Category Archives: Gender Ideology

The Will to Unfreedom

“‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” ~Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

I’ve been asked many times to explain why I say “what we don’t want to do is go back to a traditionalist world” and I’ve made a few attempts to explain, but the problem has been that traditionalism as is referred to in men’s rights and in the MGTOW community (Men Going Their Own Way) has been limited to a discussion of traditional marriage.

There are many reasons why traditional gender-role marriages are bad for men, not least of which is that they traditionally bear the burden of being the protectors and providers for women and children. They do this at the sacrifice of their own lives and dreams. In compensation, this act of sacrifice has been given heroic qualities. He is the “good” man and the social rewards are many. This is the justification given by those who support traditionalism and marriage. Even in MGTOW, known primarily for rejecting the institution of marriage, there are some who are merely holding out until feminism loses ground and men are given their traditional respect in their role as husbands.

So the surface discussion rejecting traditionalism doesn’t go very far because the tradition has not been exposed for the fraud that it is. That is what I hope to do today. And, because I’m ambitious, I’m also going to discuss the reason why no political system involving a state will bring about equality. It is not the institution that is set up incorrectly, it is something inside of man himself that I will call “the will to unfreedom.”

Most people would agree that it is desirable for men to live in a state of freedom and prosperity. Our culture and all of our rituals are designed with that pursuit in mind. Yet, time and again, we fail miserably.

“Nobody was very happy with the way history and civilization had turned out, and many thinkers of that time supposed that if the first steps in the process of the oppression of man by man could be pinpointed, then the decay of civilization might be arrested and even reversed.”
~Becker, Escape from Evil. (1975)

To anthropologists, primitive society was largely seen as an egalitarian system lost in the annals of history, and some believed that property was a key element in the origin of inequality. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau noted in his famous essays, stirring revolutionaries for centuries:

“The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”
~Rousseau, First and Second Discourses (1754)

It was assumed that social inequality and the propensity for man’s inhumanity to man was rooted in social inequality caused by hoarding of resources by the powerful, and that if these resources were redistributed equally the inequality and suffering would disappear. But this theory failed. Miserably. Many times. There was something deeper in the psyche of men that created a will to unfreedom and Rousseau’s statement gives us a key.

It is not the declaration of ownership by one man but the agreement from others that brings about inequality.

Becker points out in Escape from Evil,

“Social imbalances occur because of differences in personal merit and the recognition of that merit by others.”

The deference of power to others is, at its roots, religious. It is a fear of mortality and the systems we devised to keep that fear at bay. An anxiety with the overwhelmingness of the world around us, our vulnerability to it and the knowledge of our inevitable death. Through the use of rituals and symbolic meaning, each man tried to alleviate his anxiety and survive his own death through the symbolic world of his creation.

In primitive societies men felt a connection to the life giving elements of nature. If a hunt went well, food was abundant, men believed that sacrifices needed to be made to return the gift of life to the creator or source. Prosperity was a sign of approval from the gods and men wished to stay in favour. As such, the bounty of the tribe was shared openly and the surplus given back to the Gods to renew the cycle of prosperity.

Awareness of the fragility of life was kept at bay through the symbolic world man created which would elevate the meaning of his life. He would survive his death by taking part in the rituals and reinforcing the symbols of the tribe. The survival of the tribe assured the immortality of its members.

Objects such as the tooth of a shark were invested with mana power because it was part of the life giving force of the creature. The scalps of slain enemies gave the life force of the previous owner to a man and he carried these trophies around as testaments to his ability to both deal out death and defy it. Symbols of death defiance were worn or displayed by men in order to strike fear into others who would challenge him.

But just being a good hunter isn’t enough. You need other people to see that you are a good hunter.

The accomplishments and symbols required to overcome fear of insignificance can’t be achieved in isolation. It is the acknowledgment of others towards your achievements that proves your worth. In other words, a man requires other men to assert his value and to alleviate his anxiety. Without a mirror man has no reflection or sense of self. So clever systems were put in place to facilitate this system and conveyance of meaning.

Rituals were invented in which every member of the tribe could participate as a life giving force, and rites of passage were created to alleviate anxiety over mortality.

Becker emphasizes:

“Let us not rush over these words: ritual is a technique for giving life.”

He goes on to say:

“… ritual could generate not only bears or yams, or the life of the whole universe, but the individual soul as well. This is the meaning of the “rites of passage” rituals which took place at birth, puberty, marriage, and death: by means of symbolically dying and being reborn via ritual the individual was elevated to new states of being.”

Of course these ideas seem silly to modern man. We no longer believe we can create brown kangaroos by making specific words and gestures over a fire. Yet the symbolic rituals remain the same, only in re-envisioned forms.

The worship of invisible deities was replaced by tribal leaders who were seen as the physical contact point of the Gods. Religious leaders, in older times often epileptics, would have religious fits from which they would come back with visions and the tribe believed they could communicate with the life giving force that caused food to grow and animals to be born. The bounty of the tribe was a reflection of the good relationship the chief had with the creator deity. And if the bounty did not come, if there was a drought, the chief would even offer his own life in sacrifice, or be killed.

How does this differ from the religious devotion current society holds for their leaders? We may not think of them as representatives of God, but we build grand houses for them to live in, we protect them with vast security forces, and we mourn their deaths with disproportionate grief.

Culture, as a death denying fixture, is so deeply rooted that men will die in droves to protect their nation. The survival of the state trumps men’s own self preservation. While many people believe that survival and procreation are the innate driving forces, we find many people throughout history who have taken vows of celibacy in devotion to a god. In a modern context, we find the current homosexual community fighting intensely for public legitimacy, not so they can procreate but so that they may join in the symbolic life of their culture.

As humans, we need to attach to something bigger than ourselves in order to survive our own deaths. We seek this in order to ensure our significance in a world of meaning.

And if you think we are still just talking about primitive society, look around you.

In the ritual of marriage, we can readily see the devastation visited upon “good” men after devoting themselves to family life only to have the family courts strip them financially and emotionally, treating them as cogs in a machine and cash dispensers for women. Yet men still want to get married. They defend the tradition as a life giving force. The symbolic meaning of the ritual is more pressing than the reality.

The MGTOW community is repeatedly asked how they can judge men who choose marriage because aren’t they in favour of men choosing their own paths? And if a man chooses marriage then he is somehow still free. The usual response is that slavery isn’t made okay because the slave gives up his freedom willingly. But why would a slave give up his freedom in the first place? Why do men, knowing the dangers, still choose to get married?

It is a fear based behaviour.

Those who believe marriage is necessary claim that the ritual of commitment somehow solidifies the relationship. They fear that their partner won’t stay unless that ritual is performed. You can see the irrationality of this thinking, given how easy it is to get divorced. Marriage is a commitment “forever”. As if a devotee to the institution can determine the future by performing that ritual. This is magical thinking perpetuated by a desire to organize the chaos of life. Marriage is an immortality project, to be accomplished by binding yourself to something bigger than you. You think you are no longer alone. No longer vulnerable.

In fact, we hear the rebuttals to the MGTOW rejection of marriage phrased thusly:
You’re all going to die alone.

Traditionalists invoke knowledge of mortality to coerce men back into the tradition of marriage.

But will these symbols (marriage, the state) bring about freedom and prosperity? History tells us they won’t. If we elect the right government will inequality disappear? If we marry the right person will our life be made significant? There are many people reading right now who want to answer “yes”.

But until we recognize the fear that makes us believe in these institutions, and reach a point where we don’t need them anymore, we will never be free. We’ll have our illusions, but we will continue to destroy each other out of fear. And the symbolic world will continue trump the needs of the mortal man.

So, we vote in elections, we slaughter others who threaten our way of life, and we make vows to one another based on fear of being alone. We do this, and worse, needing validation that our life has meaning.
And then we wonder why we are not free.

We mock or try to destroy those who threaten our symbols. And when our symbols fail us, we look for the nearest scapegoat to slaughter.

Trust Women

Guys, you’re screwed.

You might think you’re the ones doing the screwing. After all, this is the story repeated to you, and about you in almost all current mainstream discussions of male and female sexual interface. Rape culture is a fantasy about your sexuality. The so-called objectification of women is widely protested. And if you’re unclear about just what that is, it’s you, brother, turning women into non-person things for your gratification. It’s certainly not the conversion of you into a cash dispensing appliance, in which femininity is used to manipulate your spending and behaviour.

And when it get’s down to actual humping, who’s the gatekeeper there? Who is in charge of whether boy and girl get down on a saturday night. If you think men are calling the shots, you’re delusional. Men canvass, and beg, and maneuver and manipulate, and pay, and pander to get a leg over but it’s when she wants to screw that you’re going to get some. And when she doesn’t want any, you are going to be patient, and say that’s ok. And if you don’t like that, we have jail for guys who cant take a hint.

But women don’t just control sex. They also have the only legal voice in reproduction. After all, it’s her body, and therefore, her choice. That jargon is still widely used in the political argument over access to on demand abortion. Left out of the popular political rhetoric is that if it’s his wallet, it’s also her choice. It’s his semen, but also her choice, and his desire to not be a father against his will, that’s her legal choice too.

Did I mention, guys, that you’re screwed? And not in the fun way.

Because what if she uses your semen to get pregnant, whether she stole it from your condom, whether she lied about being on the pill, or whether it was actually just accidental. Why do we will still describe her choice to become pregnant and her choice to remain pregnant with the words “he got her pregnant”.

There is no self actualization in that for her, she’s a passive receptacle of your all powerful sexual organ. And that this bears no resemblance to the real power dynamic of sexual gatekeeping doesn’t matter at all. This is the unexamined myth. The story that you are the decider. Why else would we have myths like rape culture, patriarchy theory. Why do we have an idiotic concept that men sexually manipulated by pictures of perky boobs are turning women into objects, rather than those men being exploited?

But screwing and baby making are barely even the beginning. We also have the courts, the education system, entertainment industry, government and family courts all informed by female-centric ideology. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that this ideology includes an irrational malice towards men.

Based only on the accusation of a woman, our society will destroy the life and livelihood of any man of who it is whispered: rapist. Conviction in a court of law is not needed, accusation is guilt.

Domestic abuse in which the victim does not leave after one incident means it is two people, and not just one responsible for the continuation of a violent relationship. To presume that an adult woman in such situations are powerless is to cast for her the role of a child.
And intimate partner violence’s propaganda, in denial of equal commission by men and women, uses the misleading term violence against women.

Due to populist myth and scorn of male identity, women face little consequence for the use of lies about threats or violence to strip men of their freedom, property or children.

But, of course, in observing this obvious fact – we are told that of course women don’t lie about such things. Because, um, what they’re innately innocent or something. But this rebuttal denigrates women – denying them their full humanity, which includes the capability to be just as evil as the next villain you can name.

But to conclude that women are simply, or innately evil is to miss the point entirely. Women as a group are neither inherently “bad” or “good”, just as men too are also simply people. Some are malicious, some are good, but all are flawed to some degree regardless of their sex.

But, where advantage can be taken by individuals within a system, it will be. Because of this, and the climate vilifying of men elevating of women; the greater incentive for allowable exploitation lies with women. So while there are many women of amoral character, it is the socially and legally tilted playing field of social reality which invalidates men’s ability to trust women. Not the positive, negative, or the indifferent character of individual women.

As a relationship fails, each person exiting that relationship is going to evaluate and pursue new paths to meet their financial and emotional needs. The same needs which were formerly being fulfilled by that relationship. For women, casual theft of the man’s income is one of the easiest options, without a negative stigma, and with public institutions to enforce his compliance. That so many women take this path should surprise nobody. If men had the same options to exploit women with the cheerful participation of the courts and financial system, then men would earn a reputation equal to that of women. Where advantage can be taken, it will be.

The odds in this system are stacked against any outcome except betrayal and destruction. Certainly, many women are not unethical, nor are seeking to exploit men’s sub-person status in society. Unfortunately, many women are quite pleased to exploit male destructive outcomes on an opportunistic basis. There is no social or legal de-motivator for those who would exploit the system women now enjoy.
But worse than lack of disincentive for harmful behaviour is a social narrative which provides positive feedback for antisocial conduct. That narrative relies on on a maintained belief in the victim status of women. Attack rhetoric about toxic masculinity and the suffering of women justifies her retaliation against an endless male war against women.

The reality of no actual anti woman war is of no consequence, in social reality. The woman filing a false accusation is noble – standing up for her rights, and not simply a predatory criminal exploiting the credulity of the public and the courts.

In the system where all men are bad, and all women are good, she is a heroic. She becomes the brave victim who turned the tables on a predator when she stole your house, or had you jailed on a fraudulent charge.
A quirk of human behaviour is that people given positive social feedback for an action will believe that action is noble, even if it is objectively monstrous.

So why would she even feel guilty, when her social group lauds her heroism for what is arguably criminal, predatory, and amoral opportunism?

And men can’t reasonably trust women in this system.

But that social system, or the social reality contributing to this problem is built on a set of overlapping myths. The first of these is the idea of the innate goodness of women. This fairly simplistic conception rises out of the attitude of worship by small children of their mothers.

Where a child’s mother is the primary caregiver, the first source of nourishment, it’s easy to see how the female becomes a universal good.

This shows up in many ways, including the tender years doctrine, in female goddess rhetoric, and other idiotic but still popular ideas.

The idea that women are innately innocent and non-threatening helps tilt the playing field on which all fault is male, and all victimhood is female. And yes, I know it sounds stupid when expressed in simple terms. It sounds stupid because it is stupid.

For some men shedding their cultural programming replace myth of women’s innate victimhood with the idea of female innate evil. And departure from the naive belief in the fundamental good and innocence of women can inform a more self preserving behaviour in men. But it is not a step towards comprehension to replace one innate behaviour with simply another innate behaviour.

But the problem of trust in relations between men and women is still unanswered.

If men and women are going to carry on together (and they are) and end up in each other’s lives, beds and dwellings, (and they are) then an alternative model is needed. And this model must depart from the vision of female innate purity, and malevolent male aggression.

And it will not be women now in control of social reality who make this change. Why would they, when a myth of their own innate innocence and natural goodness serves them as a social caste so well?

The problem of trust in relationships is a problem for men, which men will have to solve.

One approach is to treat women as if they are men.

Whatever she is doing, whatever she is saying – here is the question for you to ask yourself.

Would you accept her behaviour if she was a man?

Rape Culture-Culture is for You

We’ve been repeatedly told both by name brand feminists, as well as non-feminists practicing modern chivalry that we’re all a part of a “rape culture”. The claim is also that “rape culture” whatever that might be – is a central feature of our society.

But what is rape culture?

It’s the name for a theory that we live in a culture that enables male rapists and shames female victims of rape.

According to conventional thinking, the term was coined by second wave feminists, to describe acceptance of the rape of women. This is a popular but incorrect belief. The term rape culture came from the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s to describe apathy toward the rape of American prison inmates.

The terminology was a powerful encapsulation of the indifference towards the civil rights of inmates within the prison system who were black men. Recognizing the power of that civil rights rhetoric, the women’s movement stole it to describe their claim of apathy towards female rape in civilian society.

And the feminist version of history is now the official version.

And according to them, we are all a part of what they call a rape culture. Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book “Against our will” defined it as “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

Did you catch that? All women living in a state of fear. Not most women, not some women, all of them. And all men, including you, are responsible for it because of a conscious process on your part.

This version of the feminist definition of rape culture may be the most relevant to our current understanding of the term. Despite the 1975 publication, it is still current because Brownmiller’s contributions to organs like Huffpo, salon and the Washington post still promote the book in her contributor’s byline.

It’s this version of that ideology, which now informs a social and legal climate on American college campuses. This version creates the climate in which an accusation of sexual misconduct made by a female becomes automatic guilt by accusation. Through sublimation of that fantasy into broader cultural assumptions, you don’t even need to be a feminist to bang that drum.

In 2011 The US department of education issued a directive framed as a dear colleague letter. This message to colleges was that if they wanted to keep receiving title IX funding, they’d better handle accusations of sexual misconduct with nonjudicial due-process abrogating star chambers. That directive, followed by others is what now informs official policy on college and university campuses.

We are told that college campuses are where the strongest manifestation of rape culture resides. The same colleges which now feature a 65% female population, as that number grows under female favouring affirmative action. And women continue to enroll, taking on massive debt to do so. But they’re taking on that debt so they can participate in what we keep hearing is a female victimizing rape culture.

Does this sound like a coherent view of reality to any of you?

The published data from the DOJ criminal victimization survey shows that rape is the lowest incidenced violent crime tracked by law enforcement.

Despite that fact we, as a society now operate on the default assumption that rape culture is real . The idea is that rape facilitated by cultural assumptions at the same time that rape is an egregious social and criminal offence. So is rape accepted? Or is it a major offence? It can’t be both.

The fact is, rape culture is a false belief nobody except a moron buys into. but due to social pressure to appease feminine sensitivity the mainstream of our culture continues to pretend it is real. We don’t actually live in a rape culture, but we live in a narrative of rape culture that we have to agree with or face severe censure.

What we actually have is a rape-culture-culture. That is not an accidentally repeated word

This is why for a man on a college campus, his standing as a viable person depends on the good behaviour of each female on campus who knows his name.

The slightest offense, whether real or imagined can result in an accusation of sexual misconduct. A sexual encounter which didn’t fulfill every expectation of the female can produce an accusation of sexual misconduct. A man who avoids a sexual encounter that a woman wanted can also result in an accusation of sexual misconduct against him. A girl who did something stupid, like missing an important exam because she slept in, or forgot to write down the date can also result in an accusation of sexual misconduct. That accusation made against a male student whose name she might have picked from a list of the other students in one of her classes.

In any of these accusations of sexual misconduct, there will be no judicial inquiry focusing on evidence. There will be no due process. There will be no presumption of innocence that underlies the western world’s concept of justice. There will be an accusation. There will be a star chamber staffed by college employees and not legal experts. And there will be the destruction of that male student’s academic life and future career.

This is what we now call a rape culture.

The man named in an accusation is the one who’s going to go through that no due process grinder. He is the one who will have his academic career terminated.

This is the part nobody seems to grasp.

The accusation made against him is an attack. It is an attack made on a student, using the elaborate and nearly unstoppable college administrative system. It is a weapon of destruction which is triggered by a few spoken words. I was raped.

In the current system I was sexually assaulted does not mean “I am a victim, help me”. It now means “I am the executioner, destroy him”. The female idea of “I am a victim”, now has an entirely new meaning. It means, “I am filled with wrath, and the enemy I point to shall be besieged to his doom”.

The accusation is really just an order for execution and that order will be carried out by the a school’s administrative staff.

If you are accused, you are assaulted.

Your privacy will be stripped away. Your reputation as a decent human being will be stolen, discarded, and burned. Your education will be taken from you. Your social connections will be destroyed. You will be isolated, and attacked, and smeared. Your job prospects will be closed off. Your accomplishments will be taken away from you.

And it will never stop. The assault on your person will go on for years, and years.

It is a tyrant saying – there is the enemy, destroy him. That boy, attack him, end his life, foreclose his future.

A woman on a college campus who pronounces herself a victim of sexual assault is not a victim, but in fact a sexual predator. She is the rapist. And she is using the system of the schools gender studies faculties and administration as her tool of rape.

An actual victim would have gone to the police.

A victim of a real crime would use the courts, not the administrative staff of a business whose products are massive debt and academic credentials.

This message is for young men on college campuses you are not at risk of being accused of a crime. Being accused of a crime is what happens when somebody makes a report to the police department, whether truthfully or falsely.

What you are actually at risk of is being sexually assaulted or raped through an elaborate college administrative system. This has almost nothing to with your behavior whether inappropriate or not. You are the target of a system designed to attack you from afar in secret, like a sniper shooting from behind concealment.

It is not my goal to dismantle this administrative machine. It is not my goal to drive reform. It is my goal to inform you that rape culture culture is real, and you are the target.

But you’re not the victim. You’d better not be the victim. If you become the victim, I’m going to blame you.

That’s right, I’m going to blame you for being the victim, and all the social justice warriors in the world – the same ones who cry victim-blaming like its a capital crime, they’re going to blame you too.

An accusation of sexual misconduct on a college campus is not an accusation, it’s an assault. More precisely, a sexual assault on you, using administrative proxy.

And it is a violent assault which will not stop until we stop treating it as an accusation, and begin correctly responding to it as violence.

Thank you for your kind attention, and have a lovely day.

How Feminism Helps Men

Author’s Note : the following rant was delivered to a surging crowd of four sturdy individuals who got rained on in Grandview Park in Vancouver BC while I was ranting. Thank you.

The talk:

As men, whether we’re a Men’s Activist, or just Going you Own Way, or a man otherwise lacking self hatred, it’s easy to recognize social violence against ourselves when we look at feminism.

Even this simple observation will be met with shrieks that the definition of feminism is equality – and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a woman hating, evil, shrivelled penis, neck-bearded, rape apologist.

But we’re not using the dictionary as our guide, instead, we’re using our knowledge of the real world in which feminism is just one political camp’s extension of gynocentrism.

And although policies driven by feminism are noxious, and antithetical to civil rights, the feminist enterprise is a surface symptom of a deeper issue.
Did tens of millions of men die during the wars of the world due to feminism? No, they died because in human cultures, men have always been disposable. You, gentlemen, are utilities to be used to your own destruction and discarded when broken.

And the narrative, constructed in recent history of the endless victimization of women and their subjugation by men, is a narrative. It is a story. And the fact that, as a narrative, it does not match with our shared understanding of reality does not matter.

I was a men’s rights activist for many years, and a large part of what I did was to point out the difference between reality as I understood it, and the narrative feminist fantasy of every man being a rapist in potential and every woman an eternal, helpless, child-like victim.

Has anybody ever heard that 1 in 4 women on a university campus will be sexually assaulted? This is a statistic so deeply embedded in the public story of our culture that we can say the words “1 in 4” without saying “women,” or “rape,” almost everybody in earshot will know that we’re talking about the victimization of women. We’re not talking about how many people carry a genetic leaning to contract diabetes, we’re not talking about how many trees in BC are infested with pine beetles. You say 1 in 4, and people just know.

And all the actual statistics, and studies, and law enforcement publication of collected data, will not dislodge that so called fact from public consciousness. It’s false, but it wont go away, and those whose political narrative is bolstered by it have no hesitation to keep trotting it out – false as it is. The real number is closer to 1 in several thousand, for anybody who cares.

But I say don’t fight feminism. Don’t oppose it. Not because it’s not based on lies, it is. And not because it’s violent and hateful, because it’s those things too. Simply because you won’t stop it, and you will end up closer in spirit to the flingers of hate when you try to oppose them.

In fact – if you really are successful in taking the steam out of some feminist campaign or other – your primary impact will be to amplify the sense of victimization that feminists thrive on, and you will energize that sector of the feminist project to greater excesses than they would previously have entertained.

If you need an example of this, just think of Anita Sarkeesian. She’s a grifter and a con artist, and every time this is publicly pointed out, she is re-victimized – and walks away with another fat bag full of cash and a humanist of the year award for her troubles. Debunking is transmogrified to victimhood, and that is the fuel they run on.

There’s another reason to not fight feminism.

It helps men. I know that feminists like to claim this point, but they generally mean something different than what I am suggesting here.

There are a number of people who, in response to feminist driven social policies and laws, now advocate for traditionalism (or a “neo-traditional” model) for male-female relations and family dynamics. Some variation of a traditional family framework is what we generally assume to have been standard prior to what is now a largely feminist social structure.

And it is feminism we have to thank for the abandonment by men of that old social model. The model that put men’s self actualization last in line after the satisfaction of women’s safety, provision, comfort, shopping, and shoes.

But men wouldn’t have woken up to just what a crap deal they were getting if it had not been for the movement we now refer to as feminism. And it wasn’t first, or even second wave feminism that woke men up. It was the current gang of idiots. Being told that all men are rapists, and that’s all they are, wasn’t enough. Being told that in spite of history’s record of male creativity, that women are exactly as creative as men – in fact, they’re more creative. So if you’re a man with a lot of creativity, screw you, you’re a second rater because women are better at the thing you’re best at. The only reason women didn’t invent almost all of civilization is because you and your male ancestors held them down like the tyrant you are.

Being told that when you do things to benefit women, you’re being a sexist, in fact, just as much of a sexist as a guy who actively disparages women. Being told that the way you sit down on public transit is an act of aggression that harms women. Being told if you’re a male feminist that no matter how much you do you’ll never have the esteem granted to female feminists – nothing will ever be enough.

But I still say don’t fight feminism. And the reason is that the stone cold hatred and weapons grade crazy is what men apparently need to break free. But not to break free from feminism, that’s just a symptom. To break free from the deeper problem of gynocentrism. The social force that leads men to die on the job for a wife’s shopping spree and shoes, or to die on a foreign battlefield to keep the price of gas down for soccer moms to fill up their minivans.

With feminism, you are a hated subhuman, still chained to traditional gender role of protect and provide, and die when it’s convenient for others. But without feminism, what we would have is traditionalism – which is where you were a mule chained to a cart, and once in a while you get a carrot.

I don’t think you’re a mule, and I don’t think a carrot is good enough. But it took the excesses of modern feminism to properly wake men up. To wake some men up. It’s going to take more stone cold crazy and weaponized hate to wake the rest up. And that’s why I say don’t fight feminism, don’t oppose it.

In fact, I want to thank modern current wave feminists. They’re the wake up call for men.

Dear Sex Object: Lying Isn’t Sexy

We keep hearing, from a certain demographic, that women are objectified. By the media. By the entertainment industry, by men. And while it is not always stated explicitly, the message is that objectification of women is a very very bad thing. That is to say, it’s bad for women.

These same mental defectives also tell us that objectification is the reduction of people to utensils, objects of art, and knick knacks. A pair of scissors is an object, while the big-titted bimbo using those scissors is a subject. Continue reading Dear Sex Object: Lying Isn’t Sexy

Escaping from Slave-Mind

There is apparently an epidemic of rape on the college campuses of America. President Obama recently released a public service announcement. Aiming his message at the young men of America, he said it’s on them to take personal responsibility for the safety of every female whose path they cross. If you’re male, this means you. Somebody somewhere might regret their drunken hook up. Hell, somebody might even be physically overpowered and forcibly raped. It’s all on you. It’s your problem to solve.

If you don’t accept this, then you’re not a real man. That’s the bargain.
Continue reading Escaping from Slave-Mind

Our Respected Philosophical Opponents

I recently visited a website where I saw a T-shirt in their online store which said: “Feminists are stupid. Throw facts at them!” The slogan is an obvious parody of a feminist inspired T-shirt design calling for violence against children: “Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them!”
Continue reading Our Respected Philosophical Opponents

Women Against Women Against #WomenAgainstFeminism?

Women against feminism, it is about time.

But what about women against gynocetrism. How many women opposing feminism don’t simply want more free stuff. How many are not simply angry their traditional advantages over men were accidentally wrecked by the growing toxicity of modern gender ideology.
Continue reading Women Against Women Against #WomenAgainstFeminism?

The Bad Man Complex

If you’re a Men’s Human Rights Activist, then it’s likely you know the name of Thomas James Ball. If you’re not an MHRA, then that name will likely mean nothing to you.

Ball was a New Hampshire father savaged for 15 years by the family court. This lasted as long as it did because he would not give up on his pursuit of a meaningful relationship with his children. During that time, he came to an understanding of the nature of the family court system in New Hampshire, and elsewhere.

It is a system of wealth appropriation, populated and run by bullies and tyrants and sadists. These courts use the weight and power of the law, but engage in a blanket pattern of disregarding said law as a matter of selective fiat. It is utterly and totally corrupt. Phrases like “the best interests of the children” excuse the court’s continued existence, and shame and silence those who would expose the court to the public.
Continue reading The Bad Man Complex