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.

The Rise And Fall Of Feminism

I’ve said before that I can sympathize with a lot of first wave feminism. Women had automatic value and special protection, but this came with a cost. Women were a dependent of their fathers, handed over to their husbands. Women were forced to deal with any mistreatment her husband gave her, simply because there was no where else to go. She either moved back in with her parents, assuming they were still alive (remember people didn’t live that long back in those days), or she could live homeless. There weren’t a lot of job opportunities for women in the 1800’s. She could be married or a prostitute. Sure there were show girls, maids, bar maids (who often doubled as prostitutes), and most other jobs women did were jobs they did from home (their husband’s home), such as being a seamstress. The term “spinster” refers to an old maid, or single childless woman past her prime or past menopause. Spinsters spun wool. It was one of the few jobs women could do and earn a salary to keep a roof over their head. In very old times such as medieval, a single woman past her prime was either the daughter of an aristocrat who could afford it by virtue of family wealth, or a spinster. This remained true for the most part right up until first wave feminism. The tradcons among us want to blame communism, but why haven’t they looked at their own traditional roots? Is it any wonder in a world where women had a proverbial gun to their head forcing them into marriage, forcing them into motherhood, just to survive, that the early feminists called marriage a trap, and seen a society that denied them equal access to higher learning, and equal access to jobs, as a patriarchal system that granted men power and control over women? An argument can really be made that the 19th century and earlier was patriarchal. Though it becomes a stretch by the 1920’s and a complete joke by 1964 and beyond ridiculous by today. But looking back to the later 1800’s, I can see where the idea of a patriarchy, as defined by feminists, could be concluded. Sure this would over-look the fact that women were not forced to work hard brutal jobs in the coal mines, railroad, military service, carpentry, brick laying etc. as their husbands and fathers were. It over looks the fact they were exempt from being conscripted into military or even firemen and police duty in an emergency. It over looks chivalry, the ultimate display of gynocentrism. It over looks all the special protection that was afforded to them. On one hand that special protection could amount to being treated like princesses among the common rabble (men), but on the other hand that special protection could look like they were eternal children devoid of autonomy and coerced into marriage and motherhood just for survival like a victim of human trafficking that has to spread their legs to clients in order to survive, and have no lawful autonomy. Imagine the lesbians. She could either marry a man who’s male body disgusted her and commit an act of sex on a nightly basis, spreading her legs to a man with the dread you’d have as a straight man spreading his ass cheeks nightly for a pay check, or if she were lucky enough, she could be a good obedient maid for a wealthy family, or a spinster. She was not allowed certain jobs that were men only, and even light weight jobs were off limits because of sexism, and lack of college, again because of sexism. This is where the stereotype of feminists being lesbians quickly came into play. By 1920, you can bet your bottom dollar that every lesbian was a feminist, because they wanted the right to live an autonomous life of independence. Women were quite literally “trapped” into the role of house wife popping out kids, even in a post industrial revolution time period with jobs available that a woman’s smaller weaker body could handle, and bring home a man’s wage, she was forbidden due to laws, and very real sex discrimination. The ceiling for women was a very low ceiling, and it wasn’t made of glass; it was made of concrete. Under these conditions, I find it hard not to sympathize with first wave feminists. I want you to picture women in those days. Not all of them wanted a dozen kids and to be bound to a husband, a husband that may mistreat them. How many women were WGTOW’s? Women Going Their Own Way, who just didn’t want to be a part of the “shack up with a man and pop out a million babies”. They just wanted to live as bachelorettes, even if it did mean social ridicule. But colleges turned them down, most employers didn’t hire women, and those that did only paid them half as much. And that isn’t feminist propaganda like it is today, women were literally often paid half as much as men, loud and clear up front when applying for the job.
Doesn’t it seem like maybe there was an effort to keep women in their place, forced into motherhood for survival? Again, some women were aristocrats, some women were lucky enough to be a maid to a wealthy family, some women got to be the exception and somehow bring home a livable wage. But this was not an option for most women. Again the fact that men working at the Johnson’s Corporation were paid just enough to pay for a house and food for himself, his wife and a few kids, but a woman was paid half that, which would be just under the cost of owning her own home and living an independent life style, must have felt an awful lot like a male oriented conspiracy to keep women begging for a man to ask her hand in marriage and pop out lots of fucking babies. They called it Patriarchy, and in many ways, I can see where they got that idea. But it does overlook their special privileges, and the fact that men worshiped them. Men gave them chivalrous worship, but this love was conditional. A woman was worshiped so long as she conformed to her role as obedient wife and mother, always staying at home barefoot and pregnant. It was an interesting system. On one hand women consciously or unconsciously forged the male identity, man as doer, man as protector, man as provider, who would sacrifice himself for the safety and well being of women. But in making men the doers of society, it was men that built society. And as the builders of society they created rules that put them in charge. Again, this is in tune with the identity that women built for them, that they worked hard to conform to. But as men had an identity women locked them into, they equally had to lock women into their identity, their role, in order for their own role to work. Women were then locked into a role. All the protection and provision, so long as they never made an effort to be capable or independent. And laws and policies that held them to their role as helpless baby making machines. How many women laid in bed, spread their legs while thinking of England, while their ugly hairy husband grunted and thrust into them, every night, just to have a roof over their head and food in their belly, because the only other option was prostitution, until syphilis ruined her of course, all because society fought against women having autonomy. Again, that thing they call patriarchy, it is the ultimate manifestation of women wanting to be pampered and protected. And it worked out to the benefit of most women. But there were a ton of women it didn’t work for. And by the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the old ways became constricting for both men and women.
What I am trying to say is, communism need not exist for feminism to have been born. Only artificial constraints caused by antiquated gender roles needed to exist. And we can argue, as I just have, that this so-called patriarchy was born of women forging men’s identity as protector and provider to get access to their pussy, it ultimately backfired for a lot of women, and men were too stupid to see it wasn’t working out so well for them either, because men are simple like that. Men were, and still are, trained by pussy like an animal is trained with food. Early feminism was primarily women fighting for autonomy. And first wave feminism wasn’t even close to the shit that passes as feminism for the past 40 to 50 years now. And I am also not trying to claim that there was no misandry in first wave, it was there, but I don’t think it was that present, because misandry didn’t need to be present for women to object to a society of artificial constraints. But then women eventually got their liberation, they got their autonomy. So why did feminism persist and continue even now, even after they got equality, then got special privileges and are now currently enjoying the best of both gender roles while men are stuck in theirs, and are the bad guys no matter what. In this ridiculous environment of female supremacy, why does feminism continue to exist? Misandry is the reason. It was always present in feminism, because it is always present in women. As the artificial constraints of what they deemed “patriarchy” were removed, and they became advantaged because they could play it both ways while men were stuck in their role, the hate and resent towards male-ness continued in them. Women are greedy, narcissistic, jealous and resentful by nature, and they are especially jealous and resentful towards males. And the political feminist movement became nothing but a great conduit for their internal biologically driven misandry. They could fight for their entitlement, fight for more and more special protection laws, and fight to punish males for being male, and they could do it as part of a long and successful pro-female movement called feminism. They keep up the rhetoric about being subjugated by the patriarchy, and fight for “equality” by dismantling male autonomy and rights. They’re natural neurotic fear of men being out to rape them turns into a social hysteria called rape culture, and every man needs to be castrated or emasculated to keep women feeling safe from their man-phobic fears of rape. Once upon a time the hatred of men was hidden behind legit gripes about women not being given the necessary opportunities to live an independent life style. But once they completely broke free of their gender obligations, and got laws forcing not only equality, but superior opportunity, the excuses of being some oppressed minority, victim of a tyrannical male establishment called patriarchy, is seen as a transparent excuse to hurt men, and that’s exactly what it is. I insist that earlier feminism contained a lot of misandry as well but the fact they were fighting for reasonable and legit things helps to hide it. It’s like the fire bombing of Dresden Germany, a war crime committed by America. We can write that off as an underhanded act to help win the war against a dangerous and aggressive nation. But if America had continued to firebomb German cities after Germany had waved the white flag and surrendered, it would become obvious that a deep hatred of the German people had been the motive for the war the whole time, but this fact would have been hidden earlier due to the circumstances of having a legit pretense.
My point is, traditionalists among us blame the birth of feminism on communism. And while communism did fund feminism, to a certain extent, as it did with other things, and feminists did often register as communist due to the marxist concept of steal from the haves to give to the have-nots, and there is an undeniable link between the two, communism is not the cause of first, second, or third wave feminism. Feminism was born out of misandry and a rejection of artificial gender constraints, women’s patriarchal system backfiring on them as the industrial revolution now granted them remarkable job opportunities they were barred from. Women had enjoyed the ease of being female, the ability to stay home and play with the children while men worked the physically hard jobs, and died in the wars. They could live as eternal children, and this suited them for the longest time, until this very system became constricting in the light of new opportunities.
Past traditionalism (patriarchy) failed when the environment changed. In a harsh and brutal environment, women playing the role of the helpless eternal child, worked for women. And whatever suits women, becomes the system of a culture. But when things got easier, they wanted out of the role they had created. Women will be as loyal to men as they have to be. Women will be with men so long as men serve a function to them. A man that can no longer provide a service to her is like a car that no longer starts (worthless). This is the disposability of men. Men are disposable, and to women, they will always be disposable. The acquisition of a man is not the end onto its self; but a means to an end. If a man is needed for a woman to have X, than she is with him for the acquisition of X. If a man can no longer act as a proxy to having X, than that man is no longer needed. If she can acquire X without a man, she will go without a man. A man is a tool for women. Even the traits that we call “masculinity” is just men bragging about and showing off their utility to women. A macho guy displays his strength, and authority to women. This is him saying “I have muscle to do hard work for you, I serve as a great utility”. Men punk each other out to display to women “I am tough and can protect you, I serve a great utilitarian function”. Macho men show off their jewelry and fast cars to say “I have money and can provide for you, I am a great utility like that”. Men can’t wait to brag about what a useful tool they are, and beg women to use them. Interesting how a man will act like the toughest mother fucker on the planet, and buy thousands of dollars worth of jewelry to impress women, and then act shocked when she shows no loyalty to him as a person, but only to the utilitarian function he served. A man begs to be used, and then is shocked when he gets used. The problem here is, so long as men want pussy, and women are the gate keepers of pussy, women are in charge of men, and they set the rules.
The old ways worked for the longest time, and when they no longer worked to provide women with the easiest route to get what they want, they rejected the very patriarchal system they created. Again, men want pussy, women have pussy, this puts women in charge. Men will do as women command them to do so that they can get the pussy. Women are the one’s barking orders at men to do this that and everything else. Thus society, social rules etc, are built by women, using men as tools. Women have claimed they needed a man to be strong and do all the work and take all the chances and make all the sacrifices. Men agreed (because they need that pussy), and women quickly realized the weaker they act, the dumber they act, the more helpless they act, the more men will do for them to compensate. Thus women lived their lives as helpless children who can’t lift a finger for themselves, and men have acted “manly” to compensate for their weakness. The weaker a woman, the stronger a man has to be to pull her weight. Thus women consciously or unconsciously created the gender roles: woman as weak, man as strong. Men as doers, women as recipients. Men as capable and responsible, women as helpless children. Then came the industrial revolution, and now when women wanted to do a little for themselves out of convenience, since living became much easier, men said “no, you are woman, women are weak children, you must have a big strong man to do for you.” And thus the gender roles women made began backfiring. They fought for change, and even though men obediently give women what they want, in this case men felt threatened since he had to work hard and make sacrifices to live up to his identity as “a man” and women being less “feminine” made him by contrast “less masculine”. Women breaking their carefree identity they created, threatened men’s identities (that women also created). All of society was built on the premise of men as strong courageous conquerors, protectors and providers for women. If women tried doing for themselves, then men could not properly protect and provide for them, males would be “less manly” and males would be less needed. Deep down inside, men have always known that the so-called “love” women have for them, is the attraction to a man’s usefulness. If women did for themselves, then they’d have less use for men. Less use for men means less love for men. If women have less love for men, men get less pussy, and men are born with a chronic addiction to pussy. Therefore men are threatened by women being independent.
Gynocentrism works like this: the highest goal for a man is the attainment of sexual satisfaction (this is completely biologically driven). Sexual satisfaction requires a woman’s approval, thus a woman’s approval becomes the highest goal in a man’s life, and becomes the center of his self worth (this is a social construct based on a real biological drive). Male worth is thus determined by women’s approval. A man’s approval is based on his level of usefulness (usability) to a woman. Because a man’s function is to be “used”, he is disposable. Again, the fear of female independence is the fear that men will no longer be valued by women, thus not get their approval. Not having a woman’s approval means not getting pussy. If women as a collective ever switched their mating instinct to no longer desire togetherness with males based on their utilitarian function, the male identity would instantly be recreated to fit the basis for women being attracted to him. Therefore, the old ways of men and women, are the fault of the biological drives of men and women. If feminists want to bitch about patriarchy, they need to realized patriarchy was their invention, and then not beat themselves up so hard for it, because the entire damn thing is based on human biology.
If men ever find a substitute for genuine pussy, can find sexual satisfaction without a woman, or no longer desires pussy, than a woman’s approval means nothing what-so-ever. And thus women will no longer serve any function in the life of men, and all of their value and power is completely removed. Trust me, this will suck for women more than they could ever imagine, and the bad news is, I do believe this day is coming (I will be making a video on it). When a woman’s approval is no longer valued by men, women will not control the male identity, and when women no longer control the male identity, men will finally be free.
But I am getting side tracked. Feminism, was not born of communism, or socialism, or just a bad idea by a few fat lesbians, or whatever other theory is held by the traditionalist, it was born of the male and female role that women engineered, no longer being of value to them. It was no longer valuable to them because life got easy, and men were needed less. Right now, women are still parasitically reliant on men, but not through marriage and obedience; but by proxy. Government supports them. Government is the alpha male they are fucking. Government acts as the protector and provider of women. Government’s power is based on money, taxes from the working. And as we all know, men as a collective make the most amount of money, thus pay the most amount of taxes. So women are living off of men’s blood sweat and tears, by government proxy. The women-only scholarships, women only quota incentives in certain fields, the women’s battered shelters that illegally discriminate against men (yet still get government funding), the bulk of the entire welfare system, and all the other special women-only opportunities and safety nets, are all funded by a government which is funded primarily by male taxes. The drawback is that this is bleeding the nation dry, and also that as women make up the majority of college attendees, and their corporate quotas muscle men out of the way to make room for women, women are making more and more money, men are making less and less. This means women are beginning to really fund their own programs (though the lack of programs for men still sucks). Also, when job opportunities are higher for women then men, it becomes difficult in this day and age for women to be stay at home princesses in a world where technology does all of their house work and school does all their babysitting for them. Men can no longer afford to support women’s pampered life style, and women can no longer sit on their asses and claim “Oh but I can’t work, I’m just a girl. Provide for me big strong alpha daddy?” This is becoming less and less popular because it is becoming less and less of a choice.
So, in the same way that the old patriarchal system once benefited women (which is why it existed in the first place) and then was fought against when easy living made it obsolete for women, so too will feminism become under attack by women when its “opportunities” for female independence becomes an uncomfortable “obligation” for women’s independence.
Women built patriarchy when it suited them, then viciously stabbed it in the back when it no longer served a purpose. Women created feminism when it suited them, and will viciously stab it in the back when it no longer serves a purpose. They will toggle between patriarchy and feminism for all eternity (which is really just toggling between doing for thy self with freedom, vs having men do for them while giving up autonomy in exchange). Women will go back and forth to what ever suits them at the moment. And men, god bless them, for they are fucking stupid, will go along with each and every change. The tradcons among us are already blaming the entirety of feminism on communism. And now that women are slowly beginning to turn away from feminism, because it went from liberating them to obligating them, the tradcons among us will quickly restore women’s protection status, and pamper them for the benefit of women, and never speak of it again, because both men and women will call the whole thing a communist plot against good ol’ capitalism. No lesson will be learned, no human progress made. And then in a handful of generations, maybe 80 years from now, after our economy has done collapsed and gotten built back up, women will do this shit all over again. When life gets easy and independence is as simple as stepping outside and putting in a few hours of work at the office, women will jump up and yell “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Down with patriarchy!” But when they all get themselves “locked” into jobs and being independent and the economy goes south and they actually have to start fighting and sacrificing like a man to keep their head above water, they will instantly fall back to “a woman needs a man like a fish needs water, protect me big strong patriarchy”.
Men refuse to learn.
Even now, at the height of female power, the tradcons are white knighting for them and proclaiming it’s communism and socialism, it’s just a bad idea whipped up by a few bitter lesbians. I’ve heard white nationalists blame it all on Jews (of course they’d blame global warming on Jews if they believed in global warming). Males, and all of our ideologies and belief systems where we divide our fellow man into a million different groups to pit ourselves against while women stand united. Males will blame communism, they will blame Jews, they will blame whites and blacks, they will blame secularism, they will blame religion, they will blame the Illuminati or the boogie man, but they will not blame feminism, then or now, on female behavior.  To the tradcons, feminism was not in the beginning related to female nature, nor in the 60’s, and nor is it today even remotely attached to female behavior. To the tradcon, women are innocent majestic creatures, and any wrong doing on their part is never really their fault, it’s all Karl Marx, that evil male, he made them do it. And don’t think I am kidding. My next video will be of a long in-box argument I had with a right wing fundamentalist bitching about MGTOW being socialist, and claiming that feminism is just socialism with a vagina, it has nothing what-so-ever to do with women or female nature, and those who claim it does are just misogynists. I had this argument back on my old channel last summer. I saved it and made a video out of it, and I never uploaded the video because I thought it was too long and boring. But now I think it is time I publish that video to show you I am not even joking or exaggerating about the dangers of the traditionalists and or right wing fundamentalists exonerating women and blaming the whole thing on left wing socialism, and just completely white knighting for the female sex and attacking MGTOW as a bunch of misogynists. Oh and quick tip, if you want to know who is a white knight, just listen for the man calling his fellow men “misogynists” that tends to be a dead give away.
This individual that I was arguing with, and many others like him, have told me that I am a useful tool for the communists, and that MGTOW is a useful tool for the communists. MGTOW just don’t understand they’re getting suckered by the commies, and that men fighting for their rights and autonomy and fighting against women/feminists is just going to cause big government, and more socialism, and it’s part of the divide and conquer strategy implemented by cultural marxism.
I wonder if it ever dawns on them that they are actually useful tools for women? I wonder if it ever dawns on them that petty and superficial things like communism and capitalism, left vs right, is all a big pissing contest within the larger arena of gynocentrism. Men have been dividing themselves by religion, race, national territory, political ideology, and slaughtering each other while women have stood united as women. How many times have you heard a woman openly state to another woman that “us women got to stick together”? Yes, women stick together. But together against who? Against men of course.
You ever notice things like racism and xenophobia are found mostly in males?
I need you to look back on history with new eyes. I want you to see the Greeks fighting the Persians, and the Chinese fighting the Arabs, and the Christians killing the pagans, and the Muslims killing the Christians, and the Germans killing the Jews, while women just sit there fanning themselves in their pretty dresses, watching the males on the battlefield compete, and realize this is one “big dick” contest. This is males competing to show off their superior cock to the ladies for mating rights. The German’s kicked Poland’s ass in record time, and then said “Hey ladies, look at my German dick, these Polish men couldn’t protect you, we German men are better.” And I have no doubt the Polish women felt moist between the legs when the big strong dominant alpha male Nazis marched down the streets with their goose-stepping combat boots clapping like thunder as they proudly display their dominance, showing they are truly worthy to mate with. This battle of male versus male for mating rights isn’t just a human phenomenon, the best I can tell this is most species. The output of offspring is dictated by that which has the least efficiency. i.e. a dick can squirt many times, but a womb can only be pregnant a few times. Thus the males are wanting to mate, the females are saying “I can only give it up to the one that is tallest, fastest, strongest, superior to the others” and the males then compete either through violence or some other display of dominance. The weak and unworthy males go without mating because the most dominant males get pussy after pussy after pussy. Just because it squirted a few hours ago, doesn’t mean it can’t squirt potent sperm again. Thus many females impregnated by a small pool of males, thus gynocentrism was born. And this has been true from species to species all throughout the evolution that eventually brought us Humans. Our entire purpose is to mate and reproduce, it is our strongest perpetual tendency, and it was constructed over a billion years of males competing against one another to mate with females. The roots of gynocentrism are deep, and will never go away entirely, even if current circumstances change and it is no longer applicable, the neurologically driven tendencies will be there. Gynocentrism isn’t something simple you can just vote against or sign a petition about. It’s a deep biologically driven fundamental behavioral drive. Reducing gynocentrism and producing social/political compensation mechanisms will be a challenge, but I thoroughly believe this is possible. All these silly and superficial battles for racial and religious supremacy over each other, is nothing more than men having a big dick contest for the benefit of women. This nonsense of capitalism vs communism, and the evils of socialism, Christ almighty what a fucking joke. Men dividing themselves and making bitter enemies and fighting wars, and the nuclear war standoff between the two world super powers during the cold war, all over who has a better economic model. An economic model that women will be the beneficiaries of since men work like slaves and hand their earnings to women. Again, all of history, men in the arena like gladiators slaughtering each other for mating rights as the women sit on the benches watching males compete over them, their clits swelling with desire over the strongest men doing the most killing. How many times have you seen this play out at school or in the clubs, big hard tough thugs getting into a brawl over a woman, as she stands there saying “boys, boys, don’t fight over me” all the while loving how men will savagely beat each other to earn mating rights with her. This is men and women on an individual level, and this is men and women on a collective and historical level.
Those who have swallowed the metaphorical “red pill” are aware of the gynocentric game. It is not MGTOW who are dimwitted suckers playing into communist hands; it is you people playing on the larger, older battle field of gynocentrism who are duped. Communism was just invented yesterday. Religious groups have fought wars for supremacy since the dawn of humanity, religions come and go, races and tribes come and go, political concepts come and go, economies boom and bust like the beating of a heart or the breathing of lungs. Class warfare is all based on men fighting to acquire the most amount of money to hand to women for mating rights. It all comes and goes, and it’s all a part of the deeper gynocentric battlefield that has been around for about a billion years now throughout practically every species.
Gynocentrism, I don’t believe, can ever just go away. But it can be worked with, reduced, and compensated for. But first we have to be aware of it. We have to swallow that red pill.
My fear is that with so many traditionalists (whether they know they are or not), and with so many right wing fundamentalists, we cannot properly fight for the liberation of men from gynocentrism. We cannot fight this battle if we are mistaken who the enemy is.
We must know that the old system was a system ultimately engineered by women by proxy of men competing for mating rights, and that the impending fall of feminism will happen exclusively because it will no longer suit women. In any struggle, what system wins? Which ever one benefits women of course. And that’s the damn problem. And those white knight tradcons among us are exonerating women, covering it all up, and saying “communism, it’s just communism, don’t blame women, you evil misogynists, just blame it all on Karl Marx.”
These are also the same blue pill suckers who think it is so uber important to have our movement appeal to your average joe, or that we must get as many women as possible on our side, because we can’t succeed without women backing us up.
These people don’t get it. The average joe just wants female approval to get his dick wet. Women, by far and wide, will not join men in a battle for male sovereignty, since fighting and “competing” is the thing males do for the benefit of women. Furthermore, even if we did get many women on our side, and we got on our hands and knees and begged “please please treat us like people and give us rights, please, pretty please” and women got all sentimental and allowed us to have our rights, we have still lost the war. We have only won the war for equality when our equality is “taken”, not when it is granted to us by women. We mustn’t whine and fuss about, asking women to be nice to us and give us equal status, the way a child would tug on mommy’s shirt begging to be allowed to stay the night at Ricky’s house. The war is won when getting women’s approval to have rights, isn’t even an issue. We are equal, we are “people”, when we reach out and take our god given rights. Movements are not won by the majority, it is fought by a minority that won’t back down and won’t compromise. The average Jane and the average Joe of any society will just role over and take whatever injustice is thrust upon them, because humans are naturally weak, cowardly, and down right lazy. They will always choose the path of least resistance. We don’t need women’s approval, we don’t need the majority of men, all we need is a high amount of vocal passionate men who are persistent and will erode the system. Look at the way something as soft and soothing as water can polish rocks and split mountains into canyons through persistent erosion. Our struggle will be a long one, and I intend for us to be not as soft and soothing as water, but as rough and abrasive as sand paper.
Feminism is failing, but only because it is becoming a burden to women. And only that which suits women is what succeeds. That is what we must learn.

An examination of the more superficial limitations of masculinity

This is my thoughts on an article from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/26/gender-roles-men-reddit_n_4504083.html

The article begins by saying this:
“For a long time, women have fought — and are still fighting — to overcome gender roles and expectations. However, it’s important to remember that rigid ideas about what men and women “should” or “shouldn’t” do isn’t just bad for women.
A Dec. 17th thread asked the men of Reddit, “What girly thing do you really want to do or try but it is socially unacceptable?” Responses ranged from cuddling etiquette (“Being the little spoon”) to fashion woes (“Toe socks”) and showing emotion (“Crying in public without getting judged”).
Here are 11 of our favorite answers”

And then proceeds to list these different things. I will be giving the quote, and then following it up with my own opinions on it.

1. Have more stylish clothing options. As bradleynowell252 pointed out, “Girls just get so many choices on nice things to wear and still look good, even in a casual manner.” It’s true that while women can wear “masculine” clothing free of judgment, the same can not be said for men in “feminine” clothing. “Also, fancy hats. It’s a shame that only women get to have awesome adornments in their headwear without any social stigma,” lokiikol noted.

Umm, OK, well, I agree with the general premise, just maybe not so much the specific example. I think all women’s head adornments, hats etcetera, are just plain stupid on women, and probably worse on men. But that comes down to a matter of fashion and individual taste. A cowboy hat, or a fedora, those are about the only two types of hat I would ever consider wearing, I think hats just look stupid, especially on women, and especially women’s hats. But I do agree that women get the option to wear whatever the fuck they feel like wearing, and men are stuck with only “man clothes”. And even when you compare traditionally female clothes to traditional male clothes, the women’s clothing is more diverse. So yeah, essentially I agree with this, men should be more flexible in what they are allowed to wear without  judgment. And after all, isn’t it so weird that men are so restricted in what they can wear without other men passing judgment on them and calling them a fag? I find it odd because snarking other people for what they wear is typically a feminine thing to do to begin with. Seriously, gossiping about what people wear, giving a flying fuck about what people wear, judging people by what they wear, that’s totally a girl thing to do to begin with.

2. Be able to talk about other men being attractive. Kbjami brought up an important point when he wrote: “Talking about how hot Brad Pitt is. I’m not gay but I find Brad Pitt quite attractive. Actually just talking about how attractive males are in general.” We completely agree, men should definitely be able to compliment other men. And Brad Pitt is very attractive.

OK, news flash, you’re gay, or at least bi, and you need to come to grips with that, and learn to be accepting of it.
While I agree men have this homophobic attitude like they are terrified to admit that a guy can be good looking. However mate, there is a strong difference between recognizing that a guy is handsome, versus the adoring, longing, yearning, language you used to describe your “attraction” to Brad Pitt. There’s a difference between being attracted to someone, and recognizing their beauty. And you’re like how “attractive men are in general”. Um, no. Most men are kinda ugly, like apes that are balding all over. But perhaps I am just debating semantics. I can relate to what this guy is saying though. I remember talking with a friend one time about pro-wrestlers and their acting careers. We were talking about which ones had real potential in Hollywood. And I mentioned Triple H would make a good Samson, in the Samson movie that was supposed to be coming out that year (I don’t think the movie ever got made now that I think about it), and we were talking and talking, and I mentioned Randy Orton would be a good choice for whatever role we were discussing, and mentioned the reason is because of his sex appeal. Well saying randy Orten had sex appeal, my friend looks at me and says “dude, what, really? You’re saying Randy Orten is sexy?” So I give him a look, and I say “well yeah, he’s a good looking guy.” And my friend is like, “dude, you’re totally gay.” And I reply with “Oh come on, don’t do this. You know the guy is good looking.” And he’s all laughing and says “No, I don’t find any of those wrestlers good looking, I don’t find men good looking.” To which I had to explain my position and say something like “Well I don’t typically judge men on their looks, and a man’s sex appeal isn’t something I typically notice, but I am capable of looking at two guys, and if there is a severe enough difference in appearance, I can point to the one that’s better looking. I’m not gay, I’m just not blind either for christ sakes.”
And I know a lot of you guys reading this are going to take the position of my friend and say “nope, I can’t tell a good looking guy from an ugly looking guy, because the whole male sex is ugly, because I ain’t no fag.” And for those of you taking that position, look at these two people, and tell me you honestly can’t figure out which one is better looking:

It’s OK, you can admit that one of those guys might not be so ugly as the other guy, and it doesn’t make you gay. And even if you are gay, it doesn’t fucking matter, because you’re sexuality is your business. It is a common thing I see in men, this absolute panic that he or someone else might not be 100% straight. This fear, this phobia, it makes men avoid saying and doing things. And it’s fucking retarded.
But for the record, that guy was talking about Brad in a closet crush kinda way. Not that it matters, but I’m just putting it out there.

3. Order “girly drinks.” “For just once, I’d like to get to order yummy pink drinks with chunks of real fruit that guys secretly like but can’t order because they’ll be made fun of,” responded Reddit user Dwarf–shortage. We think everyone should be able to drink Flirtinis, Mudslides and Fuzzy Navels — they’re delicious!

While I do not share the same feelings on this, the general concept, I do agree with.
I hate all those god damn tootie fruity drinks. Give me a beer or straight Vodka, that’s my taste. However, your taste may differ, and maybe you want a tootie fruity drink, if so, you should be able to have one of those tootie fruity drinks without getting looked at funny, or having to deal with accusations of unmanliness or homosexuality. I remember there was this video Barbarosa linked to about Herbivores in Japan, and in that video it was mentioned that these men liked to eat pudding, a custom reserved for women. This whole thing is ridiculous, in the west, men get laughed at for ordering some fancy fruity drink in a bar, in the east they get laughed at for eating pudding. I’m sorry, but this is fucking retarded. And as always the double standard applies that women can eat masculine foods, but men can’t eat feminine foods or must totally be a fag, and nothing is worse in life than being a fag because… because… who fucking knows. And I’ve had people give me the Leviticus quotes. And isn’t that lovely, bible thumpers passing judgment on others based on a book they haven’t completely read, and don’t bother to follow any other rules. You ever notice that? Those real preachy types that eat pork, having anal sex with a woman they are not married to, wearing mixed fabric, but then whip out that one quote from Leviticus. You know what I think it comes down to? Laziness. You get some bible thumper who ain’t obeying any of the damn rules of his own religion, he opens up the bible and says “I am going to find at least one of gods rules I can stick to. Oh wait, I found it, thou shalt not have lay layings with a man as he would with a woman, for it is an abomination, yeah I can do that. I can avoid fucking men in the ass. There we have it, the one rule that isn’t an inconvenience to my decadent lifestyle, I shall brand this as the most important of god’s laws, seeing as how fucking men in the ass is probably the one thing I can consistently follow.”
And that’s probably why they are so quick to condemn homosexuality. Those bible thumpers don’t go around shouting “adulterer, adulterer, god hates adulterers”. Why, because they’re probably cheating on their wife. But they can easily yell “faggot, faggot, god hates fags” and be safe in the knowledge that they are at least not breaking that rule.

4. Get treated to a spa day. We can all agree that there are few places more relaxing than a spa. So why is it only socially acceptable for women to attend these heaven-on-earth establishments? Euphuist said that he would love to get a “Mani/pedi, face mask, all that jazz. Colour me intrigued.”

Colour you intrigued? OK that does it, I am not going to a spa, ever!
I don’t want a manicure or a pedicure, or a face mask. What’s the point? Your feet should be covered by your shoes. So who the fuck would see your feet and your toes? Seriously who are you impressing? if your wife or girlfriend even gives a fuck about your nails and toes, you need a better girlfriend or wife. If even one guy friend happens to notice and think highly of your toes and fingernails, he has from that moment on lost the right to bitch at any man any where doing anything unmanly, and he probably finds Brad Pitt attractive.
Even though I have no need for a peti or a mani, as he puts it, and the words “colour me intrigued” would make me take a step back from him, like a valley girl saying “gag me with a spoon” makes me really want to ram a fucking spoon down her throat, all that aside, I have to agree. Guys should be able to go to a spa and get a massage and get face masks and whatever, and there shouldn’t be so much stigma attached to it. In fact, I was honestly unaware that there was any stigma on it to begin with. I just know I never been to a spa, never felt like going.

5. Carry a purse. Emmy_Bee was one of the first to comment: “Not gonna lie. A purse would be hella convenient.” And Riverchimp pointed out some of the exciting things one could carry around in a purse: “Could you imagine how much beer you could fit in a purse? Probably 8 cans. 8 friggin cans! With you all the time!”

Beer? You’re going to carry around beer in a fucking purse? Why? they’ll be all warm and shaken up, and 8 fucking beers is a lot of weight to be carrying around all day. Why not get a small flask of vodka or some other 80 proof beverage. There are only two places in which you need to be drinking beer, your house or in a bar. Neither require your beer to be kept in a purse. If you’re going out in the woods or out in a field to drink with some friends, try bringing a cooler with you. It’ll keep your beer cold and you can put a whole case in there. Or maybe the guy was joking like “golly if males are so homophobic that they think purses are girly, tell them they can carry their beer in it, that’s manly, right? Men drink beer, right?”
Aside from the completely retarded statement of “carry beer in your purse”, I strongly agree with this one. I always wished it was socially acceptable to carry a purse. They are convenient as fuck. Realistic things your average guy could carry in a purse, which is more suitable to be carried in a purse than any other type of carrying bag, would include, your brush or comb, your wallet, your smart phone, your iPod, a book, some flash drives, your cigarettes, a candy bar, a bottle of water in case you get thirsty on a hot summer day. Sometimes you don’t want to pull over and buy a drink, but your throat is dry and has that scratchy feeling, well there ya go, you got a bottle of water. A small memo pad if you don’t have a smart phone to type a message on and save it, you’ll have something to write on if someone tells you something important with precise details that need to be written down. A small flashlight. Think about it, most of the times in your life you’ve needed a flashlight was when you didn’t have one on you, because you didn’t anticipate this being the day you were going to need a flashlight, and you’re not going to carry around one of those small flashlights in your pocket just for the off chance that this happens to be that one day out of the year that you suddenly and unexpectedly need a flash light. But if you had a purse, you’d probably carry one of those little flashlights. Your medications. If you’re going over your friend’s house you could add to that a few movies, and a tooth brush. And if you’re a gun carrier, with a carry conceal permit, you could carry a gun in your purse. They make purses specifically with gun compartments. I bet half you gun owners out there with a carry conceal permit would have made a different gun choice had walking around with a purse on a daily basis been a part of carry style options. How many of you went with a .38 special revolver with a 2 inch barrel because you didn’t want to have to try to conceal a .357 with a 4 inch barrel. And let’s face it, those smaller snub nose 357’s, it’s fine if you’re loading it with 38 specials, but firing actual 357’s out of it is brutal on your wrists. Actually, come to think of it, I don’t even like firing 38’s out of a 2 inch barrel. That additional 2 inches makes a world of difference in how the recoil acts. Anyhow, carrying a purse would have opened up all different gun choices wouldn’t it? Well too bad, our society says men arn’t allowed to carry purses, that’s a female only privilege. And white knight tradcons and just your average redneck or nether ape, are there to reinforce this notion, and scold and shame you with accusations of “fag” if you dare break any of the rules of your artificially constructed male identity. I ain’t saying masculinity is an artificial construct or that gender roles and gender identity are completely fictitious social constructs. No no, I do believe that the masculine and the feminine behaviours, are rooted mostly in biology. However, that doesn’t mean every single aspect our current day masculine identity is rock solid biologically driven. Some of this shit, a lot of this shit actually, is an artificial social construct that evolves within our ever changing society. When you think about things like bell bottoms, and the greasers in the 1950’s slicking their hair back, and the afros in the 1970, things like tootie fruity drinks being feminine, and purses are feminine, and certain colors are feminine, and pudding is feminine, certain foods and beverages being off limits to men less they be branded as sissies and fags, you can’t tell me these momentary fashion Faux pas are scripted into our DNA.
Think about it. What the serious fuck is wrong with a guy carrying a purse?
Let me share with you, an unlikely, but not impossible future. One day, having straight, clean white teeth is what men value in women, thus straight white teeth is “feminine”. Men forgo dental work, and even good dental hygiene practices, because getting braces is for fags. Getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist is a sissy thing to do like getting a mani/pedi at a spa. The more rougher brutes might even pick a fight with you if they catch you smiling and they see how white and straight and healthy your teeth are. They might think you’re a real pretty boy, some fag who’s teeth are all white and shiny because you been sucking cock. your teeth are pearly white because you been drinking some pearly white from your boyfriends cock. These sorts of vulgar jokes and teasing and maybe even physical violence, all because you wanted to have nice teeth, which is obviously a feminine thing. This probably won’t be in our future, but it easily could. Look at all the bizarre body modifications that are normal in our culture and in others. Those Africans with the plates in their lips, or the burmese women with the long necks because they have metal rings around their neck which deforms them. Contrary to popular belief, their necks don’t grow long, their shoulders get pushed down. Anyhow, when you take a look at all the weird gender roles, and all of the weird body modification rituals to conform to artificially created social norms, is it really hard to believe men, 50 or 60 years from now, will be missing half their teeth, walking around with brown crooked  jack-o-lantern teeth,  because they all have themselves convinced it is gay, it is feminine, to have dental work, or to take care of their teeth.
Do you see the harm that comes from gender based fashion trends, which we often call “gender norms”.

6. Dance like no one’s watching. Sadly, rigid gender roles even follow men to the dance floor. As Charbok wrote, “When I get drunk I love to dance like a girl. I’m a big fan of twerking. I also like to dance with my arms up, like in a girly way.”

Again, this is one of those things where I can relate to the concept… in theory. But I personally just…. no, seriously not for me. I hate dancing, I don’t dance, I think dancing is stupid. However, just because I don’t like dancing, doesn’t give me the right to pass judgment on others. Though I am drawing the line at twerking. If you are a man, and you want to twerk, there is something seriously wrong with you. If you are a woman, and you want to twerk, there is something seriously wrong with you. Twerking isn’t a thing you do when you want to dance, it’s the thing you do after taking a dump, and you forgot the toilet paper, and you’re trying to shake it off. Twerking is nasty. And ain’t nothing in this world says “I am a low class cum guzzling whore with no self respect” like twerking. Hell, if you are a prostitute sucking cock for cash, I can at least believe you were once a decent lady who hit a downward spiral with drugs. And one day you can find jesus, find rehab, get cleaned up, and be a decent woman again. Probably not true, but it could be. If you’re twerking on youtube for attention… fucking forget about it, you’re just a low life. And this guy wants to twerk? I think you can guess my opinion of him. It’s rather hard from me to agree with this one, because dancing is just stupid. But at the same time, I have no moral or ideological gripe against men dancing feminine. And my personal taste in things should not really act as any kind of moral compass for others to live by. So reluctantly, I do agree with this. Men should be able to dance any fucking way they want. But no one should be twerking, period.

7. Wear makeup. Although the politics of beauty culture are quite complicated, and no one should feel compelled to wear makeup all the time, it can be a really fun way to express oneself. Unfortunately, men rarely have the option of wearing makeup without judgment. As RamsesThePigeon noted, “I’m a decent-looking guy, but a little eyeliner and some foundation could still work wonders for me.”

Umm, while the idea of guys wearing makeup is kinda weird in my opinion, and the first thing it makes me think of is the always-offended hypersensitive erratic dramatic transgenders on Tumblr screaming with caps-lock-of-fury that not everyone in society will play along with their delusions of being a girl. In spite of that image that comes to mind, I think it would be beneficial to men if they could get away with wearing makeup without social ridicule. On one hand, I think about all the guys I ever seen in real life, men who weren’t movie stars or rock stars, who wore any kind of makeup. And the fact I have never liked any of them. Whiny snotty emo punks who blog all day about being cyber bullied. It’s like they all say “boo hoo, someone didn’t show me the love and respect my parents assured me I am worthy of, stop the bullying, stop the hate, accept me for who I am, I’m special damn it, Mommy says so”. And I just really fucking hate these people. Or the pretentious goth kids. I kinda like the gothic style though. Too bad the gothic subculture was devoured by the emo and scene kids, and all the cool goths of the 1980’s and 90’s grew up, cut their hair, took off their black fingernail polish, and now have jobs as telemarketers brown nosing their bosses. God the outcome of the 90’s goths is sad. But anyhow, I can see young men with acne, embarrassed and ashamed, wishing they could cover up their pimples with foundation, but knowing people can spot the fact he is wearing makeup, and he would be ridiculed and embarrassed less if he just let his nasty pimples get noticed than to be a fag wearing makeup. Yet girls covering up their pimples with tons of makeup is the norm.
All though, personally, I am just against makeup in general. It seems to me, no matter what sex you are, makeup is a type of paint on mask to give the world a false impression of who you are. So I’m not completely sure about this one. But I do see “some” advantage to men being able to wear makeup without ridicule.
And again, I need to point out that the notion that makeup is for girls is a modern day social trend; not some evolutionary biological trait. Think of the warriors who went into battle with face paint (a type of makeup) and think about the founding fathers of America who were wearing wig powder, or whatever that pale white shit was all over their faces while signing the declaration of independence. Our founding fathers were wearing makeup.

8. Get pampered by women. Chivalry and tradition teach young men they should buy meals and movie tickets, but many responded that they would like to be wined and dined once in awhile. We agree with kbjami on this one, “I also love flowers and think girls should also buy men flowers.” While no one — man or woman — enjoys being ditched after a drink, Radiationshield had a point when he wrote: “Get a girl to pay for my drink, then disappear like a phantom in the night.”

OK, first off, when girls accept drinks from a guy and then split, it’s low class. If a guy does it, it’s still low class.
Secondly, how many men honestly want flowers? Not only is it weird you want women to buy you flowers, it’s embarrassing pussy begging behavior when men buy women flowers. It’s a total mangina thing to do. No one needs to be buying anyone flowers, or anything really. And anyone, male or female, that wants members of the opposite sex to buy them things to earn approval, is some seriously selfish insecurity driven narcissistic shit. I mean, you just fucking wreak of insecurity when you need people to validate your worth through praise and gifts. And it makes you a narcissistic fuck wad when you actually expect people to do it. This is true for women, and it’s also true for men.
And lastly, it is not tradition and chivalry that coax men into buying shit for women, it is the prostitute nature of women that before gaining access to their almighty pussy, a man must make a sacrifice or part with material wealth. For a woman, spreading her legs is a business negotiation. And yes, I know not all women are like that. But it tends to be a rather common underlying theme with them in general.

9. Wear yoga pants. Baseballwiz definitely said it best: “Wear yoga pants. I’ve worn them in private before. it feels like kittens hugging your legs.”

Um, what? Dude, really? it feels like kittens hugging your legs. Who the fuck says that? I don’t even know what the fuck yoga pants are, but hearing that it feels like kittens hugging my legs, no thanks. But, I do agree with the general premise, which has already been covered, that men are stuck with traditional “boys clothes” which are rather limited in diversity, and girls can wear any damn thing they want. And this is stupid. and we do need to give men a little more room to experiment with clothes. Right now you have a few different styles, and the most common is the suit and tie, which makes the male of the human species look like a fucking penguin. I’m serious, a typical business suit is about as embarrassingly stupid looking as a guy in drag. The difference is it’s “normal” so no one stops to think about the fact it makes you look like you are wearing a penguin halloween costume. And ties, what the fuck is a tie, a piece of cloth you wear around your neck like you’re suicidal and you’re going to hang yourself. It’s something I’d expect the fucking emo kids to wear, not grown adults who apparently look “dignified”. And I want everyone to take a moment to think about how the most respected and dignified men on earth, are actually dressed embarrassingly comical. Really think about how fucking ridiculous the suit and tie is. Now realize something, all the weird fashion trends these men are going on about, wanting to wear makeup and women’s hats, and yoga pants, realize that shit only seems weird and laughable, simply because it is not currently the norm. All the while, that which is the norm, and is dignified and manly, is actually pretty fucking childish and silly. But again, we don’t notice how silly a suit and tie is, because we have been programmed to believe it is dignified and upstanding. And the rebellious fucker in me says we need to start breaking some of these norms and laughing at them. But no, kittens hugging my legs, no thanks.

10. Have fun with one’s children without being judged. Chairforceveteran put it perfectly when he wrote: When walking through a parking lot, holding my daughter’s hand, we usually skip. I get the dirty looks from men and women alike. I’m making my kid happy, why so much hate? Also, when my oldest was 4 ish, she asked me to wear a headband with kitty ears so we would match. We went to iHop and a dude would not stop staring at me.

OK, this one is actually a case of misandry. The hate isn’t males who are insecure with their masculinity (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean). The problem here is society having this view that males getting any where near children is suspicious. It’s suspicious because, well we all know men are just rape machines. It’s practically all men do, drink beer, rape women, molest kids, and beat their wives. Hell, that’s practically every detail you need to know about the male sex from A to Z. Or at least that’s what feminism tells us, and it’s the lie that our society swallows. So I agree 100% with this guy. But it’s also a miscategorization, our cultural misandry is the problem, not gender norms and homophobia etcetera.

11. Be able to show emotion without being labeled as gay or a “pussy.” Whether it was crying over a sad movie or simply relating to a guy friend, an overwhelming amount of respondents felt they couldn’t be openly emotional or sensitive without some sort of backlash. “Sometimes if I’m upset I wish I could just cry and not feel bad about it,” Thee_Gonz admitted. If this isn’t proof that strict gender roles hurt men, we don’t know what is.

Sorry but I completely disagree with this one. I mean, of course, if you’re standing over your child who just died in the hospital, you’re going to break down and cry, and no one is going to judge you.
Remember when you were a child and you started crying over something silly. And you just kept blubbering on and on, and your parent told you that you’re a big boy, and big boys don’t cry, and that you shouldn’t be crying. Well it was right of them to do this. No one likes a cry baby.
The problem here is not that men are expected to have good emotional regulation, and be strong, and adult; it’s that women get the pussy pass and we as a society tolerate it from them. If something really major is wrong, people of course are going to be upset, distracted, maybe even have to excuse themselves and cry. But the way women do it, just breaking down and crying over every little argument or disappointment like a child, and everyone coming to her rescue to comfort her with a “there there, it’s OK”. This is bullshit, if you are a grown woman, act like it. Act like an adult. Adult men and adult women both need to be mature, and have emotional self control within reason. People who whine and cry and break down all the time are emotional wrecks, they’re weak, and they’re obnoxious. People who are overly emotional, where every day is an emotional roller coaster for them, tend to be unstable people. It is indicative of an erratic dramatic personality disorder such as narcissistic, borderline, and histrionic. People who are emotional roller coasters, I avoid them like the plague. The social expectation that you be strong and in control of yourself like an adult, is a good expectation, and we need to not permit females to be exempt from this. So again, I don’t think we should be a society of overly emotional drama queens, we should be a strong society.

Men Stairing Into The Sun (a MGTOW dream)

When I was a child I dreamed that I stepped outside on a normal sunny day, to find some weird “epidemic” was going on. Men, the male sex, were standing outside their homes staring at the sun. The women were very upset by this. Why, why were the men just standing there like zombies?

There was something sacred about that dream. It left me with a feeling, an emotion. Like, the men just staring at the sun was a good thing. But why? Why is it that I thought this was such a good thing? Looking back on it, I now get it. These men weren’t zombies staring off into the sun, that was a female perspective of what was actually happening. What was actually happening is men were no longer paying attention to women. Women spent their lives with males pursuing them, all eyes on them Etcetera. What if men lived for themselves? What if men pursued things that brought them pleasure, rather than every waking moment trying to win the affection, approval, of women? What if a man didn’t climb the highest mountain today, just to impress some set of tits as he stands there jumping up and down for attention, begging for pussy? What if instead he lived for himself, not obsessed with the never ending pursuit of female approval and sexual gratification? To a woman, it would feel hostile, and threatening. It would be a misogynistic betrayal of his identity as protector, provider, and seeker of pussy. A man is a horny fuck machine, he would swim an ocean of sewage for the chance to get laid. And the only use for this horny fuck machine is to be a protector, like the guards that stand beside the queen ready to strike down anyone who approaches her maliciously. He is to worship her like a goddess, adoring her with gifts and adorning her with jewelry, and to make sacrifice after sacrifice to her. And when this horny sex starved minion has done a good job, he may be rewarded with sex. When he can no longer protect her, or can no longer make anymore sacrifices, or can no longer lavish her with gifts and worship her properly, than like a utility that is broken and no longer serves its function, it must be thrown away and replaced. This is a man’s role. Protector and provider, this is his identity, his goal, his role, his pride, his self esteem and self worth. If ever a man chose to identify as something else, he would be “mostly” free from the slave-to-women role that has so greatly abused him. And if men as a collective group, were to all abandon this identity, to swallow that red pill so-to-speak, than this, in the eyes of women, who’s identity is the eternal child worshiped like a god, would be betrayal. A woman’s identity is wrapped up in man’s identity. Man is the sex starved provider and protector of women. A woman is the creature who is entitled and worshiped by those sex starved protectors and providers. If men abandon their role, they have threatened a woman’s goddess identity. Women are gods that are in danger of becoming mortal if males stop worshiping them. Anything that steals a man’s attention from women, is a threat to women. A woman is to be looked at, admired, sought after. If men look away, than for every moment he looks away from her, she is not being worshiped, her role is threatened. Men staring off into the sun, as a collective, was my young early mind’s symbolic metaphor for men choosing their own role, their own identity, looking away from women, not giving them the worship they felt entitled to. The greatest threat to a god, is not being worshiped. Men living for themselves threatens the very existence of womanhood, it removes their status as goddesses.

Men staring off into the sun is a metaphor for going fishing, going bowling, going hunting, going their own way, men having a deep and meaningful conversation with another man. Something I noticed as a small child was that girls hated more than anything, men having any sort of “men only space”. What was it that frightened and threatened them so greatly? I believe it’s the idea that men could be having fun behind that closed door. I can just picture women standing outside the doors of a men’s only club, pacing back and forth frantically thinking “Those males, what if they’re in their having conversations not about us women? What if they are talking to other men, and enjoying male bonding? Those men in there, they need to be worshiping this pussy. I swear every cock in that place better be throbbing thinking about how he can impress me and my fellow goddess. As a woman, I demand all of their thoughts be focused on my sex.”

This is women. Deep down inside, they know their only contribution has been relieving men of sexual frustration. They know they are the superior class, the exceptional class, the first class, the privileged class. And they know all of this is based on one thing; men’s obsession with earning a woman’s approval and vicariously their pussy (sexual gratification).

Women are obsessed with being looked at. “All eyes on me” is their holey commandment. They see themselves as goddesses. If a man looked in any direction other than her own, he is committing sin. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.

A woman does not like it when you look at other women, for they are jealous. Women, as a whole, do not like it when men look at anything other than women, for they are a jealous sex.

One of the reasons we see women barging into male spaces, demanding a seat at the table, and demanding special treatment, is they need to keep up the worship. A god is only as much of a god as you give it worship (from an atheist perspective I might add). God (as a human concept) has as much control over the populous, as the populous has belief in it. To turn your back on the gods is to take away their god status. Women demand that rude jokes, and “harassing” glances, not be tolerated in any male space that they have barged into. This is a test, to make sure that among all the males working as partners (rather than as rivals killing each other for mating rights) that the worship of women continues. To cater to their nagging and complaining shows that the male sex will still bend over backward to accommodate the chosen class, the holey class, the female sex. It is, in some cases, a test. A bit like the insecure wife/girlfriend that says “you love me, right?”

When a woman says “I demand this man over here be fired for the way he smiled at me, and the way he glances at me makes me feel harassed and frightened.” This (in some cases) is her saying “us women are still goddesses, right? Our personal private emotions still dictate men’s actions, right?”.

What they fear hearing as a reply is “to bad, take it like a man, learn to toughen up and deal with it.” Because those words actually translate to “You are mortal, like the male sex, you get no special treatment.”

Women demand change in male space, often as a measure, a test, that the male sex will accommodate them, thus reaffirming their “specialness” their sacredness as “ladies”. Also, by creating “special” rules to accommodate women, they are creating a system, a reminder to the male sex, that women are “special”, because it is very important to women that men not be allowed to forget that. Beneath all the rhetoric about equality, they really need to be treated special, both as an ego stroking reassurance that they still have goddess status, and as a reminder to the male sex that women are to be treated better and “special”.

In Victorian era, men were to rise when a woman entered the room. He was not to use “profanity” in the presence of a woman. He was to take his hat off in the presence of a lady, and other pseudo-worship gestures, to remind women that they are a “special” people, a privileged class.

Women are like jealous narcissists, easily compared to a spoiled self-aggrandizing god. And like such an egotistical god, they are wrought with insecurity, and need constant reminders that they are special, and they are being honored and sought after (worshiped).

In the dream, the men were looking at the sun, completely useless zombies in the eyes of women. The women were upset and confused, they did not know why their men, their worshipers, would just abandon them.

Today I know why. The abuse we have suffered at the hands of our gods, has urged us to seek other objects to waste our time with. Even something as simple as the sun, provides a man with a more satisfying experience than the narcissistic bipolar behavior of women, the eternal spoiled child. The sun gives us light and heat. Women exist as parasites, bleeding dry the resources and time of the male sex. And once they have sucked the life from a man, they move on to another. Men are increasingly getting fed up with women. The reward of their loose pussies, the approval of these narcissistic trailer park ghetto queens, is not reward enough for the abuse we endure from them.

Swallow the red pill, cast your eyes away from the sirens, and kill the gods go your own way, live for you.

And now if you’ll excuse me, I think I am going to step outside and watch the sun set 😉

Ending The Left-Right Paradigm

This is a transcript of my video “Ending The Left-Right Paradigm”

When making a video on how appeals to right wing-ism does not advance our cause, the first thing I thought about doing is giving examples of how right wing politicians have hurt us, and how a right wing system can hurt us. But then I realized that’s already been done. And the knee jerk reactions the right wingers have is to start accusing the speaker of being a leftist, or even a crypto communist socialist leftist infiltrator trying to hijack the movement.
The other thing it does is result in no one learning anything and the comments just being flooded with left vs right garbage.
Those who are hardcore right wingers, right wing cultists actually, these people hear, or read, an example of how some right wing aspect benefits the feminists or hurts men, and instead of understanding that they were given an example of how blindly appealing to the right and blindly voting for a republican or whatever, doesn’t make any change to our misandric culture, what these people actually hear in their mind is an attack on their right wing faith. What their ears heard was “right wing benefits feminists, and that’s why socialism and communism will save us men, so every one vote for a socialist, go Obama!”
That’s what these people are hearing.

Many political people, be it left or right, view their political paradigm the way a spiritual person views their religion.
Imagine if you will a spiritual man going to his church, his mosque, synagogue, or whatever house of worship, and listening to their preacher read from the holey scripture. They sit there in the audience, having their faith strengthened, and get emotional and spiritual satisfaction from the preaching, and the sense of community by being around others who also share these deeply emotionally centered beliefs. Now, understand that many people turn on the TV, the radio, and they hear their favorite political figure, be it G Gorden Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, talk to them about politics. This is the same thing as going to church and being preached to. The emotional investment is similar. The fortification of belief and conviction is there. The political rhetoric has the same effect as the preachers reciting from scripture. The effect ultimately leads to a strengthening of the belief, and intertwining it with emotional gratification.
What I am saying is, for many people, politics is their religion. To challenge any part of their political faith in any way, is analogous to approaching a religious person, and telling him some part of his religion is untrue. Doing so has attacked a very personal and sensitive part of them. They perceive your disbelief as an attack on them and all they stand for. They no longer argue calmly and rationally, but defensive, because they feel attacked.

I’m telling you, many people are wrapped up in their political views, in a very deeply spiritual way. Clinging to the ideas their favorite political preachers have spoken to them, has become their guide. Their view of the world is through the lens of their political party, it is their god, their faith, and how they interpret the world around them.
This also has the downside of making them oblivious to details that don’t fit into their utopia. That which does not fit, is ignored via denial mechanism, or it is redefined as something else, so that it may now fit properly into their world view.

A person who is deeply convicted in their political belief will be as unwilling to admit a fallibility in their political views as a religious person would be to admit fallibility in their scripture. That is, an attack on the veracity of their entire belief system. And rather than exchanging ideas, they become defensive to protect that which is so close and dear to their heart. A thing in which they bond to, so deeply, that it is the thing in which they identify as. Thus an attack on even the most superficial aspect of their belief, is an attack on them.

When looking at the left and the right, I see two different religions at each other’s throats, each believing their god is the one true god, and that all problems they face are the fault of the other religious group. In modern politics, we have the left and the right. Both of these “wings” act as two gears working in synchronicity. As one gear moves clockwise, the other must comply by moving counter clockwise. These rolls together make our system, giving the people the illusion that there are choices in their democracy, and act as perfect scape goats for politician’s lying, and the fallibility of their own system.
When the right wing policies cause problems, the leftist are a convenient scape goat. When the left wing policies cause problems the rightists are convenient scape goats. Each flawed system getting to wash its hands of responsibility and accountability.
The voters do not rebel against their corrupt government, instead they just say to themselves that next year we’re gonna get more of our boys in office, that’ll fix the problem. Our two party nation constantly trying to out vote their enemy; this is the perfect slavery, keep the slaves thinking they ever had a choice in this. And this trickery goes on and on. And if you are a leftist or a rightist, you have been tricked, you have been duped, and your support for any party is the very thing that keeps the system screwing you and getting away with murder. So long as you have a scape goat, you won’t acknowledge the fallibility of your political allegiance, and you won’t hold your own politicians accountable for their lies either. Furthermore, your blind devotion to your political party is just that, blindness. It makes you blind to reality. You are not seeing things for what they are. You are only allowing yourself to view the world through right wing lenses, or your left wing lenses.

I’ve had people ask me where I stand politically. I say I have a lot more in common with the ideas presented by the right than the left, but I don’t actively stand anywhere. They ask “so do you believe in big government or small government?” I ask which one of these governments are going to end female preference?
Bernard Chapin says mens rights is right wing. Really? I don’t seem to recall Ronald Reagan pushing to force women to register for selective service. I don’t recall George Bush Senior trying to fix the family court system to not favor women, or Bush Junior trying to breakup the domestic violence industry’s racket, or Ron Paul proposing we end sexual harassment laws, even though you’d think he’d be the one to do at least that. After all, sexual harassment is the way people feel. So the government should have laws that dictate how humans are allowed to make humans feel? I don’t recall any politician from either side of the fence, running for any office, that ran on a pro male platform, so sorry Bernie I think you might be full of shit.
If you mean that the right is more masculine, and the left is more feminine, and how the “supposed” values of the right are more in tune with a strong independent male, and the left “supposed” values are more in tune with the infantile and parasitic nature of women, than yes, I would agree to this. But it misses the point that neither side advocates rights for men, neither Republican or Democratic party lives up to their supposed agenda, and that in a 2 party system such as ours, you can never have all left or all right, and thus we will always have a “left wing along side its right wing” system, and both parties ultimately hurt males and favor females, regardless of how masculine or feminine their ideologies seem on the surface.

But the thing I most want to bring to attention is the very fact that the Mens Rights Movement, isn’t even really a political movement; it’s actually a cultural movement with long term political goals. Removing the female preference from our society, removing the misandry, is not done by voting for your favorite corporate bought politician. It doesn’t matter which one of these baby kissing organized criminals you elect, our problems are not political problems; they are cultural problems.

As far as my knowledge goes, there is no law that says a judge must hand a man’s life earnings over to his wife when she is unhappy and wants a divorce. There is no law that says this. There is no law that says the child must be given to the custody of whoever has a vagina. I am no expert on family law, but I do know that the decision to give child custody to the mother, is not written on the law books. By law, the child goes to who ever is more fit for parenting. This bias in our courts comes from our culture’s attitude. You show me a culture that deeply believes that a child should go to the father, and without changing any law on the books, you will see judges awarding child custody to fathers at the current rate custody is given to mothers. It’s not the laws, it’s who interprets them. And society’s attitudes dictates how a law is to be interpreted. Women can point their finger and say to an authority figure “this man raped, harassed, threatened, hit, or violated me” and for the most part he is guilty because he has a penis, she has a va-jay-jay. But that’s not written on the law books. A woman slaps a man and a man hits back, the man ends up going to jail. There is no law that says women can hit men. There is no law that says men can’t hit back in defense. It’s all a matter of how it gets interpreted by the judicial system. And that, sadly, is all based on our cultural attitudes.
TheCriticalG and others have talked about the importance of changing inequitable divorce laws. I disagree for various reasons.
1. I am unaware of any specific law in the US family court that specifically says something must be granted to the one with the vagina.
2. But even if there are unfair laws on the books, making divorce more fair is a start for equality, but ultimately by itself means very little in our struggle.
3. Even the laws on the books that indicate a judgment must be given “fairly” and without gender bias, will still favor women because women are favored in society.
4. Even if some how we can alter a few divorce laws here and there, to favor men in divorce court, all this will do is get women to accuse the man of violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse, pedophilia, or whatever else the woman needs to say to turn the tables in her favor. And because our entire society demonizes men, demonizes male sexuality, and protects women at all costs, a woman’s word will always have more weight in court than a man’s when a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct or violence.
Even if there are a few divorce laws I haven’t noticed, which do favor women directly, and we fix these rules, the moment a woman feels like she is losing full custody of her children, and therefore child support and everything else that comes with the jackpot of winning child custody, the moment she feels like she’s losing, all it takes is for her to stand up and proclaim she caught her husband looking at child porn. Well, no proof needs to be offered, and there is no chance in hell he will ever get the kids or get to visit the kids. All it takes is for the woman to stand up and claim that he was abusive. Or that he yelled a lot, or even that just for no reason what so ever he frightens her. A woman need only claim to be afraid, point her finger at the man that makes her feel afraid, and that man must be punished for making a woman feel frightened.

I’ve heard people claim that they want abortion to be made illegal, except of course if the woman were raped. I tell them that’s the worst mistake ever. Now when a woman wants an abortion, she’ll just make up accusations of rape against the guy that got her knocked up. And the first time a judge rules that the woman is making up the accusation of rape, just so she can get an abortion, women will flip out and we’ll see a whole new wave of slut walks screaming “end rape culture”. The media will cover it in the most female slanted way possible. The judge will be forced into retirement, and both the left and the right wing politicians will be giving big speeches kissing the asses of the Slutwalk protesters. And now men will be afraid not only that he might get her knocked up and be forced into fatherhood or financial responsibility of fatherhood, but also that he might get charged with rape if the girl wants to abort the baby for some reason.

Don’t you get it, it’s not the laws, it’s how they are interpreted. So long as we are a female supremacist society that views men as sexually aggressive violent beasts and women as innocent and delicate, always needing protection from those sexually aggressive violent males, so long as this is our attitude, women will dominate over men no matter what laws you slap on the books. That’s why this must be a cultural change, not just an effort to get a couple more republicans in office, or to critique a few laws on the books.

I want you to do a quick count of mens rights activists, and do a quick count of feminists. Tell me who has the higher numbers? Let me ask you, did those numbers come from left wing and right wing votes? Did our politicians make those numbers? No, our cultural attitude made those numbers. Feminist have all the power because they have the numbers. They have the numbers because we are a pro-female/anti-male culture, and I don’t give a rats ass which politician you vote for, the amount of feminists vs MRA’s won’t change. We must change our cultural views first, then we can work on getting some good ol’ right wing boys in office to build glorious free market utopia or whatever the fuck these horribly obnoxious right wing cultists among us want. Let’s just work on fixing society’s attitude for now.

Barbarossa brings up that the left right issue is the never ending idea inhibitor in the MRM.
I agree. Infighting is an unavoidable occurrence in any group of people. Infighting is also a natural part of a movement’s growth. If we can think of a spider needing to molt, shed off it’s exterior, as a necessary way of growing. While some growth can occur on its exoskeleton, it can only grow to a certain point before it must go through the uncomfortable, and sometimes fatal process of shedding the old, and going through a growth spurt until its exterior re-hardens, and then its growth becomes severely limited until the next molt.
Small fringe movements are prone to this. Infighting and civil war is a necessary part of our maturing and revitalizing. It is uncomfortable, and in some cases has been fatal for organizations that once carried the torch for the movement. And movements have developed so much infighting as to chase off the casual member, leaving only two or more small but fanatical factions, essentially killing the movement’s progress for a long stagnate period. Though no movement, assuming there was validity to the movement, and assuming environmental conditions don’t change, ever dies completely. But it can experience great set backs and periods of stagnation.

The MRM is in a civil war, and it might get resolved, or it might get worse. But assuming we survive, and I believe we will, we will come out bigger, stronger, and wiser.

The civil war that existed in the early days of mens rights activism, on the internet but before the existence of YouTube, back when we all just called ourselves anti-feminists and I don’t think we ever heard the term “mens rights movement”. The civil war then was atheism vs christianity. Now, maybe my recollection of who the instigator was, is inaccurate because I was an atheist, and remember it all unfolding through atheist eyes many years ago, but I recall it would start out with just one or two Christians on a forum, and they’d make a reference to how important Jesus is in this battle, and how you just had to have god to really fight feminism. Well of course this sort of bullshit would stir up an atheist or two… often me. And they’d argue back that it was a stupid argument, and you didn’t need to believe in Jesus to fight feminism. Well that would get the bible thumper to explain how Christianity opposes feminism and he’d whip out some verses that supported at least some aspect of traditionalism. And that was offered as proof positive that Christianity is by default, anti-feminism. And thus you can really only be anti-feminist if you’re christian. And some would take the argument that if you were just a good christian, and followed the bible to the Tee, feminism would just disappear. Because the problem here isn’t so much feminism, it’s that we’ve lost our way from god, we’ve lost our good ol’ christian values, and that has lead the sexes astray. The argument was damn near this: “just promote Christianity, that’s all ya gotta do.”

Well me and a few other atheists, and even a few christians that were tired of it, would stand up to this bullshit, and many arguments would be made that we’re predominantly a christian nation now and yet still over run by feminists, and arguments against the validity of the bible, and arguments about other religions outside of Christianity that are even more hostile to feminism, and Islam got brought into it (not long after 9/11 mind you), and all that had a very bad effect. You see, this would get many of the common sense Christians, who would never preach something so stupid and in your face, to suddenly retaliate against all the slander against their god and their religion.
Needless to say, this tore small anti-feminist communities apart.

The early men’s rights activist communities were very small, not well put together, but on a forum with 30 people, you’re bound to get a handful of atheists. And like I said, all it took was just one or two preachy assholes, to get the whole thing started. Because as I explained, when the atheists fought back, all the Christians on the forum, that never wanted to bring religion into this, were now sitting there reading no shortage of hateful stereotypes about Christian people and Christian values from the atheists.

Luckily, after years, this shit stopped happening. I think enough people seen this pointless divisiveness and how it starts and how it all goes down, and they just got fed up with it, and now if you try to say you can’t be a Christian or you must be a Christian, or you’re a feminist or feminist sympathizer, if you try to say this shit, you will get smacked up side the head and told to stop being an ass, religion and the lack there of ain’t got shit to do with men having rights. We learned, we grew, we moved past that. That civil war in our community ended.

The civil war we are having now, which has produced so much stagnation, is left vs right.

The debate itself inhibits ideas, because it detracts from our goal. Our goal is to push mens rights. Not push left or push right politics, or religion, or home improvement tips. Every moment spent making a video or writing an article about why a certain wing of politics will hurt us or help us, is time, effort, and possibly even money, wasted that could have gone to pushing the actual goal.

Another way left-right politics inhibits ideas is when individuals within the movement attack others because an idea, pertaining to the goal of the MRM, doesn’t fit their left-right paradigm.

And I’ll give you an example. I made a video where I claimed that while women may not directly be the enemy, feminism is the manifestation of women. That is, feminism is female nature politicized.

This upset many people. Some people who get upset over this statement are those politically correct leftists. The best example I can give is WoolyBumbleBee making that video scolding MGTOW, telling them to heal, telling them that feminism is the enemy; not women, and that’s why MGTOW need to heal and get married, or else they’re misogynists. And it was either in that video, or possibly one of her other ones, where she let lose on Barbarossa and I believe GirlWritesWhat as well, and come to think of it there was a mention of Stardusk too, where she, an admitted leftist, belly ached about them making the statement that feminism is derived from women, (Feminism is female nature politicized). BumbleBee was raising hell about that, because it doesn’t fit in to her left wing politics, and of course because it offends women. And heaven forbid us men stand up for our rights if we do it in a way that upsets women. Because that’s not PC, that’s not egalitarian. But the real outcry has come from the right wingers. I get all sorts of in-boxes and comments telling me how I mustn’t go around saying that feminism is female nature. The number one reason given is because it’s misogynist. Again, heaven forbid men stand up for themselves if doing so might offend women. Because god knows we need to seek their permission to have an opinion or a theory. But the other reason is because we all know feminism is just cultural marxism, it’s just socialism out to get us. It tricked a handful of our innocent women folk into calling themselves feminists, and this handful of feminists are the problem, not women, women had nothing to do with it. The whole thing is just marxism, it’s just socialism. And that shit comes from the right wingers.

<i>[TheCriticalG video clip] (TheCriticalG says women and feminism are not the same thing. Unequal divorce laws benefit feminists not women. The unfair female preference in our society is not the fault of women; but of feminists)</i>

I see this with the right-wingers all the time. It’s their traditionalist nature. Traditionalism and conservatism go hand in hand. And there is a ton of traditionalist attitudes all throughout the rightwing spectrum. We’ve seen how traditionalism benefits feminists every bit as much as this PC egalitarian shit. Traditionalist attitudes keep men in their white knight mode. And of course on the other side of that is the liberated limp wristed male who thinks us males should be liberated from the patriarchy that shackles us with masculinity. Either way benifits the feminists. Left wing empowers them, the right wing shelters them from responsibility.
Most of these right wingers in our movement deny they are traditionalists. A bit like the cultural marxists denying they’re cultural marxist.

As I have demonstrated in my last video, I fully acknowledge the role cultural marxism plays in this. But I won’t turn a blind eye to the role of female nature, and just the age old battle of the sexes, also plays in this. This thing, this feminism vs the MRM. It is not a battle of the republicans vs the democrats. It is not capitalism fighting against marxism or libertarians uniting to take down socialism. This is clearly, and I do mean clearly, a battle between men and women.

We must understand that ultimately we are not fighting abstract and baseless bad ideas that sprang out of the clear blue; we are fighting a battle of the sexes. The power struggle between men and women is as old and as eternal as men and women. Since men and women are forced by our inborn emotional drives, and by the biological necessity of survival of the species via procreation, men and women are forced into pairs. Being “forced” together means there is going to have to be negotiation. I want you to imagine a meeting between nations at war. Both sides discuss what they demand from the other, before they are willing to call off the war. In a negotiation, both parties must make a sacrifice, other wise its just a blatant surrender. It benefits each party to acquire the greatest amount of power, the greatest possible advantage over the other before the negotiations. The more power a party has, the more it can afford to give up in return for the few things it is asking. The more weak and desperate a party, the easier they are willing to capitulate.
Men and women have always been forced to make sacrifices for each other. Classically, a woman surrenders her autonomy, the man surrenders his resources. But the point is, because man and woman togetherness requires negotiating, it is in women’s best interest to acquire the most amount of power, or leverage. This is true with individuals, and it is true with the entire species. After all, a man may want all of his wife’s autonomy, but only part with just enough of his resources to keep her alive. It is therefore in that man’s best interest to be in a culture where having absolute dominion over wives and daughters is normal. That way, due to the cultural attitudes and the law, he really isn’t asking for much when he wants complete control. So it benefits the woman to live in a culture that doesn’t give much ownership to the husband and father, and celebrates the independence of women. That way when a guy wants even a small amount of ownership, he is really asking for a lot, and better be willing to hand over a ton of resources for what little autonomy she gives up.

So, individual men and women must make compromises with each other to make a relationship work. But how much any individual man or woman must give up is often dependent upon the rules of society, therefore the power struggle is on a cultural level. This is the battle of the sexes. It is not a battle that was written in a book and studied in a class and learned and taught. It is a battle that is as instinctive to us as the need to mate.
Feminism, is women pushing for leverage over men, it’s the name given to their effort for leverage and dominion.
Feminism is female nature. Their instinct to control men, to have the upper hand. And the tactics we see in feminism, are typical female tactics that are used in high school mating behavior and in married relationships throughout history. Many of the feminist tactics are clearly just women acting like women.

My point is, discussion on female behavior and other discussions and ideas are removed from the table, because it doesn’t jive with right wing politics. Again, many complaints over this idea and others, simply because it doesn’t conform to strict, rigid, inflexible, dogmatic, right wing fanaticism. Any attempt what so ever to get these people to loosen up and see things from a perspective outside of their own pseudo religious political views, will result in them pulling a Bernard Chapin and scream “leftist. You’re a commie, a socialist, a leftist infiltrator.” They instantly assume that if you do not capitulate and bow to their infallible right wing world view, that you’re a hardcore crypto commie poisoning the movement with your secret socialist leftist agenda. I swear, it’s like living in Salem Massachusetts during the witch trials where you better walk on egg shells or the accusations of being a witch start flying at you.

Feminism progresses by putting its left foot in front of the right, and then the right foot in front of the left. Left right left right.
They take a step to the progressive left and say “Us women deserve equal opportunities because we’re equal… right?” and the progressive egalitarian leftists agree and push for some female opportunity. Then the feminist takes a step to the conservative right and says “Us women are weak and need to be protected… right?” and the conservative traditionalist right pushes for a law to protect them. Thus they can acquire both rights, and protection from the responsibilities that come from those rights.

Feminists do a great job of getting whatever they want by playing off both the left and the right, almost like two businesses competing for customers. Both parties pander to women, neither pander to men. This is due to the cultural attitude that women are to be catered to, and men are to do the catering.

And I know some right winger might be wanting to say “but my personal flavor of Kool-aid, I mean my type of right wing politics support personal responsibility. It’s those leftists that think rights are consequence free entitlements, so if we all vote for my right wing party it will force responsibility for people’s actions.”

Well here’s the main problem with that line of thought. We don’t live in a right wing nation. We live in a  left-right nation. Which means it always comes down to a compromise between the two extremes. Women, just due to the way they are, will always seek which idea benefits them at the moment and instantly turn their words and loyalties around to get what they want from the other. So when two parties compromise, especially in our female centered society, women will always receive the best of both worlds and men will be the one getting the short end of the stick from both parties no matter how you slice it. And if you don’t see that… you’re clearly not looking.

In case you haven’t noticed, the main problem isn’t that women are getting opportunities that they didn’t have under the shelter and protection of traditionalism; it’s that they are getting privileges from the progressives and yet retaining all that protection from those white knight conservative traditionalists.

Look at how the right wing fanatics in our movement are still, in spite of calling themselves MRA’s, are still protecting women. Look at the way they say “remember women aren’t the problem, it’s feminism”, and those who say “feminism has nothing at all to do with women, it’s just socialism, just that evil wicked leftist socialism that got into their pretty little heads.”
That need to stand in front of the women all brave and mighty and defend their good name and their good honor and protect them from criticism and to shelter them from taking responsibility for their own actions. That’s right, even the right wingers among us are still white knighting whether they know it or not.
Anytime someone in our movement accuses another MRA or MGTOW of being a misogynist, or denies female nature has anything to do with feminism, I need you to understand, I really need you people to understand, that’s white knighting. And 9 times out of 10 it’s a right winger doing it. Because in spite of all they have witnessed, their conservative traditionalist roots brings out that “shelter and protect the women folk” white knight instinct in them. Any time someone in our movement attempts to remove women from the responsibility of feminism, you are witnessing that white knight instinct.
The right wingers make no hesitation to defend women and exonerate them from responsibility, and the feminists just love it.

[insert TheCriticalG clip again]

I want to point out that I am not personally attacking TheCriticalG, I have nothing against him personally, and I think he is a very bright, but possibly naive young man. I only use that clip because it so perfectly illustrates what I am talking about.

And yeah, there are leftists who do that shit too for their own reasons. In fact, you got TheCriticalG, RockingMrE, on the right, along side the WoolyBumbleBee on the left, all criticizing Barbarossa, hurling traditionalist based shaming language, accusing people of misogyny, and exonerating women from the responsibility for their actions. The fact that left and right can stand side by side and attack the movement, even while they claim to be a part of this movement, ought to act as the ultimate proof that left and right work hand in hand to fuck us over, and that allowing strong left and right political views to poison our movement holds it back and prevents men from speaking out.

After all, if you demonstrate how in a certain situation, men get the short end of the stick, these right wingers start saying you’re just trying to be a victim, you’re as bad as the feminists.

You can practically here the old fashion, woman-protecting, white-knight, traditionalist within them saying “Straighten up soldier, a real man doesn’t cry. Only an effeminate sissy boy cries, what are you some sissy boy leftist? You’re crying like a little girl. Be a real man, take your beating like a man, don’t cry and complain, keep quiet, a real man can take it. Don’t give up on marriage, that’s running away like a coward. Don’t demand compensation or protection under any circumstances what so ever, because protection and compensation is leftist commie talk and you’re playing right into their hands, you’re as bad as a feminist you unmanly mangina, now take it like a man and don’t cry about your abuse.”

I notice it’s those in our ranks with traditionalist leanings that most quickly use appeals to masculinity. They’re still stuck in that mindset of “take it like a man”, “man up”, “be a real man”.

And I also want to mention, those among us, those calling themselves MRA’s, who call others in the movement a misogynist, well, they’re not really one of us. At least not in my opinion.

I remember as a little boy witnessing many unfair double standards that negatively affected me. The two most common responses from friends, family, and school mates, both male and female, was accusations that I was being unmanly for not accepting the double standard. Accusations that I must be a fag or want to be a girl, or else why would I complain. The other response was telling me I must hate women, or I wouldn’t complain.
I recall as a little boy, these two tactics normally shut me up.
As an adult they do nothing. But I want you to think about how quickly the feminists use this tactic to try to silence you, try to silence our movement. They constantly rely on those tried and true methods of silencing: accusing you of being unmanly (including not man enough to get laid) and accusing you of just hating women.

Now I want you to realize, these feminist tactics used against us, are also being used by those in our ranks that call themselves MRA’s.
Any time anyone in this movement ever calls you or someone else in the movement a misogynist, or claims that your complaints make you unmanly, I want you to realize they are using the exact tactics our enemies use. And I want you to think about that. How much good can someone be doing for this movement if they are using feminist shaming tactics against other MRA’s?

My rule is this:
A true MRA does not attack his fellow MRA with accusations of misogyny.
A true MRA does not shame his fellow MRA with appeals to masculinity.

If any so-called MRA does this, I’d be highly suspicious of them.
And any so-called MRA that does both, I shall brand them as toxic, I shall brand them as enemies to our cause.

As an MRA, I do not fear the title of misogynist, in fact I shall wear this label as a badge of honor.
As an MRA, I will never be silent on a topic for fear that I may get branded as unmanly.
And I will immediately distrust anyone in this movement who attempts to use those two manipulation tactics. After all, we have all seen where these tactics come from, they come from our enemies, a true ally would not use them.

However it’s very important to note that I am not speaking in absolutes. I’m not saying if one MRA makes one appeal to masculinity, that he is automatically antithetical to our movement. I am saying those who constantly use this rhetoric, constantly denouncing others in the movement for not being masculine enough, or accusing them of misogyny. Those people are antithetical to the movement. Obviously, it’s a judgment call that requires level headed thinking.

I just felt the need to point out the philosophical roots behind certain phrases, certain rhetoric, that is often used by those strongly identifying with the right. Traditionalism runs in the right like cultural marxism runs in the left. I have made a video on the evils of cultural marxism, I will be making a video in the future on the failure of traditionalism.

But the left and right issue go beyond just the toxic philosophy of marxism and traditionalism (which interestingly enough are not antonyms). The issue of whether left wing ideas shall lead us to ever lasting utopia, or whether right wing shall lead us to ever lasting utopia; that’s the problem.
As I have already stated, neither leads to a great utopia, both are horribly flawed, neither can exist without the other as a counter balance, there cannot be all left or all right; but only left and right working in tandem, neither helps to rid our society of misandric attitudes, and it is the misandric attitude itself that creates, and excuses, injustices to men, and gives preferential treatment to women.
The fact that fanatic leftists and fanatic rightists within our movement can only judge a mens issue as good or bad if the idea falls into their dogmatic political wing, makes all left and right wing philosophies toxic to the movement.
It is sad that a great MRM speaker can make a video or write a great article, and nearly all of the comments are left vs right arguments. It’s as absurd as having a science speaker give a lecture, and the audience completely ignore the speaker and argue over football vs baseball.
I have made the statement numerous times that men’s rights is not a left-right issue, as neither side pushes for men’s rights. The closest thing I have heard to a legit argument is that feminism is on the left. And so anything that fights the left, must somehow help men.
It’s not the worst argument, but it’s ultimately false that fighting the left can even hurt feminism. Feminism is an entity all its own. Women, will use the left and the right to look out for themselves, and to ensure preferential treatment. Feminism is not a byproduct of cultural marxism or the left wing, it is a byproduct of women. No matter what political system we employ, whether it is a republic, a monarchy, a pure democracy, or communism. It does not matter if the laws that favor women are signed into effect by the feminine hands of a matriarchy or the masculine hands of a patriarchy, the female citizens of any nation will always push in any way they can for preferential treatment, it is their instinct. And many men will also push for women to have preferential treatment because that is their instinct. The only males who do not sacrifice themselves for the women, are the misogynists, those who distrust women having power. Those who just know on a gut level, that while some women can be responsible with power, the majority of women are more abusive with their power because they lack the white knight instinct to have mercy on males.
A man’s misogyny, which varies from male to male, is both biological and environmental, is where the male tendency to keep women in line comes from.
A woman’s misandry, which is both biological and environmental, is where the tendency to hold males accountable for their sexuality, but believe women should be exempt from accountability, comes from. Women have two things going for them: their frailty, which is actually their strength, because it tends to make them exempt from responsibilities, and beckons males to do for them. And their sexuality, which is their value, and their weapon. This would explain the emotionally driven knee jerking that comes about when any man telling women in order to reduce the chances of being raped, a woman should do or not do this and that. They become hysterical and start screaming “victim blaming”. And I am sure many women believe this. It’s because they are running on pure emotion and instinct. What their ears heard was “women should at least take a little responsibility with their intensely powerful weapon called sex.”
A woman fears having her sexuality controlled by men, like a cat would fear being declawed. You’d take away its only real weapon.
Simultaneously, women push for laws and attitudes that scold or restrict male sexuality. The more males are restricted, the more freedom women have. Sex is a woman’s strength and a man’s weakness. No matter how much we glorify or shame sex, the one thing that doesn’t change is that it empowers women. No matter how loose or strict we are with sex, women will always instinctively push to make men accountable, and women exempt. And they will do this out of self preference, a distrust and dislike of males. Their misandry fuels their self preference.

Our struggle is not capitalism vs marxism: it’s men vs women. The emotionally driven psychological motivator will not be our sense of justice, political ideology, or religion, it will be our misogyny that makes us men fight back.
Now, obviously I don’t mean to say that we should act like vicious animals and laugh and applaud a woman being mangled in a car accident, or walk around with a real desire to see women hurt. But we have to have that distrust in us. We have to be aware both consciously and subconsciously that women are not made of sugar and spice, we have to know their shit stinks as bad as ours.

Misandry is in the hearts of our enemy. I’m not saying the average woman actively wishes harm to come to their sons, brothers, and fathers, but women will not hesitate to erect laws that benefit women at the expense of men, in spite of the fact doing so will hurt the males in their lives. It just so happens that their misandry makes them value their daughters, sisters, and mothers more.

The female preference in our society is the result of the misandry outweighing the misogyny. We must either lower misandry, or we must raise the misogyny, to create a balance.

And you must also understand, this female preference, all this professional victimhood we see from women, it isn’t just the self proclaimed feminists, and it didn’t originate from socialism or Karl Marx.
Since the day a dainty woman and her inferior height reached for the pickle jar, and couldn’t reach, and a tall man walked up to her and said “I’ll reach that for you.” Since the day her dainty hands could not open the jar, and a man said “I’ll open that for you”. Since the day she said “I’m frightened!” and a man ran up to her and said “don’t worry little lady, I will risk my life to protect you.” women have been playing professional victim, and inventing new reasons why her frailty and helplessness as a woman should obligate males to do things for her. They don’t do this because they’re evil, they do it because it works.

I have acknowledged the role cultural marxism has played both in the influence and propagation of feminism. I have acknowledge that communist parties that have financed feminist organizations. I have acknowledged that feminism as a movement, falls under the left umbrella.
But you need to understand, feminism is not a byproduct of socialism, it is a byproduct of women.

Women using their frailty and their sexuality as a tool, has been around before marxism, before socialism, and I’m sure before the written language.
The very core of feminism is pushing for special protection laws to protect women because they are so frail. It is pushing for laws and attitudes that allow them to be open and consequence free with their sexuality, but also to scold and restrict male sexuality.
If you can’t see women’s biological instinctive behavior at the very core of feminism, well then, choose which image best describes you.

Subscribe, follow, stalk, harass me on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/razorblade.kandy
Tumblr: http://razorbladekandy.tumblr.com/
twitter: https://twitter.com/Razor_B_Kandy
YouTube (RazorBladeKandy2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrSJF7GT6MOm6PxYmv0H3_g

Why Traditionalism Fails

This is a transcript of my video:

There is a trend I see in our movement from our fellow MRA’s and those who seem interested in the MRM but constantly insist that they are neither a feminist or an MRA because MRA’s are as bad as the feminists.
That whole bit about “you’re just as bad as the feminists” remark that is way too common in this movement. That is traditionalism right there. You see, these traditionalists dislike feminism because feminism destroyed the traditional marriage, the traditional way of life between the sexes. This is why they hate feminism, and joined a movement that opposes feminism. The problem becomes when someone in the MRM has a view point, just an idea, that doesn’t fall within the traditionalist values. That makes this individual every bit as hostile to traditionalism as the feminists.

And I really need to drive that message home to everyone. Those who claim you are being “just like the feminists” are just bitching that you’re not advocating their traditionalist views.

That’s what I think all this marriage obsession that RockingMrE and TheCritcalG is about. It’s about traditionalism. And somehow right wing fanaticism gets mixed in there. The statement “they’re as bad as the feminists” is coming from the traditionalist point of view. The term “they’re talking like leftists” I believe is coming from the fact that traditionalism and right wing conservatism really go hand in hand.
I some times think that the divide between MRA and MGTOW is really just traditionalist vs men’s liberation (for lack of any other word). Well, if this is the case, than in my book, MGTOW is the real MRM, and MRA’s are just traditionalists. If that’s the case, than I’m MGTOW, because I am no traditionalist.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do not stand in full opposition to traditionalism. In fact, the traditionalist does have two very powerful arguments.
1. It worked for countless thousands of years.
OK, I gotta give ’em that.
2. It is in tune with the natural biologically driven role of the sexes.
Well yes, I do believe this. I think it is the most logical role for the sexes, that’s how it came to be, and that’s why it lasted for countless thousands of years.

But here’s the problem, it may be in tune with our biology, and it may have worked in the past, but as you can plainly see, it no longer works for society as a whole.

Many will scream “but that’s because feminism screwed it up.” and I would agree. But that’s also an over simplification of the problem that completely misses the point. And while I have mentioned this in a previous video, I am going to say it again, feminism, is a combination of women being women, that is, female nature, along with a change in social dynamics brought about by the industrial revolution, and then funded by communist parties for marxist interest. Hell communism itself came out of the industrial revolution. Someone, who’s name I don’t remember, said something to the effect of: life changed more for humanity from the industrial revolution to now, than in all the years before it.

Well, I’m not enough of a historian to verify the accuracy of that statement, but it sounds plausible. There is no denying the importance economics has on society. And there is no denying that the industrial revolution brought about economic change on a massive scale.

It is my belief, that feminism, while the pathology of it is born of female nature, only flourished and became an actual successful movement as a result of economic changes brought on by the industrial revolution. An example of this is humans required certain things such as food clothing shelter. Well these things don’t appear out of thin air. These things are born out of trades and labor. Since most work was physically demanding, the male is clearly advantaged. Since it is not only desirable, but necessary, that humans pair off and reproduce, someone must tend to the children. While I have no reason to believe that women make better parents, I can say men make better workers, thus the man left the house, done the physically brutal work necessary to build the things, or earn the money to buy things. While I don’t think the children would really be better or worse being nurtured by the father, it is clear that level of production and income would be disadvantaged if it were the woman’s role.
So ultimately, the man worked like a plow horse, the woman sat with the children.
This means that all of the material benefits, both of luxury and necessity, were bore out of the man’s labor. Since it was his labor, all things his family enjoyed was actually his property. Since he was obligated to make the things or earn the wages, to support the children, the children were then his property because they were dependent upon his labor. This is also true with the wife who was also completely dependent on the man’s labor. This made her, to some extent, his property, because she was after all a dependent, a financial burden only kept alive by the man’s labor. This also ment that the man was the sole authority figure. Both children and wife must abide by his rules. And this is the way it always was. Now of course depending on the culture and the time period, various other rules would exist like you may or may not sell wife or children, in spite of them being property. And lots of little changing rules like that.
But here’s the thing. After the industrial revolution, the rules of labor changed. The technological revolution proceeded the industrial revolution (though it is easily argued the industrial revolution was born of technology).
But due to mass production, we now had corporations, and due to technology we now had all sorts of new and physically easy labor that paid a fair wage against physically difficult labor, and of course corporations that would hire many people to fill these positions. This opened the doors to women who could now get a job and work like a man. Many house wives, who’s children didn’t need to be sat with 24/7 wanted to help alleviate her husband’s burden of labor by getting a part time job doing light work. Other young women also had new job opportunities to help her family pay the bills. And as time went on, women working and earning income became more common place. Suddenly young ladies, who hadn’t found the right suitor yet, would get a job to support herself, alleviating the burden to her father, while waiting to find just the right man to be wedded to. This sort of thing kept on until there was actually a lot of women working. But it was often part time jobs, or full time with the understanding that this is a temporary measure until prince charming pops the question and proposes. Corporations exploited the hell out of these women. Often working them the same hours at a lower pay. And there was, to be fair, reason to pay the men more salary; a woman’s income was mostly her luxury, a man’s income fed his wife and children. There were unions and union talk about it, and it was decided it was in the greater good to allow the women to work the same job for less pay. Then rules were erected by unions and corporate policies, that adjusted how long women could be worked, and how much they could be paid. This was done to protect women from exploitation, and to protect the interest of male workers who’s families lives depended on his income, in far more cases than when women worked. Lots of politics and union issues ensued as women began making up a significant portion of the work force. This, around the women’s suffrage era, on top of early feminist writings, often communist inspired, created what we now call first wave feminism. First wave was dealing with womens role in the work force that was bore out of post industrial revolution, in conjunction with communist literature (that was often disguised as anti-theist and or women’s liberationist literature), which was changing our academic institutions and art societies, then came women’s suffrage and the entire thing really just came together as “women’s liberation” which we now look back on as first wave feminism.
In world war 2, many men were enlisted and drafted. The female work force grew immensely to compensate for lack of male laborers, who are off dying in the war.
After the war, the men returned home. And I suppose society just thought women should quit their jobs, and get back in the kitchen. Not all the women would agree to this. They just got through experiencing the life of being a bread winning man. They learned skills, got promotions, and developed dreams and aspirations of being something even greater. The men had a real hard time telling them to quit day dreaming, and go back to being “the little lady”. The women could easily argue, just how possible it is for women to make up the labor force, as they had just got through doing. This, in my opinion, was Pandora’s Box.
Traditionalism is no longer applicable because it is no longer a necessity. Women can, and have, and are, working like men and supporting themselves and many of them don’t want to give up that independent lifestyle to become the subservient property of their bread winning husband. They had to in the past, environment dictated it, but today the environment has changed. The doors of opportunity for women to be workers is open, and anything short of a totalitarian government, and possibly Islam to act as cultural reinforcement, will ever close that door and absolutely force men to be bread winners and force women back into the home.
Therefore, I cannot object to traditionalism pre-industrial revolution. I do not object to the life style itself. I do not deny how natural it is for us. I deny that in a free society that enough women will submit to being a traditional house wife surrendering her autonomy to make it work. I believe many couples will. Just not enough for our traditional way of life to be common.
Either we ask women to give up their independent life style ambitions and get back in the kitchen living under the authority of their bread winning husband, and just hope that about 90% agree to this, or we force it on them by taking away their human rights. Well folks, I don’t believe women in general will capitulate to our demands, and I personally feel it is a violation of their human rights to deprive them of education and job opportunity.
But the biggest problem we are facing is women can currently play it both ways at their own personal discretion. And us men can’t do that. A woman can be little miss independent if she wants, or until it becomes boring, but that pussy will always set her value high enough to get a guy to work like a traditionalist plow horse when ever she wants.
In free society, women have the option to work, or have a man support her. Unless she’s really fucking ugly and can’t get a man to support her. And that’s when the socialist welfare system comes in, but that’s a different story. And very few men will ever get the option to live off of the fruits of his wife’s labor.
So, women get options, men do not.
But even more tragic is that so long as the option is there for women to be independent, our entire culture and laws will not give authority to husbands over wives. Thus we get a society where most women are either unemployed or only partially employed, dependent on a man’s labor, yet hold equal authority. This is an imbalance in power. For a man to work like a slave, come home to his lazy unemployed wife, and have no authority in his house, makes him a slave.
In the past, a man worked like a slave, but he came home and had sole authority over his wife and child. This made things fair. But if a man cannot have that authority, than his “work like a slave” role, really is the role of a slave.
No matter what your age, or sex, if you are financially dependent on someone, that someone has authority over you. That’s just the way it is.
Women gave up their autonomy, but they had the privilege of staying home, this made it fair. Traditional marriage was in the past, more or less fair for both sexes. But remember, it only functioned because women weren’t given the option to work. A technologically advanced society post industrial revolution has created a whole new environment that does give women that option.
It is unfortunate that I don’t have a perfect one size fits all plan to remedy this situation. I have a lot of ideas that would be classified more as wonky idealism, and “totally off the wall”.
And that’s the big problem we face. I don’t think there is any tried and true solution we can implement. We’re going to have to think outside the box. We’re going to need the freedom to discuss many wacky and off the wall ideas. We’re going to have to get together and start throwing all sorts of bat shit crazy ideas against the wall until one of them sticks.
This is where a lot of the left wing / right wing fanaticism instantly kills these ideas. Any idea that goes against someone’s fanatical rigid inflexible dogmatic beliefs, and they instantly start shouting accusations of leftist, rightist, nihilist, gender ideologue, collectivist, socialist, libertarian, infiltrator, mangina, misogynist, bigot, you’re just as bad as the feminists, and so on.
The majority of all the silencing tactics in our movement comes from right wing fanaticism. Realize, I am not advocating for leftism and socialism or saying that there is some inherent evil in right wing philosophy. I am merely saying that the vast majority of this movement is right wing, and too many of those right wingers are down right fanatical and beyond reasoning. Anything that deviates in any way from their dogmatic right wing utopian view, and they instantly start throwing accusations and character assassinations, causing a rift in the movement.
As Barbarossa put it: this left right paradigm is the idea inhibitor of the movement. And he hit the nail right on the head.
We are facing really big and complex problems. There is no instant one size fits all solution. There is no quick fix, there is no simple plan. We are facing an extremely complicated problem with many contributing factors, and we are going to have to work really hard exploring any and every possibility imaginable. And we can’t do this because you get the least bit out of line with the right wing traditionalists and they immediately start calling you names, throwing accusations of leftist infiltrator. You get Bernard Chapin calling great thinkers in our movement like Barbarossa, “cockaroacha”.
RockingMrE and Bernard Chapin do more to stifle the free exchange of ideas than the PC leftists ever did. They viciously attack anyone that disagrees with them, They use hyperbole and character assassination as their primary rebuttal to everything, and yet keep a high subscriber count by pandering to right wing sentiment within our movement.
So long as Chapin and RockingMrE keep up their right wing rhetoric, they can say any idiotic thing, attack anyone in the movement, silence all discussion, and maintain a high subscriber count, all because they’re serving up a hardy dosage of right wing kool-aid to get the right wingers drunk on.

I recall getting a lot of in-boxes, well OK maybe not a lot, but I got some in-boxes after doing the video “TheWoolyBumbleBee vs Intelligence”, from my female subscribers, that told me they were worried that I am becoming an extremist like Barbarossa or Stardusk. They told me they supported the MRM, but just not the woman hating misogyny of people like Barbarossa.

Well, at the time I was only half familiar with his work, I had listened to close to half his videos, and never really heard anything over the top from Barbarossa. The only thing I ever heard that I ever really disagreed with is his stance that he’d find a man not guilty of rape if he were on the jury.
But other than that, I can’t find any fault with Barb’s advice, and I believe he is probably the smartest guy in this movement.

So I would write these women back, and ask more specifically what it is about Barbarossa and Stardusk that make them so evil and misogynist.

They all gave me the same answer. That Bar Bar and Stardusk believe feminism is the fault of women, as opposed to just a rotten idea that spawned out of thin air, held by only a few misguided women, and magically spread throughout the developed western world unopposed.
They are against Bar Bar and Stardusk because they don’t support marriage. And oh how they  just need to learn how to find the right women.
That’s right folks, before TheCriticalG made that statement big, there were women already saying that. It’s just a matter of finding the right girls. These women also went out of their way to mention how good RockingMrE is for the movement. Again, this, I believe, was just weeks before TheCriticalG made his video about “using MGTOW as an excuse”.

In case you guys haven’t guessed, these women aren’t MRA’s; they’re just anti-feminist, and only because they are traditionalists and feminism is what destroyed traditionalism.
These women don’t give a fuck about our movement. They don’t care whether we ever have equality or whether men ever get treated as more than disposable utilities; these women just want to stay at home all pampered, watching TV, and keeping an eye on the kid, pop in a microwavable TV dinner and call it “being a house wife” while their husband bangs his body up doing hard physical labor in the blistering heat, or deals with pissy customers all day, or fills out paper work and calls people on the phone all day long trying to make business deals, all the while his boss breathes down his neck, and he hopes and prays today isn’t the day he gets the axe.

These self serving females want the luxury of living like a spoiled princess at the expense of their male counterpart that works like a slave and can be traded in for a new one the moment he doesn’t bring home enough money to support her spoiled lifestyle.

So those women who think this way, these women don’t give a fuck about us. Be very cautious of women that say they don’t support feminism, they are often every bit as hostile to our well being as the feminists.

Now don’t get me wrong, there are some good women in our movement. But maybe you understand why I am still very cautious of them.

And let me point out something about this traditional setup. Women once upon a time did do a lot of work. Back before the average house had electricity, women had to wash all the laundry by hand, sweep the floors with an old bristle broom, take the rugs out and beat them, wash all the dishes by hand, in a time period where there were no disposable dishes, and fix dinner on a wood stove on a hot summer day, with the windows and door open, and no fan or air conditioner, all the while tending to the children. So yeah, women did work hard, not as hard as their husbands choking on coal dust or hammering shingles on a roof on a hot summer day, but they still did do a lot of work.
Today, a house wife vacuums the floor, wipes down a few counter tops, tosses the clothes in the washer then the drier, throws some dishes in the dish washer, microwaves a meal for her and the kid in a few minutes, and spends the rest of the day surfing the web, gossiping on the phone with her gal pals, and they all gossip about how rotten and horrible their husband’s are, and then watches TV, while for the most part ignoring the kid. I’m sorry ladies, but you are not pulling your weight and contributing shit. Your great great grandma may have been pulling her weight, hell, even your great grandma, maybe even, just maybe, your grandma, but not you.

But the real question we have is… what do we do about our situation?
Seems to me we either force equality down their throats until they choke to death on it, make women live the way we live. Or we erect a strong patriarchal society not too dissimilar from the way feminists “claim” things used to be, in order to force traditional roles on men and women.
But realize that comes with forbidding women to work by law. Which means no school for them since school won’t be needed for anything. And they probably shouldn’t be voting. After all, if women are not serving in military, are not working for the nation’s economy, have no education, contribute nothing but their reproductive organs, while parasitically leaching off of men, than why the fuck should they be voting?

So either we force equality down their throats, including shaming them for not having a job, and calling them bums and looking down on them for not having a job. Forcing them to register for selective service like us men. And just all around forcing rotten miserable equality on them, or we take away their rights as people and turn them back into the property of the father which gets handed over to the husband.

I don’t think we can have too much of anything in between. For I fear that would work out to what we have now; women getting the best of both worlds. All the privileges and rights, with none of the obligations and responsibility.

Another possible remedy to the “bread winner and dependent” problem in a marriage, is to sign different types of heavily enforced marital contracts that clearly defines exactly what “type” of marriage we are entering into, and exactly how much any given person is to support the other, and exactly how much autonomy any person has, and exactly how much authority anyone has.
We may have to make amendments, allowing both husband and wife to amend their contract if both agree to the amendment. This type of thing will not even be possible until we have completely destroyed the feminist movement, and completely rid our society of its misandric attitude.
And no, I don’t whole heartedly endorse the above proposal as a remedy, I merely put it out there as an example of the sort of things we are going to have to discuss and consider, and to do so free of character assassination, and removed from secondary things like right wing and left wing loyalties. I tell you this, if you want to be a part of the MRM, and you want to act as anything other than dead weight in our movement, your going to have to drop the left-right bullshit, and elevate the MRM above all other political belief systems you identify with. I’m not saying you can’t have left or right wing beliefs. I’m merely saying that men having rights needs to trump those beliefs.

Subscribe, follow, stalk, harass me on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/razorblade.kandy
Tumblr: http://razorbladekandy.tumblr.com/
twitter: https://twitter.com/Razor_B_Kandy
YouTube (RazorBladeKandy2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrSJF7GT6MOm6PxYmv0H3_g