www.web.archive.org

The Singularity of Evil

Beyond the Moral Event Horizon, where Evil grows so strong that it defies comprehension.

Show post

canino1997 #sexist #psycho web.archive.org

(On the case of Brandon Clark, who murdered 17 year old internet celebrity Bianca Devins, photographed her nearly-decapitated corpse and uploaded the photo to 4chan)

I did send her mom my condolences together with a cum tribute to the bitch getting rekt. She died coz she was a thot and I hope that she takes this as a lesson on how hard she failed at parenting.

Show post

Sandra Porta #quack web.archive.org

Therapeutic defecation in the highEnergy Forest of the Weser Highlands
Price: 450 €

The gut is the key to our wellbeing. But when was the last time you talked to your gut. Asked it; 'How are you doing with the food? What are your dreams and wishes?'

We Are clothed for most of our life and in order to defecate we sit down on a cold chinaware surface.

Thousands of years ago, when humans still had to flee from dinosaurs, one went into the forest for defecation. The gut got fresh food from nature and gave it back to nature. A circle of energies. Now a days your energy ends up in the sewage plant. In the worst case, your food has also been processed industrially. Break this vicious circle.

In my weekend seminary “Therapeuthic Defecation in the High Energy Forest” We cook organic PaläoDiet according to Felix Olschewskis. Afterwards, we wander together through the high energy forests of the Weser highlands and defecate in turns or together in the beautiful nature. In this, we consciously absorb the energy of the forest into our gut as we enjoy the beautiful view.

Please bring comfortable clothing and your toilet paper of coice. (Not bleached, for the sake of the environment.) Furthermore, I ask you to not eat corn for 48 hours before the seminary, as that is badly digested. (Otherwise, the roes will eat it)

Cost per week and participant 450 EUR
Photo book of your Adventure Gut 45 EUR
(If I am allowed to use the images on my following website, the fee does not apply)

For a maximum of 18 participants

Next date: 4th of May 2019

Start: 9.30
I look forward to enjoy our guts together with you.

Original German
Therapeutische Defäkation im hoch Energiewald des Weserberglands
Preis: 450 €
Der Darm ist der Schlüssel zu unserem Wohlbefinden. Aber wann haben Sie sich das letzte Mal mit Ihrem Darm unterhalten. Ihn gefragt: ‚Wie geht es dir eigentlich mit der Nahrung? Was sind deine Träume und Wünsche?‘

Wir Sind größtenteils unseres Lebens bekleidet und zum defäkatieren setzen wir uns auf eine kalte Porzellanoberfläche.

Als die Menschen vor tausenden von Jahre noch vor Dinosauriern fliehen mussten, ging man zur Defäkation in den Wald. Der Darm bekam frische Nahrung aus der Natur und gab diese zurück zur Natur. Ein Kreislauf der Energien. Heut zu tage landet Ihre Energie in der Kläranlage. Ihre Nahrung wird schlimmstenfalls auch industriell verarbeitet. Durchbrechen Sie diesen Teufelskreislauf.

In meinem Wochenendseminar „Therapeutische Defäkation im Hochenergiewald“ Kochen wir biologische Paleo Kost nach Felix Olschewskis. Danach wandern wir gemeinsam durch die Hochenergiewälder des Weserberglands und defäkatieren abwechselnd oder gemeinsam in der schönen Natur. Dabei nehmen wir die Energie des Waldes bewusst in unseren Darm auf, während wir die schöne Aussicht genießen.

Bitte bringen Sie bequeme Kleidung und Ihr bevorzugtes Toilettenpapier mit. (Nicht gebleicht, der Umwelt zu liebe.) Des Weiteren bitte ich Sie 48 Stunden vor dem Seminar keinen Mais zu essen, da dieser schlecht verdaut wird. (Sonst essen die Rehe diesen)

Kosten pro Wochenende und Teilnehmer 450 EUR
Fotobuch von Ihrem Abenteuer Darm 45 EUR
(Wenn ich die Bilder für meine folgende Internetseite nutzen darf, entfällt die Gebühr)

Für maximal 18 Teilnehmer/innen

Nächster Termin: Samstag, 4. Mai 2019

Beginn: 9.30 Uhr
Ich freue mich mit dir gemeinsam unsere Därme zu erkunden.

Show post

Mountain Manna #quack #psychoceramics #mammon web.archive.org

Mountain Manna is a water based homeopathic tincture / extract containing concentrated organic M-PMEs (M-state-Precious Metal Elements) in their highest natural energy state. They come straight from mountain mineral springs; before the dissipating effects of reactions with sun, air and soil. We believe that these M-PMEs are bio-superconductors, which flow the light-of-life.

This class of materials has also been called White Gold, ORMEs (Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements), ORMUS and m-state. We believe that they are related to the Biblical Manna, the Water-of-Life, the Alchemist's Elixir of Life and the Philosopher's Stone.

The benefits attributed to their use as a mineral supplement are due, in part, to the isomeric energy released by the M-PMEs as they are digested in one's body. Their unique energy frequencies tend to bring a holistic balance to the nervous, and cellular systems, as well as the subtle bodies. The objective of regular consumption is not primarily as a curative to alleviate a specific condition, although such benefits can occur, but for sustenance to build a reserve of special frequencies not available in our normal diets anymore.

Since these spring-water colloids are offered in a very concentrated and bio-available liquid form, the suggestions for use should be closely followed.

Coming directly from spring waters deep in the Trinity Alps of Northern California, Mountain Manna is extremely rare in the purity and grade of its natural elements. Very limited quantities are harvested as dictated by the optimum flow conditions at specific times during a given spring's annual cycle. Our care in the production of Mountain Manna ensures that you get the highest energy natural m-state minerals. These colloids are extracted with the source water to the desired concentration and then processed through a series of successively tighter filters to allow only the smallest organic mineral particles in the final tincture / suspension (98% are smaller than 1/10th micron).

FineprintWe make no specific claims as to any medical benefits of any of the Mountain Manna formulations. People who use them do so entirely at their own risk as would be true of the use any product containing m-state precious metal elements. Mountain Manna is sold as a natural mineral water. Any use is the responsibility of the buyer.
Show post

Missing Universe Museum #fundie #dunning-kruger web.archive.org

Per Evolutionists a vestigial organ or appendage is supposedly something that exists in a living organism without any function, but served some useful purpose in the past in some ancestral form. These should exist as well as harmless appendages that never did perform any useful function. They would be external as well as internal.

Here is an illustration of a created man as opposed to one who just evolved by chance:
image
Note that the Evolution man is bloated due to the numerous useless internal vestigial organs. Evolution would be obvious and undeniable if we looked like the man on the right! He would have trouble finding a suit that fits!

If Evolution is truly occurring, vestigial organs would not only exist, but they would greatly outnumber the fully functional ones! The same argument applies for transitional forms as described in Exhibit 5. Since Evolution is a random, chance process, there must be numerous trial and error combinations until a functional organ or appendage is produced. Any of these "vestigial" organs would still be in existence in a multitude of species and individuals and there would be no doubt that Evolution is fact.

However, in the late 1800's there were an estimated 150 vestigial parts in the human body. Supposedly anyone can claim that something is vestigial because it serves no apparent purpose and the individual can survive without it. Today there are no vestigial organs claimed for the human body! That is because in the last 100 years, medical science has found that there is indeed a purpose to everything in the human body.

Creation says there will be zero vestigial organs while Evolution requires millions of them.
_____________________________

imageThis car engine also has no vestigial parts because, like the human body, it too had a Creator! If something so complex as the human body could evolve by chance, then even more so could this automobile evolve by chance.

I don't know what many of the car parts do, but that doesn't mean they are useless leftovers (vestigial).
_____________________________

imageJust look at how the human body is ingeniously packaged. Like the car engine above, everything in the human body has a purpose and was designed by a Creator.
_____________________________

imageFirst we remove the external vestigial organs so we can make an incision.
After the incision we must remove the internal vestigial organs that are in our way.
Then we can perform the heart surgery.

Why don't we ever hear doctors mention vestigial organs?
_____________________________

imageVestigial Organ Donor Card - why don't we see these?
_____________________________

imageWe're having Vestigial Stew today.
Tomorrow it will be left over left overs!

Show post

laidnyc #sexist web.archive.org

I'LL LOVE YOU FOREVER UNTIL YOU TURN 30

Your Seed is Gold

Sex is too easy.

Work out, put on nice clothes, talk to girl, tease her, tell her cool things about me, pretend to be interested in her, fuck her.

See?

Too fucking easy.

It’s stupid.

I don’t give a shit about sex. Any broad can spread her legs.

You know what I do care about? Holding girls to a higher standard.

Why? Because my seed is liquid fucking gold and I don’t give it out like its god damn tap water.

See girls, your pussy is powerless to me. What else you got?

You slip on a tight skirt and throw on some makeup and flaunt those nice tits and think your job is done. You shit-test me all the way into the bedroom expecting me to give you amused mastery and show you my status and give you attention and ignore you just right all at the same time, and then you’ll give me sex.

But why should I give you my valuable time and let you revel in my charisma?

Sex, is that the big deal? I’m supposed to feel so grateful that you blessed me with that magical unicorn pussy of yours?

I got news for you girls. For a guy with any clue, finding sex is as easy as finding a pizzeria in New York, and like pizza in New York, its all pretty fucking good.

Your brand ‘aint that special.

Sex is everywhere and anywhere I want it, I don’t give a shit about yours.

It takes more than a nice curve of the ass or a bat of the eyelashes to earn my seed.

My salty essence and genetic code is a gift from my father, and his father, and his father, and on it goes. Its the sticky genetic code of self-sufficient men who have protected and provided for family, women and children. Its the haplogroup of men who built civilization. I have the genetic lineage of warriors, business owners, firefighters, blacksmiths, farmers, herders, poets, politicians, soldiers, artists and even chefs. Hard jobs that help build the world, thinking jobs that help build a culture, they’ve all been done by men in my bloodline. My ceiling for accomplishment is limitless.

I’m not some average guy begging to give my seed away. My seed is valuable and I know it.

Men of lesser genetics may be able to afford spraying their seed anywhere; I allow myself no such atrocities.

My sperm could populate an entire society of strong good looking altruistic people and any girl who takes it in would be lucky to be a vessel towards that new world.

But for that I demand a high price.

Whether or not our sex is intended to end in pregnancy makes no difference. Just the sheer fact that it could makes me demand the same high price.

You better have enviable genetics yourself- I don’t breed with inferior stock. Beauty is the minimum and you better know how important that is. Long hair grown to impress me, healthy diet and exercise to maintain your figure and viability of your eggs.

But the beauty that draws the stares, stutters and drools of lesser men won’t capture my attention for more than a millisecond. I am inundated with a surplus of beauty in my daily pursuits, I can assure you that yours ‘aint that special. You probably look like shit first thing in the morning or on the first day of your period.

I expect impeccable hygiene and classy style. A body tainted by tattoos and excessive piercings and slutty clothing signals you are available for sex to lesser men than myself. I’ll have none of that.

I demand a low N count to show you value your body and sex, and the seed I am about to give you will be appreciated on the level it deserves. A low N count shows both intelligence and confidence as you are smart enough not to give your body to charlatans and scoundrels, and confident enough to wait for the high value man you know you deserve.

I expect manners and grace. No swearing, drunkenness, burping, sarcasm or anything else unbecoming of a lady. I spend a lot of time working with and competing against men in my daily life, the last thing I need is the company of a woman who acts like the men I must compete with. You exist to soothe, not to grate.

A year from now I will be richer and fitter and more socially respected in the Kingdom, but your beauty will have faded a notch. I demand that you treat me with the humility and respect that this biological reality dictates.

Finally, there is nothing I despise more than a woman who shows any disgust for my jizz.

It is the Royal Essence and you better enjoy every last drop.
If it lands on your face, chest or back, consider it raindrops from heaven, a rope of Holy Yogurt.
If you are lucky enough to get it in your mouth, savor it like the nourishing nectar of the Gods.
If I shoot it inside you consider it the greatest compliment of all. You will feel an immediate buzz.
My jizz is to women what Walter White’s pure blue meth is to junkies.
You’ll take my seed, sweetly tell me “thank you sir” and buzz with happy feminine energy for the next day while you iron my fine shirts and indulge in memories of me.

I’ll settle for nothing less.

Some girls don’t want to respect a man that much. They have been poisoned by feminism or never had a strong male figure to look up to growing up or they have already taken far too high a volume of cock to revere their next one. I have no use for those girls. Even a one-night stand with them is worthless beyond the ten-second orgasm, itself not worth the time spent to get it. Leave them for the men who have a low enough opinion of themselves to not demand such respect.

For guys, I don’t give a shit how many girls you’ve fucked just like I don’t give a shit how many pizzerias you’ve eaten at. A man is measured more by the pizzeria’s he refuses to eat at, the prices he refuses to pay for average pizza, if you know what I mean.

Remember, you set the price of your seed.

Mine is fucking gold.

What’s yours?

Show post

North Korea #quack web.archive.org

Kumdang-2 injections

[…]

Russian Itar-Tass on Kumdan-2 injections:

• ” PYONGYANG , June 11. / Correspondent . ITAR-TASS Yuri Sidorov / . Attention visitors recently held in the capital of North Korea international trade fair attracted the attention of the immune system stimulant ” Kymdan -2 .” This multifunctional injectable preparation is produced Korean pharmaceutical company ” Pungan .” According to its general manager Chung Sung Hoon , he was in great demand in foreign countries , including Cuba , Syria, Mongolia and Germany. ” Mongolian firm ” Aisha Pharma “- he told reporters , – monthly sells approximately 20 thousand packages ” Kymdan -2 ” not only in their own country but also in neighboring countries . This month , Sung Hoon Chung added , “our Mongolian business partner made ​​a proposal to increase supply.” ” Kumdan -2 ” is intended for the treatment of hepatitis , diabetes, polyps and other diseases , has a detoxifying and anti-inflammatory action , promotes rapid tissue regeneration and strengthening immunity. Korean Ministry of Health says nearly 100 – percent efficiency of this tool that is based on extracts from the famous Kaesong Ginseng / ginseng / grown under special conditions. For maximum healing effect by long scientific research has been developed specially formulated fertilizers for this plant , which included several kinds of amino acids , small doses of gold, platinum and other rare earth elements. Moreover, according to recent surveys of North Korean medics, ” Kymdan -2 ” is effective for the prevention of dangerous infectious diseases such as avian flu and SARS . It also protects tissues from exposure to radiation during radiotherapy. ” Kymdan -2 ” useful during sand storms. ” Channel

2. Unique features of Kumdang-2 Injection

1) Kumdang-2 Injection is a herbal medicine extracted from Kaesong Koryo insam (ginseng) cultivated in Kaesong DPR Korea by applying rare-earth molecular fertilizer. It contains insam saccharides, light rare earth elements, a micro-quantities of gold and platinum.
2) It causes no pain during and after injection.
3) Unlike chemical medicines, it has no adverse side effects.
4) It has no contraindications and can be used together with other medicines.
5) It optimizes the systems of autonomic nerve and self-curing by stimulating hypothalamus, the centre of the autonomic nervous system, functions anti-inflammatory, anti-bacteria and anti-virus, restores the diseased parts t revitalizing and proliferating cells, optimizes immunity, maintains the homoeostasis of the body, and functions anti-oxidant
6) It absorbs or removes all those that have not originally been in human body (e.g. cancer, pathological secretion, etc.) including those of the same cellular tissues as the healthy ones like polyps or some skin diseases.
7) Owing to its healing mechanism, it can cure a large variety of diseases, and its effects instantly emerge vivid and last long.
8) Dosage does not vaiy according to diseases, but alters a little according to the patient’s body weight and severity of the illness.
9) The main purpose of injection is to cure diseases, but it is also good for healthy persons as it invigorates them, optimizes their immunity and makes them more beautiful.
10) It is good for those who have taken chemical medicines like anti-biotics and narcotic drugs and those who have drunken much alcohol because Kumdang-2 Injection prevents, neutralizes or removes all side effects and addiction. In particular, when taking such medicines that entail severe side effects like anti-cancer and anti-TB medicines, it is advisable to apply this injection simultaneously with them so as to prevent their side effects and expedite cure of the diseases.
11) Hitherto, in uses of Kumdang-2 Injection, nobody could find any sign of attachment (love), addiction, intoxication or their similarity of any kind.

3. Notes

1) This being a herbal medicine, it can be administered without punctuality in disregard of the timetable exhibited in the enclosure of its packet. According to the hitherto clinical records, the rate of recovery was higher among its random users than its punctual users.
2) All the patients with clear knowledge of the principles of its dosage have experienced satisfactory effects and 95.5% of them resulted in complete cure.

[…]

5. Contraindications

• No contraindications have been reported. In the period of administration, you need not refrain from drinking or become too sensitive to foods. As no medicines antagonistic to Kumdang-2 Injection have so far been found, you may use Kumdang-2 Injection with any other medicines depending on your conditions.

6. Adverse Effects

• No adverse side effects have been found so far.

[…]

(Submitter’s note: For brevity’s sake, I’ll just post what they claim it cures and omit the paragraphs where they elaborate on the dubious claims.)

• Allergic skin diseases, Ambustion, Chilblain, Engorgement
• Cosmetic Effects
• Diabetes
• Different kinds of inflammation, Fevers of unknown reasons, Loss of appetite
• Disorders before and after child-delivery
• Drug Addiction
• Epidemic diseases including Bird Flu and New Flu, AIDS
• Gastric hemorrhage, Stomach cramp, Diseases of large and small intestines
• Heart Diseases, Arthritis
• Hypotension, Impotence
• Infection, adhesion and scar after medical operation
• Liver disorders caused by alcohol
• Malignant influenza and other kinds of cold
• Medicinal poisoning, Harm from use of computers, Stomatitis
• Neuralgia, Neurosis, Debility, Insomnia
• Pancreatitis, Poisoning by perished food, Thyroid Diseases
• Polyps, Myalgia, Vegetative Neurosis
• Spontaneous Gangrene, Epilepsy
• Sterility caused by undergrowth, Menstrual disorders, Cystitis
• Stimulant to children’s growth, Anti-radioactive
• Treatment Hepatitis А, В, C, D, E, G
• Tuberculosis (ТВ), Uterine and other intestinal hemorrhages
• Various cancers
• Venereal diseases, Resistance to aging

Show post

James “Chateau Heartiste” Weilman #sexist #psycho web.archive.org

Catfish Game

An emailer asks me for the details about how I run Catfish Game.

Hi,

I want the details about the fake profile pics and pulling girls. You basically catfish them?

Thanks

Basically, yes. Sometimes. Or the fake pic is so obviously fake that it’s not really a catfish, but an opportunity to wildly flirt with the girl and issue increasingly brazen challenges to her to overcome her “weird suspicions”. It’s what I call Gaslight Game, and the objective is to corrupt the girl’s comfortable grip on reality and make her think she’s going a little bit crazy believin’ her lyin’ eyes and her gatekeepin’ thighs. It’s akin to the advice I have given to men who get caught cheating: deny deny deny, until your woman starts to question her sanity.

It’s hard to give too many revealing details, what with the heat around every corner, but a couple of commenters provided personal techniques that are similar to what I do. From Chris,

I did exactly this all throughout 2012-2015 when I was on POF.

I used to hate being seen by locals on that sewer of a site, and so always used fake pics (that were, admittedly, a reasonably close resemblance to how I actually looked). I used to hunt for someone like me on Google Images.

The thing is, 50% of chicks never remarked on anything untoward when they met me, and when the other 50% mentioned me not looking like my photos I shrugged my shoulders and said “photos can be funny like that”. I actually had a girl I had been seeing on the regular (for around 4 months) finally discover one afternoon I had used fake pics; she was really upset that she had been duped, but it didn’t stop me from continuing to plough her.

One of the other reasons I used fake pics was that I could run no-holds-barred asshole game on these girls with the confidence of anonymity.

Those were my best years in game.

100% cosign. I use two methods. The one Chris describes here (similar looking photo and nonchalant dismissal of the woman’s suspicions) and a supplementary method where I choose a fake photo looking nothing like me and then challenge the girl to see past the pic and ask herself what kind of sexy asshole would think he could get away with this *wink*. Or, like I mentioned above, I’ll turn on the gaslight and make her think she’s nuts for even questioning my moral rectitude. The overall effect is a positive one: “who does this guy think he is?”

From HEM, a reminder that if you’re gonna try Catfish Game, you had better have command of your frame,

I like to do this when I get bored. I actually prefer not even using a pic at all. But, sometimes I’ll use a scenic pic of some exotic place. Put something interesting in the profile bio (eg something that illustrates you’re intelligent and witty, as well as explicitly state that you’re alpha; the alpha can also be referenced in the screen name) and prob about 30% will respond. Of those, half will immediately ask for a pic. I usually trash them. The other half are receptive to what you have to say. Be straight-forward, brash and cocky. Never compliment their looks. Never apologize for something jerky that you say. You’ll be amazed at the results.
These are generally useful rules for online and offline dating. Truth is, there is plenty of overlap between the techniques advised for each realm of pickup.

No Pic Game is a cousin of Fake Pic Game, and the tactical payload is the same: zero fucks given sexiness combined with an enticing challenge to a woman to rise above her lameness. Plus, follow the general rule that a big component of any online pickup is radical pre-screening. The numbers are there, so there’s no good reason not to screen.

Final note. I can drop one vagnette from my worldstar. If I meet an online prospect for a first date who has not seen my real pic, she naturally will be stunned once our faces are inches apart. I immediately move to reduce her anxiety: “Yeah, I know, you’re pleasantly surprised. Even better in real life than in photos.” This gets a laugh. If it doesn’t, I follow up, “If you keep acting weird, I’m gonna think you’re a serial killer. Some guys are into that. Not me.” See what I did there? What would normally be a defensive position is upturned and the onus to act like a normal person is placed on her.

If she bites on all this, she will get around to asking me why I chose a fake pic. I measure her buying temp and use that to decide wether to continue whimsically gaslighting her or to get real and confess that the fake pic is there to a) evade the feds or b) screen for really shallow women. Now she’s feeling a need to prove she’s not shallow. Off to the races!

Show post

James “Chateau Heartiste” Weilman #sexist #psycho web.archive.org

Feminist Idiocy Unintentionally Provides Useful Game Advice (Again)

A graphic produced by some dumb feminist associated with the dumb feminist Twitter hashtag campaign #WhyIStayed is amusingly, if unsurprisingly, self-contradicting pabulum that works well if read with the opposite meaning intended.
image
(The Power And Control Wheel, a widely accepted diagram of abusive relationship dynamics)

Duluth, Minnesota. Fuckin’ ground zero for empty-headed shrill feminist white girls.

If you didn’t know, #WhyIStayed was a de-clawed internet cat swarm that defensively erupted after video of Ray Rice knocking out his adoring now-wife in an elevator emerged. The #WhyIStayed message, if one could call it that, was “Don’t blame women for anything, ever, that goes wrong in their lives.” Really, how else do you interpret thousands of women offering thousands of lame excuses for why they stayed with their sexily abusive alpha male lovers?

There must be an equivalent hashtag called #WhyIHadNoTroubleLeavingMyBoringBetaMaleBoyfriend. There’s not? Oh too bad.

Anyhow, if you sift through this dung pile of feminist ego assuaging butthurt you find a few curious nuggets of anti-feminist truth about relationships and how to keep them going.

“not take her concerns seriously” — women love love love when a man charmingly patronizes them.

“say she caused it” — it may be unethical, but then why does it work so well?

“use jealousy to justify actions” — chicks do dig occasional flashes of jealousy, as long as it’s obvious the man is expressing them with complete control over his emotions.

“make her feel bad and guilty” — reframing.

“play mind games” — that’s one way to provoke a vaginal gusher.

“smash things” — occasional bursts of anger, when justified, are cues of sexy male dominance and they do turn on women.

“make her do illegal things” — the ghost of Bonnie chortled.

“threaten to leave her” — dread game.

“make her ask for money” — because throwing money at women really makes them fall more in love. /sarcasm

“give her an allowance” — if women have no agency in abusive relationships, shouldn’t they be treated like children for their own protection?

“not let her know about or have access to family money” — chicks dig mysterious men. by the way, this PSA is starting to read like an action plan for fleecing wealthy beta males.

“take her money” — aka make a woman feel like she’s invested in you. she’ll try harder to make it work.

“be the one to define men’s and women’s roles” — chicks dig a leader. and they also dig benevolently sexist men!

“make all the big decisions” — because letting women make big decisions works out real well when they’re trying to decide whether to leave an abusive alpha male.

“treat her like a servant” — 50 Shades of Gray has sold millions of copies. To women.

“act like the master of the castle” — this has got to be a feminist secret wish list.

Another day, another drubbing. Thank you feminists, for revealing the holes in your hearts your beboobed beta male lackeys cannot fill!

Show post

James Weidmann aka Chateau Heartiste #sexist web.archive.org

Lots Of Feminists Are Getting Banged Out By PUAs

Ronin asks:

Just out of curiosity, have any of the real PUAs here ever used game to nail a Jizzabel-type feminazi?
As an aspiring womanizer, you don’t need to act with intent to nail an avowed feminist. If you scavenge snatch in the SWPL regions of any major American city (barring a few notable exceptions*), you WILL have collected more than a few feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting a feminist in the cooch if you live or operate within these zones of misandry.

Of course, not all SWPLcity feminists are cut from the same unsanitary napkin. SWPL chicks generally fall into three main groups of feminist identification:

1. The Femcunts

These are your Jizzebomb fanatics, the devotees of feminism as a life-affirming ideology. They are the smallest in number, but the loudest in bitchery and kookery. This is the kind of manjawed girl — typically a lawyer, academic, organic farmer or diversity consultant — who reads and comments daily at sites like Feministing and Slate/Salon/SuckMyClit with furrowed brow, regurgitating what she learns therein at parties and in the middle of dates, exposing a vile expectation that all the world should agree with where her retarded logic takes her. As long as you don’t embroil yourself in her occasional tantrums at invisible enemies, and keep the pick-up light and breezy while steering her in different conversational directions whenever you sniff the approach of another feminist tirade carried along by the id winds, you will get the bang. She is, underneath her femcuntery, still a woman, and as such (however much you may need reminding) she will respond viscerally to ancient cues of your mate worthiness, and her vagina will flower in spectacular opposition to the wilting of her mind. You don’t want to stay with women like these beyond a few hate smashes, so for shits and giggles I suggest you regale her in the morning with your support of the Second Amendment and the ludicrousness of the equal pay myth. For bonus soul-shivving points, casually muse aloud, after you have sprayed her mug and she’s inserted her glazed face into your armpit nook, that 1 in 5 women who are being raped will orgasm during the act.

2. The Partisans

These are the girls who occasionally read feminist blogs (usually when a fat femcunt friend passes along a link) and parrot the benumbing Cathedral crap they hear on TV and read in approved MSM papers. But these soapbox episodes are blessedly infrequent and pass unremarked, unless they manage to corral some dipshit manboob into acting as a sounding board for their cockamamy nonsense on white male privilege and socially constructed beauty standards (Hugs Shyster, Scrotumless Scalzi, I’m looking at you two distilled estrogen pools.) They believe the feminist canon, but live and conduct their dating lives in a decidedly non-feminist fashion. You will rarely, for instance, find a fattie or a mustachioed Marcuntte wannabe amongst this group. At the end of the day, they like being girls, and are all too happy to ignore the inherent contradictions between feminism and their love of shopping for shoes and falling for assholes.

3. The Lemmings

You have to understand that the anti-feminist/pro-rationality message does not get out in America’s major cities. There simply isn’t an anti-Cathedral reporting or opinion outlet with enough heft to influence more than a tiny fraction of women away from the idiocy that is feminism. This being the case, MOST women in the cities will have spent the better part of their sexually adventurous single girl years steeped in the platitudes of feminism, and they will know nothing else. Combined with women’s natural aversion to abstract thinking beyond immediate, selfish concerns, what you wind up with is a population of lickspittle lemmings who mindlessly nod in agreement every time a talking head exploiting this deficiency in the mental circuitry of half the voting public sonorously intones something about “equal pay for equal work”, or “war on women”. The Lemmings, by far the largest group of women you will likely encounter unless you live in South Dakota, include all types of girls, from club sluts to self-important HR robots to daddy’s princesses to deliriously frantic scenesters. Luckily for your sanity, these girls do not take feminism seriously; not if we measure “seriousness” by the frequency and intensity with which a person holds a belief. They are far more interested in looking hot for you, and gossiping endlessly about relationship drama in their circle of friends. Sure, if you press them “What do you think of free birth control?”, they’ll eagerly approve and perhaps segue into a condemnation of those “rape-y Republicans” and Sandra Fluke’s godliness, but mostly they just go about their lives oblivious to feminism’s charms.

So there you have it. Given that 90% of your city’s women are feminist in name if not in execution, the odds that you will bang out, or currently are banging out, a feminist are pretty good. Most hardcore feminists, whether or not they know it, are fucking men who either pretend to give a shit about their precious ideology, or don’t even bother with the pretense of pretending to give a shit about it. In fact, the majority of men, and an even bigger majority of players, are like me: they find feminism absurd on its face and will dismissively change the subject anytime the girls they are seeing make the mistake of veering into feminist bromide territory. Most girls are sensible and will know when their feminist retardation is turning off the men they like, and will quickly fall in line with the change of subject.

There are exceptions. A few supercharged feminists will eventually wind up with sycophantic manboobs for lovers, and a more perfect pairing I couldn’t imagine.

*I currently live near one of those notable exceptions, and damn straight I’m keeping that info close to the vest.

**Many SWPL cities have geographically extensive ghetto areas, which I don’t consider part of the SWPL, or feminist, world. Ghettoes are like exotic locales that SWPLs like to brag they’ve lived in for six months, when in fact all they did was read about them in the crime section, or pass through them on a bus.

Show post

Journey To The Heart #fundie #mammon web.archive.org

The Akashic Records level I
The 2 day workshop on 4 DVDs


Cost: $113.00 set Includes $6 Shipping to US/CAN

The Akashic Records Level I:

At last…the ultimate in-home resource for personal change; work using The Akashic Records; more than just a book, the complete weekend workshop on 4 DVD’s, along with the complete manual and meditations used during the class.

This complete workshop is specially designed to be accessible to everyone. No prior experience, no need for psychic abilities, just an open heart and the willingness to learn a Sacred Prayer.

You can own this whole program for less than half of a live workshop; with the benefit of being able to view and review the material as many times as you want.

What you'll learn:

*How to open YOUR Akashic Records using a Sacred Prayer
*Grace Points ~ Physical points of Action to anchor information received or let go of what no longer serves you.
*The Art of Questioning ~ Learn how to formulate your questions to deepen your experience.
*How to Align, Attune and Allow for this sacred energy to flow…
*An easy way to connect to Akasha
*The must powerful way to protect yourself
*How to use this energy with any other modality

Show post

Journey To The Heart #fundie web.archive.org

Overview

References to the Akashic records, or the eternal Book of Life, date back to antiquity. References in the Old Testament and beyond give us the sense that there is a collective storehouse of knowledge that is written on the fabric of reality.

WHAT ARE THE AKASHIC RECORDS?

The Akashic records are like the DNA of the universe. They are the soul's journey over time, so every thought, word, and deed is registered in the Akashic records. Each soul has its own Akashic record, and there are collective records of all souls or all journeys.

They way we receive information from the Akashic Records is in encoded Light language, which is Sacred geometry of words encoded in fire, so learning how to interpret the information is crucial. We start learning to use our inner senses to give words and interpretation to what we receive; we also start getting fine-tuned to this new energy.

The Akashic Records are the individual records of a soul from the time it leaves its point of origin until its return. At the time we make the decision to experience Life as an independent entity, there is a field of energy created to record every thought, word, emotion, and action generated by that experience. That field of energy is the Akashic Records. Akashic because it is composed of Akasha, (the energetic substance from which all life is formed); and Records, because its objective is to record all life experience.

By opening the Akashic Records with a Sacred Prayer, we align ourselves to the vibration of the one receiving the consultation (either ourselves or another). The Prayer works with energetic vibration to "key in" to the specific "name" of the life form, and carries with it God?s protection through the Masters, Teachers and Lords of Akasha.

The information in the Akashic Records helps us bring our past, present and future in to the "now". By accessing the Akashic records, we can identify and release anything that we have created, that has become a block to our present realization of our oneness with God.

'We can look at why we have addictive patterns, why we choose the relationships we do, why we have created our habitual responses, and how to create action in our lives instead of re action.

The heating energy of the Akashic Records allows us the freedom to choose grace in all things; therefore, overriding any illusion we have created that causes us to believe we are separate from God/Spirit/Source.

It is one of the most powerful tools available on the planet today, to help us remember our oneness with God/Spirit/Source.

Show post

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

I’ve seen a lot of people in the manosphere blame women’s suffrage for many of the excesses of feminism. “If only women hadn’t been granted the franchise,” they say, “we could have avoided all of these problems.” Sure, that’s probably true, but in a one person one vote system like Democracy, politicians will always have an incentive to extend the franchise, as we are seeing today with the Democrats’ push to give illegal immigrants citizenship.

There’s a simple explanation for it:

Say you’re a politician who wants to keep his job, and you have an opportunity to gain a lot of grateful, supportive voters who will keep you in office. If you’re ambitious like most politicians, you’ll do what you can to make that a reality. When that chunk of potential supporters actually exceeds 50% of the adult population, as women do, you’ve got an enormous incentive to be the guy who gave them the vote. This would give you great job stability.

Maybe some male voters would drop their support for a candidate based on that issue, but knowing men most would not, and even if a politician lost a large proportion of his male supporters, he could still come out ahead with significant female support, which would be all but guaranteed if he were the one who gave them the vote.

As one can deduce from simple arithmetic, the more voters one stands to gain, the stronger the incentive. I’m not sure what percentage a given population of non-voters has to reach to provide a strong enough incentive for a politician to defy his constituents on their behalf, but it’s probably far lower than 50%. I’d guess it’s around 15-20%, which suggests that if illegal aliens came to be that large a proportion of the national population, there would be overwhelming pressure to give them the vote. Whatever the number is, I think this would be the sort of thing on which a statistician could base a revealing study.

So why weren’t women given the vote immediately after Democracy was implemented in the US? First, most of them didn’t ask for it or care much about it. Female literacy wasn’t all that high in the early 19th century. Then, there’s the fact that traditions – even newly established ones – are more firmly followed in young, vigorous nations. Finally, in pre-industrial America men and women had essentially the same interests, so for most of the country the idea that there was a conflict of interest between the sexes was simply an alien notion, and therefore men and women in a given family would vote the same anyway.

The latter is highlighted by one of the first states to attempt to legalize women’s suffrage: Utah. Because polygamy was still common in Utah in the mid 19th century, giving women the vote would substantially increase Mormon clout relative to non-Mormon neighbors. The Mormons did in fact give their women the vote, and they promptly voted in favor of polygamy and other Mormon norms, which ultimately triggered the federal suppression of traditional Mormonism and the delay in granting women suffrage in other parts of the US.

As we can see from the above, there will always be an incentive for some people to grant universal suffrage, and all it takes is one change to the law for it to become permanent. Therefore, if a country bases its political process on the one person one vote standard, women’s suffrage is all but a certainty.

Show post

CH #sexist web.archive.org

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

Show post

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

[I'm honestly impressed with how much of a soft-focus lens Price manages to put on what is basically Marxist-Rodgerism]

One of the most common epithets hurled at men by feminists, and probably the most genuinely hurtful, is that men are upset at women because they are bitter about being unloved. The reason this one hurts more than the typical “small penis” or “mother’s basement” insult is because it is so often accurate to some extent. The best insults always hit a weak spot. It’s true that many men are very bitter about loss of love, betrayal or lack of attention from women. This is why some pick up artists have such commercial success with their ventures, and why men flock to gurus who say they hold the secrets to a woman’s heart.

Actually, if these cruel women only knew, it goes a lot farther than mere heartbreak. The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.

So, yes, these are bitter, unloved men. They are hated and they know it, although many have no clear idea why. They think to themselves “I’m not a criminal… I never hurt anyone… How could this happen to me?” Some can’t handle it. There are many suicides that simply don’t make the news. In a small minority of cases, they snap, and then there’s the “domestic disturbance” situation that has become so routine these days in which a police gunman puts the man out of his misery, as though he were a rabid dog. However, in most cases the men simply accept their doleful fate and live their miserable lives.

I was one of those miserable, unloved men for some time. But not entirely. Circumstance gave me a considerable amount of time with my kids when my ex decided to make her move. She left just as she obtained a good job thanks to my promise to work part-time and take care of the children while she trained for it, and she didn’t want to pay for daycare, so she proposed and received a parenting plan that had me caring for them much of the time she was working. Although being abandoned without any warning was devastating, my children never abandoned me, and despite the horror of separation I had them almost half time. All it took to snap me out of the most morbid thoughts was the sound of my kids’ voice, or the thought of them growing up and wondering why daddy did such a selfish thing as to leave them.

But if it weren’t for that time with my kids, I would have been totally, utterly alone. When I didn’t have them I had no desire for human contact. I really felt that the only people in the entire world who cared about me at all were my little children, aged one and three at the time. I suppose I digress a little here, but I can’t help feel that they were little angels, even if I did have to change their diapers and wipe food off their faces after every meal.

For men who don’t even have that, it’s almost unimaginable. It’s such a shockingly horrible experience that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, yet here we have feminists taunting men for feeling unloved. And still we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

All that said, men have every right to be angry, and righteously so. But deep down, I think what most of them want is far simpler and more benign than revenge or some political payback. They want some love, some security and the opportunity to be a part of a family. They want to grow old with a woman who is true to them, and to see their children grow tall and strong. It doesn’t always come out that way, and there are those who have rejected the idea entirely, but it’s an ideal that I think most men would agree is worth some effort, if not for themselves then for a better society in general.

So, I’d like to say to the feminists out there that yes, there are men who are bitter and sad about being unloved. Yes, it is often why they malign women, and it isn’t always a pretty thing. But if you really take pleasure in people’s loneliness and despair, you’ve got a cold, dead heart, and no reason to be proud of yourself. Instead of waxing triumphant about unfortunate men’s loneliness and misery, why not work for a world in which everyone can feel loved? Are you woman enough to do that?

Show post

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

A girlfriend or wife doesn’t have to have the looks of Giselle Bundchen, the homemaking skills of Martha Stewart or the bedroom skills of a professional call girl to make a man happy. All of these would be nice bonuses, but they are not nearly as important as the ability to make a man feel relaxed, content and appreciated. A woman who is mediocre in all of the former attributes can easily make up for it by being a sweet, pleasant person who takes the edge off at home. Men are surprisingly easygoing that way, but for some reason women can’t figure it out. Perhaps it isn’t in their nature. It may be that being pleasant goes against their instincts, and is impossible for them in our hyper-competitive society. Maybe seeing a man content and wanting for nothing is a disgusting sight to a woman, who prefers an ambitious, striving man. Or it could be that she feels as though his contentment suggests that he doesn’t appreciate her enough, and she has to agitate and badger him into making some display of devotion.

...

[When you contradict the rest of your ideology by admitting housework isn't a pressing matter that requires a partner to forego careerism]

What is most confounding about the refusal of American women to simply lighten up and stop going after their husbands is how they refuse to do so despite the fact that it would make their lives much easier. The chores issue is a perfect example. Rather than do battle with a man over how many hours are going into housework, why not just ease up on the housework themselves? Lots of women put in nearly twice as much work as necessary, and then expect husbands to do the same. Additionally, do women really need that brand new car? Do they need a mcmansion (with all the attendant extra housework) to be happy? The striving and consumerism in the US is driven mainly by women, who account for over 80% of discretionary spending, and it can turn them into very unpleasant people.

...

That ad is no exaggeration. Nor was Kate Gosselin’s treatment of her husband Jon. This is the norm in the US, and it’s driven in large part by our women’s status obsession (envy) and consumerism (greed). Perhaps the value placed on economic competition and consumerism is a major part of the problem with our women. Rather than domestic harmony and peace, that new car, new house or new shoes take priority. In days past, this kind of obsession with material wealth was frowned upon, so much so that those with money went out of their way not to make too much of a show of it (and in fact most wealthy people continue to do so), but today it’s about the only “virtue” we have left.

So, I’ll offer a theory as to why American women have become so downright unpleasant over the past few decades. Women’s liberation liberated them not only from restraints on fornication, hypergamy and other sexual impulses, but from the acquisitive and competitive impulses that were also kept in check by old-fashioned morality, and for women these may be stronger than lust. We have to recognize that Western capitalism and consumerism were largely driven by female spending, so perhaps this explains some of the support for feminism from above.

If women are constantly striving for more, bigger, better and shinier, they won’t have time to relax and enjoy life as it is. I suspect this plays a major role in the dissatisfaction wives feel, and explains why they cannot stop pushing their husbands harder and harder. It robs them of the ability to be pleasant, and suppresses their better nature, as they struggle and strive with the frenzied crowd for that next shiny bauble. Today, our women are truly possessed and ruled by the dark forces of greed and envy, which rob them and the men in their lives of peace and contentment.

Show post

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

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

Show post

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

As thousands cower under the howling rockets and bursting shells unleashed by the Syrian regime, opposition leaders have released thousands of emails exchanged between the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma, a British-born and educated beauty who has long been held to be a shining example of modern womanhood, featured many times in fashion magazines and the like.

Some of the emails show Asma making jokes at the expense of the people of Homs, who have been under siege and sustained attack for some time. Several Western journalists have been killed while covering the assault, which current reports describe as brutal and indiscriminate. In another email, Asma claims to be the real power behind the regime, saying that Bashar al-Assad has no choice but to listen to her. Evidently, her advice has not been merciful.

Not long before the Arab Spring revolts that erupted last year, the first ladies of the Arab world were regularly praised as trail-blazing feminists who commanded great influence and power. Of 22 Arab states, 15 first ladies signed up for a feminist organization called the Arab Women Organization. In 2009, Helen Smith of The Guardian described the group as “founded with the express purpose of empowering women…” and lavishes praise on its members.

The list of member states is eye-opening: Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, Oman, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Yemen are all members. All but a couple of these states have faced unrest over the last year, and nearly half open civil war or regime change.

One of the things feminists often claim is that if women ran the world, there would be no more war, conflict, hunger, etc. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this to be ridiculous; female heads of state have been every bit as warmongering as their male counterparts, if not more so. From Queen Isabella and Elizabeth I to Empress Dowager Cixi, female leaders have been associated with bloodshed and chaos. Now, if we are to take her word for it, we have Asma Assad to add to the list.

One thing Westerners tend not to understand about the Arab world is that although the people themselves tend to be deeply conservative and traditional, their elites and leaders are far less so. This is beginning to become more the case in the US, but the divide is far more stark in places such as Egypt and Syria. Many of the leaders – and their wives – were educated in the liberal Western tradition when anti-traditionalism was at its peak, while opposition leaders are more likely to have gone to school in madrassas to study classical Arabic and the Koran. The Arab people see these first ladies traveling around in limousines bedecked with priceless jewels and wearing the latest fashions while mouthing platitudes about women’s rights and “progress.” In the meanwhile, young Arab men can’t find work and many of their would-be wives are stuck at home with little chance of starting a family of their own.

We aren’t there yet, but we’re getting closer by the day. If our feminists can’t see their role in creating the kind of social decay that eventually leads to regime change, it’s only because it isn’t in their nature to concern themselves with these matters. As for the Arab elites who let their wives rule, we have only to read the newspaper to see what eventually happens to men who grow soft and seek counsel in the bedchamber.

Show post

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

The popular “50 Shades of Grey” romance/porn novel has been making waves in the publishing industry as women from all walks of life find themselves aroused by its theme of utter surrender to a man. According to a Fox News article, feminists, too, approve of the book, which began as a fanfic spinoff from the Twilight series (naturally).

Given how the story is described, it looks like a rip-off of the Story of O that Heartiste enthusiastically recommends as the key to understanding women’s erotic desires:

The plot of “50 Shades of Grey” centers on a young and naïve college student named Anastasia Steele who is seduced by a rich and powerful entrepreneur named Christian Grey. Grey persuades Steele to sign a contract that allows him complete control over her life, in and out of the bedroom. Yet despite the fact that Steele becomes completely submissive to a very dominant man, feminists aren’t up in arms.

You know, I’m starting to wonder whether the models of domestic violence touted by feminists in which men seek utter control over women aren’t really a pornographic fantasy. I recently watched “Sleeping with the Enemy,” a film from the 90s starring Julia Roberts as a battered wife. Although the film wasn’t all that well done, there was definitely some erotic element to the dominance and control exerted by her psychopathic husband.

Contrary to what popular myths might lead one to believe, the book is more distressing to men than to women, but that makes perfect sense. Most men are disturbed by the idea of being objectified and dominated in the bedroom, and have a hard time relating to female sexuality.

While women are applauding the book, some men are expressing concern over whether women should be insulted by a plot dominated by a man who tells a woman when to sleep, eat, work out and even how to groom herself. Television host Dr. Drew Pinsky recently called the book a “rape fantasy” on his HLN show. Women writers laughed off Pinsky’s remarks, saying there is absolutely no reason for men to weigh in on this issue at all, and certainly no reason for them to use the term rape.

Perhaps what’s most demoralizing to men is that most of them have been instructed to behave in exactly the opposite manner from what turns so many women on. Additionally, most men simply aren’t all that dominant whether they restrain themselves or not. “Christian Grey” is a figment of the female imagination — guys like that hardly exist in real life. When they do turn up, other men take them down.

Nevertheless, the book and the discussions surrounding it show that the cat’s out of the bag. Men who have been fooled about women’s true nature for their entire lives, and who still try to fool themselves, are finding themselves demoralized by women’s enthusiastic endorsement of utter objectification and submission.

For more on the novel, check out Paul LaRosa’s take on it. Paul seemed a bit confused by its success, asking “Is it possible that so many women dream of becoming the submissive partner of a dominant male partner which, after all, is the central plot of the book?” He discovers that yes, in fact, this is what they dream of.

Show post

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

Yep. Pattinson’s a younger guy who hasn’t yet developed the confidence and swagger that years of being in charge of hot young starlets gives a guy. As a director, Sanders is quite literally the boss of beautiful young women. For these girls, who are used to being catered to hand and foot by ordinary men, that’s erotic, and probably hard to resist. It’s yet another reason we should think twice about putting young wives to work with men who have higher relative status in the office than their husbands do at home. That’s obviously a recipe for marital disaster.

However, some may ask why this is such a big deal. Pattinson may have just gained the opportunity to be done with a slutty girlfriend, so what’s the problem?

Well, think about how this will play out. Pattinson is young enough that this will eventually be forgotten, but in the meanwhile he’s going to pay for it. Older, higher-status men taking women from their younger boyfriends/husbands is nothing new, and quite frankly it’s often how they put up-and-coming young men in their place. Nobody really feels sorry for a chump whose woman cheated on him — they tend to laugh at him. It’s unfortunate, but it seems to be human nature.

In a business like Hollywood, losing respect is not very good for your career. A guy whose girlfriend cheated on him is going to have a harder time landing a leading role. The girl, for her part, takes some punishment as well. But the alpha male cheater doesn’t really lose. In fact, he tends to gain respect (whether people admit it or not). Therefore, the woman who cheats betrays her man socially and professionally as well as sexually. It’s a very nasty thing to do to a guy, because unlike a betrayed wife, he gets ridicule instead of sympathy.

Cheating women don’t just make you feel bad; they make you look bad, too. And that does have real life consequences. When women betray men, it really is worse.

The one positive thing is that this will probably damage Stewart’s career more than Pattinson’s. He’s got decades to live this down, but by the time it’s forgotten she’ll already be over the hill for an actress.

Sluts just screw things up for lots of people. That’s why we shame them, and should continue to do so.

Show post

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

Actually, Dragnet, I think white privilege is very real. I was the beneficiary of it while in China. White Mexicans do very well for themselves. A mediocre white female teacher in DC makes a whole hell of a lot more than most of her neighbors. When I was in Latvia I met some Americans who, although not privileged for their skin color, were definitely privileged by virtue of their nationality. There’s no way some of the mediocrities I met there could have had such high positions here. So perhaps “white” privilege is an inaccurate term, but elite privilege has always been a feature of civilization.

However, this privilege is conditional. And it’s predicated on a particular lifestyle and social system that is better suited to colonial Latin America than the dynamic democracy we have here. In some cases, privileged minorities can exist in a mutually beneficial relationship with their hosts, as in Sephardic Jews in early modern Holland, who invented modern finance with their Dutch colleagues and paved the way for the industrial revolution. However, what we have in the US is a privileged white minority that seeks first and foremost to be a parasite on other, non-privileged whites, and is trying (but failing) to do so through moral appeals.

Instead of trying to find a working solution, they are increasingly turning to divisive, confrontational politics, much as the white elite of the antebellum South forced the issue prior to the US Civil War. As much as it may cause cognitive dissonance to modern readers, I definitely see the white elite in this country as the modern incarnation of the Southern slaver culture. With a good grasp of history, it isn’t much of a stretch, but they’ve succeeded in casting themselves as champions of everyone but themselves even while they are perhaps the most tenacious parasites this nation has seen in ages.

Show post

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

[Most of the quote is vulgar-libertarian pablum, emphasis added where Price contradicts everything he and his faction have said about women working and "hypergamy"]

There are a lot of problems with the bill, with one of the most important ones being that so-called qualifications don’t always reflect how well someone does a job, or how valuable they are as an employee. Business is about making money, and employers generally don’t care about sex as long as the profits roll in. If women really were only making 77 cents for every dollar men made and still performing the same, nobody would hire men, because they wouldn’t want to take on the extra expense.

This oft-cited statistic is fiction; when personal choices are taken into account, women and men make about the same, as one would expect. However, if the Paycheck Fairness Act is passed, women will make more than men for equivalent work, because the government will introduce a significant penalty for not paying women the same whether they produce as much or not. Women will be even more privileged as employees than they already are with affirmative action and the EEOC. They will also have another powerful tool for suing companies, and as the history of harassment lawsuits demonstrates, they will use it regularly, often at the urging of aggressive trial lawyers.

Under the new bill, HR departments will be tasked with ensuring that men who perform well do not get raises. Companies will lose ambitious, talented male workers who give up in frustration as they realize that they will never rise above a certain pay level because there’s a woman with higher “qualifications” (e.g. a master’s degree) who doesn’t make more than him.

Eventually, that’s the way these government controls will ultimately fail. Men will vote with their feet. They will leave large companies to start their own businesses or work in a field women are not interested in. Women’s wages will not increase, because companies that are bound by bad law to lower efficiency and productivity will not make enough to give them raises. Tax revenue will then decline. In the end, everyone will lose.

Finally, the idea that men don’t want women to make money is ridiculous. Most married women work, and their husbands are happy when they make more money. Can you imagine a guy telling his wife’s boss not to give her a raise? The only problem men have with these “equal pay” laws is that they end up paying for it in the office, and it artificially lowers their wages. There’s already anecdotal evidence that software companies deliberately pay women more than men to prevent lawsuits, and because money does not come from a bottomless well this means other people are getting paid less.

Sometimes it’s better to leave the state out of certain matters, because it tends to create more problems than it solves. Sometimes, it simply creates a problem where none existed in the first place. This is the sum of the Paycheck Fairness Act: just another set of problems for America’s businesses and workers.

Show post

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

There’s been a major shift in the public attitude concerning what is proper sex since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. When I was a kid in the 1980s, it was already taken for granted that sexual mores from earlier times were outdated, and only backwards dinosaurs adhered to them. For example, the idea that there’s anything wrong with extramarital sex has been laughed at for decades now. Additionally, old taboos concerning other sexual activities, despite clear evidence of their danger in the form of AIDS, divorce, etc., were portrayed as out of date and oppressive. Pornography was deemed legitimate political speech and therefore a right, and obscenity laws repealed.

To listen to the supporters of the sexual revolution, you’d think this would have led us to some sexual utopia where everyone’s sexual needs are met with no problem, but the human impulse to control sexuality returned in fairly short order, only in a different form. The result is that today, we still face a great – perhaps even greater – amount of control where sex is concerned, and a lot more people are locked up for sex crimes than in the bad old days of “oppression.” What compounds this problem is that it’s possible that even more men are sexually repressed now than a hundred years ago.

Today, there are essentially two kinds of bad sex: “nonconsensual” sex and sex with underage people. The bad actors in this regime are overwhelmingly male for a couple reasons. First, forcible rape is far more likely to be committed by males than females, for obvious reasons. Secondly, men generally prefer younger partners and women older. One could argue that prostitution remains in the “bad sex” category, but prostitution is increasingly held to be an example of male sexual exploitation. Examples from Superbowl sex hysteria and the Secret Service scandal highlight this. Essentially, prostitution has begun to fall under the nonconsensual or rape category. Pioneering Swedish legislation that only punishes johns for prostitution transactions will probably be introduced in the US soon, and then the process will be complete.

While only a few fringe characters have ever argued that rape or pedophilia is justifiable, what’s wrong with all this is that practically no female sexual behavior is currently seen as negative, whereas men are responsible for almost all of what’s deemed bad sex. Not all that long ago, this was far from the case. While rape has always been seen as the most serious sex crime, neither fornication nor adultery were held to be innocent activities, and women were seen as equal participants in these acts. In fact, in the majority of cases, a woman was just as responsible for “bad sex” as a man. Where prostitution was concerned, females were held to be more responsible than their clients, just as drug dealers are held to higher level of accountability than drug buyers, because they profit from the transaction.

However, lest we try to draw parallels, it should be recognized that most of what society considered bad sex was not criminalized until relatively recently. Fornication, sodomy, prostitution and adultery were definitely frowned upon, but they were not typically formally punished until the Victorian era. In the US, it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that these laws were widespread and regularly enforced. Nevertheless, people were a lot more careful about engaging in these activities, because social consequences could be severe.

Since then, aside from a brief period from the late 60s to early 70s when there was a sort of sexual free-for-all in the West, we’ve seen a steady crackdown on male sexuality combined with a loosening of restrictions on female sexuality. What has happened is that the entire burden of sexual control has been increasingly foist upon men, while women’s load has been lightened.

Probably the most important and liberating change for women has been the relaxation of the social prohibition on fornication. In the old days, fornication was definitely seen as bad sex. A loose woman was considered socially irresponsible and wicked for a number of reasons. She could lure a husband from his wife, seduce a young, naive man and capture him in a marriage against his interests, and have illegitimate children who became a burden on the community. Such a woman was not seen as marriage material. In general, men preferred virgin brides. Today, of course, the virgin bride is as rare as the horse and buggy.

A lot of men might say we have it a lot better than in those times, because “sex is easy and available” now whereas it used to be more difficult to obtain. I’m not sure I agree. Fornication is as much a risk for men as ever, and probably more so, because now only men are held responsible for the consequences. Get a woman pregnant and it’s on you. Sleep with a couple women, make one angry and jealous, and you risk a rape accusation. Sleeping with a married woman is another good way to get accused of rape if she changes her mind and decides to stay with her husband. Sleep with a woman who said she was 19, she turns out to be 17, and you’re in trouble. Visit a prostitute and you could be arrested or, if she tells the press, lose your career. There isn’t much of a difference from the old days, and you’re more likely to face jail time for slipping up. For men, fornication is clearly still bad sex. Possibly even more so than it was when it was generally recognized as such.

For women, on the other hand, the benefits are clear. Fornication has virtually no social consequences and the most minimal of risks. Pregnancies can be easily avoided, and if wanted the man will be forced to pay child support whether he committed or not. Male lovers can be easily controlled and kept in line, and as many taken as any woman pleases. Women even go so far as to proudly march in slutwalks to further demand rights to behave sexually in any manner they please. The slutwalk was actually very clear in demanding more of the status quo, i.e. less control of female sexuality and more control of male. For women, particularly young and attractive ones, this has been a real bonanza. But what has it done for society?

Let’s see…

Marriage rates dropping precipitously, men taking path of least resistance and dropping out, illegitimacy skyrocketing, class divisions hardening, children growing up fatherless and with fewer options. For most of us, it’s been quite negative.

I wish I could say there was a solution to the problem, but it looks pretty hopeless. The alternative to what used to be seen as bad sex – marriage – has been all but destroyed by the liberation of female sexuality and the redefinition of marriage as little more than a federal tax status; a sort of very risky corporation with arbitrary rules. The result is that for men, there is really no such thing as “good sex,” that is, socially-approved sex — it’s a risk no matter what. Furthermore, a society in which the overwhelming majority of women are fornicators gives men no choice; you just aren’t getting a wife in the traditional sense of the word, so why bother with marriage?

I think men ought to realize that we got suckered in this deal, and perhaps we should have listened to the old sages who have warned us over the centuries. We overreached in our naivete, thinking we’d get more of what we desire if we only tossed out the old attitudes, but all we ended up with was more responsibility and fewer rewards.

...

[Wait, aren't women supposed to be the uncontrollably lustful sex? Goddamn keep you misogyny lore straight]

Nah, she ruined herself. In a sane society (like most in the world), women are considered more responsible for sexual restraint, because they are better at it. It’s the same reason men are considered more responsible for fighting, carrying heavy things, etc.

Show post

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

[The Iraq war was a mistake, but the "someone think of the poor wife beaters" approach just turned me a little neocon]

Perhaps feminism, which has led directly to a great deal of state violence against men in America, has been recognized as a useful tool in pursuing these aims. If feminists are perfectly comfortable with violent arrests of fathers and husbands to enforce feminist dictates here at home, just think of how easy it would be to recruit their efforts to convince people to snuff out foreigners’ lives. As Jonah argues, these jihadis must be a bunch of wife-beating sickos, so why not drop some JDAMs and cruise missiles on their misogynistic heads?

Nothing could better demonstrate feminist triumph than the mutilated corpses of patriarchal Muslims, right? Perhaps having female American soldiers sexually humiliate them a la Abu Ghraib would be the icing on the cake.

...

As an American, I’d be somewhat relieved if the feminists were to divert their efforts to foreign wars. But that’s a selfish sentiment, and this is an international issue. As I know from very personal experience, the effects of feminist policy transcend national boundaries. This is an international issue that affects all of us, and we have to address it as such.

So, while it isn’t surprising to see war hawks donning the mantle of feminism, it is important that men worldwide oppose any efforts to use force against sovereign states in the name of feminism. To do so would be to acquiesce to force being used against us in our own homes, as it is.

Every bomb dropped and every bullet fired in the name of feminism is one more indictment against the totalitarian, supremacist ideology. Every death caused by feminist imperialism is a war crime against free people.

It would be a searing indictment against us as a people were we to justify state aggression on the pretext of interfering with the private, family lives of a sovereign people. We should reject such efforts forcefully, so as to avoid justifying the same action against us.

Show post

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

I saw a news story the other day asking why men were getting most of the jobs in the economic recovery, which has been slow and meager in any event. Evidently, when men no longer have significantly higher unemployment than women, it is a national tragedy. Throughout the recession, and even today, men have had higher unemployment, but now they have reached near parity with women.

The culprit? According to Daily Kos, public sector layoffs. Due to decreases in public revenue, government had little choice but to cut these positions to avoid default. The lower public revenue was a direct result of men’s inability to pay tax, which goes to show that women, even when working, rely heavily on men. This brings up the question of why, when men were disproportionately suffering in the recession, feminists were crowing about their supremacy and men’s misfortune. There can only be a few answers to this:

Ingratitude

When men support women in any way, rather than appreciate it, feminists tend to feel this support is a privilege they deserve simply for being women. We often call this the “entitlement mentality.” This sense of entitlement, however, is rarely paired with any efforts to make it convenient for men to support women, or any reciprocity whatsoever.

Hatred and lack of empathy

Seeing men suffer seems to give a great number of feminists pleasure. They write articles about how pathetic men are, proclaim themselves more “evolved” and better suited to the modern world, and generally abuse the unfortunate — when they are men. However, when the tables turn ever so slightly, immediately one can hear wailing, tales of woe and proclamations of victimhood.

Short-sighted stupidity

You’d think that feminists would take a look at the reality of the situation, wherein the huge majority of the funds directed their way are a result of wealth creation, an overwhelmingly male endeavor. From Norm Brinker’s founding of the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation to the millions of men slaving away as private sector workers and businessmen to pay taxes, the money feminists feel they are entitled to comes from men far more often than not. However, rather than try to preserve and foster that income stream, they do everything in their power to destroy it by denying men opportunities, kicking them when they are down, refusing to give them any breaks, demanding they be handicapped in schools, the workplace and business, etc.

The reaction to the mancession and recovery proves feminists to be moral cretins with a third-rate understanding of consequences and the most basic economic principles. If anything should entirely discredit them, this ugly reaction to national hardship is it. Not only are they incapable of sound judgment and bereft of decency, they cannot even take the necessary steps to take care of themselves.

So why, again, do feminists have any authority in any institution at all? Their net effect is damaging, not only to men but to themselves and decent women as well. It’s time to put a stop to the pandering, and to deal with feminists as the dysfunctional, self-destructive borderline cases they are.

Show post

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

Wednesday’s post about how people (and women in particular) are wasting time, often while pursuing futile goals, has brought up some discussion of the origins of feminism in recent comments. There’s something very cult-like about the way feminism has emerged as a mass movement, and this characteristic has given rise to a lot of speculation about who was responsible for really getting it off the ground. Some have suggested Communists and the Frankfurt School, and others Victorian politics. There are a lot of theories, but what’s undeniable is that it burst onto the world scene in a big way in the mid-20th century.

Before this, I suspect there had always been various proto-feminist movements of one sort or another. From fertility cults in the ancient world, which survive today in Asia and perhaps parts of Africa, to the proliferation of witchcraft in late medieval Europe and then the political feminism that emerged in early 19th century Britain in response to the French Revolution’s ideals of equality.

I think feminism in one form or another has always been with us, and has always been part of the human experience. Even male feminists have always existed. There have been certain men from time immemorial who, despising their fellow men, maintain a worshipful attitude toward the feminine. But it has never been much more than a nuisance, or perhaps at worst an underground criminal industry, as in the abortionists that were prosecuted in Europe following the population depletion that accompanied the plague.

One rather remarkable passage from Alonso de Salazar Frías, a Spanish inquisitor who recommended that witches not be executed because they were not actually doing much, but rather simply delusional, highlights some of the similarities between modern feminist wishful thinking and the claims of witches, which were fantastic accounts of being able to do pretty much anything:

The real question is: are we to believe that witchcraft occurred in a given situation simply because of what the witches claim? No: it is clear that the witches are not to be believed, and the judges should not pass sentence on anyone, unless the case can be proven with external and objective evidence sufficient to convince everyone who hears it. And who can accept the following: that a person can frequently fly through the air and travel a hundred leagues in an hour; that a woman can get through a space not big enough for a fly; that a person can make himself invisible; that he can be in a river or the open sea and not get wet; or that he can be in bed at the sabbath at the same time… and that a witch can turn herself into any shape she fancies, be it housefly or raven? Indeed, these claims go beyond all human reason and may even pass the limits permitted by the Devil.

So what is it that turned feminism from a mere annoyance into a widespread, powerful cult that is supported by none other than the President of the United States and other leaders throughout the West?

I suspect the answer has something to do with mass communication and mob psychology. In the past, feminism or other odd, associated cults would emerge in some region, but would remain contained therein. Because it isn’t a proper religion that moves men to fight and sacrifice themselves, it was never in any danger of sweeping into power on a broad scale. It seems to me to be no coincidence at all that the rise of feminism coincided with television, mass-marketing and consumerism, because when the quirks of female psychology could be manipulated and fostered for profit or power on a widespread scale, it suddenly became a force in its own right.

There’s a great documentary – actually, the best I’ve ever seen – that documents the rise of mass psychology and the various methods people use to manipulate it for power and or profit. I’m sure a number of readers have seen it, but it’s worth mentioning “The Century of the Self” again, because it goes into great detail about the communication and psychological trends that have shaped contemporary society. Evidently, Freud was a real pioneer in this area, although he himself didn’t put his ideas into practice; his nephew did.

Show post

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

[Remember when MRA's actually tried to maintain the pretense that they don't want to be paterfamilias? FSTDT remembers]

On our recent post concerning abortion, one of the commenters brought up one of the most common feminist arguments, which goes something like this:

Men oppose abortion, birth control, etc., because they really want control over women.

The same idea is applied to domestic violence, divorce, child custody, and just about everything else that might be disputed between a man and woman. Every time there is something that men and women don’t see eye to eye on, it’s an issue of the patriarchy wanting control.

This idea is very clearly reflected in domestic violence theory, perhaps best exemplified by the “power and control wheel” dreamed up in the fevered imagination of the creators of the Duluth Model domestic abuse program. Leaving aside the fact that many of the supposed controlling behaviors detailed on the wheel are probably more commonly practiced by wives than husbands, such as playing “mind games” and using the children to get what one wants, there is a catch in that denying being abusive makes one an abuser. So, according to the Duluth Model, if your wife calls you an abuser, you can deny it all you want, but that just confirms your status as an abuser, which subjects you to state control.

The New York Model for Batter Programs takes control a step farther, and imposes indoctrination sessions on those referred to the program. Additionally, it is a punitive rather than rehabilitative program, but cloaks this to some degree through a stated mission to change society. It is not only men that are subject to control through this particular program (and not all men ordered to attend are convicts, nor are all who have been convicted guilty), but all of society, which is clearly seen by directors as diseased and in need of change. To accomplish its goal, the NYMBP enlists the assistance of courts, the police, judges, social workers and others involved in coercive occupations. Clearly, this goes beyond the control that even the most criminally deranged husband could hope to impose on a wife.

When it comes down to it, it’s pretty clear that feminists are obsessed with the idea of control, and they’ve made great strides in controlling men. Simply living under the same roof with a woman puts a man at the mercy of an army of agents of the state, and with a simple phone call a woman can put him under scrutiny that could last for years and have consequences for his entire life. This goes far beyond anything men have ever practiced under so-called patriarchal society, which for all its faults never was comfortable with interfering in domestic matters. For example, in older American or European society, could a husband ever have called the police to force his wife into an indoctrination center? He would have met with laughter or disbelief. In fact, even if a wife had beaten or cuckolded her husband, this would have been considered outside the bounds of the state’s role. Only murder, wounding or possibly grand theft would have prompted any intervention on the part of the husband. In fact, as today, wives frequently absconded with the children, and men were left to their own devices to find them. Patriarchal “control” over women was mild indeed.

Contrast that to today’s reality, where if a man absconds without his children there are numerous state and federal agencies dedicated to tracking him down and forcing him to pay her. Lord help the man if he tries to take his children — he’ll be hunted down like a rabid dog.

The reluctance to actually control women carries over into even the most fervent supporters of what feminists would call the patriarchy. Anti-abortion activists kill an abortionist every few years, but has there ever been a case of one killing a woman who aborted her own child? Perhaps it is this aversion to controlling women that gives feminists such a sense of entitlement and contempt for men. They know in their heart of hearts that these so-called patriarchal men are actually simply their agents in controlling other men, and use them accordingly, hence the dark, hidden alliance between feminists and social conservatives that has emerged to clamp down on men from time to time.

The control impulse feminists ascribe to men is, like so many of their other issues, an example of projection. There is nothing feminists want more than to control every single aspect of their relationships and society. This is not a very masculine tendency, as men prefer a more dynamic rather than static environment. Men’s natural genius is is suppressed by heavy-handed control, which leads to stagnation, apathy and inaction. The economic failure of Communist societies demonstrates what happens to men under oppressive, controlling regimes: they tend to become depressed and sluggish, and engage in dissipation rather than constructive pursuits.

The patriarchal control impulse is a pure fabrication, and more accurately describes feminist psychology than masculine behavior. Men are generally less obsessed by control than women, and they don’t even come close to feminists, who would reverse Pinocchio and turn us all into puppets if they had their way.

...

[Bonus quote from the comments, hoo boy did this age poorly when he dropped the mask a few years down the line]

Yeah, it’s crazy how they imagine this control when it doesn’t exist.

I’m not controlling of women at all. The last thing I want to do is spend all my time riding herd on women. I simply don’t want the job. This has a lot to do with why my marriage failed — I just got tired of having to deal with things for my wife, who expected me to “take charge” in each and every situation, which is a hell of a lot of work for a husband. Me, I’d rather women handled things themselves most of the time, but I guess that’s expecting too much.

Show post

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

I check into the MensRights Reddit fairly frequently to keep up to date on news items concerning mens issues, and every now and then someone comes up with something very interesting. Yesterday, someone posted a number of links concerning a long-running spate of poisonings in early 20th century Hungary, and I’m glad I checked today because feminists have invaded the Mensrights subreddit to vote down any posts they don’t approve of* and I probably would have missed this piece of history otherwise.

Some time during WWI, men in Nagyrev, a village south-east of Budapest, began dying in disproportionate numbers. The local midwife, a witch named Julia Fazekas, had arrived in 1911 with Susi Olah (presumably her lesbian lover), and was the only person in the area with any medical expertise. Fazekas was arrested on numerous occasions for illegally performing abortions, but sympathetic judges let her off the hook each time. The abortions may have been desired because the local women allegedly shacked up with allied POWs who were drafted into farm labor in the town while their husbands were away at war.

When the men came back from war and demanded their wives give up their lovers, some of the local women complained to Fazekas, who advised them that it would be a simple matter to poison the men with arsenic, which she extracted from fly paper. Soon thereafter, husbands, children and other inconvenient family members began dropping like the flies the arsenic was intended for. Because Fazekas’s cousin was the local clerk, the deaths were not recorded as suspicious, and the murders escaped notice for years.

Finally, a medical student found a corpse in the river, and upon testing it discovered high levels of the poison, which led to suspicion. Then, in 1929, an anonymous letter to a newspaper located in a nearby town revealed the mass poisonings, and eventually 26 women went to trial. When police initially went to investigate Fazekas, she committed suicide with her own poison, thereby foiling justice and escaping the noose.

Of the 26 women tried, eight were sentenced to death, but only two were eventually executed. Of the remainder, 12 were sentenced to prison.

The story is a good reminder that we face very ancient passions, and that the line between barbarism and civilization is very thin and easily crossed. It also clearly demonstrates that darkness can dwell in the hearts of women just as in men, and that their own aggression can be tied to sexuality as well. But perhaps what it illustrates best is how a malicious woman like proto-feminist Julia Fazekas can sow discord in a community with deadly results. Where in early 19th century Austro-Hungary such a woman was relegated to the backwaters of the empire, today one can find them in universities, major publications and political office doling out their own version of poison to the women of our society.

...

[Disingenuous pacifism seems to be a running trend with Pricey]

@Nico

“The second group of women are dance group members who share their understanding and compassion towards the husband murderers. In their view, this female conspiracy is an example of women taking charge and searching for a solution for abusive relationships and misery at a time when divorce or other solutions to ameliorate the situation were unavailable. The women express their appreciation towards the previous generation of women who taught their daughters’ intolerance for abusive relationships and the value of independence and empowerment, sentiments also echoed by a divorced yoga teacher interviewed.”

What can I say? Feminists condoning murder yet again – this time on film – and people still claim feminism is “nonviolent.”

Good find, Nico.

...

Well, yeah. It used to be common knowledge that witches were murderers and child killers. They obviously exist today, in a somewhat different form, but the beliefs and end goal are one and the same.

People think that these old stories were just pure fantasy, but that’s far from the case. Certain types of women have been murdering people from time immemorial, usually using potions concocted from various herbs and such (aborting fetuses was often effected by small doses of poisons, which would kill a cow in suitable doses), so why is it a big stretch of the imagination to link them to women who advocate for the same sort of thing these days?

Here’s an incident where a witch sacrificed a man just last year (and then claimed “rape” of course):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002025-504083.html

Show post

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

[Note: the post name says "Welmer" but the blue background indicates it's by OP, who is denoted as W. F. Price]

People havem’t really changed much in their nature since the very beginning. Many of these terms like ‘witch” “posessed by the devil” etc were just another way of saying what we would have a modern term for.

True. And despite the standardization of terminology, most people today are just as ignorant about mental/physical health as they ever were. Community leaders back then – the intelligent, literate sorts – knew a lot more than people credit to them.

Many of these witches were old hags living on the outskirts of villages who collected poisonous plants. They would supply females with drugs to induce abortions or to poison their husbands or kids.

Sounds accurate to me. I think in a lot of cases calling one of these hags a “witch” may have been the most convenient way to eliminate a truly malignant influence from the community. In Scandinavia, female holdouts who still practiced sorcery in the Christian era, known as Völvas, exerted some influence on women for quite some time. They would sell them potions to entrap men, have their way, etc. Some of them, created from concoctions of potent psychoactive drugs, actually work. These potions show up in stories like Tristan and Iseult and the Völsunga saga.

A lot of the folk wisdom about witches comes directly from these women, who probably were still operating home businesses of sorts until the witch purges of the 15th-17th centuries.

Show post

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

[As a change of pace, let's remember the simple days of conservatives taking potshots at Obama for doing fairly standard presidential things]

Obama was in Seattle yesterday, and in the afternoon, while sitting at my desk, there were a couple violent thuds that sounded and felt as though someone hit my house’s foundation with a sledgehammer. Coincidentally, my cat was trying to get in the house by jumping at the door and making noise right when the shock wave struck, and my first thought was “what the hell’s wrong with that cat?” Of course, it didn’t take long for me to realize that my cat doesn’t have the mass to shake the house like that, so I thought it might be the neighbor’s workers banging a pipe or something. But no, there were no workers outside.

At this point I was a bit worried, and thought someone might have set off a bomb in the vicinity. I checked the TV and radio, and no alerts, so it wasn’t that, and eventually I just accepted that it must be some mystery, or possibly a large meteor.

Well, it’s no longer a mystery. Evidently, some tour plane was tooling around in our precious president’s airspace, and they scrambled a couple of supersonic jets to Boeing Field, which is less than two miles from my place as the crow flies. They must have really been cooking, because the sonic booms were quite violent.

I wasn’t the only one bothered by the blasts:

Residents in Seattle, Washington, were shaken Tuesday afternoon by what sounded like explosions after two F-15s were dispatched in response to a report of a small plane that entered restricted airspace where President Barack Obama was campaigning for Sen. Patty Murray.

The rumblings — caused by sonic booms from the jets — rattled buildings, windows and nerves in the Puget Sound region, according to CNN affiliate KIRO. Viewers of the affiliate from as far away as Tacoma — about 40 miles south of Seattle — reported hearing the booms.

Dozens of residents called the city’s 911 system, causing it to shut down in some areas for about an hour due to the flood of calls, Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO.

When I lived in Beijing, Clinton visited at one point, and the security was both overwhelming and offensive. Chinese military squads were stationed along the route home, because I lived close to the Airport Expressway. I had the rather unpleasant experience of having to travel around PLA grenadier squads on the way back to my humble abode.

Our leaders now make visits as though we are in a state of war, and I resent that. If they are so beloved, why do they need to make such a show of overwhelming force wherever they go? Nothing says “Imperial” like a Presidential entourage that includes a full military component and makes its subjects feel as though they are at war when the “great leader” deigns to pay us a visit.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I’d feel better if our President were traveling from town to town by Cessna than the current situation, where we are subjected to war exercises of the Imperial Fleet. Frankly, I could give a damn about politicians, and if Obama wants to blast my town with his entourage, I’d like to humbly request that he doesn’t visit again.

Show post

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

A grandmother from Kent, Washington (a Seattle suburb) has been arrested for forcing children in her care to drink urine and engage in sexual acts with their siblings. Rose Marie Johnson, according to several children and witnesses, has been putting little kids through hell for years. She first came to the attention of social services when a boy accused her of improprieties in 2008, but investigators did not take him seriously.

When we hear about witch burnings in the bad old days, they are usually presented in the context of innocent women irrationally accused by superstitious Christians. If the behavior of women today is any indication, they are capable of doing awful things to people, including children, and were probably all the more likely to get away with it when there was less communication and people had a greater ability to avoid state intrusion.

So when one hears about persecution of innocent women in pre-modern Europe, it should be kept in mind that although some certainly didn’t deserve their fate and were set up for one reason or the other (e.g. Jeanne d’Arc), a lot of them probably had it coming. In fact, today they get away with this stuff with little more than a slap on the wrist, because their victims are just children, after all, and women are higher value human beings in our feminist regime.

Show post

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. #conspiracy web.archive.org

Deadly Immunity

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line.

"We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to 11-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical. I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one hearing, "until we know the facts?"

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's preeminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between 1989 and 2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in 25 years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children." More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis -- a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. "If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis," scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world's authorities on mercury toxicity, "then where are all the 20-year-old autistics?" Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative "load" of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received -- but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10 babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, and 2-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that 6-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored Hilleman's warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received 11 vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of 22 immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. "What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?" Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. "Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?"

But by that time, the damage was done. Infants who received all their vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of six months were being injected with a total of 187 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 40 percent greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury. Under the expanded schedule of vaccinations, multiple shots were often administered on a single day: At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, children routinely received three innoculations that delivered 99 times the approved limit of mercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccine advisors, told me, "I think if we really have an influenza pandemic -- and certainly we will in the next 20 years, because we always do -- there's no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials."

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he "would make money" if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist's direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. "It provides no conflict for me," he insists. "I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It's offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It's just not the way it works."

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children's health, proud of their "partnerships" with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children's health. They are often resentful of questioning. "Science," says Offit, "is best left to scientists."

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. "We've got a dragon by the tail here," said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. "The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization -- and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge."

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink data-sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used to study vaccine safety, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a "very significant relationship" between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be-published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa Legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. "After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism," state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation, told the magazine Byronchild earlier this year. "The fact that Iowa's 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children's vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone." Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in 32 other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders "under review."

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen." It's hard to calculate the damage to our country -- and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them sincere, even idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations.

Show post

Lauren #fundie web.archive.org

My name is Lauren DeCarlo. I am 26 years old. I just wanted to thank for everything you have done. Thank you so much for helping me actually learn how read the Bible. I use to have religion, which did nothing for me, and I literally believed you had to be mostly a good person and have faith in order to get to heaven, and it lead me feeling empty and alone. Then when I came to your site, I realized I was utterly wrong. I found your site when I was in High School and oddly had/have a neck problem just like yourself and my experience with the pain in my neck truly humbled me along with your amazing site, showing how short life is and we all can get sick. Found a certain truth that just because I was young, it doesn't matter, when your time is up, it's up. It got me questioning life after death. I put in a Bible quote and your site came up. I believed the the first time I read your article on: How To Be Born Again and by the grace of God I believed and He lead me to your website. I use to be self-righteous and thought I was mostly good when I of course wasn't. Only Jesus is good, and only His righteousness can get you into Heaven by His precious innocent blood. Thank you for being Gods messenger and your honesty. I love your website, and love you very much for creating it; you are truly blessed. You are a truth teller in a world so false.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart! An email is not enough but I'm glad you made a way for believers to email you. Thank you times infinity.

Love,
Lauren

Show post

James Dobson #fundie web.archive.org

Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become Women

Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?

Before puberty, children aren’t normally heterosexual or homosexual. They’re definitely gender conscious. But young children are not sexual beings yet — unless something sexual in nature has interrupted their developmental phases.

Still, it’s not uncommon for children to experience gender confusion during the elementary school years. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports, “In one study of 60 effeminate boys ages 4 to 11, 98 percent of them engaged in cross-dressing, and 83 percent said they wished they had been born a girl.”

Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:

1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys.

2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.

3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.

4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.

5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”

6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.

7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

If your child is experiencing several signs of gender confusion, professional help is available. It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty.

“By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager,” warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience “great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution.”

If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late.

Show post

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

The NY Times has an article up on the wonderful blossoming of creativity amongst Afghan women, which includes a great deal of modern “art,” which to me is anything but. Why it is considered progress when women are encouraged to produce these monstrosities is beyond me. If there is anything the West should not be exporting, it is our contemporary art, which seems designed only to bother and provoke people.

...

So Afghanistan does indeed have a rich artistic heritage, despite the cultural barbarism and depravity of the Taliban, and plenty of tradition to draw on. However, rather than encourage Afghans to contribute something of value, the NY Times features pictures of sculptures that, in some cases, look like something one is supposed to flush down the toilet. It’s almost as though they are hell bent on proving the Taliban correct in their assertion that art is godless garbage that corrupts the soul and pollutes the landscape.

Perhaps the beautiful people in the NY art world think that because it is being produced by “liberated” Afghan women, it must have intrinsic value. Well, they do pay large sums of money for what most everyone knows is junk here at home, but I suspect those who do so don’t really have beauty and artistic excellence in mind so much as they enjoy using their wealth to stick a thumb in the eye of the snobby old money types they hate. In Afghanistan, however, there’s simply no excuse. What purpose could it serve, besides another form of torture, to expose the people of that miserable, war-torn country to these displays?

Show post

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

It seems to me that human resources has become one of those gender-specific jobs, like logger or cocktail waitress. In my experience, HR is overwhelmingly female, and these are the people who have the power to hire or fire you.

In my limited experience working with female supervisors, I have found them to be less forgiving and less considerate, possibly because they think that men only respond well to abusive slave-driver types. I have also noticed that they are far less likely to directly warn workers or inform them in plain terms that they are dissatisfied. This tends to make male workers feel that their authority is capricious and cruel, and that they can be terminated for anything at any time.

The end result is that men – and particularly men of a certain type – are being pushed out of certain occupations and organizations, and find themselves driven to more exclusively male lines of work, such as construction, driving and law enforcement, and this may explain why men’s unemployment is so much higher than women’s in the current recession. In fact, I would say that the increasing domination of the corporate world by women in middle management – especially HR – has greatly restricted occupational options for younger men, even as senior male managers go out of their way to foster and accommodate women.

What I’d like to know if this corresponds with greater productivity. I suspect that it does not, but I’d have to see the numbers.

One theory I have heard is that senior male managers use females in middle management to keep workers in line and more easily fire people, because they have less of a sense of responsibility for those who work under them. This leads to a more humble and frightened work force, and despite warm and fuzzy talk about wanting “satisfied” workers, perhaps corporate bosses (almost all male) actually want the people working for them to live in fear. A scared and humble work force will go the extra mile to avoid being fired, and will work for less compensation.

I am curious as to whether readers have observed the same. Has the introduction of women into management fundamentally changed the way we work? If so, has their arrival been accompanied by fear and insecurity in the workplace, or has it been positive on the balance? We ought to have these discussions, because women are not going to leave the workforce any time soon, and perhaps it’s time to figure out how we might mitigate some of the negative effects.

Given that there has been a lot of speculation recently about how women will dominate the economy (or what’s left of it) in the future, these are perfectly reasonable concerns for men.

Show post

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

In my recent post questioning the origins of what seems to be a sudden awareness of men’s issues, I wrote that the transition appears to have begun about two years ago. In asking what trends might have converged to spark an awakening of sorts and the emergence of a new generation of writers and activists, I received a number of thoughtful and well-written comments, proving that I am far from the only person thinking about this.

While I intend to concatenate these responses in a future post, I found a two-year-old article written for Salon.com that gives us a clue as to what has been going on in the late 2000s, and sheds some light on the cultural changes that may have helped bring awareness to the fore.

The article, “Women are the new men on TV,” reviews a number of TV shows scheduled to debut in 2007. Although many of these shows never got anywhere, the theme and tone of the shows is very revealing, depicting an America where men have lost their way, and their very manhood. I would urge readers to read the entire article, as it is a well-written piece and surprisingly candid coming from a female entertainment writer (Rebecca Traister), but I will include a few of the better quotes below for readers without the time to slog through three pages.

...

Note the adjectives used to describe the women in the shows: aggressive, confident, hard-bodied, independent. These are not traits that men generally find attractive in women, but perhaps women themselves enjoy being portrayed as such.

...

Men are shown to be needy, awkward and juvenile. They are kicked around by women and sexually assaulted by monkeys — in fact some were actually portrayed as monkeys themselves in the short-lived “Cavemen” show (based on the Geico commercials). Now, the idea of a horny monkey may be a bit funny, but would any TV show ever portray bestiality as an acceptable punchline where a woman was concerned?

...

That’s it: the men are unattractive after they have been subordinated. Traister wants them “to just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control.” Doesn’t she realize that putting men in the role she and millions of other women wanted us to fulfill required a serious social and legal beatdown as well as a massive seizure of power? Like the woman who cuckolds her husband, she wants men to be reasonable and accepting rather than “angry, neutered bastards.”

...

Traister sees that it isn’t working, but she doesn’t get it. Women have a huge blind spot when it comes to what they have helped do to men. Women, together with a small elite of men at the apex of society, have collectively engaged in a war on the average American man, and even after doing so they can’t understand why men are acting like defeatists, bereft of pride and able to show defiance only in the most abject, naked displays of their emasculated state.

Show post

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

The very rapid transformation of schools from environments dominated by men and boys to majority-female institutions has left many scratching their heads. Why are boys, despite higher test scores and better performance at the highest levels of the sciences and arts, more likely to fail, drop out or avoid school altogether? In feminist quarters there is a sense of triumph about the situation, but many mothers and concerned women cannot figure out what might be the problem. Men, unfortunately, seem largely to have given up trying or stopped caring about this serious problem — serious because male rejection of the institutions that provide a path to upward mobility will undoubtedly have destabilizing effects in the future.

Of course, I am among those who agree that higher education is oversold, and not really necessary for many of the people who attend. Perhaps up to half of the young men and women in college would do just as well – if not better – by choosing a trade. There is no reason a two-year degree following high school cannot provide the training necessary to enter the job market, and if high school itself did a better job of teaching the classics we would have graduates with a perfectly acceptable liberal arts education, with no need to take university classes to round them out.

However, what is really killing boys in school is not that it is forced on them so much as it is the culture surrounding school — higher education in particular. As we all know, school is largely about socializing children and youths so that they get along tolerably well. In a mixed gender environment, socializing is naturally very different from what it is in a gender segregated environment, and controlling one’s conduct becomes more of a priority. When boys and girls are in close proximity, boys must adjust their behavior in a number of ways. First, they must learn to be physically gentle, which is more difficult for young children than it may seem to us. Next, they must learn to be gentle in words and speech, and finally they must learn to repress their sexuality. To maintain harmony in mixed gender environments, all three are necessary, and they take a higher priority than actual hard learning.

So it appears that instead of the “three Rs,” we now have docility, flattery and restraint, none of which plays to male strengths. A number of boys, whether they are intelligent or not, will have a very difficult time following the new code of educational institutions, because it is not in their nature to repress their bodies or minds. Girls, on the other hand, are much better at acting nice and behaving “properly.” Unfortunately, this carries over into higher education, and has begun to pervade society as a whole.

In higher education, the stifling gag of political correctness evolved directly out of this enforced socialization that begins in grade school. The male student is exected to sit there and listen obediently while men in general are trashed and women portrayed as victims of nasty boys at every turn in life. If the male student speaks out or objects – even if on logically reasonable grounds – he is targeted as an example of what is wrong with men, and will be punished for doing so through lower grades. There is no defense for the male student against such actions. A boy whose inquisitive, honest male nature cannot be repressed may find school to be a very hostile place. He had best just learn to keep his mouth shut and soldier on without grumbling about the situation (yes, even grumbling will draw the jaundiced eye of a feminist professor).

Now, what we find in higher education is an environment dominated by a feminine sense of propriety to which men must learn to suborn their nature or, failing that, leave. Those young men who do well are in the minority, and only represent one side of a spectrum of male behavior, just as women who do well in math and science only represent one side of a spectrum of female accomplishment. The majority of young men find the environment of higher education to be unbearable, and so they avoid it.

What this all really comes down to is that men are by their nature radically honest — we don’t understand why we can’t tell a woman that she ought to lose a few pounds or ask her her age, we just know through social conditioning that we “can’t do that.” Unfortunately, searching for the truth in higher education has taken the back seat to the concerns of sensitivity and ego-boosting. Men are forced to flatter and stroke all around them or, if they can’t, to shut up. For many young men, this is nearly impossible, and for most it is too much to ask. Those who will do best are men with a natural ability to prevaricate and flatter, while those who may “get by” are those who are naturally quiet, although this problem must take quite a toll on the quiet boys, who must endure the entire charade in mute frustration.

The solution is a return to gender-segregated places in schools where boys can be their true selves. Remove the enforced repression and replace it with discipline, and boys will thrive. It cannot be emphasized enough that discipline is fundamentally different from repression. Discipline is what gets one through the tough job, and is readily understood when explained to boys of a certain level of intellectual maturity. Repression only gives boys and men a confused sense of hopelessness and alienates them. Learning can and should allow the full spectrum of male expression, but we may simply have to accept that this cannot be achieved in mixed-sex environments.

The above problem extends far beyond the realm of education, but to keep this post from getting too long I’ll save that discussion for another time.

Show post

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

Although it’s pretty clear that a lot of the blame for problems in modern relationships can be laid squarely at the feet of young women, we ought to at least ask why they are such miserable failures compared to their grandmothers. They are genetically pretty much the same people, after all, so there must have been something about their upbringing that made them worse than useless as wives. Well, I guess we all know that’s pretty obvious, but how often do we get down to brass tacks and ask “what really makes the difference?”

Having had the dubious benefit of having raised a couple of children for almost five years, much of the time all by my lonesome, I’ve started to get an idea of what’s going on. One thing I can say is that raising kids, although rewarding in some incomprehensible way, is hell. I’ve never had a harder job. Doing it yourself is an exercise in masochism, or maybe martyrdom, which is why I don’t believe all the BS about “single mothers” going it alone. In fact, I’ve never, ever met a single mother who did it alone. Women are better at social networking for a reason: they need to be to get help raising kids.

Nevertheless, modern young women are particularly deluded about childrearing. Most of them have no more experience than a few weeks in total of babysitting kids during the easiest possible age bracket — between the ages of six and twelve. Your typical parent wouldn’t dream of allowing a teenage girl to babysit an infant or toddler for more than a couple of hours, and in that event would do their utmost to set everything up for the babysitter so that it went as smoothly as possible.

So young women come into marriage without a clue. In days past this wasn’t the case. Just as boys in old times would be expected to handle firearms, chop wood, and deal with large, dangerous farm animals, girls would be thrust into the business of childrearing and homemaking as soon as they had the strength to pick up a child and handle a cast-iron skillet. Now, these girls are texting on mobile phones and chatting with friends online all night as soon as they’re done with their homework.

However, the instinct to be a grown woman and mother remains, so girls dream of the traditional marriage without having any idea what it really means. Therefore, as a guy who’s been there and back again, I’d like to give other men an idea of what they really ought to be thinking about if they are serious about a traditional marriage, so I’ve come up with a few questions to ask women before tying the knot:

Can you handle the obliteration of your former physique for at least eighteen months for each child you bear?
Could you drive a car with someone screaming into your ear at a high volume for a prolonged period of time, day after day, without losing your cool and/or crashing?
Would you be able to interrupt your dinner to put your hands on human excrement, and then return and finish eating?
Can you go for weeks without sleeping more than a couple hours at a time?
Are you prepared to handle a 1000% increase in housework?
Can you see yourself acting as impartially as a referee in a boxing match during sibling disputes?
If your sex life were to evaporate, would you still be able to retain a fair perspective concerning your spouse?
Does the prospect of being chained to a few little hellions every minute of the day, at the risk of prosecution if you fail to do so, seem bearable?
Can you sacrifice your shoe budget for family necessities?
Would you be able to control your hormonal mood swings enough to prevent yourself from blowing your marriage sky-high?
Do you have enough sense to stop and look for the light at the end of the tunnel?

If a woman says no to any of these, she’s a bad bet. Not to say there’d necessarily be a divorce (although chances are better than even), but the road will be very rough. Unfortunately, this probably comprises at least 75% of young American women. Their mothers, indoctrinated as they were by 1970s feminism, did a huge disservice to society. Not only did they frequently emasculate their sons; they coddled their daughters, teaching them to be the cheap facsimiles of men we are so familiar with today.

Is it possible to change a girl who has grown up within this milieu? I have my doubts. Even with game, just keeping things together with such a woman requires a Herculean effort from most men, and we have to be honest with ourselves and ask whether it’s even worth it.

However, if you are a guy who wants to knuckle under and go for it anyway, ask these questions. If you can’t ask your girlfriend, at least ask yourself about her and try to detach yourself from your feelings for her so that you can be as honest as possible about the answers. Although the conclusion might be depressing, it could save you from a kind of pain you never suspected you could be subjected to.

Show post

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

Since I first discovered my desire for women, I have always taken this attraction for granted and held it to be an inseparable part of my straight, male identity. It has been just over twenty years since I began to lay awake in bed, imagining the female form and feeling a need for its presence. Although I knew that my need for women would eventually lessen, I expected it to last for the rest of my life. I saw it in my grandfather in his old age, after all, and expected it would be the same for me. I thought of it as an essential element of my masculinity — a part of my being that I’d both exult in and suffer for throughout my life.

However, essential or not, I thought of desire as external; separate from thoughts, emotions opinions and sense of self. I considered it involuntary, like the beating of my heart or the drawing in of breath.

Lately, I’ve begun to realize that the desire I’ve always counted on is a far more complex thing than a mere physiological process. It seems men aren’t the purely physical creatures I assumed, and that longing and need encompass far more than the switching on of a sexual response.

I often see explanations in popular culture for why men find themselves increasingly uninterested in American women. Some of these are quite compelling, such as the lack of femininity, the ever more aggressive and assertive nature of young American women, and the sense of entitlement that they display as though it were an expensive piece of jewelry. The raw, predatory sexuality encouraged on television shows for women has a distinctly unattractive quality; aside from certain anatomical features and minor differences in dress, these women display all of the characteristics of offensively forward and brash men. The hard look in the eyes, the strut and the lack of regard for others are now the mark of the superior woman. For many men, to desire these characteristics would require a change in sexuality — something homosexuals persuasively insist is impossible.

I see this as just another example of the shifting definitions of masculinity and femininity as society emerges from the Industrial Age. Recently, I reread Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, and found myself amused by his devotional descriptions of the heroine, Lucy Manette, who epitomizes beauty, femininity and goodness. She is one of the least realistic characters in fiction, yet obviously was an ideal that Victorian Englishmen could relate to. This little doll with blonde curls, devoted to her husband and full of only loving and nurturing sentiments, was pure, unrestrained male fantasy. That impossible ideal lasted through the better part of the 20th century, but has clearly given way to something far different. Some blame feminism for the destruction of the concept of the exalted woman, but in fact it still exists! The exalted status remains, but the statue on the pedestal is no longer shaped and defined by the imagination and ideals of men.

The new woman on a pedestal reflects the conceits and fancies of adolescent female minds. She is their idea of beauty, power and freedom. Children occasionally appear as emotional props, and are conveniently cared for by nannies or others when the time comes for a night out on the town. Men slavishly follow and desire her, and she changes them as freely as though they were an article of clothing. On television shows such as CSI, she shows direspect to the dead, displaying her utter contempt for even the concept of dignity or decency. She takes her sexual and aesthetic advice from homosexual men, who have little use for the qualities that straight men admire and love in women.

This redefinition of the ideal woman has left a beast that possesses all the physical attributes that men desire in a woman, yet behaves, speaks and moves in a manner that most men find repulsive. Rather than a companion, she is an adversary. She offers not comfort, but contempt. This mutation from icon of male desire into receptacle of indulgence was the culmination of years of human self-deification: deification of our own desires, and deification of their objects.

Show post

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

["Historical" note: this post is the closest you can get to an origin story for The Spearhead]

Now that gender equality in terms of income has been achieved in the younger generation, and educationally women currently surpass men, most of us ordinary men find ourselves staring irrelevance straight in the face. A friend of mine recently observed that women are “taking over” his department at his former company. Except in specialized occupations that require male minds or bodies, women do indeed appear to have the upper hand. However, I observed to my friend that the top remains largely male, while the middle is dominated by females. The bottom, like the top, is predominately male. Unfortunately for us men, there’s a lot more space at the bottom than at the top.

So what does that mean for men who are not among the fortunate few? Are we destined to be lowly peons shoveling muck out of gutters? For many of us, our fate could be worse than that. Gutter cleaning pays fairly well, at least according to the last bill I saw for that service. The future certainly does look grim, but could there be anything redeeming about our new status as disposable goods? Yes, there could, but only when we learn to accept and finally embrace it.

Bound by a sense of duty and responsibility to family, employer and country, men demanded certain guarantees in return. All these guarantees can be summed up in one word: fidelity. We expected not to be cheated, lied to or abandoned. Sadly, all these things have come to pass. Perhaps our own complacency is as much to blame for this as anything else, but our betrayal is a fait accompli. There was the inevitable denial, rage, and despair, but finally we find ourselves at the point of acceptance.

Accepting such a great loss of security, confidence and trust is a very difficult thing to do, but it is profoundly liberating. Whereas before one was shackled to deceit and resentment, now the fetters are broken, the cell door opens, and suddenly the world is revealed. Feelings of guilt, inadequacy, anger, envy and disappointment dissipate in the open air; ought gives way to is. When one arrives at this state of mind, all of the countless obligations, worries and responsibilities lose their sting. It becomes clear that reality – the way things are – is our only true master. We owe no debt to anything or anyone else.

So once a man throws off his countless restraints and goes all the way up the chain of command to take orders from the top, how does he deal with his only boss? Perhaps surprisingly, dealing with reality is very simple; it is only a matter of “can” and “cannot.” There is no want, should or ought with reality. All those are subjective, and have nothing to do with the sun setting or things falling when dropped. A man who has a good idea of what he can do has a great deal of choices and ability, because there are infinite things men can do. Of course, there are always consequences. For example, you can jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but you cannot survive it. This is where judgment comes into play. However, although dealing with reality requires good judgment, letting other people do so for you requires absolute faith in their judgment AND their interest in your own welfare. That’s a risky bet.

Once a man is freed from the bondage of others’ expectations and desires, all that he does comes from his own heart. Any help or affection is freely given and not in any way coerced. His love and goodwill are pure and free from any taint of flattery. Likewise, any malicious acts are undertaken only by his own initiative. His heart and intentions are made clear through his actions. Because reality is truth, he embodies honesty.

These principles apply to all people, whether male or female, but the loss of direction among men in our civilization is a fairly recent development, and needs to be addressed. At this point, a politicized “men’s movement” might be counterproductive, because it would lead us down into the sewers of contemporary discourse. But a spiritual awakening, accompanied by a recognition that we have our own priorities, is sorely needed. Women rebelled against their social obligations and limitations and threw them off. Men, too, can do the same.

When men see that bondage is a state of mind – often an unconscious choice – they realize how easy it is to cast it aside. Our own bondage came from the guarantees that we demanded, which slowly created obligations that we came to see as inevitable. But now that the guarantees have been removed, we find that we are still in chains, and herein lies the great liberating opportunity afforded by injustice. Without the shock of betrayal and loss, we might have plodded along forever, devolving into something akin to oxen, fit only for heavy burdens and the whip. But that will not happen now. The deal we’ve got is clearly rotten, and there’s no good reason to haul that load.

The uplifting feeling one gets when laying down a heavy burden does much for the spirit. The bitterness over loss and betrayal is forgotten as the realization sets in that one’s life is in one’s own hands. What others want, think or expect becomes no more important than anything else, because all that matters is what IS and how one chooses to deal with it. When men know that, they know true freedom.

Show post

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

Nick Kristoff, a NY Times opinion columnist who writes like a Unitarian minister and pens self-serving articles urging liberals to give more money (his wife is in the philanthropy business), has come up with a long piece advocating a “Crusade” on behalf of women all over the world.

...

So what we have is a concerted global effort to help “women and girls,” probably along the lines of the decades-old campaign to do so here at home, which has resulted in the collapse of traditional marriage and boys being increasingly marginalized in school and the workplace.

One of the tools used to promote women in less developed parts of the world is “microfinance” — essentially small scale credit extended to women through World Bank programs and such. An example Kristoff gives is that of a Pakistani housewife with an unemployed husband (who is, naturally, described as a deadbeat and a wife-beating villain)[.]

...

So here we have a success story, in which wealth is being created through light industrial production of apparel.

Of course, we should all cheer the change in circumstances for Saima, who has now turned the tables and become domineering toward her husband[.]

...

No, I don’t think so. Countries that successfully raised themselves out of poverty following WW II did not do so through small businesses run by women. Certainly, they put women to work, particularly in Asia, but these jobs were part of a state-planned emphasis on light industry that exploited country girls by making them the low-wage workhorses in factories, i.e. sweatshops. For Korea, China and Thailand this has worked out pretty well, but it didn’t have anything to do with “liberating” women; in fact it was all about control and exploitation. And once the sweatshop model outlived its usefulness, countries like Korea have switched to higher value-added products rather than footwear. These high-end products are manufactured and designed overwhelmingly by men.

Kristoff (who is actually a supporter of sweatshops) is getting it wrong. The countries that most successfully lifted themselves out of poverty did so through patriarchal authoritarianism and strict control and exploitation of women. Of course, once the hurdle was cleared, women were given increasing freedom and opportunity, after which most voluntarily switched from production to service jobs.

So Kristoff’s crusade is doomed. Any effort that encourages female independence and dominance as a means to lift a society out of poverty is working against its own stated goal, as we can see from our own ghetto failure here in the US, where women are clearly socially dominant, and yet have not managed to lift themselves out of poverty without paternalist carrot and stick type incentives from above.

We should beware of crusades advocated by pompous elites like Kristoff, who think they can solve the world’s problems despite having only a contrived understanding of the world, honed to very narrow specifications in detached, exclusive institutions.

Show post

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

[Note: This is from W. F. Price's now-defunct personal blog Welmer, also his old screenname]

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.

...

If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.

...

If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

[Comment by same fundie in response to a comment about Biblical leniency with regards to rape]

Sorry, Warren, I’m not too shocked by those passages. The Bible is not meant to be read like a British tabloid.

As for the Jewish rape angle, you’ll have to think about when the relevant books were written. Well before 300 BC for the most part.

Then, let’s take some European pagan practices into account. Fortunately, we have some good documentation from the Romans. I seem to remember a certain sack of Judea by Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Some coins were minted commemorating the Roman victory that portrayed a bound Jew and his weeping wife, under a caption that read “IVDEA CAPTA“.

Somehow, I doubt these women were all appointed to positions as consular interns.

Condemning the ancient Hebrews on the basis of contemporary “morality” is laughable. I hope you can do better next time.

I will say, however, that the one man who successfully did challenge their morals – in the 1st century AD no less – inspires deep humility in me.

...

Agreed. But men should know of these urges as well. We’ve really got to stop fooling ourselves about women.

I’m starting to doubt whether most women can be trusted to moderate their behavior without male authority to guide them.

...

Lukobe, given that the source of so much male misbehavior is female influence, and that this has traditionally been kept in check by other males’ influence, I don’t know exactly how that should be answered.

Perhaps it is simply the provenance of men to govern both men and women.

Maybe men can more effectively govern men by better governing women. In fact, I think that is the best answer. The men in power today have failed miserably in their duty to govern women.

Show post

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

According to a former waitress who is now a “writer”, one Hannah Raskin, a 15% tip just ain’t enough anymore. People are making less than ever, are unable to afford eating out, and yet she’d have them pay servers more than they can afford.

I’ve got nothing against servers, but I hate tipping. I always do it, and my tips fall between 15-20% about 95% of the time. However, if I ran a restaurant, I’d include the gratuity in the price of food. Selling a sandwich for $5? Raise it a buck and give the extra to the server. $1 for a soda-pop? Make it $1.20. I detest feeling that somehow I have to prove my worth by giving the server some exorbitant fee for showing cleavage as she bends over to serve me food. And that’s really what this comes down to — as women have come to dominate food service they’ve sexualized it to the point of something near pole dancing.

Frankly, I’d rather a guy serve me my food. He’ll usually do a better job and not try to use some physical assets to try to open my wallet. Same goes for a therapeutic massage. After getting run over by an old lady doing a thankless, low-wage job that I should have been tipped for, but never was (courier), I had a few sessions of much-needed massage therapy to minimize scar tissue in my neck and back. By far the most useless practitioners were females. Not only were they weak and ineffective, they seemed to feel that I owed them $60/hour simply for them having deigned to touch my back. As a young guy who had no shortage of female attention at the time and definitely needed a therapeutic massage, I certainly didn’t see it that way, and after a couple sessions with lazy, pathetic masseuses I made it a point to demand a masseur – preferably a strong one – or no go.

I’m getting to that point with waitresses. I am quite frankly sick of their entitled, bitchy attitudes. I don’t care if they serve me a sandwich underneath a couple of pushed-up, scented breasts; I don’t go to restaurants to masturbate, after all. Give me a professional, deft man who handles the table with skill and reserve and I’ll be all too happy to pay him what he deserves. But after reading Ms. Raskin’s bitchy, greedy little screed, I’ve vowed that the next slut who tries to squeeze some extra cash out of me by shoving her tits into the center of my visual field gets 10% and no more.

Whatever the case, if I had my way I’d eliminate tips altogether and have waiters work on commission, as I suggested before. If their 20% is in the menu price, I know exactly what I’m getting into when I look at the menu and there’s no reason to complain. If the service is bad, I simply don’t go back to that restaurant. If guys want gussied up little hussies, they can go back over and over again, but as for me I’ll be happy to patronize pleasant places with a touch more class. Pardon me if I’ve been a bit uncouth in this post, but to be quite honest I find Ms. Raskins’ attitude pretty offensive and simply replied in kind.

I’d like to hear Chuck Ross’s take on this.

Show post

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

" Again, your movement could gain a lot for ground if you would actually focus on male issues. At this point you’re just perpetuating the thing you claim to be fighting against.

I don’t think you realize how reactionary and misogynistic you guys come across as. Go on any mainstream forum, and plenty of men and women will agree that there are male issues while being disturbed at the misogyny and therefore distancing themselves. Also, call out the Eivind Berge rhetoric.

-yoyo"

Yeah, sure, you want us to do the 90s all over again. Fat lot of good that did. When men who had their kids taken from them for no good reason fought it, next thing we knew we were being called the “abuser lobby.” That’s all I need to know about feminists. Go ahead and call us names all you want, but be advised that we’ve caught on to that game.

Unconditional surrender is all I’ll ever accept from feminists. It’s better than they deserve, but I’m a humanitarian kind of guy, so I’ll give them that opportunity when the time comes.

"I promise you, that taking a break from reactionary sites and going out into the world will be way more productive. And again, WF, since you have a daughter, PLEASE consider joining a fathers support group. I understand why you think the way you do, but blogging on a reactionary blog like this one isn’t going to make things better for you, your daughter, or humanity in general."

You want to bring my kids into this? Typical feminist trash. My daughter’s happy being who she is – a girl – and that’s fine by me. I’m not going to try to shove her into the US Marine Corps like you sick bastards. Nor will I tell my son it’s righteous to cut off his balls and wear a dress.

You know what?

Fuck you.

Now get out of here.

Show post

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

"[Women] are “at increased risk of gender-based violence, especially domestic violence and rape but also forced marriage at earlier ages” due to their increased dependence on men for protection and support…"

So now when men provide women with protection and support they are suspected rapists, child molesters and batterers? Are these strange, foreign women more trustworthy than Haitian girls’ fathers, brothers and grandfathers? I try to refrain from inserting my opinion when I am writing these news pieces, but Ms. Enarson is making one of the most offensive insinuations possible with the above statement, and she is dead wrong. It is matriarchal societies where women cannot rely on men for support in which women face the most danger.

[Comment by same fundie, also when you suddenly adopt an extremely Rousseauan anarchist view on human nature because the alternative means acknowledge some men do bad things sometimes]

Geez, Ella, you just make my point:

" The police are in disarray, the gaols are broken and empty, there is no law and one way to reassert power, to demonstrate control, is to violate another persons body."

Is that your personal take on it? You really think that men are just waiting for chaos so they can go on a rape spree?

You simply make it clear why I am putting so much work into this site. You feminists need to be fought as hard as the tyrants of the last century, because you have a twisted, destructive and supremacist ideology — an ideology of death.

It is time for another Amazonomachy.

Show post

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

In all likelihood, the death toll will be in the thousands, but as grim as that sounds, it could have been far, far worse. Tragedies are still unfolding in Japan, but the people of the island nation are, for the most part, taking care of their own. American search and rescue teams are helping search for survivors, and US Navy helicopters are airlifting food to stranded Japanese civilians, but the bulk of the rescue effort is being undertaken by Japanese. Overwhelmingly, of course, Japanese men. And the women are not complaining. Even the feminists in the US are eerily silent on this score.

When you have a society in which men have a vested interest in protecting and taking care of the whole, and they are allowed to do so, they tend to do a good job. They display selflessness and their efforts are characterized by cooperation and teamwork; often by heroism as well. On the whole, everyone does better. There is no better example of this than the comparison between matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster. Where in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. There is no doubt that some displaced Japanese will still be facing significant hardship a year from now, but despite Japan’s crowded land vanishingly few will be without a roof over their head, and none will go hungry.

As for the Japanese men, they have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.

As we observe these events and their aftermath, they provide us with valuable lessons about nature of things, and give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.

...

[Comments by the same fundie]

These things you list all derive exactly from the matriarchal nature of Haitian society. Or perhaps if Haitian women hadn’t been “oppressed” they would have built sound structures and prepared for emergencies — just like the Japanese, whose women surely are mainly responsible for Japan’s engineering, architecture and emergency response…

...

Matriarchal societies are characterized by the presence of a few dominant men at the top who command gangs of dispossessed, disaffected young men who grew up not knowing daddy.

...

[When you know less about Japanese metalworking than your average weeb but still pretend to be a history buff on the internet]

My take on the race thing:

Of course races are not all the same. But it wasn’t my intention to make an issue out of race in the article.

However, if you look at history, it’s pretty obvious that more patriarchal societies are the ones that became increasingly safe, orderly and technologically advanced. Was Japan advanced 2,000 years ago? Not really. It wasn’t until they adopted elements of Chinese philosophy (e.g. Confucianism) that Japan began to take on its modern characteristics. Before that it was matrifocal (good point Jack made) and characterized by tribal warfare the same as Africa or Haiti. So was Northern Europe, for that matter, before the Romans introduced civilization.

Sooo… Whether or not Haitian people could be immediately turned into Japanese is not the issue. The thing is, however, that by thrusting feminism on them nobody is doing them any favors at all. On the other hand, if given some workable patriarchal civilized set of rules, in time the place would improve instead of continuing along as a mess. I think Africa and African-derived societies are a great place to look at how patriarchal/matrifocal societies play out.

Patriarchal organization of society works on two different timeframes: the present and the future. It definitely makes improvements in the present, but the effects over generations can add up quite a bit as well. We have to keep in mind that the Japanese were living in the stone age just a little over 2,000 years ago — even the natives of the far-flung British Isles had been working metal for thousands of years by then.

Here’s a lecture describingthe transition of Japan from matrilinear/matrifocal society to strict patriarchy over the years, largely under the influence of foreign ideas such as Confucianism and Buddhism (yes, Buddhism is male-dominated like Abrahamic religions).

Show post

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.

Show post

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

Things are definitely changing. Young men are not the blinded fools they were just a couple decades ago. The triumph of feminism has blown away the old hypocrisies and, ironically, left women more on their own than ever. It’s encouraging to see young men’s growing awareness, but it would be even better if young women finally saw what a disaster feminism is turning out to be for them, personally.

I think they will. We may yet see young women cursing the feminists who yanked them out of their homes and away from their children and put them to work in the salt mines of corporate and government bureaucracy.

Show post

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

However, it seems that this is a problem that goes beyond the formal business world, and has pervaded society in general to the extent that many – perhaps most – people think the government (i.e. taxpayers) should bear the costs of their life choices.

The example most in the news today is the demands for subsidized abortion and birth control that have become a feature of the presidential campaign. You’d think that our country’s women’s top priority is getting the government to subsidize their sexual choices, whatever they may be.

Following what I was getting at yesterday, sex has always incurred some expense. Like it or not, men pay for sex (or its results) in one way or another. Traditionally, you’d pay by getting married and taking the woman on as your responsibility, or you’d pay a fee for a one-off (prostitution). If you took it without paying for it, as in adultery, rape or fornication, it was a crime, or something like that. If we were honest with ourselves, we’d have to admit that it still is a quasi crime; as the old system has been replaced with something significantly more confusing, sex crime laws have become far broader in scope and can be applied to any number of situations (such as prostitution) that used to be considered beyond the purview of the law.

Additionally, despite false promises of free sex from the 60s and 70s, when feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free when we had “equality,” it turned out that sex still had a lot of associated costs. Pregnancy, of course, is one of the biggest. At first, we socialized that, but then welfare reform threw the costs entirely onto fathers (not mothers, mind you). Combined with welfare reform, we had VAWA, which significantly increased the costs of marriage and cohabitation by legally handicapping men in relationships with women. So great strides have been made in restoring a heavy cost to sex, but this hasn’t been enough, because women have grown accustomed to sexual license with whomsoever they please, and the men they generally like either a) don’t have the money, or b) are desirable enough to not have to pay.

Although the latter is a bit counterintuitive (wouldn’t women desire men who pay for them?), it’s a function of female sexual psychology. Women generally use sex to ensnare the man they want (and they typically have high expectations), and then they begin to draw resources from him. It works in simple societies where people hold each other to account, but in more cosmopolitan settings it breaks down for a couple reasons. First, there are more than enough women to go around, so it’s easy to drop one and pick up another, and secondly there are other means for women to gain resources, such as jobs and welfare, and as long as those resources exist men who have no trouble procuring sex see no reason to provide for women, even if they have the means. And who can blame them? Although it’s a social catastrophe, it’s a perfectly reasonable attitude from a personal perspective, because, after all, the individual man didn’t create this mess in the first place.

Here’s a scenario:

A handsome young investment banker making six figures can go out to a bar and take his pick. Let’s call him Mark. Mark picks up a young woman named Amanda, she goes home with him, they have sex, and he enters her number into his phone, leaving her only a promise to call again. Perhaps he intends to do so, and perhaps not. Whatever the case, he feels no guilt or responsibility, because the woman, who happens to be in law school, also has a job at a nonprofit, and makes more hourly than the average young man in their city, so he doesn’t need to provide her with anything. Additionally, if there’s an “accident” (but in all likelihood there won’t be, because Mark is careful about these things) there’s a Planned Parenthood down the street. Not only does it provide her with birth control, but it will treat STDs and abort unwanted children resulting from her nightly excursions.

Sounds fine, so what’s the problem?

The problem is that this young woman, despite being a student and having a job, is essentially on the dole. Her nonprofit is funded in large part by state and federal grants, as is her tuition. Her sexual care at Planned Parenthood is also funded largely by taxpayers. Her life, including her sex life, is paid for by the average working Joe, but she isn’t sleeping with Joe — oh no: she’s sleeping with Mark, a guy who easily could afford to feed, clothe and insure her, but who doesn’t have to because of Joe. Although it isn’t really his fault, Mark is a freeloader.

Joe, for his part, makes do with monthly trysts with a mid-level prostitute, which he can barely afford after taxes and child support. Joe, who is an HVAC repairman, is paying for all the Amandas in his state, his ex-wife Lisa, and his hooker, who is named Elena.

Interestingly enough, Joe and Amanda have met. Joe was called in to fix the AC in her nonprofit’s office on a sweltering summer day. Because the AC was broken and the atmosphere was stifling, Amanda had unbuttoned the top part of her blouse, and poor Joe couldn’t help but look at her breasts. Amanda was furious, and called his supervisor, who apologized profusely, and when Joe got back from the job he caught hell. Fortunately, he wasn’t fired, but it sure was humiliating. Not as bad as having to deal with his ex-wife’s lawyer, but close…

I suppose we could say “life’s unfair,” and that would be entirely true. But should we make it that unfair? Should we set things up so that Joe has to support Amanda as much as Mark?

According to our nation’s single women, the answer is a resounding “YES!” Married women, however, have a significantly different take on it, for obvious reasons.

I’m not sure single women are consciously aware of how selfish they are being. I think they fully intend to find some man to support them, and think the only way they can do that is to have unfettered sex with all the Marks of the world they can get their hands on in the hopes that one of them will some day give in and marry her. The problem is that it’s a trend that reinforces itself; the more Amandas we have giving it away for free the less likely any given Mark will be to actually support any of them. The competition will escalate, desirable men will become even more reluctant to give women any financial support, and the screeching for more entitlements for single women will grow louder and louder.

It is exactly this trend that has led to the bizarre, unprecedented fixation on women’s sexual entitlements in our current election cycle. When you socialize the costs of a private activity – and sex is about as private as it gets – you create an unnatural imbalance that rewards the few at the expense of the many. You also run the risk of inflating costs to unsustainable levels, and I think that’s something young women ought to think hard about. But they won’t.