Fathers First

I am creating the hash tag #FathersFirst, and here is the mission statement:

We, in the west, are currently living in a matriarchal system. Most single parents are mothers. Even in marriage, women (the mother of the family unit) hold all the actual authority because she holds the power of divorce. She holds the power of divorce because whoever gets awarded child custody hits the jackpot in divorce court. The reason she gets the child is because our culture values motherhood more than fatherhood. We see women as naturally better caregivers, and men as financial providers. We must push the notion that men make equal or better parents. We must erase the notion that a mans only, or primary, contribution to the family is being a wage slave.

While I hope one day to see a genuine fathers first movement devoid of partisan politics, right now my main goal is to discourage MRA’s (Mens Rights Activists) from perpetuating the notion that women are naturally better caregivers, or that a woman’s place is in the home raising babies, and others such drivel that ultimately translates to praising the sanctity of motherhood. I feel that out of all the political movements in the world, a genuine mens rights movement should be the primary platform to push the notion of Fathers First. It is heart breaking to see how much praise motherhood gets from within that movement.

I am asking all MRA’s to stop posting anything that advocates women’s role is to raise children, or children are to be raised by their mother, or that women have any advantages in parenthood. I ask that instead, you focus on fathers, working fathers, stay at home fathers, men as being entitled or better suited to raise children. In a culture that worships the sanctity of motherhood to the point of making the words “parent” and “mother” synonyms, I am asking that we buck this trend and promote fathers first.

Self described Mens Rights Activists that continue to in anyway, promote motherhood as more natural or preferred than fatherhood, aren’t really respecting the integrity of the title “Mens Rights Activist” and should either stop posting pro-motherhood material, or stop marching under the MRA label.

If you support fathers rights, than retweet, retumble, and reblog this.


This is an exert removed from a video, responding to Mens Rights Edmonton, on the nature of equality:

OK, what is equality? It’s when no thing is advantaged or disadvantaged to another. Whether we are talking about height, weight, angle, value, or other unit of measurement.
But when we talk about social equality, it means one demographic of people are not advantaged or disadvantaged to another.

To make equality, is Justice, as in the definition of Justice (to make equal).

Now there are two ways of looking at this: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
You simply can’t force an equality of outcome. Some people are just better than others. And maybe some demographics are better than others for whatever reason. Some times neither group is biologically advantaged over the other, but mathematical probability does result in one group of people having a greater outcome. If an equal number of black people, white people, Asian people, Indian people, all rolled a 12 sided die, and we added up the totals, one race is bound to have the highest total, another the lowest total, and the others somewhere in between. This is neither the result of their biology or prejudice on behalf of the dice; it is merely a chance driven outcome.
In fact, minorities often come up short because they are a numerical minority, even on a per capita basis they come up short due to the fact the higher the numbers, the higher the maximum out come per roll of the dice is met (when the dice are of remarkably high numbers).

A phenomenon called Cultural Marxism, assumes all inequalities to be based on discrimination, bigotry.
The reason is because they believe we are all blank slate and that all humans are the same and that all differences are the result of social opportunity, thus all inequalities are based on discrimination of opportunity.
This of course, is pure rubbish, and even they themselves don’t believe this, because where is the outrage over the nearly all black NBA?
Cultural Marxism or (Social Justice / Social Equality) is a resent driven ideology. These alienated individuals with inferiority complexes develop a type of same-phobia, or Oikophobia (fear of home, family, familiar, likeness) which make them hate, fear, and distrust their peers (the ones that alienated them). This hate, fear, and distrust, is aimed at their fellow white, their fellow male, their fellow heterosexual, their fellow cis-gendered, their fellow American, their fellow Canadian, their fellow Norwegian. It is anti-nationalism, it is xenophilia, a hatred of the home, the family, the peer, the nation, the tribe, the race. It is resent driven, as is the socialist marxist egalitarian left wing. It’s all psychologically motivated by guilt or resent. I won’t go into any more depth of the cause and effect of this phenomenon.
But suffice it to say, I do not support equality of outcome.

I do however support equality of opportunity, and equality of treatment.
For example, if a woman kills her husband she should be given the same sentence as a husband who kills his wife.
If a female teacher sleeps with a 14 year old student, she should be given the same treatment as the male teacher who slept with a 14 year old student and so on.
That’s what equality looks like.
It looks like women getting drafted right along side of men.
If a fat couch potato of a man, with depression and social anxiety, can get drafted, so can a dainty woman. Being female and thus an inferior soldier shouldn’t save her, because being fat weak lazy out of shape and being emotionally frail doesn’t save a man, it shouldn’t save a woman. You are either disabled, or you’re in the army now.
And banning a male draft is pointless because if a nation is under attack and the leaders must either surrender or conscript its citizens into the military, a draft will be instated as a last ditch effort to avoid surrender, if the military leaders believe a draft can turn the tides in a war. So there’s always going to be a draft. Women need to get drafted right along side of men, and therefore should be signing for Selective Service just like men (Selective Service is a USA mandate on all males age 18 to count eligibility for the draft if it should be instated.)

That’s equality; no one gets a free pass or gets off easy.

Now that I have told you precisely what equality is.
Now we move on to why is it important, and why should anyone bother fighting for it.

This gets tougher to answer since it plays on humanity’s internal sense of right and wrong, morality, which may have a evolutionary basis, but is ultimately subjective.

To ask why equality is important, is to ask why is Justice important. Justice means to make equal.

Why do we fight for Justice? Why not let the psycho murderer that killed your grandma for fun, just walk free? Why do we want to imprison him, rehabilitate him, or execute him? where does that come from?

Why do we punish thieves, murderers, rapists, and all around criminals? To do this is an effort to make justice, that is, to make equal, an eye for an eye.

Rather than trying to go into a long tirade about human evolution, the basis of human morality, and social cohesion, and how altruism is real but ultimately a manifestation of selfishness… rather than trying to get into all of that, the simple answer is: equality is good, equality is proper, seeking equality is a natural human tendency.

Now obviously, those who have the power in a society are opposed to equality because it means they may have to give up a privilege. But the disempowered seek equality because they have something to gain. Altruism then kicks in for those who have power, and they altruistically part with it (sometimes). And this altruism is based on self preservation.
I’m sure you’ve heard the statement by Martin Niemöller.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This is a statement on social cooperation (or morality). And this is where altruism comes in.
Just because the little guys are getting fucked over, and it doesn’t concern you, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care. Because if you have no one’s back, no one will have yours.

Altruism is more prominent among equals. But when one is advantaged and the other disadvantaged specifically to those advantaged people, altruism gets stretched, but can still be present. Some people are willing to part with a little bit of privilege in the name of Justice, fairness, equality, because a person holds these things as virtues. And they hold these things as virtues, as personal values if you will, because it is instinctive. It is instinctive because the practice of such behavior (morality) has benefited the species.
Example: those who cooperate and parted with extra crops to the less fortunate were repaid by the community when their family had a bad crop and longed for food.
Those who defected, and turned a blind eye to the suffering of their fellow townsmen, were distrusted and not helped in their time of need, they and their family were left to die, back in the days of a harsher environment.
Those with altruistic tendencies lived to reproduce and have their offspring live to reproduce. Those who weren’t powerful enough to never need help, and yet acted greedy, survived less, therefore their greedy genes reproduced less.

Experiments with The Prisoners Dilemma have shown how humans cooperate and defect. In a large group setting, defectors get distrusted; those who cooperate got protected.
Because this is based on memorizing a person’s level of cooperate and defect, this also explains why in high population densities, where no one remembers anyone’s charity or greed, we see higher psychopathy.

At any rate, the tendency to seek equality is human nature. The tendency to give up privilege in the name of justice, is also human nature.
Equality is good, and we must act upon this to be good. It is good because it ultimately helps a group to survive.

Or to put it simply: I am discontent with being a second class citizen because I was born the male sex. I want equality. And those greedy defectors who tell me I shouldn’t have equality, must perish.

Why The Mens Rights Movement Will Not Succeed – part 2

This is part two of https://razorbladekandy.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/why-the-mens-rights-movement-will-not-succeed/

This is a transcript for the following video:

I want to continue with the theme of my video Why The Mens Rights Movement Will Not Succeed.

Something that hadn’t occurred to me while making that video, is that some people can’t be MGTOW. Obviously a woman can’t be MGTOW, nor can married men.
So if they want to help men, then what banner do they do this under? What word, what label do they use, to describe their political position?

The problem with the mens rights movement is that it welcomes anyone who for any reason has a hair up their ass over feminism.
Maybe a person is anti-feminist because feminism hurts men.
Maybe they are anti-feminism because feminism is a small part of statism, and they’re just anti-statists.
Maybe they are against feminism because they feel threatened by women having jobs, it makes their dick limp, and so down with feminism.
Maybe they don’t like feminism because they believe the way to best maximize women’s prosperity is to have them in the home, safe and sound, being protected and supported by their disposable man servant called Husband.
Maybe they are against feminism because the bible says blah blah blah.
Maybe they are against feminism because they believe feminism is a Jewish invention to lower the white population.
Maybe they are against feminism because Illuminati, or space aliens.
Maybe they are against feminism because any movement beginning with the letter F is a bad movement.

So many reasons why an individual may gripe about feminism, and all of these individuals get to proudly call themselves Mens Rights Activists.
Not that the bulk of them give a shit about men but that title sounds good, feels good, it’s a politically correct title to operate under while bashing feminism.

As was discussed in that video, the “blame it all on feminism” mentality is detrimental.
The man hollering about losing his kids in a divorce, he blames it on feminism, when he needs to blame it first and foremost on traditionalism. Traditionalism asserts kids belong with the mother, and women are to be stay at home parents dependent on a man’s money, and a man’s role is to be a cash dispenser.
Not only is this in the tradcon philosophy, but the situation itself leads to this outcome. A man does all the work, pays all the bills, the woman stays home with the kids… when they divorce, who do you think is going to get the kids and who do you think is going to help pay the bills?

So this is a great example of scape goating feminism and why doing so backfires on men.

But another problem with blaming it all on feminism, is that it ignores so many things that fuck men over which are not always the result of feminism.
And of course there is the difficulty these people have describing feminism in any precise and meaningful way.

They have turned their fight against feminism into an obsessive religion. Feminism is Satanism, and they are soldiers for God fighting the Devil.
This is the mentality of many of them.

The point I am trying to make here is that far too many, the majority, of MRA’s don’t give a shit about men, and won’t hesitate to throw men under the bus in their fight against feminism.

Look how many MRA’s want to call people like me and Barbarossa, “misogynists”.

If you want to go fight misogyny, join the fucking feminist movement. A mens movement should be all about fighting misandry.

Look how many of these MRA’s think they’re being clever when they make references to some MGTOW are only that way because “girls reject them”. These people are still supporting the notion that women’s approval determines the value of a man. These people need to be driving it home hard, that a woman’s approval means nothing what-so-ever.

But the truth of the matter is, most of these MRA’s seek women’s approval, want to protect and white knight for women, and ultimately don’t care about men.

In an up coming video, I will be showing two MRA’s who come out of the closet and confess they don’t give a shit about the rights or well being of men, they just use mens rights as an excuse to bash feminism. And the reason they hate feminism is, convoluted at best, but that’ll have to wait for that video.

Since my appearance on youtube, as Razor Blade Kandy, I’ve operated under the banner of MRA, and then probably only a year now, operated under the title of both MRA and MGTOW. It has gotten to the point where I can’t rightfully call myself an MRA, when MRA’s in this day and age are nothing but misandrists, white knights, worshiping the golden uterus. These men are pawns for women. Like I said, AVFM has become a voice for house wives and the glorification of women’s god given role as house wife.

The mens rights movement, in it’s Moby Dick style hunt for Feminism, has thrown away every virtue, every principal, every standard, and has welcomed with open arms every mental defect male and female. There is only one rule in that movement; gripe about feminism.

It has become saturated with insecure, old fashion, mentally defective freaks who can’t function in any real movement, therefore find themselves in the intellectual sewers of the Mens Rights Movement.

It is a shame that such a meaningful and needed title like “mens rights” has been hijacked by freaks and defects of every kind.
Actually, it didn’t get saturated. What happens (and this is really sad) is that the freaks and retards have always been there. I remember these fuckups from way back in the early to mid 2000’s. What happened is all the more intelligent men just started identifying as MGTOW.

Even in the google trend that shows the increasing interest in MGTOW, and then the sudden massive spike in MGTOW, simultaneously we see a lowering of the popularity of “Mens Rights”. Plain and simple, the people in the MRM who weren’t fucking retarded enough to think protecting and providing for women was a part of being a “real man” and retarded enough to think marriage was an OK thing for men in this climate. Men who weren’t this retarded began operating under the banner of MGTOW. Certainly this is my story of switching labels, and it probably applies to a lot of people. So the people you have left over in the MRM are the old fashioned types, the mental defects, the alex jonesers, the right wing extremists who can’t get laid and blame this on feminism. And then came the exploitative female types, to reign the men back in and rope them back onto the plantation so to speak. These women who feed these insecure men cookies and self esteem strokes for being good little protectors and providers. These women starting this nonsense that MGTOW is just men making their own choices, like getting married and providing for their family like a good loving man.
And these women say this shit because they won’t come right out and blast MGTOW, because that might tip off the fragile egoed males under their spell. I mean come on, if not even one man in this movement said marriage was anything less than a trap, this movement would have two, maybe three, females in it.
This is just the exploitative manipulative house wife wannabees reigning in the men and “socializing” them into their role of protector and provider (useful disposable tool for women).

And these men under their spell, getting their ego stroked, being reminded “not all women are like that, you just have to keep looking and weed out those nasty feminists”, these gullible males having their neediness soothed, and getting socialized… look how quick these fuckers turn around like pawns for these women and accuse us MGTOW of being “misogynists”. How these little gullible dip shits have ever called another man a white knight, and are now incapable of looking in the mirror, and realizing they are now white knighting… how they can do this without spotting the hypocrisy, is mind boggling. But hey, when logic and feelings collide, feelings win out. And these men are riding high on the promise that if they just cry loud enough about what rotten whores feminists are, women will knock it off, and then women will love them, and they can live happily ever after, and all their teenage masturbation fantasies of having an obedient loving subservient house wife will come true.
These lonely and insecure men, so easily manipulated.
And the rest of the men in the MRM that don’t fit this profile, they’re just some grouchy libertarians and conservatives who’s main objective is to fight socialism and remind us to just vote right wing, because god knows if we can just vote for better Republicans, that’ll fix everything… well, it’s been the right winger’s mantra for centuries now.

I say “freak” and “mental defect”, but that obviously doesn’t apply to all of the MRM and not even all of the tradcons; just too damn many of them.

Obviously not every tradcon is necessarily mentally defective. But there is this phenomenon, I don’t know what it’s called. Back in the atheist community we spoke from time to time about how on one end of the spectrum there is your Average Joe, Christian type. There’s nothing wrong with him internally or externally; he just believes what he was raised to believe.

Then you get the deeply religiously devoted, there’s often a little something wrong with these people, not all of them, but there is a rather high prevalence of them having “issues”. But due to our atheist bias, we couldn’t trust our judgment to say for sure. Then came the religious extremists. Those dancing around with poisonous snakes for Jesus, those rolling around on the floor talking in tongues, and stuff like that. On the extreme end, they looked and acted crazy. The unfortunate problem is, a lot of them, actually were mentally ill. There was no shortage of reports of weird religious parents doing fucked up shit to their kids, normally resulting in the children’s death. There were deeply religious people committing shootings, and other acts of destruction, guided by the hand of god. And you realize, in spite of all the casual joes that made up the majority of mainstream religion, religion itself acted as a mask for insanity.

It was difficult to tell the difference between a religious extremist and a schizophrenic. When the religious extremist keeps talking about hearing the voice of god, acting on the will of god. And then some schizo is hearing the voice of god, and eventually drown some child in a bathtub or lake, to carry out the will of god. You realize that the extreme end of religion and genuine mental disorder overlap way too much.
And so the saying was religion masks mental illness.
In a church of people talking in tongues, rolling on the floor, and having exorcisms performed, you spot the religious inspired person, and spot the schizophrenic… in that environment, you can’t tell which is which.

This isn’t just religion though, this rule applies to any type of extremism, more or less.

The mens movement, from its very inception, was made up of the right wing extreme. Not the casual right, not the guy who’s a republican because fuck Obama Care. I’m not talking your average conservative or average libertarian, I’m talking the extreme end that starts morphing into Alex Jones territory and Jewish Banking Conspiracy territory.
This extreme end, like a church with people talking in tongues, may be way out there, but the people themselves not necessarily ill. But then comes the people who are a little mentally unhinged, they get camouflaged in the right wing extremism environment. And this isn’t a knock on the right, we have seen first hand the fucking wackadoos that exist on the far end of the left. The Social Justice Warriors for example, we have seen no shortage of laughable weirdness from them. And in the LGBT, I have seen things like this biological female identifying as a male, but get this, it’s only attracted to gay men, and is throwing a fit about intolerance that no gay men find her attractive.
Well no gay man can find her attractive because she has a female body. She has the wrong equipment.
It’s just fucking weird. Like, if she identified as male, she’d be seeking women. But no, she identifies as a gay male (wrap your fucking head around that) and what’s more, a straight male is not what she is looking for, because his heterosexuality means he is attracted to her female biology which she rejects… so she needs a gay man.. Jiminy Crickets this is silly. And to see so much support for this shit, and belly aching about intolerance and gender fluidity and all that LGBT-N-O-P craziness. There comes a point where my ability to accept those with a different sexuality gets strained and I just can’t reach the appropriate level of tolerance, and just have to call it like it is: fucking mental illness. The person just has mental problems.
In the same way that the LGBT has a lot of mentally ill people, and in that environment, it’s hard to pick out the normal gays from the completely messed up wackadoos.
The extreme right has it’s share, and most of these people fall into the Mens Rights Movement.
And they have been accepted and tolerated and over looked. And they have been over looked because everyone had this belief that men have one enemy and one enemy only: feminists. So, no matter how much of a completely obvious wack job you are, so long as you’re griping about feminists, you get a free pass. And so long as 5,000 people gripe about feminists, and do nothing but gripe about feminists, everything looks hunky dory. It’s when you get these people to open their mouth and talk about anything besides feminism, you start to see the frayed ends of their sanity; you start to see they might be a little off in the head.

Now again, these people are not the entirety of the MRM, but god damn there are a lot of them. And then you have the people in the MRM who take their traditionalism, and their conservatism, and basically turn it into a religion. The extremists, and the nuts, they start becoming indistinguishable.

I would like to catalog all the nuts, but I can’t. The good ol’ archie bunker, and the guy with the sexual hangups, over lap too much. The guy who says “a woman’s place is at home raising her kids, because it works” and the guy saying “a woman’s place is at home, because these uppity women need a big masculine dick to smack them into submission”. These two people are very different, yet both end up saying “a woman’s place is in the home”.

Now, this does not mean there aren’t freaks and weirdos in MGTOW, because there most certainly are. And oddly, easier to spot for some reason. In fact, there are a few self proclaimed MGTOW who are just total wack jobs. They’re right up there with the right wing extremist traditionalist who needs to beet an uppity feminist into house wife subservience with his cock.

Again, I am not trying to claim the entire MRM is like this, but hear me out.

A feminist by the name of Extremely Boring (maybe some of you remember her, I pwned her a few times) had this video that she’s taken down, but it was called the most misogynist thing I ever seen. It was about a tumblr page this guy made filled with degrading porn. It had pictures and gifs of women being walked around on a leash. Having their faces pissed on, having their faces slapped with cocks, eating dog food, and other degrading and humiliating things. What made it really interesting is all the captions and paragraphs of pseudo MRA ideology. I say pseudo, because it bordered on actually being MRA material, and by that, I mean extreme anti-feminism.

For example, the paragraph might read something like “these feminists claim they want independence, but this is a lie, a woman’s natural role is to be submissive and obedient. But some Jew cunts sold them a lie that they were people. A woman’s place is on her knees scrubbing floors. A woman’s place is on her knees pleasing her husband. And the thing is, these women know this. They long for a strong man to put them in their place, the role god determined for them. When a feminist opens her mouth, it is a desperate cry for cock. There is a solution to the feminist problem, when a feminist opens her mouth, feed her some sausage, this is what a woman’s mouth is for!”

Followed by gifs of women having huge cocks rammed in her mouth.

It was paragraph after paragraph, and caption after caption, of this kind of rhetoric, sandwiched between degrading porn images. And of course, no shortage of references and images and videos of women fixing sandwiches, having their asses slapped while doing women’s work in the kitchen, and other fetishizing of “house wives”.

It completely demonized feminism for asserting women are people and can work like a man. It worshiped, and down right fetishized women in the kitchen, sweeping floors, and other common house wive tasks. It repeated over and over, a feminist is just a woman that doesn’t know she isn’t people, a cock in her mouth, a cock in her ass, a cock in her cunt, will fuck the feminist right out of them, and return them to their natural subserviant role, serving men sandwiches.

And this stuff wasn’t one picture or one post, it was a freakin huge blog.

I explained to the feminist, Extremely Boring, that this guy was not an MRA, this was either a parody or fetish porn of some sort, and that’s that.
She claimed this is what the entire MRM looked like to her.

Anyhow, now that I look back at things, and have time to reflect, and to do so from a different perspective, I see Extremely Boring’s point.

For my die hard fans who’ve seen all my videos, I’m sure you’ll recall me going back over memory lane about my involvement in the early anti-feminist community online, around 2003 or 2005 and ending in 2008.

Anyhow, I mentioned that the movement was such a disheveled mess. There was no direction. Everything could be split into 3 categories.
1. Fathers rights, typically run by divorce specializing law firms, asking for money.
2. strong christian conservatism with an extra heap of bible thump, and a touch of white nationalism.
3. Straight up misogyny for the sake of chuckles.

There were no shortage of blogs and blog posts that fought feminism, but mostly from the perspective that a woman’s place is in the home. These blogs started all the wonky MRA mythologies that is still being circulated. Myths such as:
1. More women attending college is what caused tuition to sky rocket. No it really hasn’t, and the actual explanation is, in a nutshell, government subsidized, then cut funding, and that cut gets rolled over to the student’s cost. Yeah, 9 times out of 10 the best bet is to let the free market determine a price, and this is a great example.

2. More women entering the workforce cut the wage in half. This is false, as I showed in my Bloomfield trial video when she tried this shit. The bulk of the wage depreciation is outsourcing (though it is not the only reason) but women entering the workforce is not a part of it.

3. Women working just got the family taxed twice (also in the Bloomfield trial video I dispelled this myth).

4. Women working is a marxist conspiracy to weaken the family (another myth I debunked in the Bloomfield trial video).

5. Women working is a corporate conspiracy to generate more subservient cheap wage workers.

6. Women working hurts corporations. (gee, I thought it was a corporate conspiracy, now it hurts corporations).

And the list of mythologies of why women working causes every problem known to man, many of them repeated by Janet Bloomfield and debunked in my Bloomfield on trial videos.

Anyhow, the misogyny for the sake of misogyny, often rooted in women shouldn’t work, they’re too stupid to work, they fuck everything up, every problem in the world is the result of these dumb fuck toys thinking they’re people and wanting jobs like people. Bitches need to be in the kitchen, having babies, making sandwiches, and swallowing cum is all they can do.

This was such a powerful theme. Non stop bashing women.
It would take a long time for me to notice that the pattern wasn’t just hatred of women… it was hatred of women walking away from their role as stay at home mothers.
It was like Janet Bloomfield’s earlier blog posts, but with more raunch and more references to cocks shoved in them.

The old anti-feminist community was absolutely saturated with this shit.
That and the bible thumping, and small size of the communities, is why I could never really be active. I just felt it to be ultimately unproductive. And everyone god damn it acted like mental fuckups. It’s like these people wore mental dysfunction on their sleeves, except for pickup artists, and some of the fathers rights community. Then came a new wave of anti-feminists like FredX and his crew, and they became superstars, and then mysteriously disappeared… I kid you not, they just vanished under really weird circumstances around 2008.

Anyhow, my fans will note that I have gone down this memory lane several times, and talked about these problems with the earlier community.

The thing I want to point out, is like that tumblr blog talking about every feminist needs a cock in her mouth to make her into a good sandwich making house wife, the early anti feminist community had a lot of that, only watered down.

Still, today, we can still see this weird tendency. I am reminded of HTArcade, who now goes by Rick Agulara. I want you to think about some of his videos where he would show a woman bringing her man a sandwhich and bringing him his video game controller, and other subservient house wifey things. Think of all the porn that dude posts on facebook, and sometimes the porn geared towards woman’s role as subservient fuck toy.

And now think of a lot of the arguments you see today about how a woman just needs a strong masculine male to tell her no, and put her in her place, and how women naturally want to submit to a strong alpha male. You know, the sort of shit Aca Demy says.

And think about all the posts about how women are too stupid to work, too useless to do anything but pop out kids and make sandwitches.

I’m telling you, all this shit runs together, and is ultimately a watered down version of that hardcore humiliation fetish porn blog Extremely Boring pointed out.
All these weird excuses to keep women in the house barefoot and pregnant, parasitically leaching off her man. Most of these arguments can be found on Bloomfield’s blog. But if you’ve watched those videos, you’ll remember just how many different excuses she came up with that women belonged in the home. Aside from “it causes more pollution when they work” I don’t think any of these ideas were original. These ideas have been running rampant in the anti-feminist, or MRM, community since forever.

It is my belief, the majority of the MRM, is attacking feminism, primarily because women are leaving the home and working (which isn’t even that much the fault of feminism to be honest). The mens rights movement is not a movement geared towards securing equal rights and treatment for men; it is, and largely always has been, a movement ultimately about keeping women in the home as stay at home mothers. And it has come up with every zany pretense imaginable. The core of it is, sexual dysfunction in men.

That’s right, the bulk of the MRM by this point are made up of Tradcons, and a hardy portion of the tradcons are sexually dysfunctional men who for whatever reason are fetishizing the house wife.

There are good people in the MRM, they are rare.
There are a lot of tradcons in the MRM, not all of them messed up or bad.
There is unfortunately a large minority of sexually dysfunctional tradcons. Differentiating conservative and libertarian extremist MRA from the sexually dysfunctional MRA is a difficult task, like spotting the clinically diagnosed schizophrenic at a holey rolling church where they’re talking in tongues and rolling around possessed by the holey spirit (or proclaim to).
Differentiating them is difficult.

To make it worse, on tumblr and the blogosphere, they are retumbling, retweeting, copy&pasting, each others arguments until their philosophies and arguments morph into one ball of dysfunction.

To put it simply, the messed up, toxic, sexually deviants, are projecting so much of their toxicity into the intellectual arena that it is seeping into the mind of the right wing extremists. It’s all morphing together, creating a cauldron of toxicity, making the overall movement a bunch of toxic dysfunctional regressive reactionary freaks.

I believe the level of toxicity is growing. The “ram a cock in them to make them good house wifes” type of toxicity is contagious and we are seeing a forever more dysfunctional tradcon. And maybe I am wrong about that. But it’s just that I keep seeing the same bizarre fear driven reactionary masculinist disgruntled PUA type mythologies circulating.

And like I said, I think many former MRA’s are now identifying as MGTOW, and so what you have left over is the regressives, the extremists, and the all around dysfunctionals. Like a purification process has taken place.

Those wackadoos I mentioned from many years ago, they never went away, they’re still here. And many of the good MRA’s now identify as MGTOW, and so there are only two types of MRA left, the toxic or the regressive, and the people who can’t march under the MGTOW banner because they are female or married. I suppose there are still some good ones who just don’t get it yet. But all of those good MRA’s, they are the minority, and they are in an intellectually toxic pool.

I don’t want to bash the MRA label, but it is a label that has been mostly hijacked by toxic people. Dear MRA’s it’s the 85% making you good 15% look bad.
And this all happened for one reason: not enough people really gave a shit about men, and therefore the only common ground anyone had for that movement, was bashing feminism. This is how toxic and dysfunctional people tag teamed with regressive reactionaries to make up the bulk of a movement that should have had nothing to do with either one if the equal rights and equal treatment of men, as the label implies, actually meant anything to them.

The crash, the fall, of the MRM into a cess pool of toxic dysfunction, is the direct result of not actually caring about men, but just finding camaraderie in hating feminists.

In my next video, I am going to show you a modern day example of the type of nonsense that made up practically every anti-feminist blog back in the pre-YouTube era.
And armed with the descriptors I gave you in this video, it will become painfully obvious that his gripe with feminism is directly related to his dick, his sexual hangups and sexual insecurities.

And once I have exposed a few blog posts by this guy you’ll become so familiar with the arguments, and especially the language, that you will start seeing this rhetoric everywhere in the MRM. You’ll really see it.
It is my hope at least, that you will remember the example of that Tumblr blog that described (it’s only a shame I can’t actually show you the blog). You will remember that hardcore humiliation, that beat a feminist down with your cock to make her a good little housewife. That ultra misogyny Extremely Boring freaked out about.
You’ll hear and read the arguments and familiarize yourself with the language of this guy’s blog, and suddenly you will spot this shit all throughout the present MRM.

And then, I will show you a video of a couple of MRA’s who come out of the closet that they only fight feminism, and don’t give a flying fuck about mens rights. Followed by their motives.

It is my hopes after those two videos, the points I make in this video will become more clear, more real, more self evident.

And I also want to say, you may have noticed I talk about the old school misogyny, and theoretically, doesn’t that conflict with the notion that these people are white knights?

Well, here’s the thing. They worship women like goddesses, but it is an ultra specific love and worship, it is in fact very conditional.
The condition is this:
A woman is born into this world, as valuable as all the diamonds in the world. One baby girl has the value of pretty much the entire male sex put together. Her value can only be rivaled by another baby girl.
This baby girl, as she grows and matures, must remain a virgin, covered, and shy.
She must always be shy, bashful, and respectful. She must exist in a perpetual state of helplessness, submission, femininity.
She must be selected by a man, as if she were a piece of fruit plucked from a tree. And to this man she must be wedded, bound by law and in the eyes of god, to this one man; the only man she will ever know.
She must then give absolute obedience and submission to her husband. And she must give him children. She must stay locked in the house like a jewel in a jewelry box. Always helpless, always subservient, always reliant on her husband.

If she can be a virgin, wedded to a man, and eternally locked in the house and subservient, she is a goddess.

This, you see, is the natural state of woman. This is how women are. It is written in their DNA by evolution or by the hand of god. This is how every female is.
Pristine innocent virgin destine to be a subservient house wife, this precious plucked fruit, the greatest male prized possession, locked in the safe jewelry box called a house, forever. This is the way it has always been, the way it is, and the way it shall always be. It is nature, and the will of god.

Any deviation from this, is an act of Satan. It is the fault of Karl Marx, it is the fault of the commies, it is the fault of feminism, it is the fault of Satan.

A woman is innocent, beautiful, submissive, obedient, destined to be the property of man. But, as did the serpent so tempt Eve, the mother of woman, away from God and husband, so too does feminism tempt woman from man and God.

Women are worshiped, and protected, bestowed upon them automatic value.
This worship, this love, is conditional that she never stray from this male fantasy. Any straying, any giving in to the temptation from the Feminist serpent, shall render her a violated whore, an abomination of woman.
Thus all men must unite to shelter women from the tempting feminist serpent, ‘less our goddesses leave their jewelry box and become a satanic feminist whore.
You see, when us MGTOW who have awaken from the Matrix, blame the nature of woman for bad female behavior, we are committing blasphemy, and totally ruining the male fantasy of the blue pill man.
The blue pill man must believe, he absolutely must believe in the great virtue of the virgin female, and her destiny to be locked away, obedient to him. This is womens nature, it must be, his sexuality demands it to be so.

To break the illusion, to in any way remind him, that this male libido driven view of the default nature of woman is an illusion, shatters his sense of self, since his self is centered on the fulfillment of the male sexual fantasy.

This is the man in the Matrix. He is too far gone. He is the chaser of the illusion of woman, the myth of woman. To shatter his illusion, is to shatter himself. His ego defenses kick in, and rejects the truth, as a sour stomach would expel a toxin. To the chronic blue pill man, the red pill is a toxin that will not be digested.

Sorry for the poetic language.

Anyway, my next two videos will be giving examples of the subconscious sexual fetishizing of the domesticated house wife, and how this is the underlying theme in the traditionalist hijacked MRM. And then demonstrate a couple of MRA’s confessing that actual love and concern for the well being of men is not their motive. And I will be demonstrating how toxic this is to us. And I will be tying it together, the toxicity of the sexual dysfunction, and the toxicity of the apathetic anti-feminist, and how this has undermined the MRM, rendering it a self crippled trainwreck, and why continuing to operate as an MRA is self defeating.

But for those good MRA’s that are still out there, I don’t know what to do for you. It’s a shame you can’t flush out the toxic people. You are the 15 to 20 percent, they are the 80 to 85 percent.

Also, you can spot a blue pill man simply by his statement that feminism is “the” enemy.
The failure of the MRM is the Captain Ahab-like obsession with Feminism, the right wing extremism, and lack of any genuine concern for men; it’s always been about pushing some right wing bullshit, and “fighting feminism”, it’s always been about the sexual dysfunction of mental defects; it’s never been about caring about men.

I declare all men who do not care about men, to be enemies of men. And hope to make a case great enough to convince the rest of you of this.

Why The Mens Rights Movement Will Not Succeed.

This is a transcript for this video:

You know what gets me about the mens rights movement: it’s completely futile.
Allow me to explain why.
The mens rights movement isn’t about mens rights, it’s about fighting feminism. Now they claim they are fighting for men’s rights by proxy of fighting against feminism, since feminism is the one and only factor that has harmed men’s well being. Feminism, by the way, is not the only thing that disadvantages men, but I’m not gonna go there right now.
Anyhow, they claim they fight feminism, but they don’t.

What part of feminism do you people fight?

Do you fight against married women’s right to own property?
Do you fight against women’s right to vote?
Do you fight against the provision for them in the 1964 civil rights act, that made it illegal for government and large corporations to openly discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation?

Well, I think the more extreme ended libertarians actually are against the 1964 civil rights act.

But my point here is, if you are not going to fight to remove the laws granting women a lawful right to an education, a lawful right to employment, the lawful right to own property, and their right to vote, you’re not even really fighting feminism; you’re merely fighting some aspect, some portion of feminism. But you’re not fighting feminism in its entirety.

Since you mens rights activists, who do not fight for mens rights; but only fight against feminism, but not the core root of feminism, let me ask you, what part of feminism are you even fighting?

It would seem to me the part of feminism that is being fought is the louder more over the top tumblr style feminists. Those who cry about a rape culture, call everything rape, recite the wage gap myth, bitch about being victims of systematic gendered violence because guys whistle at them and say “hello beautiful” as they walk down New York side walks. Somewhere out there, there is a Muslim woman listening to these feminists, having to cover up from head to toe, and requiring a male escort to be allowed to step out of the house, who is totally sympathetic to the oppression of a woman in a bikini being told “hello beautiful”.

And some of you may be thinking I am pulling that dictionary definition of feminism just being about sexual equality, and claiming “not all feminists are like that”. But no, that is not my argument.
We all know that the description in the dictionary does not add up to the cult of misandry we see from modern feminists. And we all know the “not all feminists are like that” argument is completely rubbish.
Oh it’s true, not all feminists are like that.
For example, not all feminists support that law in California where a man has to get consent to kiss, then consent to hug, then consent to place his hand on a woman’s left breast, then consent to touch the right breast, then consent to remove the bra, then consent to kiss the breasts, then consent to place his hand on her rear end, and then every 15 seconds he has to be given verbal consent to ensure that consent hasn’t been retracted. Whatever that crazy fucking law that ends up making every act of sex an act of rape.
Sure not all feminists support that. But that doesn’t change the fact that the feminists that are like that, got that law passed. The feminists crying “not all feminists are like that” are guilty by association, they are enablers, they act as shields for the feminists who are like that.
There are feminists who are like that, and then there are the feminists who shield them from criticism by reminding you “not all feminists are like that” and then citing the dictionary definition.

So, I’m certainly not pulling a NAFALT, nor am I doing the “check the dictionary” retort.
But what I am saying is, are you even really and truly anti-feminist if you are not against women’s property rights, right to vote, and right of equal access to education and employment?

Again, if you are not against those three fundamental pillars of feminism, just how anti-feminist are you?

What aspect of feminism is it that you are against?
I’m going to go out on a limb and answer for you, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think the part of feminism you are against is the misandry.
Women claiming that women every where live their lives in fear of men, is misandry, and you fight that. They claim every move a man makes is rape, and you fight that.

OK, well, if this is what you are fighting, than you are effectively just fighting misandry. And by the way, fighting misandry is a good thing. I fully support fighting misandry, and it’s certainly the aspect of feminism that I am fighting against.

But here’s the twist, misandry isn’t exclusively found in feminism; it’s found all over the place. Heck, it’s even found in the mens rights movement.

Look how often self proclaimed MRA’s call other MRA’s and MGTOW a “misogynist”.
Every time you accuse a man of misogyny, you are trying to silence him from speaking out against women in ways you deem unfit. Well that, gentlemen, is actually misandry.

Women being free to speak even the most revolting things about men, but men having to walk on eggshells so as to not offend some woman’s hyper sensitive ears; is misandry. You shaming other men with the accusation of “misogyny” just like the feminists do, is an act of misandry. You are contributing to the shaming and silencing of men.

Every time an MRA accuses another MRA or MGTOW of holding a belief “because you just can’t get laid”, that MRA is actually being a misandrist. Your first clue that it is misandry is that it is verbatim a feminist argument to silence men. And here you are using their tactic to shame men into silence. In what god damn way do you think you differ from a male feminist?

You fight against MGTOW, claiming that our theory of gynocentrism is “just like the feminists using patriarchy”.
And realize, you MRA types blame every ill of mankind on “cultural marxism”, so remind me how you differ?

So let’s recap. Mens Rights Activists do not fight for mens rights, they only fight against feminism. Worse yet, they only fight against some parts of feminism; not the founding principals themselves. And they throw men under the bus in their fight against certain parts of feminism.

And now let’s take it a step further and ask “how are you people “fighting” feminism”?
Are you punching them? Are you shooting them? Are you pushing to have them arrested?
No, you’re tweeting at them.

Well by all means continue to have your meme wars and toss around your statistics and do your best to out snark each other in a 140 character tweet. And be sure to let me know when that “defeats” feminism.

Currently, a man spends his life seeking out women, finally gets a woman’s approval, marries her, works all day long to support her, has children with her, works even harder to support both her and her children. In this arrangement, if they should no longer get along, and the arguing and fighting doesn’t get resolved, it ends in divorce.
In divorce, the woman will usually get the children, and thus all other assets the man has (for the greater good of the kids) and the man will have to continue paying for those children. A man’s life is utterly destroyed by this. And of course, it is very rare that he can pay enough money to keep her and the children alive, so socialism steps in to keep her and the children alive.

You people blame this entire outcome on feminism. And you’re mostly right, but here’s the real bit of irony, it’s the part of feminism the great bulk of you refuse to actually fight that is behind this.

In order to stop half the marriages or around that number, from ending in divorce, you are going to have to turn wives into the lawful property of their husbands.
Make it so wives can’t vote, can’t own property, and aren’t allowed to work without a husband’s permission. May not lawfully file for divorce without husband’s consent (i.e. only husbands can file for divorce). Make it so that by law, children are by default the property of their father.

If you are not prepared to implement that hardcore Islamic styled patriarchy, you are not fighting feminism in any meaningful way.

The problem here is not “just” feminism, it’s actually old school patriarchy or traditionalism, attempting to function in a post feminism culture, that is causing the problem. You are not willing to undo actual feminism, in order to make traditionalism work.

The great crisis we have, being called “feminism”, is at its core, the failure of traditionalism.

I know you’re knee jerk response is to go on and on about the tender years doctrine and feminized bias court system. But put that argument down for just a moment.

I want you to imagine a scenario.
A husband and wife are arguing and not getting along any longer. Not just for a day, a week, or a month. But over a course of a few years, the fighting and arguing become worse and worse. Each one is making life unbearable for the other. There is nothing but cold shoulders in that house. This is seriously hurting the children. Every minute in that house, for everyone, feels like walking over a mine field. Every question, every action, threatens to set off the powder keg of explosive anger between the husband and wife. Every little thing threatens to start with the moodiness, the snarking, the yelling, the screaming, the furniture banging, while the kids just run to their bedrooms and cry.
Obviously, for the sake of the children, a divorce needs to happen. Sure there is expensive couples therapy, and let me know when that’s ever fixed a marriage.
At any rate, it’s time for a divorce. For the sake of the children at least, it is time they split.

Now, the woman is a traditional house wife. No education, no skills, no job history, no where to go.
The husband is the one with the masters degree and the 8 years worth of electrical engineering or whatever have you, that pays all the family’s bills.
Remove all the nonsense of a tender years doctrine (which is no longer in effect any how).
And tell me, where should the children go? Who should they live with?
If they live with daddy, who’s going to watch them? He has to work between 40 and 60 hours a week, and you tradcons in the MRM have said umpteen million times that daycare and babysitters will ruin a child.
So clearly a biological parent has to be up their ass 24/7 according to you tradcons.
And as I said, the father has to work. So clearly the children are going to the wife.
And how is the wife / mother going to support the child? She has no job or education or work history because she is a traditionalist gal and has been a stay-at-home mother.
And worse yet, she can’t get a job because according to you she needs to be up the kids asses 24/7, because baby sitters and daycare will give the kid autism, or turn them into psychopaths or whatever your excuses are.
So again, I ask, how is she going to pay for the children? There are only 4 possibilities:
1. The ex husband pays it all, her house, utilities, and food for her and the kids, just like when he was married.
2. The state pays it all (lots of taxes).
3. The ex husband pays the highest amount possible, and what is not possible, but still needed, is picked up by the tax payer.
4. The kids are taken from both and placed into foster care.

Well if we go with number 4, that’s the most expensive for the tax payer, and would be all of the horrors of daycare times a hundred, so clearly that’s not an option. We go with number Three.

Gentlemen, Feminism need not exist for Number three to be the outcome.

Now this can still be blamed on feminism, if we consider that feminism grants women the right to own property in a marriage,the right to vote, and makes it completely illegal for a husband to physically discipline his moody wife.

But funny thing is, you’re not fighting against that shit.

So you’re not willing to erect a strong Islamic style patriarchy to actually make traditionalism work. And you’re not willing to abandon traditionalism like MGTOW. So you’re stuck in a loop of committing the same bad behavior over and over, and just blaming it all on feminism.

You people refuse to look in the mirror and see your own mistakes.

You don’t have the courage to seriously put women in their place Islamic sharia law style. Nor have you the courage to get up and leave the traditional institution of being married with children.

You won’t fix things to return us to the past, and you won’t fix things to make a better future. You’re stuck between these two states just standing their and effectively crying. You call your crying “fighting feminists”. But you’re not fighting, you’re crying.

And it must really suck for you people. It must be a depressing life. You’re too much of a pussie begging white knight still after all these years, still fighting for female approval. So consumed by your need to gain female approval and look all politically correct for the cameras, that you won’t push for a traditional patriarchy. You haven’t the courage to scream “down with women’s right to vote”. That would make you look like a misogynist, women wouldn’t give you their approval.
So you’re too spineless to push for that traditional patriarchy.
But you hate us MGTOW, you won’t join or support the efforts of a movement that advocates walking away, abandoning, this gynocentric machine.
You don’t want to fix the machine, you don’t want to abandon the machine, you just keep feeding it while bitching about it.

And that is why the Mens Rights Movement is futile.

Look, I understand the value in arguing feminists: it has a cathartic effect, it forces them to acknowledge we exist (MRM / MGTOW), and it teaches other men it’s OK to stand up to these people.
But don’t fool yourself into thinking you can just argue feminists and one day you will win and women every where will just stop it.

And in your worship of women, you refuse to see the bulk of women’s natural bad behavior for what it is; you just keep pointing and yelling “feminism!”.
Take this manspreading thing they’re griping about. That’s not feminism… that’s just women nagging.
Bitching about “street harassment”, that’s just women bitching griping complaining and nagging about men. That’s just what women do.
And sure, most women bitching about these things do call themselves feminists.
But feminism, over the past 120 years or so, has eventually morphed into a word to describe entitled women nagging and bitching about men.
And so this thing your fighting, this women’s nagging… good luck fighting that. You just keep blogging and tweeting and rebutting their nagging and let me know when that puts an end to women’s nagging.

and #YesAllWomen nag. All of them, every god damn one of them. Even Diana Davison, which is pretty hard core, and MGTOW approved… even she fucking nags.
I took a few months off of video making and all she did was nag nag nag me to make a video. Nagged me for three fucking months.

Hell she even uploaded a video, and with her upload comment said…

Yeah, she fucking nags.

She nagged me for three friggin’ months and she didn’t even fuck me. Being nagged by a woman for three months and not getting sex out of her… for crying out loud she might as well have been my wife. I spent 3 months knowing what you married men go through.

Anyhow, all women, even the good ones, they nag, it’s a part of womanhood. It’s natural, like birds chirping and cats purring. Even the best women nag. I loved my grandmother, god rest her soul, but she fucking nagged. She nagged her daughters, she nagged her son, she nagged me, she nagged her husband. She was truly an awesome human being, but… she nagged.

And the women who aren’t really awesome… you’re average woman, they nag, and bitch, and whine, and complain… a lot.

Most of the shit that is “feminism” is just women nagging, bitching, whining, and complaining.

You people won’t even realize the great bulk of what you fight is just women being women. You keep blaming feminism, and you blame feminism on socialism, or marxism.

For crying out loud, women didn’t need Karl Marx to learn how to nag, bitch, whine, and complain; all they needed for that was a set of ovaries.

Women have always been ungrateful, entitled, and just nagged, whined, bitched, cried, moaned, and complained. But now they can vote… so politicians listen to their nagging whining bitching moaning and complaining. So now things like men leaving the toilet seat up, or whistling at them in public, or taking up too much room on the subway, becomes a political issue.

Women’s instinctive nagging turned political is called feminism.

You observe women’s bad behavior and bad attitudes, and act like the feminist movement caused this to happen.

It’s a lot like the people who see violence in the real world, and then cite video games and television and music as the cause.
You need to understand, there are violent video games, because people like violence. There is violent music lyrics because people like violence. There are violent movies, because people like violence. People like violence because they’re people, it’s just an aspect of human nature.

Boys are horny and masturbate. The anti-porn movement swears this is caused by the porn industry.
But no, in actuality, porn is not the basis for mens sexual need. The sexual need is there by biology, the porn is just there to satiate the biological need.

Women act dramatic, always gossiping manipulating, scheming, and picking fights to have their emotional rollercoaster drama needs met.
Notice how they also watch TV shows and movies filled with screaming and fighting and crisis and backstabbing and drama?

I’m going to let you in on a little secret, the movies are there because this is what the female mind likes. These movies do not cause the female mind to be this way.

Feminism is not a movement that causes women to think and feel the way they do about men, it’s the fact that this is how women think and feel, that makes the feminist movement exist.

Again, you can no more blame mens high sex drives on pornography than you can blame womens misandry on feminism.
It’s mens high sex drive that built the porn industry, and women’s misandry that built feminism.

Think about football, soccer, rugby, basketball, and so on. All these major sports feature men competing over who gets to have a ball.
If you can picture a group of toddlers all reaching for the same toy and competing over who gets to play with it.
This is men. Men are people who enjoy competing for something. Women compete in their own way, but men are very much into the athletic competition. It is not all these major playoffs and sporting events that make young boys want to go out and play physical sports; it’s that males have an inborn desire to physically compete, that manufactures such things as sports.
Even if all schools abandoned sports. Even if the television stations quit broadcasting sporting events, little boys and young men in their prime will still be making games out of physically competing.

Likewise with feminism. Feminism is the outcome of women being women, like football is the outcome of men being men.

Anyhow, you MRA’s, you won’t attempt to re-institute a strong patriarchal system, and you won’t abandon the institution of marriage and children, so you’re just stuck feeding the machine and griping about it.

If you were fighting to “put women in their place” by forcing them into servitude, reestablishing man as ruler of the nuclear family (under the law), maybe even going sharia law up in here, to establish a forced traditional order, I wouldn’t support that, but I wouldn’t feel all that inclined to fight it. I could look at what you are doing and say “well, I may not agree with this agenda, but hey, they’re trying something.”

But you people aren’t trying anything. Furthermore you’re discouraging those who are.
Any effort to actually reform things, you people would shout down as sexist against women, or claim it’s marxist.
And that’s all you people do, bitch about problems and shoot down anyone that attempts a solution. Because again, everything is either misogyny, or it’s socialist, or it doesn’t conform to your traditional nuclear family values and therefore is “just like the feminists”.

John The Other contributed something really valuable to this split between the MRM and MGTOW, he referred to what is going on here as reforming vs abandoning. The traditionalist MRM wants to reform; MGTOW wants to abandon.

And I think it was a brilliant way of looking at the core of what is taking place.
However, what exactly is it you people are trying to reform? If I didn’t know better, I’d say it’s women.

What I see so much of in the MRM is MRA’s bitching that women should stop doing this, women should start doing this.

OK, look, we live in a world where women win, and men lose; in that scenario, why would women change a damn thing?

If anyone here is going to have to change, it’s men. MGTOW is men making that personal change. MRA’s sit around expecting others to change around them.

Put it simply; women are not going to change. They have no motivation.
Some women choose to bash men, others choose to exploit men. They’re not going to stop… because they don’t have to, that’s why.
So all the tweets of fury in the world, aren’t going to convince advantaged women to stop doing the things that advantage them.

Because you’re still in pussy beggar mode. Because you are still white knights begging for their approval, you have this image of women as being soft, angelic, delicate creatures, full of love, respect, loyalty, and compassion.
That’s the fantasy about women you have.
And when you open your eyes, and you don’t see women behaving this way, you just scream “FEMINISM”.
You believe feminism is this really nasty idea started by some marxists, and this pathology has infected “western women” and either we need to find a good foreign woman, or just “defeat feminism, smash marxism, vote right wing” or in the case of some of you, “defeat the Jew”, and that will magically drive the evil satanic feminism out of women, and women will return to a natural state of being wispy flowery angels filled with love, compassion, and respect, like they used to be, back in the olden days, like it appeared in old black and white movies, the way it must have been because that’s how it looked on Little House On The Prairie.

I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s nonsense. Foreign women act just like western women. Women in the olden days acted just like modern women. Or at least, these women will behave like modern western women when they are allowed to.

Women are as greedy as men, maybe even more so.
Women will hurt men as much as you allow them.
Women will exploit men as much as they are allowed to.
Women will man-shame and bash men as much as they are allowed.

In many foreign countries, husbands can use physical force to keep their wives under control, and that reduces most of the marital fighting.
In the olden days, even in America, husbands were never technically allowed to hit their wives, but unless you roughed them up really bad, it was generally over looked.

Women will “behave” when they are forced to behave.
Sometimes that force is a husband’s use of physical discipline. Sometimes that force is laws restricting their choices and forcing their subservience. Sometimes that force is a strong misogynist culture. Sometimes that force is a small combination of all three.

But again, you white knights wouldn’t dare advocate for such things because that’s misogyny, and you won’t tolerate that shit.
You people remind me of a group of people complaining that there is no bacon, but simultaneously restricting anyone from killing a pig. You’re problem is self created.

You people won’t abandon your pursuit of bacon, nor will you bring yourself to actually killing pigs, so you just sit there complaining ad nauseum about there being no bacon.

And realize, that even though women can be made to “behave” under force, that is all they are doing: behaving. The fact they resent your maleness, believe themselves the center of the universe, feel entitled. That is still there, because their brains are still female. But force (of some kind) can make the great bulk of them at least stifle that long enough to behave in a society that will not tolerate their misbehavior.
But again, that’s slaughtering the pig, and you won’t allow that.

So, you MRA’s, stuck wanting women, wanting them to behave, but too white knight to demand we be a society that implements the forcing of this obedient behavior.
You’ll neither abandon nor reform; you’ll just stand still and cry about the situation, and continue feeding the machine.
You’ll marry a woman, give her children, pay for it all (what few men can afford to at least) and then act shocked when she leaves you for a man that can provide better, or leaves you when you fall and cannot provide.
You’ll place your head on the chopping block, and act shocked, and scream FEMINISM, when they bring down the axe. You’ll go down that road, get burned, and encourage young men to follow this path. And you’ll give these young men such worthy advice like “just got to find the right one”, and if he should doubt this, remind him “not all women are like that”, and “go find yourself a foreign woman”, and “don’t let your wife get influenced by feminists”, and “you got to be firm with your woman, tell her no.”

I say this, no man should be marrying or having children in this climate.
And if enough men abandon these practices, it may very well hurt population. I also have no doubt that if it ever got that severe, this would actually open the door to new laws and attitudes to protect men from women. Laws to ensure that his children someway somehow belong to HIM and to him only. Laws like only husbands can file for divorce. Or laws written right on the books that children are to default to the custody of the father.

The mens rights movement will fail for the following reasons:
1. You are too weak to abandon.
2. You are too afraid of change.
3. You will not fix anything if it involves upsetting women.

You won’t fix the machine, you won’t change the function of the machine, you won’t abandon the machine; you’ll just keep fueling it, and crying about it, and scolding everyone that either tries to fix, change, or abandon it.

This is why you have been, are now, and always will be, pointless, futile, and fail.

MGTOW – a poor acronym with a valuable message

RBK and Elam perspective on MGTOW

In regards to a video of Paul Elam of AVFM continuing to insist that a man can be MGTOW and still get married, I wrote my brief input, and someone asked a question to me that I will be answering here.

artistic amnesia asks this:

I really am new to this and learning about MGTOW,MRA,MRM and such related things.
A question I have about MGTOW, and I ask it to you RBK, because you seem to be well versed in the subjects, as well as very articulate. Please do not take this as an attack, a front or anything of that sort, I am really looking for your take on it.

Note: the word “you” below does not imply RBK, it is the general “you the reader”

If MGTOW is really “men going their own way” does it not imply in the very name, that no definition, no practice of MGTOW can be held up as “wrong”.
To me it seems like an inherent flaw in the name/ description. It is all about the “own way” part if it. Once your movements name is about the concept of the individual making his own path, it leaves it open to say that no path chosen can be wrong.

If the core of the movement is for an individual man to go his own way, then only that mans choice matters, no matter what it is. If you claim to respect a mans free and individual choice,yet complain it’s not correct under the term MGTOW are you really allowing him to go his own way?

I think many of the things that MGTOW advocates are great for many men. I just am not sure if the actual label is the best for those views.

As an outsider, the movement seems more about men choosing to opt out of the traditional male-female roles and expectations. It does not seem to be about a man going his own way.

I ask these things with all due respect as someone with questions and opinions, who has an open mind and interest to learn.

I agree the label itself is not an accurate descriptor of what we are about. But the label has gained understanding and popularity. The label has power. I won’t get into the origins of the term Men Going Their Own Way, as it is somewhat convoluted, and the earliest term of MGTOW actually refers to some sort of libertarian ultra conservative masculinist crap. None-the-less, the term has come to mean something.
But I will agree the term itself is misleading, and telling MGTOW they better not stand for a damn thing or they are conformists and not “going their own way” will be a never ending argument against MGTOW by those who either want to harm it, or modify it.
If, as you observed, the name implies that there is no wrong way to be MGTOW, then everyone is MGTOW. The male feminists, the true forced loneliness crowd, the PUA’s, militant Islamic extremists wanting to practice sharia law on every woman that leaves the house uncovered or drives a car, the regressive conservative traditionalists ramming outdated gender roles down people’s throats. Everyone, would be MGTOW. And if everyone is MGTOW, then MGTOW has no actual meaning.
For the longest time my audience called me MGTOW while I was calling myself MRA. I didn’t want to call myself MGTOW, because I couldn’t figure out what it meant or what it stood for or ultimately what the difference was between it and an MRA.
Even now, the term is so misunderstood. It seems to be used as synonyms for:
Sex separatist.

A thing the MGTOW community is going through right now is an effort to fully understand this phenomena. It is largely agreed upon by the MGTOW community that it is largely “men going away from women” i.e. male autonomy.
But this doesn’t mean you can’t have a female friend, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have sex, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have a girlfriend.
As far as what type of relations with women is healthy; there are different notions with the theme being: the less she profits from you, the healthier your relationship.
This leaves marriage itself as the ultimate “unhealthy” relationship a man can have with a woman since modern day marriage is the ultimate “woman profiting off of you”.
While we aren’t going to stand around calling each other “not MGTOW” or “not MGTOW enough” for having less than some ideal relationship, we have come to a consensus that a line must at least be drawn at marriage. At the point in which you become married, we’re not going to consider you to be MGTOW. Those who preach marriage are enemies of our cause, and those who preach that MGTOW “can” get married, are also enemies of our cause. At first I am willing to accept that these people are just ignorant to the discussions that the MGTOW community has already had on the topic, and I am willing to educate them. After a while, if they “just don’t get it”, I am declaring them antagonists.
Also, if we all accept that being MGTOW means you can go ahead and get married, than MGTOW has no cultural impact because all it takes for someone to ask “if you can reject marriage, or conform to the utmost traditional marriage, then what in the hell do you people even stand for?”
And the only reply is “well… umm, we’re all uppity about feminists” to which the reply would be “so is every conservative, traditionalist, libertarian, republican, MRA, Christian Fundamentalist, and all around but hurt man child. How the fuck do you differ?” and our only answer would be “well, we have a cool spiffy pretentious title that makes us feel good about ourselves.”

You see, if MGTOW is a rejection of gynocentrism and women profiting off of men within the male to female dynamic, and yet simultaneously being cool with men getting married, then what possible argument do we have? All this nonsense about finding the right woman, learning how to make a marriage work, learn how to weed out the sociopaths, yada yada yada, it all translates to: gentlemen, play “the game” play “women’s game”, play their game and learn to be better at it.

Well no thank you, so long as men are minimizing the risks, and playing “the game” women profit, women win. That’s all women want you to do is play “their game” and figure out how to be “man enough” to master the game / master their pussy etc.
MGTOW is walking away from the game. Let every other man go the gynocentric way and tip each other off on strategies to maximize their ability to score and minimize the harm women can do to them. Let them “play women’s game” and profit women. Us MGTOW are not going that way, we’re going a different way, we are going OUR way and leaving women behind.
Furthermore, their is no reason, none, none-what-so-ever, for a man to get married. It is inexcusable. It is bad bad bad, period! Any effort to preserve marriage, is traditionalist, it is antithetical to the well being of men. To advocate marriage is to advocate tradition above male freedom, it is antithetical to male well being, it is thus anti-MGTOW. You can no more be a pro-marriage MGTOW than you can be a male feminist MGTOW. And you can’t be married and MGTOW, for the same reason you can’t be married and be a bachelor.
A difficult thing we face is: we are not anti married man; we are anti single man getting married. Even those who do not advocate marriage, are still antithetical to our cause by not denouncing marriage. Obviously many married men will feel offended by our assault on marriage. That’s a shame. But they choose to be offended. We’re not going to shut up to spare their feelings. Politically speaking, men deliberately rejecting marriage just scares society. It scares, it terrifies, and infuriates, everyone who is an enemy to the well being of men.
Good. I want them scared, terrified, panicking, and fighting us. MRA’s were seen by everyone that heard of them, as butt hurt losers worthy of being laughed at. Cry babies who were just so hurt and socially awkward that they were peter pan like man children having a temper tantrum that women were not respecting them, and not catering to their male entitlement. Just man children who couldn’t get laid and whines about women not getting in the kitchen and fixing them a sandwich.
This is how opposition to feminism was seen, this is what MRA’s looked like and how they were treated.

MRA’s, the anti-feminist community etc. were just laughed at for years until this thing called MGTOW happened. Men walking away from women, not giving them babies, not propping them up with a free ride called marriage, not rescuing them… just walking away and saying “we’re done”. That has frightened women. In fact, that’s why they’re all pouring into the MRM and trying to hijack this shit with traditionalism and male ego stroking and fake anti-feminism, because they are scared shitless that more men are going to Go Their Own Way.
And of course, if MGTOW can be married, then that threat has been eliminated. All you have is bachelors who choose to be bachelors for a million and one reasons; no cohesive ideology to explain the rejection of marriage and the rejection of woman worship.
And again, if MGTOW is supposed to be a rejection of Gynocentrism (and thus allowing women to profit off of men, or better themselves at men’s expense) and then we say you can be MGTOW and get married, than this is a contradiction, and thus MGTOW has no actual meaning and is a pointless label. So is defining MGTOW as “do what ever you want, including what everyone else is doing”. And that is another problem with this label. One moment we’re told (by Paul Elam and others) that we are not allowed to exist as a community because that’s conformity (i.e. not going our own way). And then in the very next breath we are told that doing what everyone else is doing, is doing what you want, thus it is going your own way.
As I said, the label MGTOW is not an accurate term for what we are about, and our enemies and hijackers will hyper-focus on the term to make it synonymous with “rebel”, which we then get told we are not rebels if we have community or consensus.
So what do we do? Change the name of the banner we march under, the philosophy we practice and preach? I say no. It’s taken a long time for this label to slowly start reaching the public’s ears and pique their curiosity or cause them a panic attack. Changing our label would just re-obscure us for another decade, render all of our old videos and articles useless to the new label since our older work would teach people about this thing called MGTOW, all the while the new thing that means MGTOW would be called something else. So it’s one of those things like choosing a stupid name for a rock band, and then getting some fame. Changing the name at this point would confuse the fuck out of everyone and ruin the fame associated with the earlier name. So it’s better to keep the name.
PS. I know re-obscure is not a word.

Defending Moral Nihilism (a response to ‏@GamerGemma )

So I wake up today, log on twitter (the place intelligence goes to die), and in my notifications I see this:

So apparently this somewhat popular twitter… twit… twitterer… tweeter… twitarian… fuck if I know what people on twitter are called. This somewhat popular person using a picture of Erin Grey, made a statement about morality.
Someone familiar with my work linked to a video & blog entry of mine on Morality (the point I made was that morality does not exist).
To which he/she gave a lazy rebuttal.
I examined briefly Erin Grey’s tweets (and that’s what I am going to call this person since they’re using her picture).
Erin’s tweets seem to be Pro-GamerGate, so that’s a good thing. They tend to be anti-SJW, so that’s a good thing too. But they seem to be coming from a conservative libertarian Ayn Rand intellectual position, while saying on their Twitter profile: “Liberal who enjoys gaming and detests SJWs. Linux user, even on my Xbox!”

So Erin is a self identified Liberal, who acts like a John Locke-christian conservative and right wing Ayn Rand-libertarian. Fuck if I know, fuck if I care.
And a Linux user… I hate Linux. It’s not the Kernal that’s bad, it’s the community & developers that make the desktop OS broken, driverless, and not user friendly, and refuse to fix things due to their religious devotion to the pretense of computer elitism known as the holey command line.

Let’s examine Erin’s lazy rebuttal shall we (and from this point onward I shall be using a grammatical perspective geared towards this person; rather than an audience).

“His errors are too numerous to address in fewer than 10 single spaced pages.”
OK, than address them in 20 pages, or 30, or write a book if you have to. Otherwise your assertion that I have errors, is your hollow empty “because I say so”.

As for the rest of what you said: please show me.
You’re trying to tell me that morality is a real, true, universal, scientifically empirical thing, and pointing out human hypocrisy does not invalidate its universal existence.
OK, prove it.

You’re saying I point to humans abusing the concept of morality, does not invalidate morality. But you have not addressed even one example of my opposing concepts of morality.
Morality cannot be decided by roaches, rocks, blades of grass, dogs, or mice. It must be decided by us humans. Thus human fallibility in moral interpretation does actually make morality not universal, thus non-existent. Simply put, if we humans can’t make up our mind on what is right and what is wrong, than there is no universal right and wrong; only individual opinions based on feelings and knowledge (two things every individual has which is subject to change).
If morality is a thing made by humans, and humans are flawed, than morality is flawed. If morality is flawed, than it’s not real.
Mathmatics is a thing that exists outside of humans; not invented by humans. Morality can only exist where humans are involved; thus a human invention.
If you refuse to accept that, and insist that morality is not the invention of humans, but like physics or math, it is a thing that exists outside of humans, than I beg you to scientifically prove this. We can prove physics to exist outside of people, we can prove math to exist outside of people, can you prove morality to exist outside of humans?
If you are still going to refuse this logic, and insist that morality is a thing that is just there, and is thus a thing to be discovered and known by flawed humans, than where did it come from? Again, as I said in my video/blog entry, you need the presence of an all perfect omnipotent god, or else morality cannot possibly exist.
The gravitational force Jupiter has on its moons will exist with or without humans. Morality will not.
If you disagree, prove it, prove morality will exist without the existence of humans.
Otherwise, you must concede that morality is a human invention, humans are flawed, thus morality is flawed, and flawed morality is not objective morality; it would only be subjective morality, and subjective morality would just be personal opinion or popular opinion.
Don’t be a lazy person and say “oh it would take me more than 10 pages to prove yada yada yada” don’t do that, don’t be lazy. You are either willing to put up or shut up.
Either prove morality or stand there like the little smart ass kid claiming he can fly, or possesses some great super power, and when you ask him for proof he says “I just don’t feel like it, besides, why should I prove anything to you.”

So again, put up or shut up. Don’t have enough space on twitter? Than open a blog and tweet your entry to me. Open a tumblr, make a video. Come on you got the whole world wide web at your disposal.
If I am so wrong, than proving it should be so fucking easy.
So either put up, or shut up. Either admit you are intellectually bankrupt and you got nothing, or bring it full force, put me in my place and humiliate me. but don’t play this lazy cop out shit of “oh it would take me too long”. And don’t just google a hundred articles written by others and throw a never ending barrage of links of someone elses work at me, do your own writing like I have, and come at me, and prove me wrong, prove morality is objective. Prove morality is real.
Even if you think “You sir, are not worth my time”, well you have 2000 followers on twitter, maybe they’d like to see you intellectually mop the floor with me, maybe they’re worth your time.
Again, put up, or shut up.
Now here is a part of that twitter discussion, this is the part where you are responding about #GamerGate or whatever, when you make your moral assertion.

“Ends must be good”.
How do we scientifically universally agree on the ends being good?

“The means must be good”.
How do we scientifically universally agree on the means being good?

“Intentions must be good”.
How can you even be aware of a person’s internal motives? Are you psychic? You can never truly know the internal motivations of anyone outside of yourself. Actually, come to think of it, it is unlikely that you have a full understanding of your own intentions. People convince themselves of all sorts of silly shit to justify their behavior to themselves.
So figuring out your own internal motivations is a difficult journey. Establishing universally once and for all, what someone elses motives were, is impossible.

Your entire rebuttal to my assault on morality can really be condensed into “He’s wrong because I say so, take my word for it.”
Don’t just tell me I am wrong; convince me I am wrong.

“Reason & rationalizing are 2 different things, as are morality & moralizing.”

WTF? What kind of an argument is that?
One is a state of being, the other is a state of having that being… would be the only way I can describe the difference. Like Math and Numbers are two different things.

I mean it’s like saying God and ‘faith in god’ are two different things. Yes, but faith in god is only valid or invalid depending on whether or not there is an actual god, which like morality, is an unproven positive claim to which the burden of proof is on you.

“He’s attacking moralizers to rationalize nihilism.”
I am attacking moralization, the process to which we determine things to be moral or immoral. I do this to show that morality is not universal thus does not exist.

You also say:
“It’s not complicated. It’s Natural Law.”

There is no natural law.
Here, let some dumb ass anarchist explain the myth of natural law: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/iain-macsaorsa-the-myth-of-natural-law

So you’re a liberal that believes in natural law? OK, you’re the first. A liberal against SJW’s and a liberal that supports “natural law”… interesting. At least we can establish you are not in any way ideological typical, which is neither a good or bad thing.

At any rate.
God does not exist.
Morality does not exist.
Natural Law does not exist.
Santa Does not exist.
The Easter Bunny does not exist.

Prove me wrong.

Also, I want to add something here, to you, or my readers, I said “John Locke Conservative”. It may be brought up that John Locke was technically a Liberal. However, as many will tell you, John Locke is actually both the father of modern Liberalism and modern Conservatism.
This is a really good read on the subject http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/070731

Both of these moderns can have their foundation traced to two contradictory ideas of Locke’s (not that he actually invented either) and those are Tabula Rosa (blank slate) that holds we are born with no nature, instinct, personality; we are born blank and made, shaped, sculpted by society (basis for modern Liberalism seen in social justice warriors). The other being Natural Law (technically invented by Aristotle) which holds that there is a natural order of things. Locke’s Natural Law is the basis of the American Bill Of Rights, and Aristotle’s Natural Law would be the foundation of secular morality.
Natural Law suggests an innate right and wrong. In the category of human rights, there are natural, god given, rights.
Here’s the contradiction: You can not assert that there is “nature” while proclaiming humans to be “blank slate”. Well, OK, you can, only if you deify humans as things outside of nature (which is scientifically inaccurate).
How can our rights be a natural consequence of the natural human order, when the natural human order is blank slate and defined only by human engineering? See the contradiction?

Put simply, natural law does not exist, nor are humans born Tabula Rosa.
I find it hilarious that the modern day left and right struggle is based on a contradiction, a fallacy on the left and a fallacy on the right. Two scientific fallacies do not make a scientific reality, it only makes it twice as much bullshit. And that, Erin Grey, is what I think of your natural law, and your morality.
Anyhow. Let’s recap:
Prove to me a knowable universal good intention.
Prove to me a universal good ends.
Prove to me a universal good means.

Prove these things to me, or your “faith” in morality is a fictitious intellectual crutch to prop up a mental handicap.

But hey, at least you support GamerGate and are anti-SJW, so you’re not all bad 😉

more on prostitution and Janet Bloomfield’s Trial

This video will be about my ongoing Janet Bloomfield trial, and it will be about my last video, “On Prostitution”.
And the first thing I really want to get out there is: I was not claiming that prostitution rapes a man. I only said if we were going by what constitutes as rape today, than yeah it’d be rape. But let’s face it, the majority of us reject the bulk of what is getting called rape. Anyhow, more on all that later.

And before I get into that, I just want to say something.

Something that has nothing to do with this video, but I want to just mention before I forget it, is when the tradcons talk about traditionalism producing more children, and thus those who do not reproduce will be replaced by those who do.
That statement of theirs, that I have argued before, by explaining that genes getting reproduced is not the same as ideologies getting reproduced.
Well someone recently argued me that children carry out the ideologies of their parents. Just like Muslim parents have Muslim kids in Muslim countries and Christian parents have Christian kids in Christian countries.
He says that because MGTOW won’t reproduce, or will not at a high enough rate, that the ideology is always destined to get washed out and replaced by the traditionalist ideology, because traditionalists breed more kids.

Well, as a preemptive strike on this being the new copy paste that tradcons start echoing, let me just say:
firstly, no traditionalism doesn’t breed the highest amount of offspring. You have to take a lot of liberties with the word “traditional”.
It’s single parent mommies in the ghetto that breed in the highest numbers.
Though you can play with the math and make it look like married couples performing traditional division of labour, breed in the highest numbers, only on per capita; not in total.
I have seen multiple statistics trying to back their claim. Unfortunately it all gets muddied up in how statistics are being gathered. And realize, just like feminists have their bullshit statistics, so do conservatives. Not that it’s even that relevant to the argument.
Secondly, the same could be said against feminism. Most people were traditionalists, but why didn’t they breed all traditionalist daughters? How come feminism took off if feminism doesn’t yield such high birthrates?
The answer is because as I have stated, ideologies do not get passed on through genes.
As for religions being adopted from the parents teachings… well I believe that most likely has to do with the surrounding culture reinforcing it. Secondly, I think teaching people fear of eternal damnation if you don’t believe in a particular god, can be more scarring and stick with them.
Point being, I believe the dynamics of religion and ideology may be different. Again, I point to the fact that feminism is anything but old fashioned patriarchy / traditionalism. Yet it caught on enough and continued for enough generations to completely turn society on its head. And so can MGTOW.
“those who breed will replace those who don’t” does not apply to ideology.

I just wanted to get that out of the way, and put it out there in case that argument becomes “a thing” from the tradcons.

And now on to an update regarding Janet’s trial.
I have been having a difficult time doing this. Mostly because Janet’s blog is obnoxious and I hate reading it. The bulk of it is… how can I put this… it’s a catty, snarky… mommy blog. She’s like one of those pointless mommy bloggers, a testament to the fact stay at home moms need to leave the house and do something productive.

But she’s not on trial for her style, or entertainment value.

And truth be told, this trial, as a proxy trial or prelude for AVFM, has been rendered pointless.
Paul Elam has made an ass out of himself big time just the other day. If you think he stuck his foot in his mouth regarding MGTOW before, you ain’t seen nothing yet. I’ll link his video if you haven’t seen it.
Anyhow, fuck Paul Elam, fuck AVFM.

But I would like to finish Janet’s trial, just for the sake of finishing what I started.

It’s difficult not only because it’s a lot to read over, but also because even trying to determine what she is saying is difficult.

Let me just give you an example. Let’s take a look at one particular blog entry, not because it is special, but because it is just so typical, and perfectly illustrates everything I am trying to get across about it.


In between taking shots at feminism, and here and there defending men, a lot of her blog is about attacking working mothers, and praising stay at home mothers.
IS that traditionalist advocacy? Well yes it is. But what I am wondering though is, has she turned over a new leaf? Between some of her newer work, and her newer videos, there is a change, and that does need to be looked at and put into perspective.

But when you take a look at that blog entry I just showed you… how can I explain this.

She started off by defending stay-at-home motherhood, claiming it is not prostitution. She went on a good long tirade about how much it is not prostitution… then ended her fucking blog entry by stating if you and the husband get into a fight, turn it into sex (I swear to god this is not healthy), and then you won’t be as mad, and he’ll probably give you what you want.
And then tops it off by confessing she got things via sex, and oh what a whore she is.

She just had a long blog post about how being a house wife isn’t prostitution… and then kinda says it is.
And I’d write that off as a joke. But she’s made blog posts loudly defending prostitution, and other statements in other posts that lead me to believe it wasn’t a joke.

It’s like that video where she said no no I’m not a traditionalist and I have no problem with reversed gender roles or women getting a job… now let me just insist that it’s a marxist conspiracy that tricks women into getting jobs which weaken the family so that government can make you need them so that they can grow… but no, no problem at all with working mothers or reversed gender roles…

I swear, that’s what half her blog is like.

It’s like she’ll spend 90% of her time writing one thing… then out of the clear blue loudly and unmistakably contradict it.

And it leaves me just staring at her blog in disbelief. Forcing me to read over and over trying to figure it out.

Is it a joke? Is it sarcasm? was the first 90% of her blog satire that then ended on her real feelings? am I reading it wrong? is she just maybe, slightly, mentally ill?

Diana Davison commented that one of her Bloomfield quotes was accused of being taken out of context. To which Diana said more or less “how can you tell? all of her quotes seem out of context they are so random and bat-shit crazy.” Here, let me play the clip of Diana saying that.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ3rSqG44Sg&list=UUVRQqUgDRBevsDGOeE1DL3A from 3:37 to 4:02 )

Yeah, after watching the clip, I realized I paraphrased that badly. But I think it shares the same point, that Janet just blurts out weird off the wall things.

Janet does this so much, I some times feel like she may suffer from some kind of multiple personality.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear Janet was a typical woman, who failed to achieve career success, and instead defaulted to traditionalism as plan B, and then took up a pseudo-traditionalist ideology to justify her plan B as being the greatest plan in the world. I think she has constructed for herself, an ideology based on defending her plan B so that she doesn’t have to face the reality of her failure.
I think she may be just that narcissistic, just that self righteous and self absorbed.

I have this sneaking suspicion that if her college degree had actually landed her a 100K per year job, she would be a feminist and a career woman today.
I think if she had a medical problem forbidding her to conceive, she would have taken her career failure and turned it into a testimony of patriarchy holding women back. She’d refer to stay at home mothers as parasites.

I just think Janet has constructed a self justifying ideology.
Like, it’s not enough for her to do or be anything, she has to construct a world wide righteous ideology to ensure herself that her choices are proper, and use that as a point of leverage to look down on others, judging them, as a type of “relational aggressive” bullying. And this bullying being done to deflect the negative reality of her decisions.

But there are a few factors that suggest that might not be true.
None-the-less, I need to continue looking over her work.

Anyhow, on with the video, heading into the portion where I explain my last video.

On my last video, called, “On Prostitution”, I got pretty controversial and ruffled some feathers, and I knew I would.
And I’ll be honest, the backlash (if you can call it that) wasn’t as bad as I expected.

I’m not afraid to be controversial and take it to the next level, even if others in this movement aren’t ready to go further down the rabbit hole. A part of being MGTOW is leading and not caring if anyone is following. MGTOW philosophy has always been cutting edge and ahead of the curve.
And I also believe we are at a point where even going in the wrong direction is better than the endless stagnation of copy pasting 5 year old MRA arguments about the wage-gap myth or whatever.
For those of you who can’t innovate and push the envelope; fine, just copy pasta.
What I think is interesting is, had I made a video 3 or 4 years ago about why it’s OK to accept gays in our movement, I would have been controversial, and according to some; out of my mind.
Today, can gays be a part of the mens movement? Of course they can. They’re men. They get assaulted on the street by women and can’t hit back because they don’t have a gay card they can wave in front of everyone to say (no no, it’s cool, I have a penis but I’m protected by the LGBT). Bisexual men fight for custody rights in a divorce and have two things working against them:
1. they’re men and we all know men shouldn’t be around kids.
2. he’s not straight, and them queers ain’t gonna do nothing but molest their sons anyhow.
He has 2 strikes against him. So of course he wants to tear down the notion that only women should have child custody.
There are a lot of reasons why gay men legitimately want to be part of a pro-mens movement.
And the fear that if we let gays join our MRM club, they’d gay it up or hijack it. That fear is all but dead now. And I believe it was MGTOW that probably inspired this acceptance. A man’s sexuality is his business; any effort to control a mans sexuality is an attempt to control men. Even homophobia has been used to keep men in their rough and tough manly-man state of mind. MGTOW said loud and clear “Fuck gender roles, I’m people god damn it, don’t tell me what I have to do or can’t do, I’m going my own way bitch. So save your shaming language and your homophobic accusations. I won’t let you and your gynocentric social norms define me.”

That attitude from MGTOW, I believe, did a lot to quell the homophobia in the movement.

Had I made a video in 2008 that men could be raped by women, most in the anti-feminist community would have laughed. Raped by other men, sure, but not by a woman.
Today talking about men being raped is standard rhetoric in the MRM.

Ever since I took up the label MGTOW, I have done a lot to try to understand this movement’s origins. And while I am not a MGTOW expert and certainly won’t claim to be. It is my conclusion that MGTOW have always been the philosophically progressive, the innovators, always ahead of the curve, the trend setters. While the rest of the psychologically conservative anti-feminist community only copy pasted what was normal and “safe”. They were always fear driven and afraid of change. MGTOW, I believe, has been the underlying driving force, forcing change into a reactionary movement afraid of change.
I think MGTOW will always be seen by the mainstream movement as scary, crazy, evil, “just as bad as the feminists” and so on.
We’ll always be the minority, and that’s OK, because a tiny little tugboat can pull a huge ship in stagnant waters. MGTOW in its movement form, is the antithesis of stagnation.

So I’d much rather be wrong and put it out there, than to play it safe and copy pasta everyone else’s work.

As far as it making us look bad or extreme… we’ll always look bad. As Ravishing Rick Rude said, we’re the villains, the heels, the anti-heros of society.

And I personally am no politician. I’m not here to kiss babies and spit out feel good rhetoric and win votes. Popularity is for politicians and high school cheerleaders, not for philosophers and inventors.

Anyhow, most of the objections and arguments were pretty reasonable. With the most common argument being:
“But restaurants exploit your hunger.”

And my response to this came down to:
but this is not a gender specific thing. Food establishments are neither male nor female. And the hunger they take advantage of is also neither a male or female thing.

I’ve made that statement numerous times. One individual retorted “what about tampons, they’re gender specific”.

And I’ll copy pasta my response:
Well it wouldn’t be predatory, it would be exploitative. And it would only be exploitative if something like, only the male sex could make & distribute them.
If something like that happened, and we had men paying their rent with tampons (which was free for them to make) and they could use these tampons as currency… than yes, under those circumstances it would be.
When stay-at-home husbands are living a free life because they distribute tampons to their wife. When men in back alleys are supporting their crack habit by selling women tampons. When men are getting out of speeding tickets by handing the female police officer a tampon. When women are fighting each other, competing over men, in the hopes that she can earn a man’s affection and he will give her tampons… yes, under those circumstances tampons would be exploitative.

There is a certain truth (key word “certain”) that all economic (or at least capitalist) trade is exploitative. However, it is a necessary exploitation. People who are “have-nots” are often manipulated by those who have. It’s an unfortunate truth of life, and no one has ever devised an all equal or all voluntary society. Societies have always consisted of those who have and those who don’t; acting as a power dynamic to pressure, coerce, manipulate and exploit others. Maybe we’ll find a solution to that, maybe we never will. It’s not important.

Not all exploitation is created equal.
Sex is a woman’s female advantage over men. When it is used to leverage herself over a man, it is exploitative.

I also want to clarify something some people didn’t seem to understand about that video.
I was not claiming the john & prostitute dynamic to be actual rape.
My description of prostitutes as child molesters, was a colorful metaphor. And I do however, have great disdain for sex workers. If a woman tells me she is a sex worker, to me, on a personal and emotional level, it’s like some guy saying “yeah I got busted molesting some kid, and now I am a registered sex offender”. I get pretty much the same feeling. I’m not asking you to feel the same way.
And perhaps my colorful description of the prostitute as a pedophile was misunderstood, and I probably shouldn’t have gone with that sort of poetic language.
And the other thing I want to clear up. My suggestion that prostitution remain illegal, wasn’t based on: it should be illegal because it hurts men. I think that was probably the greatest misconception.
I was saying it should remain illegal to stop it from becoming a heavily government regulated industry.
I mean, I recall saying that if pushing to force DV shelters to be gender neutral fails, we ought to push for the government to fund male DV shelters. Heck, pushing male DV shelters might pressure the system to give in and just make DV shelters gender neutral. Well I had the libertarians in the audience ready to nail me to a fucking cross. Because how dare we even consider helping men if it could lead to a 0.1% tax increase.
But hey, if you want a massive government regulated prostitution industry, which will be sure to raise your taxes and give one more thing for feminists to have a monopoly on.
I just think it’s odd I mentioned one thing that could help men out a lot, but due to the microscopic government involvement and taxes, I became the Satan of MGTOW. But hey, jacking our taxes through the fucking roof to regulate a feminist controlled prostitution industry and protect female sex workers is perfectly cool with everyone.

And for people who don’t think feminists would push hard for any and every conceivable regulation to empower and protect the female sex workers and tranny sex workers… have you just not actually been paying attention to what feminists do?

And to those of you who think government wouldn’t jump on this to expand its own power. Let me ask you something, specifically to all the people who buy into this shit that government wants women to work, and they want to blur the gender lines, to create family destabilization to force reliance on government for social aid, so that government can grow and grow until we are so reliant on government that it becomes a totalitarian state, and within its totalitarianism it will smash capitalism and “re-educate” the people into communism…. and that’s how the commies are gonna get us.
For all you people who believe in that nonsense, you don’t think government would take THIS massive opportunity to expand its power and taxes?
So let me get this straight, communists will implement a 15 stage cryptic assault on the American public containing more plot twists than an M Night Shyamalan movie… but it wouldn’t take a one step approach?

This is seriously why I wish we’d all just get out of the matrix already and prioritize our focus on what is good for the male sex, and to hell with Wall Street and the price of tea in China.

At any rate, I don’t much care one way or the other about its legalization. I personally believe this would expand feminist control over it, and expand government regulation of it and add to government growth. But that part doesn’t bother me too much since I stick to how it effects the gender dynamic.

Back to the exploitation aspect.
The exploitation I speak of in the John and Prostitute relationship, is specifically women having power over men. It’s not a race struggle or a class struggle, it is a sex struggle.
I seriously don’t know why we, within gender politics, fear talking about male and female disadvantage. You’d figure that would be the primary topic found in a mens rights movement.

I think it has to do with fear of being a victim.
We often have tradcons, noobs, blue pill guys, whatever, say “You MGTOW just want to be victims.”

Now, I’ve always had a problem with the word “want” in that statement. Because what does it mean?
I doubt anyone actually wants to get victimized. Who wants to get raped, robbed, falsely accused, or mugged? Who honestly wants their social status or legal rights taken away from them? No one.
So what does the statement mean?
Well it could mean 2 other things.
1. You just want to see yourself as a victim.
2. You just want others to see you as a victim.

OK, now those two things make sense. A person who sees himself as a victim, gives himself license to hate or harm others. All hate is justified because “I’m a victim”. All harm committed onto others is OK because “I’m the victim, I’m just retaliating”.

The victim stance is a powerful one.

The other being, if society accepts you are a victim, then society grants you a license to hate and harm others, because you’re the victim.

So the first one is self justification to hate and harm. The second is outward justification to hate and harm.

That is my only interpretation of “you just want to be a victim”.

But let’s go deeper: what if I want to see where I am disadvantaged? What if, I want to observe my situation, determine what my strengths and weaknesses are, and determine where I am advantaged and disadvantaged?
Is there anything wrong with that?

How can men fight for equality if we do not allow ourselves to acknowledge inequality?
How can we effectively fight for our justice, if acknowledging our injustice, equates to “wanting to be a victim”?
How can we effectively fight a war for equality if we are only allowed to belly ache about feminism, and never look beyond that?

It is advantageous, nay, down right essential, that we explore ways in which we as men are unequal, disadvantaged (i.e. victimized).
Even if we come to the ultimate conclusion that this or that inequality is unresolvable. It is still helpful that we acknowledge its existence. For example, men can’t physically have babies. Women got us beat.
Is acknowledging this a matter of me wanting to be a victim? Even if so, is anyone going to deny that men can’t give birth?

Now there might be something to this gripe if I then proceeded to say that us men have been “cheated by society” is why we can’t have babies. Or if I proclaimed we should petition congress to change this.

I proclaim sex is a mans weakness. Men want sex more than women. I don’t think this is disputable.
Because men want what only women can give them. By virtue of mother nature, women have a monopoly on sex, and get to set the price.
Because of this, women ultimately control men.

This isn’t me wanting to be a victim. This is just me acknowledging how shit works.
Men on average are significantly stronger than women. Again, on average.
And women are significantly more desired sexually.

The first statement is one of superiority / advantage. The second statement is one of inferiority / disadvantage.
So, after making both statements, am I “just wanting to be a victim” or am I “just wanting to be dominant”?
How about neither. How about, I am just assessing gender dynamics.

Interesting how we as a society will acknowledge strength to be a man’s advantage over women, yet not tolerate the use of force against women.
When two men get into a fight, unless someone was seriously injured, or one of the participants laid on the ground begging for mercy while being beaten, we (society) typically stay out of the fight that doesn’t concern us, and cops need not be involved. And the same is true for two women.
But if a man and a woman get into a fight, we instantly recognize that the male is exploiting the situation of his physical dominance, his biological gift of strength is being used against a person who’s biology has cursed them to be physically weaker.
We see this, and we call it injustice, we call it bullying, we call it dishonorable behavior.
We as a society defend the weak female from the strong male. We understand that the man is significantly advantaged.
A man using force or the threat of force, against any woman, is automatically a “no no”.
And it’s like this because we acknowledge the difference in power. We are aware of the power dynamic here.

But when it comes to sex, we as a society refuse to see the power dynamic between the sexes. But it is there. Deep down inside, we all know it’s there.
We’ve always known the phone sex industry has been centered on mens need for stimulation from women; not women paying $5.99 a minute to rub her clit to a man talking dirty to her. This is true with the entire porn industry.
We know it is men paying female prostitutes, and not women paying male prostitutes.
Bars have ladies night, but they don’t have mens night. Because women aren’t going to buy drinks for men. Men are the desperate thirsty ho’s paying for women to give them affection and sex.
And anyone that tries to say “yeah well some women buy some porn, and there are gigolos and…”
Just stop it. Stop trying to tell me the rule doesn’t exist because there is an exception to it.

Women have great power over men. As much as men can physically dominate women, women can sexually dominate men.

But because men are too full of “male pride”, he won’t admit that women have sexual power over him.
Because he is too ashamed, too chicken shit, he won’t confess this vulnerability.
So women have been given full reign to sexually tease men, and then claim harassment if men look, gesture, or comment.

If men could drop their fragile tender manly pride for a moment, confess that women have sexual power over them, we as a society would see women sexually teasing men, as being on par with a man verbally sexually harassing a woman.

But men are so crippled by their male identity as strong, in control, invulnerable, that women say “we can wear whatever we like, and you men need to man up, take it like a man, keep it in your pants, and mind your manners.” And men instantly shut up, and take it, because they wouldn’t want to confess women have sexual power over him, or that he has an exploitable weakness.

Again, this happens mostly because we as a society just won’t admit that women have sexual dominance over a man, and that men have a severe crippling weakness, his sexual needs. If we could acknowledge that power dynamic, we’d be healthier for it.

And that’s the interesting thing about male pride, or masculinity, is that in many ways it cripples men, actually makes them weak, easily controlled.

A man takes pride in his masculinity, or male identity (how ever you want to look at it). He takes pride in it. Masculinity is being strong and brave.
Therefore a man must never admit fear, and must never be weak or admit weakness.
This means you can do anything you want to him. He’s like a slave who has to take your abuse and keep his mouth shut.
Punch him in the gut. And if he complains, say “awe, what’s the matter did that hurt the big strong man? Are you that weak?”
And he will instantly become so full of shame he will say “no, no it didn’t hurt a bit, I’m just fine. I am male, I am strong, I cannot be hurt, I am man hear me roar!”

Remember the white feather campaign?
Young men were enlisting to avoid the shame and embarrassment of being called chicken.

Wow, if that isn’t a testament to male weakness, I don’t know what is.
Young men were so easily manipulated into risking their lives, just to avoid having his man-card taken away.
I mean, really, what does that say about how fragile and weak the male ego is? So weak, so tender, it is better a man die, than to admit weakness.
And thus so easily manipulated.

It takes courage to admit to cowardice. It takes strength to admit to weakness.
A true act of cowardice is allowing yourself to be abused, exploited, or manipulated, just to keep your “male pride”.

I’m not telling men to be ashamed of their maleness, or their masculine tendencies. I’m saying don’t take pride in it. Don’t defend that male identity.

If you have the courage to admit to your weakness and cowardice, you will no longer be controlled by it, and that will ultimately make you a stronger person.

Men have two crippling weaknesses. His need for sex, and his fear of being seen as unmanly (afraid, weak, vulnerable, delicate, victim).

The white feather campaign used a mans masculine pride to manipulate him into risking his life in war.
Male pride silences husbands who are physically attacked by their wives.
Male pride keeps the mouths of little boys shut when they’ve been molested or raped. After all, if a young boy confessed to anyone, he was coerced by a female into sex, than he is called a fagot for not being proud of getting laid. If he admits to anyone that another male touched him, violated him, he will be seen as a fagot, or as being less of a male since he was made into a woman.

It’s my understanding, that in the congo, wives some times divorce their husbands when their husband was raped, because to be penetrated makes him a woman.

Even in Rome, there was a special way of looking at what men and women were in regards to homosexuals and heterosexuals. The rule basically came down to their being two kinds of people, those who penetrate and those who get penetrated. That which is penetrated is female.

In prison, you can force your penis in a man’s ass, and you are not gay. You see, the man you penetrated wasn’t male, he was female, because he got penetrated. You’re only gay if you get penetrated. That type of mentality is a part of prison rape culture.

This way of thinking is old, and is derived from how we view our sexual function. It is true that the male penetrates the female. So, on some psychological level, this is how we determine what sex someone is. Obviously in science it goes by which of the two physically gives birth. But on a psychological level, it’s which ever gets penetrated is female. And this manifests into our language and cultures.

A young boy gets coerced into sex, or even penetrated, and he remains silent. He allows it to continue happening, because he is that terrified of having his man-card revoked in the eyes of society.

Men who are raped in the congo would rather keep his raping a secret, because he would not want to have his man-card taken away.

Young men enlisted, risked dying, just to hold on to their fragile male pride.
Men make themselves into victims by being too afraid to admit victim hood.

Women will tease and deny and sexually manipulate men, and men will keep their mouths shut, because the slightest mention that he is being manipulated by his weakness, terrifies him. So he allows the abuse and the exploitation to continue.

Teenage girls with huge tits wearing sexy clothes in school. And if a male student is aroused or distracted by this, he’s the bad guy for not keeping himself under control. Because a real man, a manly-man, wouldn’t allow a woman’s sexual allure, to have power over him. Only a weak male would allow a woman’s teasing and tempting to get to him.
And the same is true with the male teacher who has to be distracted by these female students.

Men will not come right out and admit that women have so much power over his dick. If we as a society would acknowledge this, than when women use their biological advantage over us, it would be visible to everyone, that abuse and bullying is taking place. A man’s weakness is being used against him by a female who chooses to use her advantage against a man.

Women know they have this awesome advantage. And women know they can use it, and men are just too terrified to admit women have power over him. It’s humiliating for the man. It threatens his male identity.
Women will use their sexual advantage over men, and dare them to complain about it. To complain about it is to admit victim hood, and that terrifies a man, it isn’t manly, he’ll get his man-card revoked.

I encourage my fellow man to not allow women to have sexual power over you. If you are paying money to a woman, be it a hooker, house-wife, girlfriend, cam girl, you are allowing a woman to exploit your needs.
And no, it’s not like paying money to a restaurant for food. It’s nothing like that.

I’m not saying you can’t be MGTOW and fuck hookers. I’m saying you handing money to a hooker to alleviate your sexual frustration, is you willfully taking part in your exploitation, empowering and enriching a woman at your expense.
Even when you so much as buy a movie ticket for a woman as an excuse to take her out on a date, you are buying an opportunity to fuck her. You are sacrificing your belongings. You are allowing her to benefit by virtue of her womanhood. You are allowing her to benefit due to your male weakness. You are allowing her to benefit at your expense.
Women benefiting from their beauty is female privilege; I encourage you to stop feeding their female privilege.
We’ve said it time and time again, women have automatic value. Their reproductive organs give them worth. Well who’s fault is that? On one hand it’s mother nature. But ultimately, it’s your fault when you’re the one handing her money to a service that she would not pay you for.
Every time a woman profits from her femaleness, it is being done at the expense of men, it is her exercising her natural female advantage.
The less you accommodate her, the less of an advantage she has.
Using mens sexual needs against them is girl power. It is the heart of girl power.
The more men give into that, the more they are empowering women.

I know some of you might be wanting to say “Razor, you don’t really expect all of society to boycott giving women money for sex do you? There’s always going to be some desperate male handing money or movie tickets to a woman.”

I’m not claiming that all men can join forces and boycott this behavior.
What I am suggesting and encouraging is that we who call ourselves MGTOW. We who reject gynocentrism. I ask that we reject the power pussy has over us.
I’m not asking that we all give up pussy (though I have).
I am encouraging you to not allow it to have power over you.
When you hand over money for it, it is having power over you.

If you can get your sexual needs satisfied by a woman, without sacrificing something, without her profiting off of it, than pussy has no power over you.
If you can achieve sexual satisfaction without a woman at all, that is ideal. But that may be difficult for most men. I doubt a lot of men will ever reach that state of being.

Again, female empowerment is being able to control men by, or profit from, their sexual needs.
Girl power is wearing a shirt that says the honest to god truth “I have the pussy, I make the rules”.
Women do have the pussy and they do make the rules. That’s their advantage. A man’s weakness for pussy is a woman’s strength. I encourage my fellow man to not feed womens empowerment.
Do not allow women to profit from your sexual needs. To do so, is to be exploited.

Now, for those of you who are going to continue to insist that there is no exploitation, and want to insist it’s a voluntary contract yada yada.

Well, I can see you’re not letting go of the matrix. That’s old fashioned court room thinking, it’s judiciary thinking, positive and negative rights, contracts, leftism and rightism, and all that other matrix-think. Yeah that’s my new word “Matrix-Think” and “Matrix Minded”. I’m coining those phrases, bitches.

All that constitutionalism, legislative branch, judiciary branch, left vs right. That’s all back in the matrix.

I want you to look at the human factor. Don’t depersonalize this into a legal contract. Look at the fact that you are paying her for sex. She is not paying you for sex.
Sex is a thing both of you can give. And you can give it for free. But she is charging, because she is in control.
You can’t tell me there isn’t a power balance in her favor.
It is wrong for a woman to profit off of a man’s sexual needs. It is wrong for a woman to offer it, and it is wrong for a man to comply with it.

And when I say wrong, I don’t mean illegal. I just mean, it’s females benefiting off of the weakness of males.

And for those of you who just aren’t going to be convinced, well then, the thing I am wondering is: what do you have against traditionalism?

A woman stays home, relaxing and being supported by her husband.
Sure they talk a tough game about being a chef and a waitress and day care worker and a teacher and a butler and a maid and a nurse and how they perform a million in one duties and being a stay at home mom is the hardest job on the planet. But we know it’s bullshit. When all is said and done, house-wives contribute a small fraction to the family. The whole damn thing rests on the man’s shoulders. Why does he carry this dead weight of a woman? Because she has the power of the pussy, and she is his stay-at-home hooker.
He wouldn’t tolerate this from his stay at home son, his failure to launch son. Looking after a couple of kids for an hour or two after school and some light house work, would not justify his 25 year old pot head of a son not having a job, and never planning on getting one, and living there rent free. All the dinners he fixes, all of the after-school hours he baby sits his younger siblings.
The patriarch of the house would never call that “earning your keep”. He’d tell that boy to get off his ass and get a job and find his own place.
But when it is his wife performing the same task, she gets a free ride because… pussy.
The whole god damn thing is a long term prostitution contract no matter how you dress it up.

He’d never tolerate his brother living there… indefinitely. No matter how many dinners he makes, toilets he scrubs, floors he vacuums, appointments he makes and hours he watches the kids. He would not let his brother live in that house rent free forever. He most likely would not allow his son to do it either.
Because ultimately, underneath all the bullshit, all the feel good lies a man convinces himself of, when all is said and done, that stay-at-home wife is living rent free because he is paying for her pussy.
And ain’t nothing sadder than a man paying a prostitute to live with him and pretend to love him.
Funny thing is. The women themselves get all this brain chemical shit going on. And they can feel “attracted” to the man paying for her. But if he should fall from grace, and suddenly she has to get a job, and he isn’t doing a whole lot of bread winning… then out the door his useless ass goes, she wants a divorce. And she’ll never admit to him, the kids, the judge, or herself, that all that magical lovey dovey shit she felt, ended the day he couldn’t buy her love.

Stay at home hookers.

Men propping up women… because he is weak.
Women living their lives as the princess class. Living their lives on the pedestals looking down at men. Because they have the power of the pussy.

And what I find funny is. We call the stay-at-home wife a prostitute, yet these same people then want to defend the prostitute.

We crucify the house wife for being a prostitute, but then celebrate the prostitute?
Doesn’t really sound consistent.

We say “I am not going back on the plantation”. But what is the difference between working for money, to hand it to a prostitute for sexual favors… every friday night. Or working for money to hand it over to the wife, every day?
There are only 2 differences here. The house wife will actually cook you something, and do a little house work too. The other difference being the contract.

And again, I want to make it very clear, I am not claiming you’re not MGTOW, or that you are a bad human being, if you pay for sex. I’m just saying, allowing women to exploit your male sex drive, is contributing to female advantage, girl power, and it belittles you.

I’m not making fun of you. I’m encouraging you (not pounding my fist and demanding) encouraging you to not allow yourself to be taken advantage of like that. Do not let your weakness, your sexual needs, to profit women. I encourage you to find other ways to fulfill your sexual needs. If you can get a woman to fulfill those needs for free, than excellent. If you can’t, there is free porn, there is cat fishing, and there are other ways.
A video I have been dabbling with here and there since last March, is on the topic of ways in which men can now, and hopefully more so in the future, alleviate his sexual frustration without benefiting women, and without the need for women at all.
It’s a big and complicated video, and I am never satisfied with what I got so far. So it’s going to be a while before that comes out.

Even if you are chronically hooked on paying cam-girls and hookers, I just want you to acknowledge that you, by virtue of your male sexual need, are being exploited. I just think it is important that we acknowledge that.

And I hope that in time our culture will consciously acknowledge this.
The truth is, we already know it. We just won’t come right out and fully admit it. But subconsciously, the knowledge is there.
It’s why women had to dress moderate, and in the middle east completely cover up.
It’s one of the reasons prostitution has been illegal almost every where since pretty much forever.
Men have always known women had sexual power over him, and many of our laws and customs and attitudes have been shaped by that dirty little secret we don’t want to come right out and admit.

It is time that we do come right out and admit. Sex is a woman’s power over men. The core of the man and woman dynamic is prostitution. A woman’s love is a thing you buy with cash because it’s not real. And a man’s love is primarily based on the sexual satisfaction a woman can give him.

The fact that a “loving relationship” is only one step removed from a back alley blow job, is a jagged pill to swallow, so we mask it, we decorate our relationship to make it more of something. We emphasize the additives, the “extras” of a loving relationship, because we, both men and women, are running a hundred miles an hour from the cold harsh truth of human pair bonding: pussy for cash.
Today, it is more true than ever before.
In a world where house work for a wife is practically non-existent, it is becoming more difficult for a bread winning husband to fool himself into believing his “relationship” is based on some amazing miracle called “love”. It is becoming more than ever, painfully obvious, he is paying for that woman’s sexual services, and she is using her god given biological advantage over him. Men are still working like a plow horse, and women’s contribution is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. Trying to fool ourselves into believing a marriage is anything more than entering into a prostitution contract is becoming harder to believe.

Change needs to happen. In what ways will there be change and to what extent, and what will the outcome be and how long will it take. I don’t know. But change needs to happen.
And before any change can happen, we need to acknowledge womens sexual power over men. We need to admit our sexual needs are our weakness.
We need to start thinking about a woman’s sexual power over a man is like a mans physical power over a woman.

And we as individuals need to remove ourselves from being under womens power.
While some men can completely give up sex and relationships with women, others simply cannot.
I encourage you to make sure that in your sexual relations that you do not let women profit off of you.
Do not let women use and exploit you. And do not be too afraid to admit that you are vulnerable and capable of being exploited.

Well that wraps up this video. Hopefully my next video will be the final Janet Bloomfield video, and then a nice long vacation. In fact, before I even continue my Janet Bloomfield trial I think I may need to take a few weeks off.

When it comes to making videos, I tend to be either on or off all the way.

It’s like, once I start, I end up getting a hundred ideas in my head, and I have so much to say, and not enough time to say it.

And I just keep making one video after another. The weeks tick by, and I let everything in my life go. I just put all other things and activities on hold. It really consumes my life.

Paul Elam and others talk about MGTOW being angry. Well, I’m not really an angry guy. I rather enjoy life. I’m one of those people who can really enjoy the moment and find happiness and piece in simple things.
Life is short and I want to savor every moment. When I get on a video making kick, it ends up consuming me. And as time goes on, the quality of my videos tend to go down as well. Because I tell myself “one more video, just one more, and then I’ll relax for a few days. Oh let me just make this one brief little point, it’ll only take a few hours to make that video.”
And 19 hours later, with bloodshot eyes, the video is finished and I upload it the next day and just continue this kind of routine. And I start getting in a rush to finish a video and just get it over with.

I do things like wanting to make a joke here and there, but needing to find that clip of something some one said, and that means 30 minutes, maybe a couple of hours, just to find that one little clip. And I decide to skip it. I skip this I skip that, and the video quality suffers for it. So the longer I go on making videos, the lower the video quality gets. Then I get disappointed in myself for not producing the highest quality grade A video that I know I am capable of making.

So yeah, when I start making videos, it consumes me. I neglect friends and everything.
And so I am going to take a little vacation. Then finish up the Bloomfield trial, then take a very long vacation. And hopefully when I come back, I will be delivering higher quality videos.

The types of videos I want to focus on are the cartoon based. And the ones that are character driven. And when I do my MGTOW videos, I want to focus more on MGTOW as the personal; rather than the political.
Because MGTOW is personal, and it is political. And I have been heavily invested in the political side of it.
I want to move away from MGTOW bitching about or talking about women. That’s another staple of MGTOW. I’m not saying it’s wrong; I’m saying in many ways its spinning wheels.
It’s up there with repeating the same arguments and links to dispel the same tired old wage gap myths, or street harassment crying, and all the other repetitive feminist whining. It feels like a copy pasta slug fest. Same complaints, same retorts, over and over.
dissecting the male and the female, the dynamics and so on, this is important, but I think too often it becomes unimaginative. It becomes copying the same arguments, and creates an atmosphere of depressive complaining.
Admittedly there is too much of that in this movement. I want to focus MGTOW energy elsewhere, and help us to expand, help us to move forward.
I believe it is in the spirit of the MGTOW community to always be moving forward. Like I said, no hierarchies, no regiment, no order, just individuals acting as leaders, and not caring if others are following.
In some way, the MGTOW community is like a grouping of vagabonds, wondering from place to place. Always progressing and moving forward, parting ways and rejoining way up the trail.
Interesting how we’re all going our own way, yet so often find ourselves merging back together at some future date. Every man a leader unto himself.
Sure, many of us will be going our own way, in the same direction, but will veer off from time to time, and the pack will lose old members, gain new members who merge with us on our trail, and then they too shall veer off their own way, and old members rejoining.
It’s grass roots and instinctive, individual, and forever progressing and moving forward.
We’re all just feeling our way around, collecting data, and when we bump into each other at some future time, we share our discoveries, compare notes, and continue moving forward.

I fancy myself an innovator, and have little tolerance for stagnation. As fun as it has been to gripe about women or our relation to women, and as fun as it has been to pwn traditionalists, I personally need to head in a new direction, at least for a little while.
Those of you who want to continue exploring the male to female dynamic, and fighting traditionalists, go right ahead. That’s your way for the time being. Have fun. But I have other avenues of MGTOW to explore. And when we meet up, hopefully I will have some awesome things to report on.

So on my video vacation, I will have my mind in a new and different place, collecting information, giving us new ways of looking at ourselves. And pushing the envelope in new ways when I get back.

So, I’ll get that final Janet Bloomfield video done in a week or so, and then I’m off for a while.

Oh yeah, and in the mean time consider this: liberal, libertarian, conservative, capitalism, marxism… that stuff was back in the matrix, let it go.

PS. This message has been brought to you by “Copy Pasta” an annoying phrase I will continue to annoy you with 😛

MGTOW criticisms

Video for this transcript:

1. MGTOW is anti-family.

Yes and no. MGTOW is anti-family in the way that a man who does not own a motorcycle is “anti-motorcycle.”. If you suggest to a man that he ought to own a motorcycle, he will then defend his decision to stay with owning a car. These reasons may include criticisms of motorcycles such as they get horrible traction in the snow. They are miserable to ride in cold weather and in the rain. They lack passenger and cargo capacity, they have obnoxiously loud motors.

After all of those criticisms, the motorcyclist may feel that his motorcycle, his choice to own and ride one, has just been insulted. But is it fair to say that guy is anti-motorcycle? He also doesn’t own a helicopter, train, 18 Wheeler, or a cruise ship.

The next problem we run into is that family gets defined in narrow terms. The MGTOW might have a mom and a dad and a sister. He may get along with them perfectly well and enjoy family reunions and family get-togethers. He loves his family. But when you say “family” you mean starting a family. Family, according to the tradcon is: “one man, one woman, entering into a government enforced contract, children, man as sole provider, woman as dependent.”

I’m sorry, but that is one ultra precise definition of family. This is analogous to the Jehovah’s witness telling the Mormon that he is anti-christian because he holds a different interpretation of Christianity.

2. MGTOW are angry.

This is a recently popular one. It used to be MGTOW are hurt. But right now the trend is to say “angry”.

It’s difficult for me to give a rebuttal, because I don’t know every MGTOW. I also don’t know any MGTOW at all on any kind of personal level.

I will say any youtuber that makes videos for social political change, has a certain heir of anger to them. To call MGTOW angry, is nothing more than a hollow deflection. It’s saying “oh you guys have no valid points, you only have anger issues”. This isn’t an argument, it’s a blatant insult and nothing more. This same sort of nonsense could be applied to Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and every member of every type of civil rights leader (including LGBT and Feminist). “Dear MLK, black people are not second class citizens, you just got anger issues homie, you just need to heal”.

I personally don’t feel angry on any outward level, when I make my videos. As a matter of fact I often laugh and chuckle, a big giant grin as I concoct a comedy skit. I’m not saying I never get frustrated. I often speak to shitheads who want to constantly confuse the issues and bring up the dumbest shit imaginable… like half the arguments you’re going to hear in this video. And yet I continue to make videos and when I have time, argue in the comments. If this anger that I feel was some painful unpleasant angry shit, I wouldn’t keep doing it. I seriously have far better things to do in life than sit around being angry or doing things that make me miserable.

Furthermore, the tradcons who challenge MGTOW and hurl accusations at us, they seem very hostile. I guess everyone that argues MGTOW needs anger management classes? Should that be the new MGTOW retort to all nay-sayers? Just tell ’em they ain’t MGTOW because they’re angry?

Furthermore, what the fuck is wrong with being angry? Why shouldn’t people facing oppression or any level of discrimination be angry? Why shouldn’t people be angry at seeing injustice? Isn’t the fact that injustice prompts anger, being the driving force behind humans to create justice systems and attempt to right the wrongs?

I’m sorry, but the accusation of “MGTOW are just angry” is a complete load of rubbish.

3. MGTOW are misogynists

Well this is an interesting one considering how subjective this is. For the most part, I believe that practically all men are misogynist and practically all women are misandrist. Men and women have a natural fear, distrust, resent, and envy towards the opposite sex. This is natural. And I am not going to go too far into the psychodynamics of how this works. But it’s a normal part of being human. Both men and women have always tried to control and condition the other. I want you to simply reflect on the significance of people who are attempting to control another group of people. Clearly there is fear and or jealousy at the heart of such efforts. Men and women are naturally enemies forced together by biological circumstances. Men need women, thus women have power over them. Women need men thus men have power over them. We live our lives as individuals and as groups, attempting to out maneuver the other in a constant war of negotiation and manipulation. Men trying to create for themselves and others, a circumstance in which they get the most bang for their buck, and women trying to create for herself and her kind the biggest buck for her bang. Two merchants haggling in the market place- is a great analogy for the eternal struggle between men and women. And this is actually where most of the resent comes in. If for whatever reason men and women were not forced to pair bond, forced by biology to be codependent, did not need each other, practically all the hate distrust and sexism between the sexes would disappear. Thus the more autonomy men and women have from each other, the lower the sexism itself would be. Women say “I got what you need, thus I have power over you.” the man says “oh yeah, well I got what you need, thus I have power over you”, and the battle rages on. Again, men and women are in an eternal power struggle with each other. And the moment we no longer need each other, the power struggle ends, and with it the resent, the misandry and misogyny. The more we are autonomous, the lower the intensity of the power struggle. we’re not trying to oppress women; we’re trying to liberate men. We’re not trying to control women; we’re trying to alleviate men of women’s control.

4. MGTOW are leftists, cultural marxists social engineers (and now SJW).

This is just fucking silly, and is an accusation straight out of the right wing fundamentalist, which most tradcons are. It has been widely established that on the mainstream political spectrum, most MGTOW (not all, and this is not a rule) but most MGTOW are libertarian. Anywhere from moderate to extreme. Thus we can rule out both socialism which employs a large government and government control. We are not Social Justice Warriors or cultural marxist (I should note that cultural marxism, political correctness, social justice warrior, this is all the same thing). And MGTOW is none of that. First and foremost we are not anti-male. Just the opposite is true; we are pro-male. On that alone, we are not social justice warriors. We are also not anti-white. We simply don’t give a fuck what color our brothers are, nobody gets racial privileging or racial guilt, and we’re not about to start playing that “check your privilege” bullshit with race or sexuality. None of this bullshit about “destroying the hierarchy, fighting against the white supremacist patriarchy, and creating a society where everyone is equally rich and equally happy and accomplished, etcetera”. This “Social Justice Warrior” allegation shit stems from the tradcon attempting to cement their position by simply stating “men must pair-bond, and there must be nuclear family, and must be bread winners, it’s the way that works because it’s nature. It’s sexual dimorphism, nature. I’m right and MGTOW is wrong, because nature. Can’t argue with nature or your a social engineer, you’re a social justice warrior.” And that’s where that retarded shit stems from. Oh and Paul Elam’s comment that every MGTOW that doesn’t want to accept his pro-marriage interpretation of MGTOW can swivel on it. And people who weren’t receptive to that message were then referred to, by him, as being radicals, social justice warriors on the fringe.

Also the fact that such a silly allegation was ever concocted, and was done so by the extreme right, and their obsession with fighting marxism, and branding everyone that has a disagreement with them, as being marxists etcetera, serves as a reminder of how important it is for the mens movement to remove itself from the superficial mainstream political battle of leftism versus rightism. The bulk of the mens movement consists of right wingers. In the future this may change and the bulk will be made up by left wingers hurling accusations towards everyone that doesn’t fight for mens rights from a left perspective, of being racist right wing bigots.

We seriously need to knock off this idiotic left versus right bullshit and understand that MGTOW is fighting for the rights of men. We are fighting against the gynocentric tendencies in both men and women that lead to such things as womens special protection status, feminism, and all other policies that protect or empower women at mens expense.

5. MGTOW are dangerous and or just as bad as the feminists/leftists/social justice warriors because they construct a threat narrative.

Oh lord the “threat narrative”. This is just some stupid hypocritical bullshit. Who the fuck doesn’t create a “threat narrative”? The libertarians create a threat narrative about government. The conservatives create a threat narrative about change. The tradcon in particular create a threat narrative about MGTOW. The religious create a threat narrative about atheists, the atheists create a threat narrative about the religious, the leftists create a threat narrative about the right wingers, the right wingers create a threat narrative about the leftists, the MRA’s create a threat narrative about the feminists and on and on and on. I’m sorry but this bullshit about a spooky threat narrative, is not an actual argument.

6. MGTOW just want to be victims. (also leads towards accusations of being just like the feminists leftists cultural marxist social justice yada yada yada)

Oh I’m sure we’ve all heard this one before:

“You just want to be victims. You just create a victim narrative, that’s just like a feminist” (and now it’s that’s just like a social justice warrior).

Who isn’t trying to be a victim? And what I mean by that is, who fighting for their human rights can’t be called accused of “wanting to be a victim”. Anyone fighting for political change is painting themselves as a victim. Why fight against feminism? Who are they hurting? Feminism isn’t hurting anyone. If feminists aren’t hurting anyone why fight them? Who are they hurting? If you say they’re hurting men, congratulations you just want to be a victim.

And a common argument here is, if people are willfully marrying and taking the plunge, who are you to decide for them that they are victims?

This is a tough one to answer in any concise way without going off on a seriously long tangent. Summarized the argument is: you are conflating “wanting with willing”. People pay taxes, because they’re willing; not because they really enjoy paying taxes. They’re given a choice. Don’t work and thus don’t pay taxes, or work and not pay taxes and go to jail for tax evasion. Or work and pay taxes. He chooses the 3rd not because it’s what he “wants” to do, but because he is willing to do so, it’s the lesser of the 3 evils.

A man pays a prostitute, or a sex cam girl, for sexual favors. He doesn’t want to cough up money for this service; but he is willing to. If the sex cam girl and the hooker and the phone sex girl gave him a choice of pay $5.99 a minute, or we can do this for free. If that choice were there, he’d want to go with the free option. But because the woman is in charge, she sets the price, and doesn’t give him the free option, and he’s so weak and needy that he gives in and is “willing” to pay the money for her service.

Apply that to your sit-around-the-house-wife, costing you money. You’d rather be able to save that money. But she’s in charge and not really putting it out there as an option. So you are WILLING to pay for her services as “wife”.

Men are willing to pay for women, women are not willing to do the same, because women are right when they say “you need us women more than we need you men”.

Also this tradcon argument becomes a bit of a dirty tactic. Allow me to explain.

Tradcon says: “if people are willfully marrying and taking the plunge, than they are not victims, how dare you denounce marriage.”

I’ll counter that by saying:

Junky says, “if people are willing to shoot heroin of their own free will, than they are not victims, how dare you preach heroin is bad for your health?”

This is also recently coming about when people want to say MGTOW can get married. A man can be perfectly free and going his own way and married. The response is “you’re not going your own way; you’re going your wife’s way”, or something to that effect. To which he will respond, “no I’m not, I do what I want”, and we mention that he does as much as she allows him. Ultimately the power of divorce is in her hands, she has the power. We mention that marriage is exploitative of men, and they will say, “how dare you decide for me what is exploitative!”

And that’s the convoluted mess that ends up with this shit about “you’re trying to determine for me that I am a victim, thus you are just painting an unnecessary victim narrative, just like a feminist social justice warrior blah blah blah leftist this leftist that”.

The problem with this argument is it takes the abstract political, and unnecessarily turns it into a personal issue that you are not allowed to disagree with unless you attack him directly. Quite frankly, this is a dirty tactic.

This is a matter of me saying “heroin is an addictive drug”, and you saying, “I shoot heroin, are you trying to call me an addict? You don’t know me! How dare you pass judgment on me! I declare that I am not an addict, thus heroin is not addictive, and efforts to claim heroin is addictive, is an example of you trying to tell me that you know me better than I know myself. You don’t get to decide for me whether or not I am an addict. That’s painting a victim narrative. So retract your statement that heroin is an addictive drug that ruins lives, or stand guilty of being a social justice warrior.”

Another way of explaining what a dirty tactic this is, is to remind you of the male feminist position:

A men’s rights activist says “Women are privileged over men”.

The male feminist says “As a man, I know I am not under privileged. Thus Mens Rights Activists are full of shit.”

Imagine if the male feminists were to take the argument one step further and say “and if you try to tell me, a man, that I don’t know what I am talking about, and that I am a victim of feminism, than here you are trying to decide for me, a man, that I am a victim. Now because I, a man, proclaim I am not a victim, you can not claim men are. And if men are not victims of feminism or inequality, than MRA’s are full of shit misogynists.”

You’re doing that right there. Stop it! That’s a dirty way to argue, and you know it. Unless you’re just really fucking stupid. In which case stop it, because your

stupidity is showing.

When tradcons say “you can’t say marriage is exploitative of men, because I’m married and I don’t feel exploited.”

This is the same as the male feminist saying “you can’t say men are marginalized, because I am a man and I don’t feel marginalized”.

Disagree with that male feminist and… “mens rights activists just want to be victims”.

7. MGTOW claims to be going their own way but you all have group think.

This is the problem with “going your own way” as a phrase. Now here’s the thing. Every group of people who come together as a group have some similarities. These similarities build inner-community memes. The longer the group stays together and the closer they are, the more familiar and similar they become to each other. This is true for all groups. Tradcons got group think, libertarians got group think, social justice warriors got group think, AVFM got group think. Every fucking group has group think. It’s a stupid fucking statement to make to begin with. Then our opponents try to play on the term “going your own way” as if to say that no MGTOW may think, do, feel, or bare any similarity to another MGTOW, or you guys aren’t going your own way, you’re a conformist cult.

8. MGTOW is a cult.

This is similar to the group think argument. I don’t know how “MGTOW is a cult”, ever got started. I think Bernard Chapin started that shit during his feud with Barbarossa.

I don’t even know how to explain how we’re not a cult. I guess I’d start by asking the accuser to look up the definition of cult.

We have no deity or leader, we have no exclusive club membership. We don’t have any divinely inspired scripture. It cost no money to be MGTOW. We are not “hidden”. And no one is being cut off, or asked to cut themselves off, from the friends family and former life. The accusation of “cult” is hollow fluff talk for “I don’t like that you don’t agree with my point of view.”

9. MGTOW will lead to extinction.

OK, 15 thousand or so guys on the internet not getting married, or abstaining from sex, will not lead to extinction. The argument then becomes “but you are making an effort to reach more people to forever grow. If you do have success in growing, you will eventually grow to the point of causing extinction. If everyone were MGTOW we’d go extinct.”

Arguing this, over simplified (because I have covered this numerous times) comes down to: MGTOW is not anti reproduction. Although reproduction in this day and age isn’t recommended. But even at it’s core, MGTOW is not anti reproduction.

Next, MGTOW isn’t even about abstaining from sex. Many do abstain, but it’s not a requirement.

Next, we’re not proposing that the future must consist of nothing but asexual or abstinent men or even that every man has to be MGTOW of any kind.

Next, MGTOW is less of a political force (although it can be) and more of a personal philosophy. But looking at it as a political movement: in order for significant change to take place in our culture, based on the spreading of the MGTOW philosophy, not even half the male population has to follow the MGTOW philosophy as much as 50% in order for there to be enough men practicing just enough of the MGTOW philosophy to create a pro-male culture. Keep in mind as men change their behavior this will force women to change their behavior which will force men to change their behavior and so on and so forth feeding into each other and settling. The behavior of men effect women and visa versa. If one changes, it has an impact on the other. Of course our biology will always have an underlying current. This is true of any culture and it’s changes.

Point is, not everyone has to take some vow of abstinence or identify as MGTOW for our philosophy to have a powerful cultural impact, liberating men, and significantly reducing gynocentrism.

And even if it did create conditions that put us in legitimate danger of extinction, that alone would drastically change our culture and our situation.

The next part of this is the mens movement is mostly white men, because it’s mostly a western culture thing, and white people are the majority. Lots of tradcons and others, are white, and some of them will point out that we must do everything it takes to keep white birthrate up or whites will go extinct.

Well, that’s a white-people only problem. But none-the-less, most of our members and detractors are white. So… the lowered birthrate is not uniquely white, other races are also experiencing a progressive decline in birth rates. The cause of the birth rates dropping are mostly economic and the complexities which I have covered in other videos, are too long winded and complex to be covered here. The rate of decline will most likely not be permanent. At the current rate it will be well over a century before white extinction starts becoming a real possibility, as of now it’s premature panic. Furthermore, non-white immigration into white countries will ultimately be the thing that hurts the white population since racial mixing is a fact, and eventually, all the different races when locked into a confined space like a nation, over a long enough time period, will interbreed, thus all the genes will get scattered throughout the nation into one homogenous society (not exactly but this is more true than not). Raising the actual rate of offspring from white women will not actually solve this problem. Furthermore white womens offspring, even when that offspring is white, will most likely grow up to be a pro-immigration anti-nationalist yada yada that insists you have to let in even more non-white immigrants. So amping up the amount of babies white women have is not a solution to this problem. Whatever happens in the extremely complex future regarding race and boarders and numbers, is irrelevant to this movement. And MGTOW isn’t going to have anything to do with it. Wars, economics and immigration policies will be infinitely more a deciding factor in all of this than a “grass eaters” or MGTOW phenomenon. And whatever solution any given race comes up with to remain populated and “racially pure” (a subjective term I might add) isn’t going to have anything to do with the philosophy of MGTOW. And the whole idea of all the different races scrambling, in an over populated world, to find ways of maximizing baby output of their race, to remain relevant in the future against all other races, is a sad sad activity, and when you include throwing men under the bus to do it, it just gets sadder. And I only bring up the “whitey gonna die” aspect because I sincerely suspect it is the driving force behind half the panic and hysteria of needing a higher output of babies. In spite of the fact I have seen less than a dozen comments directly confirming this, I suspect it is 50% or more the issue, and due to political correctness, no one wants to pipe up and just say it for fear of being called a bigot. Not that I personally think any group of people wanting their race, their genetic type to be relevant in the future, is a bigot. But I also don’t personally care about any of that shit.

So in conclusion, MGTOW causes extinction? no.

Men removing gynocentrism from themselves will not cause extinction. Men refusing to act like a walking talking boner, refusing to bark at women and throw money at them to buy their affection, will not cause extinction. Women getting off their ass and getting a job will not cause extinction.

And really tradcons, really? Men have to be providers and support stay at home mothers because if women have to support themselves, humanity goes extinct? Is this seriously what your argument comes down to? Us homosapians have risen above umpteen million species of life on this planet, being natures epitome of evolutionary adaptability and excellence. Through all inter species competition and through all manner of environmental disaster. Through the countless wars and revolutions, and entered into the atomic age. Humanity has thrived. Humanity over coming all obstacles to be the most adaptive innovative and flexible life form. We rose to the top of the food chain and we now sit on a stock pile of nuclear weapons that could destroy all life on this planet several times over, but if your wife has to get off her ass an get a job. Well that’s it, humanity extinct. Gimmie a fucking break.

As for the argument that if enough men go MGTOW, there just won’t be enough fathers impregnating enough women to sustain a population. Again, that all depends on just how many men who are MGTOW there are in any given time in the future, and just how many of them decide to reject fatherhood and not impregnate a woman. Then there is the question of how many women will use sperm banks, will men start using foreign surrogate mothers to breed them children? And don’t you think if population got so low as to put that nation, race, culture in serious jeopardy, don’t you just think this problem alone would prompt some serious major no bullshit changes in our culture?

“MGTOW will lead to extinction”, is a premature panic not being applied to such things as middle class families, have below replacement level offspring, thus aspirations to climb your way out of the ghetto will lead to extinction. Rich industrial nations have lower birthrates than under developed countries, so maybe everyone that wants their nation to have a strong rich economy is pushing for genocide? If that sounds stupid, so is saying that a small and growing MGTOW movement will cause extinction. Again, no one knows what 100 years from now is going to look like, or what changes will take place. Maybe when the population gets so low that there is a reason for nations to start panicking, this will cause major changes in laws, which will give incentives for MGTOW men to become fathers. Things like knowing if the man does not have full custody of a child, he is not obligated to pay for it, would make men feel more confident in having children. Like I said, a massive population reduction would force needed changes. The MGTOW philosophy at its core is not the rejection of reproduction or a rejection of fatherhood, even if modern MGTOW believe that having a child with a woman under our current climate is not a smart move. MGTOW will not end the human species.

10. MGTOW is unnatural, only traditionalism is natural.

Ah yes, the argument from nature. The right wing, famous for denying evolution by the way, is a hardcore fan of “nature” and biological determinism. They dictate what is and isn’t nature and fiercely reject social engineering with cries of “I’m afraid of change, change is unnatural”, while living inside of an ever changing world. They push for the social engineering of marriage, and deny that men are not monogamous. They get to dictate what is and isn’t natural the way a bible thumper cherry picks his scripture to validate his every position so that he knows everything and is always right because god is on his side. The same is true of the tradcon and his reliance on the secular version of “gods word” known as nature. Taking only the half truths that fit his narrative, and the whole truths out of context. He sculpts a world of “ought to be”. Any arguing will instantly get you branded as “gender ideologue” and “social engineer” and “Social Justice Warrior”. And the nuclear family man as bread winner model they hold up, is not even that traditional, but dang nabbit he watched The Happy Days, so he knows the 1950’s, and thinks it’s always been that way. Again, marriage, a socially constructed set of rules to modify behavior (social engineering) to fix a problem stemming from “nature”. He’s willing to endorse that shit, but not any modification of his 1950’s nuclear family model of life.

Dear tradcon, people supporting male monogamy, shouldn’t be condemning others for perpetuating an unnatural way of life.

11. MGTOW is a fantasy, traditionalism has a track record, it works.

When people say that MGTOW is a fantasy or “unrealistic” or “unsustainable”, I have to be honest, I don’t know what part of MGTOW they are talking about, and I chalk this up to them misunderstanding MGTOW and hyper focusing on one aspect. I’m just not sure what the aspect is.

Normally it’s some strange conclusion like MGTOW is an abstinence movement, and on a large scale will lower a nations population. And we already went over this misconception.

As for traditionalism’s track record. The horse and buggy has a track record too, you wanna protest cars? And traditionalism is not as traditional as you think.

Slavery worked pretty well too. It was huge in the Babylonian empire, it was huge in the Roman empire, it was integral to the formation of the American empire and many many more. Slavery is a very old institution; you wanna promote slavery on the grounds that it works?

Furthermore, no, traditionalism doesn’t work. If it did, there wouldn’t have been bachelor taxes, there wouldn’t have been in the pre-feminist era, societal expectations & pressures and laws making it difficult for single women to survive and thus forcing them into marriage and then removing their autonomy to force the marriage to work (this system is sometimes what is meant by the word patriarchy). There wouldn’t be an entire marriage industry producing marriage propaganda, there wouldn’t have been feminism, and there wouldn’t be MGTOW. If we all went “traditionalist”, we’d be a nation of married men working 50 hours a week to support a stay at home woman with her feet propped up watching TV all day, and surfing the web, buying crap with her husband’s credit card while the kids are at school all day. And then comes the divorce and the man loses everything and pays alimony and child support. That’s the outcome of traditionalism in this day and age. Come to think of it, that’s far too much of what we’re doing right now. It doesn’t work. It is not 1850, we can’t keep pretending that it is.

At least half the country is practicing traditionalism (more or less) and it’s not working. You can quit blaming feminism anytime now. Your “,men are money makers, women are care givers,” model, is more to blame for the divorce problem than feminism. And hell, feminists aren’t even the ones telling men to get married to begin with. The breakdown of the Traditional Nuclear Family, is more the fault of the fact it doesn’t work, than it is feminism’s fault.

World War 2 brought American women into the work force. They got a touch of independence. The 1960’s gave birth to Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique which alerted the world to the chronic problem of “bored house wife syndrome” and the social taboo of women being independent.

This launched 2nd wave feminism which was, by far, the rise of feminism as a cultural revolution. Why did it happen? Is it just possible this was not a carefully executed communist conspiracy? Is it possible, just possible, that this revolution came about because the traditional nuclear family was so out of date, that bored house wife syndrome was such a chronic problem. House work in the electric age was so easy and fast, and independence in a thriving economy was so fucking easy, that women didn’t want to play this stupid tradcon game anymore? And is it possible that many men who didn’t have fragile egos, and those who didn’t come from a strong conservative Irish Catholic background, realized that his wife working full time greatly contributed to the family income, relieving the burden to himself, practically doubling his retirement plan, and raised the over-all quality of life for the family. And thus women poured into the workforce virtually unchallenged, and second wave feminism was born?

Nah, nothing wrong with traditionalism, let’s just keep blaming communism.

Marriage in western culture has been propped up by artificial constraints on women in the past, bachelor taxes, and by religious institutions. It has been kept on life support for well over a century, for crying out loud let it die.

12. No one is forcing marriage or traditionalism. It’s OK to advocate something as long as it is not being “forced”.

If the argument is force, as in “force by law, force by gun point”, than we are not “forcing” anyone to do anything either, but you sure take issue with our anti-traditionalism and our anti-marriage stance.

Common Law Marriages, in the west, are a type of “forcing marriage”. In the east, in many countries, you have arranged marriages, that’s another type of forcing.

But beyond that, force being subjective, yes there is the forcing of marriage by offering marital benefits to married couples. Religious reinforcement of marriage in spite of the fact the marriages spoken of in the bible are not what is getting called marriage by today’s standard. This would be force by artificially constructed incentive, force by shaming and social pressuring.

While this is slightly off topic for this video, I just want to mention now before I forget, that perhaps a much needed modification to marriage should be considered. If a person’s motive for marriage is to be in compliance with their religion, than perhaps marriages need to be bound by church rules. Church performs the ceremony, and you agree to be bound by their decisions in a divorce. They get to decide when a marriage is or isn’t eligible for divorce. The church decides the division of property and child rights and child payments and so on, and the only role government has is enforcing the contract between the married couple and the church. Church in this case representing any religious establishment authorized to perform a marriage: i.e., mosque, synagogue, church, pagan temple, etcetera.

So long as the state validates it as a legit religious institution, and grants marital power to the priest, rabbi, shaman, whoever. As it is now, people are entering into a secular government contract of marriage, that does not hold up to “marriage” defined by their religion, and are doing it in accordance with their religion.

But back to the issue of no one is “forcing” simply by advocating.

Marriage and traditional gender roles are the status quo, even if they are decreasing, they are still the status quo.

The normalization creates expectations, obligations through social pressure. It has often been stated that children born into an Islamic culture will be Islamic, people born into a christian culture will be christian, and so on.

It is true that people tend to be very mailable creatures that adapt and conform to their environment and except the expectations, value system, and over-all reality they are presented with. By virtue of its normality, it is a constant pressure twisting the arm (forcing) young men into bad decisions to meet cultural norms. “Force” is subjective and takes many forms. Peer pressure is a powerful force to manipulate people’s decisions.

Our legal system is a system that often conforms to social values (social norms). So the normalization of both marriage and traditional gender roles and traditional views on gender, greatly effect court decisions and decisions within other institutions. If marriage wasn’t such a “normal” thing that acts as part of our culture’s value system, things like common law marriages that force cohabiting couples to be married, wouldn’t exist. There’d be no need to ram marriage down people’s throats if marriage wasn’t the status quo and a staple of our culture.

We are fighting against this unfair institution. Every person that takes part in marriage normalizes it, thus contributing to the problem. While I do not support attacking individuals who make personal choices, I will go on the attack and fight against these people then advocating marriage as a proper course of action.

Furthermore, I have showed numerous times that our traditional views on gender (women as helpless baby factories, and men as protectors, providers, and self sacrificers) contribute greatly to the double standards and inequalities that hurt men. Marriage and traditionalist advocates reinforce these views that ultimately hurt men. The current system, by virtue of our cultural values and views of gender norms and gender roles, is harmful to men, and exploitative of men. If you disagree, I ask that you please join the nearest feminist group and fight for women’s rights where you belong, because they too would agree whole heartedly that our current traditional gender values do not exploit men.

13. MGTOW are radicals, just as bad as the feminists.

On the grounds of “just as bad as the feminists”:

feminists have argued against your primitive archaic values, and so do we. Maybe we are “just like the feminists”. But another way of looking at this is: if both female advocates (feminists) and male advocates (MGTOW) can agree that some particular thing is harmful, then there is a pretty damn good chance it is harmful. Seriously, when two opposing ideologies can agree on something, that something must have some pretty damn good merit.

On the charge of MGTOW being radicals. Yes, MGTOW have been the radicals of the mens movement since day one. Radicals are good. When men began congregating on the internet and some of them began belly aching about women and feminists, this was hardly a legitimate human rights movement. This was hardly an ideology on to itself. At best, belly aching about uppity feminists was the byproduct of some other ideology. It would require radicals to form web forums, web sites, organizations, and create an eventual legitimate movement for mens rights. It took radicals to go from griping that feminism is wrong because some passage of the bible says this and that about a woman’s role. To go from that, to feminism is evil because it hurts men. And then to go from “it hurts mens feelings” to becoming “it hurts men legally, financially, emotionally, and morally”. It took radicals to push us to that point.

All progress in this movement has been the result of us radicals talking about the things we weren’t supposed to be talking about, and having these radical ideas slowly sink into the moderates until it became a normal part of the moderate’s position. The radicals are the movers of the movement.

Metaphorically speaking: Anti-feminist is kindergarten, MRM is high school, MGTOW is college, and the tradcon is the drop out burning academic books that don’t agree with his faith.

Another way of looking at it is, you begin by noticing how vicious and mean the feminists are, you object, and you are an anti-feminist who fights against feminism (you don’t currently care about men). Then you realize men are actually disadvantaged in society, unequal, and you are a mens rights activist (you still don’t care about men, but you are at least caring about justice). Then you finally get it, it all clicks, you have a greater understanding of the problem, and you see the gender paradigm itself as the problem, and you are MGTOW (and now you care about men). And then you have the tradcon, sure he bitches about feminism, but his faith deadlocks him into bitching about feminism. He refuses to move past kindergarten, and attacks the more educated. He doesn’t want to get left alone in kindergarten while the others move forward. He lashes out at the more educated.

You need us radicals.

The argument that the radicals chase people away: well this is actually a good thing. Those people are in kindergarten, they don’t care about men. Sure they need to complete kindergarten in order to graduate on up as a new recruit in time. But if they had any real conviction about fighting against the injustice and exploitation of men, they wouldn’t run off. These are people who are so content with the injustice that they only kinda sorta mildly belly ache about feminism due to feminists socialism and other miscellaneous crap. These are men who would have shut their mouths and turned on mens rights the moment some girl gave them the time of day. They were just cranky republicans at best. Besides, you need us radicals, and we can’t do our job by whispering and sugar coating our words. MGTOW is the big boys classroom, we use harsh words and speak of adult subjects. I wish there was a way we could segregate our words from the kindergarten class, but we can’t.

As for me being accused of being a radical… Yes, I am radical even within the radical MGTOW movement. I’m not sure why that is. I suspect many of our brothers bearing the name MGTOW, do care about men, but mentally they’re having a hard time getting past their disgruntled PUA phase, or their Butt Hurt Republican phase that lead them to the high school they graduated from. I think many of them just don’t get what MGTOW is, and others are just having a hard time coping with swallowing the red pill, and they are stuck in the “bitch about women” phase. I think they are just having a hard time adapting to life after red pill. And I do not make fun of them, or look down on them. I believe in time, they will adapt, they will progress, they will move forward, they will be strong. I think many of them are upset with women because they are stuck in that state of mind after seeing the truth, and it’s going to take them time to move forward. And maybe others are just more passive by nature, and a more gentle and relaxed “dropping out” of the game is their style. They are walking away a little more quiet. And I happen to be a passionate vigorous person, maybe even a little militant. So yes, I am a radical, MGTOW is radical. And you need radicals.

14. It’s pseudo science, you have no documentation.

That phrase and other variations, translating to: “All proclamations and theories of behavior that stray from generally accepted tropes, require documentation and scientific evidence.”

No, they really don’t need documentation. If I have a theory on why people do things, I do not need a shit load of scientific research to back up a theory. Furthermore, there aren’t a whole lot of facts when it comes to human behavior. There’s pop-psychology research. There is no shortage of academic studies conducted by social justice warriors. There are studies performed by the psychology industry (an industry geared towards maximizing revenue and pathologizing everything). To that industry, everything is a disease, and their pills and talk sessions can help everyone. Again, self serving profit motivated industry has progressively less reliable studies and conclusions on human behavior. Neurology studies on human behavior which are as misleading as they are educating. While the brain is an organ that needs to be studied, and is the organ responsible for our awareness and decision making, our ability to really understand cause and effect neurologically is very limited to anything outside of motor function. What’s more disturbing is the neurology institution tends to survive on grants, grants gained by producing the most outrageous and shocking headlines about the newest behavioral study.

Point is, most of what we know about human behavior comes from personal observation and speculation based on our own motivations. And the other part is observing everything we see through the cognitive bias of our cultural teachings.

The traditionalist lives in a world of “status quo”. He lives in a world of commonly held beliefs. MGTOW challenges traditional conventions. We don’t need documentation for every single thing we ponder, theorize, hypothesize, postulate and speculate.

Furthermore, the tradcon has us at an advantage: it is easier to be the status quo than it is to challenge the status quo. It is easier to parrot traditional convention than it is to challenge it.

15. You can’t use generalizations.

Yes I can, human beings generalize, it’s how our brains function and how we learn. See my video on this, link in the description.

There are two kinds of people: those who generalize and those who generalize and insist others shouldn’t.

The “you can’t generalize” argument is a deflection. If someone generalized in a way you agreed with, you wouldn’t object. It’s when they generalize about something you disagree with, or generalize negatively about something you want to defend, that you insist their argument is invalid because “you can’t generalize”. It’s really an extension of “but not all BLANK are like that”.

16. NAWALT, Not all Marriages are like that, Not all blank is like that. just got to find the right one.

OK, we done gone over the “you can’t generalize”. This is a bad argument for the same reason: it’s a hollow deflection.

It’s an argument that could be used right back at the tradcon. Not all marriages are good, thus marriage is bad. Not all women are good, thus women are bad. And you can’t accuse MGTOW of anything because not all MGTOW are like that. It’s not much of an argument. Again, it’s what you say when you want to defend a position, but can’t argue the argument against your argument. It’s a dismissal, its a deflection; not an argument.

But it also leads to the, “just got to find the right one, because not all women and not all marriages are like that.”

OK, look, the odds are against you, the game is rigged. There is no reason to support a rigged game. If the gambling game is rigged, boycott it, otherwise the operators of the game have no reason to not rig it.

Another way of looking at it, specifically the whole deal about you just have to find the right one, because there are good women out there.

Well OK yes, but let me try to show you the gravity of the situation.

Stardusk once said finding that right one is like finding a needle in a parsec.

Well, I don’t know about all that. But lets just say there aren’t a whole lot of good women out there, and to add to the equation, realize you’re ability to determine a good woman from a bad woman is flawed. Add to that, women know how to put on a good act to get what they want. Add to that, that people just change over time. The woman who loved you with all of her heart and soul and would have taken a bullet for you, 15 years down the road might end up hating you so much she wants to put a bullet in you.

But whatever the math is on “finding the ever illusive good woman”, look at it like this. If I were to be as generous as possible, and really play devils advocate, and said 50% of women are good women and you just got to keep looking and weed out the bad ones and get yourself a good one.

In spite of the fact no where near 50% of women are “good women”, I’m going to be so generous and give you that.

OK then, in a world where men and women are roughly equal, and only half the women on the planet are “good women”, than this means only half the men out there are going to find the right one. The other half are left with two options: settle down with the wrong woman, or go MGTOW.

Now realize, that number I gave you was generous, no where near 50% of women are good enough people to be with for the long haul, worthy of being mothers, or can be trusted with the power given to them over you by marriage. So only a small percentage of men are going to find a decent woman to really improve the quality of his life. Most other men are just acting like desperate drug addicts getting their fix any way they can and living the life of a pussie junky.

And lets not forget, marriage for a man, should be rejected not on the chances of failure, but on the principal of how unfair it is to men, and how uneeded a government contract in your personal life is.

The fact men will not stand up and protest marriage and give their own sex a better deal, is a testament to how divided men are, and thus a testament to how bad MGTOW is needed; not some tradcon “man up” bullshit.

I also want to add something I have stated numerous times; you cannot defeat the system so long as you are feeding the system. You cannot fix the system so long as you’re propagating its corruption. The tradcons scape goat feminism. You cannot fix the system by feeding it. I also think it is amazing how certain types of tradcons (though mostly just woman worshipers in general) will tell us that because women are the gate keepers of sex and babies, society will ultimately yield to them. This is normally stated in a “give up fighting against women and just focus on fighting feminism” type of defeatist message. Yet when men start to walk away from pussy and marriage, where is this style of pussie worshiping defeatist tradcon telling us that because we’re striking, we’re in control? Instead we are told that we have a duty to cave in to women or we’ll go extinct. Men have a duty to keep up population etcetera.

Isn’t that amazing. When women close their legs, they’re in charge and us men better bow to the women. When men go on strike, men better knock their shit off because their strike is going to have consequences for us all.

No matter how you slice it, the message I hear is “men better just shut up and do as women say”.

Admittedly it’s a rare type of tradcon to perpetuate this rare argument. They’re not exactly male feminists, their not completely tradcons. But they are white knights and they are in the MRM.

The tradcon argument that men have a duty to knock off their strike because there will be consequences to us all. That is common tradcon logic. We hear that with all their population panic. But it’s an uncommon tradcon argument that women are in charge because they are the gate keepers. I just find it ironic, that all the responsibility to cave in and “man up” for the greater good of society falls on men. You can tell MGTOW is the only pro-male philosophy because we are the only one’s not holding double standards like that. The sort of double standard of “women’s choice / men’s responsibility”.

This is the double standard found in feminism, and it is also found all through the traditionalist rhetoric.

17. MGTOW must not be against marriage or exclude married men from it’s ranks because MGTOW means doing what ever you want.

No, MGTOW is not “doing what ever you want”. Male feminists are men doing their own thing, doing whatever they want, but they are not MGTOW.

MGTOW is at its core a rejection of female supremacism, gynocentrism. A man entering into a marriage contract is a man placing himself in a subservient position to a woman. He is giving his wife power over him.

To make matters worse, if the man is in a traditional setup where he is supporting a woman, this is even more gynocentric. He is the worker bee supporting his queen bee, and locked into a government enforced contract that gives her power to keep it that way if she wants, or for her to up and change the rules when she sees fit because she has power of the courts on her side. Any man who understands this and then willfully enters into such an awesome display of gynocentrism, is not being MGTOW, he is being the mainstream, he is conforming to the norm, the most gynocentric of norms. To say conforming like everyone else is “doing your own thing” is an oxymoron anyhow.

If the MGTOW community were to accept married men as MGTOW, than what separates the MGTOW, MRA, Anti-Feminist, Tradcon, and every day mainstream vanilla Republican?

Seems to me a MGTOW under those circumstances would just be an MRA uttering silly pretentious fluff talk about finding himself or some shit.

If the marriage strike aspect of MGTOW is dropped, there really isn’t much to define MGTOW, it just devolves into never ending belly aching about feminism, and does not differ from every thing else I mentioned.

At least by rejecting marriage, there is at least a focal point, or point of reference. We can say that MGTOW is rejecting gynocentrism. But if you get married and willingly submit to the ultimate in gynocentrism, than you’re not really MGTOW. And if we can accept a married man as MGTOW, than what are we even claiming a rejection of gynocentrism is? For a person to be MGTOW, they have to reject at least some aspect, some degree, of gynocentrism. MGTOW do not insist that a MGTOW reject sex, dating, and even friendships with females. Although some MGTOW do. But we insist you have to do a little something to reject it in your personal life. A line has to get drawn somewhere. Marriage is where the line is drawn and I am never going to budge on that and I encourage my fellow MGTOW to also not budge on that. MGTOW is not a binary; it’s a spectrum. But it has to have at least some immediately recognizable line drawn for the MGTOW community to determine if someone is or isn’t MGTOW.

This often brings up the nonsense about MGTOW being a cult, or too ideologically pure (and forgive me, I think I am the one that got that shit started).

It’s like a vegetarian eating steak and hamburgers on a weekly basis saying “I’m a vegetarian”. I would have to ask on what basis are you a vegetarian? Is it because sometimes while stuffing your face with pork, chicken, and beef, you make sure to add a vegetable to your meat based diet?

Imagine having a meal with your vegetarian friends, stuffing your face with a bacon cheeseburger and saying “I’m with you guys, I’m a vegetarian for life”. And one of your vegetarian friends says, “you’d be more convincing if you weren’t sputtering pork and beef in my direction while saying it.” And you retorting, “Oh My God you people are a cult”.

It’s that fucking stupid.

18. MGTOW are gender ideologues.

Let me just pull up the definition of ideologue:

1. an impractical idealist theorist.

2. an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.

We’ll start with the first one. Any group of people challenging the status quo, pushing for change, can be accused of being an impractical idealist.

And the key word is “change”. The fear of change conservative loves to accuse people of “ideologue” based on the first definition because it’s easy. It’s easy to tell people who are pushing for change that their change is impractical, while you get to cling to the status quo and the status quo of yesterday, screaming “see it was working once upon a time, we can do it again”.

I will however mention that people in 2014 wanting to return to a 19th century America style of marriage and family, inside of a 2014 environment, are being impractical idealists. You don’t have a time machine. Believing that we can return to some traditional mode in this day and age, and it will all just start working if we tweet our thumbs off at feminists and we just fight communism, is being impractical. Traditionalism doesn’t work. Our situation is different. The market has changed. Women can support themselves every bit as good as men. And when they stay home, they are not acting like traditional 19th century house wives; they are acting like your 25 year old son who won’t get a job and move out or help out with the rent, but thinks mowing the lawn is earning his rent free keep. This doesn’t work. You’re supporting a stay at home “free ride” of a woman. And you do it for one of two reasons: either you’re doing it to comply with your right wing conservative faith, or you’re so desperate for pussy and female approval, you will pay this woman like a prostitute to give her services to you. If you really want a traditional marriage, drop out and move to an Amish community where your wife can milk cows and churn butter and beet carpets by hand etcetera, go move to Iran where the theocratic government holds a machine gun to your head forcing men to be, “men”, and women to be, “women”, and locking them into a “traditional” gender role.

On the next part of that definition. Blindly advocates and adheres to a particular ideology.

No, we don’t do it blindly. We are aware that our ideology is not some “one true path to utopia”. We admit we don’t have all the answers and we will have to forever figure them out as we move forward. We can’t say for certain what the future is going to look like or how any given thing is going to turn out. We can speculate, and be prepared to re-evaluate and modify our stances.

You tradcons on the other hand are fooling yourself into thinking there is a formula to weed out the bad women to find the right one to marry. As if there is some bullet proof system that RockingMrE and TheCriticalG came up with. You are the ones locking yourselves into contracts with your government (marriage), placing yourself in the submissive position of being at the mercy of your wife the moment she gets tired of playing this traditionalist shit or gets tired of you. You are blindly marching into this contract because “hey it’s tradition, it’s my male duty.”

You are the one insisting in this day and age that women shouldn’t be getting jobs, they should be stay at home baby factories. You’ve got yourselves convinced that a working woman is a “corporate whore”, that women have got to dedicate themselves to motherhood ‘less humanity goes extinct.

You people say “sexual dimorphism” to mean that men and women are hardwired, locked, into certain roles with very narrow and inflexible definitions of masculinity and femininity.

You people feed the exact divorce problem and divorce outcome you bitch about, but scape goat feminism for failed marriages rather than blaming marriage as a failed institution.

You’re the ones who say “family” and then define that as one ultra precise model of family.

You claim to care about men, all the while encouraging men, as their duty, to get married and place themselves in the most danger women can place men in.

All because your right wingism says so. Hows that for blind devotion to a particular ideology?

You people have created this binary where everyone is a hardcore right wing conservative, or instantly a leftist for not being pure enough. You people defend with great vigor every aspect of your right wingism. One critique and that individual is instantly a leftist/communist/marxist/socialist/social justice warrior.

Hows that for blind fanatical dedication to an ideology?

Bonus argument: MGTOW doesn’t work.

There are many more arguments which effectively come down to the core argument: MGTOW doesn’t work.

And each one of those proclamations requires its own unique rebuttal.

But all in all, the notion that it can’t work, just as a general statement, is neither true or false; it’s not applicable.

It’s not an applicable statement because “work” has never been clearly defined.

MGTOW is not a system of government, or a system of economics. MGTOW is not even really a political movement. Although MGTOW doesn’t stray from gender politics, it just isn’t in and of itself a political movement.

It’s a philosophy, and for some a spirituality. To say MGTOW doesn’t work is to say “Buddhism doesn’t work”. In what way does Buddhism not work? Aren’t there Buddhists? Hasn’t Buddhism been around for many many generations? Hasn’t it had an impact on the culture and thus the laws of Eastern countries?

MGTOW is at it’s core, a rejection of gynocentrism. It is just an idea. The idea is that men need to start valuing maleness, rather than worshiping women. He needs to find worth from within, and not seek it from women. A man needs to find completeness in himself; and not seek completeness from women.

It begins with acknowledging that men are vulnerable; they have a major weakness. A man’s weakness is his need for sexual gratification, and for female approval. Some times this approval comes in the form of the male saying “that girl is pretty, I want to own her, and own her prettiness”. But this in reality translates to “I want her approval to own her.” Which ultimately translates to “I want her approval”.

A man wants to earn the approval of a woman so that he may “own” her so that he can hold her up as a trophy of his worth. He is incomplete, and completes himself by achieving worth vicariously through his “trophy”.

This part of male psychology ultimately puts women in control of men. Men are weak, women use and exploit that weakness.

MGTOW holds that men should make efforts to be strong, and to not be controlled by women.

Men seek worth, and judge other men’s worth, by examining his trophy, or the level of female approval in general that he gets. MGTOW says we should do what we can to ease back on that mentality.

The goal of our MGTOW communities, is not to create some immediate and forever sustainable future where no man ever has sexual desires for a woman. Our goal, is to spread an awakening, an idea. That idea being that men should grovel a little bit less. Granted, that’s an over simplification.

And as I said, it begins with men understanding themselves, understanding that women have men on a leash. That leash is wrapped around our cocks, and we follow them where ever they take us.

Men are weak, and men need to “do what they can” to remove this control.

Women laugh at MRA’s and say “you need us more than we need you.” And the MRA immediately starts whipping out arguments such as men built everything, men’s taxes fund this and that. And you need men to repair your broken appliances…

Stop with the defensiveness. These cackling women who mock you, are actually correct. You do need them more than they need you. That’s why men continue to buy women movie tickets and pays for dinner just to get a date. And they buy her jewelry and every other little thing she wants, enter into contract called marriage, financially support a wife who may or may not even bother to have kids. Supporting her like she was a child.

This is so embarrassing. Oh my brothers how you humiliate yourselves pussy begging and buying a woman’s affection. You’re so desperate for sex and their approval you’re buying it. You’re so weak, sad, pathetic, and desperate. And to make it worse, you will not admit this weakness, you instead manufacture convoluted nuclear family bullshit and “arguments from nature” to defend your decisions; decisions born of weakness and vulnerability.

How many men picked up the guitar as a boy, and practiced it with the number one driving force being “I bet this will make chicks really dig me. And if not, they’ll want me when I am a famous rock star”.

Look at how under the gynocentric power you are. Look how much women control your life. The pursuit of women has been your modus operandi.

Men do need women a lot more than women need men. That’s why it so normal to see men financially supporting a woman (buying her affection) and paying prostitutes for sex, than you see women doing either one.

My personal goal as a MGTOW, is to spread this awareness to my fellow man. First acknowledged this weakness, that women have you by the balls. Second step is to say to yourself “I wish it didn’t have to be this way.”

That’s it. Once you have done that, you have been awakened. All I want is a cultural awakening.

Once we as a culture have accepted this, that’s all we need for the wheels to be set in motion for a better, more fair, less misandrous future.

The nay-sayers tell us that if there is gynocentrism, than it is nature and you can no more fight nature than you can gravity, give up.

And to that I say, we fight gravity all the time. A plane does not defeat (as in destroy) gravity, it merely fights against it.

Every day that you get up and move around the house you’re fighting the eternal force of gravity.

Its true that the weight of gravity is always there. We are bound to the eternal laws of universal physics. Yet interesting how we don’t lay on the floor like a puddle of gel, completely defeated by gravity. We fight it, in order to function.

We don’t need to make gynocentrism go away. We just need to fight it. And the fight begins with acknowledging it.

Arguing TradCon Kevin Wayne

I log on to facebook, a thing I rarely do, even though I should. And in my feed is a post by facebook friend Kevin Wayne, in the HoneyBadger Radio facebook group, and his post is essentially just this picture.



And I looked at it trying and trying to figure out what the point of the picture was. I mean, look at it, on the left is a woman, and two kids. I presume she is their mom. She appears to be making a meal for the kids, while on the phone. It’s not clear who she is on the phone with. Maybe her husband, maybe her boss, maybe a friend… we just don’t know. The fact that the kid is being held, and is holding the phone implies that she is very busy.

On the right is a woman and 5 children, and a dog, all sitting together on the couch and staring at the camera. Is the camera supposed to be the television? We don’t know.

On the right there is more children in the picture. I started to think maybe the message here was that single parent moms produce less children than traditional house wives. But there is no husband/father figure in either picture, so that can’t be the message.

Perhaps in the first picture she is looking very busy, while she is looking very relaxed in the second picture, and so maybe the message is single parent motherhood is exhausting… but she appears without a husband in the second picture too. Maybe the message here is single parent moms are stressed out and over worked and are not relaxed on the couch with their kids… Oh for the love of Darwin, maybe the message here is single parent moms do not equal pet owners. Fuck if I get what the picture is trying to tell me. Kevin, I swear, whatever you do, don’t go into advertising, because I have zero fucking clue as to what you are trying to tell me and what idea you’re trying to sell.

Kevin Wayne was one of my first facebook “friends”. I’ve never had a problem with him, and for the most part, do not have a problem with him as a person, but ideologically, traditionalists are the enemy of mens freedom, rights, equality, and autonomy. It supports male disposability and glorifies the sanctity of motherhood. I can’t say that a traditionalist is any less of an enemy to the wellbeing of men than are feminists. Both are ideologies bent on the best way to spoil women, the best way to skin us cats.

I looked through the comments and the discussion is all about traditionalism.

Well, even that doesn’t help explain the picture. Even after all of my arguing in the comment section… I still don’t understand the fucking picture. But moving on now.

Here was my post in comment thread:

OK, I don’t fully understand the pictures. The one on the left shows a mom holding a kid, and another one by her side. We are told this picture does not equal, several children sitting on the couch with their mom? WTF?
At any rate, the discussion in the comments is about traditionalism.
Well, here’s the problem, traditionalists point to 1950, and pretend that’s the way it always was.
Second problem is there is no longer a place in the home for women. All they’re doing is stuffing their face with bon-bons and watching TV while the kids are at school and the husband is slaving his life away to prop up the pampered couch potato. This is not good for men. House work is flipping a few dials on the modern day appliances.
Another thing I need to point out, encouraging traditional setups does not “make” traditional setups succeed; all it does is make men stupid enough to place his head on the chopping block (propose marriage) because that is what his job as a man is.
Another problem, it is this traditionalist ideal, that keeps men making the mistakes they are making, that end up hurting them, that they then blame feminism for.
I don’t even blame divorce on feminism; I blame it on traditionalist thinking.
When women are unhappy with a marriage, they leave the husband and take the kid. Why do they get the kid? Because traditionalist have turned “motherhood” not “fatherhood” into something sacred. Furthermore, who is the judge supposed to give custody to, the father (walking ATM) or the mother who is the one to stay home and raise them all these years.
Traditionalism and traditionalists, are every bit as much of a problem and threat as feminism/feminists.
If a child is in such need of a parent to hold their hand 24/7 how come the man can’t stay home with the child and the woman work?
I asked this question to my audience once, and got someone telling me that it’s because finding a woman willing to be the bread winner is a practical impossibility. What I think is hilarious is he made a case for why men shouldn’t be getting married. If you are going to marry a woman that is “too good to be the bread winner” than you are asking for your marriage to the spoiled little bitch, who views you as an ATM, to fall apart when you bore her or lose your job, and to divorce you and take your shit.
But most importantly, 1950’s traditionalism can’t work in this day and age. It’s one sided. It sticks men with obligation, and gives choices to women. Women then use these choices to fuck a man’s life up.
Traditionalism = the other feminism.

He writes back to me and says:

“Second problem is there is no longer a place in the home for women. All they’re doing is stuffing their face with bon-bons and watching TV while the kids are at school and the husband is slaving his life away to prop up the pampered couch potato. This is not good for men. House work is flipping a few dials on the modern day appliances.”

So does anyone really think this to be the case? I’m willing to wager that this caricature is not going to be found true for everyone. In fact I’d be willing to state that a LOT of people who consider themselves “traditional” won’t recognize themselves in this at all.

I keep going back to my deceased parents, not only because it’s a valid example, but also because no one has been able to come close to refuting it: They both raised farm animals and worked all their lives. There was nobody sitting around eating bon-bons. Not my mother. Dad also worked a full time job and mom tried to build a business for them to retire on. It didn’t fly, but that’s another matter. She also worked outside the home when it was needed. She managed the phone room for catalog orders for the local Sears?

Where is this lazy couch-potato of a woman? I personally don’t believe she exists, except in the mind of some men who are afraid of being taken advantage of.

RBK, you do some decent videos on some topics, but on this you’re preposterously out to lunch.

“I don’t even blame divorce on feminism; I blame it on traditionalist thinking. When women are unhappy with a marriage, they leave the husband and take the kid. Why do they get the kid? “

Completely false. Traditionalists marry for life & work out their differences. By definition.

“Why do they get the kid? Because traditionalist have turned “motherhood” not “fatherhood” into something sacred. Furthermore, who is the judge supposed to give custody to, the father (walking ATM) or the mother who is the one to stay home and raise them all these years.”

Um… who initiated the Tender Years Doctrine again? Oh that’s right, it was a Feminist!

” If you are going to marry a woman that is “too good to be the bread winner” than you are asking. for your marriage to the spoiled little bitch, who views you as an ATM, to fall apart when you bore her or lose your job, and to divorce you and take your shit.”

Bullshit. Some men want to be the breadwinner. How can you loudly proclaim “We want freedom of choice” on the one hand and then deny that to others in the next breath?

THAT… sounds more like a Feminist than anything ANY traditionalist has ever done or said.

Folks, this sounds SO much like the nonsense propagated by Feminists that the walk down the aisle is “a woman’s trail of tears.” But for some odd reason many of you have internalized this and turned it around to make men into victims and you don’t even see it!


That was actually three different posts back to back from him. Anyhow, I then responded with:

“Where is this lazy couch-potato of a woman? I personally don’t believe she exists, except in the mind of some men who are afraid of being taken advantage of.”
Wow and holey shit you are in denial. You think the average stay at home unemployed house wife, is working from sun up to sun down on hands and knees scrubbing the floor, and ringing the clothes by hand, and slopping the pigs and feeding the chickens, and homeschooling the 7 children, and spending all day picking the food out of the garden and chopping it up and fixing 4 hour long meals on the stove? Really? Here in 2014? Dude, it’s TV, junk food, non stop yapping to her gal pals on the phone.
Furthermore, being a man afraid to be taken advantage of, is a smart thing, perhaps all those men who commit suicide after their divorce should have been afraid of being taken advantage of. Perhaps if more men were afraid to be taken advantage of, they wouldn’t be taken advantage of? Maybe?
You’re also validating my point that half the mess men are in is because of traditionalism/traditionalists. Here you are indicating men should take the plunge, put his head on that chopping block, and not have a fear of his woman taking advantage of him. The sad thing is, many men do just that. And when they get burned, they belly ache about feminism, rather than acknowledging that as much harm as feminism has caused, it was their own traditionalism that bit them in the ass the hardest. And tradcons like you encourage men to keep taking the plunge. You’ve proven yourself and your ideology to be every bit as destructive to the well being of the male sex as feminism.

“In fact I’d be willing to state that a LOT of people who consider themselves “traditional” won’t recognize themselves in this at all.”
Of course they won’t, these propped up parasitic spoiled princesses go around saying “it’s the hardest job in the world”. And then when you ask them how come they don’t go be the bread winner then, and let their man stay home and do the house work, since it’s the hardest job in the world, they tend to shut their mouths pretty quick. Women are spoiled and entitled enough to think what few things they do at home constitutes them having the hardest job in the world. Men are stupid enough to believe them. No wonder men are divorced and destroyed so often, look what gullible fucks they are. here is comedian Bill Burr giving a 2 minute stand up act on the notion of motherhood being the most difficult job on the planet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJrMaFlxOk
Barbarossaaaa did a video called “House Husbands Just Ain’t Sexy” where when women are the bread winners, and men the stay-at-home-fathers, they feel like their husband isn’t pulling his weight, and resent him. Isn’t it amazing when men are bread winners, and women stay home, it’s the most difficult job on the planet. But when those roles are reversed, they start looking at their unemployed husbands with the same attitude as I just described the stay-at-home-mother. Isn’t that amazing?
Here’s Barb’s video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fkkR9JpJTw&list=UUDoNFQZqQpd6aL32Ua4JPTQ

“Completely false. Traditionalists marry for life & work out their differences. By definition.”
Bullshit, stay at home mothers, and bread winner fathers (which is what western traditionalist family values is) divorce all the time. Are you on drugs right now?
Traditionalism may get a couple to say “I do” and then resume their “traditional roles” but it does nothing to prevent a divorce from happening.
Furthermore, everyone who marries, marries for life (until the divorce they thought would never come, comes). It’s not like we have two kinds of weddings, one that goes “do you take this man to hang with until he bores you?” and then we have the traditional kind of marriage that says “do you take this man to be your husband until death do you part?”
Furthermore, staying married for life is not the definition of traditionalism. It may be the wedding vow, but that’s everyone’s basic wedding vow. And that vow ends in divorce 50% of the time. So what in the hell are you smoking?

“Um… who initiated the Tender Years Doctrine again? Oh that’s right, it was a Feminist!”
The tender years doctrine is no longer in effect. The rule is what ever is best for the child. And think about it, what is best for the child? If you were a divorce court judge, and your job was to award custody to which ever parent was best fit for the job, best interest of the child, would you hand all the children over to the man who has barely raised them, because he has been working 40 hours or more a week all his life, or the mother that stayed with them every minute they weren’t in school, and is thus the parent they are most familiar with?
Furthermore, what’s going to be easier, the father who has to work 40 or more hours a week, and thus has to pay for a baby sitter, or handing the kids over to the mom, who is traditional, and thus has never worked a day in her life, and will be at the house 24/7 every second of the day with those kids? which choice is in the best interest of the child?
And when the mother, who has never worked a day in her traditionalist life, has no money to raise the kids, who do you think should pay for the kids? the state, or the ex husband who has spent all of his life working and climbing that corporate ladder?
Obviously in this situation, giving custody to the mother is in the best interest of everyone. Why? because it mimics the way it was in the marriage. When they were married, the wife stayed home and did the parenting, the husband worked his life away bringing home money. Now in divorce, the woman is still staying home with the kids, and the man is still working to financially support it all. Why should this traditional setup end when the divorce happens? why on earth would custody go to the father and have the woman who never worked a day in her life, pay for the children? How would that even begin to make sense?
You can cry about feminism and a doctrine that no longer exists, but at the end of the day, it’s traditionalism that is the problem with marriage, and it’s traditionalists that continue to push for men to suicidally jump into marriage and get burned. Hell, when it comes to the marriage/divorce problem, traditionalists are more to blame then feminism.
Furthermore, so long as men are taking the plunge, why should women be inclined to change a damn thing? It’s all working out to their benefit, why should they change? Women won’t stop their bad behavior, and divorce and marriage industry won’t change its bad behavior, so long as the courts and the women are winning. The people who need to change their behavior, is the people who are being hurt (men). Men need to stop marrying. Deprived the princesses of their entitled pampered lifestyle, and starve the divorce industry; then things will change. But not if you and people like you have anything to say about it. You just want to keep throwing men under the bus. You just want to keep fueling women’s entitled lifestyle, and you just want to keep fueling the divorce industry with fresh male bodies to burn and consume like logs on the fire.

“Bullshit. Some men want to be the breadwinner. How can you loudly proclaim “We want freedom of choice” on the one hand and then deny that to others in the next breath?”
I never claimed to want freedom of choice. I mean, you do have a choice, but that’s beside the point. Sure if you want to stab your self in the eye and smoke crack, I support your lawful right to do it, but I don’t encourage it. But I never claimed to be fighting for “freedom of choice” and I don’t know where you are getting that from. I am fighting for: 1. equality for men (Mens Rights). 2. And fighting to awaken men to the constant force of gynocentrism, and to spread a philosophy of self actualization (MGTOW).

As far as some men wanting to be breadwinners: sure, some men do. Now why do they want to do it? Because traditionalist dogma of our western culture has put it in his head that a “real man” supports his woman. Society, our culture, and people like you, have raised him to identify as a hard working “protector provider”. His entire identity as a worthy male is wrapped up in the “protector provider” identity.
Secondly, unemployed men are scoffed at by gold digging whores and your average man (a traditionalist like yourself). Therefore men have been trained to feel guilt and shame when not being a bread winner, that probably goes into why he wants to be a bread winner.
Furthermore, women are parasitic and looking for a free ride and they believe the awesomeness of their vagina entitles them to a free ride at a man’s expense, and believe themselves too good to have to be a bread winner (leave that shit job for the man).
A woman loves a man when he is bringing home the bacon, then when he loses his job and hits rock bottom, they kick that man to the curb.
In MGTOW circles it has been asked often, can women really love a man?
I answer it like this, if you have one person willing to slave their lives away to “buy” the affection of the other, yet the other is not willing to do the same, I think it’s clear only one person in this equation can be accused of love, if either is actually experiencing love.
Let me put it to you like this tradcon: if you are working to support a woman, and she is not working to support you, and is unwilling to work to support you, than she does not feel about you the way you feel about her. If you love her, and are thus willing to slave your life away for her, but she’s not willing to do the same in return; she doesn’t love you. Don’t be surprised when she divorces you and takes your shit and treats you like shit.
Oh and again, just want to reiterate, when people like you paint the picture that you do, is it any wonder we are a society that hands custody to women? you’ve glorified the role of man as bread winner and the role of woman as mother, so why shouldn’t, in a divorce, the man be expected to pay for the child (his natural bread winning role) and the woman be expected to have custody of the children (her natural role).
Your attitude that women are mothers/parents, and men are workers/providers, is exactly why in divorce the ex-wife gets to mother the children (custody) and the ex-husband has to be the provider (child support). That’s right sir, the divorce problem is far more the fault of your mentality than it is feminism.
You are a fear driven reactionary ideologue. You and your conservative ilk gripe about women taking advantage of men via marriage/divorce then encourage men to place themselves in a situation to be taken advantage of. You promote a situation (traditional family gender roles) where the female is most fit for parenthood and the man is most fit for paying child support, and then blame it on feminism.

Kevin responded by saying:

” Here you are indicating men should take the plunge, put his head on that chopping block, and not have a fear of his woman taking advantage of him.”

No, Mr Long-winded. If you don’t think you’re cut out for the white-picket fence, don’t bother. But don’t down those who are willing to make a go of it & do so successfully. Even Paul Elam says he has friends who can do Trad Marriage successfully. SOMEONE must be doing it! So personal advice, don’t down those who do.

Btw I don’t consider citing a comedian and Barbarosa to be solid research. I realize the 2 entities tend to resemble each other a lot, though

“Bullshit, stay at home mothers, and bread winner fathers (which is what western traditionalist family values is) divorce all the time. Are you on drugs right now? Traditionalism may get a couple to say “I do” and then resume their “traditional roles” but it does nothing to prevent a divorce from happening. ”

What, you think some giant being in the sky is going to make people do what they don’t want to do? I thought you Atheists didn’t believe in God! Seriously, you make about as much sense as calling someone who quits halfway through a long-distance run, a “Long-Distance Runner.” You ain’t unless you run the distance! And you ain’t a traditionalist if you divorce. Full stop.

“Furthermore, staying married for life is not the definition of traditionalism. ”

Really, now. Got any historical research to back up that assertion, since you feel so confident in your statement?

“And that vow ends in divorce 50% of the time. So what in the hell are you smoking? ”

Thanks for answering my previous question. No, you don’t do any research because if you did, you would know that the 50% canard is actually that. Google is your friend.

“The tender years doctrine is no longer in effect. The rule is what ever is best for the child. And think about it, what is best for the child? If you were a divorce court judge, and your job was to award custody to which ever parent was best fit for the job, best interest of the child, would you hand all the children over to the man who has barely raised them, because he has been working 40 hours or more a week all his life, or the mother that stayed with them every minute they weren’t in school, and is thus the parent they are most familiar with? ”

No clue what you are trying to say here, because it looks like you think the kids should go with mom & why should we change it? Funny, I thought the MRM was about changing these things?

“You can cry about feminism and a doctrine that no longer exists, but at the end of the day, it’s traditionalism that is the problem with marriage, and it’s traditionalists that continue to push for men to suicidally jump into marriage and get burned. Hell, when it comes to the marriage/divorce problem, traditionalists are more to blame then feminism ”

This is preposterous. I’m not even going to dignify it with a rebuttal.

“But not if you and people like you have anything to say about it. You just want to keep throwing men und. er the bus. You just want to keep fueling women’s entitled lifestyle, and you just want to keep fueling the divorce industry with fresh male bodies to burn and consume like logs on the fire. ”

This is where you MGTOW’s are at the core of it, full of shit. You act as if someone is going to draft yo any minute into being somebody’s husband, just because they have an opinion. You’re very much like Feminists in that regard.

“I never claimed to want freedom of choice. I mean, you do have a choice, but that’s beside the point. Sure if you want to stab your self in the eye and smoke crack, I support your lawful right to do it, but I don’t encourage it. But I never claimed to be fighting for “freedom of choice” and I don’t know where you are getting that from. ”

Read the thread, dude. The concept comes up frequently.

“As far as some men wanting to be breadwinners: sure, some men do. Now why do they want to do it? Because traditionalist dogma of our western culture has put it in his head that a “real man” supports his woman. Society, our culture, and people like you, have raised him to identify as a hard working “protector provider”. His entire identity as a worthy male is wrapped up in the “protector provider” identity. ”

Sounding more & more like Feminism the more you burn oxygen. Specifically the strain that says “Straight women are brainwashed by the patriarchy.

“Secondly, unemployed men are scoffed at by gold digging whores and your average man (a traditionalist like yourself). ”

Nope. This is why I also argue against conservative economics, because I deplore measuring people by what they produce.

Do you know that I have a friend who eventually became the Pastor of his own church, and what did his wife tell us she told him when they got married? “Ron welded a spoon ring for me. I said that’s fine, I don’t see what the big deal is with wasting all that money!”

My wife was perfectly happy with a double-ring set ordered off Amazon.com. $60 for the pair. I’m sorry, but you’re a bigot if you think that gold-digging is all women do.

“Your attitude that women are mothers/parents, and men are workers/providers, is exactly why in divorce the ex-wife gets to mother the children (custody) and the ex-husband has to be the provider (child support). That’s right sir, the divorce problem is far more the fault of your mentality than it is feminism. ”

Hee hee hee. I love it when someone debating me tells me what “I” believe. Now you sound like a Fundamentalist Christian.

“You are a fear driven reactionary ideologue. ”

Irony meter now pegging far right, looking to break any minute.

After reading that, I realized I wasn’t getting anywhere, and wanted to at least drive home one point, that his insistence that “marrying for life” is the “definition” of traditionism; is wrong; it isn’t the definition. As I had already said, it may be the intention of a traditional wedding – heck, it’s the intention of all weddings. I never heard of an intended part time temporary wedding (unless people were paying people to illegally marry for citizenship, which is illegal, and not what anyone is talking about). But it certainly is not the actual definition of the word. So all marriages, including non-traditional gay-marriage is intended to be “for life” yet gay marriage is neither a “traditional” thing, a thing supported by “traditionalism”, and it too is intended to be marriage for life. But most importantly, it is not the actual definition. So I said to him:

I had two posts, one of them is gone, but you did quote from it, so I don’t know why I can’t find my second post.
At any rate, Kevin Wayne , you are a willfully ignorant person who refuses to listen to reason. You’ve made your mind up, and all the trut
h in the world won’t change your mind.
Oh, and for the record, the definition of traditionalism, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traditionalism?s=t
adherence to tradition as authority, especially in matters of religion.
a system of philosophy according to which all knowledge of religious truth is derived from divine revelation and received by traditional instruction.

From typing the word into google, definition given:
1. the upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change.
the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it.

I’ve also been to wikipedia, and other online encyclopedias. You’re definition can’t be found.
So go on Kevin, keep making things up and tell yourself whatever you need to make yourself feel right.

That was my last reply to him. Oh, and the “second post” that disappeared, is included in this blog, which you’ve already read. I had to split it into 2 posts. And the second one disappeared, luckily I had the whole thing copied in a word processor, so it is has been included here. He made a few more replies to me, all of them being references to different religious views of marriage.

“At any rate, Kevin Wayne , you are a willfully ignorant person who refuses to listen to reason. You’ve made your mind up, and all the truth in the world won’t change your mind”

Irony meter now pegging right. Smoke is emanating from the wires.

“You’re definition can’t be found.”

“So go on Kevin, keep making things up and tell yourself whatever you need to make yourself feel right.”

*psst* Dijoo notice the way you define it can’t be found either?

Irony meter now broken, Glass splattered on the ground.

you need to cast your net wider. You’re as silly as the “Dictionary Feminists” camping on a pop definition & saying that’s what it is!


Priests are instructed that marriage is part of God’s natural law and to support the couple if they do choose to marry. Today it is common for Catholics to enter into a “mixed marriage” between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic. Couples entering into a mixed marriage are usually allowed to marry in a Catholic church provided their decision is of their own accord and they intend to remain together for life, to be faithful to each other, and to have children which are brought up in the Catholic faith.


Conservative Protestants take a stricter view of the nature of marriage. They consider marriage a solemn covenant between wife, husband and God. Most view sexual relations as appropriate only within a marriage. Divorce is permissible, if at all, only in very specific circumstances (for example, sexual immorality or abandonment by the non-believer)


In the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), celestial (or eternal) marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God performed by a priesthood authority in a temple of the church.[95] Celestial marriage is intended to continue forever into the afterlife if the man and woman do not break their covenants.[95] Thus, eternally married couples are often referred to as being “sealed” to each other. Sealed couples who keep their covenants are also promised to have their posterity sealed to them in the afterlife.[95] (Thus, the slogan of the LDS Church: “families are forever.”) A celestial marriage is considered a requirement for exaltation.


The Jehovah’s Witnesses view marriage to be a permanent arrangement with the only possible exception being adultery. Divorce is strongly discouraged even when adultery is committed since the wronged spouse is free to forgive the unfaithful one.


Divorce is not forbidden as a last resort, however the dissolution of the contract, Talaq, is often described as the most disliked of permissible things in Islam and should be used as a last resort.

Well as I said to him, “staying together forever” is not the definition of the word traditionalism/traditionalist. He says the way I define traditionalism is not found either. He clearly misses the fact I am giving an explanation to the cause and effect of  marriage and the traditionalist conservative view of gender roles. At no point in time am I hiding behind a dictionary definition and claiming “regardless of what a thing is accused of, the definition is this____” So the dictionary feminist comparison is just fucking stupid.


And again, I need to point out the fucking stupidity of him pointing out that traditionalism is for life, and then if it doesn’t work out, it wasn’t traditionalism.

I mean really, think about it. It is the No True Scotsmen Fallacy. It’s pointing to a couple that has been married for 50 years and still married and saying “look, traditionalism works”. And then when a couple marries, says the same vows, promises to be together forever, the man works, the wife stays home and plays house maker, and are in every way traditional, and counting this as a traditional marriage, calling it a testament to the greatness of traditionalism, and then the very moment the divorce happens, saying “well the moment they got a divorce it ceased to be traditional, thus traditionalism works 100% of the time” it’s that dishonest of a usage of a word.

Funny enough, that’s how the marriage mafia is with their statistics that married men live longer lives. They include men who have been divorced and had his marriage destroy his life, but before he put the rope around his neck, the divorce was final, he died “unmarried” and they say “see marriage makes men live longer” because they are surveying married men right before the divorce drives him to homeless poverty, alcoholism, prison, and suicide.

So much dishonesty from the marriage mafia. And the analogy the long distance runner who quits half way through isn’t called a long distance runner… actually, yes he is. If an Olympic long distance runner breaks a leg or becomes ill and can’t finish the race, he is still a long distance runner. He’s not a swimmer, he’s not an ice skater, he’s not pole vaulter, he is not a boxer, and because his training, and his intention, was long distance running, and because that was the event he was in, he is still a freakin’ long distance runner whether he collapses, quits, or whatever. What if I used this reasoning to say traditional heroin users don’t overdose. You point to all the heroin users who O.D. and I say “well if they were actually being traditional users, they wouldn’t have died, therefore I advocate heroin as a perfectly safe thing to do, so long as you do it traditionally”.  You can’t name a concept, claim it works, but only because you remove all the failed attempts from having the label. It’s the No True Scotsmen Fallacy.


Now i want to take this opportunity to critique a few more things that i missed the first time:

“I keep going back to my deceased parents, not only because it’s a valid example, but also because no one has been able to come close to refuting it: They both raised farm animals and worked all their lives. There was nobody sitting around eating bon-bons. Not my mother. Dad also worked a full time job and mom tried to build a business for them to retire on. It didn’t fly, but that’s another matter. She also worked outside the home when it was needed. She managed the phone room for catalog orders for the local Sears?Where is this lazy couch-potato of a woman? I personally don’t believe she exists, except in the mind of some men who are afraid of being taken advantage of.”

So because your mother worked hard and stayed married all her life, all wives work hard and stay married all their lives? that’s stupid Kevin, that is really stupid. At least 50% of them are getting divorces. And because your momma worked hard, all house wives are hard working and you just don’t believe lazy house wives exist? Kevin… that’s not an argument, it’s just silliness. Kevin what if I told you when I was a little boy, my mother sat in front of the TV talking on the phone with her gal pals. Her gal pals were married women who were sitting in front of the TV talking on the phone with my mom.

When I lived in the ghetto throughout most of my teen years, all the welfare bitches sat on their ass, on the phone, watching TV. All the women in my family would gather around the dinner table, smoke cigarettes like chimneys and blab all fucking day long, while their kids tugged and tugged and tugged at their shirt until finally they could pull their mother’s attention away from the chronic gossip, and ask for food or a drink or permission to do something. And often these women would get pissed that these kids wouldn’t stop tugging on them saying “mommy… mommy… mommy! mom! mom! mommy! mommy!” trying to get her to shut up long enough to ask “can I have some kool aid”.
You say no one can refute the way your parents were… that’s because we can’t disprove “your word” for something. I just told you the gods honest truth about the shit I seen. You can believe it or not. You told me the way your parents were, I can believe it or not.
and to be honest the husbands weren’t any better. They came home after slaving their lives away to support their wives, and just sat in front of the TV beer and ballgame. But at least they put in those 40 hours a week. I swear, it’s like their wives were useless daughters they were supporting all their lives. Just an eternal Dependant that never really contributed anything but the most tiny and insignificant of house work. And not all of them did house work. Many of these moms, and women in my family, lived in filth.
But rather than me pitting my anecdotal evidence against your anecdotal evidence, how about we just look at things logically:
Let’s look at a familiar, normal, setup, that falls under “traditional marriage and traditional gender roles”. A husband, wife, 2 kids ( 8 and 14) husband works, wife stays home. Would you admit that this sounds traditional? Would you admit this is a normal scenario and not some weird rare contrived scenario? but one that’s pretty realistic so far? Assuming you do, let’s look at how things will logically work.
From 9:00am to 2:30pm what do you think the house wife is doing?
Both kids are in school, husband is putting in his 9 to 5. What do you think the wife is doing?
Maybe she is grocery shopping. But lets face it, she can’t be doing this everyday. And even if this is grocery day, it isn’t going to take her 9:00am to 2:30pm to shop for groceries.
Well maybe she is doing house work. OK, I’ll admit this is a likely house wife activity. But do you really think she is doing housework from 9:00am to 2:30pm? Is it realistic to think that five and half hours of her day is spent cleaning the house, every fucking day?
And one of her functions is fixing food. But do you really think she needs 5 and half hours to fix food?
Face it, a normal married couple in this situation is: the wife may or may not wake up in time to yell at her kid to get out of bed and get ready for school. And may or may not bother to make breakfast for the kid. Maybe the kid is supposed to do that himself. But giving the benefit of the doubt, she got up, yelled at the kid to get ready for school, and poured some milk over a bowl of cereal. Or maybe she is frying some egg and bacon if the husband is waking up at roughly that hour too. Not a whole lot of activity yet. Then she is getting clothes gathered up and preparing them for laundry, and she is making the bed (again, we’re talking best case scenario wife of the year behavior here). After the kids are at school, and the husband is at work, roughly this is 9:00am by now. The laundry is ready for the dryer. This takes 1 to 2 minutes. Now what do you think she is doing? Kevin, there isn’t much for her to do at this point. it’s coffee, TV, and occasionally picking up the phone to talk to one of her gal pals. About noon time she folds the clothes, makes herself lunch, and maybe, just maybe this is her shopping day, busiest hardest day of the week. So she takes her shower now, and then goes grocery shopping. She’s home an hour and half later. Puts away the food, and… OK now what’s she doing Kevin? Nothing. She’s watching TV and or gossiping on the phone. Kids come home, at least one of them, and soon followed by the other. The kids might get told to do this, do that, have your homework done. And there is now nothing for her to do. Then it’s 5:00, daddy’s gonna be home. So she vacuums the rug for 15 minutes, straightens up things for another 15 minutes, and gets dinner started, right about the time the father gets home. They talk for a while, and every now and then, she checks on the dinner while they’re talking. And then dinner’s done, it’s 6:30 or maybe 7:00. She may have the kids and her husband help put away the dishes, or she might be that one in a million wife of the year that puts the dishes in the dish washer herself. And then scrubs the pots and pans, tells the husband to take out the trash. And so there is really only 20 to 30 minutes cleanup.
Let’s face it, on her busiest day, she did like 2 and half maybe 3 hours of light work.
And remember, if the wife works too, this isn’t a traditional marriage; it ain’t all that family values shit. A woman working like a man is FEMINISM!!!

But most women aren’t this ideal mother of the year, and most days are not her busy shopping day. So what the fuck do you think the average stay at home mother is doing on the average day when her youngest child is over the age of five? I’ll tell you, TV and telephone. Or in this day and age, TV, Telephone, Internet, and maybe a whole 30 minutes to an hour of some kind of cleanup or work or something. Average house wife average day.

Let’s face it, the average traditional marriage in this day and age, works out to a man supporting a wife like that lazy good for nothing free loading son who won’t move out of the house and get a job. She is basically free loading off of him. A man is supporting her like a child… why? Because it’s expected of him, it’s the norm, it’s traditional, it’s culturally reinforced, and he is horny and needs a supply of pussy to wet his dick, so he entered into a long term prostitution contract to keep his dick wet.

Now, I want to tackle this part. I said:

“If you are going to marry a woman that is “too good to be the bread winner” than you are asking. for your marriage to the spoiled little bitch, who views you as an ATM, to fall apart when you bore her or lose your job, and to divorce you and take your shit.”

And replied:

Bullshit. Some men want to be the breadwinner. How can you loudly proclaim “We want freedom of choice” on the one hand and then deny that to others in the next breath?

THAT… sounds more like a Feminist than anything ANY traditionalist has ever done or said.

Folks, this sounds SO much like the nonsense propagated by Feminists that the walk down the aisle is “a woman’s trail of tears.” But for some odd reason many of you have internalized this and turned it around to make men into victims and you don’t even see it!

Once upon a time, marriage was very bad for women. They had to give up their autonomy. A female teacher had to quit teaching the day she got married because it was school board policy that married women do not teach. And that policy continued up until I believe the 1960’s.
Furthermore, there were many jobs not available to women once married. In many ways, she ceased to be an individual, and became the property of her husband. Furthermore, even if she didn’t marry, job and education opportunities, pre-feminism, was actually very limited. Women basically had their arms twisted into getting married, due to lack of opportunity to be single and prosperous. Society created artificial constraints and that basically manipulated women into marriage, by making it the path of least resistance. And then created artificial constraints to keep her subservient to her husband once married. That’s the way it was. And it’s the reason feminism became “a thing”. Had this not been the way things were (patriarchy as the feminists called it) feminism, that thing called feminism, would most likely never have happened. Women being spoiled entitled misandrist bitches, would have happened of course, but the actual feminist movement, many of their early battles and slogans and catch phrases, wouldn’t have actually happened had there not been unconstitutional unfair manipulative constraints put on women to FORCE the sanctity of marriage. No wonder the early day feminists rejected marriage and I support their reasons for it. Marriage is such a fragile piece of shit obsolete bit of nonsense that it requires FORCE and manipulation to keep it around.
Before feminism became “a problem” traditionalism (patriarchy) was a problem. You want to return us to the old “traditional” ways, while ignoring the fact the old ways failed. The old ways caused so many problems feminism was born of those problems to remedy those problems.
Now traditionalism, trying to be implemented in our current system, is a trap for men because it binds men, but does not bind women. Thus traditionalism, is the enemy of men, because women are liberated, and men are not. Thus women are advantaged because they are free, because they are unconstrained. This traps and obligates men, while doing nothing to “lock down” women. this is unequal, it is disastrous, and this sick stupid fucking idea called marriage and traditionalism, is a thing you encourage men to lock themselves into, because your minds are locked into the past.

Next thing I want to tackle is this:

“No, Mr Long-winded. If you don’t think you’re cut out for the white-picket fence, don’t bother. But don’t down those who are willing to make a go of it & do so successfully.”

You’re the one posting “myths of marriage” and other pro-marriage propaganda to ram down our throats. You’re the one pushing a “pro-marriage” idea. You’re the one promoting marriage as a thing that should be done. I never once spoke to you about your marriage, nor do I care about your marriage. I am responding to your pushing and propagandizing of marriage. I am responding to your attack on the anti-marriage MGTOW segment of the MRM.


Even Paul Elam says he has friends who can do Trad Marriage successfully. SOMEONE must be doing it! So personal advice, don’t down those who do.

Because some people are pulling it off, it is an acceptable and preferred way of life that must be encouraged? Bad argument. I know a guy who shot heroin off and on. He never overdosed or became so addicted that he needed rehab or resorted to crime for a fix. SO if he can dabble with heroin here and there, we should hand out heroin to children on the play ground? It’s that bad of an argument Kevin.
And I’ll not have a go at those who do, when those who do, don’t have a go at those who don’t. You’re the one posting stupid pictures, to denounce… singlehood? single parent moms? MGTOW? I swear I don’t get that stupid picture. But you’re the one propagating and PUSHING marriage as a proper way of life, a solution, and that non-marriage is a bad thing. you’re the one not respecting the bachelorhood in MGTOW.

Btw I don’t consider citing a comedian and Barbarosa to be solid research. I realize the 2 entities tend to resemble each other a lot, though

In that video, he is reading from articles, and linking to the articles, and commenting on the articles. The research is not from Barbarossaaa, he merely provides cometary, with linked sources.

What, you think some giant being in the sky is going to make people do what they don’t want to do? I thought you Atheists didn’t believe in God! Seriously, you make about as much sense as calling someone who quits halfway through a long-distance run, a “Long-Distance Runner.” You ain’t unless you run the distance! And you ain’t a traditionalist if you divorce. Full stop.

I mentioned it earlier in this blog post, that you can’t encourage people to ENTER a traditional role, and when it fails, remove the failure from the equation on the grounds that a TRUE traditionalist setup wouldn’t fail. It’s the No True Scotsmen Fallacy.

Thanks for answering my previous question. No, you don’t do any research because if you did, you would know that the 50% canard is actually that. Google is your friend.

I type in “US Divorce Statistics” the very first web site says this at the very top:

  • Number of marriages: 2,118,000
  • Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
  • Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)

Kevin, what percentage is 3.6 from 6.8? It’s 52.9%

Rounding off the decimal, it is 53%. So you’re right, how foolish of me, I was saying 50% of marriage ends in divorce, when I should have been saying 53% thank you for the correction. And the link (first page that comes up from my friend google, from the center for disease control) is http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm

“The tender years doctrine is no longer in effect. The rule is what ever is best for the child. And think about it, what is best for the child? If you were a divorce court judge, and your job was to award custody to which ever parent was best fit for the job, best interest of the child, would you hand all the children over to the man who has barely raised them, because he has been working 40 hours or more a week all his life, or the mother that stayed with them every minute they weren’t in school, and is thus the parent they are most familiar with? ”

No clue what you are trying to say here, because it looks like you think the kids should go with mom & why should we change it? Funny, I thought the MRM was about changing these things?

Do you just not read very good? I just showed you how the “traditional gender roles and traditional gender norms” caused the condition. And I am fighting against the cause of the condition. Traditionalism is the cause, and that is what i am fighting against, you, fucktard, are the one supporting traditionalism. We have got to destroy the conservative rhetoric that “motherhood” is so sacred. We have got to destroy the notion that men are to work, wives are to stay home. Traditionalism is the cause, Traditionalism is the problem, Traditionalism is the thing I am fighting against.

This is where you MGTOW’s are at the core of it, full of shit. You act as if someone is going to draft yo any minute into being somebody’s husband, just because they have an opinion. You’re very much like Feminists in that regard.

No sir, you don’t get to weasel your way out of this with a “I’m just stating an opinion, I’m not forcing anybody” line of shit.
You are advocating for marriage, you are advocating traditionalism, you are criticizing what you have referred to as “libertarian leaning MRA’s” to push for a pro-marriage environment. You are the one trying to defend the normalization of men taking the plunge and having the state legally bound him to a woman. You are the one pushing the traditional way of life on to us. You are the one going on the offensive.
Furthermore, in the same way your “opinion” cannot FORCE us to get married, my opinion cannot FORCE you to not marry, or FORCE you to divorce. You have no argument here, you’re just trying to weasel your way out of shit, and I ain’t letting it happen. You attacked the bachelor advocate portion of this movement (MGTOW or libertarian leaning MRA’s as you call them) with your propaganda and your stupid pictures, and we are arguing against your propaganda.
This is the second time you’ve done this. The first is when you said if we weren’t cut out for the white Pickett fence, than so be it, but don’t have a go at those who do. When in reality you were on the offensive having a go at those who don’t. And now you’re all like “but golly folks I am only having an opinion, my opinion can’t force things” well golly Kevin, I am only having an opinion too, and my opinion can’t force anyone to do anything either. So you got nothing.
You, and other tradcons, you shame those who do not conform to your pro-marriage bullshit. Our entire society pressures men and women to get married. You are encouraging and advocating that we continue to have men place themselves in a seriously bad position to be taken advantage of. You are encouraging this, in a world with very few people discouraging it. You make a mockery out of those who discourage it, and then you weasel your way out of it with “my opinion can’t force people”. Furthermore, every man who does get married, helps to normalize marriage. Every traditional gender arrangement in marriage (working man stay-at-home-wife) normalizes it, makes it expected. Just like every pussy begging piece of shit that pays for a woman’s drink, or dinner, or movie ticket, obligates other men to have to do this if they want a date a woman. Women come to expect it from men, it’s normal. Men working like slaves to “afford” a wife, is normal, and they help to continue making it normal, and this creates the expectation in women that this is his JOB as a man. Thus it helps to obligate men into being working slaves to support their parasitic stay at home wives who feel ENTITLED to her husband’s money because it’s the social norm. And of course she can get a job, do what ever she wants, because that’s normal too. A man being supported by his wife is out of style, not in fashion, practically unheard of. Men and women having loving relationships, yet living apart, with a woman being 100% self sufficient and independent and not in a position to divorce and take his shit, or force him into payments, is abnormal, and you are continuing to make those arrangements abnormal, and you are continuing to make the traditional marriage arrangement a normal and expected way of life. You are doing this by virtue of taking part in marriage, and by promoting marriage, and by attacking those who don’t.
Now when it comes to those who choose to get married. In spite of the fact they are normalizing it through their actions. In spite of that, I am willing to let that part go. I am not going to disrespect those who do get married if that is the way they want to live their life. But I be damned if I am going to sit by and have fucktard promoting this shit as “proper” and encourage it, and attack/ridicule those who oppose marriage. The moment you do that, you’re my enemy, bitch!
One massive difference between MGTOW, or at least MGTOW like me, and feminists and traditionalists is, I am taking ownership of myself and the situation, and encourage my brothers to do the same. Feminists fuck up, blame the patriarchy, and do not learn from their mistakes. Traditionalists get married (i.e. fuck up) and when the woman fucks him over, cries “boo hoo feminism dun did this, I need to find me a non feminist woman” and belly aches about teh feminism”.
If you as a man, put yourself in the position for a woman to pull the trigger and fuck your world over, you’re asking for it. And when it happens, and she pulls that trigger, you got no one but yourself to blame. You done fucked up. Did she do you wrong? Well yeah, but you allowed it. You made a bad decision. Live with your bad decision, learn from it. Many young MGTOW have learned from the mistakes of others. We see men doing stupid shit and putting himself in a bad situation and getting burned. We know we can belly ache about those nasty ol feminists until the cows come home, women will not stop acting in ways that they personally benefit from. It is OUR job as men, the victims of the situation, to avoid the situation, to critique OUR behavior (because women won’t and we can’t make them). We are taking ownership of ourselves, owning our shit, removing ourselves from future victim hood, and encouraging our brothers to do the same. You are putting down those of us who do this.
At the end of the day, all this pointless belly aching about feminists is just that, unproductive and pointless. Women got it made, they are consequence free, they ain’t going to change their bullshit for all the angry anti-feminists tweets and videos in the world. We, us men, we have to change. We have to evaluate our bad behavior, how it hurts us, how it empowers women, and how it fucks over our fellow man. We have got to be self critical, and I don’t care if within that self criticism we are “being just like the feminists” or “sounding just like a feminist” I don’t give a shit. Men ain’t superman, we are dumb vulnerable monkeys too god damn chicken shit to admit how truly weak and fragile we are. We puff out our chest, do the manly thing, and get ourselves screwed. Our macho facade is used against us, and I think deep down inside, men know this, but that fear of admitting weakness and vulnerability keeps our mouths shut, and so we just act the role of the traditional manly man, and when we get burned, we blame feminism rather than WOMEN for their bad behavior, and we blame feminism rather than admitting our weakness and bad choices, over coming our weakness and ending our bad choices. marriage, is a bad choice for a man, and stems from weakness in this day and age.
This goes beyond the bachelor advocacy found in MGTOW or whatever other “libertarian leaning MRA’s” who are anti-marriage you may be referring to. It goes beyond the “marriage strike”. And it may in some cases be all together a “pussy strike”. But it goes deeper still. This is about the nature of woman, it is about the nature of man. It is a critical look at gender roles and gender identity. It is a deconstruction and evaluation of the concept of masculine and feminine. It is an exploration, an evaluation of the man and woman dynamic, and the feminine and masculine dynamic.
In our exploration, the only conclusion we have come to is acknowledging how much of the old “traditional” role of man and woman has fucked men over and allowed the situation we are in to take place. How to fix it, how to behave and alter the situation, this is debatable, and we are still exploring our options. But the one thing we know is, the old traditional way, does not work. The environment has changed, adapt or perish is the protocol of nature. We are discussing the ways in which we will adapt. You and your traditionalist marriage crusade, is antithetical to our progress. I don’t mean you personally are setting any of us back; I mean the mentality acts as a constant anchor on our forward progress. Traditionalism has become the tether of old, to hold us down and stop us (the male sex) from progressing to our new adapted state, what ever that adapted state may be. We know not the way forward, but we know the way back, and we know there is no going back.










Good morning stupid inbox messages.

So I wake up, check my YouTube inbox, and some idiot has sent me this:

This is in response to your Laci green video:

I agree with almost all of your criticisms against Laci Green’s ideology and her exploitative tactics to gain a larger viewship. And I would take a swing at assuming you are an Atheist so you understand the destructive nature of religious fundamentalism and slavery in the name of God, Allah, Satan, etc. But do you realize that, when you talk about how slutty women like Laci Green dress or how much makeup they should wear, you sound a lot like an Islamic fundamentalist? yes, its cheap for Laci Green to expose herself in her videos that discuss seirous sociolopolitical topics but the response shouldn’t be demanding that Laci wear a burkah in her videos or demand she move away to a convent just because she is naturally endowed.

You almost had me on your side but I think you need to re-examine yourself when you start to make the rules on how women should look and how they shouldn’t. Its people like you that create a need for people like Laci Green and I wish you both would STFU when you start to create conditions for what is acceptable from the opposite sex in their work, their school, and their public and private lives.

Just to be clear, I agreed with almost everything else you talked about in your video but you lost me when you started judging Laci based on how she dresses and how much makeup she wears. You are no longer judging women based on the content of their character but rather the fashion choices they willingly make away from anybody’s tyrannical, fundamentalist standards.

If you could make a video apologizing for the disgusting things you said then that would be a true reflection on the integrity of your character.

Alright, I got time before my coffee brews, let’s dissect this shall we…

“And I would take a swing at assuming you are an Atheist so you understand the destructive nature of religious fundamentalism and slavery in the name of God, Allah, Satan, etc.”

Religion is merely a utility of the human mind. Even if all religion were stamped out, we’d have the exact same problems and mentalities. Conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, anarchy, feminism, these things have no god, and are not technically a religion, yet serve the same function, act dogmatic, and bring about the same misery.

Religion, it might as well just be called politics.

“But do you realize that, when you talk about how slutty women like Laci Green dress or how much makeup they should wear, you sound a lot like an Islamic fundamentalist?”

And do you realize that Hitler was a vegetarian, thus every time you eat salad you’re being a lot like Hitler?
What were you hoping to accomplish by that statement? Was I supposed to say to myself “Oh no! I have done something that in some way resembled a Muslim! Oh my I must wash myself clean of this taint, for I feel impure and religious. Oh no! Not a Muslim, anything but a muslim! Oh how I have strayed from the virtues of atheism!”
Was that supposed to be my reaction?

“yes, its cheap for Laci Green to expose herself in her videos that discuss serious sociopolitical topics but the response shouldn’t be demanding that Laci wear a burkah in her videos or demand she move away to a convent just because she is naturally endowed.”

I never stated she should wear a burkah. Where the fuck are you getting that? Are you high on drugs? Nor did I state she needed to cover and hide herself. I merely pointed out that maximizing her tits and sexualizing/objectifying herself disqualifies her to bitch about the process of sexualizing and objectifying.

“You almost had me on your side…”

Damn, almost. I was so close to having you on my side, and god knows I need a fucking genus like you on my side. Where will I ever find such an intellectual like you?

“…but I think you need to re-examine yourself when you start to make the rules on how women should look and how they shouldn’t.”

I’ve never made any rules. What the fuck are you talking about? I never even cast my own opinions of how I want a woman to look. Furthermore, even if I did, I am allowed to tell people how I want them to look. That’s my right. I am allowed to have preferences. Don’t try to dictate my personal preferences you stupid arrogant fuck!
But again, I didn’t even do that. The closest thing I did to that is tell her that when doing a serious video about domestic violence that opens up with a kid on the phone with 911 screaming and crying because his father is beating up his mother, that cutting from that scene to her massive cleavage, camera angled down to highlight her tits, it kind of ruins the mood she was going for, and is just in bad taste, like dressing up as a clown at a funeral.

“Its people like you that create a need for people like Laci Green…”

I create a need for lying manipulative sociopathic big titty bobble heads?

“…and I wish you both would STFU when you start to create conditions for what is acceptable from the opposite sex in their work, their school, and their public and private lives.”

So men shouldn’t critique women, women shouldn’t critique men is what you’re saying.
OK, but should women critique women and men critique men? Is that just somehow automatically a better thing? And why shouldn’t women be allowed to have an opinion on what men should and shouldn’t be doing? and how come men shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion on what women should and shouldn’t be doing?
Or are you saying that people shouldn’t critique others… in which case you shouldn’t have PMed me and critiqued me, you stupid shit.

“Just to be clear, I agreed with almost everything else you talked about in your video but you lost me when you started judging Laci based on how she dresses and how much makeup she wears. You are no longer judging women based on the content of their character but rather the fashion choices they willingly make away from anybody’s tyrannical, fundamentalist standards.”

The way a person freely chooses to dress, groom, and adorn themselves, is a part of their character you fuck nugget. Furthermore she can dress like a sex toy all she wants, that’s her business. What she can’t do is rake in cash by dressing like a cam whore, and using sexual titillating video titles, and then bitch about an industry doing this, bitch about women within the industry doing this, call the whole thing “objectification” and whine about fucking sexism. But she’s free to dress like a fuck toy all she wants.
A woman can be a cum sucking prostitute if she wants, that’s her business. What I would object to is after she takes the cash, wipes the cum off her face, getting on YouTube and bitching about how that man made her feel used, or cheap etc.

“If you could make a video apologizing for the disgusting things you said then that would be a true reflection on the integrity of your character.”

I’ll give her an apology when your mother makes a video apologizing to me for giving birth to such a stupid fucker like you.
Seriously, you are stupid as all fuck.
You PM me, pass judgment on me for passing judgment on others, call my criticism of Laci’s hypocrisy a religious act, use atheism as a moral compass as if it were a religion, pretend to take the moral high ground like a pompous ass, then claim I should make an apology video to her. You know what, in addition to that apology I want from your mother, I also ask for an apology from your father for not wearing a condom, and if he was wearing a condom, I want an apology from Trojan for their crappy condoms that lead to the stupidity that is you. Good day sir.