www.web.archive.org

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

Writing about Barack Obama’s willingness to send women into combat, I suggested he might be seen as an MRA by some because he embraces a form of absolute equality that is, if we are to be honest, very anti-feminist. I wasn’t being entirely serious; Obama doesn’t and will not identify as an MRA. However, what he is doing as President will do a better job wrecking Anglo feminism than anything any other American president I can think of has done.

Anglo feminism is probably the world’s most potent kind of all, and has been for centuries. Women are accorded more privilege and concessions in the Anglo world than anywhere else on earth, but it doesn’t look like that will last much longer.

I remember when Obama was talking about offering birth control to women, which he seemed to feel genuinely strongly about. He said women needed birth control to keep them productive and in the work force. Now, some feminists may say that that’s a potential perk of birth control, but the reason they want it has nothing to do with women’s productivity, but rather options. Endless options, that is: to work or not to work, to be mothers or not; to take the pill if they feel like it, or merely to let it sit in their bathroom cupboard. To get pregnant or not at will, and to have sex with the men they choose and babies with whom they choose.

There’s no higher purpose to Anglo feminism — it has nothing at all to do with a “different” or “better” society when it comes down to it. It’s all pure, distilled, unadulterated selfishness.

And here we have Obama telling women that they are now equal, that they will be ordered into combat, and that they will be given the pill so as to stay on the job and not get knocked up. If they want, they may have a child, like Julia, and the state will manage all aspects of that for them. But theirs is not to choose. They are going to do it the “Julia way.”

I know Obama’s order to send women into nuclear submarines has a lot of people wondering how on earth this will be feasible, given women’s yearly pregnancy rate while deployed (approaches 16% on surface ships). For undersea missions that require secrecy and many months under the ice, this will not do. But I bet Obama already has a solution: forced birth control. Soldiers are already required to take vaccines and undergo other procedures, so why not make the women submit to quarterly depo shots while deployed? It will not be publicized widely, and it will not be portrayed as forced birth control, but women will be given the kind of choice feminists never intended: take the shots or you will not be allowed on the ship.

There will be more and more of this kind of thing as we integrate women into the world of men. Women’s choices will slowly be whittled away, and soon they’ll find that they gave up a great deal of the freedom and privilege they had a mere decade or so before.

Barack Obama is not an Anglo feminist. He is an old-school socialist, which is not at all the same thing. Our Anglo feminists don’t understand that yet. They think socialism simply means “more options.” But it doesn’t, especially not in a country like the US. Socialism means limited choices not only for capitalists and men, but women, too. It also means that men will no longer have the same ability to provide for them they once did, so they will rely on a state that doesn’t think of them as a special snowflake, but rather just another number.

So although Barack Obama may not care about men’s rights in particular, he will do more to undermine Anglo feminism than any president who has come before him. His idea of “equality,” although strange and not necessarily realistic, will finally call the great feminist bluff, and then the privilege and pedestal that supported Anglo feminism for so long will topple, replaced only by an official “gender neutrality” that will highlight women’s weaknesses while removing all their strengths.

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

But whatever the rationale, women will now be officially equal to men on the battlefield, which brings me to an amusing revelation:

Barack Obama is an MRA.

When you say you will not hesitate to order women into a position that may well harm them or get them killed, you are violating the core principles feminists demand that men adhere to. Furthermore, you are embracing a kind of radical gender equality that is, in fact, a feature of much of the men’s rights movement.

I don’t happen to adhere to it myself; I find the idea of absolute gender equality to be short-sighted, counterproductive and, in the end, more harmful than reality based thinking. Some MRAs disagree very strongly with me on that point.

However, Obama is apparently on their side. Barack Obama wouldn’t hesitate to put women in harm’s way just the same as men. I think for feminists, this is going to be a confusing moment. It will be like what happens when you’ve got a particularly nasty, aggressive woman who gets up in a guy’s face and says “go ahead and hit me, you coward, I dare you!” and rather than back down like most men would, the guy gives it to her as though she were a man and lays her out.

This radical equality Obama is pushing is going to be the end of feminism as we know it for a couple reasons. First, the pedestal is effectively gone. White knighting has been erased from law, and the effect will be similar to what happened in the USSR, where women’s “liberation” eventually ended up giving them more work and responsibilities than they had before. This is going to be a major blow to women’s exclusive prestige and the end of chivalry as we understand it.

One could say it’s funny that the result of feminism will be that women end up losing the special status they used to have and find themselves looked upon as merely weaker, slower and more emotionally difficult versions of their male counterparts, but in the end we won’t be better off for it. No, it’s just going to make society somewhat more crappy for most of us — we’ll be a little more like China and Eastern Europe, and a little less like Switzerland.

Sometimes I wonder whether women will end up cursing the feminists who put them in this position. Unfortunately, I doubt many will. I think this whole feminist episode will be entirely forgotten, and the lesson forgotten with it.

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

Here in the US and other Anglo cultures there’s a strange kind of cultural assumption that it’s a good thing for fathers to treat their sons like shit, e.g. the “toxic fathers” zed has written about. I’ve lived in both France and China, and the more typical scenario there is for the father to dote on his boy. In fact, the term “fils a papa” (daddy’s boy) is more common in France than “mama’s boy.”

Hence you see the phenomenon of Anglo men allowing women to treat them like garbage, while French or Chinese men have a sense of privilege. Who the father favors makes an immense difference, and Anglo men have been favoring daughters for some time now. Personally, I think there are elements of incest involved, and our civilization is essentially cursing itself through this grievous crime. As we did with slavery, we will pay for it, eventually. Our men already are paying, actually, but women will get the bill, too, in time.

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

One can only imagine millions of women diligently obtaining degrees in communications, marketing, etc., all believing that after they slept their way into a high-paying job some handsome, independently wealthy man would choose them for a bride. At this point, it’s increasingly difficult to feel sorry for them, but from a female perspective this does pose a real problem.

The problem, of course, is that “settling” always makes women miserable, and these girls have no other choice. For the corporate, careerist types, it’s especially problematic, because they have been trained to equate status to earnings and job title, and the kinds of guys who have status but less money (e.g. professors, classical musicians, some artists, junior officers) generally won’t touch them with a barge pole. The high-status males in their own milieu have access to sweeter types who work in childcare and the like — far more attractive women they can’t hope to compete with.

...

Marriage has never really been based simply on men’s “overwhelming economic dominance.” As long as men were economically dominant (a period that only lasted a few generations in any event) they were not allowed to divorce without very stiff penalties. However, marriage has always been based on male dominance in general, because it is the only setup in which women feel secure, happy and content to stay with their men. As soon as women are made dominant – or even equal – in their marriages, marriage self-destructs.

As the awful truth about human nature begins to reveal itself, an entire generation of women find themselves crying into their chablis as the credits of the latest episode of Mad Men roll by. It is becoming apparent that what we are witnessing is not so much “The End of Men” as it is the desolation of the feminist dream.

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

[When you overthrow your dictator and celebrate your freedom by subjugating half the population and then some]

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolts in Egypt, the Maghbreb and some parts of the Arab world (it might be better termed Berber Spring than Arab Spring, as it began in largely Berber North Africa), many of the “progressive” policies put in place by dictators have come under attack by new political factions.

In Tunisia, where the revolutions began, the previous ruler had done a great deal to advance feminist causes in his country, possibly at the urging of his wife. Many of these Muslim leaders were educated and trained in the West before they came to power, and during the course of their instruction they absorbed a lot of what is known as progressive policy today. In fact, sometimes they were ahead of the West in that regard because, being authoritarian dictators, they had little standing in their way when they chose to implement new policies.

...

Hmmm, sounds just like home. Looks as though Ben Ali modeled his country’s divorce laws on California code. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Arab Spring began with a slap to the face of a young man by a female authority.

Ben Ali, according to the report, used feminism as a means to gain legitimacy even as he committed human rights violations. As is so often the case, the excuse that one is “protecting women and children” often serves as a license to commit egregious violations of human rights.

...

Finally, the author of the piece, who is evidently a feminist (or feminist friendly) herself, admits that most feminist achievements in the region were achieved not in spite of oppression, but because of it[.]

...

Feminism needs authoritarianism for obvious reasons: men must be forced by those with more power than they have to submit to the women in their lives. Feminists may sometimes claim to support freedom and democracy, but the smart ones know that both must be curtailed in order to achieve their version of equality.

Ultimately, however, as Tunisia demonstrates, the symbiotic relationship between authoritarianism and “progressive” policies such as feminism create an environment that is too much for the people to bear, and unrest breaks loose. When that happens in the West is an open question, but given our economic stagnation, I can only see the pressure rising from here on out.

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

[When the Taliban did nothing wrong to women]

In a deeply cynical ploy by feminist Tracy Clark-Flory, the endemic abuse of boys and use of male prostitutes in Afghanistan is being portrayed as a result of women’s oppression in this recent Salon piece. Although it is doubtless that Islam may play some role – in the context of Afghan culture – in the practice of “bacha-baz,” the idea that feminism is the solution to the abusive treatment of boys is either the result of deeply held ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Male prostitution and pederasty have been a problem in the area for at least a couple hundred years, and probably far longer. Famed 19th century British explorer and secret agent Richard Francis Burton was tasked with investigating a male brothel in what is now Pakistan at one point, and wrote extensively about the practice, which led to spurious accusations that he was an avid participant himself.

...

Since that time much has changed, but Afghanistan is notoriously backward and resistant to change, so the practice has persisted despite reforms in the Islamic world. However – and this is very important where Clark-Flory’s article is concerned – the fundamentalist Muslim Taliban have made it a priority to stamp out bacha baz. It is not in the strictly fundamentalist parts of Afghanistan where the women are veiled and kept out of school that bacha-baz is practiced; it is found primarily in the north where the ethnic groups who are allied with NATO have control. Fundamentalist Islam is not so much a characteristic of Afghan culture as tribalism, but it has made inroads thanks to Arab fanatics filled with a missionary zeal and a desire to fight what they see as the godless “North,” which includes Russia along with what we call “The West.”

Furthermore, if we are to take an example closer to home, we could shine a light on the problem of pederasty in the Roman Catholic Church in the late 20th century — during which time liberal ideologies, including feminism, gained the upper hand in seminaries and parishes across the US, and then even Europe itself. The relaxation of tradition and the rise of feminist ideology in the Catholic Church occurred at the exact same time that the epidemic of pederasty did, which suggests a correlation between the two. So no, it is not “the patriarchy” that is raping boys. In fact, many of the rapist priests were notoriously “progressive” in their views and feted by wealthy liberals, some of whom doubtless were aware of their proclivities.

Unfortunately, most people are not all that well-informed, and may be susceptible to appeals to human decency. This is how feminism has gained so much ground: by usurping moral issues and proposing feminist policies as the solution. Even conservatives have fallen for these tactics, passing hardcore feminist legislation and enabling feminist radicals because they never took the time to study and get to the root of problems, preferring instead to blindly react to social problems with heavy-handed, ill-considered measures.

It is important that we keep an eye on feminist arguments to prevent them from making appeals to our sense of decency in an effort to fool us into giving them even more power and influence than they already have. As we know well, the situation has not improved for boys since the advent of feminism, and eliminating abuses such as pederasty are best achieved not by giving women more privileges, but by caring about the humanity of boys, which is not even remotely part of the feminist agenda.

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

It’s always been about sex. Sex outside of marriage was technically illicit in Christian society, and marriage implied consent. For example, there was no such concept as marital rape until very recently — rape had an entirely different definition from today. Also, virginity was considered a woman’s property (or her male relatives’ property) in most cultures, which had a lot to do with the old definition of rape. This means that the concepts of sex and property are not strictly separated in regards to marriage, and are actually quite closely intertwined. Christian ideas about marriage were kind of revolutionary in that there was a concept of mutual ownership of sexuality in marriage (e.g. a woman had as much right to demand marital fidelity as a man), rather than the simple chattel status of wives most common in other parts of the world. The modern definitions of marriage and rape have actually reversed what was the norm in most of the non-Christian world, and placed ownership of all heterosexual sexuality entirely in the hands of women regardless of marital status. Accordingly, it has been devalued a great deal, just as one might expect a car company to become essentially worthless quite rapidly if it were entirely owned and controlled by women.

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

Laura Park, an assistant professor of psychology at SUNY Buffalo, is on the verge of publishing the results from a series of research projects that explored the connection between romance and women’s interest (or lack thereof) in math and science. In one study, she showed young men and women romantic images, and then surveyed their interest in STEM subjects and degrees. After viewing the images, the men were unmoved, but the women expressed less interest in math and science.

In another study, she found that when women indulged in romantic fancies, they felt happier and more attractive, but shunned their math studies[.]

...

Naturally, this must be a very bad thing, because it is an obstacle to the ever-elusive goal of equality.

So who’s responsible? As usual, it is society, what with those pernicious romantic “scripts” that infect young women from a young age[.]

...

Park speculates that there are two potential solutions: one that simply reduces the possibilities for romance (sex-segregated education), or another that attempts to portray science as romantic. The first solution might actually work — if the will existed to enforce it. However, most young women are sufficiently interested in romance (with men) that they will avoid the largely lesbian women’s schools, and would probably avoid college altogether if it didn’t provide at least the hope of some romantic interludes.

As for the second idea, any attempts to portray science and female scientists as attractive would simply degenerate into a war between various feminist factions over what exactly constitutes “attractive.”

Of course, the most humane and reasonable course of action would be to simply allow young men and women to follow their nature, and stop trying to shove them into roles they do not want. But our official ideology of absolute qualitative equality has gone so far that our social engineers really don’t care what people want any longer — all that matters is that we are indistinguishable on statistical charts.

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

From the beginning, humans have lived in tribes, which are somewhat akin to groups of chimpanzees, cooperating to provide food, childcare, labor and dissemination of information. The family, in its varied forms, was always subordinate to the tribe, and the tribe often in conflict with other tribes. Humans have competed with each other for resources and territory from the dawn of history and before, and they have usually done so through some sort of tribal conflict. Usually, the more numerous tribe would win, because it could summon more men and defeat the other by force of numbers, but because the ideal human group is relatively small – some 50-100 individuals – summoning a larger force required relatively complex rules and strong taboos to maintain any sort of social cohesion. Hence the seeds of civilization were sown through tribal competition.

Despite the addition of all this complexity, which has enabled humans to live in mass societies, the basic tribal tendency remains part of human nature. And in a tribe, the most important component has always been the men. Without them, there is only booty, free for the taking for any group of men willing to come along and claim it. In fact, this has been the case for so long that patrilocality is the norm throughout the world. Exogamy in primitive tribes is exceedingly common, but it is usually the women who leave one group and go to another — this is reflected in our modern practice of women and children taking the husband’s surname. The men stay, because without them the group would simply be swallowed up by others.

Because the tribe has been, if not the most basic, the most important unit of human society, it is highly likely that humans evolved to maximize the success of the tribe. This would include gender roles, and probably even gender phenotypes. Human females are particularly poorly suited to hunting when compared to other species that derive a similar portion of calories from meat, so division of labor has obviously been in play since at least the emergence of modern homo sapiens. Some have suggested that this division was not so clear for neanderthals, whose women may have come along on the hunt and helped bring down large animals, but the neanderthal physique was substantially different from our own.

The point is that the tribe is mainly defined by its men, and has been throughout recorded history, which suggests that this was always the case. Evidence from primitive tribes in the modern era supports this as well. And although it’s counterintuitive, the fact that men are usually targeted while women are often spared in tribal conflict even further confirms the importance of males. If it were true that tribes cannot survive without women, the most successful tribes would have been those that systematically exterminated their enemies’ female members, which would be far easier to do in any event. But this simply did not happen.

For the biblically inclined, I’d like to point to the story of the tribe of Benjamin, a particularly warlike Israelite tribe which was nearly exterminated after some mortal offense (inhospitality) prompted the other tribes to gang up on them. The other tribes were so angry at Benjamin that after defeating their men in battle, they slaughtered all the women and children, leaving the Benjaminites a tribe of bachelors. Finally, when the other tribes felt fairly certain that the Benjaminites had learned their lesson, the men were allowed to marry women from other tribes, and ultimately the tribe was reestablished.

Now, imagine what would have happened if every single Benjaminite man was slaughtered and the women spared. The women would have been distributed as spoils of war, and Benjamin would have been no more. From the tribal survival standpoint, who is more expendable?

It would be tempting to suggest that things have changed so much that tribal consideration no longer matter, but that would be a short-sighted argument. Civilization did not develop by repudiating humans’ natural tribal sentiments, but by incorporating them into a larger organization. Military organizations, today and in the past, are broken down into manageable groups that approximate the size of a tribe. The US Army Company, the Roman Centuria (which also means tribe), the Mongol Zuut and the Germanic Hundred are all examples of this. Churches have traditionally had about a tribe’s worth of parishioners, and large corporations are organized to take this optimal group size into account as well. Despite the sophistication of contemporary society, humans are still fundamentally tribal. It’s instinctive and reflected in how we organize our lives and tasks.

Therefore, one can see modern states, and civilization in general, as a massive confederation of tribes, between which there remains a great deal of competition. However, men are arguably just as important as ever to these basic social units to which they belong. Where would our businesses, our military and our public service organizations be without their men? Law and order, commerce, infrastructure and defense would fall apart within days.

So why are men so often treated as expendable within society? It goes back to competition, i.e. your men are expendable, but ours are not. Elites have always been perfectly happy to use other people’s sons as cannon fodder, while usually protecting their own from the battlefield. At the highest levels of society, sons are preferentially educated over daughters, and then these exact same people who favor their boys take steps to ensure that less fortunate sons are prevented from competing with them. Other people’s daughters, on the other hand, are no threat to their tribe — they are a resource to be exploited. In fact, support of feminism by elites only confirms that they see other tribes’ women as chattel, or perhaps tribute — either term would suffice. When men are given as tribute, it has typically been in one of two roles: the warrior or the eunuch. Hence, they want our boys as soldiers (including police) or femme homosexuals (the modern incarnation of the eunuch); for the rest of us they have little use except as peasants, to be kept in line with punitive taxes and overwhelming force.

The argument that men are expendable because of some biological mandate is perhaps the last vestige of the pseudoscience that emerged from 19th century anthropology and plagued humanity with various wrong-headed ideologies throughout the 20th century. In reality, men have always been the most essential component of the tribe, which has characterized human social organization since the dawn of our species. The world’s oldest and most successful civilizations have learned this over time, and have survived because they incorporated this truth into their law and governing philosophy. We have to recognize that men are targeted for abuse and dispossession exactly because they are essential to the strength and health of their tribes. When we live in a mass society without any sense of common values or interests, where discord, envy and greed are the norm, it is perfectly natural that men will come under attack. If one thinks of it as an inchoate civil war, it becomes all the more clear.

[Same fundie, posted in comments]

Something like that, but I don’t think it’s an articulated effort or policy so much as normal human nature. Those in elite “tribes” instinctively favor policies that limit the choices and power of those males who are part of upstart tribes. People naturally fear rival males — we are an apex predator after all, and have little to worry about from anything else. This, I think, is at the root of androphobic policies.

Civilization has been a constant effort to channel male resource competition into constructive effort, but here in the West we are currently failing at that, and men have turned on each other. It always seems to happen eventually, which is why war is a constant.

On the positive side, I think we have a very good chance of eventual victory, because never in the history of humanity has a state exercised its power over the people with a harem. Those of us who do not give up our men will eventually take the spoils.

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

For at least a decade now we’ve been seeing educators disingenuously “wondering” what’s going on with boys. I don’t believe teachers are confused in the least — they know exactly what’s going on. I’m certain of this because I have a fair number of educators in the family, and they know just what the “problem” is: boys are, in general, more difficult to teach.

Boys are rowdier, more prone to acting out, and don’t listen as carefully. Sometimes, they are aggravatingly unaware of their surroundings. My son, for example, will become interested in something, and suddenly the rest of the world doesn’t exist to him any longer.

Boys also lack the desire to please that seems to be innate in little girls. They don’t really care so much if the teacher is happy about what they are doing or saying.

But does this mean they are inferior students who “perform poorly?” No more than it means that an F-18 fighter, due the high skill required of its pilots, is an inferior airplane that performs poorly when compared to a cessna.

Despite the abysmal failure of public education in regards to boys, boys are still scoring higher on tests than girls. Even verbal tests in many cases. It’s just their grades that are lagging, and unfortunately that’s what keeps them out of college[.]

...

In other words, the teachers – overwhelmingly female – don’t like them. Nor, apparently, do a number of NY Times commenters, who say it’s just desserts for all that male oppression of the past. Yes, that’s right: little kids who were born a few years ago must pay for the imagined sins of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

...

Ah, feminists. So compassionate!

What this “boys crisis” really comes down to is a public schools crisis. Public schools may be a necessity, but they have some pretty severe flaws. As a socialized system, they do not reward teachers for being harder workers or even result-oriented. Teachers in my local public school district are in open rebellion against tests that would hold them accountable for their students performance.

What public school teachers prefer is an easy day with obedient, compliant students. Unfortunately for boys, they don’t typically fit into the obedient and compliant category. So, rather than try harder, the teacher simply marks them down and leaves it up to the boys or their parents to deal with it (parents, many of whom are single mothers, definitely share some of the responsibility).

In private schools it’s a different story. Sons of the wealthy have higher academic achievement than their female counterparts. This is because teachers at private schools are informed in no uncertain terms that students’ performance in their classes is directly relevant to their continued employment. Miraculously, rich people’s sons are better educated and perform better every step of the way than their daughters.

The problem isn’t that boys are poor students. It’s that they require more effort. However, the results speak for themselves. Despite the higher grades and academic achievement of girls in our society, boys still lead the way in productivity, innovation and achievement in every other measure.

So all this hand-wringing about boys’ performance is misplaced, and I think the rest of us are beginning to figure it out. It isn’t really that the boys are performing poorly; it’s the schools that are lousy, and grades reflect little more than how teachers “feel” about their students.

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

While thinking about the issue of the undervalued Siberian girls (relative to American women), I realized that there is probably a direct correlation between the wealth of a society’s men and the value and power of the society’s women. That is, the richer the men in any given society are in aggregate, the more wealth and privilege accrues to its women. The flip side of that is that the poorer the men are, the worse off and less valued the women.

So, any policies that impoverish men, even if they temporarily benefit the women, cause women’s status and value to decrease over time.

It’s really pretty obvious if you think about it objectively, but it tends to escape notice because these days people don’t think of these things in terms of a symbiotic relationship between men and women, but rather an oppositional one. What they do is compare men and women, and argue that men’s wealth is somehow “oppressive” to women, because that’s how modern, liberal democracies work; each group sees itself in opposition to others.

Here in the West men have been very wealthy by world standards for quite some time. We still are, but this is changing. What’s been happening is that the younger generations of men have steadily lost wealth, while the older folks have managed to hang onto a fair amount. Part of the reason for younger men’s decline in wealth (although by no means all), is feminist affirmative action and “positive discrimination,” as well as confiscatory policies designed to give the female group an advantage over the male. These measures have been effective, and have contributed to the declining wealth of the Western male in both relative and absolute terms.

As the younger, poorer men come of age, and are still significantly poorer than their predecessors, this will begin to impact women of their cohort as well. I believe this process has already begun, but the effects have some lag; perhaps ten years or so. When it becomes readily apparent that living in a country full of poor men is no picnic for women, feminism will be discredited, but not until then. Using the recession as the starting point, I’d give it about five years until it can no longer be ignored.

So, given that women’s status is a result of male wealth, it looks as though feminism may actually turn out to be self-correcting, as it strips men of resources that could be used to further empower women. Maybe human society has a mysterious way of correcting itself, and the natural balance between the sexes is restored even through counterintuitive processes such as feminism.

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

[On the rescue of a young girl who fell into a river and was rescued via helicopter]

For all the bashing women give men, when you get right down to it, these extraordinary feats are simply beyond the capabilities of women. That image of capable, dutiful men placing themselves at considerable risk to lift a helpless girl out of a perilous place is a perfect metaphor for civilization itself. It puts feminism, women’s lib and notions of gender equality in their proper perspective.

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

The reason a man’s status is so important to a woman’s erotic desire, if Meana is correct, is that a higher status man’s attention is directly related to a given female’s desirability. If he is the kind of man who can have any female he wants, then the woman he chooses must be intensely desired by a great many men. His attention fuels narcissistic fantasies, and therefore triggers erotic feelings in the woman who receives it. It is a simple and elegant answer to the question of what turns women on, and explains the popularity of princess fantasies, female fixation on beauty pageants, model shows and figure skaters. It is the basis of hypergamy. Even the seemingly puzzling contradiction of female rape fantasies makes sense when seen in this light — the “rapist” of these fantasies is typically some handsome prince, officer or other high-status male. Imagining themselves as the object of attention and lust is deeply erotic to women, and the higher status the man the more validation it provides.

Given this primal desire, it stands to reason that women would seek out situations that place them in the company of high-status men. Perhaps this explains the crowds of attractive young women who flock to Washington DC, which is not otherwise known for particularly beautiful people. The attraction of Mad Men likewise makes sense — what woman wouldn’t want to be surrounded by high-powered executives?

So, if we create a society that raises female status at the expense of men around them, women will have fewer opportunities to fulfill their erotic needs — the atmosphere of “equality” will have a deadening effect on their libido and provide them with less sexual fulfillment. This in turn will result in less happiness. And this is exactly what we have done, particularly in the Anglo world.

Women in the United States have reported steadily decreasing happiness since the 1970s, when equality feminism took off and society began to change to accommodate more women in positions of power. A University of Pennsylvania study from 2009 reported that women’s happiness, while higher than men’s in the 70s, has steadily declined to the point that men are now, on average, happier than women[.]

...

Perhaps we could do the authors, and women, a favor by “decoding the paradox.” The feminist triumph has deprived women of an essential element of their erotic lives. By raising women’s status and emphasizing “equality,” feminism has performed the psychological equivalent of a clitoridectomy on our society’s women. Rather than objects of lust and passion, they are now competitors, rivals and colleagues — their erotic capital is significantly diminished. The men around them are no longer strong and dominant, but cowed, vacillating and timid. Women’s opportunities to “feel like a woman” have been radically curtailed. Hypergamous needs are left unfulfilled by their “equal” husbands and boyfriends.

Is it any wonder that women report less happiness?

For all the trouble feminism has caused us men over the decades, it appears that it has been a significant source of misery for women as well. This is why feminism will ultimately fail: in their hearts, women don’t want it.

[Bonus comment by the same fundie, found below the article]

I think feminism has already failed, to be honest. If you ignore the rhetoric (remember: never listen to what they say, watch what they do) the slutwalks are a total repudiation of feminist ideals, and a desperate attempt by American women to collectively declare their status as objects of desire.

Welmer #sexist web.archive.org

[When women were never severely oppressed but they should have been]

" this is a vastly different telling of empire/history than we learned growing up in school, even in the university/college. vastly different. normally, we’re told how despotic and draconian previous civilizations were, how women/children were ALWAYS oppressed and property…wow.

TAllagash"

Yup. It wasnt like they told you. In many ancient and classical cultures women had it a lot better than youd think. In fact, it was often libertine female behavior and abuse of power that eventually led to the restrictions one finds in recent history.

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

[This is an archived post from 2014 so it's somewhat dated, but it nonetheless provides an insight into Price's mind; his desire for traditional restrictions and boundaries for their own sake, against what he sees as the dehumanization of individualism. Read this post alongside this to get a fuller picture: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=111274]

The head of our propaganda outreach to Russians, a radical feminist lesbian supporter of Pussy Riot named Masha Gessen, wrote an op ed a couple weeks ago that essentially makes Putins case for him. Gessen, of course, sees herself as an ally of progress, but she and her cohort are responsible for alienating an enormous number of native born Americans including, incidentally, those who would traditionally be most inclined to sacrifice themselves for the flag and nation.

...

Gessen focuses on homosexuality to the exclusion of other fraught cultural issues, clearly because she is biased in this regard. However, it is not only coerced acceptance of a redical redefinition of family, which Gessen explicitly supports, but the annihilation of distinct cultures and peoples through a radical form of multiculturalism and promotion of diversity at all costs. Naturally, the peoples who succumb first are the smaller nationalities, but ultimately everyone loses as a fundamental part of their humanity their culture is amputated or otherwise mutilated to fit some poorly defined common form that every man, woman and child can be stuffed into. Adding to that, Americas aggression against non-belligerents, foreign adventurism and coercion of weaker nations and peoples to impose its will has added an element of terror to our crusades. In truth, the American right and left differ only in their means, but the end goal is the same: the obliteration of any and all that stands in the way of unrestricted expression of the id. It is, as Putin correctly notes, a descent into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.

The contemporary American elites vision for the future is a horrific nightmare in which anything goes, and therefore nothing is distinct or cherished but pure power to do as one pleases. There are to be no limits but the physical: no moral restraint, no customs, no traditions to stand in the way of unfettered action on primal desires and appetites. Putin, it seems, is genuinely opposed to this mission on a personal level, and has articulated his opposition in a manner that has galvanized the Russian people into a politically united force.

...

Again, institutionalized homosexuality is only one issue, but it may have been the one that finally crossed a red line. Considering that even in my very liberal state of Washington legalization of gay marriage passed by only about one percentage point in late 2012, and then only after enormous campaign donations from the globalist billionaires in the state, it is probably too costly even for the US to successfully convince the rest of the world that it is a good idea. But for whatever reason, progressives have made it their defining cause and staked their movements claim to the future on it. This act of hubris may prove to be progressivisms Achilles heel, but in the long run what matters and hurts the most for those of us more traditional Americans is our dramatic loss of faith in our own nation.

To see the US reduced to little more than a platform for the greedy and licentious when it used to be a beacon of liberty and common decency in a savage world is profoundly unsettling. It is also why I am all but certain that our decline is a fait accompli rather than an imminent threat.

At this point, we can only hope that nihilistic radicals like Masha Gessen refrain from plunging us into a catastrophic war on their behalf, sacrificing our sons for ideals that we despise from the bottom of our hearts.

Unnamed author #fundie web.archive.org

[From "Unbaptized Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Heretical Pelagian Fable"]

Conclusion: supralapsarianism and docility

The Jansenists were right about this. We have seen that it has been defined that unbaptized infants have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil and that it has been condemned to say that they have some place anywhere of rest and happiness. As such it is heretical to deny the fiery fate of infants or to attempt to revive the Pelagian fable of Limbo. No pope or Scholastic can change that. The infants die guilty of original sin and are punished for it in the fire.

However, original sin provides only a partial explanation, because it may be asked why – if all are subject to suffering because they deserve it due to Adam’s sin, which they have inherited – why did God not create a different man who was as free in soul as Adam was, whom he foresaw would not sin? Then there would have been no original sin, none would have been created guilty and all this suffering would not have been justified. Presumably such a man was possible, given the infinite number of possible men whom God could have created. Indeed, Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary lived her whole life without sin: so if God is good and wills only good to his creatures, why did he not create a sinless first couple, shall we say, Mary and Martin rather than the sinful Adam and Eve? Why did God not create an entire race of Marys and Martins? Why did he choose rather to create a first couple that he foresaw would sin and then hold their progeny guilty of that sin? Did he not create the world with people the way that he wanted them to be? as fundamentalists are wont to protest against homosexuals when they say that God made not Adam and Steve. It would be incoherent to say that God could not have created a world without evil and suffering: God is all-knowing, all-powerful and eminently prudent, that is, he is perfectly wise; the wise man always first decides what he wants to achieve and then acts so as to accomplish his end. So, why is there all this suffering?

The Dominican Thomists, following the doctrine of Aquinas, teach that God created the universe to manifest to the utmost his goodness in his creatures: and that his aim is best accomplished through the creation of the greatest variety, which includes creatures that fail in the accomplishment of their ends, their goods, and so suffer. Reprobation is a part of God’s providence, that he should allow some to fail. For thereby the goodness of his justice and wrath is manifest and not only the goodness of his mercy and loving-kindness. With people, that entails that they not only suffer in this life, but also that they fail to attain salvation, die guilty and so manifest the goodness of God’s justice in the eternal sufferings they experience in hell. This explanation is known as supralapsarianism, the doctrine that God willed even prior to the fall of humanity in Adam to reprobate creatures and to inflict punishments upon people. That is, God willed to damn infants in hellfire from all eternity. The infralapsarian position – which maintains that God willed evil to his creatures only after the fall – seems incoherent for the reasons given above. Indeed, God could have just created all people in heaven, free but sinless like the glorified saints now, including those baptized infants who never chose God but were chosen by him, for none would refuse the beatific vision as it is good under every aspect. We have argued this from the writings of Aquinas in the essay, ‘Does God Want All to be Saved?

One should be worshipfully docile in this matter. God is to be adored because he punishes infants and has chosen to do so from all eternity, not because they deserve it, for he permitted their guilt only that he might punish them for the sake of his glory. It would be rebellion against the righteous God not to submit oneself to his wonderful justice and wisdom and to worshipfully join our will to his – whether it regard the merciless punishments of infants in this world or the next. We have a responsibility to protect infants from harm, though the extent of that responsibility is disputed, whether it extends to children not our own, home or abroad. But the guilt had by negligent adults does not change the providential character of God’s permission of that negligence, which he permits so that his justice should be manifest in the punishments suffered by the infants. There is nothing unjust about this. God deliberately permits infants to be burnt alive in fires and to die without baptism and to go to hell to be burnt for all eternity, all for his own glory and may he be praised for it!

This may be a “hard teaching” to some, like unto that according to which some no longer walked with Jesus (St. John 6) but those who have caritas, even the divine and supernatural virtue of the love of God, will be disposed to accept his will and to believe in him as he really is and to accept these teachings about his salvific will. It is impossible to be saved without caritas (charity) and those who do not love God for his own sake but are motivated in their religion by cupiditas, that is, by a worldly love that is not properly ordered to God, may well refuse to accept this doctrine because they love the world above God, saying that they are swayed by their emotions regarding the fate of the infants. The two loves produce contrary motions, affections, causing ambivalence but God gives victory to his elect through delight, an affectionate cleaving unto him. He gives his elect to know him and to love him as he is and to accept the doctrines regarding him. God saves whomsoever he wants by making them lovingly faithful. If people reject this doctrine of infants, it is because they do not love God as he is, they hate him and prefer the world over him. Concupiscent delight has conquered in them and has produced the bitter fruit of blasphemy.

It is a false and harmful charity that seeks to obscure ‘hard teachings’ and to hide the gratuitous nature of God’s love for his creatures and the nature of the loving response that he gratuitously puts into the hearts of his elect. Indeed, if God is eminently prudent, then the devil is thoroughly cheeky and his demons delight to incite people to despise the true God and to thus damn themselves, blaspheming him in their inordinate worldly concern for the reprobate and in their refusal to know him and to adore him as he is. They are wont to utter such dreadful blasphemies as that, Such a God would be unjust, cruel, the devil himself and eminently unlovable! Thus the devil constructs a blasphemous parody of the true religion to damn people in, sometimes called Pelagianism or Molinism. It is almost impossible to find an orthodox Christian these days, who really loves God. People who teach a false doctrine that compromises the doctrines about God, original sin and the punishments that he subjects people to, unite themselves with the demons, inciting blasphemy. Historically, the Jansenists represented honesty and the Jesuits represented doctrinal and moral compromise. The elect are few, the damned many.

Question 6737 from Germany #fundie web.archive.org

i am 45 and married to already 15 years now after the sexual desire of my woman has nearly gone i am looking to marry again. And i would like to marry a woman who is 12 years old, her father and she has also agreed, my first wife told me that it could make problems if it will be a big different in age, and also some of my children are older than my second wife. What is your advise ? And is it allowed for me to have already sexual intercourse with these woman after we are married or to i have to wait till she reach at special age ?

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

Given my current dilemma, which is pretty run-of-the-mill for a lot of fathers today, I thought a bit about how it relates to The Spearhead and its existence. On some reflection, it’s pretty clear to me that I never would have thought to start a site like this if I hadn’t been a father. It’s a direct result of a deep need and desire to be a father to my children.

But in addition, it’s also a result of the circumstances that were created when I did my best to create a life that would allow me to be a father to my children, despite all the roadblocks put up by the state, individual feminists, groups of feminists (they operate in packs, like hyenas), and the anti-family elite class. If I’d acted in my own and the system’s best interests, I would have forgotten about my children, and probably would be in a much more comfortable situation today. There is no blame whatsoever attached to men who totally ignore their children, so long as they pay the minimum fees. “Good men,” according to the system, are those who substitute a check for fatherhood.

Throwing a ball with your son, keeping an eye on the boys chasing your daughter and teaching your children are all meaningless to the state. What you are is a human resource — not a father. This is what I’ve rebelled against. It’s what has given me the psychological motivation to keep the site running.

A lot of this is no doubt personal. My father wasn’t there for me when I needed him, and that had pretty dire consequences for me. I don’t want that to happen to my children, so I struggle on, despite all the hatred from feminists, who, when it comes down to it, just want to fuck and get paid for it. That’s really all feminism comes down to: provision and protection for sex. It’s so deeply ingrained in primate psychology that it won’t change in a million generations. Children’s interests have nothing to do with it. Feminists are only the prostitute lobby writ large.

If I am to attach an honest epithet to this site and my efforts, I would have to call it a patriarchal site. I believe patriarchy is the one family system that works best in sum for all involved. It’s best for almost all children, for most women, and most men. For certain elite and standout specimens of both sexes it involves some sacrifices. It is not the best deal for extraordinarily attractive men or women, who can live a charmed life without taking on the responsibility of patriarchy. But why should they have priority over the rest of humanity? Does their pleasure and privilege raise the mean?

It does not, and this is the moral basis for patriarchy as a system for organizing families. If a few extremely attractive or powerful people can benefit, while the vast middle is dismantled, then a chasm develops between classes, and ultimately this is unsustainable for cohesive society. Sure, we want people to be more attractive on average, but giving all the power to the few extraordinarily attractive works in the opposite direction due to constraints on human female fertility and the non-selective nature of elite male sexuality (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger). What it does is limit reproduction in the middle and encourage low-investment r-selection in the hopeless lower class, which always outnumbers elites. We then become a disorderly society of a few aristocrats atop a vast mass of proles.

So, I think it’s time to come right out and say that The Spearhead is not equalist, nor does it support “reinvention” of traditional sex roles, but rather is committed to restoring patriarchy as a just, family-centered principle of social organization. And not the despotic form of patriarchy that prevails in slave societies, but rather a more democratic form in which men are held accountable to one another, and the law. It is the ancestral Western model, and it’s what made Western peoples strong, not to mention East Asians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims, who organized their societies on a similar basis, with varying degrees of success. The West prevailed in the 19th and 20th centuries not because of its racial, but rather its social superiority, which was closer at the time to the democratic patriarchal ideal than any other part of the world. Sadly, that has been lost, hence our Western decline.

The restoration of patriarchy should be the long-term goal of all righteous men who care about their families and people. It is the most just, humane and progressive form of social organization known to man. It’s the only system worth fighting and dying for, and that’s why it will ultimately prevail.

Brandon Lakefield/Zerberster and Brainactivator (translater <sic> to English) #conspiracy web.archive.org

LEAKED: OFFICIAL AGENDA FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF GERMANY
FACE OF THE ANTI-CHRIST VISIBLE

Whistleblower report by Dipl-Ing. Dr. Austeja Emilija Dominykas

Translated into English from the German original by
Brainactivator
September 2016

EMAIL titled: A life story of horror
sent to Brandon Lakefield – Wichtig@Zerberster.org

(Forged "whistleblowing" about the German government building bunkers for evil muslims in preparation of genocide against German Christians. Austeja Emilija Dominykas is fictional.)

Next page