attempt by corporations to swindle women out of their biological needs. If you’re a feminist, you’re a capitalist, because you’ve make work a greater priority than community, children, or love.

In families, each member is irreplaceable, but in a company everyone is replaceable. In patriarchy, women toiled for one man who loved her and the children he gave her. In capitalism, women work for many men completely indifferent to her and willing to disposes of her the moment cheaper labor appears.

Feminism Commodifies Relationships
In patriarchy, selfish relationship impulses were restrained. In capitalism, they are encouraged. Each member of a tribe of community works for the benefit of those around him, but in capitalism men and women are independent agents, with no loyalty or duty to anyone else.

Roles that were traditionally played by family are now outsourced. Group homes for the elderly, day care for the children. Even mentors and friends can be bought in the form of therapists and life coaches.

This system destroys intimate relationships. It selfishly benefits a woman to bear the children of strong lone alpha’s rather than the man providing for her. It selfishly benefits a man to impregnate every available fertile woman with no intention of further contact. Alpha fucks, beta bucks.

Feminism has created a war between the sexes with each side trying to maximize their profits in the sexual marketplace while spending as little as possible. We’re all little atomized corporations united only by the laws of bio-mechanics.

steinberg_war-of-the-roses

Men Have Lost Reason To Work
This new dynamic has freed men from work. In his new book Bachelor Pad Economics, Aaron Clarey advocates a minimalist approach to money – buy only what your need and using your time for your benefit rather than a corporation’s. This approach is already being taken as men drop out of the system, earn less than women, and avoid higher eduction.

The reason men worked hard was to provide for their families. Men didn’t work long hours out of self-interest. They did so out of love. Most men can subsist on very little. It’s been said that civilization was created to impress the opposite gender. Without reward, there is no reason to work. No carrot, no jump.

As a society, we’ve reached a point where technology has eliminated the need for everyone to work. Just as capitalism freed women from their natural role, it’s freed men from theirs. Masculinity has been reduced to a fashion statement.

Return To The Natural Order
While we understand that animals exists in natural groups – a herd, a flock, a pack – we forget that man is an animal too. Man’s natural group is the tribe. Humans are mammals. We learn through relationships, rather than instinct.

Ajna-Nursing-Acorn-Community-Virginia-2006-650x486

Children require love, attachment, and stability that can only be found in emotional bonds with present adults. They are not interchangeable cogs. You can’t buy a mother’s love or a father’s wisdom. Love cannot be outsourced. Authentic love is only possible within patriarchal community.

To a company, non-working children are a nuisance. The epidemic of single motherhood, plummeting birthrates, and mental illness is due to the rejection of traditional roles. If society wants healthy happy children and loving stable communities, it must embrace the lost values of patriarchy.

In the early tribes, humans were entirely dependent on one another. Now they are independent and unsatisfied. Returning to traditional roles means living interdependently, and align with the natural order not because we have to, but because we choose to. We could exist alone, but we are fulfilled together.

Of course, feminists will call this oppressive. They want you to be free – free from community, free from belonging, free from love. A mass of apes fighting over the highest value mate behind a gilded cage.

ffleft

Back to the mud, or back to the kitchen, the choice is yours.

John Doe #fundie returnofkings.com

10 Reasons Why Foreign Women Are Better Than American Women

1. American women have unreasonable standards.

They expect you to have a big house in the suburbs and a salary of at least 150,000 dollars from a high status job (e.g. doctor, lawyer, CEO). Foreign women on the other hand, are content with a man, as long as he is a nice person and takes care of her and the family sufficiently.

2. American women have the highest obesity rate out of any other women worldwide.

Look at your average American woman nowadays— she is fat and looks like a hog. American women lose their beauty by age 30 and become very ugly, wrinkled, and fat. Foreign women, on the other hand, take care of themselves, exercise, and generally have very sexy bodies. Foreign women continue to be beautiful and attractive into their 40s, because foreign women take care of themselves and have a much healthier diet than American women.

3. American women see nothing wrong with cheating on her man.

Just look at the culture of America today. Women are glorified for slutty behavior. Foreign women, on the other hand, have not been raised to act like whores. They generally are far more chaste and loyal than the vast majority of American women. This is no doubt due to the more traditional cultures that non-Western countries have.

4. America has the highest rate of divorce in the world.

Considering that 90 percent of divorces are initiated by women, the vast majority of divorces are the woman choosing to leave the man. American women are divorce happy, and will divorce their husbands over extremely trivial reasons. The divorce system in America is also extremely biased in women’s favor, and many women will divorce their husbands simply to “cash out” (to take all of the man’s money and assets). Foreign women, on the other hand, have a much more loyal mindset to their men and won’t just abandon their husband because she read the latest chick book like Eat Pray Love and decides she “needs to find herself.”

5. American women have the worst attitudes in the world.

Pretty much every negative quality you can think of, American women embody it—selfishness, immaturity, narcissism, fake personalities, arrogance, and anger. In short, American women are a real pain in the ass to be around. This is just one of the reasons why I chose to cut all contact and friendship with American women and only maintain friendship with non-American women. Foreign women, on the other hand, are generally pleasant people to be around. They don’t have the massive chip on their shoulders like American women do, and are much more down to earth, humble, and genuine.

6. American women have no sense of humor.

If you tell a joke in front of an American woman, and it is even slightly politically incorrect, it can literally cost you your job. American women tend to be extremely vindictive and they get offended over the slightest things. Foreign women, on the other hand, are much more relaxed and not as psychotic as American women. Even if they do find something offensive, they will generally overlook it and not create a scene. This is because foreign women are not as insecure as American women and don’t feel the need to constantly prove themselves.

7. American women don’t know how to cook.

It’s like American women barely even know how to boil water. A home cooked meal to an American woman means boxed Mac N Cheese or Ramen Noodles. Foreign women, on the other hand, know how to cook complex multi-course dishes. The complexity of Indian cooking or Chinese cooking is something that would take an American woman years to master.

8. American women are more brainwashed by feminism than any other country on earth.

Feminism in America has transformed into a a man-hating movement that is reflected in the attitudes of American women. According to an American woman, “independence” is equal to acting like a spoiled, loud mouthed brat. Foreign women, on the other hand, may support feminism but they have a much more realistic view of what feminism means—equality. Feminism to a foreign woman means simply being treated with respect, instead of wanting to dominate the man, like American women.

9. American women have the highest rate of mental illness by far than any other women on earth.

Let’s face it—American women are pretty screwed up as a whole. They are emotionally unstable, mentally unstable, and suffer from delusions and are out of touch with reality. An American woman is living in her own movie, with herself as the star. And this narcissism is reflected in their mental health, as well. Foreign women, on the other hand, are very mentally stable, and aren’t prone to psychotic outbursts like American women are. Foreign women are much more down to earth and do not suffer from narcissistic delusions of grandeur as a result.

10. American women are superficial and fake.

They expect their men to also be superficial and fake. You have to put on a false image and be someone who you are not just to be considered as acceptable in America. Dealing with American women is exhaustive because of the amount of games you have to play.
Foreign women, on the other hand, are genuinely warm-hearted people and you can just be yourself around them. You don’t have to wear a mask or be a fake person in order to get a foreign woman to like you. That, in the end, is probably one of the best things about foreign women. You can relax and just be yourself and have a genuine relationship with a foreign woman.

Blair Naso #sexist returnofkings.com

The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?

Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”

The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.

But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.

Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.

Less Than Feminine

It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.

Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.

[...]

Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.

Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).

And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.

Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.

Bad For The Family

Ultimate History Project writes,

One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

[...]

If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.

True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.

Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?

[...]

Progress

We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.

Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.

The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.

The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.

Caamib #sexist blogger.com

bold is mine


Gally, I will reply to you though my goal isn't so much for you to read it, as you're a delusional idiot, but to make an intelligent reader, somebody who really wants to learn about this stuff, see why you're wrong and misrepresenting a lot of what we believe.

"Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. "

Jesus, what idiocy ! Of course they don't have nothing to do with it. You're right. You know what it has to do with? Actual improvement in male lives. Making it easier for healthy, reasonable males to get women. Which masturbation actively impedes by making them less motivated to do so. But the fuck would you know about any of that?

That's basically the reply to that entire paragraph of utter bs. Let's go on...


"You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). "

You have no idea why and how feminism comes about. Today's males have far less sexual choices than those in 1970s, when there was less feminism. Another thing that's a waste of time to discuss with you.


"How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?"

Which "junk science" are you rambling about? Feminists were never against masturbation, in fact they deem it to be an acceptable "solution" as their idea of a nightmare is whites having any kind of sex. But this is also something you're too stupid to get.

"You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades."

No, in fact you do. Your idea of robots replacing women in that women will not happen. And I'll tell you why. There's several reasons. First of all, the technology won't develop. In late 1998 people believed they'd have robots as servants and various other stuff by 2018. We don't. We have been stagnating technologically since around 2000 and your fantasies simply won't happen. Chances are that technology will decline, not improve with times.
Other issue is that there's still a lot of shame connected to using such technology.

But there's one reason that is much more crucial - men and women still want to be with each other. I still meet women 13-40 with my online ads, because modern Western women, as messed up as they are, still are looking for somebody to control them and own the shit of them, to put them in their place. You won't replace this and the male need to do so with any robots and virtual reality.

And there's a more important reason as well- why would we want to do so? Can you marry a robot, have a child with a robot? No? So what is the point, anyway? Why live in a virtual reality and knowing you'll never procreate? You think men like fschmidt, Nathan or myself would have kids if we did so? Why don't you just take drugs or kill yourself if you don't want to live in the real world?

"This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws."

No. This would be a blessing, which he understands full well as he's not as dumb as you are. It would make thousands of men get off their asses and take women.

"'I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage"

No, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy."

Standing up to delusional idiots like yourself, who pretend to be their friends (unlike the less perverse Norwegian state) is also quite brave. As I told you, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'."

No. Another thing you get completely wrong. An actual comparison would be "find me a cannabis legalization activist who actively promotes harmful chemical alternatives to pot that are known to destroy people's lives". And that is what masturbation is - a shade of actual sexuality, nothing. A dangerous tool that makes you complacent and unlikely to seek out actual sex. If you think being a male sexualist is about helping males jerk themselves off in dark rooms... Well, I'll just say that getting rid of that would be the first step to not being an idiot.

"We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws"

But feminist sex laws would collapse quickly if men stopped jerking off. Because, guess what? You are not a hebephile. There's no such thing. All sane men would sleep with 12 year-old girls and younger. And they'll be much more motivated to so when they don't jack off. When millions do it regularly, and they will when boys are discouraged from masturbating, it will be easy.

"Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??"

No, no, no, no.... Just no.

Everything wrong and stupid. The problem with the term incels is lookism and cultism, which didn't exist when I was in charge more, as I explained in my June article. This is directly connected to their takeover of the term after July 2016, Also, you miss the real point. Incels aren't meant to be popular or liked, of course feminists will hate them. The point is to promote actual solutions, which don't have to do with looks but are extremely contrary to feminism (finding non-feminist wives, rape etc). When men who call themselves incel seek actual solutions then the term will be seen more seriously. The idea that you will get a political solution in Western countries is pure idiocy. I just want to help men improve their everyday's lives. Politics is a waste of time and these countries like Norway will collapse like all countries which adopted their policies did.

It's your stupidity and idiocy and listening to mainstream media that you believe incel is some political term or whatever. It isn't. You're a fucking incel.

My goal is simply to improve the lives of men, not some great political solutions you dream of.

I already addressed the robot thing. Your assumptions about the state of technology and human nature are wrong.

If I chose robots instead of women I'd never have a daughter now, for example. Or several girlfriends or willing sexual partners, not to mention less willing ones.

Also, I'd like to address some of the shit you said before, some of which I painstakingly translated..

-Eivind's ideas on women being the owners of sex don't mean that men can't reject sex. They just mean women forcing it on them should be very lightly punishable. If I don't want chocolate that moment and somebody force feeds me some delicious chocolate am I some great victim? That's nonsense ! And Eivind did say that in cases of harsher violence these women should be charged with assault. But for giving somebody chocolate, which is how men see women's sexuality? Of course not. Another thing you'd know if you weren't a brainwashed house negro.

- No, male fetuses masturbating in wombs aren't a problem. Males usually develop first serious interest at women at around 12-14. Besides, their penises are usually too small to be properly masturbated before around 10-11-12, so they masturbate them the way clitorises are played with before that age (at least that is my experience). So such males don't develop penile sensitivity and can be successfully directed to have sex with rl girls of similar age of slightly younger/older. See how stupid and clueless you are?

Also, remember just one thing, Gally. Sperm doesn't ask. It doesn't ask if you're worthy enough, if you achieved this or that, if you have this or that level of consent or respect. It just impregnates. Think about that. So impregnate somebody. Do your role in the world.

I was attacked for saying I should have killed 12 year-old girls with C4 and burning rubber tires around their necks, but guess what? THIS IS WHAT MODERN WESTERN WOMEN WANT. What they don't want is anybody of IQ above that of a goldfish and any respect. This went down the drain from the first moment they got basic "rights" like suffrage, which are nothing but privileges that enable the destruction of society.

Oh, and another thing. Regarding islamic minded incels, you're completely wrong, as usual. Those in such communities who are most islamic minded, like myself or fschmidt, aren't even incel anymnore. Most actual incels, at least by my definition, are lookist fools who know nothing about history or wqmen's nature, want to have consensual sex (and nothing else) with dirty Western sluts who get raped regularly anyway and don' give a fuck about it, and then they're are angry when this fails.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Something I've noticed about transgender dating.

After I dumped my mtf boyfriend for becoming a woman when I'm straight I googled the situation out of curiosity. Maybe I'm biased but this is just something I've noticed. Whenever a wife/girlfriend describes her partner as being transgender people say "just take it one step at a time you may find you're still attracted". Yeah, okay if someone's straight they're NOT going to stay romantically or sexually attracted to someone who's transitioning to be female. *upturned eyes emojis*

But if it's a gay man who's partner is becoming MTF the answers tend to be more honest and practial "you're not compatible just be friends".

I hate to see sexism in absolutely everything but what else would it be?

(1984stardusta)
They will say two things at the same time:

Trans women are women and if lesbians are not attracted to female penises they are not able to love all women, thus they are not true lezbians, but vagina fetishists who hate women in every shapes and forms.

Or trans women are women, if your husband becomes a woman you have to keep loving him, because he is the same person in a different body and love doesn't care, just learn to be a lesbian and change your identity and sexual orientation for love.

In both cases women need to ignore preferences, boundaries and sexual attraction to pander to his needs, lesbians need to become heterosexual and heteros need to become lesbians because his sexuality is more important.

(gfty6789)
Right, imagine the outcry if everyone just started saying "no, you're being a vagina fetisist, go sleep with that penis" to TIMs.

(Cineezyy)
I remember going on one of the subs that discusses trans partners and the majority of posts by females (with a MtF partner) were talking about how they can be supportive to maintain the relationship. While the posts by males (with a FtM partner) were talking about how their dick will no longer get hard.

(1984stardusta)
The burden on the partner is absurd, how can someone condemn natural and healthy sexual drive?

All the pressure to repress sexuality in name of a greater good is regressive. Ignore your feelings, thoughts, preferences and just be nice! Don't be yourself, be kind or you are a murderer, because this person is going to commit suicide unless you agree to everything.

Suddenly, a man or a woman needs to feel aroused by the representation of the opposite of their needs and ignore sexual organs.

What can possibly go wrong?

(butyoucantedit)
I wonder what would happen if lesbians just started openly and happily "indentifying" as vagina fetishists. Cos you're not allowed to ~kink shame, right? Of course I think I know what would happen...

(unfeelingzeal)
"Trans women are women and if lesbians are not attracted to female penises they are not able to love all women, thus they are not true lezbians,"

i'm a bi guy and that's what a trans mod and a trans member over on a sub that shall not be named said to me, in a topic literally asking what the difference was between pan- and bisexuals. i said i'm only attracted to cis men and women and basically got attacked for saying that's bullshit because "you can't tell" who's trans and who's not.

please, get real. not even a majority of trans people are passing.

i've left that community because they're extremely toxic to anything outside of their extremely narrow definitions of sexuality. according to them, i'm either a fake bisexual, a wrong bisexual or i'm a flat out bigot. umk.

(the_lonliest_shibe)
I wouldn't say that your partner "became a woman". Even with all the surgery in the world he will never be a woman - he'll never have a uterus or get pregnant or have XX chromosomes.

I think it's more apt to say that your male partner has decided to imitate a woman, and it's perfectly understandable to not be attracted to the female form if you are straight. Theres nothing that's going to change that and people who try and change your mind on that are delusional. If i tell a straight guy "oh just try being with a man, you could learn to enjoy it" I will get (rightly) yelled at because I'm trying to pressure someone into changing their views and preferences. Yet men do it to us all the time..

I'm a lesbian and I regularly get pressured to date TIMs or men. What TIMs do not understand though is that I'm attracted to women. Not men dressed as women. Breasts and a womanly form are just one aspect of that - I'm also attracted to someone who has gone through the same struggles as I have and has the same out look on the world. And you can never change that with surgery or medicine...

(hostabunch)
Just. More. Male. Bullshit.

Do you really think a gay man is going to keep a partner who doesn't have a penis anymore?

(ChewMyMeatForYou)
As a bisexual, I want to clear something up. I'm not just attracted to both men and women because of their appearance. Universally, confidence is seen as attractive. (Not cockiness or attention-seeking, just pure IamwhoIam confidence.) There are definitely people I meet who are typically attractive, yet lacking confidence, or worse, having too much confidence and too little education.

I have yet to meet a trans person that doesn't place their personal comfort aside or has enough self-esteem to have an awkward-free interaction. If I can't eat a meal with you as a friend, without you doing something that makes me uncomfortable, I'm never going to date you. That goes for the straight men, or gay women I'm interested in.

Living a lie of this is what men sound and look like or vice versa, is exhaustive. Being GNC myself, having PTSD, that's enough work for me to manage navigating life without conflict. Why would I take on someone else's self-esteem conflict, to enhance my life? I'm an adult. It is my responsibility to help myself, not save others.

(LittleOwl12)
AGPs need their long term partners to stick around because for the part, they are unappealing. If not flat out repulsive. One guy on Tumblr braved the storm and explained why he never transitioned: the Uncanny Valley. He rightly pointed out that trying to pretend to resemble something you clearly are not is creepy.

(Babyorlaith123)
I think repulsive is a bit of a strong word but I do agree most transgender people don't pass from my experience (and I've met a LOT due to liberal acquaintances). Usually TIFs don't look the slightest but manly and TIMs are quite ugly and unappealing. Doesn't make them bad people but yeah.

(LittleOwl12)
No, it doesn't make them bad people but I stand by the word repulsive. Some of them really are disconcerting to look at, especially the huge older men squeezing into clothes meant for teenage girls.

I'm not using that word out of spite and I know it's a strong one, but I think it's important for people to understand why transition very rarely "works" the way you want it to.

(Cineezyy)
I’d say repulsive is pretty accurate tbh

(Bananastic)
> okay if someone's straight they're NOT going to stay romantically or sexually attracted to someone who's transitioning to be female

?

Male can't transition to be female. They are still males, some of them decide to use hormones or cosmetic surgery to look more like women, some don't and identify as "butch" transwomen or say they don't have to change anything to be a woman.

You could perfectly still be attracted to a trans woman as a straight woman. The problem is if they physically transition as i suppose you are like most of us both attracted to primary and secondary sex characterisitics in people.

(georgiaokeefesgrotto)
The one woman I know that this happened to stayed in the relationship (last I knew) but told me once that it was like there it was like there was another woman and that woman was more important to him.

It doesn't get better, you did the right thing. You are right as well that women don't generally find the 'new woman' attractive.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

HalfAsianTruthTeller #racist stormfront.org

The TRUTH ABOUT WHITE MEN AND ASIAN WOMEN FROM THEIR EURASIAN SON
Asian women and their insistence on breeding with white men is not something based on love, but rather on hate (largely of Asian men), yet their sons are Asian men and we are taught from birth that love is not colorblind. If love were color blind, then there would indeed be more Asian men breeding with Asian women, black women, or white women, but instead Asian women rely on their privilege of having a vagina, being the gatekeepers to sex, to negotiate relationships with white men in a perverse form of hypergamy. If love were honest, and good, and unbiased, then Asian women would marry black men, Indian men, and Hispanic men at the same rate that they do White men. But they do not. If love were honest, good, and unbiased, then Asian women would be as open to dating Asian men as they are white men. But they are not.

For this reason, I curse my own mother, I am glad she is dead, and I hate every ounce of the whore, slut, white-worshiping piece of trash that my mother, an Asian woman from Hong Kong, was. I am not alone in this feeling, as I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of Eurasian men who have, at one point in their life, questioned their own mothers.

Whether they do this for status or for appearance is not relevant, though I do think that it is probably for the sake of appearance, since the taller build, wider face, and healthier skin color of white men might be the main reason why Asian women chase white males. Regardless of their reasons, they clearly will not stop doing it, and completely ignore the massive negative repercussions this has on their children, like me.

I was born of this relationship and to this day, I remain a failure, full of self hatred, lost, confused, and destined to die by my own hand, or to die having run to the furthest corners of the world, now for five years, to get away from the very thing that birthed me.

I will, as a result, maybe as one of the only things I may accomplish in my life, write about the insanity of these relationships, how they are the ugliest thing on earth, and how they lead to pure disaster for their male children, the worst case being Elliot Rodger, whose sentiment, at times, I emulated with. I have long been known as eccentric, odd, weird, lost, and have a poor reputation among people who know me as being antisocial, distant, and prone to lunatic beliefs; the day before Elliot Rodger’s massacre I even reached out to him on a popular forum and told him that I identified with his feelings, his self-doubt, his narcissism, his issues with his mother, and I said that they were uniquely Eurasian male issues.

So, these relationships are sick, for the following reasons:

1) The white males, in many cases, view the Asian female as an easy alternative to white women, and as a valid vessel to propagate the continuation of their intelligent, master-race “genes,” whereas white women are seen as being sexually perverse, and prone to mating and having relations with the “lesser races.” My father is a strong example, having long harbored extremely religious, white-supremacist, and misogynist viewpoints. Some, in many ways, would consider him a Men’s Rights Activist, or to a lesser extent, a MGTOW, who, like many other white men, felt entitled to a world where God reigned, valued the white man, and white civilization, rewarded the white man for being white, and, when white women failed to recognize his inherent “power,” (instead choosing to lie down with black males, or to party, or embrace liberalism or feminism), Asian women, of course, were the next best choice. I also know this because having come across numerous other blogs (hapasons.wordpress.com) that talk about the same issue, my case seemed remarkably common. My father, for example, believes the Nazis were heroes, and my mother even called the police on him, when we were growing up, for talking about how the Holocaust never happened. He strongly supports Mel Gibson, goes on racist rants about blacks, and vehemently hates Jews, Hollywood, and modern day American society. In this way, my “chaste,” Oriental mother was a strong alternative for him to marry, as Asian women are well known for worshiping white males.

2) The white males oftentimes are socially inept, socially awkward, or unable to compete in the modern day marketplace, both sexual and economic. My father would be diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome if such a syndrome was known in his younger days. He is a social recluse, has almost no friends, listens to wave radio, believes strongly in conspiracy theories that are very common to White Nationalists and anti-semites, and believes strongly in God and that God hates Jews and that the judgement day will eventually come; common to people like this, white supremacy, the belief in Aryan people at the top, with Asian people being a distant cousin, and Asian women, of course, being a healthy substitute for hypergamous, slutty, immoral White women, while Asian women remain hypergamous in their own right. I know this, because sadly, I am both antisocial, have long since disappeared from all of my friends, have gone through a thorough depression at the way American society was, and during the time period that I considered myself “white,” I too embraced white nationalism (sadly), and was so depressed about white women mating with men of color that I sought refuge in China, to await the eventual apocalypse. As insane as it sounds, this is what brought me to this country, and I would have killed myself had I not been saved by my wife.

3) Asian women make divergent, opposing, and illogical statements about Asian men that will eventually find their way to their sons. The common claims from Asian women about why they don’t date Asian men come in two forms: The first is that Asian men are patriarchal, controlling, and conservative. THIS IS A PATENT LIE.

This is a lie because the white men that they engage in relationships with are even more patriarchal, racist, and conservative, looking to Asian women as an alternative to feminist white women. The entire premise of white feminism is that white men are TOO CONTROLLING, PATRIARCHAL, AND CONSERVATIVE. I know this looking at my own father, who is by far the most patriarchal, far-right individual that I know, so much so that it might have eventually contributed to my mother’s death. Again, there are several other races that Asian women can choose from, but they only choose white men, making this a complete fabrication and lie based on faulty logic and excuses. The very fact that they are capable of framing an entire group of men as the same while saying that another group (white men) are inherently better reeks of

The second claim is that Asian men are ugly, unattractive, small, with small penises, which contrasts strongly with the claim that Asian men are overbearing and too patriarchal. The horrible danger of this claim is that it trickles down to Asian women’s very own sons, who begin to SERIOUSLY doubt that their mother’s “preference” has anything to do with character, and everything to do with physicality – whereby I have come to despise and hate my own mother with a vehement passion that is borderline violent. Much of my history, if you care to read earlier in this blog, might stem from this ingrown self hatred that comes from being quite literally cuckolded by my own mother, whose own belief that white men are physically superior mentally drains and destroys me, as her male offspring, and causes a bitter, catastrophic dichotomy within myself.

Regardless of the “reasons,” or if sexual preference can be negotiated, the very fact that it is so common and the fact that our mother’s choices were based inherently on preference for determinants of sexual / genetic health make all of our life choices irrelevant, because it is clear that ultimately our deciding factors and success in life and love are determined by our genetic makeup, so much so that our own mothers were driven in such a way to shoot down AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP while giving unfair preference to another – means that any and all choices we make in life are hinged on our appearance and that nothing we can ever do can make us as attractive as a white male – as proven by OUR OWN MOTHERS.

4) Our own mothers reinforce the horrible stereotypes about Asian men. Regardless of their reasons, there are persistent stereotypes that exist in Western culture about Asian men. Whether or not they believed these stereotypes, we assume that they had no qualms about reinforcing the extreme negative image of Asian men by chasing, in droves, white men, and that our own mothers were very, very capable of betraying the possible future of their own sons by proving to the world, and their own offspring, that Asian men are and forever will be less desirable than white men. For every time that an Asian man is shot down for being Asian, the perception that Asian men are undesirable is reinforced, and our own mothers become GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION for actively being part of the self-congratulation group of Asian women who HATE ASIAN MEN AND THINK THEY ARE TOO GOOD FOR ASIAN MEN. For this, my own mother is a guilty whore, who I shall hate until my last dying breath, and I will never, ever, EVER be able to look at what she did in another way; I shall go out every day, very well aware that Asian men are so undesirable that my own mother sought to avoid them entirely, knowing that I can never, ever be viewed as desirable as them, and that any woman who notices me notices me only because I am whiter than I would otherwise be.

In Conclusion

Asian women will deny, lie, and beat around the bush until doomsday, but they will never admit that what they do is for purely physical reasons, and they will never admit that the ramifications it has upon their children is profound and disastrous. As I have read on some other blogs, this kind of relationship is purely evil, simply because it follows the patterns of basic biology and evolutionary psychology, while deceiving its offspring into thinking that it is normal; the whole “Eurasian” children or “mixed children” are valuable and / or beautiful is nothing more than a generalization and a lie, and it soon becomes evident that mixed children are birthed from couples forming extremely unbalanced patterns that favor women over men. The male offspring of these relationships are then put at special risk and wind up imploding, as is the case of my brother, who is 32 years old, bed ridden, schizophrenic, and so badly damaged from his combination of racist/religious white father / self hating Asian mother, that he is essentially dead. I am essentially considered crazy by the larger community, have been outcast to China, will die alone in a small apartment, am suicidal, depressed, and unable to work.

In short, these relationships are based on the hatred of the Asian male (in some cases, with the extra bonus of hating the white female), and the resulting offspring, should he grow up in America, be keenly aware of this societal hatred, and grow, as I did, to despise his own mother. Luckily, mine is dead, (from a bad blood transfusion after a C-section birth), otherwise I would make it my goal to humiliate, demean and hate her, as I hate Asian women who refuse to date any such race, if only because she is a rotten, ROTTEN person, and it is not enough to assume that “maybe” she did not hate Asian men – as the pattern exists enough that I would sincerely doubt her excuses if she attempted to explain it away.

Muslimahghuraba #sexist ummah.com

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu. As a Muslim woman born and raised in UK I see a lot of Muslims who are falling into the trap of Shaitan and the West.

They are following the Western or Modern or Feminist standards of women's rights and are failing to understand that Islam gives women rights and we don't need feminism. And that feminism is a disease. It teaches you to hate and bash men and makes claims that women and men are the same. We are not the same. We are different to men, mentally, physically and emotionalmy. Yes in the sight of Allah we are equal in terms of righteousness. Remember, different isn't bad. Women do things that men can't do and men do things that women can't do. You compliment one another.

Women are so adamant on proving that they are equal to men that in the process they are losing their femininity. And men are becoming effeminate. Many of our Muslim sister's have sadly fallen into the trap of FEMINISM and are actively recruiting other Muslims to join them. We as a Muslim Ummah need to put an END to this. We need to be vocal and stand up these feminist Muslim women and the Muslim men that support their campaign. What are your thoughts?

André du Pôle #sexist returnofkings.com

Considered from a long memory point of view, feminism is quite recent, owing its exponential development to a very specific modern historical context. The matriarchal tribes Leftist anthropologists have been crazy about are but a historical aberration. All civilizations and peoples who were able to go beyond the small tribe stage and erect kingdoms or empires were patriarchal.

The irony of modernity lies in men having invented most of what exist out there, toiled in steaming factories, dug up dark mine drifts, fought in bloody wars, and managed to produce an incredible wealth—for the result of work to be taken away by entitled, ungraceful womyn.

If you look closely, the suffragettes and their ilk did not revolt because “oppression of women”, but to the contrary, in a context where men were already weak and womanly ways were already dominant. Nineteenth century American prostitutes had many things wives did not—like money, glamour, the ability to travel and fuck many wealthy guys, and even men’s attention—and they have set a precedent.

Likewise, if you look at the Belle Époque (roughly 1870-1914) art, it overflows with sensual, bewitching beautiful women, accompanied by high-status or wealthy men orbiting around. Men of these times had already turned into weaklings, proud to be mesmerized by some lipstick-wearing bitch. Far from being “oppressive”, these men were dependent, and spoiled women could easily gauge money and power from them.

This trend of female takeover, be it through seduction, subtle social power-grabbing or direct threats against men, has shaped many of last century changes. Our masculine potentialities were buried in taboo and oblivion by the blue pill, and now that we are developing ourselves again, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we have to roll back the degeneracy and illegitimate powers we were taught to take for granted. With this is mind, we need a traditional, extra-modern perspective from which to stand and strike hard at the Libtard Church.

The Law Code of Manu, an ancient Hindu legal code, is exactly the kind of content that can feed a “neo-traditional” perspective. Its rich contents led me to write on it twice on ROK, and now is a third and last Law of Manu piece specifically about relations between the sexes. What did an allegedly supra-human lawmaker say on women—and that allowed for a civilization standing the test of time?

...

To regulate the market and prevent an unholy alliance between party girls and notches-racking assholes, the Code states that a man must be older than the girl he woos: “a 30 year old man should marry a charming girl of 12 years, or an 18 year old, a girl of 8 years or sooner” (9.94). In other words, instead of giving way to the temptation and throwing themselves in a cutting-throat competition for notches, young men have to master their own desires while getting a betrothal with younger girls. Then, as a well-deserved reward, they get a good spouse, each of them peaks at the same time, each can naturally enjoy the other—the 30 year old enjoys the young female who enjoys an older, dominant male—and build a home.

...

3. Women ought to be made dependent for their own good

The Code states:

" Even in her own home, a female—whether she is a child, a young woman, or an old lady—should never carry out any task independently. As a child, she must remain under her father’s control; as a young woman, under her husband’s; and when her husband is dead, under her sons’. She must never seek to live independently. (5.147-8)"

If women depend from their families and ought to be traded or cared of by men, this makes pairing easier and more straightforward. Being traded, women can focus on their own value and avoid being damaged by their own foolish choices. Also, as they are hypergamic, women ought to be made socially inferior for their own satisfaction: if they get equal to men, they will despise men of equal value and want for a higher value one at the expense of whom they should pair with.

Women belonging to their families are limited in their ability to lure any male into their traps: if they do, they will likely get the wrath of their responsible relatives.

" Day and night men should keep their women from acting independently; for, attached as they are to sensual pleasures, men should keep them under their control. (9.2)

Drinking, associating with bad people, living away from the husband; travelling, sleeping, and staying in the houses of others—these are the six things that corrupt women… Lechery, fickleness of mind, and hard-heartedness are innate in them… Recognizing this, a man should make the utmost effort at guarding them. (9.13-6)"

...

5. Husband and wife do not have to be “equal”

Some things ought to be checked as relatively equal between a husband and a wife, such as the caste, social value, or being in one’s prime, for the marriage to work well, with the exception of “times of adversity” when higher caste men can marry down. Everything, though, does not have to be the same.

A woman realizes herself and flourishes through her place in the family. She ought to be dutiful to have her proper center and dignity. Therefore,

" Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god. For women, there is no independent sacrifice, vow, or fast; a woman will be exalted in heaven by the mere fact that she obediently served her husband. (5.154-6)"

On the other hand, a husband can go away for years on which his wife ought to maintain the home, provided he secures some resource for her to live on (9.74-6). He is also free to repudiate his wife if she loathes him without a proper reason. Specific reasons are specified by the Code, such as if he turns into an unrepentant alcoholic, or becomes “foul-mouthed” (9.81).

Men and women’s respective roles and different, complementary, and unequal. Modernists should get over it instead of wrecking social life in the name of an equality between non-existent abstract individuals.

A man’s striving expresses mostly on the public scene, outside from the house, while the man’s quest finds its center in himself and larger projects. A man ought to be able to thrive outside, whereas his wife, by being supportive, realizes herself at the same time that she helps him. Also note that risks are properly shared here, as the woman may seem in a more risky situation at home, when the husband meets with the risks outside.

...

Conclusion

That the modern trends of “emancipation” of women would actually unravel into a catastrophe for most men, not to mention our civilization as a whole, could have been predicted by the wise men living millennia ago. Particular vocations, social equilibrium, good chances and fair trade were ensured by the wisdom and fidelity of traditional men.

As we toil for taking back our institutions, countries and civilization, it is also necessary to glean discernment from (almost) timeless Scriptures. Odds are, the most familiar we become with antique wisdom, the more specifically modern trends will look like blind or monstrous deviations. This may be unsettling. I could bet my last penny, though, that in the long run it will be understood as a necessary step for getting outside the rotten world we were born in and avoid falling for the same mistakes again and again.

Anormalregularperson #sexist reddit.com

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Incels tell the truth about women, a protected class in the gynocentric reproductive cult known as modern society.

What is pointed out by incels is the ridiculously observable, yet uncomfortable reality of how shallow, superficial and materialistic matters of romance are for modern “empowered” women. It is ok, perfectly acceptable to paint men as being dogs, immature, shallow etc. but extremely offensive to the profitable women are wonderful effect status quo to simply point out how status obsessed women clearly are.

Fact is there is no such thing as romantic love from women; Women don’t love men, women love how a man makes herself look to other women via his appearance, wealth as well as his fame, and women love when a man satisfies them sexually. Women don’t love men, they love what we do for them. In our modern decedent culture the single best thing a man can do for a woman today is help her status mog other women in her social class so that she can feel secure within herself and looks are increasingly becoming the primary factor in this.

Increasingly the most important factors in the way modern women respect and treat men have little to nothing to do with intangibles, matters like personality or intelligence or kindness. Lol “this is a chad”, a man would seriously have a far easier time with women getting plastic surgery rather than investing in his character or career. No man wants to be the guy women settle down with because he makes a good living after she’s spent years fucking “chads” just because of how they looked; It’s clearly better/more satisfying to just be the chad, the guy who actually provokes genuine attraction in women.

The truth is most women literally care more about how a guys face looks compared to the most famous lead actors and how tall he is more than anything else, then they care how much money he has; The truth is men are status objects to women, women don’t love men, they seek to use us for status.

James True #conspiracy #crackpot jtrue.com

Politicians aren’t what we think they are. Parties aren’t what we think they are. Viruses aren’t what we think they are. Vaccines aren’t what we think they are. Countries aren’t what we think they are. Schools aren’t what we think they are. Birth certificates aren’t what we think they are.

Government is not what you think it is.

The earth has given us her spellcraft in the meme. People are learning to communicate with each other underneath a facade that technology can’t see. This won’t be as simple as when we spell our phone numbers out in a craigslist ad. I’m talking about finding the deepest flavors of what makes you human and smuggling them through a hole in the fence. This is the magic of memes. Machines are blind to their meaning. They can only factor them by virility and tone. They can never see what specifically about it was so appealing. Even if they track your eyeballs stroking the screen, there’s still something deeper they’ll never fathom. This technology will become more important as we proceed. There is an underground railroad forming. We see each other inside it. It’s like we climbed into the big tire buried in the schoolyard to pass a secret.

None of us are alone. It just feels that way because we live in houses.

The towers are going up whether you want them to or now. The economy is crashing whether you want it to or not. The border wall is coming. The vaccines are coming. The armored trucks from Tesla are coming. Celebrities are watching our hunger game. This is what Q meant by “Enjoy the Show.” They’re taking all that hope and sacrificing it inside a virgin lamb on the Temple Mount. This is a holocaust in 5G.

This just in from black magick central … This truck is what Musk thinks the future looks like. This is why he took a hit to his ego on stage for the ritual. You know how a bully gets revved up by telling you something is about to hit you? And Tesla is gonna sell the rich folks his truck to see who can survive. They ran the toilet paper story so they could joke how we shit our pants.

Ladies and gentlemen who will listen, I show you the panther we can’t admit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMWwImDX3ks&feature=emb_title

What you are seeing above is a black magick ritual. Now you know why I keep asking you for a war chest. We need a campground right now to get to work. This campground will be a contagious model that can spread as quickly as it can. There is much to unlearn and I can’t make this happen fast enough selling books. Hurry up, rebels. The Wookies and the Ewoks need you in the trees.

There’s no such thing as Carolina. I am the man from Katuah. Our future is prana and crystals. Bullets and seeds. Feelings and poetry. Here’s some free investment advice that’s coming at you way too late.

COMMODITIES:
Women: wildcrafting
Men: bushcrafting

FUTURES:
Women: children
Men: women

DERIVATIVES:
Women: homeschooling
Men: construction

ASSETS:
Women: seeds, potions, books
Men: bullets, gold, books

You will find me in the jungle hunting metallic panthers. Remember. Your spine is taller than you think. Your mark is truer than you think. Your potential is greater than you think. You are amperage throttled by shame. You are electricity insulated by propaganda. You are plasma shorted by doubt.

This may be a heavy read for some of you. Deep breath. All of this gets better. We will find each other out there under the moon.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

I would like to take on this claim of patriarchy being “irrational” directly. First of all patriarchy is not irrational in the slightest; patriarchy makes perfect sense. Patriarchy makes a lot more sense than feminism does; there is a lot more evidence supporting the legitimacy of patriarchy than there is evidence supporting the legitimacy of feminism. There are three main bases of atheist thought; the first is the theory of evolution. All atheists believe in evolution I would presume since all the other theories of the origin of life require a supernatural “creator” that by definition the atheist rejects. Another main bases of atheist thought is adherence to logical models of how the world works. Atheists rely on logically sound models of cause and effect that are at least hypothetically true and internally consistent. Since belief in the supernatural is contrary to atheism an explanation of how the world works must be logically consistent in order to be plausible. The third bases of atheist thought is statistics or empirical evidence. The model of reality an atheist proposes should match the objective evidence regarding the issue in question; statistics being the primary expression of objective reality.

So the atheist relies upon the theory of evolution, internally consistent logical models of how the world works, and statistical evidence to see how well a theoretical model of the world matches with reality. Now to the question of patriarchy. Is patriarchy consistent with evolution? Are there logically consistent and reasonable models of how a social system might work that support the idea of patriarchy being a good thing? Does statistical evidence support the idea of patriarchy being a good thing?

Regarding evolution patriarchy makes good sense. What is important in evolution is that the species survive; that children survive to adulthood and then have their own children who survive to adulthood; etc. In other words what matters most in evolution is children. Evolution doesn’t care about “women’s rights,” it cares about survival and survival in evolutionary terms means focusing on the well being of children. Patriarchy is all about children; most specifically it is about men supporting women so that the woman can focus on her children so that resources will be provided by the man to the woman to maximize the number and probability of survival of the woman’s children. In other words patriarchy is what makes the man invest in children. From the point of view of evolution this is exactly the goal. Patriarchy also represents division of labor where men and women specialize in different activities. Specialization provides survival benefits as specialization is more efficient. In this way specialization according to sex is something that will be selected for; it is something that provides an evolutionary advantage.

As far as patriarchy being consistent with a logical model of how a social system might work; patriarchy is based on division of labor and specialization. Men are better at some functions; women are better at other functions. Men are better at creating rule based systems and abstract thinking and focus and specialization. This leads men to be better at material acquisition, in the modern context making money, and gives men advantages in establishing order and exercising authority. Men have these advantages because women who preferred these characteristics in men were better provided for by men and so had more children who survived to adulthood. Women are better at interpersonal relationships, multi-tasking, and attention to detail. This leads them to be better at direct child care and maintaining the home environment. Women have these advantages because men who preferred these characteristics in women had more children who survived to adulthood. The social system where men are in charge and provide for women then does the best job of caring for children which then leads to a successful and sustainable social system. Patriarchy makes the best use of the natural advantages of men and the natural advantages of women; therefore patriarchy is good.

As far as patriarchy being consistent with statistical evidence; there is a huge amount of statistical evidence in support of patriarchy. The biological heterosexual married couple family is by far the best environment to raise children in. This is not disputable as there are a large number of studies that consistently point to this fact. This is based on looking at the outcomes of children raised in married biological families compared to children of divorce or children raised by single parents. The children raised by both their biological married parents always do better on average on a number of indicators than children raised in “alternative” family environments. Furthermore there are a number of studies showing less behavioral problems in children raised by stay-at-home mothers as compared to children who have spent a lot of time in daycare. Patriarchy maximizes the number of these ideal family situations; it maximizes the number of stay-at-home mothers and it minimizes divorce and out-of-wedlock births. Comparing 1900 to today the divorce rate was 8% in 1900 but is about 50% today (the divorce rate was 3% in 1870); the out-of-wedlock birth ratio among whites was about 1% in 1900 but is about 30% today; the proportion of married women working among whites was about 3% in 1900 and is about 60% today (these statistics are for the United States). The indicators of family disorder have literally increased 20 fold over the past 100 or so years; in addition fertility has gone from far above replacement rates to below replacement level. The statistical evidence that feminism is a bad thing and that therefore patriarchy is good is overwhelming.

Patriarchy is consistent with evolutionary theory, it is a perfectly sound and reasonable basis for organizing society, and it is supported by a vast amount of statistical evidence. Feminism on the other hand is only supported by empty assertions and wishful thinking that men and women despite all their obvious differences are in fact functionally the same. Patriarchy is completely rational and consistent with the atheist’s reliance upon logically defensible models of reality and supporting empirical evidence. It is feminism that is irrational and dependent upon magical thinking and superstitious faith in “gender equality” to be maintained. I don’t personally care about how much “rage” I generate among atheist feminists; as an atheist I only care about where the evidence leads and objective reality. The evidence supports patriarchy, this is why I as an atheist support patriarchy; it is as simple as that.

allecto #fundie users.livejournal.com

A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly
This is a really long rant about Joss Whedon's Firefly. Why? Because I'm angry and I think it is really important that feminists don't leave popular culture out of the equation. Especially considering that popular culture is increasingly being influenced by pornography.

***

I have become increasingly interested in examining Joss Whedon’s work from a feminist perspective since I had a conversation with another lesbian feminist sister at the International Feminist Summit about whether Joss was a feminist. I am really quite shocked by how readily Joss is accepted as a feminist, and that his works are widely considered to be feminist. I decided to start re-watching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and also to watch Firefly and the movie Serenity.

I have to say that now that I have subjected myself to the horror that is Firefly, I really am beyond worried about how much men hate us, given that this was written by a man who calls himself a feminist.

I find much of Joss Whedon’s work to be heavily influenced by pornography, and pornographic humour. While I would argue that there are some aspects of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer that are feminist and progressive, there is much that isn’t and I find it highly problematic that there are many very woman-hating messages contained within a show that purports itself as feminism. But Firefly takes misogyny to a new level of terrifying. I am really, really worried that women can call the man who made this show a feminist.

For myself, I’m not sure that I will recover from the shock of watching the malicious way in which Joss stripped his female characters of their integrity, the pleasure he seemed to take from showing potentially powerful women bashed, the way he gleefully demonized female power and selfhood and smashed women into little bits, male fists in women’s faces, male voices drowning out our words.

There is so much hatred towards women contained within the scripts and action of the series that I doubt very much that this post will even begin to cover it. I am going to try to focus on the episodes that were written by Joss Whedon but I will also refer to the series as a whole. As Joss Whedon was responsible for the concept development and was a producer, ultimately I hold him accountable for the depiction of women in the entire season. Only one episode was written by a woman. It was no better or worse in its depiction of women than the ones written by men.

The pilot episode, Serenity, was written and directed by Joss Whedon. The basic plot of the series is Malcolm Reynolds and his second in command Zoe, have made a new life for themselves after fighting a war against the Alliance, which they lost. They bought a Firefly, an old space ship, and Mal calls it Serenity, after the last battle they fought for the Independence. The pilot of the ship, Wash, is Zoe’s husband. Kaylee is the ship’s mechanic and Jayne, the final member of the crew, is the brainless brawn. This bunch of criminals go around stealing things and generally doing lots of violence.

They also take on board passengers. There is Inara, a Companion (Joss Whedon’s euphemism for women in prostitution). She rents one of the ship’s shuttles. Simon, a doctor and his sister River. And a Shepherd (which means preacher), a black male character.

The first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start.

The next scene is set in the present. Mal, Jayne, and Zoe are floating about in space. They come into some danger. Mal gets all panicky.

Zoe says, “This ship's been derelict for months. Why would they –”

Mal replies, (in Chinese) “Shut up.”

So in the very second scene of the very first episode, an episode written and directed by the great feminist Joss, a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders, even when they are dumb orders, for the rest of the series.

The next scene we meet Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic. <- Lookee, lookee, feminist empowerment. In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”

What the fuck is this feminist man trying to say about women here? A black woman calling a white man ‘sir’. A white male captain who abuses and silences his female crew, with no consequences. The women are HAPPY to be abused. They enjoy it. What does this say about women, Joss? What does this say about you? Do you tell your wife to shut up? Do you threaten to duct tape her mouth? Lock her in the bedroom? Is this funny to you, Joss? Because it sure as fuck ain’t funny to me.

Our first introduction to Inara the ‘Companion’, Joss Whedon’s euphemism for prostituted women, is when she is being raped/fucked/used by a prostitutor. I find it really interesting to read the scripted directions for this particular scene:

We are close on INARA's face. She is being made love to by an eager, inexperienced but quite pleasingly shaped young man. She is beneath him, drawing him to his climax with languorous intensity. His face buried in her neck.

He tightens, relaxes, becomes still. She runs her hand through is hair and he pulls from her neck, looks at her with sweaty insecurity. She smiles, a worldly, almost motherly sweetness in her expression. He rests his head on her breast, still breathing hard.

So, Joss Whedon refers to rapist/fuckers who buy women as sex, as ‘eager, inexperienced but pleasingly shaped’ who ‘make love’ to women in prostitution. Obviously, ‘love’ to men like Joss Whedon, requires female powerlessness, force and coercion. Women in prostitution enjoy the experience of being bought for sex. They feel ‘motherly’ towards the men who have just treated them as property and bought them as sex.

In Joss Whedon’s future world prostituted women are powerful and respectable. They go to an Academy, to train in the arts of being a ‘Companion’. They belong to a Guild which regulates prostitution, forces women to endure yearly health tests and comes up with rules to make prostitution sound empowering for women. For example, one Guild rule is that the ‘Companion’ chooses her rapist, not the other way around.

But there is one really big question that does not get answered. The women who ‘choose’ to be ‘Companions’ are shown as being intelligent, accomplished, educated, well-respected and presumably from good families. If a woman had all of these qualities and opportunities then why the fuck would she ‘choose’ to be a man’s fuck toy? Would being a fuck toy for hundreds of men give a woman like Inara personal fulfillment? Job satisfaction? A sense of purpose? Fulfill her dreams? Ambitions?

Money doesn’t seem to be the motivation behind Inara’s ‘choice’ to be a ‘Companion’, presumably she just ‘enjoys’ swanning around in ridiculous outfits. And being used as a fuck toy by men is seemingly a small price to pay for the pleasure.

At any rate, Inara’s apparent ‘power’ is merely a figment of Joss Whedon’s very sick imagination. In a later episode, Inara is shown to have set down three very specific rules in relation to her arrangement to hiring one of Mal’s shuttles as her base of operations. 1) No crew member, including the Captain would be allowed entrance to the shuttle without Inara’s express invitation. 2) Inara refuses to service the Captain nor anyone under his employ. And 3) the Captain cannot refer to Inara as a whore.
Mal agrees to all of these rules but he breaks every single one of them. Blatantly and deliberately. The third thing that Mal says in the first interaction between Inara and Mal is, “She’s a whore…” Does Inara stop him from calling her a whore? Nope. She just goes on smiling and being gracious. So he calls her a whore again. Lovely man this Mal is, dontcha think?

And in regards to her first rule, Mal takes every opportunity he can to break it. In the first episode Mal barges into Inara’s shuttle. The interchange goes like this:

Inara: What are you doing on my shuttle?

Mal: It's my shuttle. You rent it.

Inara: Then when I'm behind on the rent, you can enter unasked.

Scenes like this continue to occur for the rest of the series. Mal never apologises for breaking the terms of his agreement with Inara. And although Inara gets a little annoyed, she does not get really angry at the Captain for consistently undermining her power and invading her space. She tells the Captain to get out but he rarely complies. The point is that a man should never invade a woman’s personal space to begin with. Especially when he has been told expressly that he is not invited. But Mal delights in pointing out Inara’s powerlessness, it makes him feel all manly.

In regards to her servicing the crew, she begins to service the Captain and the male passengers of the ship from day one. The following is an excerpt from the script of Serenity. Book is a black male character. He is a Preacher and disapproves of Inara’s ‘profession’.

BOOK Is this what life is, out here?

INARA Sometimes.

BOOK I've been out of the abbey two days, I've beaten a Lawman senseless, I've fallen in with criminals... I watched the captain shoot a man I swore to protect. And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong.

INARA Shepherd...

He is shaking a bit, tearing up.

BOOK I believe I just... (a pained smile) I think I'm on the wrong ship.

INARA Maybe. Or maybe you're exactly where you ought to be.

He lowers his head. She puts her hand on it, a kind of benediction. We hold on them a second.

It is clear from the outset that a large part of Inara’s service involves addressing issues of male inadequacy and fulfilling many other emotional needs of her clients. The ability to do this IS a resource and it is therefore a service that Inara must perform. BUT Inara services all of the male passengers and the Captain in this way. She also services Kaylee but the relationship between them is a little more reciprocal. In any case, Mal makes it pretty obvious that he expects his emotional needs to be serviced by Inara and she willingly obliges. Mal also allows the male passengers to demand her emotional services and does not tell them to stop, despite the terms of his agreement with Inara. Inara is not paid by any of these men for her time, energy and emotional support.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources.

Aside from women being fuck toys, property and punching bags for the men, the women have very little importance in the series. I counted the amount of times women talk in the episode Serenity compared to the amount of times men talk. The result was unsurprising. Men: 458 Women: 175. So throughout the first episode men talk more than two and a half times as much as women do. And women talk mainly in questions whereas men talk in statements. Basically, this means that men direct the action and are active participants whereas women are merely observers and facilitators.

Given the fact that women are largely absent from the action and the dialogue of the majority of scenes it is unsurprising that the action onscreen is highly homoerotic. Men jostle with each other for power. Pushing each others buttons, and getting into scuffles. This intense homoeroticism is present from the outset as Mal asserts his rights as alpha male on the ship.

Completely unnecessary and unprovoked violence is a spontaneous result of this hypermasculinised male character. In Serenity, Mal enjoys using a character called Simon as his personal punching bag. In one scene he walks up to him and smashes him in the face, without any provocation or logical reason. In another scene Simon asks Mal a question and Mal smashes him the face again. No reason, no explanation, just violence. Violence is a part of the landscape throughout the whole series and Mal is often the instigator. He is constantly rubbing himself up against other men, and punishing wayward women, proving and solidifying his manliness through bashing the shit out of anyone and everyone.

Zoe, the token black woman, acts as a legitimiser. Her role is to support Mal’s manly obsession with himself by encouraging him, calling him ‘sir’, and even starting the fights for him. Zoe is treated as a piece of meat by both her husband (Wash, another white male) and the Captain. Wash and Mal fight each other for Zoe’s attention and admiration, both relying on her submission to them to get them hard and manly. In fact there is a whole episode, War Stories, devoted to Wash and Mal’s ‘rivalry’. By the word rivalry, I mean violent, homoerotic male/male courtship conducted over the body of a woman.

Zoe is not shown to have a personality of her own. She has no outside interests, no ideas or beliefs, no conversation with anyone other than Wash or Mal. She has no female friends, in fact she tends to dislike women. For example, she is the first one to insult Saffron in the episode Our Mrs. Reynolds, calling her ‘trouble’.

Zoe, of course, is meant to be our empowered, ass-kicking sidechick. Like all sidechicks she is objectified from the get go. Her husband, Wash, talking about how he likes to watch her bathe. Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour. I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.

Joss Whedon does not share my view, of course, and he paints the relationship between Zoe and Wash as a perfectly happy, healthy union. If anyone is interested in portrayals of relationships between white men and black women written from black women’s point of view, I would suggest watching Radiance, Rabbit-Proof Fence and Serenades, skip Joss Whedon’s shit.

Also if you are interested in the reality of women in prostitution/prostituted women rather than the candy floss version that Joss Whedon has produced, I highly recommend Rebecca’s story Lie Dead. Skip Joss Whedon’s women-hating bile.

I can assure you that this is just the beginning of my rant on Firefly. There is so much more disturbing stuff later in the series. In particular, an episode called Our Mrs. Reynolds, another episode written by Joss, which completely demonises women as well as pornifying male violence against us.

J.K. Rowling #transphobia jkrowling.com

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Burns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

The second assumption stems from the feminist view that Nationalism and feminism are mutually exclusive; which translates into women’s interests being separate from nation unless feminists are allowed to reconstruct culture on their own terms. The third point listed above, and the most obvious, is the tired old cliche that the traditional female role of protecting and nurturing culture (as opposed to subverting it) is inherently oppressive. It’s impossible to love a nation when you despise half of its population.

As I’ve written previously, traditional cultures produce women that willingly protect and fight for the values of their cultures. Despite their valiant struggles, feminists condemn such women as being brainwashed by patriarchy; which brings to surface certain contradictions in feminist thought. On one hand, feminism aims to restore women’s autonomy by seizing it from the jaws of patriarchy, yet that agency must be exercised solely at the feminist’s discretion. Very few feminists (to my knowledge)stood in support of France’s Muslim women who were barred from wearing the headscarf by law; so much for a woman’s body being her own. When their lesser sisters fail to act in accordance with their dogma, feminists infantalize their motives and actions with a paternalism that they are quick to criticize in men. Some have rightly referred to feminism as ‘paternalism in lipstick.’

The second contradiction lies in their rather peculiar definition of “independence.” When North American men think of independence we generally picture a society free from government intrusion that protects our lives, liberty, and property; as articulated by John Locke. We picture an existence where a man is free to pursue any vocation as he feels inclined. The spirit of freedom that underlies the protestant work ethic forms the very basis of our definition of independence. Free and independent men do not desire charity and observers during the great depression noted extreme shame in the eyes of the men who stood in bread lines. Women on the other hand (feminists especially) are more than content to live on charity; they simply refer to it with euphemisms like “Child support” and “Alimony.” This naturally calls for a more expansive and intrusive state whose function is to legislate this highway robbery and ensure the redistribution of wealth from men to women. It’s unsurprising why astute critics have called feminism a front for communism. Yet this contradiction is made evident when contrasted with the reality that women are still dependant, not on families and men, but on the state. Women aren’t independent, their dependence has merely been shifted onto the nanny state. Independent men want a smaller state whereas independent women desire a large nanny state to hold their hand (Family laws, affirmative action, ect).

AbysmalDescent #sexist reddit.com

Re: 'Shy and awkward’ student, 19, who googled 'how to make a friend' then touched a schoolgirl, 17, on her arm and waist while trying to chat to her faces JAIL after sex assault conviction

Imagine a world where men could send women to jail just for touching them. Like, just permanently end their future(judicially, professionally and socially destroy them) and incarcerate them(with other far worse criminals no less), just because of a touch. No violence. No ill-intent. No danger. No harm. Literally just light tactile contact(not even skin-on-skin).

Imagine a world where men could actually think this is an appropriate and equal response to a woman touching them. I can't even imagine such a world and, yet, this is what is considered normal when the genders are reversed. It is just insane the level of power that women have, and the level of hatred and disregard that exists for men(regardless of their intent or the circumstances placed upon them) for this to even be possible.

This also wouldn't even have happened if it was another woman who had touched her, nor would it happen if it was a man touching another man or a woman touching a man. At best they would think "oh, that's a bit awkward/inappropriate" and then moved on. They wouldn't see themselves as victims or respond with violent anger. The only punishment I could even justify in this scenario is a course in etiquette, and even that seems excessive given the circumstances.

I've been touched without consent by females ever since high school. One even grabbed my dick during a pair assignment while the teacher was out of the room. Everyone thought it was funny. Her only punishment was not being paired with me again. Such male privilege. And don't get me started on parties and bars.

I've had women grab my ass when I worked at a bar, and they weren't doing it in a nice way at all, and yet the thought of sending them to jail was not even remotely on my list of responses. There was no response of anger, vitriol or violence.

To me, this would be as much of an over-reaction walking on the street and having a stray dog come up to me, looking for food, and poking me with its nose(with no sign of violence whatsoever), and then me going "that dog needs to be put down, it's oppressing me".

If a woman attacked violently, then I would consider pressing charges because she is a danger to herself and others(ironically, she would probably still not face any jail time because she's a woman).

”Imagine a world where men could send women to jail just for touching them.”

Yeah, on the waist, without saying a word, and the girl having said "stop" before.

Pretty sure that is not how it went down but, even if it was, that still doesn't justify the type of overreaction it got.

It's not normal to go up to someone, touch them on the waist without saying anything, and leave.

It doesn't matter whether it's normal or not, the point is the type of response you would have to it and why you have that response. If a woman touched you on the waist, under any circumstance, you would not consider sending her to jail for it. You would also not just presume the worse of intensions against her character either.

If a stray dog came up to me on the street and touched my knee with his paw, that wouldn't be "normal" but it also would justify me kicking that dog or calling for that dog to be put down either. And, people are capable of basic empathy or sympathy for a dog, surely they are capable of doing the same for an awkward, sheltered and inexperienced teenage boy too.

lmao imagine actually defending this.

Are you are not familiar with the concept of critical thought? I understand how fair judgement and fair treatment might seem like radical concepts to you, at least when it comes to men, but surely these concepts aren't beyond your comprehension. I also understand how ingrained misandry is into our daily thinking and rationalizing, which these types of cases exemplify perfectly, which is why I pointing these things out.

A woman can never be too cautious with a man who touched her fucking waist without permission.

"can never be too cautious"? What are you even talking about here? Are you going to instantly die from someone touching you? Are you going to fall ill or be crippled from a light touch? Or are you just speculating and escalating on other shit that didn't happen? if someone walks next to me, does that give me the right to punch them in "self-defence" because "you can never be too cautious"? And, yes, you can be too cautious how how you exercise that caution is overt and detrimental to others.

A man doesn't have a "right" to touch any woman like that.

Who said anything about having a "right" to anything? Is this another projection? You can certainly say "hey, don't touch me" to anyone you like and you can communicate that clearly and constructively to anyone. You can certainly take some steps to prevent it from happening, including removing yourself from the situation or removing them from the situation. The's not the point. The point is the type of reaction you have being disproportionate and targeted. It's like no one has the "right" to insult me or "offend" me, and yet that doesn't mean I get to assault them or send them to jail if they do.

I'll concede that the punishment is disproportionately severe, but he deserved to be punished nonetheless.

Do you think a woman would warrant that type of punishment if she touched another woman? Or if a woman touched a man? Or if a man touched another man on the waist? How is it that you can only truly justify this type of overt vitriolic reaction when it comes to men, and only men, touching a woman?

Maybe a fine + hours of community service and some classes on how to not creep women out.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the way women see/treat men, or how easily/quickly women can be "creeped out" by men(and only men) might also be majorly detrimental or inherently bigoted? That, maybe, society is teaching women to have an irrationally negative disposition towards men or a strong prejudice against men that is just culturally accepted. What if, for example, it was a black person touching white person, and then that white person had an overly-violent reaction to being touched by a black person because they are black, and then called for jail time or "community service and classes on how not to creep white people out"?

triedtoconvince #sexist #racist reddit.com

So, I am a very long time lurker. Someone once told me something about the gender divide issue. I believe that this is the solution for Asian men. It is a method that looks in the long term. Yes, improve ourselves in matters such as the physical (lift weights, play sports, train in the martial arts - mixed martial arts), and in the mental (stay mentally healthy, work on your intellect, do well in school). However, improving ourselves only goes so far.

There is what many people here are now doing - calling out Hollywood/western racism, beginning to support leaders such as Duterte who call out white supremacy, imperialism, white attacks on other races as what they are, and finally creation of anti-Propaganda such as Kulture, which is very respectable.

However, these two prongs of counterattack only solve part of the problem, because in the vast majority of cases from my experience, it is not entirely brainwashing or Asian men "not being masculine enough" that is the problem. (I have seen too many examples of masculine Asian men who also have charisma be considered as much more inferior than they really are compared to other men, simply because they are Asian, this is the females' fault, not Asian man's fault, this is society's fault, not our fault. Women are the ones who control the gates to relatinoships and sex, so whether we are chosen or not is not our fault, especially when all factors are against us, and our most attractive/masculine specimen are considered inferior to the lowest of other races of men).

You see, many Asian women are complicit. completely complicit. I would estimate that at least half of them or 75% are enamored with white men and have a much higher disposition than other races of women for stockholm syndrome. They truly hate anything to do with the Asian men. And another maybe 25% or 20% think the same way (love whites), but either have not acted yet on getting themselves a white/black/nonAsian male, or are quiet about it, or pretend to support Asian men but in reality sleep with the enemy (Constance Wu).

There are simply not enough Asian women who are truly loyal to Asian men for this not to become a major problem in the future for our race. Our race will die out if we do nothing. Do not be complacent like many stupid Asians or mainland Chinese who believe that China's size will simply absorb these things. Asian men are being cucked in their own countries now, even when they are the vast majority. Imagine what happens if there is some kind of immigration, and add onto this the fact that many Asian women look for foreign/non-Asian men and many refuse to have children with Asian men.

The solution is not to take Asian women back as bananarangs, nor is it to try to "convert them back." What is lost is lost.

Asian men must look to the future, look forward, and not backward. There is nothing to look back to except the smouldering ruins of a once great city that Asian men and women once built together. And the ones responsible for burning down the city were mostly Asian women, with the help and encouragement of white males, non-Asian males who dislike Asian men, and cuckold Asian men/eunuchs.

We the surviving Asian men can no longer afford to be distracted by Asian women. They only drag us down, or they cause us psychological pain. It is time to separate ourselves from them, as they chose to separate themselves from us and throw us under the train to be killed. They are not worth the effort in any way shape or form. It is a complete waste of time and mental energy to think about them or even to hate them. Simply all Asian men must forget about Asian women and act as if they do not exist. There is a world of women out there for us if we are aggressive enough, bold enough, confident enough.

The problem of the Asian population disappearing is actually not that big of a problem if Asian men take action. This action is the solution to the problem: as many Asian men as possible must pursue non-Asian women and have offspring with them. Then, ensure you have many daughters that you teach to love only Asian men (have them ONLY watch Asian TV shows with Asian male romantic leads, and also steer them toward more masculine Asian male portrayals such as those of Jang Hyuk or Lee Byung Hun or Oh Ji Ho or Toshiro Mifune or Huang Xiao Ming.... you get the picture, let them see the Chinese weightlifters and Japanese/Chinese/Korean male gymnastic team full of muscular, baddass, masculine Asian men, influence them to fall in love with Asian men only, sure throw in the flower/pretty boy drama once in a while, but keep things traditionally Asian masculine).

There will be many Asian men out there with very few options in the future, as this racism will only continue and get worse. So, when your half Asian daughters marry fully Asian men the next generation or half a generation down the line, we will have a huge population of 3/4ths Asians with Asian fathers and Asian grandfathers. This cycle can be repeated over and over again. We are essentially creating a bloodline..... no, a NATION of Asian male genetics and non-Asian female genetics, in which the Asian genetics and Asian phenotype will dominate and everyone is something like 3/4ths Asian with Asian patriarchal ancestry.

This is not unlike what happened in Central Asia after Genghis Khan swept into the west. Except that we will have this objective in mind as a way to preserve the Asian man's genetics, and to fight back against white supremacy and western imperialism. Genghis Khans descendants also often ended up very caucasoid, so that is another difference.

You might say "hey tridetoconvince this is a good plan of action, but I bet you are a loser who masturbates at home and doesnt even have a girlfriend."

Nope, I have a fiancee, and she is part Iranian, part eastern european, and very beautiful compared to the kind of American white woman or Asian woman I would be able to match up with if I were to try here in the states. You see, I realized that it does not matter how much Asian men try with racist Asian or white/American women, because even an 8/10 Asian guy like myself will be considered half his attractiveness rating due to all the factors, especially social proof and media-related, that are against us. This is why Asian men must forget about the vast majority of Asian women, and also only use the racist/racist-leaning white American women as nothing more than casuals. Those of us who live outside of the USA or anglo controlled areas should maximize our opportunities with women who are into Asian media and not as much influenced by western/Hollywood media, because these women are the ones that can really view us in a more objective manner, and I can attest that they are much more open and judge us as individuals as opposed to how we are treated in white/western/anglo heavy areas.

This doesn't mean a loser, ugly Asian guy who puts no effort into his looks or musculature will be able to do well. A loser is still a loser, so for those bros, they need to self improve first before taking action.

The most vital part of this plan is to make sure that our daughters are exclusively attracted to Asian men, and that will take a lot of effort making sure they completely avoid the toxic white/western media that dehumanizes all Asian men and paints us as losers, eunuchs, cuckolds, target practice, villains.

I will be doing my part in the future by making sure my daughters only like Asian men, and I will make sure to find fully Asian husbands for them.

And remember, this is what any tribe with sane male leaders would do. Whites were/are planning to do this with Asian women acting as "surrogate white women."

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

The cultural embrace of the iconic gogrrl careerist femborg isn’t just a feminist and equalist rallying cry; one will often hear cuckservatives mouth the very same “encourage our young women to succeed in the workforce” platitudes that animate their supposed ideological opposites.

And now mothers. If the denial of human nature is a barometer of societal illness, then the wholesale acceptance and advocacy of the careegrrl lifestyle by mothers forecasts the arrival of some seriously inclement weather.

Platitudes like “don’t rely on a man for money” have a way of gripping less agile minds and taking hold for life. Superficially, it sounds sensible; one may convince oneself, “if men won’t commit and ‘man up’ for women, then women should take the necessary precautions against indigence and establish self-sustainable careers for themselves.”

The problem with this simplistic formulation originates in the faulty premise that men and women are alike in all ways but the genitalia. This flawed premise allows for the psychological projection of the female-specific predilection for receiving material support onto men; it tacitly assumes, in other words, that women are as comfortable providing for themselves (and for others) as men are, and that men will promptly abandon their intrinsic role as resource providers as soon as women agree in principle or practice to be dependent upon men.

The core plank of modern feminism — careergrrl empowerment — rests on a horrible misunderstanding of human, and especially male, nature. It’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or deluded, that follows from an arid, de-sexualized, transactional view of relations between men and women.

“If/Then” algorithms are shaky substitutes for human sexual market feedback loops. While transactional analysis of human behavior has some usefulness as a predictive model, it quickly reveals its limitations when we draw comparisons between the decision-making processes of the sexes. An error in thinking of this magnitude will result in wrong conclusions like the one above: That men are as fickle and uncertain about providing for women as women are about providing for men, and therefore women ought to ensure their own economic self-sufficiency.

The reality is much different once we account for continuously operating SMP feedback loops. The vulnerable unemployed or underemployed young woman arouses the natural instinct in men to provide for her and protect her against hardship. As long as she has the requisite physical attributes to catch men’s eyes, there will be more than enough (white or asian) men happy to share their hard-earned material abundance with her in implied exchange for her sex and love and fidelity.

This is what feminists, cuckservatives, and Narrative-soaked social scientists don’t get about the sexes: What one sex may do in response to a given stimulus is not necessarily what the other sex would do. Men possess a moral sense, (or a character trait, if you prefer less loaded language), that compels them to provide generously for pretty young women who prove their sexual loyalty and low partner count. Women don’t have this moral sense, not in the way it is used here. Women are eager to provide many things to the men they love — most of all their bodies — but they aren’t psychologically driven to transfer their own material resources to indigent men the way men are driven to lavish largesse on indigent, comely women. Women may do this when circumstances align just right, but it won’t come from a place of deep personal fulfillment from the act of doing so. It will come from a place, instead, brewing with resentment and confusion.

So, the career tankgrrl’s mom is wrong. Tankgrrl, assuming she has the goods to attract a sufficient number of decent resource-ready men, should rely on men for money, because men are happy, indeed driven as if by some otherworldly force, to give to women for whom they feel intense physical desire and love.

Once Tankgrrl has stopped relying on men for money… once she has traveled far down the road of invulnerable feminist empowerment, leaning in the whole way… she should not be surprised to find that fewer and fewer men along each mile marker are waiting and willing to give to her what she has already given to herself.

Feminism, in this way, becomes a self-fulfilling whine. The more feminist a woman gets, the more men will retreat from her, and the more her feminist man-hating will seem like the appropriate response to her romantic failures.

There will be exceptions, of course. There always are when human nature is the topic. Ugly or old women may really have no choice but to become financially viable on their own, and for them a healthy society recognizes their need of taking the “feminist” path. But a healthy society would never elevate those exceptions to a 24/7 propaganda blitz, insisting that every woman follow the same life script as those poor unfortunate souls who have no choice in the matter.

As always, it comes down to exalting beauty, rejecting ugliness, and living not by lies.

Andrew Anglin #fundie archive.is

In the comments section of yesterday’s piece, there was only one troll, which was openly a woman, who did nothing but prove the entire point I’ve been trying to make – that women are purely emotional and so incapable of logical processes. There were a couple of white knights, but they are probably women posing as men.

The one openly female dissenter kept spamming a link to an article about how men marry Asian women at a rate higher than women marry Black and Latino men – I’d like to address that little issue, briefly.
Firstly, “marriage” is the key word there. Black men almost never marry, even to Black women. The actual rate of mixed-race relationships is exponentially higher among women than it is among men.

Second, following from the key word there – “marriage” – the men who involve themselves with Asian women are looking for a serious and traditional relationship. Women who go with Blacks and Latinos are looking for excitement.
Third, Asians are a vastly superior race than Blacks or Latinos, and the problem with breeding with them is esoteric, whereas the problems of breeding with the lower races are completely obvious. The problem with mixing with Asians is that it destroys the racial integrity of the folk and produces children who lack the better qualities of either race. Mixing with Blacks is obviously just disgusting and bizarre for an entire laundry list of reasons.
Fourth, feminism among White women is the reason White men marry Asian women – because even the White women who aren’t whoring it up with monkeys are still, for the most part, whores – or so fat as to be below the standards of any self-respecting man. It’s just a fact. There are some that have good fathers that aren’t, but they are rare and probably already married by the time they are 22, so not available at the bar or on Tinder or any of the few other outlets left for men to meet women.

This is your life.

The reality is that women are completely out of control. And yes, it is all women. All of them who are not in the control of some man are out of control. And very few are in the control of any man, at least in Anglo countries.
Men who marry Asian women are attempting to re-establish a natural dynamic – to re-establish order. They are not the problem. Women are the problem.
And yes, as always, I will put this part: the reason that women are the problem is that men have failed to be men. And the reason that happened was the same reason anything else ever happens: the Jews did it.

If someday in the future a fascist state emerges and removes women’s rights, it won’t take long for them to start behaving as they are supposed to behave, and they’ll be lining up to serve as wives for men who made this change happen.
And to you women who want to come on here and complain about how I characterize women – if you’re not like this, then what have you to be offended by? What need do you have to share a collective identity with a bunch of monkey-loving whores? If you want to prove me wrong, then go prove me wrong – go be a loving wife to a good man, and make his life easier rather than turning it into a living hell.

Your tears: They mean nothing to me.

And to you who want to whine about “but where will we get all the new White babies???” – this is simply a canard. Go look around in public. There are plenty of White babies. There are still men willing to ruin their lives by getting involved with some woman who is going to rip them off for everything they’ve got, and they are still impregnating women. There are also women over the age of thirty who have done their slutting around and trips to Asia who are having babies. The demographic crisis is about our numbers in comparison to those of the hordes. It isn’t about our actual numbers. There are still plenty of White people on the planet. Our numbers could be reduced to 25% of what they are now over the next hundred years and it wouldn’t really make any real difference. Given the rate of technological development, population simply is not an issue.

hirayama_ronin & SophisticatedBean #sexist reddit.com

Re: Benevolent Sexism Attractive To Women, Study Shows

(hirayama_ronin)
Just a comment to posters, why post studies without a comment of your own?

The purpose of the following observations is to situate what counts as benevolent sexism, according to the study's authors. The purpose of the study is to meet research into what is called benevolent sexism (the definition of which the authors may or may not agree with), with "parental investment theory."

However, the definition of "benevolent sexism" is eye-watering.

The following is quoted in the article, word for word from the study.

“Hostile sexism (HS) encompasses overtly prejudiced attitudes, whereas benevolent sexism (BS) involves subjectively positive attitudes (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”), chivalrous behaviors, and attempts to achieve intimacy with women.”

Benevolent sexism includes attempts to achieve intimacy with women. This is either an Andrea Dworking-style, "all sex is rape" definition of sexism, that categorically places normal gendered behavior into a politically hostile ghetto (of rape or sexism), or it's a very poorly worded definition on the part of the study's authors.

There isn't a single example of benevolent sexism offered in the introduction that would situate the author's definition. It moves immediately to supposed consequences of BS (a convenient short-hand).

Here are the studies in support of this idea:

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491

I don't have access to this literature to see how their work grounds this definition.

Here are some examples found in the "Supplemental Materials" section at the end of the study:

Study 1a, BS condition

He feels that, no matter how accomplished he is, he is not truly complete as a person without the love of a woman. He thinks that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that in general women are more pure than men and they tend to have a superior moral sensibility. Mark thinks that women should be cherished and protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that women should be helped before men.

Study 1a, non-BS condition

He feels that he can be truly complete as a person without the love of a woman, especially if he is personally accomplished. He doesn't think that a woman should be set on pedestal by her man. He is convinced that neither sex is superior with respect to purity or moral sensibility. He thinks that women should not necessarily be cherished or protected by men. In case of a disaster or emergency situation, he thinks that a person's sex should not be a factor determining who is helped first.

Despite the “romantic” undertone, researchers noted, benevolent sexism still reinforces the notion that women are inferior.

In Study 2a, we find BS in how a man might help a woman. The study participants were offered two men, Robert and John, who were identical in every way, except in particular behaviors:

Robert/John and John/Robert are both colleagues of yours. You have got to know them both a bit because you have often worked in pairs with one or the other and you have attended a few meetings and short business trips with each of them. They both look about the same physically and they are both about as competent at their job as each other.

You have noticed that they behave slightly differently at times though. For example, on one occasion when you were attending a short business trip with Robert/John, you had to get from a train station to the hotel where your conference meeting was being held. The taxi had not turned up so you decided you had to walk in order to get there in time. It was December and it was very cold. [BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, Robert/John took his coat off and gave it to you, even though he only had a thin suit jacket on underneath. On another occasion later that same month, you had been on another short business trip with John/Robert. It was still very cold and you were walking from the train station back to your office and it was about the same distance you had to walk in the cold last time. [non-BS condition] After saying something about how cold it was, John/Robert, who was wearing a thin suit jacket under his coat, did not offer to give you his coat.

Reading into this, I assume "attempts to achieve intimacy with women" means "attempts to charm women (into intimacy) by giving them preferential treatment."

Discussion

What feminism-driven research is attempting to do, which the authors of these studies is disrupting, is to position the preferential treatment of women as politically damaging treatment. This is actually a position I tend to agree with. I personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful.

The problem is that feminism allows women to problematize the preferential treatment shown to them (turning a prima facie positive into a subtle negative), while benefiting from preferential treatment. It's grabbing resources, attention, and affirmation from men, while punishing men for offering those resources, attention, and affirmation, packaging it up as a form of political oppression (patriarchy), which men are solely responsible for.

Studies like this cut through the nonsense. It says: benevolent sexism may have negative consequences, but it's desired by women:

We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest.

If women express this unconscious bias toward BS men, even when they have conscious knowledge of the supposed negative effects of BS upon women politically, feminists can no longer claim BS is a product of male supremacy. It is a joint product of deep reproductive politics, for which women must take their share of the responsibility, as they take their share of the benefits of being placed on the pedestal.

As always,

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality.

(SophisticatedBean)

personally believe men's preferential treatment of women makes them weaker, lazy, less desperate to achieve success, thus less successful

Not doing so appears to cause PMS though.

feminism == equality + pedestal =/= equality

I guess we can shorten that to feminism ? equality.

Women will always be on the pedestal because men are hardwired to care for women and women are not hardwired for reciprocity. Instead, they are hardwired to exploit and to be unwilling to settle with a partner of lower rank. (The alternative would also be unstable anyway as a stronger male in her mating pool would be able to threaten her decision if she decided for a weaker male.)

So the patriarchy is exactly a means of counteracting this innate anti-(beta)-male bias; it is basically egalitarianism. It basically artificially makes men more attractive by rituals, affirmative action (e.g. boys-only domains/clubs), strict rank enforcement and economic dependence such that women more likely feel like actually having a valuable/high-status partner. This should also allow women to experience more orgasms in a monogamous society as they orgasm more the higher the economic status and confidence of their partner is. Not doing so should theoretically make monogamous bonds unstable and we are indeed seeing a growing divorce rates. Another prediction is that more men should be rendered unable to impress a woman by their relative socioeconomic rank; and fewer males should be motivated by classical courtship and incentives for achievements of founding a family, both of which should reduce overall reduce cultural drive, which we are likely seeing too (incels, Hikikomoris, opioid crisis; though all of those have an economic component).

Now, one might expect the negative utility listed above might have been canceled out by the utility of an improvement of women's lives, but it looks like feminism has not even made women happier as career-oriented women seem to often find themselves in positions in which they are not very satisfied because they cannot find a satisfying mate or because their career conflicts with motherhood. I also suspect feminism even increases BS, because men are being raised to be so agreeable, intimidated and soft that they fulfill any wishes. There is positive utility in shape of increased economic productivity, but it's questionable to which extent that has actually made us happier. Positive emotion is mostly associated with goal pursuit (cocaine, emphatemine), and as goals are becoming diffuse, gender-incompatible or unattainable, it obviously makes us less happy.

.
.
.

That said, the study posted by OP surprised me since even self-described feminists preferred the explicitly sexist hypothetical male.

Some women are sneaky like that. I think it is a result of the lack of true female-male or female-female competition. We are seeing the same in the lack of true competition due to declining economic growth in the West: things start to become corrupt, improper and sneaky because the free market does not eliminate behavior and assumptions that are misaligned with reality. The raise of bullshit jobs. Women are basically chronically in this position because they are mostly always desired by men for their reproductive organs largely irrespective of their behavior and assumptions. Which does not mean that this expresses in all women to pathological degree or that men do not have their own gender-specific pathologies, but feminism, even though it probably had the intention of improving this has actually made it worse by making men more feminine/agreeable and by eliminating corrective feedback targeted at women.

Edita #fundie patheos.com

So you like being overburdened by your womanly duties such as having kids, cleaning house and cooking all the while getting harassed at work by your boss? You like slavery? Why wouldn't you want an easy life where the only thing you care about is loving your husband? I don't understand your slave mind. Think woman, eventually you will get older you will begin to lack the energy to do it all. And your marriage will end in divorce.

I for one refuse such slavery. You are just as bad as Christian fundamentalist, homophobic pro-lifers to be honest. No longer will the TWRA's allow for women such as you to enslave us into doing male duties.

Feminists managed to ‘liberate’ women by making it easier for women to become sluts (premarital sex). Thus, reducing the importance of chaste and pure women as a result, men have no inventive to marry and women are used as nothing more but mere sexual commodities. When women finally tire of the promiscuous lifestyle, they find that no man wants to marry them. Men who do not shun marriage tend to marry virgins so the feminist promiscuous sluts are left to age by themselves. Or they settle for less well to do men and are subsequently are exploited by these men for monetary purposes. This is because the career of the promiscuous woman finally begins to take off exponentially after the investment she put forth in her 20’s and 30’s.

In the end, she misses out on marriageable men and wastes it on a useless career that essentially fails to fulfill her. Not only is the woman used for monetary and sexual purposes by her less successful (Mangina) husband who refuses to support her. He also exploits her when it comes to housework and child rearing. As again, the woman is made to do it all while the husband comfortably relaxes on a coach after a days work. Nevertheless, a working woman’s day never ends she not only is forced to have a job outside of the home she must do everything inside of the home. This includes everything from childcare, housework chores and servicing her husband sexually; indeed what a great day for the liberationist elite. To see women toil and suffer in the hands of an egalitarian society and at the hands of an emasculated husband who seeks to use and abuse the woman for all that she is worth. Feminism has made women lower the standards for men greatly. It has told women that they can be successful by themselves, however feminists failed to take into account the unfair distribution of labor in the household. In addition, the woman begins to resent her husband for making her work outside of the home and do everything inside of the home. This leads to fights and divorce, and thus after a divorce a woman seeks to gain the best financial advantage from the husband. Through alimony, some lucky gals manage to take revenge on Mangina husbands that way. However, most women are left destitute. As shown by the increasing poverty rates of single mothers.

This is the great liberation that feminism gave women. It has made women into thrash. It has made men disrespect women it has led to a nation of emasculated men who further thrive on the oppression of the feminine women. These men fear feminine women who seek protection and objectification of their men. They are scared to take responsibility, be the leaders in their families, and lead their wives. These men thus cause resentment in women. Then women act out in desperation. The modern woman is forced to be the “Escrava Isaura” of our time. She is shunned, thrashed and spit on; she becomes a sexual commodity to be used by many men. Additionally, she continues to be exploited after marriage by a husband who refuses to undertake the breadwinner role and makes her work outside of the home. Feminism has created a nation of deluded Isaura’s who insist on the doctrine of feminism, yet knowing that something is not right. Deep down she knows she is being exploited by the system she knows that it is unfair. Yet without a voice for women, she remains gullible and easily swayed toward the belief that egalitarianism is good.

Factcheckme #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

what kind of rapey shithole are we living in, afterall, if we would have separatism by default if men were (finally) punished with jailtime for raping and contributing to men raping women. i mean if all men who were guilty of the range of offenses between actual rape and not adequately protecting women in their own communities and proximities from rape, were actually sent to jail, including every man within a 20-mile radius (say) of any and all instances of a boy or a man raping a girl or a woman, within just a few minutes there would be no men left in many places in the world. justice for women, in other words, would create female separatism by default, where all male offenders were separated from us, and allowed to do their male-culture thing with each other and not allowed to do it to us anymore. we would be alone. because justice.

(...)

and what kind of violent hell is waiting just beyond the horizon, what is it, exactly, that we are actively preventing from happening with our female blood, sweat and tears, when women put their energies into placing and enforcing social controls on men and male behavior, including mens violence against other men? and, why do we bother doing this at all? this is a serious question.

(re)consider: how many men would just kill themselves voluntarily if left to their own devices? how many resources in the form of suicide hotlines, drug rehabs, DWI checkpoints and the like are being actively put towards preventing men from killing themselves, and is this really the best use of these resources? says who?

(re)consider: how many men would kill each other if they werent prevented from doing so, both actively and passively, and how much energy is dedicated to achieving that ends daily? weekly? annually? is it worth it? this is a serious question. what would happen if we just let men do to themselves and each other what they do, unabated? im not talking about *us* doing a fucking thing to hurt men at all. im just talking about not stopping them from harming — even eliminating — themselves. do we owe it to them or something to save them from themselves? really? because we are acting as if we do, but why? i dont think women owe men a fucking thing.

and sure, women have our own interests in preventing male violence against other men, but our interests here are complicated, and worth parsing. for starters, women and girls often get caught in mens crossfire, literally and more literally. when boys and men are killed, so is the gynergy of the mothers, grandmothers and others who spent their lives and their very selves in raising and nurturing them.

perhaps our greatest fear is that if men are allowed to do what they do, and if “culture” — otherwise known as patriarchy — were allowed to be as hellishly brutal, as bloody and awful as it would be if men were allowed to just be men, unmodified, that men will simply and finally go mad, unleashing an heretofore unimaginably lawless, vicious violence, raping and slaughtering us all. and this is a realistic fear, i think. but obviously it begs the question, doesnt it — why are they worth saving, again?

what if we just got out of their way and let nature (or whatever) take its course? im just asking. we likely wouldnt have to do it for very long — i think even *i* could stand the trials and tribulations of “womens land” and passing the communal nut butter (or whatever) for the five minutes (or 5 years) it would take for men to render themselves, well, dead. after that, we could all go our own ways if we wanted. or not! either way, aaaahhhhhhh. heaven.

RippedRichAndIncel #sexist reddit.com

Are Incels the most reviled members of society ever?

(TL:DR below if required)

Inceldom is not something those under its banner can control, any more than a breast cancer patient should be lambasted for letting herself get sick, and yet, only the former is subject to hatred and ridicule of such a kind as deemed, not only permissible, but encouraged.

Throughout history, there have been many examples of oppressed and reviled peoples, so let's take a look at a few and compare them to the plight of the incel.

Women

The normie favourite. Truly women have suffered unfairly throughout history, right? Surely they're still unequal today and in need of the mighty fist of feminism to even come close to man's privilege, right?
Currently, in first world countries, there is no group more privileged than woman: to suggest a biological difference between the sexes means you're a misogynistic pig. Criticism of any kind, if directed at a woman, is rendered not only moot, but considered to be a vitriolic attack of society's special sneauxphlakes.

There is an expectation that women deserve to be treated better than men, which is propogated by both men and women alike: men should always hold the door open for women; men are expected to pay for dinner; men are expected to be the providers for the family (if women want to work, they're encouraged, but men receive no such encouragement, it's merely expected of them); women are viewed as innocent and preferential in legal disputes (97% of alimony payments are made by men, women win exclusive custody 79% of the time, and women who make false rape claims are believed in spite of the notion that the accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty.)

How about the historical treatment of women? Traditionally, women have also been coddled by society. When men were required to hunt and kill to supply for small hunter-gatherer societies, women were spared from this and left safety away from any danger. Up until very recently, women were also spared from the horrors of war (despite Hillary's absurd claims) it has always been the duty of men to defend, en mass, the rights and safety of their women back home. Women have historically been treated well, even in great societies like ancient Greece where men recognized women's inferiority and preferred the company of other men, women were treated well and respected, many members of Greek society worshiping the female gods more than any other.

And in spite of all this; in spite of every advantage afforded to them, women still want more. Now, in front of the wall street bull, a little girl stands defiant. Why? As a symbol of strength against a non-existent wage gap. Society propogates a myth to make women feel better, and then builds upon that myth with symbols of strength to make women feel better still. Clearly, then, women are not so disadvantaged.

The blacks and the Jews

The two Oppression All-stars. There can be no denying that western countries have, historically, treated black people poorly. Colonialism and the ensuing slavery were clear and systematic breaches of the human rights of millions of people.

However, slavery is not exclusive to blacks. In fact, blacks were very often either the sellers, or the buyers of slaves. The word slave refers, originally, to the slavic people who were frequently forced into slavery in the middle ages. Slavery is not and was not exclusive to blacks, and yet, it is blacks who benefit from its having happened.

Affirmative action is hugely prevalent in America. Black students receive black-exclusive scholarships and receiving greater encouragement and support than non-black students.

Of course, racism existed beyond the abolishment of slavery, and still exists today. However, there have always been those who have stood up to racism. Most famous of all was Martin Luther King Jr who is universally praised for his work helping African-Americans, but he is not alone. Many people have dedicated their lives to helping blacks, some have even lost their lives in so doing: but no one has done this for incels. Incels, in spite of the hatred and discrimination they receive, are not beneficiaries of support or affirmative action in anyway. Imagine the response you would receive by going to /r/peopleofcolour and telling them they deserve to be hated or discriminated against. You would be banned sightwide for extreme prejudice, and yet, to do the same on /r/incels is considered amusing and fair. There are clear correlations between height or attractiveness and success, and yet society turns a blind eye to incels' plight. So while it is the case that African-Americans were the object of much discrimination, there has been a significant reversal and now much is done in their favour. Incels, however, are recipients only of hatred: no one wishes to aid their cause.

Likewise, the Jews and their oppression in Nazi Germany might be a favoured counter-argument to the assertion that incels are the most universally reviled societal group, however, this argument falls flat as well. It is of course true that the Jews were systematically despised and considered sub-human. This fact they share with incels.

However, there is a clear difference: When the Nazis considered the Jews sub-human, the world went to war to defend them. When the world considers incels to be subhuman, people just laugh at their plight and go on, encouraging their subhuman treatment. It is clear then which of the two is the more systematically despised.

Other [mental] illnesses

Inceldom, like race or sexuality, is genetic. If it can be resolved by weight loss, or lifting more, it's not inceldom: it's volcedlom. True inceldom is incurable and predetermined.

However, inceldom is not treated the same way as other illnesses at all. Let's take a close look at the subtle distinctions in societal treatment.

Cancer is, in many of its forms, impossible to prevent with the decisions one makes. I'm sorry normies, but that means you can't tell poor Timmy to shower his tumor away. People that suffer from cancer are praised for their bravery; they are the beneficiaries of myriad charities, as well as the objects of ad campaigns and propaganda. Just like inceldom, cancer is a terrible disease, but only one of the diseased individuals will receive love and compassion while he suffers; the other will be taunted as he suffers in solitude.

Furthermore, if we look at how people, reddit especially, treats depressed people, we see an even cleared example of the double standard that derives from pure hatred of incels. Can you imagine the fervent rage that reddit would unleash if someone told a depression sufferer to 'just stop being sad'? And yet, that is the advice incels receive daily. We suffer the same, and yet, while others are supported, we are condemned.

TL:DR - plz read, it's not like you're too busy banging sluts. If you are: Incels might just be the most universally hated and discriminated against members of society. In spite of this, and where other hated sects have been assisted, incels are ridiculed and hurt further for merely existing. There is no help because they are deemed unworthy of it. It is not seen as noble to fight for incels rights as it might to fight for the rights of women or minorities, so we must suffer, because to propagate our suffering is seen not as cruel, but as just.

(Emphasis original)

Fred Hutchison #fundie renewamerica.com

We, the men of America, are still here in spite of forty years of gender warfare against us. We are still here because God designed us to be men, placed us in this land, and expects us to lead. We are here because America needs us. We are here because our communities need us. We are here because women and children need us. We know that we are needed, in spite of the foolish popular denial of that rather obvious fact.

At the moment, some women and some weak men may not like it when we behave as men. But we shall conduct ourselves as men because women, children, and weak men need us to do so. They need to know that we are here, we are not deserting our posts, we are not running away, and we are not abdicating our responsibilities.

[...]

As men, God has given us the burden of leadership. The burden of leadership has nothing to do with self-assertion and has everything to with self-denial. It has nothing to do with the struggle for power, glory, and wealth. Lesser men abandon the burden of leadership when they forget their honor and duty in the struggle for gain and for status.

[...]

"And unto Adam he (God) said, '...Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat in the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.'" (Genesis 3: 17–19)

In this passage, God declares a curse upon fallen men and not upon women. The curses on women are different. The curse on men pertains to work. Contrary to the claptrap about work being a source of "self-actualization," God has made work necessary for survival and something of an ordeal. Whatever kind of work one does, there are "thorns, thistles, and sweat" involved in doing it. Work is not fun or play as some would have us believe. It is a curse, but is also blessing in disguise.

[...]

A woman is not commanded to work, vocationally, but she has permission to do so. She suffers no evil consequences if her husband is a good provider and she decides to stay home. However, if she chooses to work, she must suffer the same thorns and thistles in the fields of work as a man does. Unfortunately, the woman does not have the tough hide of a man. She suffers more than a man does as she sweats in the field and the thorns and thistles injure her, speaking figuratively.

Gals, forget about finding "self-actualization" in the work world. You may go there if you like, but you will be bruised by the experience. Yes, you will gradually develop tougher skin at work, but something soft, sweet, and lovely about you might be diminished. If your husband wishes to be your provider, it might be a good idea not to fight it. It might be a good for him as a man and good for you as a woman. It might be very good for your children to have you at home.

various commenters #racist incels.co

(Popbob)

[LDAR] Stop with the asians like white men meme

Asians like attractive white men, asian women dont like me any more than white, black or hispanic women just because im white. This is a big cope pushed by white incels who hope to have a chance but in reality asian women dont think your sexy or attractive they think you are a subhuman

(NeverSubmit)
White is more attractive to Asians they worship white features

(BlackPillUNC)
So what you're saying is: you have to be attractive to get laid.


What a revolutionary thought. I don't understand why others make up theories to get around that.

(theultimate341)
Another white trying to cope when it’s been proven over and over .

(sadricecel)
Asian women deserve the rope

(Cynistic)
Always whitecels who deny that they have it easy compared to us ethnics.
No empathy at all kek

(rafaelvicuna3)
Cope, a 5/10 white guy is more attractive in the eyes of thirsty asian women than an 7/10 ethnic guy

(theultimate341)
Legit saw a asian with a sub 5 white guy at the store today. Whites have it the easiest out of any race. I’m tired of these guys coping.

(BlkPillPres)
Dude seriously just be fucking honest, you have a racial advantage, if this was an rpg video game it would be like you chose the white race which has a bonus of +10 attractiveness vs asians, its not even funny how much asian women worship white men and white features. Unless you are fucking physically deformed its almost impossible for you not to go to an asian country and get laid.

Heck didn't a guy recently get banned for doing such a thing and then bragging about it. He was average looking, perfect example of a 5/10, and I see him as a 5/10 so imagine what the white roasties in his country of origin see him as, more like a 4 probably. So a 4-5 out of 10 guy can just waltz into an asian country and get laid endlessly and you still want to fucking deny this shit. I literally work with a guy who lived in Canada, and told me most of the girls he dated were asians and it was easy for him to get them, he primarily targeted asians because they "responded better". He's a legit 5/10 white guy. Cut the bullshit please.

(Vitriol)
It depends on your location. If you're in an Asian country and you're an average white guy, if you can't get laid you're a mentalcel. Girls will pick and choose from what's in front of them, and with regard to online dating, they can get a guy 2-3 points higher than them so why settle for just an average white guy if you can get better? It's not difficult to determine why things turn out like they do. If you had the closest equivalent to the SMV of a woman (chad/chadlite) are you going to pick out a pretty, skinny girl, or are you going to pick out a plain jane who is carrying extra weight? The answer is pretty simple.

When a female sees a male with recessed and weak facial bones, that's the equivalent of us seeing an obese female. We just don't want any part in it and neither do they. Development is crucial for a male and millimeters decide your life.

(BlkPillPres)
Wrong, white men are seen almost as a token of "high social status" among asian women, so just being white gives you a leg up, and stop being disingenious, you ask where is your Asian GF, I ask how many asian women did you even attempt to woo...... exactly. Most of you so called white incels don't even do shit and then you say - "seeee, seeeee, look nothing happened, seeee I'm incel". Nothing happened because you didn't put in much effort.

I've tried to court white girls, black girls, asian girls, fat girls, tall girls, stacies out of my league even (got friend zoned hardcore), spanish girls, legit 3/10 girls. Never got laid even once, always ends in a friendzone or just being ignored. Still haven't really stopped trying, most of the white cells here from what I've read probably only target white women, and then use the few failures they have in that department as proof of them being incel, I call bullshit. Black women literally speak about trying to get a white man so they can get a child with some "good hair", white men are fetishized in some shape or form by the women of all other ethnicities.

Like I said, unless you are physically deformed you have no excuse, you are probably the only person keeping you from getting laid, Trying courting black women for once, women of other races, get out of your comfort zone and see if you still fail, but you won't, because then you'd have to admit that you never were incel and were the only thing holding yourself back.

.
.
.

Yeah I call BS, unless you are physically deformed or your face is really fucked up (the exception to the rule, most men are "average looking", hence the word "AVERAGE"), then you have no excuse and its likely due to your own lack of trying. Even then I'm being lenient because I've see a lot of couples of asian women with BELOW AVERAGE WHITE MALES. Also courting asian women in a western country isn't the same thing as courting asian women in an asian country.

Asian women also see white men as a possible meal ticket, a possible escape from their "shitty lives" in their country of origin, that you may possibly "take her with you". That in itself ups your attraction, especially in poor countries like Thailand or the Philippines.

You have multiple factors that are seen as "desirable traits"
1. European Features - Desired by basically all ethnic women for their children (connected to #2 and #3), especially asians and blacks, l'm black and like I said its a known thing to hear black women say they want a baby with "some good hair", a scrawny nerdy average looking white guy can get a girl that I would have to get buff and "pull thug game" for. Not only that ethnic women ironically tend to hate dark skin (again especially black women), you ever sit amongst a group of black women and listen to them speak about desirable traits, dark skin is almost always used as a -1 in selecting the man, its seen as a negative trait.

2. Perception Of Social Status - Obvious what this one means, being white means you are perceived to be of a higher social class among women, especially among women of other ethnicities, especially among women of other ethnicities in poor countries.

3. Perception Of Wealth - Also obvious, being white makes you be perceived by the women of other races (also your own race in comparison to other ethnic males) as "having money".

4. The Escape Route - The most effective tool in a white man's arsenal in getting laid in ethnic countries (and even your own country), its so effective it works without him even being aware of it. It goes hand in hand with #2 and #3. Women perceive you as a possible escape route from their current life in their poor countries, and fucking you and getting you attached to them increases their chances of you taking them with you back home.

That's just what I can come up with off the top of my head and there's way more and everybody knows about this, but go ahead and pretend like everything I've said here is a lie.

Rick Moser #fundie returnofkings.com

Most people don’t consider how architecture is important to relationships. Good architecture helps you meet and get to know people. But what few people realize is that the stores, office buildings, and houses they live in are often designed to stop this from happening.

Why would architects want to design unhappy buildings? To push an agenda. The preachers of social justice have realized architecture’s significance and used it to subtly change our behavior, our values, and beliefs. They want to change how we interact, and that includes isolating people and destroying their relationships.

...

Ancient languages were infused with gender. Early people saw gender differences in everything around them. Gender became weaker and less important over time, until progressives erased gender completely. Today’s gender-neutral language inculcates a false belief that male and female are equal.

Sexes were distinct in architecture as well. The Greek Doric order, with its robust and austere proportions represented the man. The slim and decorative Ionic order represented the female. Designers emulated the inherent human roles they saw in the natural world.

But modern progressives decided that a person’s sex is just a construct of conditioning. They decided women are less useful to the economy as stay-at-home mothers and more productive in the workforce and as prodigious consumers. To change human roles they changed environmental expectations.

Just as modernists erased gender from language, they removed it from our buildings and made purely functional structure that did not speak to the sexes. Distinction is rarely made that correlates to the sexes: sturdy vs. slim, bare vs. adorned, dominant vs. subservient, geometric vs. whimsical.

...

Today’s architecture pushes unnatural expectations. The Women’s Restroom Bill of 1987 mandated that men’s and women’s bathrooms be exactly the same, except what is necessary for biological differences. Before this, men’s bathrooms were communal and accommodated more people. Women’s restrooms placed toilets behind a lockable doors and had extra spaces for childcare, grooming, and resting.

...

Sex roles ought to be the norm, and exceptions can be accommodated in a separate space. Early European settlers in Australia wiped out the aboriginal jilmi which accommodated a single woman’s special needs. They thought it was “prison-like” to isolate single women away from everyone else. But it turned out this was important for social cohesion. Similarly, the Law of Moses set certain standards for women in the community. The community in those days did not bow down to their needs, but rather made a separate space to accommodate them.

Ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Oriental houses had separate areas for women and men. Englishman Robert Kerr outlined gender-specific organizations and functions for each room of a house. Emphasis was placed on the man as the leader of the household. The radial paths of garden paths at the Duke of Beaufort’s residence all converged on his dining chair. (see Gender Studies in Architecture…, Dorte Routledge, p. 135) Architecture reinforced healthy expectations of human interactions.

Today’s house assigns no hierarchy of gender to its rooms, which means women take over the entire house. By designing from a female frame, less emphasis is made on the diversity of the household, its hierarchy, or of the diversity and hierarchy of the community. If the man is lucky, he can have the garage for his “man-cave.” But along with the house, public and work spaces are overtaken and forced to serve the woman’s needs.

Early Irish natives were nomadic tribes who repeatedly dismantled and rebuilt their dwellings. Over time, construction of their tents became a ritual that symbolized the marriage of the owners. Then, as today, the dwellings were constructed by men and the interior furnished by women. This distinction made the tent ritualistically “a site of creation, separation, autonomy and mobility.” (Vernacuular Architecture in the 21st Century, Lindsay Asquith, p. 80) Both men and women had a role in architecture, but in proper and distinguished ways. Today, how many men are in control of the house they live in?

Such consideration must be made in today’s architecture. The public needs to recognize the gender manipulation and oppressive expectations pushed on them by their environment. Today’s push against traditional gendered architecture isolates men. Public spaces do not help men and women meet each other, because they suit the woman’s need to “feel safe.” Private spaces do not foster a harmonious family relationship because they manipulate the natural family hierarchy.

The presence of gender in architecture helps couples meet each other in public places and live happily in domestic places. Its removal and manipulation is pushing men and women apart.

Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai #sexist reliablefatwas.com

Among the sweeping allegations of baatil made by a Dr. Hargey is his claim:

“Men and women have identical fundamental rights, with the Qur’an emphasising equality in the spiritual,intellectual, economic and legal areas.”

For this personal view of his, Dr. Hagey is unable to adduce any substantiation from the Qur’aan or Hadith. This view is at variance with the Shariah. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and proofs of the Shariah will establish the fallacy of this claim and make manifest that Dr. Hagey’s opinion is devoid of any Islamic credibility.

In the aforementioned statement, Dr. Hagey has made a sweeping claim without tendering the basis and proof for the claim which is couched in ambiguity. He speaks of “identical fundamental rights” without defining these. He should elaborate and expound his conception of “fundamental rights” so that the fallacy of his arguments in relation to the Shariah will become more vivid to Muslims. Ambiguity is always a cover behind which refuge is sought for unsubstantiated opinions and views.

It is quite a simple matter to launch an attack on the established institutions of Islam by means of high-sounding and ambiguous phrases. But, it is entirely a different matter to define, elaborate and substantiate such claims of baatil as are being traded under the name of islam. To enable us to comment further and in greater detail on this particular opinion of Dr. Hargey, it is necessary that he defines his understanding of “identical fundamental rights”.

In the second part of his claim (cited above), Dr. Hargey attempts to show that according to the Qur’aan men and women enjoy total equality in spiritual, intellectual, economic and legal areas. But, on the contrary the Qur’aan and the Sunnah refute this contention of equality of the sexes, an obsession with the modernists of our time. The following differences or Islamic differences between the sexes will conclusively assert the fallacy of Dr.Hargey’s view.

* According to the Shariah a woman can never be the Imaam in a congregation in which males are present. On the other hand, a man is always the Imaam in any type of congregation.

* If women happen to be performing Salaat in a jamaat in which men are, their position is right at the back–right behind the rows of children.

* When the Imaam in jamaat Salaat makes an error, his attention is drawn to the error my the muqtadis calling out “Subhaanallaah! But, it is not permissible for a woman who happens to be in the congregation to call out Subhaanallaah! to draw the attention of the Imaam. Her voice has to remain concealed.

* Nafl Salaat and Nafl Saum (Fasting) are acts of Ibaadat of very high merit. But, a woman is not permitted to resort to these acts of Ibaadat without the consent of her husband. On the contrary, her husband does not require her permission.

* A woman was never ever appointed a Nabi by Allah Ta’alla. This was the office exclusively of males.

* Juma’ Salaat is compulsory on men, but not on women.

* Eid Salaat is obligatory on men, but not on women.

* Taraaweeh Salaat is Sunnatul Muakkadah in Jamaat for men, but not for women. They are exhorted to perform individually at home.

* According to the Qur’aan Shareef the share of inheritance of a female is half that of the male.

* According to the Qur’aan the testimony (shahaadat) of two women is equivalent to that of one man.

* According to the Qur’aan men possess the right to discipline and punish women, even beating them when necessary while women have no reciprocal rights even if their husbands are in error.

* Men possess the right to administer divorce, not women. Women have no such right. Even khulah (the procedure whereby a woman buys her separation from her husband) is dependent on the acceptance of the husband.

* The husband is entitled to recall his wife after having given one or two talaaq even if the wife does not desire to be reconciled. It is his right to act unilaterily and retake her within the iddat period.

* The testimony of women is not admissable in crimes of the hudood category, e.g. theft, adultery. Even if a thousand pious, honourable and knowledgeable females bear testimony in such crimes, their evidence is not admissable.

These Islamic differences between man and woman are sufficient to highlight the fact that the Shariah distinguishes between the sexes, does not provide for identical rights for men and women and decrees the superiority of man over woman. These differences enumerated here will serve to indicate that the Shariah rejects the views and opinions of Dr.Hargey as blatantly baatil.

Dr. Hargey and other modernists of the same opinions should understand that to force equality between inequals is in fact reprehensible inequality, morally wrong and unjust. The Islamic inequality between man and woman is no insult to womankind. The glowing statements of the Shariah speaking highly of women negate any such charge which the enemies of Islam level.

In simple terms the lesser role lesser resporisibility and lesser rank to woman — a rank in subservience to men – all stem from the natural and inherent spiritual, physical and intellectual quality and condition of women. In these areas Allah Ta’ala has created in man dominance and in women subservience.

This state of affairs has been decreed by the Wisdom of Allah Ta’ala and the opinions of Dr. Hargey will not be able to alter the immutable realities created by Allah Ta’ala. Nor does the Ummah require or desire the personal opinions and views of doctors of philosophies, for the path and direction of the Ummah of Islam have already been fixed fourteen centuries ago. And that Path is the Path propagated by the Ulama-e-Haqq – the Path in which great emphasis is and will always be placed on “ritual and externals”, on dress codes” and codes of Islam which Hargey has branded as “empty observances”. May Allah Ta’ ala protect the Imaan of all Believers.

ElliotsSecondAscent #sexist reddit.com

[Summary: False dichotomy between "looks are completely irrelevant" and incel crackpottery. Conspicuously silent on numerical results. Also a "wonderful" demonstration of neochauvinists' failures at understanding biology and a nightmare to format.)

The Black Pill backed up by hard data and facts.

Preface:

All cursive text is not my own, they are quoted from the articles sourced under every title.

Black Pill Edition: Female nature
____
The relevance of personality as a petulant farce
____
Small Appetizer
____
Before we start with the more serious studies let me present you a small appetizer to stimulate the intake of the Black Pill.
____
A couple of years ago OkCupid conducted an interesting experiment. January 15th, 2013 was proclaimed by OkCupid as “Love is Blind Day” to celebrate the launch of a blind dating app released on that same day.

During “Love is Blind Day”, pictures were removed from OkCupid for a total of 7 hours and so data was gathered and the way people interacted with each other visibly changed!


As you can see, there was more and deeper conversation with an increase in exchange of personal information. A vast improvement for everyone! So, it seemed.

Here’s what happened next:

• When the photos were restored at 4PM, 2,200 people were in the middle of conversations that had started “blind”. Those conversations melted away. The goodness was gone, in fact worse than gone. It was like we’d turned on the bright lights at the bar at midnight.

Summarized in this graph.

Starting from the moment OkCupid released the photos, conversations died down almost immediately. The conversation life expectancy dropped nearly 30% just two messages later in the thread when the photos were back on.

There was another also another smaller experiment, that can be summarized by this excerpt:

• We took a small sample of users and half the time we showed them, we hid their profile text. That generated two independent sets of scores for each profile, one score for “the picture and the text together” and one for “the picture alone.” Here’s how they compare. Again, each dot is a user. Essentially, the text is less than 10% of what people think of you.

The second graph.

The text makes almost no difference on how you’re viewed.

Lastly, there was also the experiment where Okcupid let people predict personality based on profiles. In this case a beautiful picture strongly correlates with a beautiful personality when you let people be the judge. Third graph.

Conclusion:

Photos have a greater impact on the course of a conversation than the intimacy of that same conversation, which displayed the personality of both correspondents. The text added to your profile meant to introduce your characteristics, plays an insignificant role next to the photo. Your personality will be established in advance primarily based on your photo.

source: https://theblog.okcupid.com/we-experiment-on-human-beings-5dd9fe280cd5

What is beautiful is good, really good.
____
It's commonly known that "looks matter", but have you asked yourself the question: How much do they matter? Especially in regards to the widely and heavily emphasized personality?

Let us take a look in some more professional studies who have pondered this same question.
____
In the year 2015, a study in Italy (subject: social psychology) researched the effects of attractiveness, status and gender on the evaluation of personality.

quote:

• Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model.

I chose this particular study, because it's recent and the first of it's kind. A myriad of older studies have already concluded that perceiving a person as good looking fosters positive expectations about personal characteristics (1).

• The effects of attractiveness are strong and pervasive. As Langlois et al. (2000) underline in their meta-analysis, attractiveness is a noteworthy advantage for both children and adults in almost every domain. Based on the “what is beautiful is good” effect (Dion et al., 1972), several studies (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991); Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 2000) demonstrated that this phenomenon functions as a stereotype, making the perceived link between appearance and personality larger than the actual link

In short, attractive people are perceived as having far better personalities even when that isn't the case.

• Indeed, people seem to assume that positive interpersonal qualities and physical attractiveness are systematically linked (i.e., a “halo effect”) (Andreoni & Petrie 2008; Callan, Powell, & Ellard, 2007; Smith, McIntosh, & Bazzini, 1999).

Off topic personal note:

It’s not that incels have bad personalities, they are perceived as such because of their looks. Now you’ll say that we possess misogynistic and violent attitudes but ask yourself, was this behavior preempted by the way we were treated or did we grow towards it?


Now to the final closure of this particular study.

• In general, results are in line with the ‘beauty is good’ effect (Dion et al., 1972), as people seem to believe that physical attractiveness implies positive personality traits, but the effects of attractiveness are different for men and women.

The results came in as predicted, with the exception that there were differences for men and women. Attractive men were perceived as more extroverted and open minded than attractive women, creating an advantage for attractive men.

In other words, it’s better to be an attractive man than to be an attractive woman.

• For Extraversion the effect of attractiveness is the same for women and men but is stronger for male targets. Attractiveness has a positive effect on Conscientiousness only for women whereas it increases Openness only for men.

• Thus, overall the “beauty is good effect” seems to be greater for men.

I will not go too deep in the status aspect because it was stated as rather controversial.

source for the cursive text: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/


Female nature
____
Excellent genes or providing ability
____
The covering of personality serves as a foundation to grasp in a clearer manner for what I am going to say next. Now, what does a woman want when looking for a mate?

Let's look at this from an evolutionary perspective.
____
Physical attractiveness and especially masculinity indicate good genetic quality, which is important for healthy offspring while ability to provide amplifies the survival rate of offspring because it needs sufficient resources to survive as well(2).

The reason why masculinity plays an enormous role in the mating choices of the human female, is because masculinity in itself greatly enhances physical attractiveness. However, a female's desire for strong masculine features may be influenced depending on whether she wants a long term relationship or a short term one on which I'll come back later.

• From an evolutionary view, extremes of secondary sexual characteristics (more feminine for women, more masculine for men) are proposed to be attractive because they advertise the quality of an individual in terms of heritable benefits; they indicate that the owners of such characteristics possess good genes. In other words, such traits advertise the possession of genes that are beneficial to offspring inheriting them in terms of survival or reproduction

Females may choose less masculine faces in some cases (for LTR) because they will often associate masculinity with infidelity, masculine men will not be perceived as good long term partners(3). A woman needs a loyal provider to raise offspring. Masculine men are still preferred for copulation however, because they possess the best genes to pass on.

• Increasing the masculinity of face shape increased perceptions of dominance, masculinity and age but decreased perceptions of warmth, emotionality, honesty, cooperativeness and quality as a parent.

YOUR PERSONALITY IS ASSESSED THROUGH YOUR FACE

This may be well and good, but women want men who possess certain personality traits too. Someone who they can form an emotional connection with is what they claim. Funnily enough, the way your personality is judged is through your face. You will not be liked for your personality but in fact for your face. People do not care for who you are but what you look like. As you already know: “The better your face, the better your so called personality”.

• Personality traits are reported cross-culturally to be among the most important factors in partner choice by both sexes [1,118]. If desired personality is so important, it would appear likely that personality attributions elicited by a face would affect its attractiveness. For example, women who value cooperation and good parenting may avoid masculine-faced men. Thus, instead of feminine faces being attractive and this attractiveness driving positive personality attributions, it may be that the personality attributions are driving the attractiveness judgements.

They are essentialy saying that your personality equals your face. Personality = Face

The meme is confirmed true.

• One study has indeed demonstrated that a desire for some personality traits influences judgements of facial attractiveness [121]. Individuals valuing particular personality traits find faces appearing to display these traits attractive.

Even when it’s not related at all, if your face looks like a certain desired personality it will be attractive to the person who desires that personality.

Being aware of this prospect makes women pickier than thought before. At first women emphasizing the importance of personality made them seem much less shallow since anyone, regardless of looks can possess a certain personality. Now it is not really a certain personality they are desiring, but a certain face that looks like that personality.

• Thus, desired personality influences perceptions of facial attractiveness in opposite sex faces, changing the result to: ‘what is good is beautiful’ [121].

source for the cursive text: : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130383/

THE INFLUENCE OF THE MENSTRUAL CYCLE

It's possible one could be thinking that none of this poses an actual problem because different women want different personalities, thus different faces. Following from that, most men should still have a shot.

Things are a little trickier than that, unfortunately.

During ovulation, when a woman is most fertile and the best moment for impregnation; her desires for masculine features increase significantly and so her chances for cheating in her quest for a sexy masculine man(4).

• Women prefer the smell of dominant males, more masculine male faces and men behaving more dominantly when at peak fertility than at other times in their menstrual cycle.

That’s not at all, during peak fertility they also prefer more masculine bodies and more masculine voices.

The perfect strategy for a female is to be impregnated by a masculine dominant man and be provided by less masculine more loyal and less dominant men.

• Cyclic preferences could influence women to select partners when most likely to become pregnant that possess traits that may be most likely to maximize their offspring's quality via attraction to masculinity or serve to help acquire investment via attraction to femininity.

source for the cursive text: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X07000360

For reference, from masculine to less masculine.

If you understand this, it’s far easier grasp how it comes that 8000 years ago when there was no civilization; 1 man used to reproduce for 17 women. I can only hypothesize the female copulated with the dominant masculine males while being provided by ignorant less masculine men(5).

Final conclusion:
____
You are not desired for your personality as man. You are desired for your looks, genes or ability to provide.

Fun addition:

It's been posted here some times before, but just to be sure.

http://www.webtoons.com/en/drama/lookism/list?title_no=1049

Black pilled fun to read manhwa.

Dr. Michael J. Bisconti #sexist lfnexus.com

There are many reasons why a woman president would ruin America:

REASON #1

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead nations. This commandment of God is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

REASON #2

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead men. In leading nations, women would be leading men. Therefore, women cannot lead nations. The commandment of God that women shall NOT lead men is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

REASON #3

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

REASON #4

Women are more likely to make wrong decisions than men. This truth is stated in the Bible and proven by history.

REASON #5

Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America.

REASON #6

Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence.

REASON #7

Women do not have the political pull of men, which is required to be effective in the position of the President of the United States.

REASON #8

Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men.

REASON #9

A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

REASON #10

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

REASON #11

Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency.

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

I wasn’t aware of that sordid drama involving (Katie?} McHugh, but the theme of it strikes me as all too familiar. Women are poison pills dropped in the chalice of insurgencies fighting against the status quo.

Underneath all the rationalizations, men fight for beautiful, young women. Men don’t fight for land, or honors, or money, except insofar as those things earn them access to beautiful, young women.

Consciously, men will tell themselves otherwise and pen odes to loftier ideals, but the Darwinian primal impulse is the lure of fertile furrow.

As such, women should inspire, not aspire. Women, particularly young cuties in the bloom of their slender hourglass perfection, are inspirations to men to reach for the brass ring. An insurgency seeking to topple a corrupt establishment is best led by men, compelled by an unspoken and often unacknowledged desire to attract young cuties, intuitively grasping that a victory over the corrupt ruling class means more prime poon for those rebel men.

Women who aspire to leading roles in those insurgencies are suspect operatives, for they are purposefully abdicating their natural place in the cosmic order as inspirations to stronger, integrous men. Placing women at the ideological front lines is courting the disaster of gossipy in-fighting and betrayal; women are powerfully drawn to the glitter of social status, and a revolution in which they play a significant face time part puts them in close proximity to the enemy establishment tempting women with penumbras of reflected status. Women can’t resist the siren song of social elevation, attention whoring, and credentialism, however superficial and unearned. Presented with these irresistible offers, women will backstab allies to get at them.

There is also something to be said for distrusting women who have the same passionate drive as men to achieve in the world of men. Women who aspire to greatness in endeavors that are naturally and historically the domain of men are women who are, essentially, at war with their own femaleness. It would be the same distrustful reaction both men and women have to effeminate men who forsake manly pursuits to succeed in the natural domains of women. Identity crises in either sex provoke distrust in others. We are rightfully suspicious of men or women who choose to defy their sex’s norms and temperaments.

Jon Bergeron #fundie returnofkings.com

Hillary Clinton’s Socialist Manifesto Shows Why Women Shouldn’t Be Involved In Politics

It is no surprise that most men are inclined towards freedom and individualism, while most women are inclined towards security and collectivism. Building on this dichotomy, we have many examples of women finding the preference of security and collectivism illustrated in large, bloated welfare government.

For one, the Pew Research states “Women lean Democratic by 52%… unmarried women 57%”. In a similar article, “Since 1990, women have been consistently more likely than men to identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.” Nothing is closer to socialism and statism in modern America than the American left and the Democratic party. In case you didn’t know, they have an actual socialist running in the primaries. The Democratic party continues to represent women and their beliefs of security and collectivism.

You Must Love Big Brother

The ultimate caricature of the left, Hillary “the woman” Clinton, illustrates her ideas of collectivism in her creepy 1996 Communist Manifesto, It Takes a Village. The title of her book itself should give you shivers. The book illustrates its eerie socialist message of collectivism and state security. An excerpt from the Chapter “Brave New Village” from Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, exemplifies Clinton’s idelogy of state controlled community accurately:

"…(the) notion of the ‘common good’…she (Clinton) indisputably draws her vision from the same eternal instinct to impose order on society, to create an all-encompassing community, to get past endless squabbles and ensconce each individual in the security blanket of the state. Hers is a political religion, an updated Social Gospel- light on the Gospel, heavy on the Social- spoken in soothing tones and conjuring a reassuring vision of cooperation and community…The village may have replaced ‘the state’, and it in turn may have replaced the fist with the hug, but an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape… (Goldberg, 357)"

The idea of women embracing the left and socialism is not new to modern America, either. Throughout history we have many examples of such behavior from women. In John Derbyshire’s 2009 classic “We Are Doomed” (a must read), he explains:

"The ‘gender gap’ in political attitudes has been remarked on since at least 391 B.C. That was the year Aristophanes staged his play ‘The Assemblywomen’ (Ecclesiazusae). In the play the women of Athens, disguised as men, take over the assembly and vote themselves into power. Once in charge, they institute a program of pure socialism:

‘Everyone is to have an equal share in everything and live on that; we won’t have one man rich while another lives in penury, one man farming hundreds of acres while another hasn’t got enough land to get buried in…No one will be motivated by need: everybody will have everything…the children will regard all older men as fathers…’

The play wright grasped the essential point… Women incline to socialism much more naturally than do men.” (Derbyshire, 88)"

Mr. Derbyshire continues:

"George Orwell, whose insights into these matters were very deep, also noticed this (women’s inclination to Socialism)…Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, observe(s):

‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of orthodoxy… ‘

I (Derbyshire) saw the same thing myself when living in communist China in the years just after Mao. If you wanted to hear a total-credulity, utterly unreflective parroting of the Party line, a woman was always your best bet.’ (Derbyshire, 88)"

In America, when women were granted the right to vote, it opened a solid voting bloc for Left statists for years to come. Ironically, gyno-con Ann Coulter (a brilliant conservative woman; yes, they exist, but rare) states:

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in ’64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. – “An appalling magic” in The Guardian (17 May 2003)"

Gentlemen, it all went to shit when we gave them the right to vote. We even hear it from a woman, Ann Coulter. Women became a huge and powerful voting bloc that rarely change its tune—the numbers show very little fluctuation in their leftist leaning, as explained earlier.

One can only imagine a country where statists, leftists, cuckservatives, and neocons might not have existed if women had not been granted the vote. Whatever the case, a large statist government is now a pressing issue, with much of it being the responsibility of idealistic, dumb, and dangerous policies supported by women and feminized SJW men.

To take this a step further, the world becomes more feminized each day and traditional sex roles get reversed—look no further than the new Star Wars and Mad Max to see the effects of this feminization. In modern culture, we have women being glamorized in roles of power and “strong, independent, women” that can do what men do. This propaganda easily translates to the ballot box.

The feminization of everything is a weak attempt to indoctrinate young men to believe that women are leaders and that women are masculine. In response, weak men are followers of their causes and beliefs. This is something men, young and old, should strive to be conscious of every day.

We, as men, must be aware of this political bloc illustrated in the Democratic party. As we can see in the chart previously discussed, men tend to fluctuate their vote based on the individual, women vote based along strict party adherence. Women are one solidarity voting bloc for large government and Democratic party lines.

This is dangerous, because it is determining the fate of our country and our future. We are now on a path to destruction and drastic change must occur. The fate rests in the hands of men, not idealistic, statist, Leftist women, nor SJWs.

We must take back our country, if not by the voting box, then by any means necessary.

some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

[Highlights from their second thread on this article]

Re: Men are more disadvantaged than women in the UK, US and most of Europe, scientists claim

(dunesfrank)

Because it's an awful measurement used.

It's certainly superior to that of the feminist WEC and UN indexes, which don't even taken into account areas in which males are behind females in a particular area. In fact the WEC index actually portrays female superiority as "more equal". So this is at least a step in the right direction.

However it's flawed. The paper doesn't really get into the institutional oppression of males in western nations and focuses mainly on health. It doesn't mention MGM, discrimination against boys in school, institutional discrimination against males in the family and criminal courts, the constant hate campaigns against males in the media, the demonization of male sexuality, discrimination against white men in the workplace, discrimination against homeless men in shelter access, complete lack of reproductive rights, curtailments of due process rights, paternity fraud, male victims of domestic and sexual violence etc. etc.

Basically it just scratches the surface. But yeah, still vastly superior to feminist attempts at measuring "gender equality", which are completely fraudulent if not downright bizarre.

Take some of this with a grain of salt.

no doubt men are disadvantaged in many areas, but some of their overall data is flawed.

take their example of saudi arabia:

The researchers said the gravest disadvantage facing men was often heath, particularly in countries with high levels of alcohol consumption, which tends to lower men’s lifespan.

ok....

For women, the disadvantages are strongly related to education.

one is not like the other, and comparing the two are dumb as shit.

for men, its our own faults that are holding back (in saudi arabia not else where). where as women's one is institutionalized

Males suffer institutional oppression in almost every area of western life. Boys can have their genitals legally mutilated, causing hundreds of deaths every year; boys suffer institutional discrimination in schools (see CH Sommers "The War Against Boys"; also we now known that female teachers mark boys down by an average of 20 percent for the same work); males in college are routinely denied due process rights when accused of some crime by a woman; entire departments in universities are devoted to demonizing males and male sexuality; countries like Canada are literally attempting to reverse due process in rape cases; "female only" scholarships and programs continue despite women making up a strong (and growing) majority on college campuses; men are twice as likely to be arrested and charged when they commit a crime and receive on average 60 percent longer prison sentences; male victims of sexual violence by women rarely receive justice; men are profiled as pedophiles when they want to work with children; white men suffer institutional discrimination in the workplace due to affirmative action and corporate "diversity" measures; males have zero reproductive rights; males routinely suffer discrimination in the family courts, and are sometimes denied access to their children due to false accusations (which are hardly ever punished); though men pay the majority of taxes (females have a net drain on the tax system) nearly all gender-specific programs by government cater to females; much more money is spent on female health care than male health care; male victims of domestic violence are routinely arrested for domestic violence; I could go on indefinitely.

So yeah, you have it exactly backwards. Women suffer from social issues, mostly based on their choices, but it is males that suffer institutional oppression.

The third world is a different ballgame. It's difficult to get accurate information in part because feminist organizations only concentrate on areas in which females are allegedly disadvantaged.

Even in "patriarchical" countries (eg Saudi Arabia) you can find clear evidence of male institutional oppression. Eg men being thrown in prison if they lose their job and can't support their wives; men being treated much more harshly by the criminal justice system (which, again, is an example of institutional discrimination); males being considered expendable (whether in wars or the workplace or even leisure activities -- eg until a few years ago in Saudi Arabia boys as young as 4 were forced to become "camel jockeys" and would frequently die as a result); male victims of sexual and domestic violence being completely ignored (in many cases the law doesn't even conceive of female sexual assault as a crime, even if the victim is if a boy); and so on.

The much higher rates of male alcoholism are undoubtedly related to institutional discrimination, not in every case, but many.

(Seagram1)
The world filled with female middle management is discriminating against the male gender. It is happening in the West because the rsst of the world has not filled its office management and HR departments with women. The lesson to learn here is that a woman is a sexist and by giving them power to decide who gets what they give to other women and let the men do without. It must end or chaos will ensue.

(UsernameIWontRegret)
Woman have always been more privileged than men. They point to kings and act as if that represents men at large.

Let's not forget women by and large did not want the vote in the early 20th century because they didn't want that responsibility.

Let's also not forget that women are by and large more pro-life than men.

If you want your cause taken seriously, I wouldn't recommend saying stuff like this.

There are two types of people in this world.

Those who don't care about facts or realities, only the feeling or emotion conveyed.

Those who don't care about feeling or emotions conveyed, only the facts and realities.

Most men fall into that second group, whereas most women fall into the first. Someone once said for men communication is all about content, for women it's context. So this is what makes it hard for women to take MRAs seriously. We are all about conveying the facts that make people feel uncomfortable, and women don't like the fact that it makes them feel uncomfortable, so they ignore it. It doesn't change the fact that these are in fact facts. And I will never apologize for stating what is demonstrably true.

(dawnpriestess)
Probably because white women usurped affirmative action, meant for minorities who were historically oppressed, and are usually the most underqualified people found in the workplace.

Another reason could be because feminists successfully infiltrated HR departments nationwide and mostly focus on getting women into the board rooms and high level positions of Corporate America, a place they did not build.

If you want your cause taken seriously, I wouldn't recommend saying stuff like this.

The part about voting is actually true. Feminists were pushing for the right to vote, but many women were fighting against it, since it also meant they would be eligible to be drafted to war. Of course men ultimately protected them from that responsibility, and died by the millions while women stayed at home.

(HQR3)

We did it boys! We beat feminism.

Yep. Just like we did in the mid-70s when we proved parity in DV/IPV./s

(WikiMB)
I can see feminists explaining that it's because of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

_Ryo_Hazuki #sexist reddit.com

Women do not like men in general. They don't want any physical intimacy (including cuddling) and don't want any romantic affection. Not even from Chad.

• Should go without saying but women don't want sex. Period.

• Women don't like cuddling. Men pay to cuddle, there are even cuddle cafes in Japan where men pay to cuddle with women.

• Men are the romantics...women think it's cringy.

• Men pay and have to do all the work in relationships, including Chads.

• Women prefer the company of other women.

• Men pay just to be acknowledged by a woman platonically (see: beta orbiters)

• Whenever I read about a couple that sleeps in separate rooms it's because the woman wants it...the man hates it and wants to sleep in the same bed and same room.

• Women don't like any physical contact of any sort from men.

• Women in relationships always want more space but men want to be closer.

The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that the only things women want from a man are money, attention and children.

Chads are not desired by women...they're just easily tolerated. Average normie guys are reluctantly tolerated and incels are not tolerated.

The proof is in the pudding. Denial of any of these things is delusional male fantasy.

Robin Bright #conspiracy #homophobia #sexist #ufo #fundie ufodigest.com

That Hollywood, which is a district of the city of Los Angeles (L.A.) in the United States of America on the west coast of the continent of North America in the state of California, should be called ‘Babylon’ after the capital city of the Persian Empire, Babylon (c. 4000 B.C.), derives from a description of ‘a woman’, Babylon, by Jesus’ disciple, John, in his apocalyptic Revelation of the future, ‘Mystery, Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of the abominations of the Earth.’ (Rev: 17. 5) Hollywood is called ‘Babylon’ because it’s the capital of the global media Empire of the USA and has been since the first movie was made there by director D. W. Griffith, Old California (1910), before the censorship of the ‘Hays code’ (1934-67), established by President of the Motion Picture Producers Of America (MPPDA), Will Hays, effectively made it impossible for humans to ever learn anything of their own mode of sexual reproduction from mainstream mass media edutainment on the moral grounds that it would encourage adultery.

Christianity, after Jesus ‘Christ’, that is, ‘the chosen’, assured everyone it frowned on adultery severely, and despite Jesus’ leniency: `… women, in love scenes, at all times have `at least one foot on the floor` (in other words, no love scenes in bed).`1 Christianity’s moral stance is based on Jesus’ words to a woman allegedly caught in the act of adultery in the New Testament of the Bible, which Christians believe supersede the Old Testament law and history of the Jewish ‘chosen people’ of God, that is, the Torah and Talmud written in their Hebrew language, ‘Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.’ (John: 8. 7) Because women are capable of sexually reproducing with each other, as the futanarian human species of women’s seed, adultery is what men practice on their race. Moreover, as it seems unlikely that women would ever marry, given the opportunity to be free of their ring slavery in host womb parasitism for war against their species, women aren’t ever adulterate. Consequently, Hollywood’s stance against adultery is a sham designed to suppress women’s seed, because if women were seen to be able to sexually reproduce with each other through the medium of cinema or television, it’d threaten the system of human slavery imposed upon the Earth by an alien rulership.

As 100, 000 women of the human futanarian species of women’s seed could sexually reproduce 1. 5, 000, 000 in 34 years, women are the perfect planetary colonist should their species ever achieve interstellar space travel. However, if they can be prevented from producing enough brainpower to give them the permanent memory through the immortality conferred by medical science to build and maintain the starship technology needed to carry them to the planets amongst the stars of heaven above and beyond the Earth, they’ll remain host womb slaves in parasitism. Although parasitism seems harsh in describing what men do with women, parasitologists use the term ‘parasitoid’ to describe the parasite that emerges from the host to kill it, and that’s what men do in their wars against women’s seed, ‘The dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war upon the remnant of her seed.’ (Rev: 12. 17) At least since the period of ancient Egypt, men and women have been manufactured as a single male brained creature wearing each other’s clothes as a transvestite for ‘TV war’. In the myth of Ra, the sun god, he’s incarnated as Osiris, who is dismembered by his evil brother, Set. Although the goddess, Isis, remembers him, his phallus can’t be found, so Isis gives him hers, that is, without women’s seed the human race is a TV. Osiris is restored as Horus, ‘the sky god’, because satellite TV is more advanced.

When US President Ronald ‘Ray Gun’ Reagan announced his ‘Strategic Defense Initiative’ (SDI) on March 23, 1982, to establish a ‘ground and space based missile system’, it was labeled ‘Star Wars’ after the 1977 movie, Star Wars IV: A New Hope, featuring a ‘Death Star’ created by the evil Empire of Palatine to orbit planets and kill them, that is, it was an advanced Egyptian satellite TV system. The symbol of ‘the sky god’, Horus, is the hawk, because he has a hawk’s head, and the members of the Republican Party in the United States who’re gung-ho for war are known as hawks, that is, it’s the hawks of war that seek to prevent the human futanarian species of women’s seed from escaping the Earth to colonize the planets.

The actors and actresses in Hollywood are known as ‘stars’, because they are trained to be ‘egoids’. It was ‘the father of psychoanalysis’, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), that created the term ‘id’ to explain that the unconscious contained material repressed by the conscious mind because of taboo; for example, Christian morality’s taboo against adultery caused society to become sexually repressive to the extent that Africa’s DR Congo discovered a simian immune deficiency virus (SIV) mutation transmitted by homosexuals’ mixing of blood, shit and semen in each other’s anus in 1983. The human deficiency virus (HIV) injected at the base of the spine resulted in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), and collapse of the organs of the body, before the brain died. In short, Freudian psychology was the basis for understanding that homosexuality in the human ‘id’ produced an ‘incurable killer disease’ as their ‘biological weapon’ aimed at eradicating the human species, because that’s what Christian morality and homosexuals were for.



Although ‘ego’ was a term used by Freud, it was Carl Jung (1875-1961), a developmental, rather than a repression psychologist, that saw it as a vehicle for individuation through what he called ‘the archetypes of the collective unconscious’. Jung argued that the unconscious of each human individual contained archetypes, that is, images to be found in dreams, art and the imagination, which assisted the development of the ego, that is, consciousness. Where Freud posited a Super-ego that functioned as a censor to repress into the ‘id’ or unconscious, Jung posited a shadow level to the unconscious, corresponding to human instinct, which contained the archetypes. Consequently, it was only necessary to allow the instinctual subconscious shadow to emerge through art, dreams and imagination for ego-consciousness to develop.

Hollywood egos were called stars, because the life of most planets is dependent on their local sun, which for the Earth is its day star, Sol. In other words, actors and actresses were perceived as commensurate with suns in regard to planets, that is, they were their life. What this produced is describable as ‘egoid’, that is, a star’s belief that their ego was greater than that of the planetary consciousness. In simple terms, because men and women are a TV, they’re unable to accept the anonymity of being a woman amongst women’s seed, so they wage war on the human race in order to assert their egoism, which is ego-id, that is, a conflation of Jung’s ego and Freud’s id. For Hollywood unable to celebrate human sexual activity, ‘action’ movies featuring violence against an unnamable horror is usual, although war against women is what its audience are for. Typical is the nucleus of brave heroes fighting against an alien invasion, for example, Independence Day (1996), because it’s a psychological displacement of men’s actual role as aliens invading women’s Earth. In the ID4 movie, actor Bill Pullman has the role of US President Thomas Whitmore who, before an air battle with the alien invader, addresses USAF personnel in the west of the United States’ Area 51 top secret facility, which is 134 km north-northwest of the city of Las Vegas, near Hiko, Tonopah Basin, State Route 318, Lincoln County, Nevada state, a locale where research on alien spacecraft and their occupants has unofficially always occurred:

‘Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world, and you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. Mankind. That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom. Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution … but from annihilation. We’re fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice: We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!’2

As women are capable of sexually reproducing 15 billion from 1 million in 34 years, even if the age of conception were formally agreed as 16 +, men would have had to have killed a huge number of women in order to be the dominant invading alien creature. However, because Hollywood stars are egoid, that’s what they’re produced for.

Bones #fundie forumbiodiversity.com

I didnt say the difference was big or small, just significant. 5 iq points more on average is not big but significant, and 10% bigger brains is definitely significant, i would even go as far as to call that a big difference. And saying that men are much stronger and faster is not an exaggeration, just fact. That men are more durable is common knowledge, more resistant to pain, thicker skin, while we dont live as long on average a big reason for this is because most men do jobs that require more stress and are more physically demanding, and men use medical care more rarely compared to women. We are also mentally stronger which is easily observed in everyday life and also based on statistics which shows men handle stress better, while women are 3 times as likely to attempt suicide (although men manage to complete the act more often), and are twice as likely to suffer from major depression compared to men. That mens bodies are built sturdier to handle more physical labour is common sense.

And yes, men are much more rational and logical on average, while women are much more emotional. You can find anomalies and outliers, exceptions to the rule etc, but it doesnt change the general pattern of behaviour. Its not just the IQ difference and brain size difference that corresponds to this difference in thinking, its also how our brains are wired, men have more structural connections, while womens neurons are more interconnected all over, which also explains why men can put tasks into "boxes" better and focus on one thing at a time, while women are more prone to think about to many things at the same time at the cost of efficiency.

And again, a few exceptions to the rule is pointless to bring up, we are comparing the genders as a whole and thus we must look at the general patterns, and its fact that men are more likely to take risks and do "dangerous" tasks, while women tend to play it safe far more often. Even in countries where the military draft is optional the vast majority of recruits are men.

Again, im simply saying the fact that men are superior to women overall, based on the characteristics that define male and female in the human species, the things that make our genders different are mostly in advantages for men. This does not mean women deserve to live lesser lifes, but they should realize that equal opportunity is all they should strive for, and they already have that in most western countries. "Equality" or equal outcome will never happen unless society discriminates against men(which it already does in many ways in western society), because of mens natural and biological superiority over women.

The problem with voting in particular though, is as explained earlier, that women have statistically proven higher in-group bias compared to men, meaning that women are more likely to vote for things that benefit them and their gender regardless of other factors, while men tend to be more objective and look at the bigger picture. This means that majority of women will vote for womens benefits regardless of how that affects society at large, the other gender or the economy etc on a whole.

Women are also more likely to be affected by peer pressure, and as shown in the video posted above "why women destroy nations" (which i have seen before it was posted here) women follow social norms to a fault, they abide by it to be accepted by their peers, regardless if it makes sense or not to them personally. Not all of course but its a very obvious general pattern. Its also noticable in the fact that women find men who are "popular" regardless of why, more attractive, ie a man who is already taken is more attractive for that alone because he has social proof, and why status in a man is so important for women, if someone with perceived authority (like the mainstream media, television, movies etc) says something or someone is good/attractive, regardless if it is true or not, women will subconsciously believe it to be true and just the fact that someone is on TV will make that man more attractive to them.

This is a problem when it comes to women and voting, but knowing that not all women are like that (just a large majority) and that there are retarded men out there, combined with the fact that our votes mean very little in the grand scheme and is just used as a smokescreen to make it look like we have a choice and live in a true democracy, means that i care very little about who gets to vote and who doesnt.

David J. Stewart #fundie #sexist jesusisprecious.org

As a Christian I have always been again women wearing pants. I haven't changed my position. I am tired of hussy women writing to disagree with me about pants. I've even had some stupid men write to me to disagree about women not wearing pants. You've got a whole in your head buddy! Well, you've been wrong before, get right with God!

The photo I showed you earlier of Bob Jones University's females gyrating in shorts on the ball court is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that professed Christian women would even think of wearing such attire. It is disgraceful that the ungodly staff and wealthy president of BJU would set such low standards for their students. Truly, the love of money is the root of all evil. LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES TODAY, AT WHAT A MESS WE'RE IN AS A PEOPLE!!! Sin abounds everywhere! Pedophile perverts are everywhere! Why is this? Why has American society gone to the Devil? It is because we departed from the Word of God! A woman who wears pants doesn't walk closely with the Lord. She may falsely THINK she does, even reading her Bible regularly, but if she doesn't apply what she reads to her daily life, then she is merely a HEARER and not a DOER of the Word. James 1:22-23, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass.”

The female students at Bob Jones University (BJU) and their female graduates are DECEIVED, being HEARERS of the Word but not DOERS of the Word. That is exactly what the Bible says. Deuteronomy 22:5, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” Did you read that? Women ought not wear pants, because men wear pants! Only an ungodly woman puts on a pair of trousers like a man does!!! They are following the apostate worldly standards set forth by BJU, instead of the holy standards set forth by God's inspired Word. I realize that what I am preaching is scoffed at, by the same ungodly culture that is okay with abortion, homosexuality and drunkenness! Even many apostate churches today are silent, complicit, and in many cases compliant with the Devil's worldly standards.

Do you know why I harp against Bob Jones University and the Bible colleges so much? It is because THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!!! Literally, America's Bible colleges have usurped control over the churches, by training the churches to hire their so-called “educated” graduates, who in turn corrupt those churches! If I had my way, there would be NO BIBLE COLLEGES!!! Listen to me, the BEST thing a church will ever do is to bring in a new pastor who is NOT a graduate of Bible college! I respect a church who abandons the apostate Bible college scam in America! I wouldn't give you a dime for Pensacola Christian College. They will take your money mom and dad, and indoctrinate your impressionable child not to believe that the Word of God is inspired today!!! They all teach that only the “original” autographs of the Holy Bible were inspired by God. The big problem is that we don't have any originals today! So that means we don't have God's Word if PCC, BJU, Hyles-Anderson College and Moody Bible Institute are correct about the Bible. Somebody is wrong! THEY ARE WRONG!!! Every fundamentalist Christian 150 years ago believed that the King James Bible is inspired by God!!! Over 95% today DON'T! Bob Jones University and Pensacola Christian College DON'T! I wouldn't enroll my dog into those hellholes of apostasy!!!

In sharp contrast, military women are resemblant of dyke lesbians, butches and female wrestlers (all grossly lacking in feminine attributes). I can't stand manly women! We don't get along, like gas and fire. Manly women run their mouths. They like to control things. They don't know a woman's proper place. This ungodly society tries to minimalize the distinct difference between men and women. Women by nature are servants, followers, not leaders! Men by nature are leaders, dominant, taking charge. A godly woman lets men run things, not trying to meddle and interfere with things. A feminist wants to take charge, open the pastor's mail, make the decisions, run the family, run the church, have her way instead of God's way (which is for women to submit to their husband, and remain silent in church leadership matters).

James Miller #sexist returnofkings.com

The Case For Gendo-Nationalism
image
James Miller is a political strategist and policy intellectual from New York City. He is the founder and president of the James Miller Foundation.

The alt-right and their leaders have often stressed the need for the establishment of a ethno-state on the North American continent. While I can understand many of their concerns as a middle-class white guy who lives in a gated community in the suburbs of New York City, I honestly do not have to deal with the minority problem on a day to day basis.

Whether the Bronx is being flooded with new arrivals is simply not my problem. Thots, on the other hand, affect us wherever we live. It doesn’t matter how great your neighborhood is or even how religious your state is. America has become a degenerate nation, and thottery has pervaded all aspects of American life—Northern and Southern, Protestant and Catholic, conservative and liberal, normie and alt-right.

image
A thot prepares to flash her breasts to a crowd of onlookers in a ‘conservative’ state in the Deep South.

Traditionalism Is Hopeless

Many on the right advocate for traditionalism. They think we can just return to the days of a nuclear family, reverse all three waves of feminism, and let women assume their traditional role. While I respect the arguments made by traditionalists, I have concluded that any sort of rollback is now politically impossible in the United States. We have lost the culture war. There is no going back. Sure, you can flee to a country where remnants of traditionalism still exist, but they are merely a little further back on the ongoing global shift towards female ‘liberation’ and the dissolution of family life.

Furthermore, while this problem has been substantially amplified in recent years, it is certainly not a modern one. Thots have consistently been the downfall of powerful men throughout history. John F. Kennedy was compromised by the Soviet Union as a result of depraved female temptresses. Even Adolf Hitler’s defeat in the Second World War can be attributed largely to the presence of Eva Braun. Cleopatra’s betrayal of Mark Antony the moment a more alpha chad arrived on the scene surely serves as one of the clearest demonstrations of the subversion of the opposite sex.

Richard Spencer similarly and correctly recognizes a return to the days of actual white supremacy is impossible and undesirable, and instead advocates for a white ethno-state, building on the momentum of left-wing identity politics movements. Although I respectfully disagree with him on that issue, his fundamental analysis is correct. We cannot return to an undefined point in the past when things were somehow better on the issues that we care about. All we can do is seek to influence the future. I have thus come to the conclusion that the only solution to our current thot debacle is peaceful separation between the sexes, and a resulting male gendo-state.

Now, this notion may sound absurd. Most traditionalists love and respect women, and simply wish for them to return to their historical place in society, rather than be done away with altogether. They must come to understand that separation has now become a necessity.

image
We may reach the point of open conflict with the opposing gender.

Separation Is Necessary

Cultural feminism has degraded women to the point where co-existence is a net negative to males. Women weaken men by their very presence, co-opting and hijacking even traditionalist movements by embracing the rhetoric and yet leaving much to be desired in terms of the personal example they set.

As the last few weeks have shown, women are able to completely destroy the reputations of decent, upstanding men through false accusations of sexual abuse. Women compete with us in a job market that is rigged against us by politicians who have come to see women as an essential voting bloc to appease. Women now even proudly declare that they do not need or want men in their lives.

Why don’t we put that to the test? Let us see how well the opposing gender fares when left completely to their own devices. In this way, we could use the rise of feminism as force of acceleration in order to promote our bid for nationhood. It is ironically fairly likely that the world’s first gendo-state will consist of pink haired female ogres LARPing as Amazons. But once the precedent is set, males will have a unique opportunity to seize the moment and build the case for our secession.

The Vision

Gendo-nationalism would involve near-total separation between men and women. A physical border would be erected between the respective male and female nation-states, and travel between these gendo-states would be tightly controlled and require permission from the governing authority of the gendo-state being entered. In the male gendo-state, which I have little doubt will be far more successful than its female competitor, male chauvinism will be the zeitgeist of the new order.

In addition, we need to think about the only real thing we need women for—sex. Advancements in robotics in recent years are quickly making this need obsolete. Future improvements in cloning technology may even allow us to replace women for the purposes of reproduction. Until the point at which a solution is devised, the gendo-state could have a work visa system which prostitutes and surrogates could utilize without permanent settlement in our new nation.

image
Soon, we will no longer need women to lead fulfilling sex lives.

The Path Ahead

Before we can have separation, we need to have a general sense of male identity. Now, I believe this to an extent to be inherent and hardwired, hence the presence of so many all-male social groups in our society. Nevertheless, we must promote the importance of masculinity and push close identification with our gender’s collective interests as a component of that.

Subsequently, we need to urge our fellow men to gradually start removing all emotional attachment to women. They’re to be seen as a tool, not a crutch. Emotional attachment makes men the weaker sex because women are inherently able to exploit it, and ensures the perpetuation of the anti-male status quo. Once it is overcome, the foundations for a gendo-state can be laid.

Free from the shackles of womankind, men will be able to embrace their true potential. We will have hours more in our days which would otherwise be wasted on entertaining vacuous thots. We will no longer be treated like second class citizens in the very nations we built and shed our blood for. Our inherent physical and mental supremacy will give us a substantial edge in the world marketplace. Much as ethno-nationalist movements played a major role in defining the 20th century, my hope is that gendo-nationalism will define the 21st.

PorkBomber #sexist reddit.com

Just look at how women were treated during patriarchy. Men never disregarded women's problems and always valued and treated women as fairly as possible. Now look at how feminists and women are treating men when they do not even have full control of the society. God forbid, if they ever get full control, majority of the men will be killed or turned into slaves. Men, on the other hand never have and never will, do such thing to women.

Men gladly sacrifice their lives for women, welcome women into male dominated career fields and support them but women rarely, if ever do the same. Truth is, it is the men who are the noble, righteous, compassionate and loving sex. Sure, there are scumbags who rape and abuse women but the majority of the men aren't like that whereas the reverse is true in case of women.

Blair Naso #fundie returnofkings.com

The Mystique Of The Feminine Mind

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Why would anyone envy women? Sure, I’ve always wanted to be a lesbian, if only for a few years, but that’s comparatively insignificant. The drawbacks are far heavier the benefits. The most obvious drawback is the body. There’s a reason that men don’t squawk about how independent they are. Women are tiny. Almost any woman could be raped and killed by almost any man regardless of all the self-defense classes and jazzercise she does. Let’s not kid ourselves. Women live in a constant state of fear, which is why they keep screaming about being strong and empowered. A truly strong and empowered person has no need to convince himself of it.

But the body is not the main reason I wouldn’t want to be a woman. By far the most terrible thing about being a woman is having a woman’s mind. Sure, they have better time-management skills, but that just means they’re wired for service. Women suck complete shit at objective reasoning. Why did you hate high school English? Because a woman taught it, and she told you that a poem can mean whatever you want it to. They couldn’t expect you to do something they could never figure out themselves.

I’m in law school right now. Unsurprisingly, I couldn’t find any data for what fields of law women tend to study, but from what I’ve seen, they are almost always either “fun” fields like child advocacy, sports, or entertainment, or “clean” fields like tax law or prosecution. Women don’t study divorce, custody, criminal defense, or anything that is morally vague or subject to interpretation. They make better grades, but that just means that they are wired for studying for tests. It is said that there are twice as many law jobs as there are new law graduates, but that’s because people specialize in bullshit fields that are flooded by cowards. If you study law, you will either learn moral flexibility or die in poverty.

Also unsurprisingly, the kind of men and women who go to law school aren’t the type of people who read Return of Kings. I realize that doesn’t have anything to do with the female mind, but this seems as good as any place to make that observation. Law school attracts the absolute worst in humanity. Weak, cowardly men and cutthroat, entitled women.

[...]

Women are terrible at historical criticism, philosophy, or anything that involves value judgments, and they generally seem uninterested in it unless it directly affects them. This is because a woman will always argue the person, not the issue. There’s a reason St Paul said that women should never teach or speak in church. Women just aren’t equipped to perform with men when it comes to deep thinking, and that is why all the women’s liberation in the world will never enable them to accomplish much worth remembering. For example, rock music has always been pretty liberal, and there have been exactly two well-known and talented instrumentalists in all of its history: Nancy Wilson of Heart and Kim Deal of The Pixies. Imagine all of the money record companies could have made had they been able to find a talented female rock band.

[...]

Women, of course, will never understand their inferiority any more than a child can understand his. You cannot argue with a child. Instead, you must discipline to build good behavior, and in time, that good behavior will turn into a worldview. The same is true with women. Women are inherently terrible people, and you can’t correct their bad behavior with words alone. No, you must tame the shrew using positive and negative reinforcement.

Religion is best for the job, but in today’s pluralistic marketplace, that’s often not an option. Furthermore, society has decided it’s best for women to continue acting like children, ever focused on their wants instead of their shoulds. But with a subtle reward and punishment system, you can turn the any promiscuous harpy into a submissive virgin bride. Perhaps I am a fool, but I like to believe the best in people.

You cannot tell the hawk not to devour the mouse any more than you can verbally teach a woman right from wrong. You can hate the effects of women, but you cannot call women evil. Every strong, empowered woman at heart is a scared little child lost in the woods. She’ll never admit it to herself, but every woman has a Disney fantasy about some strong man taking her away and becoming her identity. Those movies made a fuckload of money for a reason. Be her identity.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

Some time ago, I and a bunch of other reactionaries had a debate on whether women commonly fuck dogs.

I have no evidence that women of commonly fuck dogs, but I have lots of personal evidence that women very commonly do lots of horrifying stuff that many of my commenters find very hard to believe. These personal observations are perhaps statistically insignificant and may be from an unrepresentative sample of females, but is consistent with the rather small subset of women who watch porn, who generally watch disturbingly deviant stuff, while most males watch fairly vanilla stuff.

Most women read romance, rather than watch porn. Romance male leads are generally demon lovers, rather than the nice boy next door – one notable exception being when the female lead is sold, enslaved, kidnapped, abducted, or subject to an arranged marriage without her consent at a very young age by the otherwise nice boy next door. In the very common genre of supernatural romance, the male lead is often a literal demon. How is a real life male going to compete?

Male and female sexual impulses are the product of natural selection. In the ancestral environment there is biological and evolutionary conflict of interest between dads and daughters, in that daughters prefer cad type demon lovers, and dads prefer dad type sons in law. Daughter prefers the best sperm, but dad does not want to be stuck with support. Similarly a conflict between husbands and wives, in that wives prefer demon lovers, and husbands are seldom demon lovers – the best semen is unlikely to belong to the best protection and support.

For civilization to exist, fathers and husbands have to be able to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women.

For it to be politically possible for fathers and husbands to coercively overrule the sexual preferences of women, we have to have it generally accepted that women are the dangerously lustful sex, whose dangerously powerful sexual impulses have to be overruled for their own good, for the good of their children, and the good of society – that women’s dangerously powerful lusts and self destructive lusts are the big problem that has to be solved, not immoral males.

Whether or not women commonly fuck dogs, for civilization to survive, men need to be inclined to suspect that they might. For civilization to survive, men need to control women’s sexual choices. For men to control women’s sexual choices, it needs to be politically incorrect to have excessive confidence in the purity and chastity of women. That women are dangerously and self destructively lustful needs to be taught by authority, presented in the media, and the sort of thing you need to believe if you want to get on with the important people you need to get on with if you hope to get ahead.