Lessons from nature: primal masculinity

We human beings, especially those of us from the Anglosphere, grow up with strange notions of what it is to be a man. Americans bow to a pompous git wearing a black robe and address him as “Sir” for fear of going to debtor’s prison for being unable to pay child support. In Australia, draconian laws exist not to protect but to control – voting is compulsory, anti-association laws [1] (defining whom you are allowed to associate with) are periodically entertained and taken seriously, and we are fined hundreds of dollars for failing to wear bicycle helmets or failing to buckle up our seatbelts.

These are examples where we are penalized not for hurting anyone or stealing anything, but for minding our own business and taking responsibility for our own choices. In America and throughout the Anglosphere, we surrender our livelihoods and our dignity to provided-for women in their petty indulgences with Affirmative Action, while they grasp for alimony and government handouts. Men are having their children taken away from them in the interests of their primary abusers, placing their children at the mercy of their primary abusers. We must be the most gutless, spineless, dumbest manifestations of the male condition that the world has ever seen. Human dignity? What a joke.

It therefore pays to ask, what have we lost? What is the essence of male knowing? What does it mean to be a man? I reckon that this dude in the gorilla suit [2] might have a better idea than we do. What does he know? No one taught him to “man up”. What he knows seems to go beyond the petty “should” and “should-nots” of human society. What’s with his confidence, his calm temperament, and his sense of responsibility? He hangs back behind the group and looks around to check for stragglers, before rejoining them. He places a firm but gentle hand on one of the youngsters, guiding them to move aside, lest the over-enthusiastic youngster spook the oddly-behaving creature with the funny plumage. He encourages everyone in his tribe to check out the fragile creature at centre stage, making sure that no one hurts it, and it does not hurt them. His presence is a source of safety to both the fragile creature as well as the females and the youngsters of his tribe mesmerized by it.

Without his presence, who knows what impulses the females or the youngsters might heed, or what liberties they might be inclined to take? He sits back, observing proceedings, without feeling the need to also indulge. He is a natural leader, he turns to leave and everyone follows. He is the formidable male, and it is clear that he has earned the respect of his troop. If you look into his eyes, his face, and observe his demeanor, you cannot help but wonder what he knows that the females of his tribe never can. And he did not learn any of this from a human being. He is no chivalrous white knight, fawning over undeserving, grasping females regardless of their conduct. His is primal knowledge emerging from the jungle.

What is the nature of masculine knowing, without all the bullshit that we humans have to contend with? What do men, properly developed, know that women never can? Women have sexual power, but they can never know what men know. It’s as if nature has deliberately established a divide that can never be traversed. There is no crossing this Rubicon. You cannot have both knowledge and sexual power.

What, on the other hand, is the nature of female knowing? For this, the best clues lie in matriarchal collectives, like bees, ants, meerkats, bonobos and hyenas. They too are impressive, but not in the same way that our video-clip shows the silverback male to be. Now I don’t claim to be an authority who knows enough about gorillas in the wild or otherwise to provide a definitive, referable source accounting for their biology and behavior. But I do know that this singular video-clip has impressed me in an unexpected way.

Feminists, both male and female, despise the fact that at some primal level, the masculine ideal elicits their respect. They cannot stand it. Deep down inside they realize that the same kind of respect can never ever be earned by the provided-for sex. That is why feminists are trying to drive men down to their own level. That is why they are trying to turn men into [their impressions of] pleasure-seeking, group-thinking bonobos [3]. They cannot stand that they cannot know as men can. For all of women’s sexual power, they find women’s position of enslavement and inherent ignorance utterly unbearable.


[1] Anti-biker legislation proposed –

[2] Wild mountain gorilla –

[3] Wikipedia on bonobos –

About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

With his interests in science and philosophy, Codebuster's practical interpretations of theory provide fresh perspectives to contemporary problems. Necessity is the mother of invention, and Codebuster foresees that in men's rights we have the new necessity for maybe a whole new paradigm.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • TDOM

    I was with you all the way up to that last line. Women are not now and never have been enslaved. The problem with feminists (one of the at least) is that they fail to realize that women have always had power. That power is different than the power held by men, but it is power nonetheless. In their own way women have always been powerful. Feminists aren’t satisfied with this and what what they cannot have – male power. This is why, as you state, they must drag men down. The attitude is “destroy what you cannot have, destroy what you can never be.”


    • Paul Elam

      It will be interesting to see him respond to that. I did not read the word literally. What I interpreted is that anyone who lives a life of dependency sacrifices some (or a lot) of autonomy.

    • BeijaFlor

      My immediate thought was, “Women (who are) enslaved by their inherent ignorance …”

      One can be “enslaved by one’s own appetites,” or “enslaved by one’s own passion,” or “enslaved by one’s own delusions,” or “enslaved by one’s own desires;” one can be “the slave of custom,” or “the slave of conformity,” or even “a slave to fashion.”

      (‘Scuse, please; that last one reminds this old reprobate of John Willie’s “Bizarre” Magazine, way back when …)

    • Codebuster

      Paul and Beija are correct. I’m not talking about enslavement by patriarchy or men at all. I’m talking about the enslavement of the psyche that comes with having everything done for you throughout your life. It is the erosion of agency and self-determination that begins when the parents are more protective of their li’l girl than they are of their li’l boy, when they expect less of their li’l girl than they do of their li’l boy and culminates in adulthood with chivalry when men cheerfully provide for women, protect women, etc, etc.

      Entitlement is freedom to indulge, but is ultimately enslavement that prevents one from developing beyond the constraints that one is born into. Pampered, entitled women are trapped in their own indulgences and enslaved to their needs. The indulgence becomes the need. Whereas men are more likely to be constantly being tested, constantly forced to confront situations of reality, and this forces men’s brains to wire differently, making them more adaptable. This fundamental reality, should they ever be forced to confront it, must drive feminists nutso.

      Consider my Anglerfish article. Same thing. The dudes that become testicles lose agency, and they are slaves to whatever circumstances prevail upon them.

      • Jeremiah

        “Entitlement is freedom to indulge, but is ultimately enslavement that prevents one from developing beyond the constraints that one is born into. Pampered, entitled women are trapped in their own indulgences and enslaved to their needs. The indulgence becomes the need.”

        This is happening to men as well. We now rely on the state to survive, and we have become as women: ignorant and selfish consumers.

        Here’s a comment from someone at Alcuin’s blog on the topic:

        Coming from an East Coast city that was very blue collar, I talk to old men from the old neighbourhoods formed from Catholic European immigrants (Italians, Poles, Irish, etc.) They had terms for mangina’s: cuckold, chump, and such men were looked down upon the hard men who set the tone of the enclave.

        They would not suffer a fool and they would not tolerate the little women from thinking they could run shit, these men had self-possession and self-respect, and they walked with balls of lead. These are the same men who fought back against the big companies that would use them as slave labour, even to the point of fighting the police and state militia in street combat.

        But today, men cower, they go to school and get a corporate job, to be considered an adult male today requires being a fucking chump, a sell-out, and to have the masculine ethos is considered being an immature jock. What a reversal.


      • TDOM

        I can buy that explanation.


      • Paul Elam

        Also let me add what I wanted to say before getting caught up in your meaning of “enslavement.”

        I thought this was a beautifully articulated piece of work. Dead on the money in so many ways.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      “destroy what you cannot have, destroy what you can never be.”

      Something my Granpa always pointed out was a very female trait. And that guys that do that are actling like women.

      • Kai

        That’s circular logic. If it’s something that both men and women do then it’s not gender specific.

  • Steve_85

    So, just out of curiosity, what is it that only men can know?

    • Codebuster

      If you have to ask…

      • Steve_85

        If you can’t explain it, do you really ‘know’?

        EDIT: OK, that’s not fair. Other people seem to ‘get it’. I’ll go read it again and see if I can figure it out.

        • Jeremiah

          He’s referring to what it means to be a man, to masculinity, knowing yourself, knowing the world around you, understanding your place in the world, understanding the ways that men and women are not the same, being self-sufficient.

          Watch the video of the gorillas. The male sits back while the women and children play with the guy’s hair. He doesn’t sit back because he’s not interested, he does it because he already knows what’s up. He’s probably slightly amused. And when he decides they’ve had enough fun toying around, he leaves and they follow.

        • TDOM

          Feminists are fond of excluding men from the “inner circle” of feminism on the basis that they are men and hold “patriarchal priviledge” and can never really understand what it is to be a woman, and therefore never truly be feminists.

          What they do not do is offer men the same consideration. Feminists (women, not male feminists) do not consider that they haven’t a clue as to what it means to be a man and think they understand men even when they have never experienced being one. This double standard helps form the basis for a lot of their misandry and female supremacy. They believe they can understand what it is to be a man, but men cannot understand what it is to be a woman.

          The feminist is half right. The reality is that men can never cully know what it is to be a woman and women can never fully know what it is to be a man. This should never be the basis for exclusion of anyone from any position or task, but it does form the basis for the differences between the masculine and the feminine. Exactly what those differences are is very difficult to pin down and feminists attempt to deny their existence except in those instances in which those differences provide advantage for feminists.


  • keyster

    Feminists resent female sexual power, because it minimizes them to less than fully realized humans. It’s also dependent on age and beauty; things they have limited control over.

    Men strive for sexual power through accomplishment and status. This striving has led to civilization as we know it.

    What they hate is that Bill Clinton can still be attractive to young women, whereas the more powerful (and older) Hillary becomes the LESS appealing she becomes, (except to matronly feminists of course).

    It’s not fair that women must be so dependent on physical beauty for power, while men are dependent on power to lure beautiful women. To feminists this is a social construct and hormones don’t matter. They want women judged on their own merits equally, as men would be judged (especially when they’re not feeling particularily sexy that day).

    I’d say go for it, but the infatuation with beauty and sex appeal (to attract males), that tweenage girls begin to develop, seems to lead them in other directions. In other words, hormones do much more than effect bodily changes. This is why puberty is such a struggle and emotional roller coaster for girls.

    They’re no longer androgynous beings, as full of wonderment as any boy. Something much more powerful starts taking over and they have no control over what its doing to them. When they were first learning to talk, express themselves, they were far ahead of boys. Puberty comes along and the boys start to excel past them, while they start to obsess over gossip, fashion and other frivolous pursuits. This extends into academic studies and life.

    Exceptions only serve to prove the rule.

    According to feminists patriarchal affect on our consciousness will take at least several more generations to sort itself out. Meanwhile we need to keep priming an imaginary pump with social engineering, propaganda and political correctness. Damn the hormones, full speed ahead.

    • Codebuster

      Keyster gets it.

      • keyster

        Thanks Code.
        This is why women just “are” and men must “become”.
        Women are trying to compete with men to “become”, (that are competing with other men for the power needed, to attract those very women).

        Mere sexual power is not enough for them anymore, they want to both just “be”, AND become. “Becoming” has become a saturated market. If you can exploit your sexual power to “become”, all the better.

        THIS is Grrrl Power!

        • TDOM

          “Feminists resent female sexual power, because it minimizes them to less than fully realized humans.”

          I would alter this slightly. Feminists resent female sexual power because they think it minimizes them to less than fully realized humans. it actually makes them the most fully realized humans as it gives them the power to decide who and what the next generation will become.

          The sexually powerful woman chooses who the powerful men are. A boy cannot get chosen simply by growing up. He must become what the sexually powerful woman desires him to be. This is not to say that there isn’t some reciprocal effect, but it is the woman who ultimately makes the selection.


        • Codebuster

          “This is why women just “are” and men must “become”.”

          This is a most important point of paradigmatic significance. Women “are” an expression of the cultural known, and men must “become” something greater than the cultural known. This is the most important aspect of cultural evolution.

  • Dannyboy

    The female imho wants to have at her beck and call all the shiny pretty things without having to put out the sweat to acquire it.
    Men will regularly swarm to please women be it for monetary gifts or for her honour.
    So what is the need for the femies to destroy all things dealing with maleness?
    What kind of social experiment is worth destroying a few thousand years worth of animal specie success?
    IMHO the answer is good enough is not enough for women in general.
    The couch works fine in front of the T.V. but that’s not good enough.
    The car runs fine and fires up on the first turn-over even in minus 20 weather, but that’s not good enough Its not shiny enough, its not new enough.
    The kitchen looks fine and works perfectly, but hey lets get it remodeled, again it wasn’t shiny enough or new enough.
    The engagement ring took you a year to save up for, but the diamond is not big enough, the base metal isn’t platinum, It didn’t cost as much as jane doe’s down the street.
    In a recent article I read from the local rag the last line was so very telling to me.

    “He has the man cave; I have the whole house,” Meredyth adds with a satisfied grin.–tim-s-man-cave-is-a-masculine-marvel

    So a house they both own and the hubby is driven off to a mancave and she has a satisfied grin over it.
    Again his stuff wasn’t good enough, wasn’t shiny enough.

    The quiet wisdom in that silver-back’s mind was the knowledge that greed leads to disaster. That going out and exploring is good but needs to be done carefully. Hence the gentle nudge to the little tike.

    • Codebuster

      “The quiet wisdom in that silver-back’s mind was the knowledge that greed leads to disaster. That going out and exploring is good but needs to be done carefully. Hence the gentle nudge to the little tike.”

      It’s probably a surprise to most of us to see this level of wisdom in a wild animal. It begs the question… what about the formidable males of other species, like elephants and lions? Elephants are matriarchies, but the male, expelled from the elephant tribe at an early age, is forced to contend with hazards about which the inner sanctum of the matriarchy has no idea.

    • Kai

      For a long time, I have been hesitant to get in to a committed relationship “that could turn in to something more”. It’s not the false allegations, manipulations or possible divorce that disturbs me.

      I’ve had a difficult life spending more than half of it dealing with severe mental illness. It’s been a long time coming but I’m finally coming around. I have a college degree in a technical field and I’m still young enough to make something of myself. After all this, I’m not about to let some woman come in to my life and commandeer my home, my lifestyle and dictate what type of couch we will have or what sort of dogs I’ll have in my life or whether I should neuter him or not. I couldn’t quite pin down the nature of my so-called “fear of commitment” until just recently. That article pretty much says it all. I lost control over my life in my in my early teens. I’m not about to relinquish it to someone else after all that.

  • Jeremiah

    As I’ve said before, feminists are and always have been women who were envious of men, and so desire to tear them down, and tear down masculinity. This tearing down of masculinity (feminism) has been the driving force behind the “progressive” movement, which has largely succeeded in feminizing men. This has made it trivial for the powers that be to rob us of our freedoms, as there are few men left who dare to stand up against them.

    I posted a comment titled “Socialism = feminism = fascism = female personality writ large, putting it all together” two days ago at Reddit that elaborates:

    It wasn’t well received. :)

    This is a particularly good article by Alcuin: “Feminism is woman’s personality writ large, put into political context.”

  • Dr. F

    Ta Code. I like the way you worked in the simian angle.

    In fact you have inspired me to behave more like the inner Gibbon in me. I figure if the femmsters paint me as a bony skulled, fur faced, long armed git with a mammoth hide cloak, then I am doing worse by behaving differently.

    I’m going against nature and what’s natural and that takes precious energy. For that matter I’m living a great lie.

    From this day forwards I am giving all polite ways and rules the finger.

    No more will I pay my way on the tram or cross only on a green light. I’ll hunt for my things by nicking stuff at the shops and mugging women with bags full of groceries.

    Maintenance bills, yeah right. I’ll make light with candles made from my ears and get water from council sprinklers.

    I urge all of my brothers to do the same.

    Put down your workaday tools that make bridges and fix electricity cables. Turn off your I.T. help desk computer and let the girlies troubleshoot their way outta that. Shut the door of your crane compartment and turn the key to “off” at the railways control booth. Walk away from half poured cement and leave those fallen trees on the roads.

    Join me. Pay homage to the inner Gibbon and let the feminists know the war is over.

    They won, and now we are all free.

    • Bombay

      LOL. Your ear/candle comment reminded me of the Mythbusters episode on that topic.

      • Dr. F

        Yuk !

      • Kai

        That’s pretty gross. I watched that while eating funyuns.

        Personally, I find dog ear wax much more palatable.

    • Codebuster

      hmmm… that wasn’t quite the interpretation that I had intended :)

      But I think you’re right, I think society would be better off if we all paid homage to our inner ape.

      • Dr. F

        I tell you Code that my inner ape is paying homage to it’s inner clown that’s listening to my inner child.

        Mate I swear it I am a fucking onion these days and I get weird stares from the green grocery.

        Life is confusing sometimes.

  • Dr. F

    OT and very good news.

    Does this get your attention?

    “Happy Ballentine’s Day from Daddy Justice: Ben Vonderheide Exposes Corruption of District Justice Kelly S. Ballentine that Results in 9 Felony Counts”

    That’s right chaps and chicks grab your remote control as I swear you’ll want to rewind this over and over.

    Justice Daddy slam dunked a happy one the size of a beach-ball with this victory.

    Congratz J.D. you must be wriggling about on the floor in rapture over this.

    Read it here –>

    • Codebuster

      Excellent news. It was only last night that I was thinking what DJ might be up to.

  • TPH

    What is interesting is that modern western women want to control men, but the very men they are sexually attracted to are in some way uncontrollable. This duality is simply women desiring a masculine mate, but only when they want him to be masculine.

    It doesn’t work that way. The bad boys get the good looking women because they exhibit masculine qualities and pose a challenge to the women to somehow control the man either by sex or other means. Very primal when you get down to it all.

    Men have innate knowledge passed down via their genetic codes, so do women. The innate knowledge is markedly different.

    A very basic example is how men tend to navigate to a specific point. In the 1950’s MIT did a study on how men and women navigate to a specific spot with out the aid of maps or compass.

    Men tended to get their bearings from the sun, from basic natural clues. This was attributed to the hunter/gather background we came from.

    After you kill a buffalo for the tribe, you’d better know where to drag it back to. Your tribe’s life depended on your good navigation abilities.

    Women on the other hand used trial and error and some basic natural clues, but in general they were more methodical, but less accurate because of the postulation that they spend their time with the tribe and had little need to become natural navigators.

    Men in tune with themselves are a very powerful force. That is exactly what drives women nuts. Men have natural abilities women can never learn or posses.

    So if they can’t have the innate abilities of men, they damn sure want to control who does.

    • Codebuster

      “Men have innate knowledge passed down via their genetic codes, so do women. The innate knowledge is markedly different.”

      Great observations, except for this crucial point. This idea that “it’s all in the genes” is the most damaging assumption of our era. Men learn to be independent agents of their own destiny through experience, and women learn to be provided-for babies through experience. It’s all related to how we make choices from our culture. Life is always an ongoing process that takes place throughout the universe. The idea that everything that we are is attributable to the hunter-gatherers of the Pleistocene era is nonesense. Get rid of this genocentric assumption, and all your observations still hold not only to be true, but also of far great consequence than is otherwise suggested. We need to urgently get rid of that ball-and-chain that is genocentrism.

      • Jeremiah

        I don’t see any easy to way to prove whether or not nature plays a part as well, but it seems faulty to me to assume that the sex that benefits most from acting selfish, women, would not specialize to be more selfish than men. Men have had a need to protect women in order to get sexual access to them and carry on their DNA though children that lived. Women who did not get others to provide for them and take care of them would very likely die if they got pregnant. Men who did not ensure that their progeny were taken care of would also be less likely to carry on their DNA. There are plenty of other innate differences between men and women; I see no reason that psychology would be any different. Aren’t there also physical differences between men and women’s brains? And you have hormones. Just seems silly to claim that nature has absolutely nothing to do with men’s and women’s psychological differences.

        • Codebuster

          Genes and DNA are important, but not in the way that most people generally assume. It’s not a case of nature or nurture, but nature and nurture as different aspects of one process. By taking this alternative view, other compelling insights make more sense… for example, the idea that “children first learn violence from their primary nurturer.” If we allow ourselves to remain stuck in the genocentric paradigm, then we’ll lose sight of other more powerful interpretations that make feminism appear even more ridiculous [if this is possible] than it currently appears to those of us who have already taken the red pill. In fact there seems to be a school of thought emerging that the way that genes and DNA work has more in common with quantum physics than with the IT interpretations of information and computers. If this turns out to be the case, then perhaps it would pay us to get in on the ground floor.

  • Ray

    Upon seeing the photo accompanying this article, my first reaction was, “Is that Plato’s cave?”
    “Plato lets Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato’s Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.”

    Various artistic interpretations of Plato’s cave:

  • gwallan

    Correction. Voting is not compulsory in Australia. Our High Court has determined that one is required to attend a polling place and have one’s name struck from the roll. Lodging an actual “vote” is not compulsory.

    I act as a scrutineer for the Labor party at state and federal elections. My recommendation for those who think all the politicians are bastards and don’t want to vote for them is to get their ballot paper and write anything they like on it. Or nothing at all. Folk, such as myself, who work for the parties will get to see it. It’s the most enjoyable part of the process for me. Some of the commentary is hilarious.

  • Codebuster

    Great comments from TDOM and TPH inspired me to write what has turned out to be a rather lengthy response. These observations strikes a chord with my own analysis. Men and women can never understand one another. But here’s the rub. Men are in a better position to understand women than the reverse, because men inhabit the dynamic unknown, whereas women inhabit the secure (cultural) known. Operating within the dynamic unknown requires an understanding both of the known AND the unknown. But operating in the known does NOT require an understanding of the unknown – it just requires a blind acceptance of cultural assumptions. Let me explain…

    Most every child, in their dependency, gets to know their mother more intimately than they can ever get to know their father, who is “out there” somewhere in that mysterious universe, earning a living to provide for them. Almost by definition, it is the mysterious unknown in men that is attractive to women, an unknown that women can never attain. It is the formidable in Man that is attractive to Woman. Whether it’s playing sports, taking risks, flying aircraft, building a house or whatever, men are operating in a decision-making environment, an unknown, that is constantly wiring up their brains. When women obtain freebies and promotions via affirmative action, they can appear to be capable of doing much of what men do, but they are operating in an environment devoid of the same extent of risks, responsibilities, and decision-making. Their pampered brains are not wiring up in the same way that men’s brain are, even though they seem to be doing the same kinds of things.

    It is almost by definition that women cannot know men. By contrast, men need to understand women at a far deeper level, in order to win them over and charm them. But men need to only remember their mothers to realize how girl-like women really are. Men do understand women better than women understand men, but the problem is that these days, they are projecting their own intelligence onto women, and confering upon women abilities that women just don’t have. Women fail to live up to these abilities, and men interpret their failure as some kind of womanly “mystery” that they don’t get. But there’s nothing to get. Women are just like our moms.

    It is the formidable in Man that attracts Woman, and it is the formidable in Man that spooks her, too. That’s why men need to work women out. Here we come to one of the most damaging aspects of the contemporary era of the sexual revolution. Women’s sexual power confers upon women the illusion of something mysterious that men have trouble wrapping their brains around. The various PUAs agonize and strategize about how to snare a gal, and so in all their strategizing and agonizing, they encourage this illusion that women are choosy and smart creatures that require working out. But the simple reality is that women are not that smart. They are not that choosy. There is not that much to work out, really. The simple reality is that it is only because women get removed from the market so easily that the shortage in women creates a demand from men that has men leaping through hoops and bending over backwards, trying to think of clever ways to woo all these smart, clever women. It’s all garbage. Women’s choices are amazingly arbitrary for no reason other than they are just like our mothers.

    In fact it is because women lack the same sort of intellectual smarts as men that men need to “work them out.” But the disappointing reality is that beyond some basics, there really is not that much to work out. Because women do not understand men, they train their rationalization hamster to infer things that bear little relation to reality. Women don’t get what all the fuss is about. They see everything from their own level. They see women competing with them, and so they up the ante to compete in kind, without understanding what’s going on. They put their rationalization hamster into overdrive, acting on impulses. Women are basically creatures of impulse and their logic is impulsive. And men are projecting onto this impulsiveness their own intelligence, and it is nothing of the sort. Consider feminism. Feminism is the very expression of women’s impulsive logic. Women think that work is a hobby, something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you. But men know that work is nothing of the sort. Work is survival, it is responsibility that is essential to feeding yourself and your family.

    Feminism itself would be concrete proof that women are inherently more stupid than men, were it not for the fact that feminism is comprised of both men and women and is driven as much by the agenda of white knights and manginas as it by the agenda of entitlement princesses who think that work is a hobby that men pursue for fun.

    There is only one kind of woman that can approach the intellectual potential of men, and that is the moral woman, the one who realizes what a sham feminism is, the one that realizes that choices have consequences, the one who realizes that being provided for has its reciprocal responsibilities and obligations. It’s a classic Catch-22… the more that a feminist woman tries to be like a man, the more ridiculous she becomes… being a man is an unattainable goal for a woman.

    Women are not astute decision-makers. Their first priority is to be provided for. Everything else is icing on the cake. They are creatures of culture, and if they inhabited a culture where Quasimodo was a hero, they would be choosing limping, grunting, hairy midgets with hunchbacks instead of the exciting bad-boys of contemporary feminist culture. There is nothing in women’s choices that should be regarded by men as intimidating or clever.

    • Jeremiah

      Very nice.

    • keyster

      This is information that men have known for centuries (the knowing). It was clearly understood. The Feminist Propaganda Machine in adademe and the mass media has done a very good job of shifting men’s perceptions the last 50 years. FIrst he wasn’t allowed to say certian things and now he doesn’t even dare THINK them.

      What your doing is RE-constructing what feminists deconstructed. There was a time feminists were laughed at and dismissed; it was then slowly absorbed into the collective conscience through indocrination, one generation at a time.

      While your theories would have seemed reasonable and rational pre-feminism to most people, they’re viewed as unbelievably hateful and outrageous today. Once they sucked the male half into the void, there was no turning back.

      There was nothing “mysterious” about women 50 years ago to a man. Today’s man has to guess whether she’s a man today or a woman, depending on her mood.

      • Kai

        I find that very interesting – how codebuster’s ideas expressed above would seem reasonable 50 years ago… I don’t dispute, I’m just trying to learn; By chance, do you have any sources you can recommend by which I can put my head in the minds of the general thinking of that time? I want to try to see in my mind what the general thinking of the population was before feminism changed it.

        • keyster

          Watch some of the old movies of the time. Greta Garbo, Rita Hayworth, Gary Cooper, James Cagney, John Wayne, etc and so on. Any movies made before 1960. Leftist dogma and feminist messaging didn’t start to infiltrate Hollywood until the mid-60’s into the early 70’s.

          Of course everything is dramatized, but the interaction between men and women, as its portrayed will seem completely foreign – – compared to the servile, weak, idiotic, needy men and whip-smart, sassy, tough, independent women as portrayed today.

          • Kai

            That’s great advice, I’ll check it out.

  • Jeremiah
  • michael steane

    Some of the Australian laws you describe as Draconian are not Draconian at all. You do not have to vote, you have to attend a polling station. The fine for not doing so is a mere $20 (maybe a little more now.) This las merely makes it clear to Australians that their right to vote is to valued. On balance, I regard it as a good thing.
    One day, I did a count of cyclists; a small majority were not wearing helmets. This is a stupid law because it dissuades people from cycling at all and police do not normally bring charges under it.
    In my opinion, you would be better not to cite these small issues as if they were the same as the apalling behaviour family courts.

    • Jeremiah

      Freedom or fascism, pick one. Yes, I down-voted you. It is not the government’s responsibility to force people to vote. In fact, it’d be much better if only the people who knew what the hell they’re talking about voted.

    • Dr. F


      I down voted you by mistake and I meant to upvote you.

  • Bombay

    The article raises may interesting points as well as the commentary. Some comments touch on this, but none say it outright. I think a significant aspect of “knowing” is being in control of oneself. How many times have you felt out of control of yourself? Zero? You may not be in control of your circumstance at any moment, but to have control over yourself is to have the potential to take control in general. The percentage of women feeling like they are in control of themselves is less IMO.

    I looked up this quote to use here and did not realize that it included being a man:

    “If you can keep your wits about you while all others are losing theirs, and blaming you. . . . The world will be yours and everything in it, what’s more, you’ll be a man, my son.”

    Rudyard Kipling

    It seems that someone beat me to the punch :) ……

  • Whitney

    So far as the Gorillas go, here is my take on the male’s instruction of the youngins and females as it pertains to the videographer. The male is the only one who ever has to fight an intruder. If you look a male gorilla in the eyes you have to fight him. Since the children and females do not have to fight for themselves they have no inhibitions to looking an intruder in the eye. The male knows that this is poor behaviour and removes them from in front of the intruder so as to mitigate his own risk. If they don’t look him in the eye, HE doesn’t have to fight.

    Also, when he is waiting for his clan (harem), he needs to make sure that A) his progeny survives the travel B) his females do not produce progeny while he is not present. It is a well known fact that gorillas have very small testicles because they don’t need to engage in sperm wars due to their control over the group. The biggest testicles belong to the bonobos as they live in large orgiastic societies (matriarchy).

    • Codebuster

      Most everybody knows that you do not gaze directly into the eyes of a wild animal… even a domesticated dog (unless you are its master). No surprises there. Irrespective of the gorilla’s motives and what inferences it draws, are you disputing that its actions are intelligent?

      “B) his females do not produce progeny while he is not present”… There is no animal anywhere that understands the relationship between sex, genes and inheritance. Beyond territorial and dominance concerns, there is no animal anywhere that gives a flying toss as to whether or not his genes make it into the next generation. Indeed, the idea that even the most intelligent non-human animal in the world can infer a relationship between sticking it in and what pops out months later is ridiculous.