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 😛