Category Archives: MGTOW

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.

The Trap of the Hero

You are a hero, and that’s your problem.

That probably needs a bit more exposition, so this article will have to be longer than 8 words.

You’re not the Man of Steel. You aren’t more powerful than a locomotive, or faster than a speeding bullet. You don’t have super hearing, or super strength, and you’ve never leaped over a tall building in a single bound. You also can’t fly, except in a straight line towards the ground – once.

Nonetheless, you’re a hero and that’s why you’re screwed.

Your heroism isn’t the capital letter insignia of a cape wearing man in red and blue tights, your heroics are written lowercase. You might sit in a car in grid locked traffic for hours each day just to get to the job you work to pay for her house, groceries and lifestyle. And don’t let your name on the mortgage confuse you, that’s her house. This is part of what makes you a hero. And that commute of yours is heroic too, in case you wondered.

Despite your modest heroism, you have all the super qualities of that capital S emblazoned comic book myth. You weather abuse and indifference to your own pain with almost the noble silence of a Kryptonian. You routinely put your own needs after the needs of those you serve. And if you imagine that deal is reciprocal, you are in error. But your service and self sacrifice does have one benefit, you get the provisional public identity as a “real man”. So long as you don’t rock the boat. Superman doesn’t complain about the burdens of being a super man.

Of course, Superman is an imaginary character from a comic book. By contrast, you are a real person. The fact that you are an actual man living in the real world is of course why your day to day heroic qualities are small. A real man can’t compete with an imaginary fellow who flies and deflects bullets.

Superman doesn’t exist. He only exists as an imaginary heroic figure to put your small-H heroism into his shadow. And your sacrifices of comfort, of your health, of your own needs behind the needs of those you serve, comprise your real world modeling of the hero archetype.

Why are so many men driven from their own homes to a basement or a garage? If modern transportation still used horses you’d be sleeping in the stable, rather than the main house. It is not that you are banished, rather you have banished yourself in a bizarre gesture of self sacrifice. How stoic of you, it’s only too bad a cape is not in modern fashion. After your important bills are paid, what fraction of your disposable income do you spend on yourself, and what fraction on those you serve?

The sacrifices made daily by men on behalf of others, viewed only as “positive masculinity,” are small scale heroism. Compared to the idealized hero, your heroic character is small and unimpressive.

Next to Superman, or Hercules, or some other legendary figure, you will always be inadequate. You are not Friedrich Nietzsche’s Ubermench or a member of the DC comics Justice League.

He is the pure, idealized image of what you cannot be. You are not an indestructible strong man from outer space. He doesn’t need his basic humanity, his pain, or his fatigue recognized. He doesn’t feel fatigue, he doesn’t have human needs, and he will never fail in being a hero – because he is imaginary. You are not imaginary.

But you’ve been conned. You bought into the hero identity. You work hard to maintain your conferred identity as a good man which is small scale writing of the word hero. That’s what keeps you in your service role. It’s what keeps you working for somebody else’s dreams rather than your own. It’s what makes you believe somebody else’s goals are your own.

Superman lives a life of never ending errands. But they’re not for him, he runs from urgent task to urgent task for others. Imagine your own job and the tasks your boss puts on your desk. Now imagine each one comes with priority: urgent. All tasks are top priority urgent. You cant prioritize tasks because your just an employee taking orders.

To be superman is to be a slave.

So why do you still esteem the conferred identity of “good man” or “real man”? Are you so foolish and weak minded that you see no other possibility for yourself?

It’s obviously not quite so simple. Departure from the assigned role of hero comes at a great cost in pain.

When Dr. Warren Farrell spoke in Toronto in 2012 about problems facing boys in the education system, conformists and authoritarians chanted “Shame!” Dare you consider men or boys as anything except service automatons who have un-addressed needs? Shame! Shame!

When a crowd of sixty shouts that at you it is withering, even if you are following your conscience. No coherent reason is offered other than that you have deviated from your assigned service role.

The word shame is the revocation of your good-man dues-paid card. And it works to put you back into your harness because, in your life, you have unconsciously modeled the hero archetype.

But what are you going to do with this knowledge? The concept, possibly new to your consideration that you have modeled the hero archetype for your entire life? Heroism is a mental trap, making your human worth dependent on conformity to a destructive ethos of self abasement.

It is not enough to recognize our own modeling of the hero archetype and the blockage it creates for self determination. Human beings are social animals and we live in a world of created meaning. We don’t live in a world of concrete survival challenges on which to focus, we live in the context of a human created social reality. So how does a man exist without a model for himself in that world of symbolic meaning?

He doesn’t. Having value within a world of meaning, which is to say, having social value is a basic human need. The most obvious answer for men is to reject the hero archetype and to select an alternative. One possibility is to replace the super hero with the super villain. The super villain is not affected by a consensus of public opinion on his status as a good man. He is not controlled by disapproval. Whatever model we choose, it should be based on the recognition of heroism as a scam and a tool of control to be dumped by anyone who seeks self determination.

You will hate women

I have been studying feminism as an outsider to that ideology for many years – and the following has become clear to me, as I’m sure it is obvious to many of you.

If you are not a misogynist, it is the goal of modern feminism to turn you into one. And they are not fucking around. This is where the feminists put on their A game.

You might not hate women. You certainly weren’t born with hatred in your heart, and if you’ve managed to reach adulthood without a towering contempt for the female sex, feminists will change that. They will not rest until you hate women.

In contrast to men, women, of course cannot be sexist. The argument is that sexism is not simply prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, on the basis of sex. According to feminists sexism is prejudice combined with power.

Because women apparently lack the institutional power that men have, they can’t be sexist.

To accept the feminist definition of sexism we must accept that women lack institutional power, secondly we must also accept the claim that sexism doesn’t exist without the added ingredient of power to compliment the bigotry of prejudice and negative stereotyping. Unfortunately this redefinition is nonsense based on a factually false claim.

What’s false? The idea that women lack institutional power. They’re 55 to 65 percent of registered voters. Women control most of the spending of disposable income, regardless of who earns that money. Women control almost all of children’s early development – shaping the minds of everyone in each generation of our society. Women dominate elementary school education, dominating children during their formative years. Women control the family courts. Women are catered to by modern entertainment media, and the post secondary educational climate. Women dominate the HR departments of most medium and large corporations.Women are enshrined as a protected class in national and international human rights law, and have an entire department of the United Nations devoted to their interests. But, apparently, women lack political, social, financial, and institutional power.

And the claim, the one that women lack institutional power – and that sexism doesn’t exist without the added power component is used to justify rampant, blatant, overt, over the top sexism against men of such naked character that it is impossible to distinguish from parody by outsiders.

If that definition doesn’t insult your intelligence and sicken you, then being told you’re a sexist pig because you smiled while being male is sure to have you reaching for your in-flight puke bag.

The project to cultivate your hatred of women is where Feminists really roll out their A game.

But of course, the dictionary says that feminism is nothing more and nothing less than the movement seeking equality for women. Not equality between men and women, no, just equality for women. They’ve so far not been clever enough to cover up that little reveal either.

Pay no attention to the legal activists working their ovaries to the bone to legalize the murder of men by women. Pay no attention to the lies of the domestic violence campaigners pretending that DV is not reciprocal, and hammering the public with endless reiterations of the slogan violence against women.

The guy with defensive slash marks on his hands must have said something to make her attack him, he probably deserved it. Deserved it. Deserved it. Those wounds on his hands and forearms, he deserved that. Fuck him. He has no right to live without fear of somebody smaller than him, who he’s afraid to even defend himself from. He deserved it.

Do you hate women yet? This is all on their behalf, and so far, they’re not opposing it. I hear Katy Perry and Kaley Cuoco have both said they’re not feminists. At least, as public figures they’ve made it clear that the big F brand name isn’t going to increase their take home pay. feminists for their part have executed public shaming campaigns against these cultivated entertainer-personas.

On the other hand, celebrity millionaire actress and United Nations Feminist Ambassador Emma Watson has now reiterated the call for men to put women above themselves, and has cited the multiply debunked wage gap as reason for men’s participation in the gender ideology that hates men. Because of a contrived difference in women’s income, from the mouth of a millionaire actress. Get on your knees and serve your betters boys, because Hermione said so.

Are you insulted yet? Even after the UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador admitted that feminism was synonymous with the hatred of men, she, in the same speech before the UN called on men to put themselves last and women first.

And apparently, if you do put women first, by holding open doors, practicing chivalry, or even just smiling, you’re as much of a sexist as somebody who actively denigrates and disparages women.
This is a conclusion published in Canada’s National Post, in the UK Telegraph, in the Daily Mail, in several social science publications, as well as in the online satire website, the Onion – all in the same week. So, if you’re male and a sexist bigot, you’re a sexist bigot. Also, if you’re male and not a sexist bigot, you’re still a sexist bigot. Even if you’re so emotionally well balanced that you are truly indifferent to women, if you’re male, you’re probably also a sexist bigot.

Of course, there is nothing quite like an open ended and non-stop public narrative of accusation to drive a climate of dislike for those espousing it. And if you disagree with feminism, then you certainly must hate women. Right?

I told you they’re not fucking around, didn’t I? – the goal of feminism is to cultivate your hatred of women. And they’ll do it while telling you, it’s just about equality, stupid. Can’t you read what it says right in the dictionary, stupid?

How about sex, you know, one of the basic needs all human beings share – well, if you’re male, you’re not just doing it wrong – you’re likely doing it so badly wrong that your physical expression of affection and intimacy is being redefined as a violent crime and you are a criminal offender. Affirmative consent is a legal standard being adopted all over North America which decrees that sex without ongoing, repeated and unambiguous statements of consent, and consent seeking is not consensual sex at all, but rape. In the real world, adults having mutually consensual sex – and who are not mentally deranged by social justice programming, use body language, nonverbal cues and indirect communication in sexual encounters. This means that without a ridiculous mood-killing pantomime of dora-the-explorer style mother-may-I consent kabuki dancing – everybody in the history of the world who bumped their fluffy bits together was either raping or being raped. If you’re not sure which one you are, rapist or rape victim, just check in your pants to see if you have a penis. Rapist!

This isn’t just a fucktarded social standard being adopted by the mental defectives calling themselves social justice warriors, this is manifesting in law. According to one political proponent of this legal fuckery, one of the best features of the legal standard of affirmative consent is that there is no way to actually establish that consent exists in a sexual encounter. Yes, that’s apparently on the plus side. If you’re going to plug and play, you’re going to do it under threat of imprisonment, your life’s destruction and possibly death, based on the whimof whoever you may or may not hook up with. But only if you’re male – obviously, because although women can and occasionally do force, threaten and coerce sex from men, that’s not rape, because men cant be raped.

Oh yeah, and if you’re aware of all this, and decide rationally to just not get involved with women, because it’s a minefield of vicious mind-fuckery – then you’re a pussy. You’re not a rational self possessed man, nope. You’re just a little bitch, according to the few women who’ve even bothered to comment on any of this.

Do you hate women yet, because they’re not done with you you unless, or until you do.
And I’m not even opposed to it. In fact, I encourage this to continue, and I support feminists in their program. I wish them great success in their ongoing effort to cultivate and to amplify your hatred of women. They want you to hate women, and I want them to succeed in cultivating that hatred in you.

Rationality is clearly not going to work. There is a social movement which has, for more than a century – been repeatedly pointing out a pattern of systematic injustice, marginalization and purposeful dehumanization of men. That is to say, dehumanization of you. This social movement has used logic, evidence, carefully sourced statistics and appeals to higher reason and compassion as it’s principal strategies.

So far it has succeeded only in cultivating public contempt for it’s campaigners. Almost nobody is waking up to a rational rejection of social and legal standards that dehumanize men. Although everybody knows about realities like the destruction of males in family court, or the male suicide rate which quadruples that of females – they don’t give a fuck. Not even men care, as long as it’s not themselves on the chopping block.

The 19th century philosopher and historian Ernest Belfort Bax wrote extensively on what he called the legal subjugation of men. Bax was both an entertaining and popular author, who while he was widely read, effected no significant change. The most widely read modern organ addressing the same issues now re-runs many of this author’s articles, demonstrating, they believe the historical validity of the problems still unsolved. Canadian Senator Anne Cools – the longest serving Canadian senator, and the founder of the country’s first women’s shelter speaks frequently on issues affecting men in the Canadian senate. When she does, she is applauded by her colleagues in the senate, and then they vote against her.

Just like the readership of Belfort Bax, 100 years ago, it’s all very interesting – but nobody is actually moved to lift a finger to change anything. Women who benefit from the use of men will not be inconvenienced.

Nobody is unaware that men die earlier. Nobody is unaware that men lack basic civil rights such as reproductive self determination, the right to not finance a woman’s unilateral decision to use his sperm and wallet. Nobody is unaware of the 4 to 1 suicide rate. Nobody is unaware that infant boys are routinely mutilated – a trauma resulting in life long damage to their cognitive function.

Nobody is unaware that law increasingly degrades the civil rights of men, pushing them further into status of a social underclass. But neither men nor women will respond to any of this knowledge with rational rejection of the destructive cultural and legal conventions comprising what we call “society”.
How stupid do we have to be to republish Ernest Belfort Bax a century later, or watch a senior senator applauded and then casually voted down, and learn nothing from the lesson.

Reason can occasionally move an individual. It will have no impact on a society. A person may be rational – people, in plural are not.

So, I support feminism in their real but unacknowledged project. It’s the goal that the feminist ideology and movement is actually serious about, and making real progress towards.

The goal of feminism is to drive men towards hatred of women. When men hate women they have previously always served, then men might finally act to protect themselves from them.

Those of you MRAs, MGTOWs and others who actively hate women, you are feminism’s success stories.

I thank you all for your very kind attention, and please have a lovely day.

Social Isolation and MGTOW

As men continue leaving gynocentric social norms, a growing number of individuals are trying to brand themselves by wearing the MGTOW label as if it is a cool club jacket. Many such individuals have not done the self discovery and personal growth required. Because of this, they lack understanding and bring ideas into their cool-kid version which are incoherent in the context of MGTOW philosophy.

Every recognizable version of MGTOW rejects marriage as the most symbolic of gynocentric conventions. The philosophical path to MGTOW begins by dumping female-supplied status as an element of male identity.
Continue reading Social Isolation and MGTOW

The Problem With Men’s Rights

There are some in the Men’s Rights Movement(MRM) who have insisted on adding an “H” to MRM to remind people that men are human and have human rights. There are just as many who have denounced this strategy as more victim politics, catering to the wrong narrative. While the intentions of the “H” were good, this is a backwards approach to a real problem.
Continue reading The Problem With Men’s Rights

Breaking Your Addiction to Women

Normally I don’t offer a preface to what I have to say, but today I am identifying the intended audience for the discussion which follows.

Greetings men, gentlemen, pirates, misogynists and other evil-subhumans. Welcome.

You are all addicts. Some of you are recovering, others of you are daily servicing your addiction, with awareness, and others without any awareness. But you, brother of mine – are an addict, just as I am.
Continue reading Breaking Your Addiction to Women

Empowering Women

The female chameleon is a behaviour which most people can recognize when it’s pointed out. But because it preserves a state of deniability in the player – definite identification is a challenging pursuit.

The chameleon wears her point-of-view as a costume. The behaviour is most often seen in celebrities as many public figures use a created persona as part of their marketing and it is widely accepted with minimal criticism. What a Katy Perry or a Beyonce Knowles really thinks is of barely trivial concern. But the beliefs these public personalities portray might change from one marketing move to the next.
Continue reading Empowering Women

You Own Your Sperm, Man.

In British Columbia, there might be some good news for a man’s legal right to self determination in reproduction. On January 6, 2015 the BC Court of Appeal determined that human sperm is private property. The decision followed a long standing class action suit against the University of BC. Justice Chiasson stated that (frozen) sperm is legal property for the purposes of the province of British Columbia’s Warehouse Receipt Act [WRA].

The suit against UBC alleged that a freezer storing the semen of a number of male cancer patients suffered a power interruption, causing the stored samples to spoil, or to be destroyed. The judgement in this case is that these men owned their own semen and that, in law, it was their property.
Continue reading You Own Your Sperm, Man.

Staring Into the Abyss

“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.”

This is what Hillary Clinton said in 1998 in El Salvador at a conference on domestic violence. It has resonated among men’s activists for decades. And they have wrestled with the obvious insanity of that statement ever since.
Continue reading Staring Into the Abyss

The Willing Slave

We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man…. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you. And every few years a new lot is laid down and run over; so that, if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon.

~Henry David Thoreau, 1854

It has been noted before that traditionalism is a driving force behind male slavery. It is a psychological machine that socializes men into resource dispensers and women’s compliant, disposable servants.

But that word “slavery” scares people.

Continue reading The Willing Slave