I recently saw a question posted to an online forum, asking “If a woman chooses to be alone with one or more men – is she agreeing to be raped?” Pretty obviously this was a stupid question, and it was likely posted in an attempt to troll readers into responding out of emotion. The question, however, when considered in an inversion of context, bears some consideration.
Does a man, allowing a woman, or women, into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence? This is not a question of legal precedent, or of rights; it’s a practical question for practical men to consider. False accusations are rampant and go largely unpunished.
When considered against the ever mounting catalog of men’s lives destroyed by false rape accusation, the answer is obviously yes. A man freely associating with women is agreeing in advance to be personally destroyed by false accusation.
The fact that men generally continue to associate with women, and seek out female company indicates pretty strongly that most men haven’t yet realized the obvious. In a society of escalating false accusations and rapidly disappearing legal rights for men, such as legal presumption of innocence – men, by female association, give agreement to false accusation leveled against themselves.
This obviously informs a few imperatives for male behavior, with a focus on self preservation. In fact, it is a major factor in the growing phenomena of Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) along with other branches of male self actualization, including Zeta masculinity.
A fairly common attempt at dismissal of the men’s rights movement is the claim that men’s activism is purely reactionary, and constitutes a backlash against the nearly universal mainstreaming of feminism. This rebuttal, which attempts to dismiss men’s activism, is factually correct; but in being so completely misses the point. Thanks in large part to the successes of a half century of lobbying, activism, and feminist changes to domestic policy and law, male human beings are both legally and socially second class citizens in Western cultures. Establishing the veracity of this assertion has been the focus of hundreds of articles on this site, and thousands elsewhere – and re-iteration of the evidence would be a distraction in the present narrative.
It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that women enjoy legal privilege and protection that men do not. It is further a fact that women, by accusation alone, can and regularly do destroy men’s lives by leveling false accusations of sexual violence, for the most trivial of gains. When caught, such false accusers suffer almost no consequences and demonstrate almost no remorse or even recognition of damage done.
Recent changes to the legal definition of rape represent an escalation of the already omnipresent climate of false rape accusation. By drinking alcohol, a woman renders herself legally incapable of informed consent to a sexual encounter. This means that sex after a few drinks is, by definition, rape; whether a woman says yes, or even initiates sexual or romantic contact herself. This change in law comes after years of lobbying and activism by feminist organizations including the women’s law center in New York, and says a lot about women’s adult volition and self determinacy. After a few drinks, a woman is no longer a competent adult. In this re-definition, a man, by contrast, remains an adult. This is not the patriarchy telling women they’re lesser humans, this is feminism redefining the law to make it so. However, the most deadly consequence are to men, who might foolishly treat women as if they’re still self -determined adults after 2 or 3 drinks – and consequently find themselves feeding the machine of the sexual grievance industry.
This is the social and legal reality of male identity in the 21st century, and it informs some necessary choices men must face.
The most obvious is the previously mentioned MGTOW, men going their own way. This has been discussed in some detail in numerous articles on AVfM and off it. However, most discussions on the subject address it from a position of male philosophical and practical necessity. What’s not usually discussed are the direct effects for women, of men self actualizing apart from socially acceptable male utility and disposability.
In almost all discussion of men within the mainstream, the feminist – and unfortunately, even men’s rights circles, whether men are being vilified and belittled or not, the value of men is always based on utility. Are fathers necessary for children’s development? Are men responsible for the majority of scientific and technological advancement? Do men still do society’s dirty and dangerous work? The jobs which account for 93% of workplace deaths being male?
Do “good” men pay for child care, and “bad” men default on alimony? Do “real” men hasten to deliver women to the first seats on the lifeboats, whether the ship is called Titanic or the Costa Concordia?
Whether good or bad, all such questions revolve around a conception of men as utilities of greater or lesser value to women. There is no whisper of indication from any camp besides the men’s rights movement, that men and boys have value simply because they are human beings. This is recognition of a human value women enjoy without question, while men are either valued or despised based on a utilitarian consideration to women.
The point of this discussion is not to exhort women, or feminists, or men – including male feminists – to recognize innate human value in those with the biological fortune to own external genitalia.
This discussion is a public notice of what the requirement of male survival through MGTOW or Zeta masculinity means, when considered from the utilitarian view of male humanity. Does a man, allowing a woman, or women into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence?
Yes.
This means men choosing a rational path of self actualization which excludes their own convenient disposability; this path will produce some unfortunate outcomes for women.
MGTOW, or Zeta masculinity, encompasses more than just a few catch phrases and rules of thumb. It is informed by a necessary ethic running crossways to traditional thinking. To the slow witted or the self interested chivalrists and traditionalists, this will appear uncivilized and hostile. To the adopters and shapers of this ethic, the valuation of humans as disposable utilities has a similarly sour taste.
Zeta masculinity entails a consistent ethic, but that ethic aggressively discards any obligation to people who de-value male humanity. For Zeta males to do otherwise would be an embrace of slavery.
The ethic encompasses the following points:
The traditional cultural onus on men to protect women is gone.
This deal is off. This means the ability of a woman to cry out and instantly summon and direct the violent capacity of every man within hearing is finished. A woman is subject to assault, or robbery, or any other physical altercation in which men would traditionally always step in without hesitation to protect and shield her. A man is under no ethical, legal, moral or social obligation to value the life of a woman above himself, and in fact, a new ethic should condemn such stupid self sacrifice as unmanly, weak, and foolish. If a man’s humanity is not recognized beyond his utility, then what possible social contract can exist to compel him towards risk or sacrifice?
The onus to provide is similarly relegated to the waste bin. Shiny cars, expensive watches and clothes are all sexual signals. Although frequently denied, it is not a secret that the visible signs of high income in a man are of principal interest to women looking to secure access to that income. Indeed, social censure used by women against men commonly focuses on men’s imputed income or financial status. This is seen as normal, in fact, a man who doesn’t out earn a woman is effectively invisible to her in most cases. The “wage gap” will often be cited as a logical reason for men to finance romantic engagement, despite the fact that no such wage gap exists. Zeta males whose self identity doesn’t include this financial servitude will not be financially underwriting other adults simply because they own ovaries. This seems simple and inconsequential, given an understanding that not only is there no wage gap, due to persistent affirmative action, but female university graduates are also rapidly outnumbering male grads. Obviously, this means women’s average earning potential is quickly outpacing men’s earnings.
In the romantic context, women who expect the traditional male-pays social model to continue are faced with changes to social expectation forced directly by female favoring affirmative action. Even assuming men as a demographic were to foolishly continue supporting an exploitative view of men as women’s financiers; this is an increasingly untenable model, based on the shifting economic balance created by male targeted sexual discrimination in higher education. Piled on top of this is the emergence of the Zeta masculine ethic, in which male financing of female entitlement is entirely rejected. For women, this means that female evaluation of men as viable romantic partners – including evaluation of those men’s income presents a rapidly shrinking pool of men still foolish enough to allow their own continued exploitation.
Unfortunately, this has consequences far beyond destruction of female preference in romance. For growing numbers of men actualizing a Zeta ethical path, a refusal to pursue high stress, high status careers has a long term impact on larger society. As always, good men and the corpses of good men are the fuel nations run on. A collective refusal to burn in this machine forces changes to the landscape. In Japan there is a social phenomenon, independent of the western men’s rights movement, but analogous to Zeta masculinity, that has emerged under the publicly dismissive nomenclature “grass eating boys”.
According to reporting from macleans.ca: “Just as they {“…soushoku dansi—translated to “grass-eating boys” or, more commonly, “herbivores.”} disdain old-fashioned alpha males, they scoff at the status-conscious consumerism of their parents’ generation. Grass-eating boys aren’t big spenders and they don’t take flashy vacations. They are close to their mothers, prefer platonic relationships with female friends, are attentive to their appearance and have fewer career ambitions. A subsidiary of Dentsu, Japan’s largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 per cent of men in their 20s consider themselves grass-eaters.” [1]
A facile reading of this phenomenon might conclude that these are feminized men, but this would be to entirely miss the point. Japan’s grass eaters have evaluated the traditionally allowed male role of worker drone, and disposable human, and rejected it entirely to pursue their own quality of life.
The grass eaters are effectively tanking Japan’s economy, which, like all nation states, runs on the burned out corpses of “real men”.
For the practitioners of Zeta masculinity, as wider adoption of a MGTOW ethic produces a similar national derailment, and no regret or apology will be forthcoming. There might even be some derisive laughter. Men die in coal mines, logging, fishing in the Atlantic, and other dangerous jobs because their socially accepted male identity is tied to human disposability as well as a requirement of economic provision for others. The refusal to self-dispose is only half the result of non-disposable male identity through Zeta or MGTOW actualization. The second element is that those previously benefiting from men’s willingness to sacrifice and generate income will have to do without the financial and material products of the humanized remaining half of humanity.
This discussion began with social fallout of activist retooling of the concepts of justice and law in matters of sexual violence, and this merits further consideration. The phenomenon of escalating false rape accusation, and its lack of consequence for false accusers is only a fraction of the distortion of what’s still called the justice system. Direct violence by women against men is increasingly excused with little to no consequence by both the courts and the public. Public denial of this operates just as mainstream reporting accumulates stories like that of Sheona Keith, who slashed a man’s face with a glass because he smiled at her.
The dailymail.co.uk headline read: “Judge refuses to jail woman plumber who glassed nightclubber who smiled at her ‘because she had been sexually harassed [by somebody else] during training.’” [2]
This is simultaneously preposterous, and sadly typical of a public willingness to suspend both social and legal accountability for criminal violence committed by members of “the innocent sexTM”.
Women’s violence, up to and including the infliction of grievous bodily harm, is increasingly excused, and treated as if such violence and injury is funny. The sexual dismemberment inflicted by Katherine Becker providing another example. A studio audience who laughed at crippling injury inflicted for no reason except the expressed desire by the victim that he wanted a divorce.
A legal system and a public which excuses violent assault for one demographic when inflicted on the other denotes a deeply sick public zeitgeist. Rather than correcting such a debased public ethic, this fashion is escalating. For men and boys it is increasingly obvious that a legal system prohibiting assault, sexual assault, and even murder operates selectively based on the sex of the offender and the victim. We are rapidly moving towards a society where for women’s violence against men, there are no limits, no rules and no consequences.
Based on the apparent hilarity of the Katherine Becker case, where “the talk” host Sharon Osborne couldn’t stop giggling long enough to make it through a false one minute apology – there seems to be not even a perception that grievous injury done to men counts as harm at all.
All human societies have laws, whether formally encoded or informally observed through traditions. One of the principal functions of those laws is to provide a mechanism for redress of grievance between individuals in a publicly agreed-on framework. This convention allows disputes ranging from disagreement over property to personal offence, injury and death – without recourse to direct application of violence. Laws applied more-or-less evenly are a social mechanism which prevent resolution of disputes through retributive force, or vendetta. The current and increasing climate of one-sided accountability is untenable, and will likely produce a societal adjustment. If that adjustment occurs before the rising tide one one-sided non-accountability is corrected, the results may be far reaching and brutal.
In this event, it will likely not be individuals from the emerging Zeta demographic who manifest violent societal pathology, but sociologically unaware members of the public. Mass protests such as the Occupy Wall-Street movement are likely places for informal applications of retributive violence to occur; even as such violence will, by the ignorance of the mob, be directed at targets of convenience and circumstance.
As the phenomena of female violence being given a pass by a feminist driven legal system permeates the public understanding and subconscious, then retributive violence, even mob violence, against women is likely to become common. Our current feminist narrative maintains that it is common already, but a visit to any law enforcement statistics website shows this feminist lie for the fabricated falsehood it is. National and international campaigns to end violence against women, operating under the pretence that male-targeting violence is not more common, serve to demonize and de-legitimize the actual majority of the targets of violence: men and boys. These campaigns, by focusing on protection of the demographic already least victimized, also serve to escalate victimization of the demographic already most subject to violence, again, men and boys.
Men following a path of Zeta masculinity or MGTOW will have no part in this unfortunate outcome, of female targeted mob violence, although further legal marginalization of men is likely to follow that outcome. This further male legal marginalization will have no positive impact, and will likely lead to a still more brutal and violent society.
This returns us to the question mentioned near the opening of this discussion.
Does a man, allowing a woman, or women into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence?
Yes, and it’s going to get worse.
[1] http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/09/the-grass-eating-boys-of-japan/
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087404/Judge-refuses-jail-woman-plumber-glassed-nightclubber-smiled-sexually-harassed-training.html
158 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
quolls:
Jared White:
Codebuster:
napocapo69:
Rper1959:
It’s already at the stage where female violence is excused and even applauded. The list of double standards is getting bigger and bigger.
I asked Bev in a previous post “Which unreasonable woman” in regards to the standard of the unreasonable woman replacing the standard of the reasonable man.
This is happening. Everyone knows that a female, a minor especially……is harmed grievously by an authority figure abusing her sexually……..right. Of course….feminists froth at the mouth at this shit. Even 6yo old boys practically get hung, drawn and quartered just for receiving a kiss from a little girl. But what to do when both the victim, and the perp are female………as well as victims mum etc………which unreasonable woman do you listen too.
This answers that question……it’s happening all the time in Australia now…….names of female pedophiles covered up and surpressed…..and not even putting them on sex offender registers……along with favorable remarks from judges about how they are not threats to society…..out of character……suffered enough…..blah blah blah
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8413534/teacher-jailed-for-lesbian-sex-with-pupil
Women not only think they can do whatever they fucking well please here in Oz……they can.
I agree Stu. Just an update: Here VAWA just was voted as is to the Senate to be put to a full vote. We actually had some on our side wanting to make domestic violence funds accountable, stop funding of mandatory arrest policies, and make all educational materials accredited for accuracy. Of course the feminists and the democrats voted that down. They had a majority in the vote to leave it as is so it passed with no amendments. So our activism did work as all republicans voted for the amendments. That’s the good news.
Getting back to your comments- as mentioned in the article, the worst exhibit of how violence against men by women is celebrated and laughed at came at the hands of The Talk and Sharon Osbourne and company. The female audience also enjoyed laughing at the expense of the man whose penis was cut off and destroyed. None of the hosts were fired. What enraged me was seeing all the comments in online news articles. Almost all were women saying “you go girl”, “you’re our hero”, “he must have deserved it”, etc… She is up for life without parole. There is a Facebook page “Free Catherine Kieu Becker”. I looked it over and there seems to be friends of her son in there claiming they know more than what’s been said in the media and that they expect her to be exonerated. That remains to be seen. But knowing history, I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets away to some extent with doing the most horrific crime to a man ever reported that I can recall-short of murder. Anyway, here is some more evidence to back your claims: (Unfortunately they are becoming easier and easier to find)
http://www.news.com.au/national/woman-gets-no-jail-for-sex-abuse/story-e6frfkvr-1226171268758
This is a brand new video. Misandry at its finest. Think a male singer could have made this about his girlfriend?:
Holy crow. This link is on steroids. Sorry bout that. Please flag this video.
Already flagged as terroristic. It will not be pulled.
But be aware our Masculinists flagged a video and told the man so who said he would cut off a boy’s wanger for touching his daughter. He closed his account.
I tried to flag for hate speech. But the problem, you can promote killing of men. Men are not a protected group. One can promote hate and promote killing of men, of whites, of heterosexuals. None of these are a protected group. Sorry. Will try anyway but probably not success.
Per our Community Guidelines, we don’t permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a protected group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
FLAGGED: Hateful and abusive content – Promotes hatred or violence.
Thanks all for flagging. Not sure it will do any good. But doing nothing sure won’t change things.
Here’s a recent post on FB’s Free Catherine Kieu Becker: (4 likes) (Get vomit bags ready)
Free Catherine Kieu Becker
Women in society face many different challenges including discrimination in the form of sexism. On top of that, for many, life isn’t easy. We’re all built differently and maybe the stresses of life were too much for Ms. Becker. Who are any of you to judge who she is based on 1 incident of extremity. Men murder women everyday but yet when a woman strikes back, she is the public enemy. When a woman puts up with years of abuse and infidelity, she is a gold digger when she gets what she deserves in a divorce. She is a whore when she leaves and moves on. She is the scum of the earth when she’s had enough and takes away his pride and joy, as is the case here. How can any of you judge? If you have ever been unfaithful, abusive or promiscuous without care for the feelings of your partners, then you are no one to judge this woman.
@ Howard: You may be right. Flagging it might not do anything but at least we made our voices heard. There is quite a shitstorm over there right now.
I’ve also flagged it with Youtube as hateful.
Thank you Howard for alerting us to this piece of misandric garbage.
Here’s a direct link to that Catherine Kieu Becker-page on Facebook. Any MRA’s want to join in on the discussion over there?
It might not help much, as it looks like everybody not agreeing will be erased, but perhaps some serious sarcasm will go under the radar here.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Catherine-Kieu-Becker/190474051007423
Are you fucking serious?
Who the hell would create a page for that criminal.
I have an idea for that page’s creator, go visit Catherine Kieu Becker piss her off with some court documents, enjoy a little dinner and drugging and sacrifice your genitals to her.
Like holy fuck I am almost beyond words.
that facebook page must be cleaned regularly. there’s so very few negative posts, and the ones that are there are rebutted, sorta… oh well, for as long as it lasts, I’ll put my name and two cents up.
Just read an interesting stat on Instapundit’s blog: There are more deadbeat moms than dads!
57% of women ordered to pay child support actually pay it, to 68% of men.
But you don’t see that on the news, do ya?
Another tidbit on the same blog: The Japanese herbivores are shunned by Japanese girls, according to a longtime American expat who speaks Japanese and has lived there for over a decade. According to him and his Japanese friends, the 30-year rotten Japanese economy has left so many young men with junk jobs or no jobs that Japanese women won’t have them. Japanese women chase after providers, and the economy is not turning any out. Probably our future too if things don’t turn around.
JTO, another whopper of an article!
Is there actually a greater number, or just a greater percentage?
I just saw percentage. I should imagine there are far fewer women ordered to pay support, since they usually end up with the kids, anyway.
Still, it’s telling.
Percentage only.
Greater number means women would be made as fiscally accountable as are men per capita.
Interesting question, but are they ?
You know better. Two words that may not go together in the same sentence, nor even the same paragraph, are “responsible” …
And “woman”.
Great article John the Other. Being in Australia I realized that the game end of mgtow was not really going to work out too good. Ghosting is the only safe option in this country once this stuff comes in. I’m just pounding the stuff into my head and I’m already going off sex. Its not a pleasant thing to go through as Im sure many of the guys already know but its just insanity to play with the deck of cards we have been dealt. Ironically I see more and more women everyday complaining that men don’t like them or they can’t find boyfriends but they refuse to acknowledge whats right under their noses. I’m sure none of them would take the risk either is we could throw them in prison because we wanted a new playtoy or could gain fiscally from it. However of course they never manage to see whats under their noses (excusing those in the MRM of course)
Ah well were still not completely shackled down but I think its fantastic that you are pointing out the real dangers here. Those that think game will save them good luck to you.
As chivalry is a manifestation of the ethics of self-sacrifice, I don’t see how the concept of “self interested chivalrists” holds any water. Time to check your premises.
Self Interested Chivalrist makes perfect sense. There will always be in any oppressed group a collaborator. Some of these collaborators will rise to the top. They benefit from their subjugation of other men.
That’s what makes them self interested chivalrists.
Think Dr Phil….Joe Biden….most politicians….escpecially leftists…..most cops….most men in fact when ever they have a female audience to show off too. But it’s the career manginas that are the worst….worse than the worst feminists.
I had a feminist on another site commenting about my posts here many moons ago……she said……career feminists…..career manginas…what do you have to study to be one of those….like there is no such thing…..think she called me a retard too. The post directly underneath…..from a guy answering said……Women’s Studies.
Partly correct. Women’s Studies is definately geared towards making career feminists….no matter what line of work they are in. A career feminist….or mangina……is someone that uses chivalry……and or feminism…..as a platform to further their career……..or….uses their job as a platfrom to further feminism.
That is my definition of my invented term.
And they are everywhere.
I concur.
And from the looks of the general direction they’re hell bend on taking us all in, I wouldn’t be too surprised to find out that their true name is Legion.
I think the term is ‘lesion’, as in ‘brain’.
Then mangina-ism is a variant of Legionnaire’s disease?
I kinda like the term “quisling” myself.
Well, let me put it this way. What do you think the answer would be if you asked a former blue-piller whether he thinks his past behavior was really in his best interest?
People can pursue what they think are values which are in reality non-values. Look at drug addicts. Their “self” is certainly “interested” in drugs. But that behavior is actually destructive to their life.
The same with chivalric males. They live by a creed that, despite whatever rationalized benefits, is slowly asphyxiating them.
Whether they think it’s in their self-interest to keep taking the blue pill doesn’t change the reality that they are sacrificing the quality of their life and digging a deeper hole that needs to be climbed out of for each day that they continue living an illusion.
If SI is supposed to be a dig, what does that make MGTOW? Ethically, there are only 3 alternatives.
1. you sacrifice for others
2. collect the sacrifices other people make
3. reject making and collecting sacrificing altogether, i.e., self-interest.
Concrete manifestions of this might be:
1. Accept role as disposable male, whatever burden is foisted upon you, it’s yours to bear.
2. Fight for government funding and programs for men, at least until they equal those for women. i.e., enter a constant and never-ending special interest battle.
3. Maintain that special interest favours be made unlawful because in order for one individual or group to benefit, other individuals must be throttled without their consent.
End of society? End of the world? The condition they’re in now? Bring it on.
Just before the firestorm hits it, you will see this face laughing.
Oh yeah. Given all the problems that civilisation is facing, especially the ones that nobody is really aware of, bar a few whistleblowers, the chances of an all out collapse grows more likely every year. And it eventually will happen if society doesn’t change course in some major ways pretty quick. For a start, the consumer lifestyle must end…the world just can’t support it…..and it’s not just environment issues…..its the fact that we are depleting non renewable resourses way to fast…..and renewable resources faster then they can renew. Consumerism won’t die until feminism does…..that is for sure. We are butting up against limits in some resources right now…..oil is the big one……and don’t believe any of the crap about shale oil…….it doesn’t matter how big the tank is….it’s how much you can extract per day…….that is what counts….nothing else……that amount is going to start to decrease soon. But it’s heaps of other things……population…..pollution…..fresh water….arable land….top soil…..phosphate…..copper…..coal…..with coal….don’t listen to tonnes per year…..that isn’t what counts….it’s the energy obtained from that coal…..and that is going down….due to lower and lower grades of coal…..and more energy expended getting it. What else can happen when the pie is shrinking and population is growing….and nobody wants to use less……”than the lifestyle they have become accustomed too”……well……the fighting begins…that’s what…..you have to take someone elses piece of pie….but they have smaller pieces too….and it’s shrinking as well…..another war….and another.
On top of that…we have this rediculous thing going now where the half of the population that produces very little of any of the things required to keep things running….and consumes the most……are elevated to goddess status….while the producing half are used as milking cows and criminalized for breathing.
This is going to end so badly. And if it comes to that…like the chinese coming to take us over….ironically……I’ll be laughing. I don’t fear the chinese as much as I fear my own government…..or US troops on our land……I don’t even fear muslims as much….not even bat shit crazy fundamentalist ones…..at least with them I have the option of growing my beard….praying few times a day…..giving up the few other things….and getting on with my life…..they seem nowhere near as much of the threat to me as feminists……I might not even have to grow a beard lol
Of course, when the shit does hit the fan….and depression levels of suffering are the norm….with war thrown in to boot…..the feminists…and chivalrists…..will be doing all they can to prop up womens luxuries……while men sleep in the street and starve. And that will be their final big mistake. Even if men don’t revolt as in……Arab Spring……they will wake up…..and serve women no more. The party will be over for feminists.
I read recently that population projections for 2030 were 9 billion. I’ll bet my balls we don’t ever make 8 billion….it’s coming down around our ears before that.
Stu – I know of no country to even run to anymore. I do know this: Dreary and oppressive as, say, Saudi Arabia might be, it – nor Iran, nor N Korea, nor Cuba – are in as bad a situation as we “1st World” assholes – where far more than half the population has declared war, not only on a demographic making up 49% of the population; but also is waging war on civilization itself – and thinks itself cute and perky while doing it.
It took men 10,000 years to build the edifice of Civilization, that stands at a relatively safe height above the wilderness.
It took feminists and their academic, media and government buddies 40 years to tear it to pieces – and topple us back down into the default law of Mother Nature – the law of the jungle.
The hyenas and vultures watch as we run out of platform space.
OT but important – apologies to JTO.
Here’s a superb documentary from Al Jazeera (the only MSM worth following) on the rape of men. It’s a must watch. Seriously, it is a MUST watch.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbhrNgetKEw&w=560&h=315
Superb up to the point where a pointy headed ideologue declared that rape of men by other men in war-zones and prisons is something we should be concerned about because it was an expression of male dominance over other men ………taking the submissive female role.
At that point, eyeballs rolling, a large weight sank in my gut.
Geese I like this one JTO.
So there I was last night walking down the street to the local shops when I see this ridiculous looking skimpily dressed twit (Take back the night eh ?) with glitter on her legs. She’s just come out of the nightspot and has her thumb out trying to hook a lift.
Two nanoseconds later a car pulls over with a lone bloke at the wheel and she gets in and they drive off.
If I’d had this article in my hand I’d have chucked it through the open window and said, “Read it you silly bastard, read it.”
Well no, not really, but you know what I mean.
Can you imagine just for one tiny little microscopic moment ever walking into that Venus flytrap ?
Faark no way.
Well said. Neither a hitch-hiker nor a picker-upper-be.
Here is one for you Dr. F et al,
Edmonton cabbie sues passengers over false assault allegations
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2009/05/15/edmonton-cab-driver-lawsuit.html
“While Yasa filed the lawsuit last year, he said he is going public with his story now to make people aware of how vulnerable taxi drivers are while they are on the job.
None of the young women named in the lawsuit responded to attempts by CBC News to contact them on Thursday. On Friday, one of the lawyers for the women said his client would not be speaking to the media about the lawsuit.”
Thank you for this Danny,
The guy involved, Sonar Yasa is not done with these shits. On http://www.mens-rights.net the admin asked if he was still pursuing the case.
August 25, 2010,
“still waiting court date no way i will drop it even costing money for my own la[w]yer which i pay from my pocket”
If this poor guy didn’t have a video camera in his taxi he’d be done like a scorched dinner and he knows it as the news article says this:
“But he worries about what might have happened to his job and his marriage without that evidence.”
“What would she do?” Yasa said of his wife. “She would have probably told me, ‘There’s the door, and get out.’”
So blokes, carry a damned flip or Iphone on you at all times unless you want to be pooping doughnuts in prison.
Dr. F,
you got it. Although I don’t have a “hell” phone, audio recorder is always on me.
Cheers bro
Further,
“In revenge and in love woman is more barbaric than man is.”
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
All cabs over here have 2 or 3 cameras installed. We had an epidemic of women trying to get out of paying for the fare, by framing the cabdrivers with FRA’s.
All cases dismissed with a slap on the wrist, of course.
A woman tried to stitch a guy up at work a few years ago. The place is riddled with security cams, which showed that she was lying through her teeth about what happened, which was nothing in reality.
But the guy got instantly sent home….while they investigated the claims…..I don’t think they were even going to investigate, but the guy got the union batting for him…..seems to me they could have solved it in an hour………but he was home for two weeks. He was getting up every day and putting his work clothes on and pretending to go to work, to avoid telling his wife he was dismissed for sexual harassment.
It was proven that the woman was lying in the end……video evidence, so he got his job back and his wife never knew anything about it. The false accuser kept her job, no penalty for her…..except everyone in the place knew she had made up lies to get a guy fired. She got another job a few weeks later and left without notice. I heard from someone who knows her that she done exactly the same thing at a previous job.
Stu,
Feminists hate those damned Iphones and security cameras.
Hope we can keep on top of this to find out their names and post them on register-her. I also wonder about the loyalty of his wife. If he laments that his wife would have left him if he didn’t have the video camera in the car to prove his innocence. I think I would jettison her now before he gets any money from the lawsuit. If he gets any money. The gender pandering judiciary is alive and well in Canada. Shame on the Edmonton police as well for not filing charges. Soft on crime which is strange for a Conservative province but one of the reasons I suppose that city is Murder City Canada.
Scatmaster,
There is a lot more out there. here is one from the Winnipeg freepress:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/like-a-black-cloud-hanging-over-my-head-136363678.html
“IT was a nightmare that ruined his reputation, distanced him from his children and cost him thousands of dollars.
Years later, the former taxi driver has rebuilt his life outside Winnipeg with a new girlfriend and successful career, but he said being criminally charged for sexually assaulting a passenger in his cab had a devastating and life-altering effect.”
The one I was searching for I found on The False Rape Society blog.
“‘Chickens have come home to roost’: Some taxi drivers think twice about picking up young women because of false sex claims ”
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/chickens-have-come-home-to-roost-some.html
Thanks False Rape Society for that one.
The real issue is that becoming a zeta male is more and more an act of self preservation. I don’t like limiting my interactions with women, biological desire being a tough one to suppress, but lets face it until the ugly sisters are held accountable for their actions on all fronts, there is little else a guy can do to protect himself.
I still need to read your article JTO, I’ve been a little busy of late. I am sure it is a ripper like all your others.
I wish I saw this earlier.
There was a commentor suggesting there should be a registry for bitches like these.
Perfect plug opportunity for register-her.com. Imagine the traffic or even possibly a ballsy report following up these type of stories with a story about register-hers existence and the need for it since these women do not face criminal justice in any meaningful way.
Raven,
I particularly like the “chickens coming home to roost” one.
When women complain about cabbies not willing to pick up drunk women. I remind them hey your lying sisters caused this, maybe if they were held accountable for their false allegations this would not happen.
Too bad, the femmies and a “treat the poor widdle woman with kid gloves” injustice system created this problem and it is on their heads the blame will rest when a woman dies because of exposure or through the actions of a deranged individual.
I have decided to live my life by the following guidelines:
1. Since I have no reproductive rights, I will not put myself in a situation that might result in a woman getting pregnant. My semen is off limits. My body, my choice!
2. Since marriage has become a contract that women use to extort money and assets from men, I will not get married. Women initiate over 70% of divorces. Women get special treatment in divorces, while men get sucker-punched.
3. I have sworn off relationships with women. I will no longer date them or befriend them. Women expect everything of men in relationships, but they expect nothing of themselves. I have no interest in being a woman’s emotional tampon. I will not spend one more cent on a woman. I will have as little contact with them as possible. If for some reason I have to talk with a woman, I will NOT do it with a smile on my face.
4. No pussy passes will be distributed. If a woman yells at me, I will yell at her. If she lays her hands on me, I will partake in my right as a human being to defend myself. If manginas or white knights intervene, they will be shown no mercy. I am a human being, and I refuse to be treated as less than one because I am a man.
5. Instead of helping women, I will focus my efforts on self-actualization and helping other men. I will start putting my needs and wants first, for the first time in my life. The needs and wants of women are not even on my radar. I will educate my fellow men on men’s rights and the red pill world. If they should fall down, I will help them back up. There will be no more beating each other senseless for the benefit of women.
I will add to the current contract accordingly.
Signing that contract will not make any radical changes in my life as it is, so pass the pen, brother Robert.
Then give it to me.
I might change #4 a bit. If anyone, male or female, lays a hand on me, I will run away whenever possible & defend myself only if I must. I might even report that person to the cops for assault (for all the good it would do).
CC,
I kinda agree with you but I am pissed it comes down to “running” away.
I am a human and as such should be afford every damn right to protect myself.
Hear, hear Rob!
I especially like the part about putting your own needs first.
I personally am struggling with the mangina in me, but I am slowly beating him down…
“This means men choosing a rational path of self actualization which excludes their own convenient disposability; this path will produce some unfortunate outcomes for women.”
I don’t think it is possible for me to care any less about women than I already do. Great job, women! You just fucked yourselves, your daughters, and your granddaughters. If you think men like me are the minority, then you are wrong. Men like me are made every day. Look at how men of my generation (Y) view women compared to the men of Generation X, or even the Baby Boomers.
If the trend of viewing women in a negative way continues, due to feminism devouring society, how do you think men of the next generation will view women, and the generation that follows?
You should never have opened Pandora’s Box, but you couldn’t resist, could you?
I don’t think it is possible for me to care any less about women than I already do. Great job, women! You just fucked yourselves, your daughters, and your granddaughters. If you think men like me are the minority, then you are wrong. Men like me are made every day. Look at how men of my generation (Y) view women compared to the men of Generation X, or even the Baby Boomers.
The problem is that men like you (and me) are made after women have gotten their pound of flesh. Every male born is raised by a woman and a school system that will program him to be a good little white knight.
It’s only when he gets fucked in the ass by the system that he will develop the introspection to become men like us. By then he will likely be paying 20 years of child support and have already lost his home and kids.
Of course, men like us eventually die. Our words will be here for posterity but I’m not sure how we reach the young ones before the feminists program. Even if we could reach them I’m not sure how we counter their programming as well as overcome their biological urge to hump every female he can and in the process do anything to make that happen.
We are outgunned. Our best weapon then is not to retreat but to engage. To date and dump women who displease us and make sure they know exactly how reprehensible her attitudes are to us.
I’m 26 and I’m going my own way.
Interestingly enough, I found The Spearhead and AVfM through the MSM about a month or two ago. http://www.news.com.au lead to http://www.thepunch.com.au and comments on that site led me here. I’d say that anything we can do to get our point of view onto MSM sites will lead more people here. That has to be a good thing.
Welcome to the fight, brother!
And I agree entirely. Any MSM mention drives traffic our way. This is why we were all pretty happy when Tory Shepherd penned her lowbrow piece.
In my humble estimation, there are FUCKTONS of guys out there much like us, who simply haven’t found MRM sites yet. But… they WILL! With every idiotic example of hit-piece yellow journalism, more guys will see through the strawmen and follow the links to check it out for themselves.
Welcome Steve with the hash and number after it.
Mr Stark is right when he says there are a ton of blokes out there who if knew about this site would flock here.
Many of us have sad stories and great stories too. We don’t always agree but for the most part are civil and well articulated, very much so in fact.
We also have gals here and you just know from the get go that any bird that’s flown in here, and contributes, is a top shelf product. Fembos just do not like these women. In fact they despise them and anyone who is despised by a fembo is surely a friend of us you can bet on it.
As far as the gals are concerned, they have to be interesting and integral in the best ways by my reckoning as they’re filtered from the unending chaff that feminism has produced.
Read up on the masthead’s offerings and I’ll tell you this.
If you’re new to the blue/red pill concept then we’ll be with you as we all know, absolutely all of us know, that seeing the world as it really is behind the hoopla of magazine shows and greeting cards and posters and adverts and TV shows and docos and news bulletins etc is a shuddering experience.
We all survived intact smarter, focused and better for it in many many ways.
Welcome Steve.
Nice to have you among us.
Welcome aboard Steve. It gives me hope to see men in their 20′s joining the fight.
Thanks for the welcome guys. I’ve been lurking for about a month now, guess it’s time to step out from behind the curtain!
There are a few things I wanted to mention:
1. Take the analogy of a forest. Pretend that each article on this site is a tree within the ‘AVfM forest’. To someone who isn’t familiar with the issues, each of those articles (or trees) looks and sounds like nothing more than a conspiracy theory and is easily dismissed as such. This was my initial reaction to the MRM.
2. Using examples from my own life;
My mother refuses to even consider feminism may be bad. My grandmother is the same. One of my sisters doesn’t care and the other one is listening and beginning to see it. She had the same issue I did. My father can’t see it. His marriage is happy (30th aniversary this year) so he doesn’t see any of the issues. All of my male friends are quite happy going out on weekends, getting blotto and trying to sleep with anything vaguely female. My female friends (through university) jump instantly to the accusations of misogyny and shaming language that we see everywhere. The one thing that all of the above share?
They don’t WANT to see this problem, and until it bites them on the arse they WONT see this problem.
The red pill is quite possibly the most bitter thing I’ve ever experienced. I can understand why so many wouldn’t want to acknowledge these issues. I’ll finish with the following combination quote:
“Ignorance is bliss; but the Truth will set you free.”
“Ignorance is bliss; but the Truth will set you free.”
Yep. Right after it kicks the living shit out of you.
I meant to add as well, that although the ‘trees’ look like conspiracy theories, the forest scares the shit out of me.
@Paul, I believe that is part of the saying? Its still kicking almost a month in. Every time I see the television (I stopped watching it about 6 years ago, but I can’t completely avoid it) I can’t stop noticing the adds all have stupid men in them. I can’t help noticing every time a man gets hit (usually by a woman) its either shrugged off as deserved or laughed at. All the bad guys in the crime shows are men. It’s always a female victim.
@Steve:
Just wait. After a while you won’t be able to stand any media input without feeling nauseated. It’s discusting how often the news are obviously biased in their presentation. I just watched a clip from the things that are going on in Syria, and there were a lot of clips of guys being hammered to the ground by cops and the military. The journalist kept refering to them as ‘persons’, although it was quite obviously only men. It takes a woman in a blue bra before it becomes “real” violence, and the rest of the world starts to react.
First time I’ve watched any kind of TV for a very long time, and it will be an equal amount of time before I go there again. If ever.
BTW and OT:
I also noticed that Hillary Clinton is doing her war mongering song and dance routine again. Why doesn’t someone put that woman out on the frontline, before she sets the whole world on fire?
So much for women being inherited peaceful, and men always starting wars.
As it relates to the issue of rape hysteria:
It would be interesting to see a situation where a man refuses to have sex, or even socialize in close proximity, with a woman who has imbibed alcohol. Or if he has realized she has consumed alcohol, then excused himself to call the police to have the drunk girl (no longer an adult by legal and social definition) arrested for attempted (civilian) entrapment of the man and perhaps some form of pre-meditated negligence. Failing a revised definition of entrapment (wanting to call it en-tramp-ment so badly), I wonder if it would fall under some law where, regardless of knowledge, the person responsible for creating the situation they are in, could be held accountable as the potential criminal they are.
“Officer, I believe myself to be in a dangerous position. I am in the presence of an individual who has created a dangerous and, by FBI definition, potentially illegal situation who wants me to join in their conspiracy to violate our laws. I require your protection of my person and continued well-being.”
Outlandish? Ridiculous? Maybe but it’s the environment we live in.
Fantastic. Great comment. Treating drunk women like land mines. Avoid at all cost. But, you are right.
Of course, then almost no sex will ever happen because a large percentage of women drink to lose inhibitions.
They ratified the Social Contract.
Men were supposed to be perfectly fine with that, and those that were not will be scorned and not gifted with poohtang. That was the threat and it worked well for a about a generation or two. Now they’ve pushed an already tenuous situation too far.
1) They get my scholarships (Title IX).
2) They get my job or promotion (AA).
3) They get my tax dollars (VAWA, ObamaCare, SS).
4) They get half my assets and my kids (family law).
5) They can have me thrown in jail for a whimper.
The Deal is off, and by the time our social scientists and governments realize this, it’ll be too late. Every attempt at Social Engineering through history never contemplates the unintended consequences. It’s humans thinking they know better than God or Mother Nature.
A Utility for whom? To what end? What purpose does it serve the once altruistic young man? He gets nothing but goverment enforced gender egaltarianism that he’s told to live by and support (even though its biased against him), or else he’ll be shamed and cast out. So be it then.
All this “manning up” and “utility” and “sacrifice” was at her behest, for our MUTUAL benefit. As much as the “old guard” of SoCons keep thinking SHAME will be affective, and efforts like TGMP try to get us to embrace the situation (adapt to it), we’re not. It’s not our nature.
We’ve given the children the keys to the candy store and they’re stuffing themselves sick.
That is about as spot on and succinct an analysis as we’re going to see anywhere Keyster. Nice job!
Suitable for framing, Keyster.
Three points in response:
Although I think they are setting themselves up by being alone in the company of women, no man is actually consenting to being falsely accused any more than a lone woman in a group of men is asking to be raped. Stupidity does not equal consent.
Human beings are social creatures. We depend upon each other for our own survival and as a result, we form societies. Therefore, to some degree our value will be determined by our utility to those societies. That said, I do believe there are others ways to hold value not based on utility and that no individual holds more intrinsic value than another, especially not based on sex.
MGTOW and Zeta are temporary, self-protective strategies at best. They go against human nature and violate the natural male role of protector (while simultaneously upholding it). If the strategy is adopted by a high enough percentage of men, society will crumble. It is the non-violent equivalent of the revolutionary without the risk (the revolutionary would also destroy society but with the altruistic self-sacrifice for others). Once society is destroyed, it would be rebuilt, a new social order formed, and the need for MGTOW/Zeta would be gone. This cycle has repeated itself througout history although it has generally been the revolutionary as the catalyst for change.
The difference this time is that it is women who have become the oppressive power and MGTOW/Zeta is in many ways a natural response as they can be viewed as fullfilling their role of protector by abstaining from violence against women and sparking a non-violent revolution. If successful, the MGTOW/Zeta would still be valued for his utility, though it would have come without risk to self.
TDOM
In a broad-picture way, TDOM, you are right. We who forswear the mating dance will not reproduce; our DNA legacy ends in our pants, or it’s spilled on the teenage sheets of history.
That I leave the mating dance, means only that it ends for me. Others have already taken my place; the family genealogy will show me only as a bare twig. And even if I have not given myself in sacrifice to the utility to a woman and her children, I have contributed – contributed, mark the word – to my community and to Society.
I would prefer that Society not be totally shattered, but likely it will have to be rocked and shocked significantly to shift its course; enough, at least, for the feminazis to be smacked down and hauled away from the controls.
“And even if I have not given myself in sacrifice to the utility to a woman and her children, I have contributed – contributed, mark the word – to my community and to Society.”
This is a large part of my point. Everyone contributes (provides/protects) in one way or another. Everyone is judged by that contribution. In my exploration of “The Good Man” I alluded to this and will explore it in more depth in another article.
TDOM
You state “Everyone contributes (provides/protects) in one way or another.” Yet provides/protects is a male contrition, not an everyone contribution.
Bombay, if you haven’t already read my article “The Good Man” go here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-good-man/
Also read some of my responses to some of the comments. That’ll provide some of the background. I believe that provider/protector is a male biological imperative, but even women can perform this function, behaviorily speaking (technology is making this more and more possible). However, women have a different biological imperative (nurturer/caregiver). Technology is also making that function more possible for men too. But biologically the imperatives remain different and sex roles have developed around these differences. This is what differentiates masculine from feminine. The concepts are social constructs based on biological imperatives. But as one commenter pointed out, the provider/protector role can be defined in terms of nurturer/caregiver and vice versa. So everyone contributes, it’s the how and the why that are different.
That said, feministshave successfully freed women from their obligation to contribute according to their biological imperative and women are no longer obligated to society in any way. The result is a destructive force that contradicts their natural imperative. Men have allowed this because they believed they are actually helping women, but the reality is that it is destroying society. Men now have four paths they can follow. MGTOW/Zeta is a path that will allow society to crumble with little risk to himself. The revolutionary will act to bring about the fall of society by risking his own life. The Mangina/chivalrist will continue to assist women in destroying society believing he is protecting women and therefore fullfilling his role of provider/protector. The remainder will rise against feminism, not as revolutionaries, but in an attempt to prevent society from falling. The MGTOW/Zeta, the revolutionary, and this remaining unnamed portion would fit my definition of “The Good Man” because each, in his own way, is fullfilling his biological imperative of provider/protector by contributing to society either by preserving it or destroying and rebuilding it.
Now I think I’ve gotten off to a good start on a follow-up article.
TDOM
Well, I tried to post a reply, but it is caught in the spam filter. Perhaps Paul can help dig it out.
TDOM
While I respect and admire JTO I do approach women and MGTOW from a slightly different point of view.
I don’t GMOW because I fear divorce, false accusation, a cheating wife, or a child support payment. These are all risks that come with relationships. Some of them are unfair risks primarily experienced by men and some of them are shared risks.
The reason I don’t get married and generally avoid committed relationships is because I don’t really get anything out of them. Women still judge men by their utility and that’s fine so long as women offer something in return. The problem is that women don’t offer much in return.
For instance, anyone who has ever jumped out of a perfectly good airplane can tell you that it was one of the most exciting things they’ve ever done. It’s also one of the most risky. I’ve gone skydiving before and I loved it, but if there wasn’t that huge reward would I have ever done it in the first place? No!
On this website and others I’ve posed the question that every man should ask himself, “What obligations does a woman have towards a man that she can’t disregard on a whim?”
The answer is: None.
There are no obligations. Women’s lives are lives of choice but obligations even to their own offspring are completely optional.
Therefore, marriage for men is risk without reward, obligation and duty without reciprocal obligation and duty. It is a vow a man makes and a woman enjoys until she bores of him and then she gets the courts to make him continue his obligations while she moves on with her life complaining about how hard everything is only being able to spend a fraction of her ex-husband’s income.
That said, I don’t want to fall into the same trap that feminists have laid for themselves. All that fear mongering and working themselves up into a tizzy because they think there is a rapist around every corner.
By repeatedly making the claim that everything is men’s fault and only men can change things feminists have disempowered women and removed from them the tools needed to make better decisions for themselves.
I don’t want that to happen to us. I want us to learn to detect the warning signs of a bad woman and have the balls to tell her to her face.
Let me tell you friends, that disengaging from women is not only disempowering but counterproductive to our cause.
I recognize the risks, but instead of letting them deprive me of human relationships I think it is far wiser to let them inform my decisions about women. It is possible to gauge the character of a woman so as to ascertain the risk she might pose to you. Just like a person can learn to stop domestic violence by leaving their abuser, men can learn to detect vindictive, selfish, controlling, petty, and most importantly, feminist behavior in women.
And best of all, when we dump her for being a bigot we don’t have to lie and say, “It’s not you it’s me”. Instead, we can say that we are genuinely put off by the resentment and bigotry she bears towards men and don’t feel she is relationship material.
Dumping a woman because of her character flaws will do more to advance our cause in the long run than just never engaging in the first place.
And let me tell you something right now; it is one of the most satisfying and empowering things I’ve ever done. At first it’s as terrifying as skydiving but once you get started you get this sense of peace and rightness about the whole thing. Best of all you may just improve her for the next guy. Either way this is a tangible way to strike a blow for the MRM.
And believe me, life is a lot better when you can control your own destiny than when you simply walk away.
Jean,
Are you looking for a grav ? If you are then let me know, I have some I drew and if you like any of them you can take your pick.
Go on, click it for a hoot. —> mra.effdoff@gmail.com
“Let me tell you friends, that disengaging from women is not only disempowering but counterproductive to our cause.”
I understand your point, Gynophobia, some sort of gender separatist movement, is not realistic to expect on a grand scale.
Feminism really did a number on men’s heads the last 50 years. Some of us are old enough to remember the days before the Great Enmity was established. When men could say things like “ahh women, what can ya do!”, without a stern correction from the Thought Police. Roles were defined and enforced, a mutual understanding was had.
It was WOMEN that demanded men change, and it will be WOMEN that have to demand men change back, to being men. (TGMP is the antithesis of this notion.) Men will behave however women want them to. It’s the conditional stimulus of poohtang. Hormones will not be denied their due course.
I agree it’s very satisfying to dump a woman telling her her character is too anti male to stomach.
However I disagree that it’s necessarily dis-empowering to become MGHOW by just simply walking away from women. I’ve done it and certainly don’t feel that way at all. Besides which I think it rarely works out that way in reality. For from what I’ve seen many MGTOW make noise to friends, co-workers, relatives and acquaintances about WHY they’re sworn off women.
However even if they are much more discreet about it, inevitably someone’s curiosity is piqued enough to inquire why they don’t chase poontang, which gives them an opportunity to explain that in the current political climate hooking up with a woman is undesirable.
Such men tend to give off a distinct air of indifference towards women as well.
You can see in them a kind of quiet self confident detachment. They are self contained you might say. Ironically that’s enigmatic and so very attractive and puzzling to many women who are drawn to displays of male self confidence – genetic markers of good male provider material.
I think when enough men go Zeta, even if they do so discretely as seems to have happened in Japan with our ‘ grass eater’ brothers, a tipping point is going to arrive whereby more and more women start asking as some like Kate Hymenwits already has “Where have all the ‘good’ men gone?”.
That’s got to be a good thing IMO.
It means dialog can start because women’s expectations for being provided with attention and help/protection aren’t being met and that hurts.
Despite all the BS “I’m woman, I’m independent” nonsense we hear from time to time, without men women are HUGELY at a loss.
Dumping a woman because of her character flaws will do more to advance our cause in the long run than just never engaging in the first place.
And let me tell you something right now; it is one of the most satisfying and empowering things I’ve ever done. At first it’s as terrifying as skydiving but once you get started you get this sense of peace and rightness about the whole thing. Best of all you may just improve her for the next guy. Either way this is a tangible way to strike a blow for the MRM.
It’s certainly a pleasure being able to walk away with a minimum of drama. It’s even easier just being friends and not having a serious commitment. I’ve never thought that MGTOW or Zeta was strictly ghosting. I’m not so sure that getting dumped is a learning experience for many women, they’re always the victim.
“Just like a person can learn to stop domestic violence by leaving their abuser, men can learn to detect vindictive, selfish, controlling, petty, and most importantly, feminist behavior in women.”
If the risks were lower, I would agree with you. In these high stakes games you cannot afford to get it wrong. I know myself; I’m not a good enough judge of character to roll the dice. I’m way better off eating grass. You only get one shot when jumping out of an airplane.
Jean you say – “And believe me, life is a lot better when you can control your own destiny than when you simply walk away”.
I think to frame it that way sets up a false dichotomy.
I have another view.
I don’t think controlling your own destiny and simply walking away are mutually exclusive.
I think they can be one and the same. I choose to be a MGHOW (man going his own way) by avoiding close intimate contact with women AND I’m controlling my own destiny doing so.
“However, the most deadly consequence are to men, who might foolishly treat women as if they’re still self -determined adults after 2 or 3 drinks – and consequently find themselves feeding the machine of the sexual grievance industry.”
Hypothetical:
# A man and woman meet for drinks after work, and the man pays for them (hoping to become more than friends), but then she decides to go her own way, because she has things to do.
# The woman gets into her car, legally drunk, drives off, and kills some people in a car accident.
# The woman is criminally prosecuted and sued, as well as the bartender who served her the drinks.
Question:
Under these changing definitions of MALE and FEMALE accountability, can the man who bought her the drinks also be sued, along with the bartender, AND is the woman no longer responsible for her behavior in a situation like this? :-/
Note: Personally, I hope this is the beginning of the end of men paying for anything on dates. I’ll just call it, “The NO Femi-Freeloaders Manifesto.”
“Note: Personally, I hope this is the beginning of the end of men paying for anything on dates. I’ll just call it, “The NO Femi-Freeloaders Manifesto.”
”
NOW for some fem-ME-ist responses:
1. What a loser.
2. I bet he can’t even get a date.
3. How unromantic
4, Why do you hate your mother?
5. Your mother must have been really bad to you when you were little.
6. He’s a batterer too.
7. He’s a reactionary.
8. That’s just backlash to women becoming liberated.
9. He’s got vagina envy.
10. He should be ashamed for thinking that and I’m here to make sure he does. :-/
11. He’s just creepy. Just look at the above ten responses, see, proof !
10. He should be ashamed for thinking that and I’m here to make sure he does. :-/
This is the type of female thinking I encounter a lot. Not just feminists, but women, in general.
12. He must be gay.
Female thinking for the sole purpose of cornering a male. A hate agenda that attempts to pigeonhole us.
“10. He should feel ashamed for thinking that and I’m here to make sure he does. :-/”
# He still lives in his momma’s basement.
# He eats ice cream out of the container.
# His dog bathes more often than he does.
# He’s a misogynist.
# He’s a right wing extremist.
# He’s impotent.
# He’s still a virgin.
# He needs a microscope to find it.
…in other words, he’s viewed in the same way that feminists view every man.
# He eats ice cream out of the container.
As he should!
“# He still lives in his momma’s basement.”
…and he’s a member of the privileged Patriarchy.
“# He’s still a virgin. # He needs a microscope to find it.”
…and he’s a savage rapist.
“# He’s impotent.”
,,,and he’s a powerful oppressor of women.
#… He’s just bitter.
14. He has a wee wee the size of a champignon and nuts like a couple of coco-pops.
15. Your mother raised you better than that.
16. He can’t handle a strong woman. He wants a submissive woman he can abuse.
17. There must be something wrong with him???
18. He doesn’t like six cats crawling over him at the same time.
The direct approach LOL:
19. You are such an ass hole.
Ahhhh yessss! I love it, love it, love it when people confirm in their own words what I have been saying for years!
We’re heading into a vortex, spiralling into the thin end, and it gonna get mean.
And I mean mean.
And it is not just the social contract between men and women per se which is going south.
It is the entire social contract between anybody and anybody which is now in jeopardy.
Except where people form islands of sanity, and new rules of life swirl into place around them.
This zeta masculinity would be one example.
My own take on the social contract is here, in PDF:
http://www.4shared.com/document/FlctSAFM/_2__CFtheoryOfState.html?
Fidelbogen: Well thought out and articulated. I especially liked:
“But feminism … is running on sheer bluff, sheer baloney, brazen audacity, and the moral timidity of
far too many people.”
Repeat a lie often enough and it seems like the Truth. So a multi-decades-long systematic feminist Propaganda Machine has effectively turned “baloney” into their own sort of prime cuts.
You know, back in the 60′s or early 70′s there was all that talk about “The War of the Sexes.” Well, they (feminists) are waging one for real now while back then they were merely playing a word-game. I’m sure they’re all cool with having and gaining more and more of the legal/legislative upper hand over men but I tell you what, when their sewers back up, they can’t get their cars to run, and the occasional brownouts turn into frequent blackouts they’ll be waving white flags your way as fast as they can rip the 600-count Egyptian cotton sheets off their cold beds and tear them into flag-shapes.
When will the Zeta’s “Shrug?”
“What’s not usually discussed are the direct effects for women, of men self actualizing apart from socially acceptable male utility and disposability”
Who gives a shit I say.The only way most – 99.99% – of women will learn is when they become 50 year old cat women, no man, no kids and no parents.Talking GEN X, Y and Z here.
The passive societal holocast for modern women (NAWALT) will be fueled by their own attitude, bring it on I say.
Who gives a shit I say.The only way most – 99.99% – of women will learn is when they become 50 year old cat women, no man, no kids and no parents.Talking GEN X, Y and Z here.
At which point their loneliness and poverty will be blamed on men and the government will respond by reducing social security for men and giving it to women.
Men are getting the blame, and will no doubt in the future, that should not worry MGTOW’s as they are under the rader, best work for cash if you ask me – no tax.
The less men do the more power they have.Most men in western society are fools, they feed a rabid dog hoping it won’t bite!
when you say “who gives a shit” you’re overlooking my longer term goal with this article. Fast forward the calendar a few years and I have every intention of writing the part-2 follow up to this, which will be called :
The Zeta Reminder : I told you so!
Edit: although Fidelbogen may be justified in claiming that for himself already
-And there will be lots of rubbing hands together and smirky smiles.
Ya I suspect there will be quite a few I told you so articles, looking forward to it.When our detractors say no you did not we will just send then here!
Hook line and sinker!
O.T.
Lysander Spooner’s book Essay on the Trial by Jury is available for download here:
http://www.4shared.com/document/LH8atiE9/Spooner_EssayOnTrialByJury.html
OT: Hope in Hope Mills – McDonalds takes a stand against entitlement and the cops enforce it. This made my day. Enjoy!
HOPE MILLS, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina deputies say they used a stun gun on a woman who blocked a McDonalds drive-thru for 20 minutes after employees refused to serve her because she broke in line.
Authorities say 37-year-old Evangeline Lucca bypassed the order screen and the line at the restaurant in Hope Mills, about 60 miles south of Raleigh, and pulled directly up to the pick-up window Friday afternoon.
Cumberland County deputies say employees refused to take her order and told her to go to the back of the line. She refused to move, and police were called.
Authorities say Lucca was shocked after she blocked the line for 20 minutes. Her 3-year-old daughter was taken into protective custody.
Lucca was charged with second-degree trespass. A phone listing for her couldn’t be found.
Satisfying though this may be in the short term, it sets a dangerous precedent for everyone. What’s next, a police beating for having incorrect change?
I do see your point about exercise force. I don’t know I wasn’t there. All I know is what I posted. I can imagine from what I know about entitled princesses and white knight cops how it probably played out.
The princess cuts in front of other customers at the drive through because she is entitled; after all she is a princess. After the McDonalds workers call her on her inappropriate behavior it is too much for her stunted psyche to handle and she snaps. “What the FUCK do you mean I’m not SPECIAL?”
Once the cops come she is mentally out of control. A class 5 mental tantrum rages in her mind. “How dare the cops take the side of these low life McWorkers!”
The white knight cops show up with kid gloves on. They don’t want to have to hit a girl or anything. They give here chance after chance to calm down and walk away. But she won’t she’s going to teach these people a lesson. They will bow before her Worshipfulness. She calls them derogatory names and maybe even takes a swing at them before they move in.
Like I said, I wasn’t there. This is just how I invasion it playing out.
She should of called for pizza home delivery!
from p.53-55 of http://mises.org/books/anatomy_of_the_state.pdf (which is a very quick and worthwhile read):
“Just as the two basic and mutually exclusive interrelations between men are peaceful cooperation or coercive exploitation, production or predation, so the history of mankind, particularly its economic history,
may be considered as a contest between these two principles. On the one hand, there is creative productivity, peaceful exchange and cooperation; on the other, coercive dictation and predation over those social relations. Albert Jay Nock happily termed these contesting forces: “social power” and “State power.”41 Social power is man’s power over nature, his cooperative transformation of nature’s resources and insight into nature’s laws, for the benefit of all participating individuals. Social power is the power over nature, the living standards achieved by men in mutual exchange. State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production—a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers. While social power is over nature, State power is power over man.”
This from the final paragraph of von Mises powerful 55 page book:
“Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check. The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever. Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored, if the successful, final solution of the State question is ever to be attained.44″
AVfM (and the entire MRM) is clearly a phenomenon referred to in that books final footnote #44:
“44 Certainly, one indispensable ingredient of such a solution must be the sundering of the alliance of intellectual and State, through the creation of centers of intellectual inquiry and education, which will be independent of State power. Christopher Dawson notes that the great intellectual movements of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were achieved by
working outside of, and sometimes against, the entrenched universities. These academia of the new ideas were established by independent patrons.”
It seems that all systems of government lead to tyranny, including democracy, the tyranny of the majority.
I think the US constitution is probably one the greatest efforts ever deployed to guarantee people’s freedom and liberty, but look how it’s turned out. You now have a government that can arrest you, using the military…..hold you indefinitely, without trial, without lawyer, without even telling anybody, and can even ship you out to offshore prisons for torture. You have serious conversations between government officials, about what is torture and what is not. The police can kick your door in without knocking….burst in with automatic weapons at the ready…..on an anonymous accusation.
Men are taken away in handcuffs like they are dangerous criminals, all because their partner says she is afraid of them. Women are brutally and premeditatedly killing off partners, in their sleep even, then getting off on self-defense
The President can now order you assassinated.
There should be rights that nobody, no matter how large a majority, can vote away…….your life for one…….your right to what you earn, and own is another……and your freedom……that would form a bare minimum….but even that is not held up in today’s democracies.
One thing I think must be done, in order to protect liberty, is to restrict voting to those that have completed a relative course, and make it hard, and anyone that can’t be bothered doing it has no right complaining that they can’t vote. The other thing, is we must vigorously defend (in the US) the constitution. And that means we do not tolerate people advocating for the erosion of rights…anybody…..it’s treason…..and it should be punished severely. I would suggest 5 years jail for a first offense for individuals, and the death penalty for a first offense for government figures. They swear to uphold the constitution…..if they don’t mean it……tough luck. That would mean curtailing freedom of speech in regards to advocating laws that contravene the constitution…….yep……put it in the constitution….no person residing in the USA will make public announcements advocating systems of government, or laws, verbal or written, that contravene the constitution.
The only way you can protect any system, is to defend it against all others, and against corruption. Fuck all this all cultures are equal rubbish, if you set up a system of government, and make laws accordingly, you must deny access to any platform for debate on the core items. All laws must conform to the constitution, and there is no such thing as debate on anything that does not…..period.
But it’s probably too late now…..the constitution is just a historical document now that is ignored when passing laws…..I’ll bet half the morons in the senate, and congress don’t even know what’s in it. They would have to be able to recite it complete, and explain the significance of each sentence before they held office under my rules lol
Lets see, what else can I do to protect freedom and privacy and all that good stuff. Cameras, with audio, in everyone’s home, monitoring all private conversations, all cars to be fitting with the same. Special swat hit squads…..summary executions, I’d restore peoples rights, by the time I was through, tyranny would be dead dead dead in the US
Except that you would have become what you set out to destroy. Swapping one tyranny for another.
Your constitution is not the perfect document you make it out to be either, how many amendments are completely non-feminist? It was written by men, and so it is only as good as they could make it. Circumstances change.
Not all change is bad.
It’s not my constitution, I’m Australian.
I feel more like a lone wolf than a herbivore.
“False accusations are rampant and go largely unpunished.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with how you worded this. One thing that really ticks me off about feminism, is when they talk about rape like it something that happens to every girl, and every man is a potential rapist. Or how the patriarchy is a rape culture. It’s dishonest.
I do not think society is rampant with rape, or false rape accusations. They are both problems indeed. But I think you’re being too much of a feminist here, trying to make it sound like any man can be accused of false rape as soon as he steps out the door.
@MikeFromCanada
From Dictionary.com…
ramp·ant
[ram-puhnt]
adjective
1.
violent in action or spirit; raging; furious: a rampant leopard.
2.
growing luxuriantly, as weeds.
3.
in full sway; prevailing or unchecked: a rampant rumor.
Check, check and check. False rape accusations are all of these. The statement is appropriate.
As long as a woman has the potential to falsely accuse a man of rape according to her moods and get away with it, FRA’s are rampant by any definition of the term.
ramp·ant
[ram-puhnt]
adjective
1.
Of or pertaining to a ramp; a rampant slope
Jokes aside, I think anyone who knows anything about rape and false rape accusations would agree with Aphabeta Supe.
When you apply punishment based only on the accusation, then make the penalty for a false accusation trivial, is it any wonder that women are using it as a weapon, rather than as a legitimate defense?
Does a man, allowing a woman, or women into his presence – tacitly agree to be falsely accused of sexual violence?
Yes, and it’s going to get worse.
JtO: While it’s certainly true that “the contract is off” (not only between men & women but between men & Society), in regards to your above theme, I believe men erring on the side of caution past a certain point are plain erring: Society is caging us into a tight enuff corner without our helping them out in fostering fear in ourselves. I get what you’re trying to get at (huh?); but if things really started to bear out that it’s as bad as *that* – well, might as well have the game as well as the name, and see them all in Hell.
See this is the part where Feminists really start to sell women out to the bare bone: If and when they, feminazis, start a *real* heavy handed enforcement of laws that make the average husband a back alley rapist, and rape being punishable by 35 years – or castration, or slavery, or whatever other guantanamist torture they dream up next – then the *real* back alley rapist might as well just kill his prey, ja?
Oh, and who’s taking bets that inside a year “seduction” will be wearing the quote-epaulettes as much as “coercion” is now?
I notice that when I go out on karaoke night just to sing, have a good time, and enjoy other people sing, that I get questions as to why I’m there alone or whether or not I’m straight or gay. I have to laugh at it because I think to myself, “What’s the big deal? I’m here to enjoy myself and not get laid, like every other aspiring alpha-male or beta-male.”
I have to agree with JTO. If I allow a woman or women into my presence, I am putting myself at risk for being falsely accused of sexual violence.
It sucks, but it beats going to court or to jail.
I agree with JTO. The future looks very dark for men. We already have a sexual gulag for men who commit sexual offenses here in Washington state. That is, men convicted of rape, if it is thought that they will re-offend, are committed to Camino island for an indefinite length of time AFTER they have finished serving their court ordered prison terms . Nowadays those men are supposedly violent offenders but with the expanding definition of rape to outrageously broad terms, perpetual incarceration could also be broadened to include any man convicted of rape no matter how flimsy the charges may be. Abuse of such broad rape laws to punish men will very likely become rampant.
There of course is no such provision of punishment for women who commit such violent crimes, like genital mutilation of men. Women are even shielded from penalty by laws like BWDS and VAWA.
“Are fathers necessary for children’s development?”
Lets make it so. There’s a V -important poll being conducted in the UK which will determine the popularity of making legislation more father freindly- ie. will give fathers in the UK a better chance to remain in relationship with thier kids.
I recommend everyone respond to this poll, takes two seconds and the politicians will be watchin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/poll/2012/feb/06/fathers-access-rights-divorce-poll?fb=native
Please pass it on to everyone you know.
Done.
Done.
Also done. Posted a link on facebook as well.