As most readers know, advocacy of human rights for men creates a climate of continuous accusation. This demands rhetorical discipline in activists, now accustomed to exploitation by bad actors who deliberately twist their statements out of original context.
As targets of this persistent and often absurd torrent of accusation, and realizing the falsehood of the narrative, the ongoing imputation of malice begs explanation.
A recent HuffPo article by Eve Ensler suggests a possible explanation for innate male predatism. The Vagina Monologues author, in her rush to declare how over she was of her rape-culture fantasy, dropped the hint that she spent every day since the age of five obsessing on the topic.
I am over years and years of being over rape. And thinking about rape every day of my life since I was 5-years-old. [1]
When this is considered against Ensler’s play, in which a 13 year old character declares her own rape “good,” it becomes clear that the author’s concluding statement in her HuffPo piece reflects something other than the desired end to sexual violence.
The time is now. Prepare for the escalation.
Ensler appears earnest, but her rhetoric suggests a desire to indulge in large scale sexual victimization of the demographic she devotes so much time to heaping with accusation. In fact, Ensler and other advocates of her persistent-victim identification use the maintained narrative to enact violence by proxy against the sexual demographic supposedly responsible for all human harm.
Although the FBI recently redefined the legal definition of rape, criminal victimization statistics have consistently demonstrated that rape is the lowest-incidenced category of violent crime tracked by law enforcement. Thus the claim of “rape culture” decried by so many prominent feminists is not based is on real world data. Rather, it a projection of desire. Indeed, the feminist approved view, now normalized – that all harmful behavior is masculine – is also projection.
Further illustration is provided by the ongoing emergence of female supremacist online organizations cheerfully advocating systematic male-targeting infanticide and male-targeting eugenics. Pam O’Shaughnessy, the Simon and Schuster published author, advocates male targeting eugenics.[2] She is only one example of many.
While academically obvious – mainstream recognition of women’s capability for malevolence is obscured by the recitation of cultural myth. Specifically, the childish fantasy that women are uniquely good, nurturing or innately innocent. That this fantasy fails on cursory examination does not diminish the idea’s persistence.
Main stream media continues to promote and re-enforce the fantasy of male equivalence with evil using the sloppiest and most obtuse argument.
If women ran the world, there would be no war.
Even aside famously hawkish or corrupt politicians like Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Indira Ghandi, Imelda Macos, Winnie Mandela, this statement is complete nonsense. It is not merely false, it is one of the most hateful statements in continued use.
This idea trades on a wilful avoidance of the fact that now and throughout history, men’s and women’s motivations and means of acting in the world are different. The simplistic claim that most criminal offenders are male deliberately ignores this, and ignores how much male behavior is on behalf of, or manipulated by, women. This is not an attempt to re-attribute all male misbehaviour to women, but to point out the widely ignored but obvious fact that women’s misbehavior and violence is largely indirect, pursued through others.
Within domestic disputes, women’s use of chivalry-practicing men, as well as the use of state-funded enforcers, is not a secret. Setting aside the ethics of false claims of abuse or simply of fear, courts and police provide a mechanism of violence by proxy for women.
Outside of legal consideration, violence on behalf of women (or children) is the basis for the cultural construct of heroism. Within MRM writing, unaware men willing to absorb or provide violence based on chivalry are called white knights, and this term is not a compliment. These are men who have failed to recognize their own value as humans, but cling to the externally sourced valuation of themselves as “good men.” The literal translation of which is “disposable human.”
On a larger scale, western societies apply violence almost exclusively through the use of males, and on the behalf of females. This is demonstrated in the United States in the continued tradition of male-only requirement to registrater for military service. It’s also demonstrated by the practice of deploying female military personnel into low risk assignments.
Simple minded denouncers of masculine violence point to our culture’s choice in expending young men’s lives, while protecting women’s – and claim that soldiers using deadly force reflect those individual’s choices rather than their utilization by our culture’s collective will. So,the hateful, false claim of “If women ran the world there would be no war” is not only a direct lie, it also contains a number of other false assumptions.
Some ideological bigots skilled in the art of public relations are lionized for celebrating this increasingly obvious fact. Rather than seeking equality of rights and opportunity – such individuals approach masculine apartheid with triumphalism.[7]
But what about war? If the human beings who have to die on foreign battle-fields controlled the world, then, maybe there would be some substantial reduction of war. Likely substantially less war which serves no purpose but to secure the profits of corporations.
Pauline Nyiramasuhuko was the first woman convicted of genocide for her Role in the Rwandan Genocide. Although she was a high-level organizer as well as direct participant in the mass-murder and rape of over 800,000 people within 100 days, the international press focused on her appearance – that of “school teacher” or someone’s “dear great aunt.”
Underneath these remarks was an assumption that women are purer, weaker, more subservient than men and therefore less capable of committing the kind of atrocities for which she stands accused.
Those who view Nyiramasuhuko’s actions during the genocide as somehow inexplicable because of her gender ignore history and engage in the stereotypical thinking that perpetuates the special victimization of women.[8] “The case [is] that women’s innate peacefulness is as mythical as men’s violence”[9]
The traditional view of women in conflict has always been as passive victims. This myth trades on a conception of feminine identity as lacking volition or agency. As if to be a woman is to be a child. It is an item of cultural mythology routinely exploited by ideologues and other bad actors, and it’s persistence prevents rational approaches to ameliorate violence both at a personal level in civil societies as well as large scale violence within the frameworks of warfare.
Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’s role as a planner and and driver in the Rwandan genocide is often incorrectly characterized as an item adherent outlying data, at odds with normal feminine behavior, but this is rationalization, attempting to conform to the mythology of women’s innate benevolence.
Nicole Hogg, a former legal adviser for the International Committee of the Red Cross wrote in March 2010 :
“Many ‘ordinary’ women were involved in the genocide but, overall, committed significantly fewer acts of overt violence than men. Owing to the indirect nature of women’s crimes, combined with male ‘chivalry’, women may be under-represented among those pursued for genocide-related crimes, despite the broad conception of complicity…”[10]
The American historian Wendy Lower drew international attention by documenting how large numbers of ordinary German women willingly went out to the Nazi-occupied eastern territories as part of the war effort, participating in support of genocide.
“Thousands would be a conservative estimate,” Lower said, in an interview in Jerusalem in July of 2010 .
While most did not bloody their own hands, the acts of those who did seemed all the more perverse because they operated outside the concentration camp system, on their own initiative.”[11]
The common understanding of violence is that which is direct, but this a simplistic conception of it, ignoring the indirect use of violence and force. This is not limited to flashy and spectacular evil such as organizing of mass-murder or genocide in the context of warfare.
While it may be true that women are not as direct in their use of violence as men, a number of social customs provide mechanism for indirect use of violence by women. The accepted outsourcing of violence through chivalric men is not only common, it’s also formalized in the use of state-funded enforcers by women. A persistent ideology of violence and aggression as uniquely masculine qualities helps obscure this. In situations of domestic violence – a phenomenon known by researchers in this field to be reciprocal, and not sexually specific – almost all public messaging portrays a false, sexually directional picture. This is the persistent myth of evil men, abusing innocent women.
In fact, women enjoy the ability to instigate violence on their behalf by using conformist men who buy into the idea of their own human worth as a product of their utility in dispensing and absorbing violence on women’s behalf. Using the police as muscle, making false claims of abuse, or merely claiming to be “afraid” are mechanisms available to women for indirectly instigating violence against men. As many as 75% of protective orders against males are obtained without justification. [12] This is a court-enforced mechanism for women’s indirect use of violence in the form of court officers or police.
That a uniformed man enacts this on behalf of an initiator of violence by proxy does nothing to change the fact that although outsourced and indirect, this is still violence.
The reality of the use of false accusations of rape, sexual assault, or violent assault are point of contention among ideologues whose attachment to the mythology of innate feminine innocence disrupts useful address of this issue. Despite a climate of denial, law enforcement professionals report that false accusations comprise as much as 50% of such allegations.[13][14].
False claims of victimhood are also an effective mechanism for directing violence by the proxy of police and court officers against individuals without direct participation by an instigator.
The examination of differing models for enactment of violence, comparing the direct and the enactment of violence by proxy illustrates two points. One being a disposal of the myth of feminine nature as uniquely peaceful. The converse case, that women are innately violent is not implied here, rather – that human beings, without respect to sex are capable of malice and violence. If a false narrative of innocence is attached to one biological group, members of that group are exempt from the adult accountability. The personal responsibility necessary in adults for a functional society.
Every person is capable of aggression, physical and otherwise, but adult accountability without an idealized self-image is what allows non destructive participation in a community. The second item is recognizing the demonstrated tendency to use indirect, rather than direct use of force nicely accounts for our current climate of accusation by members of one demographic against the other. No phantom epidemic of unreported criminal victimization is necessary to make sense of widespread frivolous accusation.
In addition, cultural recognition of indirect violence – or the use of force by proxy – is necessary if we’re serious about reducing the ensuing human damage.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/over-it_b_1089013.html
[2] http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/
[3] http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/April/20080523105153WRybakcuH0.5036737.html
[4] http://she-conomy.com/report/facts-on-women/
[5] http://www.trendsight.com/content/view/40/204/
[6] http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/below-the-topline-womens-growing-economic-power/
[7] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/hanna-rosin-abusing-her-children-on-video/
[8] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1662710
[9] Jill Steans – Gender and International Relation http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745635811
[10] http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-877-hogg.pdf
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/world/europe/18holocaust.html
[12] http://www.dvmen.org/dv-16.htm
[13] http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/22/during-my-time-as-a-prosecutor-i-was-amazed-to-see-all-the-false-rape-allegations-that-were-made/
[14] http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm
125 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.
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
Kimski:
Another fine article by JTO. And to reinforce what JTO is saying, this was sent to my today by Ken from ShatteredMen.com
It’s another woman advocating psycho, sexual violence against males.
Katherine Heigel, “I Hate Balls.” Is she a candidate for registerher.com?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b63f436ac2/katherine-heigl-hates-balls?rel=player
or
http://tinyurl.com/ce69oon
Here’s written article about this.
http://933flz.mjmorningshow.com/go/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=204719&article=9462005
or
http://tinyurl.com/cbf6gum
Even if she deserves to be on there, someone with that kind of celebrity status would have her lawyers shut us down so fast it would make our heads spin. Especially with the satirical nature of her video. It’s not like the SCUM video we’ve seen recently where they are advocating murder without any comedic intent.
Part of me would love to see Ms. Heigl on registerher.com though. Can’t say I like her ever since she made those comments about her movie, “Knocked Up” where she said something along the lines of “Men are always the goofy, fun-loving ones and women are always portrayed as stuck-up, ball-busting shrews…” well what can I say but art imitates life.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many actresses will complain about the types of roles there are for women, yet they keep filling them with such a fucking smile on their face. Here’s a clue you stupid bitches: Band together and decide you’re all going to do something else for a living until the studios start offering the roles you’re looking for. They’ll never do it, because they like paychecks and the right to bitch a hell of a lot more than they do compelling, fulfilling roles.
her lawyers shut us down so fast it would make our heads spin.
Challenge accepted.
http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Katherine_Heigl_–_Bigot
How about a reverse parody on women’s ears or noses?
To be clear, I am certainly NOT calling for this kind of cruelty other than as a clearly framed parody which is intended show feminists how evil parodies of male mutilation or castration are. The face is the primary locus of female sexual power because it is the source of personality (most men have no interest in fucking plastic ‘dolls’ no matter how anatomically perfect) begins, just are the testicles are the primary locus of male sexual power because ‘balls’ are the source of male status. Thus, the equivalent female version of male castration is some sort of personality-related ‘castration’.
Hah! I like the cut of your jib JtO.
A certain mentally deficient boob has already taken notice of this latest addition to register-her, thus proving that he obsessively reads the comments here.
In the interest of fairness, I propose that the writers and producers be added as well, seeings how Ms. Heigl may be the puppet, she has masters in this, and their contribution I feel shouldn’t go ignored or unacknowledged.
JTO, ta for this.
It’s all about spin isn’t it ? You got dirty laundry, you just shove it right in here. Turn the knob and press this button and watch it spin around and around.
Now, you can bet anything worth its weight in salt that you’ll have something well looked after and mighty clean and sparkly and stuff.
We’ve only got one life, can’t change the world…
…better to take the path of least resistance on this one and tell whoppers on the way…. it’s easier.
We have lawyers, too. And nothing to lose by defending our right to free speech.
If anything it will get us some media exposure.
I’m more concerned about whoever wrote that misandric shit, because it sure as fuck wasn’t Ms. Heigl. Guarantee it. Still hate her for participating though, the fact of which only further proves just how accepted violence against men really is media and society in general. If she was any kind of human being, she would’ve thought twice about taking part in that bullshit.
Imagine say, Tom Leykis, doing a commercial for Vagisil where the basic premise/assumption is of the majority of women of not being very clean downstairs, therefore needing the expert advice of a man. No advocating of violence to be found, but you can bet your ass that wouldn’t stop the feminists from protesting outside the studio until the commercial got pulled.
Fucking hypocrites.
I hate wombs. You know, those disgusting pouches tucked up inside a woman’s pussy. Most women don’t even use them, at least not more than once or twice. When they do, their use is often unintentional and they often choose to have the by-product removed. Lack of use of the womb results in cramping, uncontrollable rage, violent outbursts, emotional lability, and bleeding. So really, what good are they and why would anyone want one?
We should remove them all. That’s right, just reach up inside and yank them out. It would resolve a lot of the world’s problems. But it’s not legal to do this with human women, at least not yet. So I advocate starting with animals, all kinds, especially bitches…
I wonder if there’s any interest in turning that into a PSA advocating the spaying of female pets?
TDOM
A few months after JtO began to direct his talents on the MRM, I set about hard and heavy to enlist his involvement with AVfM and AvfM Radio. It wasn’t just because he made funny and compelling videos on YouTube.
This article is another stellar addition to a rapidly growing body of literature, authored by “The Other,” that lays absolute waste to the entire body of feminist deceptions.
Devastating piece, John.
You know what I’m reminded of? Anybody know the 1963 hit “My Boyfriend’s Back” by The Angels? If you haven’t, listen to it, you’ll understand what I’m getting at.
It’s been the way of women since day one to get men to fight their battles for them, and we’ve been awfully accommodating the entire time. Although maybe not so much anymore eh?
If I ever got a hold of a time traveling device (preferably a flying DeLorean), I’d go back to ancient Greece or something and teach the men to give women an ultimatum: Learn how to defend yourselves and build civilizations so we’ll stand on equal ground, or make peace with your inherent cowardice and lack of ambition and let us do our jobs without bitching about some bullshit “oppression”.
Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
Yep, I’ve heard that song, all right. Long before “sexual harassment” became a household phrase, the behavior was sung about in “MBB,” which reached #1 with a bullet (no pun intended). And I too sometimes wish I could find myself a DeLorean & settle down in some long-gone era a la Dr. Emmett Brown.
If I wrote a similar song, from a guy’s point of view, where his girlfriend is going to kick some ass, everyone would be calling such a guy a wimp, a doormat, a pussy. Guaranteed.
Of course, they’d only be proving my point.
I also remember in the year 1997, when a band called Prodigy made their mark with their song “Smack My Bitch Up”, which got quite a bit of radio play before the feminists started throwing a fit over it. If you’ve never seen the video, you should check it, it’s fucking great. Make sure you find the uncensored version.
Fast forward almost ten years, and a friend of mine tells me about this song called “Before He Cheats”, by Carried Underwood, where she essentially advocates violence towards men (err, their trucks, specifically). Tons of airplay, no protests. Plenty of praise though. Lot of women called it “empowering”. Speaks volumes about their understanding of the word.
Rape and violence against women is a tool of war.
Death of young men is a tool of war.
If I had a choice…
But you don’t. No choices for you, MAN.
I’ve heard stories, saying that snipers and some other G.I’s. (men) were castrated when caught by the NVA, or Viet Cong – before being killed.
According to some historical accounts I’ve read of punishments used in Old England, castrations were used in the “hang/drawn/quartered” process. I’ve read accounts that Guy Fawkes, who tried to blow up Parliaiment, suffered that fate, and William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson in “Braveheart”), also – among others.
According to accounts I’ve read, the NAZI, Dr. Joseph Mengele performed castrations on Jewish concentration camp male victims (among many other atrocities to men and women).
In California, Gov. Gray Davis signed a document, apologizing for the eugenics sterilizations that California performed (many in the 1930s) on men and women with “hereditary defects.” http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-12/bay-area/17479995_1_eugenics-sterilization-davis-apology
I’ve read reliable articles stating, that a number of eugenicists in 1930s California were frequently corresponding with notable eugenicists in pre-WWII Germany.
It’s a very dangerous thing, IMO, to make jokes about such heinous behavior as castration, given how joking about it can anesthetize the senses of otherwise responsible people to the suffering involved in such barbarity. :-/
I’m interested in seeing Angelina Jolie’s forthcoming movie on the Bosnian War…how horrid the men are portrayed and what victims the women were. I believe this is the actual basis for the film.
“Death of young men is a tool of war.”
A friend sent me this interesting looking link to check out just last week.
http://www.gendercide.org/
I’m not sure of the accuracy of some things posted there, given the input from mass media, and other sources skewed by the PC juggernaut.
Jones reputation is sound. Read his piece Effacing the Male.
POWs are routinely raped.
Please read the essay “Effacing the Male”
http://adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm
[EDIT]
Looks like gwallan got to it first.
Good job!
Civilian males are also routinely raped in conflict situations: ‘Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations’ http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/CARPENTER_RecognizingGenderBasedViolenceAgainstCivilianMenBoysConflict.pdf
“Perhaps the most prevalent form of sexual violence against men and older
boys involves a combination of rape and sexual mutilation. The ritual castration
of male prisoners and enslavement of adolescent boys along with
women for sexual purposes has been a notable feature of warfare throughout
history (Ehrenreich, 1997). Such acts, along with the appropriation of
‘the enemy’s’ women, are a means of using both gender symbolism and
gendered violence to ‘feminize’ and thereby humiliate conquered men
(Lentin, 1997).
More recently, such crimes appear most likely to take place in detention
during times of armed conflict, alongside other forms of torture. The 1994
Final Report of the Commission of Experts, for example, documented
numerous cases of sexual assault against men during the war in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, primarily in detention camps, with such acts including castration,
circumcision or other forms of sexual mutilation; in many cases,
prisoners were forced to perform sexual acts on the guards or on other
prisoners, and there were reports that some prisoners were forced to bite off
the testicles of other prisoners. One incident involved prisoners being lined
up naked while Serb women from outside undressed in front of them; if any
prisoner had an erection, his penis was cut off; another ex-detainee told of
suffering electric shocks to the scrotum”
Harvard professor Steven (The Better Angels of our Nature) Pinker needs some serious schooling on rape, domestic violence and child/child sexual abuse. As a mainstream feminist pontificator on violence, he is even more dangerous than those lovely ladies who populate the Men’s Studies’ “freak show”. He believes that “we are all (unisex) feminists now”, that “rapists are men”, that rape victims are usually women (whereas male rape victims are in reality, likely to be 4x as common as female rape victims in the US) among other things. He also ignores the ways in which women ‘rape’ or cuckold males through female sexual aggression. You can contact him here: http://stevenpinker.com/contact_owner
See, this is the kind of buttoned-down, well cited and researched article that I could never hold my scatterbrain together long enough to write. And this should be the template all serious writers should use, complete with cites.
One thing I would like to mention though, is the rarity of actual titles and authors names being used when referencing…makes it hell to try and look up the article after a link gets broken… But that’s just a pet peeve.
Long and short of it though is that I agree 100% with Paul, in that JtO is creating a one man library of well backed articles.
It’s a valid point, and as circumstances would have it, I am working on protocols now for listing citations.
Then all I have to do is get the writers to cooperate.
That’s like herding cats. but I’m on board…
Steven Pinker does rape: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-amazing-news-about-rape-statistics/article2244041/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Opinions&utm_content=2244041 Someone needs to school him on rape though because, as a feminist, the only rape he believes IS rape is male-female rape.
Copycat cutter? :http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/12/05/police_calif_wife_tried_to_sever_husbands_penis/ The more we see this kind of direct sexual violence the more likely that proxy violence will be seen as well. Little by little the dark side of woman is becoming more visible.
Being in a college town as a barstool anthropologist (self professed, lol) I can confirm that nearly all violence among college men is instigated, at least in part, by some wasted sorority girl playing damsel in distress. I cannot think of a single violent incident in a bar in which a woman was not instrumental. Not even one time. EVER. In fact, most of the violence I have seen was either woman-on-man or woman-on-woman.
It is evolutionary. Female primates stirring up male competition is the reason men are bigger and more powerful than women. In fact, it is why men have better spatial reasoning abilities and Joe Biden has a hard-on for VAWA. If evolutionary psychology worked in the reverse of this, Hillary Clinton would have drafted a Violence Against Men Act by now, sending falsely accused women to prison and taking their homes for shouting at their husbands.
Most AVfM readers know this information but how is it that no-one else seems to understand this outide the red pill pharmacy, including that entire hill of dignitaries up north? Are they all evil and immoral? Or are they more mentally bankrupt than a bunch of bonobos on LSD? Which is it?!
Awesome article, by the way, JTO. It sent my blood pressure to the 400 over 300 range like most of your articles, lol. Thanks.
Despite not having been around at the time, I think we all can trust that it was the biggest, nastiest, scariest-looking caveman around that got the best-looking cave chicks to tend to his cave and have his children while he went off and beat any number of dangerous animals to death with his bare hands.
I don’t see any bar fights in real life, but that’s only because I don’t go to bars. Elsewhere though, a lot of the fighting I see involves a female instigator. The most common is the woman who’s stringing along two different dudes (as in fucking both of them, with their knowledge), fully aware of what’s likely to happen down the road: a fight.
I dare say that it’s the dream of just about any female out there to have two guys (literally) fight over her, at least once. It’s like it’s the ultimate turn-on, the ultimate sign of her being desirable, which is quite obviously the biggest preoccupation of the average woman’s mind. Too many of them place too much importance, too much of their self-worth on how easy it is for them to attract a mate, whether they’re actually looking for one or not, they must always be capable of exercising that power over men, and when it’s gone, they become bitter, loathsome, hateful individuals.
Side-effect of their inherent nature for thousands of years, really. Men have been more ambitious, while women have just kind of gone along for the ride, using their sexuality as a tool and a weapon whenever it suits them. Didn’t have to be that way, but they chose it.
You say, “securing the profits of corporations” so easily. Why is this wrong in every case?
For example, if a Western oil refinery is nationalized by some middle eastern country, the proper course of action is to Jimmy Carter-it and do nothing?
Who wins and who loses in such a context?
Anyway, that is just one example, but the point is that if I wasn’t already aware of the issues, there’s little in there that I can relate to and a lot that’s going over my head. And if I do know the issues, I haven’t learned very much. And if I am new to the issues but am active-minded, I may agree for the most part — but then run into sudden out-of-context libertarian assertions like the above, resulting in my support becoming tepid.
I am just not sure who this article is targeting, besides a mirror.
So MRA yet so left wing.
What is wrong with turning a profit? We complain about subsidizing gender feminism yet complain when a corporation actually profits. Which is it? Can we only keep our money if we’re poor?
One might equally ask the “who wins and who loses” question about things like expanding the workforce with feminist “liberation” and weakening the masculine role in society generally. Those damned “male bonding” tendencies can be very annoying for “the powers that be” at times, especially when coupled with the male tendency to resist domination.
I’m often inclined to think that the whole right-left divisive thing is much more useful to them than it is to any of us.
Is the state responsible for the dealings a corporation has with another country? In few cases yes, but by and large, no.
I would also be reluctant to volunteer my government to fight for a corporation. If they have the means to extract another country’s resources, then they surely have have the means to enforce their access to those resources.
For example, one of the Australian miners pillaged one of the islands around Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, but was forced off the island by the natives because the Corp. were apparently not conducting responsible operations.
Damn, yet another potent JTO article that speaks the unmuffled truth. Hell yes! The fact is that women are known to be more likely to hire a hitman to do their violence and yet even when caught don’t get the same sentence a murderer might expect, nor are they judged as harshly as a male spousal murderer.
This is actually one area where some researchers are supporting JTO’s claims. I would refer everyone to the work of Denise Hines and others who are exposing what they call “3rd Party Abuse” when the government takes over for the false accuser and lets her sit back and watch the brown shirts pummel him and drain his bank account.
And the false accusing little lady sits comfortably and watches his demise. Our country is filled with white knights who have the awareness of a bowling ball. FS.
Whoever can prove they are the biggest victim by the time I count to 10 wins!
It seems to me after reading many articles by MRAs that the main sticking points for “equality”, for lack of a better word, between the sexes is clarifying for the planet that men are, in fact, bigger victims than women and figuring out how to convince the world that women are more violent than men. Once the world can get it fixed in their heads that women suck more than men, everything should starts to be okay…
Spoken like a true Chivalrist.
You are missing the point. The articles here point to a huge dreamworld that almost everyone unquestionably believes and acts out on a daily basis. This delusion is that men are _fill in the blank_ (violent, greedy, power-hungry, arrogant etc) and should be held accountable to fix EVERYTHING and of course sacrifice for women in the process, including sacrificing their own lives if women need that. This delusion leaves us in a world where men are held accountable for just about every wrongdoing and are also held accountable to fix it. All the while, women are seen as Madonna’s and are not held accountable for jack or shit.
This is not a small problem and many of the articles here are describing a part of this problem. This leaves the writers open to absurd criticism such as your own. This is not a race of victimhood, this is the slow and painful revelation of the reality that sits beneath everyday life that reveals that our culture eats men like breakfast cereal. Get it?
That’s actually funny..-No, let me correct that; -that is actually hilarious, considering it is coming from the same person who has done nothing but presenting women as the eternal victims of the bad, bad men, from the second she walked in the door.
-And who has come up with one radical feminist idea on top of another and carefully handpicked every single thing she wanted to answer to, in the massive amount of debunking thrown at her, instead of looking at the overwhelming amount of examples proving her wrong.
Or has chosen to move on to another subject with stunning consistency, without giving any of the replies any more than a cursory look, and then dismissing them when they didn’t fit into the feminist point of view, she so obviously indulges in.
Let me again kindly try to explain this to you, td9red, as you seem to have a very, very hard time understanding this:
As opposed to the feminists, all we want is equality.
We have, as a gender, been at the receiving end of the female hatred and ridicule for more than 40 years now, without anyone but a very few saying a damned thing in return to the accusations of being more violent, to suck more, and everything else you women have been throwing at us.
We’ve only just really begun to point out that women suck too, that women are violent too, that women aren’t flawless in everything they do or say, -quite the contrary, -and you start whining about it after listening to it for 5 or 6 days??!!!
WTF??!
Excellent article as always, JtO. I could have used a lot af that data in my recent discussion with td9red, where she claimed that women didn’t start wars, before she dismissed the answers with a pop quiz, and moved on to the next line of feminist statements.
Just yesterday you wrote:
“The feminist fantasy of “male privilege””-thread, and then tell me who has gotten the far better deal in this, from most womens view, supposedly ‘unequal’ world we live in. The lack of equality is right, thou’..-Just the wrong gender.
You’re not interested in equality. On your planet, men run the world and rule over women b/c… Well, men support women, don’t they. So women really need to learn to let their men take the last seat while they stand up on the bus. Chivilry is done. “You carry the groceries into the house, Hun. I worked all day. And, though, you worked all day to Hun, you didn’t make as much money as me. Soo you really should carry the groceries….” P.S. “You can take some of the heavy things out of the bags and take them in one by one to make it easier for yourself”
Women threw every incentive to help them out of the window the minute they claimed they wanted equality, and had no need for men anymore. So if you want someone to carry your damned groceries into the house, you do it your fucking self. That’s what equality means, honey. Besides that, you’re absolutely right, chivalry is dead,-it was killed by women without giving it a second thought. So deal with it!
On the planet that I live on women rule, and they run over men at any given opportunity they get. Women are given every advantage they can possible get in jobs, in sports, in courts, in divorce, in education, in wars and every other fucking area you can come up with, while men are being treated like scum in all medias, getting fucked in courts and education, and by the majority of all women too. (-Absolutely NO pun intended!!)
And do we get just a bit of recognition for paying for all of this?
-No, we get another winding of the thumbscrews, another kick in the crotch, and a hell of a lot more whining about how hard it is to be a woman, while men are dying in the streets and on the battlefields.
And all the while getting our ears filled with the feminist rethorics of crimes men once did to women, -which is a fucking lie, -that we, the innocent bystanders on the timeline of history, have to pay for from the moment we we’re born and until we die. As if being on the same planet as you grrlz wasn’t punishment enough!
THAT is the world women have created in their pursuit of “equality”!
Well, why don’t you take your kind of “equality” and shove it up in the same place you can put chivalry, and crawl back to the primordial feminist ooze you came out of?!!
C’mon Kimski … tell us how you really feel!
Well said sir.
@Tim:
Paul doesn’t allow that kind of language in here.
I think it’s okay,-no need to get rude.
But chivalry isn’t dead, and it’s continued practice is why feminists and entitled princesses can go on and on demanding men carry them, and treating us like garbage. They couldn’t do shit if it weren’t for men standing up for them and enforcing their bigoted views.
@Stu:
I get where your coming from and I partially agree.
But those kind of morons doesn’t even register in my book.
The vast majority of them are beggars at a pussy banquet, nothing more..
Pride and selfrespect?
Non existing.
Kimski…Ooh baby give me one more chance….. To show you that I love you…. Won’t you please let me.. back in your heart…
When you say, “Women threw every incentive to help them out of the window the minute they claimed they wanted equality.” You’re really painting with a broad brush. While I would never expect a strange man to be chivilrist toward me. I do expect some help from my husband which I think is only appropriate in any relationship. (In fact, the only chivilry allowable is with respect to his wife. He had better not get himself killed or into any trouble b/c of some poor women needing help on the street). In most families today both the mom and the dad work outside the home. (Men are not paying for it all. Women share in the expense of living). If the man has the most education, clearly him taking on a heavier load with respect to employment outside of the home is the best thing for the family. Does everything between a man and a women have to be tit-for-tac.
As for recognition, for family recognizes your work and sacrifice. Is the only true recognition, to you, some positive dicussion of men in the media?
@td9red:
*Sigh…!!*
So what you’re basically saying is, that men should come to the rescue of for example a woman being raped, but just not your husband/son/brother/father? Don’t you think most women comes to that conclusion, when it comes to placing their loved one in danger? -Let’s pretend that they do, okay? -Who is it exactly you want to help the women in distress, then, since it’s not your husband/brother and so forth??
-The average Joe on the street has a wife/mother/sister too, you know. If women want equal rights, why do you see so very few women come to the aid of their fellow sisters, when there’s violence involved, rather than counting on men putting their life at risk??
In my country women receives 2,4M from the state during their lifespan. This is additional money received besides alimony, child support, pension and so on. A man pays 830.000 to the state during his lifetime and receives close to nothing in return, -actually he also pays for the alimony, child support, and so on. So who makes the most money or have the better education, or if both makes an equal amount, has no bearing on the end result. Women have a headstart of 1.570.000 before the game even begins. Just for being born a woman. It’s called “equality”, you know..??
Don’t you find it somewhat hypocritical that women want the best of both worlds, but none of the responsibility, accountability, or negatives that go along with being “equal”?
Try walking a mile in a man’s shoes, and you will be able to answer that last question yourself. But be warned..-Unless you’re totally oblivious to the surrounding world, you’re definitely not going to like it.
Men will ALWAYS rule over women (overtly anyway) as long as men do the dying and killing for women. Get over it already. Women are simply not made for real leadership in the world as you have amply shown time after time with your ‘leadership’ here.
“Chivilry is done. “You carry the groceries into the house, Hun. I worked all day. And, though, you worked all day to Hun, you didn’t make as much money as me. Soo you really should carry the groceries….” P.S. “You can take some of the heavy things out of the bags and take them in one by one to make it easier for yourself””
Your gross ignorance is showing again. You need to do some reading beyond those bigoted (misandrist) women’s studies tomes.
http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
http://tinyurl.com/7neaz53
You really stepped in it, comparing the work women do to that men do. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/patriarchy/MenTakeHome23-Cents-AnHourMoreThanW.jpg Gender feminists want “comparable worth” (commie worth), wanting equal pay for the lesser amount and lesser foot pounds of work women do, because quite simply, the vast majority of women DON’T perform as well on the level, work “playing field” alongside men.
No woman ever worked harder than my mom, but back on the farm even she left the really hard work to my dad. Mom would occasionally milk a cow or two, but she just didn’t have the hand strength dad had so she “OPTED OUT.” Yea, women sure use that one a lot, when they don’t like something, or some job.
The only persons I’ve ever seen picking and choosing their work back on the farm were the females. The persons doing the vast majority of the whining about work were the females – then the men would do it for them – - – just like today. It’s not hard to see how the misandrist workplace situations we have today have come about, considering all the pampering and privilege whining women have demanded and been extended over the centuries. Men should have spoken up about the work inequities between the sexes a long time ago, IMO.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/patriarchy/WhenHubbyDoesHousework1.jpg
Your mom did the work that she was best able to do. Men simply are stronger than women and can do harder and heavier work. Do you feel that your mom was not doing her part b/c she didn’t do as much farm work as your dad? I bet appart from farm work, she did a lot of other chore which maybe your father didn’t help with.
td9red wrote: “So women really need to learn to let their men take the last seat while they stand up on the bus. Chivilry is done.”
You are right to note that chivalry is the problem. At it’s core chivalry is nothing more than the manufacture of narcissistic food- a program of supplying for and thus enabling female narcissism. The unsustainable outcome of this enabling is feminism -or feminarcissism as some have called it.
In order to kill off feminism it needs to be starved of supplies, the main supply being chivalry. You could liken this process to withholding of steroids from an over-muscled and violent body-builder, or withholding sugar and fat from the diet of an obese woman thus allowing them to return to normal proportions.
So the aim is not (as you sarcastically proposed) to make women stand up on the bus so men can sit down -which would do nothing more than reverse the gender roles and make men into the narcissists. The idea is to completely do away with malignant narcissism from the realm of human relations.
I can’t even talk about this it is so stupid. Hey sugartits, chivalry is your turn for the next 40,000 years. What the fuck are you bitching about? Gooooo eeempowerment! Now get the damn groceries, and the door while your at it. I’m a prince, and I won’t settle.
“Do you feel that your mom was not doing her part b/c she didn’t do as much farm work as your dad?”
“I bet appart from farm work, she did a lot of other chore which maybe your father didn’t help with.”
#1 No, she was just not able to perform as much foot pounds of total work, or as much heavy lifting – or heavy gripping. She still worked harder than a hundred gender feminists sitting at a conference table, running their ignorant mouths about a mythical gender wage gap.
#2 Yep: cooking, house cleaning, beheading and dressing out chickens for family meals, doing the family laundry, raising garden, canning and/or freezing thousands of gallons of fruit and vegetables, gathering eggs from the chickens, sewing clothes, baking bread, driving a tractor and disk over plowed ground (occasionally), raising baby chickens, etc. She had horrible arthritis in her hands in her old age.
Now then, what were daddy and the boys doing with far less complaining – most of the time? Here’s one photo from the 1930s, actually taken on the family farm – just to give you a little idea of “some” of the work of horses and mules, eh men, eh horses and mules, eh what’s the difference? http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/patriarchy/PrivilegedPatriarchsOrBeastsOfBurde.jpg
My father was a very kind and gentle man, but his hands were rough as sand paper from the brutally hard work he performed (without complaint – most of the time) everyday.
“Do you (td9red) promise to tell the truth – THE WHOLE TRUTH – and nothing but the truth so help you God?”
Apparently not!
In America many gender feminists have answered “yes” to that question in a court of law, but there yes has been nothing more than the drivel of an addled mind.
Dedication to the half truths and lies of gender feminism, is a cycle of dishonesty that only leads to more dishonesty and denial of THE WHOLE TRUTH, and is likewise clear in your imperceptive and snide comment about a competition for victimhood.
Go back and read the title of this website. It’s called “A Voice for Men.” In very simple terms, that’s the part of THE WHOLE TRUTH that’s been missing from the equation. I find it FULFILLING to come here and find the rest of THE WHOLE TRUTH, that gender feminists, the lame stream media and the rest of the PC crowd (educational system, legal system, entertainment system, etc.) deny and lie about. Clearly, you do not.
“It seems to me….blah, blah, blah…yak, yak…mutter, mutter, mutter.”
Look, I am going to put this simply to you. If you oppose the views here, fine. Make your case by addressing the information and points presented in the article.
Most of us here really want you to do that. We pride ourselves on the notion that our ideas will hold up to honest and highly rigorous scrutiny.
For instance, in this piece JtO challenges the universal assumptions that men are innately violent and women are innately peaceful, citing his evidence that 1. Those assumptions exist, 2. That they are erroneous, and 3, that all this results in injustices like the use of state sanctioned violence against half the population.
Rather than even attempting to tackle any of this what you are doing is nothing more than trolling with shame bait. You are just assigning what you think the “motive” is for these articles (essentially calling us whiners) and acting like that makes your case.
It doesn’t and it won’t be tolerated here any more.
If you have a point to make, fucking make it. We love intellectual challenges. But if you post here again in this manner, like you are sitting on a throne looking down on all of us, exempt from the expectation to offer respectful and cogent dissent, then I will put your IP in the shitcan where it belongs.
Your choice. Make an argument or make tracks.
Understood.
that is the smartest thing you have said since you got here. Oh my your post has been upmodded imagine that.
MRAs don’t want victim status, we want the privileges of the princesses removed now that they are equal. We don’t want the privileges to exist let alone for ourselves.
td9red is a waste of time guys. She comes to a mens rights site and peddles feminism and complains because us guys have one little space where our voices are heard……she has the entire msm, courts, schools…..and every other social platform for the feminist views to be broadcast from…but we can’t fund our own little piece of cyber space without having to make it about women also.
Ignore her.
Agreed! She/he is becoming a distraction. It is time for her/him to go.
Does td9red not even count as a useful idiot?
Think of the possibilities…
Clearly, she easily demontrates all of our points for us, the moment she begins to type and any critical thinker can pretty quickly surmise, from nearly all of her blatherings, what feminazism is really all about. (And yes she is a typical feminazi)
td9red, while a nuisance and a boor, is actually an excellent self evident specimen of what hateful bigotry and foolish, self-destructive, feel-good ideologies do to one who has embraced these types of thinking with any and all of the critical or independent reasoning that is required to partake of the sacred blue kool-aid, as seen on T.V.
This useful idiot desperately wants her va-goo-goo to contiunally feel good about clinging to her insane, hateful, bigoted beliefs, even though they are constantly challenged and debunked, nearly everywhere she turns lately, (i.e.outside the “ladies” room, or wimmins studies class) and if keeping her va-goo-goo feeling good & happy means changing the subject whenever it suits her (i.e. whenever she is caught in an obvious lie, aka: spewing feminazi agitprop… again), insulting those who disagree, strawmanning and ad hominem attack or simply playing her whinny violin of vyktymhoodism till the opposition shuts up, then that’s just peachy with her.
We could call her: specimen A or my personal favorite: “If it makes you (your vagina) feel good, DO IT!”
Is this td9red not a prime piece of evidence, in support of our case against feminazism?
Yeah, but I’m tired of her lies, evasions and flat-out ignoring contrary evidence.
Every fucking femi-bitch follows the same pattern:
1) semi-reasonable comments, which get challenged
then
2) less reasonable comments including flat-out lies
then
3) shaming language and ignoring facts
then
4) fucks off back to femi-sphere
Can’t we just send her to 4? She’s a waste of time.
At least couldn’t we set her posts to -14 as soon as she makes them? One negative view an they’re hidden.
She’s just another deluded fucking bitch with nothing to back her story (it’s not even a valid point of view, as facts prove)
Maybe give her an avatar that says “WARNING I am a feminist troll” and has an approptiate graphic. lol
What? A Dworkin piccie?
Banning her seems less cruel, but I guess we could do as you say…
She’s all bark no bite anyway. Because she prefers standard feminist circle-jerk double speak to genuine dialogue there is no reason to respect her as a reasonable person much less as an ‘equal’ person. Gotta give her credit though she is pretty good as a spoiler, as someone who pulls chains, and as someone who hopes to drive men mad which is the predominant preoccupation of gender feminists.
She slipped in through the backdoor when the swedish articles were running, and have mentioned something about ‘dancing around the maypole’ in one of her entries.
I think we have ourselves a genuine Swedish ogre here, gents.
Are they not supposed to turn to stone, when you shine a bright light on them?
The point is she’d be more than welcome to shake up the echo chamber here with a cohesive and cogent opposing view. But she can’t because either:
1) JTO and others present fairly irrefutable cases
2) She doesn’t have the brain power
The real astute, intellectual academic feminist view would be great to have here, but then acknowledging us would validate our existence, besides, see point #1 above.
Not an issue of brain power, its an issue of time. Opposing any good argument with the inclusion of research to support your points takes time. I tend to spew my thoughts out in response to comments from others. At work. Time for lunch to be over. When I have some time to put something together, I will post then.
“Not an issue of brain power, its an issue of time.”
That’s nothing more than a cozy rationalization, until you prove otherwise. Stated another way, “I’m not buying it, show me.” :-/
I’ve yet to see you put any sufficient amount of either brain power or time into your posts. You operate entirely off of your feelings, which makes you rather amusing and annoying at the same time.
And don’t even think about owing your experiences here to your gender. We can’t hear your voice or see what you look like after all, and identifying yourself as a female doesn’t mean squat over the internet. Not to me at least.
Me <~~~ an actual girl, married, mother of a son.
I hope, td9red, that your son is learning well about feminism from your example. And I hope, some day, that he shoves those lessons right down your throat.
“…but we can’t fund our own little piece of cyber space without having to make it about women also.”
I used to be a part of a super dynamic MRA group in my city, and sometimes in the midst of some of the more passionate discussions I would interject (out of the blue), “What about women?” It was always good for a laugh, but in reality, that was always the first thing out of the mouths of California legislators, any time a bill benefiting men was proposed. No similar consideration has ever been shown (that I can see) for the hundreds, or thousands, of laws passed benefiting women.
OT: VICTORY in McDonalds self-defence case:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/mcdonald-beatdown-cashier-freed-11-days-grand-jury-testimony-article-1.986141
Victory for liberty! Victory for human rights! Victory for equality! Victory against feminist hate!
Careful. Notice the ugly use of ‘despite’ in the byline. Seems like the two women who wrote the article still believe that the women were the victims….and the main stream media is still the biggest problem because they frame the crimes.
If it weren’t for feminism, those two women NEVER would’ve had the nerve to come after a dude like that, because they wouldn’t have felt like he was going to be easy-pickings. I’m actually glad he’d done time before, because if he hadn’t, I have my doubts as to whether or not he would’ve properly defended himself like that.
It’s amazing how men are supposedly so dangerous, yet we still see so many women picking fights with them, women who aren’t up to the task of going toe-to-toe with a man who’s willing to actually defend himself.
That is a great point MrStodern.
But it isn’t just about having the nerve. What about the fact they had the idea?
Was there never some self-policing aspect to society which ought to tell people that to behave like that is not a good idea? If so it seems to be lost on empowered girrls.
Or, for “empowered girrls” just read “women”.
I think a lot of violence and particularly what in modern times we call “domestic violence” comes from de facto license that women have to dish it out.
I do believe that people in general used to have better decorum. Not that “back in the day”, everything was always just peachy, far from it, but today, people feel very free to misbehave because they don’t think there’s going to be any consequences. Especially women.
Stuff like VAWA re-enforces this with it’s painting of men as the eternal aggressors, it encourages women to do whatever they want with impunity. We have to stop treating violence against a particular group as being worse than violence against another group. Violence is violence.
Concerning the video inside the McDonald’s. Did you see the white bitch at the end yelling she was going to call the police or for someone to call the police? She didn’t even care about the “hood rats” injured on the floor. She is an example of the typical feminist.
I noticed she kept shrieking for Rayon to stop, but wasn’t about to do anything herself. A couple of (male) employees looked like they were honestly trying to reason with Rayon, so I don’t know what the fuck she thought she was going to accomplish by screaming at him. Dude obviously doesn’t have a problem whacking people with a stick when they get in his face, not exactly someone you want to yell at.
This is one of those cases that I call “Abusing your privilege”. If more beatdowns happen, the original attacks will lessen.
I don’t like to condone violence, but yes, men fighting back like they’re capable of doing, and NOT getting put away for it, upon being attacked by entitled, loud-mouthed, abusive, “empowered” bitches, the less we’re bound to see such incidents take place.
Women need to make up their minds: Getting in our face is either a good idea or a bad idea.
John, I am sorry I didn’t read more than the first few lines because I was put off. A good friend would read all you write and then say something positive and then add something to better it.
And for real I shouldn’t add anymore cause I didn’t read the whole article.,,,,, Oh, fuck it, I will. (apology for bad language).
……..
Hmm, I read the rest of your article. Oh, gosh, it’s awesome. I really like your travel and what you are discovering.
Safehouses for child murderers? Only in Amerikunt, and ONLY if you have a va-goo-goo…also apparently you get your own private security team, and multiple decoy vehicles to prevent justice being done, and the best part is that is is all on the taxpayer’s dime…
nice gig…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062410/Casey-Anthony-survived-assassination-attempt-fled-safe-house-discovered.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Backlash or publicity stunt?
This Casey Anthony stunt is probably something her attorneys have dreamt up in an attempt to get her out of Florida, where she’s obliged to stay for a year as part of her probation for passing bad cheques. With a death threat they can argue that her probation is putting her life in danger, as long as she has to stay in the state, then whisk her away to somewhere out of the public eye.
In any case, since when is finding a note pinned to a door “a survived assassination attempt”?? She could easily have written the note and pinned it there herself.
The Mail Online continues its track record of manipulative fishstink with that article.
My thoughts exactly. This was orchestrated as a means of justifying her leaving the state, enabling her to disappear to whichever one she finds most suitable. If I’m right on this, it proves just how unbelievably accommodating the authorities are willing to be to someone who is generally thought to have murdered their own child. I don’t care if she was acquitted, anybody who knows anything about the case would have to be fucking brain dead to honestly think that she’s innocent and deserves to be doing anything other than rotting away in ditch somewhere.
I don’t think a man once charged with killing their own kid would be getting such assistance, but then again, a man probably wouldn’t have gotten away with their crime anyway.
I wish nothing but the worst for Casey Anthony, I really do. She’s quite possibly the greatest case against feminism there is.
OT (sorry), though always relevant in the bigger scheme. Is the barely veiled enthusiasm of the woman anchor obvious compared to the more reserved comments of the man, or is it just my impression:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/12/04/hong-kong-wife-divorce.cnn
Asia (or former UK Asia) is catching up fast.
Totally agree with you tm.
The smugness shone through.
No pretense of a sense of fair play at all.
Glad it’s not just me being paranoid.
I guess her barely contained joy is a milder form of the infamous ‘how delightful’.
IMO, it was even worse. The casualness without Osbourne’s poor attempt at humor is what got me.
She is as dangerous if not more dangerous than Ozzy’s skank.
Let’s see…
Married into wealth: Check.
Had child against husband’s wishes: Check.
“Settled” for a totally undeserved amount of money in divorce: Check.
Yep. She’s a certified benefactor of feminism.
Not that her ex-husband isn’t an idiot for buying a woman when he could’ve just leased a fucking a harem of them, but that’s beside the point, isn’t it? This whole “entitled to a life that one has grown accustomed to” justification for separating a man from the money he earned is complete and utter horseshit, and if nothing else, I’d like to at least see the death of alimony in the U.S. before the Grim Reaper comes to claim my soul.
I agree. With that kind of wealth buy yourself a harem and forget about any interpersonal relationship except sex. Pay for the whores services and when it is over she leaves the room no strings attached. Bonus.
Those of you who suggest buying a whole harem don’t know how to appreciate a strong independent woman like the divorcee.
You don’t even have to pay them, women flock towards rich guys like flies to shit. Just getting seen driving a Ferrari can do wonders for a guy’s sex life.
The great thing about gold-diggers is that when you don’t give them what they really want (the gold, of course), eventually they do the exact thing you want them to: leave. And they think it bothers you too. How cute…
The judge said “She should be able to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed.”
What about him? Does he still get to bang her or doesn’t it matter which manner he became accustomed to?
That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, the answer is: No. Women are allowed to get used to being paid by a man, but men are not allowed to get used to having sex with any particular woman.
This is why Tom Leykis refers to alimony as vaginamony, because it’s payment for past usage of a vagina, “past” being the operative word.
Alimony is like if a company had to keep paying an employee long after they got fired or quit, or until they started working for another company. Companies everywhere would be going broke faster than so many men are thanks to our bullshit marriage laws.
Leykis used to say it so well about what he called ‘vaginamony’: What if the husband got accustomed to getting a BJ every night?
The comparison with companies and former employees seems totally correct. In fact, it would be like paying the ex-employees for life.
Well, you don’t always have to pay vaginamony to a woman for life. But in instances where the money’s owed to them for life, or until they get re-married, they’ll never re-marry. Count on it.
Wasn’t there a guy who was trying to pay some dude to marry his ex-wife so that he can stop paying vaginamony? Or was that an episode of a sitcom? Sometimes I can’t quite remember…
In case anyone wasn’t already aware Eve Ensler was a big financial supporter of the Swedish political party Feminist Initiive. The party is radical feminism at it’s ugliest, so I can assume she is pushing for rape laws like Sweden here in the US.
…I can assume she is pushing for rape laws like Sweden here in the US.
Kind of like Jessica Valenti. Maybe they should get together and go bowling. In Hell.
It’s funny you say that, Kyle. Last semester an actual play was held here known as The Vagina Monologues comprised of female student actresses. A feminazi speaker traveled here to organize this narcissistic horror. I am not sure if it was Eve herself, but it may very well have been.
About a week after the event, a pole was taken here regarding chemical castration. I swear I am not making this up. The pole asked MSU students their opinions on whether convicted sex offenders should have the option of chemical castration to reduce their sentences. For the life of me, I cannot find any reference materials from this.
I routinely check the books in our bookstore’s psychology (retail / pleasure section, not the academic texts) to see what ideas are being promoted here. It is FULL of radical feminist writings. One very popular seller is entitled “Rape”. The back cover mentions chemical castration, probably under the same feminist writer’s lawyerly veil of which we are now familiar, thanks to that recent entry on RH (forget her name).
Something is in the air here. I wish I had time to do a real investigation. There is no telling what this Vagina Monologues harridan is up to.
Since you brought it up, I heavily object to the use of any kind of castration being used on sex offenders, as not every sex offender is a rapist or child molester. And besides that, rapists and child molesters, to the best of my understanding, are beyond rehabilitation, which therefore qualifies them for being executed, not castrated. Pump drain cleaner into their veins, not whatever they use for chemical castration.
And if we’re not going to execute our scumbags, why don’t we make it surgical castration instead? Now THAT’S permanent.
There is no telling what this Vagina Monologues harridan is up to.
Looking for a thirteen year old to have sex with.
In an episode of the TV show “White Collar” – a female criminal (!!!) gets away from Neal Caffrey (the con man FBI consultant) by explicitly playing the “I’m woman being attacked by a man” false-accusation card, nearly getting him severely pummeled and beaten.