What color? Pink?

Pink is not a color: it doesn’t exist on the color spectrum.

Says it all about feminism, doesn’t it?

[Seattle elected a Communist to its city council]

My bet is that aside from skin tone and some cultural distinctions, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Sawant and Strong. Some of these Hindu women these days can hold their own with the worst of our old-time suffragettes, who were so terribly oppressed and put upon by society that they never had the opportunity to do an honest day’s labor in their lives. Poor dears.

...

Sawant’s socialism, like Strong’s, is sure to be of the female supremacist sort that rankled serious male socialists like E Belfort Bax and George Orwell in the early 20th century. Making socialism a feminist issue – which is how it was framed in the teens and 20s of the previous century – greatly discredited the idea amongst the Anglo masses. How, after all, could working men support socialism if it was merely a transfer payment to goodtime girls and man-haters?

Naturally, this framing of socialism as a sort of paternalist slush fund for bad girls destabilized politics in the West, leading to a lack of consensus on labor policy that wasn’t resolved until the situation deteriorated to revolutionary conditions in the late 20s and early 30s. We all know how that turned out (cue WWII).

Today is a time of imminent retrenchment. The general stupidity that passes for political consensus grows more and more absurd by the day, and although there is no credible source of resistance, a reckoning is nigh. As always, we humans are doomed to repeat our failures, and relive the mundane, swinish conditions we can’t help but stumble our way into every few generations. I can only hope that this time we don’t pay such a terrible price, but I’m not counting on it.

There seems to be a certain histrionic flair in the male feminist, which suggests to me that they do in fact identify with women on some deep personal level.

...

[Skepticism is] a masculine attitude, and entirely natural.

"Any scholar, who assumes that female students who show interest in the subject and ask for help because they have a crush on you or hope to manipulate you with their sexual charms, is a reality-challenged idiot."

This is a straight-up lie. Anyone with any sense knows that women naturally use sex to manipulate men, and they very frequently develop crushes on male authority figures. Of course, feminists rely on lies to maintain the illusion of “equality,” so they never let inconvenient facts get in their way.

It seems that con artists are the penultimate alphas, as their sociopathic tendencies are irresistible to women. This raises the question of whether women should be allowed any interaction with male prisoners at all.

...

When white knighting extends even to people who fraternize with criminals, it is clear that our society cannot handle so-called gender equality, which is a fraud of a concept that serves only to reinforce irresponsible female behavior at the expense of men.

I’ve had the opportunity to get to know some of the different varieties of feminism as it is understood in different parts of the world. In truth, feminism is looked upon with abhorrence by the vast majority of the world’s population. Even most Americans – including women – refuse to identify with it, and other than in the Nordic countries it is perhaps most popular in the US. In most of the global South, which includes the bulk of the world’s people, feminists are seen as borderline criminals, and certainly bizarre, depraved women.

And I would definitely agree with my Asian, African and Latin American friends in that regard—

However, even I have to admit that there are certain kinds of feminism that just aren’t as vicious, cruel and horribly effective as our own variety has been.

Take FEMEN and Pussy Riot for example. Both are examples of Eastern European feminism, and as obscene and repugnant as they can be, the net effect of their actions has been remarkably tame. Even their anti-religious stunts – hate crimes, really – have been little more than petty vandalism and hooliganism. Contrast that to our own “Christian feminism” that has all but subverted the Christian faith in a number of denominations. Or the feminism that laid waste to Reform Judaism, and threatens to do the same to Conservative Judaism. It wouldn’t even surprise me to see a form of feminist Islam openly emerge in the near future. This is a distinctly Anglo phenomenon.

Feminism IS a goddess cult, and ritual prostitution is overseen by the pimps in the seat of government.
It’s not that Joe Biden, for instance, really wants ascend the marble steps of Temple Vajayjay on bloodied hands and knees – no, he just makes use of the temple whores to subvert and distract the masses of men who’ve been led to believe that a relatively brief stay within the sacred chamber comes at the price of gyno-worship and self loathing.

In a sense (a very real and practical sense) worship of the Goddess has been with us for a generation or two.
It’s obviously in mainstream culture, but it’s also present – no, PREVALENT in Christendom as well.
Porn re-inforces the object of worship while making proscelytes of the very young.
The unwashed gents who cannot, in any way, shape or form render due sacrifice at the temple gates are treated to slutwalks – with even the most hideous mudbound “goddess” demanding that these men cast downward their eyes when in the presence of the least worshipworthy bearers of the goddess chamber.

I sincerely hope that the Priestesses are busily carving their stone (or is it plastic) idol right now, preparing to present the one, truly worshipped goddess of our time, for all to see, during Passover and Christian Holy Week.
Let the subversive tactics, having long been the tactic they thought they needed to employ, be damned.

That could be our only hope- in a manner of speaking.

Millions of men are too dull witted – too obsessed with satisfying their glandular urges while laying claim to gutted piety- to let the truth sink in and cease being the Goddess’ minions.

One of our local petty luminaries, Bill Nye the “science guy,” recently lectured parents about teaching their children to believe in Creationism, saying that they are bad for doing so. Here in a West Coast city (Nye got his public career started in Seattle), bashing religious conservatives is about as brave as stomping on baby bunnies, but for some reason people always receive applause for doing so anyway.

As is often the case, Nye is wrong about a number of things, such as the claim that denial of evolution is unique to the US (plenty of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and people of other faiths all over the world have the same or their own Creation beliefs).

Anyway, it got me to thinking about the issue, and while I do accept evolution and don’t believe the world is only a few thousand years old, I don’t see why Creationism is any more damaging to children – or society in general – than the idea that all people are created equal, which is widely accepted despite being untrue (at least in the literal sense).

Additionally, it’s a lot less harmful than the “progressive” idea that gender is a social construct, which continues to be taught in universities across the land, despite being a harmful lie.

Another thing to consider is that if you do accept evolution as scientific fact, Creationism and associated religious faith fits right into the concept of natural selection, as faith is an adaptive trait. People who are believers have larger families, and therefore propagate more of their genes. If natural selection is a good thing, and leftists do tend to attach moral significance to it, then what’s wrong with adopting a strategy that provides an advantage, even if it consciously contradicts scientific wisdom?

I think the reason Creationism bothers leftists is just that: it gives their competitors an edge, while their own popular fallacies and illogical beliefs do the opposite.

"Although Americans take for granted that scientists are geeks, in other cultures a gift for math is often seen as demonstrating that a person is intuitive and creative."

Yes. And in these cultures, women are required to be virgins at marriage (at an age of 22-25, no later), *and* women are required to marry beta providers, without the ‘no fault’ financial guarantees that she gets from corrupt US divorce laws. THAT is why men in STEM are still valued in those cultures – for reasons that feminists would shriek about if imposed on them.

The cultures where STEM men are valued are precisely the cultures where a woman’s gina tingles are heavily controlled and cannot be acted on, through substantial cultural restrictions.

Women don’t understand cause and effect very well.

[On wrestling being removed from the Olympics]

Yep. This is another example of feminist arm-twisting to wrest concessions from men, such as funding for women’s boxing, basketball, and probably golf (lesbians’ typical salaries aren’t high enough for those fancy new clubs). It’s Title IX at the Olympic level; if a men’s sport isn’t justifying itself with enormous revenue – even if it performs far better than the female equivalent – it is fair game for attack. As in divorce, the tactic goes something like this: “Let’s escalate our demands and see how much he really cares about that baby.”

Maybe when the ancient Olympians banned all women but maidens from the ceremonies they were on to something. Putting them in charge, as we modern fools have done, has turned out to be a big mistake.

[A commentator called Price out for supporting patriarchy instead of egalitarianism]

I went through the same process of rejecting it, but sometimes you just have to accept the world as it is. As for the 50s, keep in mind that Americans had it better than anyone else on earth at that time. White Americans may have had it better, but they were 90% of the population. Does the unfortunate situation of 10%, which despite it all had it far, far better than the majority of the world – including ancestral populations in Africa, Latin America and Asia – really cancel out the enormous benefits to most Americans and the great contributions to humanity?

I’d also like to point out that rejecting patriarchy is not a move forward, but rather a move in the opposite direction. Humanity has only ever moved forward under patriarchal systems, and when it gives them up, as it does fairly frequently, there’s inevitably some regression toward savagery. What we call “progress” today is merely dissolution, which is an eternal problem, older than the written word.

This blustering about equality we hear from feminists is pure smoke. When a feminist mentions “equality,” she knows it’s a labile concept, to be shaped into whatever is useful at any given time. Say some men discover a new source of energy and make a huge pile of money off it. Immediately, feminists will show up demanding “equality” – i.e., a piece of the pie – by virtue of their sex, and that alone.

The term equality means nothing but freedom to shift the goalposts whenever convenient, so it’s misleading to include it in the definition of feminism. But through observation and experience, we can identify an accurate definition:

Feminism is the collective promotion of women’s interests at men’s expense by the ancient and effective means of sexual leverage. It is the use of female sexuality and identity to extract social, economic and political power from men.

Women who achieve power or acclaim without using their sexuality or identity as women are not benefitting from feminism. Feminism did nothing for Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or Angela Merkel, to name a contemporary example.

It has done a great deal for Madonna, Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem, all of whom rely on either female sexuality or identity, or both, for most of their wealth and power.

As Roissy has pointed out, when women are faced with a smaller selection of viable mates, they tend to respond by ramping up their promiscuity and hypergamy to new heights. Today, on college campuses, there are far fewer men than women, and the desirable males – those with the looks and social skills – represent an even smaller proportion of the student body. At the top of the heap are athletes, who need do nothing more than leave their bedroom doors unlocked to get laid.

For these few, privileged men college is like a giant harem full of competing concubines. For the concubines, well, it must be pretty stressful and demoralizing.

This is really the key to the happiness gap between men and women. Women have consistently reported a decline in happiness since the 1960s, when their status began to rise and eclipse men’s. Elevating women and suppressing men may have seemed like the perfect recipe for female happiness for the feminists, but they failed to take into account what the real effect would be on women, who are fundamentally driven by matters of the heart. Or perhaps they didn’t care, because the entire project was about personal and emotional gain for a few, strange, power-hungry women.

...

If women are happier when surrounded by higher status men, the obvious step to take to increase women’s happiness would be to raise men’s relative status. If men dominated the professions, politics, business and even the office floor, the average woman would be happier. It may seem paradoxical that diminishing women’s relative status could make them happier, but if you consider that status = attractive to females, it makes perfect sense.

The decline in female happiness and rise in mental illness among women is a direct result of the marginalization of the men around them. This is yet another example of the moral and philosophical failure of feminism, which is at its core not only misandric, but misanthropic as well.

[On extending protection to male rape victims]

And this also gets to the heart of my objection to applying the victimhood mantle to the male. Making men as physically helpless and violable as contemporary feminists hold women to be is a form of social castration. One of the defining characteristics of masculinity is the possession of agency — the ability to act. Take this away and we are slaves, so removing this from men – even with a concept ostensibly meant to “protect” men – leads us down a hole, at the bottom of which we find ourselves bereft of our manhood both culturally and legally. And make no mistake: many people really do want to rob men of their manhood. Male feminist Michael Kimmel has made a career of it.

This is not to say that men cannot be victimized or real victims; they clearly can and this has always been recognized. But the most effective means of victimizing men has always been to reduce them to a state in which they are incapable of protecting themselves and acting in their own interests, and this is accomplished as easily by feminizing them as by direct force of arms.

When a woman appeals to people for help and protection, she is engaged in an empowering act. When men rush to a woman’s aid, it demonstrates her female potency. When her “needs” are met by others, it does not detract from but rather adds to her status. For ancient, immutable reasons, this does not apply to men.

The man who cries “help” feels a certain shame. When he must apply for welfare, it is humiliating and emasculating. That men must swallow their pride and do so from time to time is a given, but almost all of us recognize that it is far from ideal when the necessity presents itself. Ideally, the man has agency, and can fend for himself. In a society that valued men, steps would be taken to ensure that men have the opportunity to do so. A society that enshrines male victimhood is the exact opposite.

I don’t think [the founding fathers] made any mistakes given the society they had to work with at the time. However, I really don’t think they understood that religions other than Christianity, given sufficient numbers of adherents, could pose an existential threat to the form of government they created, which was built for the Christian civilization they lived in, however many sects there were at the time. For example, the concept of separation of church and state is a strong feature of Christianity, but totally absent – even abhorrent – in Islam.

...

The Spaniards, given their experience, would have thought the idea of total freedom of religion a form of insanity. And, as we see today, “secular” ideologies such as equalism, which may have derived in part from Christianity, have little use for the concept of freedom of religion (or any other freedoms).

Here we see the familiar, constant refrain of “you build it, we take it over.” Do women feel even the faintest bit of gratitude toward men for having developed these institutions in the first place? Does that mean anything to them?

I suppose I don’t understand why all of these things that were created by men will be better managed by women. It simply doesn’t make sense. In fact, I don’t think women will run them as well as men — I think it would be a disaster to hand male-created institutions wholesale over to women. But that seems inevitable, so I suppose we’ll see what comes of it.

The truth is that people always make a mess of things, no matter who’s in charge. There will be no brave new world with a woman at the helm, guiding us to a better society. With women in charge the mess will probably be worse than otherwise, because the most vital attribute of the state is force, which is expressed by men, and vanishingly few women can effectively command men. It’s simply contrary to human nature for men – especially fierce ones – to submit to female authority.

Female power in the West has rested solely on the willingness of men to enforce a chivalric ideal, but that ideal has been turned on its head by its own excess. Now, women will have to pay men cash for their allegiance, and that will prove to be their undoing, because it is also contrary to human nature for women – especially proud ones – to pay men.

Women’s “absolute, unquestionable right to sexual freedom” is now so widely accepted and in your face the logical conclusion is ‘ok – got it – so where’s mine?’ What’s fair is fair – women have all this and I have— what? Worse, is the realization that not only does one not have all (or any) of the sexual freedoms, you get the bill for hers! And the blame, the shame and the abandonment too—

Not to excuse, but young men in particular aren’t built to accept that shit. Feminism has taken the mask off women’s feral sexual nature. It’s on full display – the lie of presumed female virtue as cultural foundation is blatant and in your face.

In response young men today either become politically correct gay (PC gay will go straight as soon as gay isn’t popular any longer) so as to be accepted by the ruling elite (females), or they’ll shut up and go away – one wants be liked so desperately he twists himself into a people pleasing’, gender beggar – the other is just another loner, loser, creepy male— Gangs, grass eaters, shooters and queers: just a few of the adaptations of young men reacting to the mandate that they pay the bills; personal, cultural, spiritual and financial – for women’s freedoms.

In fact, it wasn’t only the Germanic women who exulted in the barbarian lifestyle, but some Roman women as well. Although the invaders may have laid waste to the greatest civilization the world had yet known, slaughtered tens of thousands, burned and destroyed centers of learning and thoroughly wrecked the economy, leaving millions destitute, they ushered in an era of women’s empowerment and equality. Amidst the smoking ruins of once-great cities and estates, Roman ladies cavorted and feasted with unkempt, tattooed Gothic warriors.

...

Indeed, this seems to indicate that women’s relative power is stronger in more primitive, anarchic and despotic environments, whether they are our contemporary urban ghettoes or early medieval barbarian kingdoms. Many other examples, such as 12th century Mongolia and early colonial era Iroquois tribes point to this phenomenon. In fact, as far as I know, in barbaric, warlike societies, as opposed to civilized or hunter gatherer societies, women have the most power and freedom of all. In example after example, one can see the relative status of women decline as societies become more orderly, literate and settled. Contrast Homeric Greece to Athenian civilization. Pre-imperial to Confucian China. Jahiliyyah to the Caliphate — the list goes on.

The question, then, is whether feminists, when presented with the opportunity, would deliberately create the conditions of barbarism. That feminists romanticize a golden past of female empowerment, even going so far as to suggest that ape society is superior to our own, seems to suggest that they will. Perhaps, then, it isn’t so much that feminists want to change civilization, but rather – consciously or not – they aim to dismantle it.

If so, that may be exactly where we’re headed.

[On the Shakers and their promotion of gender equality]

Perhaps, then, the price for gender equality is ultimately ethnic extinction, and this explains why patriarchy has always been the norm, and gynocracy the exception. This would also explain why major religions are invariably patriarchal, while female-oriented faiths, like Shakerism – and now the Episcopal Church – eventually die out.

However, more ominously today, it is not only some odd sects or cults that have adopted the Shakers’ values, but an entire political party, and indeed the secular orthodoxy that dominates the national narrative. Are Americans destined, under an equalist, gynocratic rule, to dwindle and die out? To the Shakers, that wouldn’t have been a tragedy; the equalist heavenly kingdom is not concerned with such trifles as the survival of peoples, as it is eternal. The rest of us, however, might do well to ask whether the destiny of our posterity concerns us, and if so, why we should allow today’s neo-Shakers so much power over its fate.

[One of Osama Bin Laden's wives sacrificed herself trying to protect him]

How many men will ever know such love from a woman? How many good, humble, dutiful men will ever earn a fraction of such sacrifice?

A woman’s love is one of the mysteries of the universe. It is lawless and unfathomable to us men. All of our notions of right and wrong – even our sense of the order of things – is swept away as a trifle by the passions of women.

It is lessons such as these that should make it perfectly clear that being a good man is not something done for the sake of or benefit of women, but rather, as their deepest feelings too often betray and actions sadly declare, in spite of them.

Because gendered roles did develop, and continue to do so, the natural roles they were based on must necessarily exist. Something does not derive from nothing. That feminists can look over the span of history – not to mention contemporary society – and maintain that none of these results are based on nature discredits all of their subsequent conclusions. In other words, the cornerstone of Western feminist thought is based on flawed reasoning, and all of the evils of feminism derive from this fundamental flaw.

I have no idea whether this will work, but there’s always the chance that it will backfire, as women could come to view them as contemptuous beta males. If history – recent and distant – is any indication, female voters prefer men to be alphas. Political leaders who were particularly popular with women include Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, Kim il-Sung, Fidel Castro and Genghis Khan, as well as other less notorious tyrants. I can’t imagine any of these men, who were so passionately coveted by their countrywomen, would don an apron and talk about baking cookies. In fact, it would appear from the record that the best route into the hearts of one’s female subjects/constituents is to be a totalitarian mass murderer.

I’m not sure gun control is even all that relevant to the situation. It’s just a push to do something to finally secure that permanent victory the Obama coalition is dreaming about. Killing a bunch of little kids doesn’t require an AR-15; a lever-action .30-30, a six-shooter and a hatchet would do the job just fine. But that isn’t the point. This is purely political. To weaken support for the Constitution, you have to find an angle, and the 2nd amendment looks like the weakest link in the chain of the Bill of Rights. Get rid of that, and it will be easier to throw people in prison for “hate speech,” which is really the top priority for the left. In order to jail us for what we say, they have to first take away our right to defend ourselves.

So I propose a little test here. If they really want gun control, that’s fine, but each and every restriction on citizens must also apply to the men tasked with keeping us in line. If we aren’t allowed to have high-capacity magazines and body armor, then the police, who are also subject to our laws, should not have them either. What does “equality” mean if one class of people – government employees – is not subject to the same laws as the other?

...

So fine. Take our guns. But give yours up, too. The arms race in the US is a direct response to the rise of the police and prison-industrial state. Why doesn’t the left ever mention this? Why, because the cops are their very own paid mercenaries. SWPL city dwellers depend on these guys to intimidate the minorities in their coalition — to keep them in their place. As the US grows increasingly fragmented, they will depend on them even more.

This gun grabbing is about empowering the state at the expense of citizens who believe in a free yeomanry — it’s about building an America under the thumb of a new Praetorian Guard. Fools. They are giving up our collective liberty for a little bit of precarious power, and they aren’t by any means putting a halt to future violence, which will come in spades when people realize it’s the only tool left that works in our hollowed-out, uncivil society.

These verses [1 Corinthians 7] show clearly that there is an obligation to have sex, never a right to not have sex. This is where the old term, the “marriage debt” comes from. It is a debt owed by both parties to the other. And withholding of sex is defrauding the partner. This is not regarded by the Church traditionally as a small matter, or unimportant. Rather if a wife defrauds her husband by not submitting and giving him sex when he desires it, she has committed a mortal sin.

For those not familiar with the term, a mortal sin is a grave offense not only against the marriage partner, but against God Himself. And, without confessing the sin, doing penance, and agreeing that it will not happen again, the woman will lose her soul and be consigned to hell.

So, we see how serious the sex obligation is for both husband and wife. These are debts and obligations agreed to and taken upon each other by the vows of marriage. The idea of marital rape is asinine and ridiculous. It only shows how far we have gotten from a real conception of marriage.

The woman has not power over her body, but her husband. Where is the wiggle room for marital rape here? There is none whatsoever. The very development of this anti-Christian concept shows that we must remove the State from marriage and restore true marriage with its vows and obligations – otherwise there is no marriage at all, only a farce masquerading under the false name of “marriage” to deceive men into its clutches.

Most “independent women” are welfare parasites. They “don’t need men”, to be sure, but do they ever need all the welfare handouts the state collects from men and sends them to provide for their “independence”. And they’re the most vocal and shrill in their demands – demands! – that the money they feel entitled to should keep flowing and coming their way.

To be honest, even women who don’t do welfare, child support, alimony or any other such little female independence booster are an iffy proposition as respectable: if she supports herself with a job she got as a result of affirmative action policies then she, too, is a parasite, only slightly less obviously so.

The egalitarian ideology underlying MRA is exactly the problem we’ve faced from the beginning. Everyone who argues for “equality” – feminist or MRA – is part of this problem. It has never been achieved, and it never will. In fact, it is the main source of our struggles today. It has already served its purpose as a political litmus test/rhetorical device for far too long, and by now it has devolved into a pathological cult that inspires people to the stupidest and most backward kind of religious fundamentalist thought.

Do you think Creationism is silly and incredibly stupid? Well, how about the idea that men and women are inherently the same, except for “society?” Does that strike you as reasonable? If so, you might have a few blind spots here and there, to put it delicately.

There is only one kind of equality:

We are all equally subject to the laws of nature. Or, if you prefer to think of it in conventional religious terms, we are all equally subject to God’s law.

That’s it. Other equalities are purely imaginary. They do not exist, except in fantasy. They are what should be accurately called “articles of faith.” But they are faith in lies, which is harmful whether you think it’s merely irrational or inspired by the Prince of Lies himself.

So when I hear MRAs demanding “equality,” I don’t even think it’s useful or cute any longer. At best, it’s stupid, and at worst it’s a dangerous lie.

I recently took a long trip for work and spent a lot of hours in the air. One of my fellow passengers really stood out in my mind: a 20-something lass a few rows ahead of me. She is a natural-born beauty in that “launch a thousand ships” kind of way – slim, near-perfect symmetrical features, piercing blue eyes, and a shapely body. She is, simply, stunning. But there’s more to this story than a retired soldier admiring an exquisite example of female flesh young enough to be my daughter.

It was actually her tattoo that first caught my attention.

She was wearing a low-slung top that revealed a HUGE eagle inked across her chest and extending down under the front of her shirt. And then I noticed her hair – what little there was of it. I’ve always kept my hair short, even by military standards, and her hair was shorter than mine. Few things de-feminize a woman more than buzzing off her hair, which is why it is considered to be shameful in many societies. She was wearing ratty, ripped jeans and far too much costume jewelry. And then I noticed the piercings. As I stood six inches behind her for several minutes waiting to de-plane I counted seven, and that was just what was visible. I wondered what else she had done to herself. A tramp-stamp is a given, but who knows what other “body art” was hidden out of my view[...]

I asked myself what would cause the stunningly-beautiful young woman on my flight – at the height of her Sexual Market Value – to do that to herself? Women dress for us, so what does she intend for us to infer? I’m easy? I’m rebellious? I can drink you under the table?

I can think of no message that her chosen facade would convey that would be in her long-term interest. In a few years after her looks fade she is likely to be just another tatted-up skank wondering where the good men are.

It didn’t have to be this way. In a different social environment a woman like her would have learned to be (gasp!) feminine. She would have observed the older women in her surroundings and absorbed benevolent patriarchy in the air she grew up breathing. With her beauty she could have married above her economic station and lived a comfortable life. We can’t know if she would have been happy, but she almost certainly would have had stability, security and comfort. But she doesn’t live in that society; she lives in a “Slut Walk” society, thanks to feminism. When she chose the “Suicide Girl” look nobody stopped her. Now she has mutilated herself with enough ink and metal trinkets to repel the kind of man most likely to give her the life she wants, because no matter what she does to the outside of her body, she will eventually want what women have always wanted on the inside – stability, security and comfort.

The fruits of feminism: what a waste.

As for misandry, I don’t think it will ever go away. Let’s be honest here: men will always try to beat each other to gain some advantage over their competitors. Even Paul Elam, who proclaims himself to be the primary advocate for men, has spent plenty of effort in attempts to discredit and dominate his male opposition, just like an alpha male chimpanzee. It’s just the way the world works. Women have evolved to take advantage of this, and will switch from one male to the other depending on who they think is dominant at any given moment.

Feminism is really the result of elite men giving women free rein to crap on other men. Manginas are men who think they can capture some of this top-alpha pixie dust for endless pussy and power. Thing is, hardly any manginas measure up to masters like Bill Clinton, which is why most of them fail.

But we can see it in other cultures, too. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, for example, was totally pro-feminist. So was Hosni Mubarak, Muamar Kadhafi, etc. It’s all about putting the other men in their place. Women are just the eternal beneficiaries of politicized misandry, the proper word for which should simply be “warfare.” Men make war, and women just go from one victor to another. They are hard-wired to hate “losers,” and there’s nothing mysterious about it. They make their sympathies crystal clear all the time. For God’s sake, Gloria Steinem – an 80yo crone today – is basking in ecstasy (shudder) after receiving a “medal of freedom” from Barack Obama, just like she got off on fooling around with ugly, troll-like Henry Kissinger back in the 70s.

It’s up to us “lesser men” to fight for ourselves and be vigilant, because it always ends up this way.

One problem:

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY??

What I see are foreigners who made a mess of their country and want to come live in the land that my ancestors worked so hard to build and pass on to me and my children– NOT to them. They did not build it, they could not built it.

I see people who want to steal our country. Politicians and their non-white ethnic special interests want to help them steal our country too.

That is White Genocide. Jail is where these enablers and invaders belong.

“Diversity” means being chased out of your neighborhood.
“Diversity” means being chased out of your school.
“Diversity” means being chased out of your job.
“Diversity” Means Chasing Down the Last White Person.
“Diversity” means White Genocide

Nobody’s flooding Africa with Non-Africans and giving them free health care, affirmative action and special privileges.

Only White Countries are doing it, only White children are affected, and only White politicians are allowing it.

Math serves no biological purpose for women, so they’re typically not going to be good at it or interested in it. Their strengths are empathy, feelings and emotion – so they can relate better to young children. Math is logical and factual. It’s a problem looking for a solution. It serves as the building blocks for innovation and progress—an aspect of civilization that women have contributed to by about .1%.

Once Title IX begins in earnest for STEM, young men will go Galt in ever-increasing numbers and the marriage crisis will be fully realized. If they have to compete with young women (on a tilted playing field), they’ll opt out altogether, as Math will be dumbed down to general female levels of comprehension.

As long as women stop having babies and choose to compete with men instead – society will devolve. Until we can admit gender equality is a grand charade promoted by the mass media industrial complex and government, innovation and progress will decline. When can we stop pretending that feminism is not working?

However, in tandem with state enforcement of male provision to women, a new dowry system emerged among the middle classes and above. Instead of directly compensating the husband with cash or an allowance, parents train their daughters to be paid employees who will bring home a sizable contribution to the family, and who can support themselves financially. This is the upper-middle-class marriage norm today. Well-educated urban men simply will not marry women unless these women can provide an income to the family. This is the basis of the marriage gap that has emerged in recent decades.

Women in the lower classes cannot provide the income desired by higher-status males, and they have nothing to contribute to the home of a working man, so few men are willing to take the chance and marry them. In fact, for many working class men, it is cheaper and easier to pay child support and be a part-time father than to put up a woman who can neither run a home nor earn any income to speak of. I have noticed that a working class urban culture is slowly developing in which men no longer even take the idea of marriage – even to the mothers of their children – seriously at all. On a positive note, I see many more of these men out and about with their children today than I did a couple decades ago.

Neither of the above trends amounts to empowerment of women, and for most women they are a step down. It still may not look that way today, but the trend is headed clearly in one direction: a restoration of reciprocity. The short-lived era of one-way obligations in favor of women is drawing to a close.

Under such a setup, a man cannot have any meaningful authority over a woman, and in many – if not most – cases a wife will come to feel a great deal of contempt and resentment. How can such a humble, lowly man possibly provide her the comfort and security she craves? He is barely better than a child, and doesn’t even begin to compare to a superior at work.

Therefore, many working women will instinctively feel more attraction for their superiors at work, and it is not uncommon for affairs to ensue. In the United States, it is only strict sexual harassment laws and corporate (and military) non-fraternization policies that prevent this from becoming an outright epidemic.

For most men there is little that can be done about this, and the ordinary man can only hope that his wife has enough common sense and decency to overlook his degraded position as husband — a feeble consolation at best. However, for some it is possible to restore some authority, but only by merging the office of husband with that of employer; in short, one must hire one’s wife in order to establish something approaching the natural definition of marriage. Although this may seem like an odd solution to contemporary ears, some of the best marriages I have ever known of employ exactly this method, and it is far closer to the old definition of marriage than what is currently seen as a “normal” marriage.

But what always gets me about these attempts to push this or that church to “reform” is the fact that anybody – women included – can start his or her own church in the US. Ms. Kelly could start her own Mormon offshoot called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Goddesses” or something like that. For some reason, however, churches started by women don’t have a very good track record in the US (not to mention the world). To me, this says that the churches should hold firm and ban females from the priesthood if they want to survive, although I’m sure that feminists think it’s the patriarchy or some other Lord of Darkness holding them down. The only female church I can think of that had any success over the years was the Shakers, and that’s only because they managed to use 19th century child custody laws to gain adherents, but today they’re down to about four members.

[Two points:
Ms. Kelly was declared excommunicate by the LDS Church for the heresy of advocating women ordination
The Shakers mostly converted adults as they were known for their celibacy.]

Conquest through genocide is not actually immoral, since there is no “social contract” being violated, though the greed of it may be questionable. Fleig would support a genocide against whites, so she is in no position to judge anyway, and her motivations–spite, malice, nihilism, betrayal–are much more evil than Columbus’s straightforward and productive ambition

The sudden “Children’s Crusade” of Central American kids across our southern border has outraged Americans, but nobody seems to know who is behind it. Certainly, it’s partly Barack Obama’s fault for enticing the Central Americans with promises not to deport kids, but how could tens of thousands of children suddenly make it all the way across Mexico to show up in such large numbers on our border?

After reading an LA Times article on the invasion in which a woman at the border surrenders herself with her kids in the belief that single mothers will not be deported if they are apprehended [she's probably correct: I recently read a report written by a border patrol officer who reported that people who are not from bordering countries are simply issued summons to court and then released on their own recognizance -- he said they simply turn themselves in, get the summons, then disappear], I figured there must be some kind of organized effort to move these people.

I decided to do a little research, knowing that few people bother to go to the source even here in the US, so the number of Americans paying attention to Central American sources must be tiny. It turns out that the governments and media of Central American countries are very much complicit in the human trafficking, possibly assuming that remittances will be a source of income for their crime and poverty-infested little fiefdoms, and that in any event they can keep the cash flowing to their criminal cronies – and ultimately themselves – by subsidizing the smuggling industry.

It turns out that they are not only publishing advice and encouraging stories for would-be migrants, but also making a pretense of standing up for their countrymen who have illegally immigrated and – get this – they are even adjudicating civil suits between migrants and smugglers to impart an aura of legitimacy to the entire operation. El Salvador is probably the largest source of these Central American migrants and, incidentally, the source of the ruthless Mara Salvatrucha criminal gangsters who have murdered their way to prominence in a number of American cities. Could there be any doubt about a connection between the gangsters on our streets and the gangsters in office back home? These crooks running banana republics have been making a living off organized crime for decades.

After reading a few articles in “La Página,” an online El Salvador news outlet, all of which were highly supportive of illegal immigration to the US, I checked out the comments. It doesn’t seem that Salvadorans are proud of either their politicians or this recent border fiasco. One commenter suggested that it is a national humiliation, and that El Salvador will look “worse than Haiti,” asking “how did our government allow these embarrassments abroad?” Most were more concerned about the right to legally travel — not to emigrate. These are the type of people in El Salvador who actually bother to comment in newspapers; I suspect that the people showing up on the Texas border are from a somewhat less educated demographic. Could it possibly be, as many Americans suspect, that the government of El Salvador is deliberately trying to foist its poor and hapless off on the great big, dumb American milk cow? Something like that, but it’s actually even worse: they’re also shamelessly ripping off their own poor.

What’s going on here is that a number of people are taking smuggling fees from these would-be emigrants (reportedly $4,000 a head from point of origin), moving them through Mexico, then when they make it to the US border, Presto! The US picks up the tab from there. If the DHS prediction of 90,000 children smuggled to the US this year by these gangs is correct, that makes kid-smuggling alone a $360,000,000 per year industry, and probably more. What does it matter if they are eventually deported anyway? Somebody got rich off the scam. The only real losers here are the desperate fools who think they’ll be granted amnesty and the US taxpayers footing the bill for this fiasco.

And why am I so sure they won’t get amnesty? Because we can’t afford to give it to them. Illegals currently prop up the US social security system, having funded roughly ten percent of its reserve and paid in somewhere around $150 billion a year. Give them the right to benefits, and the entire thing would collapse very quickly. Without this illegal subsidy, social security would have started paying out less than it takes in by 2009. Obviously this scheme isn’t going to last forever, but if illegals got amnesty it would be over immediately and the fallout would be painful, to say the least.

However, another part of the scheme involves making sure that those who do sneak in are fit enough to work and pay into the system. If they can swim a river, cross some desert and evade ICE, they probably are. But if they are kids or single moms who just plop themselves down in front of the nearest border patrol officer and wait for air-conditioned accommodations, they’re far more likely to be an expense. So we Americans are really getting a raw deal with this latest wave.

As much as it’s tempting to say that this or that American political party or official is responsible for what’s going on or that it’s part of some deliberate plot, it’s starting to look like the entire thing is just another example of incompetence and poor judgment on the part of our “leaders.” They’ve been caught with their pants down on this one. They actually let themselves get tooled by a gang of Central American hustlers, and now they have no idea what to do about it. I wonder whether our politicians can even admit to themselves how stupid and irresponsible this talk about amnesty for children was. They were simply providing a free advertisement for the coyotes.

Well how about this for an idea: find the head honcho in charge of each of these little countries, and tell him to put an end to it immediately or we’ll sink his yacht and drop a couple 500 pound bombs on his hilltop villa. Sounds rough, but what kind of a scumbag puts kids at the mercy of the criminal gangs who run both human and narcotics smuggling operations in Latin America? One I wouldn’t lose much sleep over if he happened to end up on the business end of an airstrike. This won’t happen in the current administration, of course, but another, better president would have done it.

There are also pretty wide differences in style, and disagreements on certain of the finer points. I, for example, don’t believe that “progressivism” has always been equalist, at least in regards to race, or that race is even so central to contemporary politics as it appears. Instead, I think it serves as a foil; a sort of tool for expiating guilt and shifting blame onto the less fortunate. My evidence for this is that the whiter and more affluent any given region is, the more politically correct it is outwardly. The same holds throughout just about any segment of society. Is a religion comprised mainly of rich white people (e.g. Episcopalianism)? Then it will surely be extremely liberal and politically correct, filled only with the beautiful people. Are most adherents simple, salt-of-the-earth commoners (Evangelicals)? Vile rednecks and bigots the lot of them! In fact, I think the move away from racial politics toward sexual politics reflects the imminent failure of the black/white polarization of the US that began with the Civil Rights era, and apparently the Southern Poverty Law Center Agrees with me — the organization has shifted toward LGBT rights even as it scales down its traditionally black-oriented legal program. Trayvon Martin and Paula Deen notwithstanding, the bulk of the American people are getting tired of racial politics. Racial diversity, it seems, has become mundane in its triumph.

What I see separating those of us associated with the Dark Enlightenment from the establishment is, above all, class. We are representative of the middle class, which has been under assault for almost fifty years in the US. We, despite some individual success stories, are the losers in the growing inequality of the US. Our status is much reduced, the “aristocracy” more dominant than ever. The war against the American yeomanry, waged with what Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny,” has been a smashing victory. The outward values of the aristocracy, whether “racial equality,” “gender equality,” or even the equality of gay and straight sex, are merely self-serving tools, and would quickly be dropped if they had no use. I have discovered that, in holding views that run contrary to human nature (yes, preference for one’s own kind is a perfectly normal human instinct), they set up a strawman that deflects attention from themselves and their naked self-aggrandizement at our expense. What better way to loot the country without resistance than to incite the people by holding up, say, sodomy as an example for their children, and have them expend all their energy fighting this manufactured outrage?

[The post is titled "Debunking the Patriarchy Myth"]

[A painting from 1631 of a father wiping a baby]

So there you have it: The Patriarchy in action — changing diapers. This is before feminism, before women’s suffrage and before Susan B. Anthony’s great grandparents were born.

The painting is pretty funny to me, because I can so easily relate to the poor guy in the picture who has to wipe the kid’s butt. You can see him recoiling from the stench, arm hung to the side in resignation.

Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?

In a stunning surprise, the American womyn won gold in Olympic soccer (er, football), making team Japan their little bitches.

The entire United States is frantically celebrating this awesome display of grrrlpower, which lesbians are marking by having carnal relations at least once this month with their spouses/domestic partners.

American men are putting on aprons, baking cakes, and knitting soccer leggings for their female betters. Fathers across the land are getting misty-eyed thinking of how wonderful it would be if their daughters could grow up to be deep-voiced, fuzzy-faced ball-kickers — just like the American womyn’s soccer team.

I am so proud to be an American today. It really chokes me up—

But I have this nagging feeling that we still haven’t quite yet achieved the greatness of the 1983 East German “women’s” track and field squad.

[A commenter mentioned their son fighting in Afghanistan]

Spare us the BS, Single.

That boy is over there fighting for the right of Afghan women to wear bikinis and divorce their husbands — not our freedom.

What this new American elite has in common with its ancient predecessors is that the common folk values that held the state together in its earlier form have come to be replaced with an emphasis on expedience and utility, all exercised for the benefit of the state — not necessarily the people. In order to justify this, states usually resort to promoting a universalist philosophy or religion. In fact, there is evidence that the first monotheistic cult was promoted by an Egyptian pharaoh who wanted to bring all his subjects under a unifying single god.

...

When you have a supreme spiritual mandate, in our case “equality,” it can be used to justify almost any action undertaken to promote it. From the Inquisition to the torture chambers of the Lubyanka, men operated under this principle of service to a higher cause. Old rules and customs, such as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, mean little to those engaged in promoting the one true faith. It is, in effect, a license to exercise power unfettered, and as always this tends to draw in some unsavory characters.

This is why we see the growth of an arrogant state that violates our Constitution and engages in shows of force designed to cow and humiliate lowly citizens. It is why we now have elite military units firing automatic weapons from helicopters above our cities. I suspect these are preventative measure, to let the people know that they had better not get in the way of the plans of their superiors.

[WWII] is the perspective men had at the time. The idea that they could suffer through that and be bossed around in their own homes was unthinkable. Feminists who complain about how oppressed women were in the 50s never would have signed up for what grown men of the time had faced, and most women knew it, so they shut up and did the laundry.

To see things accurately, we must separate the reality from the myth of the 50s. Yes, there was a fair amount of lip service paid to the idea that men ought to be respected as head of household, but the culture was already moving away from that at a rapid pace. There is a constant, unyielding desire in the human heart to be liberated from reality, and to forget hard lessons. Those who sacrifice are always resented, despite our deference to them — we are not by nature an obedient, grateful lot. The decade was merely an interlude; a time of uneasy peace between husbands and wives and fathers and children. Founded on poverty and war, it was not built to last in a growing, increasingly wealthy society.

But what society is built to last without change? I look at what we have today, and the fact that societies never remain the same is one of the few consolations that remains.

As another poster, I would go furthur and say the divorced woman or single, promiscuous woman should get nothing. Her life as a single mother should be hard. So hard, that other people see her as an object lesson for why children without a father is foolish and very undesirable. Every time we subsidize a single parent, we show other people that single parent-hood isn’t all that bad, what with all the help you will get. Yes, the reality may be that even with government assistance, it is difficult. But other people have their perception of reality, not reality itself.
I think it is better to do what will prevent 10 new children being created for life in a deficient home than help the 1 child already there. I agree that is hard, but I do not have limitless resources.

Widows and orphans are a different case; in those cases there was a father, and he was removed by death, not selfishness.

[...]

“Simple fact is never trust a woman. — It’s a simple strategy that every man should adopt.”

Very distrustful view— and I regret to say it, but one that seems partly true, at least financially. It is interesting to me that when God set up the economic system in Israel (about 1500 B.C.), women were not permitted to inherit the family land/farm, except in the case where there were 0 sons. ALL property of the father went to his sons. If he has 1 son and 10 daughters, the 1 son gets everything. And no, the farm was not divided if his marriage ended. Farm goes to sons, ex-wife gets— well, as far as I can tell, zilch. Which brings the point that, in order to continue to receive the benefits of marriage (home, food, clothing), the female had to remain a wife. Thus, a man did not have to trust his wife to not divorce him — she had the financial, daily motivation to remain with him.

But don’t expect agreement if you ask a church woman today to agree to a pre-nup, even when it is stated that this is to strengthen the marriage bond and conform to the Bible she claims to follow.

If Christians want to lower the divorce rate in their churches, it would be as simple as kicking out those who frivolously divorce, and treating divorcées as adulteresses. As it is today, abandoned husbands are usually the ones left in the ditch by churches, so this would be a major change. But if churches want to stay true to Christianity, they would do well to recognize that from the beginning, Christian women were not allowed to sue for divorce. There is no precedent in ancient Hebrew, Greek or Roman law for women to divorce their husbands. This is why the Christian church is so ill-prepared to deal with the revolutionary idea of granting women the right to divorce. Even today, Orthodox Jews do not allow it, nor do Muslims (civil law differs, but here we are speaking of ecclesiastic law). Rabbinic and Sharia courts may order men to divorce their wives, but women cannot legally divorce without their husband’s consent.

Women were first granted the right to divorce in revolutionary France, in 1792. This was rescinded shortly thereafter, in 1804, and French women had to wait another 80 years before regaining the right to kick their husbands to the curb. The revolutionary edict was a first in civilized society (if you could apply that moniker to revolutionary France), to be followed some decades later by Great Britain with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. Naturally, some fifteen years later mother custody became the norm in the UK.

The transfer of marriage from ecclesiastic to civil law has continued apace since “reforms” of the 19th century, with devastating consequences for traditional marriage. However, this doesn’t mean that churches have to follow civil law — at least not in the United States (not yet, anyway). To this day, rabbinic courts have authority over Orthodox Jewish marriages, including in some civil matters. Given that it contradicts core Christian doctrine, I’m not sure this would be appropriate for Christian churches, but it probably isn’t necessary in any event.

The point is that granting women the right to initiate divorce goes entirely against Christianity, as well as all other major religions. According to the Christian faith, a woman who leaves her husband is an adulteress — even if he consents. So why is it that divorced women are so quickly forgiven and fostered by “Christian” churches? I’m fairly certain that it’s about the money they bring to the table (divorced men are often impoverished), but if Christians looked deep within themselves they’d have to admit that there’s nothing Christian about such an arrangement.

[On western women joining with Jihadi's]

When many people look at what these women are doing, they come to the conclusion that they are insane, fools or indoctrinated in a cult-like manner. But if you consider what interests young women, it isn’t really that crazy at all. After being indoctrinated for years to hate their own men, to regard them as equals, and to hold them in contempt for having “unearned privilege,” those jihadis must look pretty sexy in comparison. Young, chivalrous men who fight for faith and family. Daring and bold in the face of a ruthless enemy. Unapologetic warriors, husbands and fathers who provide their women with a sense of belonging to a greater cause.

As I grow older, it becomes easier to forget the passions of youth. I have to stop to recall how it was from time to time so that I can better understand what the young do. In the West, it seems that our political and intellectual actors have forgotten entirely, and don’t even try. Perimenopausal feminists and professionals think that young women’s feelings and tastes must be similar to their own. They forget what it was like to want adventure and romance with strong, passionate men, instead projecting their contempt for their male colleagues and inferiors onto every other woman.

As these women have gained power, they have set about remaking America in the image of their office: a space where bland, meek, cowed and subordinate men know their place and do not step out of it. This environment can only repel young women. As it happens, it is pushing a number of them straight into the arms of our enemies.

Because every recruit for the sexual jihad is a repudiation of the contemporary Western ideal, this mass defection of women to the Islamic camp will be ignored and played down as long as possible. That’s too bad, because there’s a valuable lesson there — a lesson we used to know well.

The Russian journalist is mostly right. Women in Russia and Eastern Europe were “liberated” from domestic life long before Western women. Roughly 50 years earlier, in fact. However, second wave feminism was actually “made in the USSR.” Betty Friedan, the godmother of second wave feminism, was a Communist agent — an honest to goodness Stalinist. The Feminine Mystique, her seminal book, was based on work she did for the Communist Party in the 40s and 50s. However, since then feminism has mutated into an American product that would barely be recognizable to good old Uncle Joe.

Because Russian women got a long head start in feminism, they discovered long ago that gender equality is not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s much easier to get a free dinner and a bunch of roses in return for sexual favors than to, say, serve as a partisan on the Eastern Front. American women still think they can have their cake and eat it, but they’re just finding out that it doesn’t work that way, hence the constant state of confusion that seems to afflict young American women.

Little Ms. Fleig certainly has it in for her forefathers, but is it really her fault? Probably not. She, like most other college girls, is simply parroting what’s been fed to her by her profs. Girls are good at that, which is why teachers like them so much — they’re easy.

If you’re the father of an American girl, is this really what you want your daughter to absorb over the course of four years? Does it add any value whatsoever to the family or to the nation?

Your money would be much better spent sending her to sewing or baking school. Let’s face it: Ms. Fleig isn’t going to discover the cure for cancer. Despite being an attractive young woman, she isn’t going to colonize Mars, either (at her size, she’d be too expensive to launch out of the Earth’s atmosphere). In all likelihood, the best she could hope for is a nonprofit or government job fully funded by her father’s and brother’s tax bills.

And yet she represents 60% of college students. What an enormous, unsustainable waste. It’s impolitic to point it out, but from a cost-benefit point of view, in most cases higher education is entirely wasted on women, and as in Ms. Fleig’s case is often counterproductive.

[Someone suggests a rule/law to try and drive down the number of men doing murder/suicides on estranged wives. This is one response.]

The 90 day rule proposed rests on at least two flawed assumptions:

murder/suicide is a bad thing and
that anyone (in this case the courts) can interfere with a man’s private affairs for any reason.

Before I proceed with my points, I acknowledge of such the intent of such a rule is to reduce human suffering. Laudable but ineffectual. Trading murder/suicide for a two-step process to drive a man to suicide only helps the woman. Also, imposing such a rule implies that some men should follow it because it is a rule. Nobody — no cop, no judge, no president — should be afforded any legitimacy in interfering with a man’s family affairs. Conceding that to any degree is tantamount to self-imposed slavery.

At this point, loving fathers and devoted husbands are suited up and in the starting lineup of Team Vagina. In essence, a murder/suicide is a BOGO for our side. Why would we want to stop it?

It’s a constant struggle — it never ends. As Thomas Paine said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

The ancient Hebrews understood it, and therefore gave dire warnings about rule of kings. The Hindus understood it, and cautioned us with the examples of the gods.

Jesus took care to divide the omnipotent realm of God and the law of man. Confucius warned that violating the delicate balance of hierarchy, as in dismantling patriarchy, could only bring disorder and sorrow.

The ancient Greeks, for their part, explicitly barred women from authority, and even built a sort of cult around the motif of the gender wars (Amazonomachy).

I’m with all of these ancients. The feminist men have relinquished all morality and are tyrants. Drag them from their ivory towers by all practical means, and strive to create a just, androcratic society: Patriarchy. It is God’s will.

I have started to think revolutions always occur some 40-60 years before we know it. That’s because that’s how long it takes for people to grow into positions of power. Hence Obama’s unprecedented leftism, which is a product of the radicalism in the 60s and 70s as he grew up and came of age. The new Democratic left is something that was fostered back around the time the people in office were children or young adults, so although it seems “young and hip” to old timers like Joe Biden who were living and breathing that ideology as youths, it comes off as dated to me, and probably really just incomprehensible to people in their 20s and below.

...

Unfortunately, access to fathers is often restricted to the upper classes these days, as working class and poor families are characterized by father absence, which should be considered a major national crisis. Intentionally separating fathers from children through policy is a crime in my book — one for which feminists should pay every bit as dearly as the deprived children and fathers. There may be grounds to bring it to the attention of the United Nations as a major human rights violation for which the US deserves sanction.

I’m old fashioned. I like my neighbors being able to have their government reflect their cultural values. Telling people they have no vested interest in how their community governs interpersonal relationships is telling people they have no vested interest in the most basic and important rituals of the human experience. This is absurd on its face. You wouldn’t tell an Amazon tribe what they were doing was wrong if they buried children in mud — traditional peoples are sacrosanct. But Joe Flyover must be a hater.