orwell-of-the-lambs

Silence of the Man

Continued from part 1: A resounding silence

A decade into the 21st century, Western culture operates by explicit denial of some obvious facts. Men and boys are second class citizens. This is plainly evident in a large number of measurable factors.

Infant males are routinely sexually mutilated, and the harvested tissues used, among other places in high end women’s cosmetic wrinkle creams[1][2]. In fact, males are so despised that at least one company has abandoned animal testing in favour of testing products on the harvested tissues of mutilated male infants[3]. Debtors prisons, although formally illegal for more than a century, still exist solely for men[4][5][6][7] who have run afoul of the corrupt family court system. Most publicly funded anti-violence programs focus exclusively on the victimization of women, the sexual demographic already least victimized[8][9], implicitly promoting escalated violence against the demographic most victimized; men[10].

Proving this case for purpose of debate is outside the scope of this article. The fact of male disfranchisement is supported by a few examples above, but established and cemented in a substantial fraction of the article content on this site, a body of more than 800 essays.

How did we get here? The ideology of supposed feminine victimhood and the imaginary male domination of Western society has held an increasing totality of the public zeitgeist for the last half century. On our road to the present, it’s worth noting a few of the bigger cultural fractures.

Historically, the protectors of society have been men. That means the protectors of women, of children, of the elderly and of the infirm have been men. In a public places, the presence of men going about their various business has always been to the benefit of everybody else’s safety.

Men, for their part, have almost universally accepted this role of de-facto public bodyguard with pride as an element of masculine identity. Fast forward a few decades with a continuous looping backbeat of claimed rape culture, pedophile hysteria, and the masculine reality that a whispered accusation from an antonymous stranger destroys life, career, family and future. Then demonstrate to men the willingness of a major fraction of the female public to indulge in this blood sport for motives ranging from boredom to petty revenge.

Heidi Jones fabricated a phantom rape against herself for attention[11]. Nafissatou Diallo fraudulently accused Domenique Strauss Kahn in a paid strategy to derail his political career.

According to the Amy Davidson in the New Yorker: “Ms. Diallo is the first accuser in history to conduct a media campaign to persuade a prosecutor to pursue charges against a person from whom she wants money. Her lawyers and public relations consultants have orchestrated an unprecedented number of media events and rallies to bring pressure on the prosecutors in this case after she had to admit her extraordinary efforts to mislead them.” [12]

Julian Assange was fraudulently charged with rape because he had embarrassed the US government. Amanda Knox[13] accused an innocent man of rape because she was angry with one of his relatives over a minor debt. These, along with hundreds of cases making it into the news every year send a crystal clear message. Men are regularly imprisoned and destroyed with ease, based on nothing but words. Nicola Osborne, 32, of Winchester Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire fabricated a rape to cover up her own extramarital affair.[14]

The Canadian province of Ontario is one of the few places where false rape claims are statistically tracked by law enforcement. In that province in one year, more than 2,235 sexual assault allegations were not merely unproven as assaults, but in fact proven definitively to be false[15].

Pile onto this climate of false accusation the organized efforts of ideologues to eliminate due process[16] and the presumption of innocence for males, and we have a truly male-hostile culture. If this were not enough, we also have a media culture which celebrates male targeting violence, and treats male-targeting violent female criminals as pseudo-celebrities. Lorena Bobbitt and Katherine Becker being two most famous examples of this.

Further piling onto this extraordinarily ugly public ethic we have mainstream, respected pillars of society engaging in open discussion of male targeting eugenics and mass male-infanticide. The authors, teachers, daycare workers, politicians and professors orbiting Pamela Oshaughnessy’s women’s murder club[17] continue to reveal that accepted male-targeting violence is a community value for a large fraction of the female public.

All this, of course, is not enough. Take every argument made by members of the men’s rights movement, addressing the issues listed above and more, and stand these arguments against the other side of the debate. From the counter-men’s-rights camp, there is mockery, accusation, threats, and various attempts to shame and censor. There is also, from a vast majority of the public, a great, indifferent silence.

Men are, of course still expected to perform. Chase that all- important career path so that as good, conforming men we can pay for diapers, diamond rings and generally do right by the women in our lives. There’s even a newly emerging genre of literature dedicated to exhorting men to get back to protect, provide and die when convenient. Kimmel’s Guyland, and Hymowitz’s Child Man In The Promised Land being template examples of such.

Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women of America has made a career of tut-tutting the growing fraction of men recognizing the non-viability of the allowable masculine role of disposable appliance. According to nance “We have an increasing problem of men walking away from families, walking away from their children, and we need to be concerned as a nation. We need to urge them to achieve and to be essential, and to be present in the family”[18]

In her interview with Fox News, she makes it clear, saying, “We need them, all the social science together points to the fact that dads are essential in the home; they’re essential in the family. We want them to do a great job now when they’re young, learning how to provide so that when they are dads that they can really be there for their families”

Nance frames the phenomenon of men opting out as a failure on the part of men to “grow up” and conform to her understanding of “good man,” but whether this is a conscious deception to shame men into compliance – or simple failure of comprehension on Penny’s part – is irrelevant.

What’s abundantly clear is that in the male-disposable zeitgeist of modern feminism, a new ethic of male survival is required for every man with the mental acumen to value himself as a self determined human, rather than a disposable appliance providing labor, money, sperm and violence on behalf of women.

The social contract between men and women has been broken. Our society’s feminist-driven war on men, pursued for the last five decades, has burned, bombed and razed to the ground that ancient agreement between men and women. Everybody, including the social-conservative women wringing their hands over men opting out are all aware of the annexation of the social contract.

For men, a new ethic of survival has become necessary, and that ethic has elements which will disturb and terrify those still invested in maintaining the status quo. To be clear, that means individuals invested in the continued casual disposal of men’s lives for everybody else’s convenience.

A complete description of this ethic is not the point of this article, and indeed, for other self actualized men, the solution will vary in it’s details. However, common to most men opting out of traditionally allowed disposable masculinity will be at least a version of the following elements. For convenience, this emerging masculine ethic is labeled with an expression coined by Paul Elam, that of Zeta Masculinity.

Zeta Masculinity entails no more acceptance of personal violence. This seems like nothing startling at first, until it is understood that outside of the newly emerging ethic of masculine self actualization – men are expected to both dispense and absorb personal violence on behalf of women and children as well as on behalf of high-status men. This is the ancient evolutionarily wired in model of men as the disposable protectors of family, community and taken across the large populations, the protectors of societies. For men alert to the social reality that they are despised as human beings, and only valued as disposable human-appliances, a total refusal to accept and absorb violence, or to dispense violence for any reason except personal protection is likely startling to socially conforming men and women.

Depending on the presentation of this non-violence – men refusing their own disposability are called cowards, or not-real-men. In the most desperate thrashings of social conservative rationalization – this nonviolence is characterized as support for violence. These accusatory reactions are based either in fear of removed protection by previously disposable males, or simply blank stupidity’s failure to grasp a masculine ethic of nonviolence. In either case – the failure lies with the critic, and no scant breath of apology or explanation is warranted. Zeta males owe nobody either.

This means that women and high status men can learn to abandon their assumption that the men around them owe them protection or enforcement. It’s likely that neither women nor high-status men will soon learn any such thing, but zeta men will be wholly indifferent to the pain experienced by either group on that learning curve.

Zeta masculinity also entails an abandonment of the self-sacrificing drive for career and status. That means the rapidly growing numbers of men adopting the emerging ethic of zeta masculinity are rejecting the age old female utilization of men as success objects. If women as a demographic can learn to value men as humans in a calculus separate from their fat wallets, shiny cars and prestigious high power careers, thats great. However, nobody’s expecting that, and women already whining in blogs, newspapers and social commentary talk shows can just keep complaining about peter pan until they’re blue in the face. Zeta men don’t care, because we know the game is rigged for men to earn, provide and die – and there’s no appeal in it.

Rebuttals to this of the character: “but you’ll never attract women without a respectable paycheck” are pre-emptively noted, and the real answer is that this is not a problem for anybody except those social conservatives and feminists invested in maintaining men’s role as disposable providers. Zeta males don’t care. That old game of sacrifice and early death isn’t worth the candle. We’re not going to pay for other people’s shit anymore, and we don’t care what this does to the bottom line of Saks 5th avenue, or Wells fargo, or Exxon. We don’t care, at all. What zeta males do understand in excruciating clarity is that the established, acceptable and respectable role of men as protector and provider is what props up a culture which has always run on the corpses of “good,” disposable men.

There is one more plank in this platform worth mentioning here. Zeta males are increasingly careful of their biological contributions in baby-making. The family courts, excepting a few recent reforms in specific states – have demonstrated a wholly corrupt mandate of wealth appropriation from men who’ve contributed their chromosomes in the procreative process. The problem being that although required by law to abide by and to underwrite the reproductive rights only women enjoy, men enjoy no such reproductive rights or choices themselves.

The only sane response to this is to exercise extreme caution in the disposal of semen. Without a gratuitous detail of method, the result is that an increasing number of men are refusing to impregnate women. Certainly the greater majority of men continue to fall blindly into the baby trap, but even this is likely to change rapidly with the emergence of new male contraceptive technologies.

What will happen without men willing to burn in this machine’s fuel? The system will either collapse or adapt to an modern ethic which doesn’t require human disposability. Whichever case emerges, zeta men are prepared to survive and adapt. The rest of you are on your own.

We’ll be taking first seats on the lifeboats, too. Thanks for asking.

[1] http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8415

[2] http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/

[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076666/Scientists-secret-German-laborator/index.html
[4] http://purplemotes.net/2011/03/22/persons-in-jail-for-child-support-debt/
[5] http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm
[6] http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-15/justice/georgia.child.support_1_child-support-deadbeat-jailed
[7] http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns/today-today_news/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/

[8] http://www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/svaw_overview.php
[9] http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/
[10] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm

[11] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20106221-504083.html
[12] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/07/nafissatou-diallo.html
[13] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/03/501364/main20114867.shtml
[14] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim-2225627.html
[15] http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/false-rape-claims-the-evidence-from-canada/
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576516232905230642.html
[17] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/radfem-hub-the-underbelly-of-a-hate-movement/
[18] http://www.newshounds.us/2011/10/09/concerned_woman_for_america_penny_nance_loves_men_but_wants_them_to_grow_up.php

About John Hembling (JtO)

John Hembling is Policy Director and Editor-at-Large for AVfM. John is also the co founder of the Community Organized Compassion and Kindness Foundation, which is dedicated to the human rights of individuals through justice and compassion. As "John The Other," he is also the Sword of Damocles, dangling like the promise of death above the irrational ideas of gender ideologues, white knights and other social diseases. JtO is FTSU personified.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Ummm.. yes.

    • gingerbred

      Amen. Zeta for life. Rejecting the traditional roles of being a disposable, expendable utility since 2011.

    • keppler22orbust

      Howdy and G’day. Wow! up until a week ago I thought
      I was all alone in the World. A few years back, I’d given
      up on a friend of twenty years who just can’t get his head around what Feminism really is. Interestingly, I’d
      gotten’ into the MATRIX subtext and repeated the fact
      that Gloria Steinem is a CIA operative. Nothing worked.
      He is a true believer and a useful idiot; done deal

      So after, I think the term is lurking, (I’m a late adopter)
      for a week on these blog sites I’ve decided to chime in. There are a lot of good minds out there and I have a proposition: A SHOWDOWN with the FEMI-NAZIS!

      We have reached the point where this WILL NOT heal
      of it’s own accord. With my own personal experience
      (Which I might share anecdotally if anyone is interested) as well as the TRAVESTIES I’ve been
      reading about; the time for action has come! We have had our DUNKIRK and now we must have the intellectual equivalent of D DAY! We need Airtime on TV. What I’m thinking is putting up a dozen of our best against a dozen of theirs We select maybe three team leaders (JTO here as well as Paul Elam +?)
      and elect a roster from which they pick the rest of the team.
      As to Team Evil: We have their falsified statistics.
      We have the files posted by the incredibly courageous AGENT ORANGE. A.O. you must take care; there are
      some real pieces of work in the Femi- NAZI movement
      I am from one of the Hearth Zones of Feminism and
      had the displeasure of watching this foment over the
      years. I did what I could against them but theirs was a
      Tsunami like surge at the time; even standing my ground, its surged around me. Time for a rebirth!!!!

      • keppler22orbust

        I forgot FIDELBOGEN Add to my choices for
        the team leaders for the prospective Showdown
        team.

  • Zorro

    double the in the title: the the

    Please correct.

    • Paul Elam

      Done, thanks

    • Alphabeta Supe

      Great beta band, The The.

      • Teerex

        The The, awesome. Great MRA song here…

  • Dannyboy

    I have just one critique,
    I would give up my seat on a life boat for a child and ONLY a child all the rest can go pound salt

    Another classic JTO

    • Stu

      That is all good and well as long as it’s your personal choice, and your choice alone. Nobody, nobody, should be required to to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of anybody else. That is how men got into this mess to start with. I put MY child before me, and maybe my brothers child…..if he had one……I reserve the right to put ME before any other random child though……and I’ll fight anyone who tries to impose otherwise.

      • Dannyboy

        Your absolutely right this is My personal choice just as you would make your personal choice for your child .
        I also respect your choice to reserve your right to not give up your seat .
        The train of thought I am going with is this :
        It was not the child who burned and pissed all over the social contract that held society together it was femtwits . I am still willing to honour the social contract ( to protect ) with a child.
        I hope that makes sense

        • Stu

          I know what you mean, and I may very well sacrifice myself for a child. It would depend on the situation and a lot of things.

          But we have to get entirely away from this view that men owe anybody anything just because they are male. When anybody mandates, either legally or socially that men must sacrifice for group X, if and when required, I will oppose, and regardless of any outcome of that debate, legal or otherwise…..I’m not co-operating.

          At the very least, if men are to feel obliged to any chivalric standards, to any group in society, than they must demand some sort of reciprocal payment in return.

          Let me ask you this…..who do you think has more chance of surviving in the wilderness, or at sea in a lifeboat, or in a desert, or in the aftermath of a nuclear war, or any other disaster you can think of…….a child alone with its mother, or a child alone with its father.

          My money is on the child alone with its father.

          So if the best interests of the child is what counts…….then the life boats should have been filled with men and children.

          Women use the best interests of the child to garner advantage for themselves. How many women gave up their seats for children. How many women were held at gun point and prevented from getting a seat so more children could get on.

          A man that is a complete stranger is required to sacrifice his life for a child, and the mother is not. Who is this really serving.

          • Dannyboy

            I would place my money on father child scenario as well .
            I am going to beg to differ on the point of owing anybody anything only slightly.
            IMHO I owe my fellow future generations of the human race my level best to put an end to what has been going on for the last 50 years .

          • td9red

            “So if the best interests of the child is what counts…….then the life boats should have been filled with men and children.”

            There you go again, giving more value to a man as opposed to a women and suggesting that a child’s best interest is served by preserving his relationship with his father and letting his mother die. How about you and me go down with the ship and load the life boats with children only!

            Nearly 100 years later and we’re still complaining about who gets a seat in the lifeboat.

          • td9red

            Just had a spooky apocalyptic thought…

            The gender war will result in the death of humankind as women and men will never understand and accept that if one gender dies the other will necessarily parrish as well. Leading to earth’s domination by another species.

            Men cannot sustain human civilization without women. There is an MRA who has a number of videos on youtube. Can’t think of his name. The videos are okay for the most part, he tends to play with the suggestion that women have no value to society which is annoying. Anyway, in one of his videos where he lists all the achievements of men: in art, music, building communities then he goes off the deep end and says that if all the women died tomorrow, men would simply invent artificial wombs and go on with civilization… Someboby tell this guy that a womb is only the peanut shell. You need a sperm and an egg from a real women to produce a peanut. If all the women died tomorrow men would die the next day…
            Actually, that would probably be the other way around being as we live longer…

          • Kimski

            td9red:

            There were a series of programs on National Geographic a couple of years ago, about a scientist who tried to pinpoint the origin of mankind by following the “fingerprints” in the bloodlines. He went around the globe and took bloodsamples from every race of people in every country, and came to the surprising result, that we all originated from approximately 12 women and roughly 15-20 men.

            At some point in time 60.000 years ago, we were very close to extinction and if that should happen again, all it would take for us as a specie to jump right back on top of the ladder again, will be the same amount of people given time.

            So we would be talking about something more serious than a global scale nuclear war, before total extinction was an option. Maybe something like being hit by a planet sized object would do the trick. As a specie we are extremely resilient, which can be easily proved by the fact that we are everywhere, besides the deep polar regions of the southpole and the northpole. The only other species on the planet that comes close to us in that are cockroaches and rats, because we do the same thing as them when things get too rough on the surface. We go underground.

            I’m pretty sure that if we were fucked on that scale, all petty differences in opinions would go right out of the window immediately.

          • MrStodern

            @td9red:

            There you go again, giving more value to a man as opposed to a women and suggesting that a child’s best interest is served by preserving his relationship with his father and letting his mother die.

            We have to pick one, and personally, I’ve long felt than men are more useful for keeping children alive, especially in times where men are the majority of the ones with jobs.

            How about you and me go down with the ship and load the life boats with children only!

            You can’t possibly be serious. Not even you are that stupid.

            Nearly 100 years later and we’re still complaining about who gets a seat in the lifeboat.

            Nearly 100 years later and feminists are still complaining about not being able to vote.

            Being a kept housewife who needn’t concern herself with politics is a hell of a lot better than freezing to death in the middle of the fucking ocean. Your argument is invalid.

          • td9red

            @Kimski

            At present we are in the age of the human. It’s interesting to think that there might be another species coming. Maybe mutant X-Men are the future ;)

            @Bombay

            Can’t figure out why I can’t see your post here, but I see it on my blackberry. Anyway, don’t believe what you read on the internetsss. They will never be able to produce humans artificially. First, the article says they may have produced a sperm that it is “thought” could fertilize an egg and their development of a fake egg is in a far earlier stage. Second, human stem cells come from humans, as humans die out so would the supply of stem cells. No women would mean no stem cells from women.

          • Kimski

            @td9red:

            “Maybe mutant X-Men are the future.”

            I’d much more prefer that we started using the last 90% of our brains, and the reptilian part of it disappeared.
            Now, that would solve a whole lot of the present shit we deal with.

          • td9red

            @MrStodern

            No I’m not serious! I suggest we draw straws b/t the women aged 16-30 and the men 16-30. 5 women, 5 men in each boat the rest children.

            In a precivilized society, ages ago the extra strength of men might provide a child with a better chance at survival. Though, men and women bring different biological “assets” to the table with respect to parenting. Possibly the biological asset that women possess would provide a child with a better chance for survival, as it was clearly our maker’s intention that raising children was the primary purpose of women.

            Irrespective of this, none of it holds water today. Women are equally able to obtain and maintain a job.

          • td9red

            @Kimski

            I want to be an X-Men. I want Jean Grey’s powers….

            Hey, were the X-men movies popular where you are? Or, are you like, “what is she talking about” ;D

          • Kimski

            td9red:

            Besides feminist scalps and sculls, I also collect movies, sci-fi books and comics, so I’ve probably known about X-men since before you were born.
            -And Wolverine is my personal favorite.

            But, seriously, what has that got to do with anything???

          • MrStodern

            No I’m not serious! I suggest we draw straws b/t the women aged 16-30 and the men 16-30. 5 women, 5 men in each boat the rest children.

            So the older folks get to die then? Or do the 16-30 or who draw straws stay behind? I’m confused.

            Possibly the biological asset that women possess would provide a child with a better chance for survival, as it was clearly our maker’s intention that raising children was the primary purpose of women.

            There’s a big difference between raising a child and protecting one. Men are better at being able to do both.

            Irrespective of this, none of it holds water today. Women are equally able to obtain and maintain a job.

            On the contrary, it holds more water today than it ever did, because women still aren’t willing to take on the kinds of jobs that men are, and those jobs are going to become more important as this country gets closer to collapsing, as men won’t be doing them anymore. We’re quitting this broken system.

          • td9red

            @MrStodern

            “….women still aren’t willing to take on the kinds of jobs that men are, and those jobs are going to become more important as this country gets closer to collapsing”

            I think the opposite is true. In the US part of the reason that are auto industry started to fail is b/c now they can make robot/machines that put cars together. They don’t need people. In fact, one of the things that unions do is require that these companies employ people to do jobs that can be done by machines. In the future there will not be men in coal mines there will be machines in coal mines. The jobs that require strength are the jobs in the greatest danger. In the future it will be about brains not brawn.

          • Kimski

            td9red:

            Any which way, -men wins.
            We invent the machines, we build them, and we won’t be killed in work related accidents anymore.

          • td9red

            @kimski

            Both men and women win.

            Women win b/c we cannot compete for strength based jobs. When these jobs are no longer strength based, women can learn how to use the computer that runs these machines and compete for these jobs.

            Men win b/c they won’t get killed in mines anymore.

        • Paul Elam

          If I can hijack this for a moment, but you raise an interesting point of view. The question to me is, do I have any social contract to value the life of another human being more than I do my own. For me the answer is no.

          I would not take a seat in a lifeboat at the expense of a woman because women pissed away their end of that social contract. I would take my seat because I value my life more than I value hers. And I have to say that I don’t know precisely what I would do if confronted with a choice between me and a child.

          My take on all this is that the social contract was a loser for men to begin with, long before feminism showed up.

          If every woman in the western world suddenly denounced feminism, and pledge to uphold the old social contract, I still would not die for one.

          • Dannyboy

            It is a tough question to ask yourself.
            Self preservation is probably the prime directive of human instinct

          • MrStodern

            I won’t sacrifice myself for anyone. Not unless I don’t care to live anymore.

          • DruidV

            As always, thanks for your brutal and lethal honesty, Paul.

            As for my giving up MY seat in a lifeboat to some strange hatchett wound, because it is demanded of me by either her or society’s suicidal embrace of chilvalry, she can sink or swim, or take her happy ass and find some one else’s fucking seat. Even crocodile tears and puppy dog eyes would be met with spittle in the face of some over valued, entitlement princess, should one attempt such a parley with me.

            I have to say that forced with the choice between my own life or that of a stranger’s child, I’m going to go with self preservation here as well. No apologies to those that don’t like me because of it anymore either, because I happen to have some ammount of value to my OWN sons, who will most certainly need ME later.

            I really am looking forward to “Sink Chivalry” day aka: tax day, 2012…

          • Zorro

            This is the “New Way” brother!

      • Cooter Bee

        From a strictly biological point of view. It would make less sense to sacrifice your self for the benefit of your child or your brother’s child than yourself because there is a strong possibility that neither would carry your DNA. Your sister’s child, on the other hand, must carry your DNA.

        If your aim was to spare your brother a larger heartache than he would have due to loss of his own brother the above wouldn’t apply.

    • Jeremiah

      Rationally the appropriate thing to do is to base your decision on whether the child’s life is more valuable than your own. See also Stu’s post.

      • Dannyboy

        see above for my reasoning.
        Although I will say from the polar opposite experience of drowning ( having been in a apt bldg fire ) rationality seldom enters the mind in panic situations.
        I knew it was rational not to open a door if it was hot I didn’t think or remember that . What I did know was that the fire alarms were not working and that on the other side of the stairway door was a friend who had not left the building . Ration would dictate not to open the hot door . It never entered my mind and I lost my eyebrows and some hair on my head for a few weeks .
        The neighbour and his dog survived because after getting a little flash burned I went back outside and punched his window in and yelled for him to get out.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women of America has made a career of tut-tutting the growing fraction of men recognizing the non-viability of the allowable masculine role of disposable appliance. According to nance “We have an increasing problem of men walking away from families, walking away from their children, and we need to be concerned as a nation. We need to urge them to achieve and to be essential, and to be present in the family”[18]“

    It should be pointed out that CWA is a group of “Bible based” Christian women who believe in all the traditional (Christian) roles for family: men, women and children.

    Every position statement, every social perspective, is perceived and argued only from their Biblical based perspective, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SOCIETAL INFLUENCES LIKE FEMINISM, OR FEMINIST BASED JURISPRUDENCE.

    I once confronted a Calvinist based religious denomination over their position that men are the head of the family and need to adopt and use Godly, male leadership principles in their lives and families. Men need to assert their “Bible based” leadership in the family, etc., etc., etc.

    I told the group’s leader that the divorce rate among Evangelicals was roughly the same as it was in the rest of society, and that when little Mrs. Evangelical decided to hire a lawyer and file divorce those Godly, manly principles he was pushing would be used against the husband as “abusive behavior” in a court of law. I asked what kind of marriage insurance policy his denomination offered to men who were being told to adopt his Godly, manly principles. Of course, NONE was/is offered.

    And “YES,” as clearly shown in Nance’s quote above, we still see Christian men being told (figuratively) to man up and charge a machine gun nest for Jesus and the traditional family. :-/

    Marriage, especially Christian marriage, is a social institution were men are tasked financially with assuming all liability, all risk of failure, IMO.

    Gender feminist domestic violence advocates absolutely love to get a hold of these kind of Biblical family leaders in family courts and make claims about how their Christian male leadership beliefs and practices are an abusive form of power and control being used against the woman and children. Where are people like Nance, and the CWA, when this is happening? Ans. Nowhere to be found.

    Why, oh why, do the Concerned WOMEN for America never address the gender feminist problem that runs so counter to their Biblically principled beliefs, but have no problems confronting Christian men who they allege are a problem? WHY?

    It appears to me that Mrs. Nance and CWA should get the gender feminist and Christian female beam out of their own eye(s) before fault finding and bashing naive Christian men. Nance should especially WAKE UP to those Christian men who are “gun shy” of marriage, having learned the way that the fem-ME-ism scam truly works. Yes, Nance, let’s hear you first apply your keen acumen to your own sex’s behavior in this “apple garden.”

    - from a former (no more) CWA member

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      “Men need to assert their “Bible based” leadership in the family, etc., etc., etc.”

      I’m curious. What, exactly, is the mechanism by which men assert their ‘bible based’ leadership?

      • Stu

        Yes, if the bible had any power to stand up for mens rights it would have succeeded in doing so when it had a hell of a lot more authority then it does now. Religion offers men nothing now, most denominations have become as big of manginas as the GMP.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

          Agreed,

          Think about all those innocent blokes in court getting creamed when telling the truth.

          The good book did nothing, even though good men placed a hand upon it when swearing to tell the truth and then doing so.

        • Alphabeta Supe

          This is a common misconception about the bible. Bible-believing men are neither manginas or white knights, as there is absolutely no precedent in the bible for male submission to the female. In fact, the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple in the garden of Eden is a dire warning against the dangers in a man allowing a woman’s desire for more, always more, to come between him and God. If anything, true biblical manhood is ‘zeta’ manhood in its birthday suit.

          • td9red

            I don’t think the man in the bible is a “zeta male.” The man in the bible is a traditionalist. He is the head of his household and the final decision maker. He is supremely chivalrist and in exchange for his care and sacrifice his wife has submitted. This is the relationship b/t women and men described in the bible. The word “obey” in traditional marriage vows comes from the bible. Nothin Zeta bout this guy.

          • Alphabeta Supe

            Believing biblical man is chivalrist signifies two things:

            a) That one hasn’t read the bible (just snippets of it); or

            b) That one hasn’t understood it.

            Note: there are plenty who call themselves bible believers – even preachers – who’ve done neither.

            A biblical man does not care for women and sacrifice himself in exchange for their submission. He might do this for his wife, but his promise is to God. Likewise, a biblical woman does not submit to men in general, but to her husband in a covenant marriage. The purpose is to avoid conflict, preserve unity and spiritual health, and thus optimise the marriage. An optimal marriage is one in which the man submits to God in his role as the spiritual head (not the same as being the physical head) and the woman submits to God by submitting to the man’s headship. Marriage vows are thus a covenant with God, not with each other, or with members of the opposite sex as a whole.

            Further, a bible-believing man who wants to optimise the marriage relationship is not being deferential to women (chivalrist), but to the needs of a spiritually stable and sustainable community. Both zeta and bible-believing man shun sub-optimal relationships with women as they serve no beneficial purpose in such a community.

            In my opinion, the goals of zeta and bible-believing man are the same. It’s the terminology, methodology, depth of understanding and degree of self-control that are different.

          • Shakaz

            This is the problem with the bible, anyone can interpret it like one wants.

          • td9red

            Your view of the Christian marriage is pretty much the same as I mention in my post. the question is whether the Christian/bible guy is a Zeta male. What I take from JTO is that a Zeta male is a man who is unapologetically focused on himself. He is not concerned with chasing women and is unwilling to do the things that might make him more attractive to women. He is suspect of marriage, unwilling to play the role of protector and provider in a marriage, and not necessarily interested in fathering children. In my view the Christian/bible man is married. He is the protector and provider for his family. He is the father of many children with his wife. His primary focus is on his family not himself. I think he bible male and the zeta male are different guys.

          • Alphabeta Supe

            I realise my comment below isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea so I’m just directing it at td9red (and those who care about this sort of thing.)

            @td9red

            I think you have the same kind of superficial understanding of Christianity as secular society and most Sunday church-goers. Let me respond to your last comment piecemeal, then I’ll leave it there.

            You wrote:

            “Your view of the Christian marriage is pretty much the same as I mention in my post.”

            Not quite. The bible teaches that a married man (not all men!) is the spiritual head of his household. It does not teach that he is the administrative head or final decision maker, although he might also be these things. Many people confuse the two, including Christians.

            You wrote:

            “What I take from JTO is that a Zeta male is a man who is unapologetically focused on himself.”

            I don’t see it quite this way. What I read in Paul and JTO’s (and other) characterisations of Zeta manhood is the definition of a man who, rather than being focused on himself, simply has no intention of bending to the will of society in “protector and provider” views of masculinity, but who opts instead for self preservation. This is not an absence of morality or ethics but a detachment from a world that no longer rewards him for self-sacrifice.

            The bible doesn’t teach men to be self-sacrificial or to attach themselves to the world either. Christian men are called to serve God, not be self-sacrificing to women or society. In fact, the bible teaches against any allegiance to society, traditional or otherwise – i.e. ‘to be in the world, not of it’. Jesus and St Paul both eschewed masculine tradition as providers and protectors and chose singleness and celibacy in order to live as God wanted them to live, just like the Zeta.

            You wrote:

            “He [the Zeta male] is not concerned with chasing women and is unwilling to do the things that might make him more attractive to women. He is suspect of marriage, unwilling to play the role of protector and provider in a marriage, and not necessarily interested in fathering children. ”

            A Christian man is not interested in these things either. He cares only about serving God, whatever that mysterious task may be. This may include marriage but it may not; it may include children or it may not. The bible does not teach that a Christian man is to be the “protector and provider in a marriage”.

            You wrote:

            “He is the father of many children with his wife. His primary focus is on his family not himself.”

            Christian men are neither encouraged or discouraged to have children. They may be blessed with children in a marriage, or they may not. Both situations requires different living strategies but neither makes a difference at all to his Christian-ness.

            You wrote:

            “The word “obey” in traditional marriage vows comes from the bible.”

            Perhaps. But only in a spiritual context – i.e. “wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22). Christian women are under no obligation to obey husbands who are disobedient to God, therefore it has nothing to do with worldly things like which school the kids go to, who pays the bills, who carves the meat, who disciplines the children. It is as much her responsibility to do these things as his, and to help him keep his marriage vows just as it is his tohelp her keep hers.

            Traditional society, and reactionary feminism, make the same faulty assumption that the bible places all women under the command of all men, and that ‘good’ men are providers and protectors of women. This, of course, is utter nonsense to a bible-believing Christian.

          • td9red

            I see where the misunderstanding is. When I discussed the Christian man above I was referring to the married Christian man. I do not suggest, or i didn’t mean to suggest that Christian women are submissive to all Christian men. A Christian women must submit to her own husband. You indicate that he is the spiritial head of his family. I believe he is more than just the spiritial head of his family, but, in fact, is the true lord and master of his wife after God. She must submit to him and obey him as long as he is faithful and true to God. The Christian man must make decisions for himself and his family and treat his wife with justice, fairness, and kindness. This is what I recall being taught in church. Note, I no longer consider myself to be a Christian. I am not an Atheist. I do believe their is a God. I am just no longer convinced that he loves all his children. But, that is another story…

      • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

        “I’m curious. What, exactly, is the mechanism by which men assert their ‘bible based’ leadership?”

        It’s a whole bunch of stuff and this is not the forum for that depth of theological discussion. Books have been written, detailing it within the context of Christianity. Given all the different denominational perspectives, it’s best to do your own research.

        If interested, just go online and google such key phrases as “fundamentalist Christian male role,” “Christian male leadership,” etc. Needless to say, like any belief system, it requires the “buy in” of all parties (participants) to the beliefs in order to work to any degree.

        Better yet, write to CWA and ask them.
        http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
        Concerned Women for America
        1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
        Washington, D.C. 20005
        Phone: (202) 488-7000
        Fax: (202) 488-0806

      • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

        Here ya go TB, a whole page of titillating titillation from the women at CWA. :-)

        Feminist & Women’s Issues
        http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/bli/bli-feminism.asp

        and another page more specifically dealing with what they think the Christian male/female/child role should be,

        Family Issues
        http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/bli/bli-family.asp

        I do recall that about ten years ago, CWA went nose to nose with NOW at the U.N. over CEDAW, and prevailed. CWA was primarily opposed to abortion on demand, and prostitution policy positions in CEDAW. Other things in CEDAW that MRA’s are concerned about, such as d.v. witch-hunting of males, CWA is not very concerned about that I’ve heard.

        It would be very interesting to see a chart of common ground and differences, based on issues, for a number of gender politics groups and parties: Dem’s., Repub’s., CWA, NOW, AVfM, NCFM, etc., etc., etc. There are a wide range of varying opinions and positions on gender issues that are floating around out there in our global society.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    @ Dannyboy:

    “I would give up my seat on a life boat for a child and ONLY a child all the rest can go pound salt”

    Traditionally/historically, society has accorded female lives “special privilege” for their unique ability to bear children and further the survival of the human species.

    Since abortion became legal in America, more than 40, 000, 000, 000 CHOICES have been made by women to end a human baby’s life.

    Given how obviously unimportant women are to the survival of the species (procreationally speaking), why, oh why, would anyone today ever consider a woman’s life of more value than a man’s?

    • Dannyboy

      Ray,
      Lets face it beyond the MRM the common attitude of women and children first is still the popular practice .
      I am only stating that I would put my personal well being behind that of a child’s.
      Children are innocent they did not create this fucking mess we find ourselves in today. I am doing what I do to improve life for future generations not for my own .

      Perhaps it does sound a bit white knightish it should not be taken that way.
      Like I said only a child .

  • Roderick1268

    JTO,
    you’ve got the big picture.
    Zeta masculinity gives men a way forward when there was none.
    Rod.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women of America has made a career of tut-tutting the growing fraction of men recognizing the non-viability of the allowable masculine role of disposable appliance.”

    This underscores how strong the current zeit geist of shaming and blaming males (for anything and everything) is, when even supposedly Biblically principled paragons of truth and integrity feel un-analytically free to jump on the unintelligent dog pile of male bashing.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Ta J The O.

    I am speaking to you right now from the bottom of a well. Let me explain.

    Earlier today I was going for a stroll in a park near here and I saw a group of kids and their mothers looking down at something. They were in fact huddled around this very well from which I speak, and they were concerned about something it seemed.
    So curiosity being the better part of me I shouted from a distance, “Hey you women, and hey you little kids, are you ok ?”

    They turned to me and a woman there said, “I dropped my iPhone down this well that we are all right now clustered about.”

    It was at this point that I remembered the disgusting way men were treated with incident of that Cunard liner in April 1912. A terrible fever of dismay and rage swept over me, tormenting me like ocean crabs scrabbling on the sand from a tidal wash.

    As one who always waves the Zeta flag and takes seriously that lifestyle, I saw the rarest opportunity to correct in some small way that terrible days’ proclamation of “Women and children first” and I acted promptly with a reddened vigor that flushed upon me.

    I ran towards them shouting the most terrible and foul words, and using all my strength I threshed past the women casting them aside as stalks of wheat, and I scuttled the kids asunder as ten pins before I leaped into this abyss.

    While I am bruised physically I am unharmed mentally. I am upon reflection stronger than I have ever been in that way.

    Although my stroll was to be uneventful I can say with great pleasure that the bells of the fire department ringing as they do right now give me hope that being on the news I will be sending the Zeta message further to a greater number of imprisoned men be they in gaol or not.

    Also, I may by way of compensate feign the finding of this iPhone and merely pocket the device for later and personal usage.

  • Kimski

    Another stunning summary of the shit we have to deal with, JtO, -along with a very sane escape route.

    “…and women already whining in blogs, newspapers and social commentary talk shows can just keep complaining about peter pan until they’re blue in the face. Zeta men don’t care, because we know the game is rigged for men to earn, provide and die – and there’s no appeal in it.”

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1340456515001/is-marriage-falling-out-favor

    Seems like things are rapidly moving in that direction, and thank god for that.

    On an OT notice: Watch the female reporters facial expression right before the video stops. She did NOT like that.
    :)

  • td9red

    “Zeta masculinity also entails an abandonment of the self-sacrificing drive for career and status.”

    Shouldn’t men and women strive for education and career for the betterment of themselves?

    • Stu

      Maybe a better way to put it would be an abandonment of the requirement.

      Men need to become more self-serving and less self-sacrificing.

      This is where the feminist points out that men are, and have always been, completely selfish pigs, that think of nothing but their own needs…..and I say to that…….I don’t care what you think, or say…..but if it were true, you’d all still be living in grass huts.

      This is going to get easier and easier for men to do as draconian feminist laws and policies spread, and also as more and more women like GWW, Izzey, Dr T and many other show up, and stand up for men. The women that do are loved and cherished, and the ones that try to maintain the status quo will be increasingly ignored.

    • Bombay

      Some people are happy just the way they are. They already achieved their happiness. Some people are not and never will be.

    • BeijaFlor

      It’s the “self-sacrificing” part that we’re abandoning – most especially, as JTO put it in the next sentence, “rejecting the age old female utilization of men as success objects.”

      Men may still choose to strive for their own education, for their own careers, for their own sake. But we zeta males are no longer willing to let some woman ride our coat-tails. That, I believe, is what Stu means by “Men need to become more self-serving and less self-sacrificing.”

      You are welcome, Red, to strive for your own education and career, for the betterment of yourself … and for the benefit of your family, as I hope you would have the sense of responsibility-as-providerhood that women as a whole expect and demand from men.

    • MrStodern

      Once again, you completely fail to understand men. I’m going to put this as simply as I can, so that perhaps you can actually digest it:

      Most men would not pursue having a greater amount of wealth than they need in order to survive on their own if it weren’t for women demanding that exact thing in order for us to be valuable to them. Your desire for us to be wealthy is far greater than our desire for us to be wealthy. Very few men are exceptions to this.

      Take me for example. I’ll be perfectly happy if I can support myself with my novels, and at least not live paycheck to paycheck. Other than that, I don’t give a fuck. I don’t have a reason to. I have no desire to attract or please women in any way. None. Their flesh cannot tempt me into submission. Their teasing cannot break me of my resolve to deprive them of my attention. I’m way too strong.

      Women have no power over me whatsoever, and for the rest of my life, I’m going to enjoy watching them get angrier and angrier about that fact. Even though no woman would or will ever have the desire to wrap her lips around my cock, all of them will always want that great feeling of knowing that I, as a man, can be controlled through my sexuality.

      But I can’t. I’m so beyond their control it’s like I’ve left Earth. And I love it.

      • td9red

        I disagree,

        There certainly is power in the pussy, but not as much power as you are attributing to it. I suspect that 99% of the men that went to med school did so b/c they wanted to be doctors. Their father was a doctor, they felt it was a good way to support themself, or some other reason. But, it was not to get pussy.

        I think the capitalist system leads people to strive for career and status. The capitalist system plays a greater role in career choies than the feminist society does.

        • MrStodern

          I didn’t say it was necessarily to get pussy. I implied it was to get women. There is a difference, because a good deal of men want a family, and to acquire that, just like with getting laid, they have to be attractive to women to an extent. Which means being wealthy.

          Men seek out prestigious careers because it makes them more attractive. Why else do you think hot chicks don’t pursue the doctor route very often? Because they’re already attractive, they see no point. But most men can’t rely on their appearance. We have to work much harder.

        • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

          ‘Feminism’/Femaleism is rapacious vagina capitalism.

    • StarsDie

      Consider a man who has to choose between a high paying, high status job that he doesn’t enjoy and a lower paying, lower status job that he enjoys more. Men are socialized to take the higher paying, higher status jobs at the expense of their enjoyment. They do this to provide for others. And if not to provide for others, to hook in a female who will find them appealing… So that he can ultimately provide for her and possibly the children that come with her. I firmly believe that many men are simple beings in terms of their desires. The only reason why they obsess over bling and cars and all that shit, is because they know what those things give them — pussy. Dave Chappelle said it best: “If a man could have sex with a woman in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house.”

      JtO is saying that men should take the job that he enjoys and to stop taking the job that pays them more money and gives them higher status. To only worry about what their job provides for themselves, and only themselves. Or to atleast weigh the money/success and enjoyment in a way that takes out other peoples opinions and other peoples needs or wants.

    • td9red

      What?

      • Alphabeta Supe

        Blind bigotry is associated with ingrained narcissism – that’s what.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      “Zeta masculinity also entails an abandonment of the self-sacrificing drive for career and status.”

      Men and women ought to strive for education and career for the betterment of society.

      Under feminism, male self-sacrifice is being horribly misused for the betterment of women and girls to the detriment of men and boys, which is evil. Male self-sacrifice must stop until it returns to being for the betterment of all.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

        “Men and women ought to strive for education and career for the betterment of society.”

        This can be a slippery slope. How does this actually translate? Society with it’s pecking order? It’s not specific enough, it gives us what we have now and is entirely open to dishonest and subjective manipulation. It also seems to contradict the concept of Zeta. We have tried this have have been screwed.

        I’ll stick with self preservation and preservation of others at my own unilateral discretion. I feel we are lifetimes away from the notion of true community in that sense and between now and then a firm precedent must be set for this to be possible in the future. This must include an entirely new realm of respect.

        • Alphabeta Supe

          A slippery slope, maybe, but the upward slope can be traversed if there’s appropriate traction. In other words, red pill men can choose between withdrawing from society (self-preservation) until the power pendulum swings in their favour again, or staying in it to fight the resident evil (men of the future need some of us to stay). Both are taken in the interests of society, just with a different time orientation and strategy.

          How does this translate? I’d say MGTOW would be an effective short-term strategy, while staying in society (not of it) and standing firmly (in faith) for men’s rights would be good for the long term. Both would seem to be valid Zeta strategies as they don’t depend on the human pecking order.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

            Sounds fair enough. though possibly unlikely. It would be nice to avoid the male version of the self interested feminist. That would have to be some serious traction. Given the current status quo, I don’t see it. Money talks and boycott style strikes send a clear message. With this in mind, real and serious change can essentially happen over night with an effective critical mass. MGTOW would seem to be removed from the concept of “for the betterment of society.” as such. Men’s traditional roles have been for the betterment of society by their very nature and we have had it spat in our face and a knife in the back. I’m just not sure how this concept is really any different. Still looks like more male sacrifice in the interest of others ie: women (they’ll say children but this is bullshit, it’s their interest and their idea of what’s best for the children… for them.) I wouldn’t encourage this to my son or men and boys.

  • TigerMan

    More later but first let me express how impressed I am with the graphics and photography used to illustrate each article it pretty top notch and especially so for a relatively young website. :)

  • Stu

    @td9red
    Not giving more value to men. You’re missing the point, which is that if it’s children that count the most, then they should be with the one that can and will protect them the most.

    And since nothing has changed in that 100 years regarding mens disposability, it’s not inappropriate for me to use that analogy.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

      Yes. The overwhelming evidence (Dr. Farrell’s ‘Father & Child Reunion’) the virtual definitive statistics, as well as the epic fail and social disaster that single motherhood is would not be entirely ignored as it is by the entire planet. Like in any other area, women simply cannot compete with men on an even playing field, this includes parenting and protecting their children. Not even close.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    @ VDred
    Sad, your Neti amoeba is down to the last three brain cells, it will soon starve. To think that children in large bodies like you are running this joint. God save us.

    Just a quick rhetorical probe of your integrity, wondering if those terabytes of female supremacist mass murderers “giving more value to a woman as opposed to a man” struck your highly developed “eekwalitee” bone at all. You know, in the context of your sanctimoniously trying to henpeck Stu about it and such.

  • Rper1959

    Thanks JTO another classic, well argued deposition, clearly setting out the plight of men and their options.

    “Zeta Masculinity entails no more acceptance of personal violence.”

    Not the sort of “especially virulent misogyny” routinely attributed to MRA’s and for which David Futrelle has been applauded for “monitoring and mocking” on the latest post by Sady Doyle over at Inthesetimes , http://inthesetimes.com/article/12463/fighting_sexual_assault_one_tweet_at_a_time/

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com John the Other

      Depraved and Futile possesses the skill of re-framing a subset of somebody’s argument to present the worst possible re-interpretation. He does so with enthusiam and skill, but not one shred of intellectual integrity. He’ll always be popular with ideologues willing to sacrifice honesty for short-term rhetorical points, but he has no apparent ethical compass, and no relevance to any honest discussion, and should be, in my opinion, roundly ignored for the worthless troll he is.

    • MrStodern

      It’s also a voyage of discovery for his readers, who are able to actually see the different forms that virulent misogyny can take–from claiming that Lara Logan lied about her assault…

      I didn’t see any comments from anyone on The Spearhead claiming to know about any deception on her part. The few that express doubt simply don’t believe her. Everyone else thinks she played with fire and got burned. Can’t say I disagree with that assessment. A blonde woman in the middle of a chaotic Third World country? Not the smartest decision ever.

      to giving tips on how to pay homeless women for sex.

      Yes, because it’s not degrading at all for homeless men to get paid to beat the crap out of each other. I’d rather eat pussy for a sandwich than punch my friend in the face.

      It’s hard to claim that we live in a post-sexist society when visible examples of blatant sexism are being pointed out on a daily basis.

      Only a feminist would be so delusional as to think that we’ll EVER live in a “post-sexist society”. It’s just like trying to eradicate violence and rape, it can’t be done. Human beings suck, no matter how much progress we feel we make.

      “I found myself reading blog posts on how women didn’t deserve the right to vote…

      Not an MRM tenet.

      how the solution to domestic violence is for men to hit women harder than women hit them…

      I’m going to assume he doesn’t mean in self-defense. In which case: Not an MRM tenet.

      how men built civilization while women sat on their lazy asses.

      I wouldn’t say that women were THAT lazy, but… Yeah, men did build pretty much everything. To claim otherwise is to turn a blind eye to the facts.

      It was, not to get too hokey about it, a sort of voyage of discovery for me.”

      I suppose it’d be too much to hope that your next “voyage of discovery” will yield the location of your balls, Mr. Manboobz?

      • Dannyboy

        Lmao @ next voyage of discovery …

    • td9red

      From article

      “Futrelle told me in an e-mail. “I found myself reading blog posts on how women didn’t deserve the right to vote, how the solution to domestic violence is for men to hit women harder than women hit them, how men built civilization while women sat on their lazy asses.”

      While I haven’t seen the argument on an MRA site that, the solution to DV is to hit women harder than they hit you, I have seen the other arguments many times, unfortunately. Now that I think of it in, one of the manwomanmyth videos (this was the video I mentioned in another post for this article), on equality there is an interview with Angryharry wherein they discuss the achievements that men have made to society as compared to those by women and are nearly laughing as they suggest women have made no achievements beneficial to society. Next they show a guy who has his face obscured who says (while laughing) that the only thing he can think of that women are better at is cleaning the house… OUCH! He than says something about women being better at caring for children. They than try to make a recovery and suggest that women, in fact, do contribute to society, men are the doers of things outside of the homestead, women are the manipulators of the men…and man and women were not meant to compete, women are the complimentary sex, not the opposite sex blah blah blah…

      I posit that in any movement there are those who have extreme views such as, those brought to light by Agent Orange and there are MRAs who have extreme views as well.

      • Kimski

        “I posit that in any movement there are those who have extreme views such as, those brought to light by Agent Orange and there are MRAs who have extreme views as well.”

        You won’t find any kind of gendercide lunatics between the men in the MRM. They’d be out on the pavement on their asses and elbows long before you could say; td9red. -And they’d be thrown out there by their own gender.
        We are talking about a totally different kind of extreme views here. We’re not sitting behind closed doors trying to come up with plans to eradicate half of the population, and it actually pisses me off, that you’re trying to compare the two things in any way.

        And I dare..-No, I doubledare you to name me 5 inventions made by women that has benefited mankind as a whole. You’d have to do some serious thinking, whereas I could name 10 inventions made by men within 5 seconds. -And another 10 within the next 5 seconds, and the list goes on and on, because everything is invented and build by men..-I’d just have to look around, and the evidence is abundantly clear for all to see.
        Well, almost all that is..
        -So womens contributions to society is dependant on things made and invented by men, in every single field you can come up with.

        The very, very few things that women have come up with are usually by-products, discarded by men in their search for something else, that women have found a different use for.

        -And some of the fields mens inventions can be found in are seriously funny, too. Midwives i.e. women have been taking care of the birth scenario for hundreds of thousands of years, and none the less there is not ONE SINGLE instrument or machine in a paternity ward, that was invented by a woman. Not one. Even the most primitive wooden listening device to place on a womans belly, to be able to listen for a heartbeat, was invented by a man. If that doesn’t speak volumes, I don’t know what does, seeing as womens own lives were dependant on coming up with these things.
        And that is the general trend in ALL areas you can think of.

        Maybe you should consider the real reason women were laughed at in the discussion about achievements and contributions, and start looking at the reason women are having a hard time competing with men in most areas:
        -You all live in a world build by men, not women. And almost every piece of machinery or tool that can be used to build stuff with, is dependant on an upper body strength that exceeds womens by 40%. There’s a really good reason for this:
        -It was made by a man.

        • td9red

          Posssibly comparing anyone to those exposed by AO is a poor comparison. But, my point was that the views they expose are extreme. And, just as there are extreme view within the feminist movement. There are extreme views within the MRM. Or, at least I hope the idea that women have no value (which is the central belief behind a discussion of the innovations made by man and the lack of innovations made by women) is thought to be an extreme view…

          After presenting your list of inventions made by men and the lack of inventions made by women, what is your conclusions? What does this list demonstrate? More, importantly, how should we use this information to better the relationships b/t men and women and society? Recognizing the differences in abilities of men and women evidenced by this list, how should women and men treat each other differently?

          “…start looking at the reason women are having a hard time competing with men in most areas…”

          Men and women are not meant to be competitors

          • http://traitorsofmen.blogspot.com forweg

            “And, just as there are extreme view within the feminist movement. There are extreme views within the MRM.”

            False equivalence. To say that men built civilization or even that women shouldn’t have been given the right to vote is not remotely comparable to seriously advocating infantcide or genetically modifying men like corn. And you know it.

          • td9red

            @forweg

            Yes, I recognize it was a bad comparison. I admitted that in the post above.

          • BeijaFlor

            “Men and women are not meant to be competitors.”

            Congratulations! You have stated the crux of the matter.

            Male-and-female are complementary, each having greater abilities than the other in some areas, but lesser abilities in other areas. Most obviously, as a matter of gross anatomy, women are built to carry babies to term, and equipped to feed them till they grow teeth and can live on solid food – while men are built to hunt, and bring home food, and defend the nest.

            This division of labors worked for hundreds of thousands of years. But today, it has broken down … no, more correctly, it has been deliberately smashed.

            You might not have repudiated this complementarian division of labors, but your grandmothers and your mothers and your sisters did so – from the Suffragettes to NOW to SCUM to RadFemHub. Men have paid heavily for this; they continue striving to maintain their side of the deal, all the while punished by the White Knights In Power who enable Team Woman to repudiate theirs.

            I hope your children can see the playing field re-leveled. As for me, I have no children and so I have no “skin in the game.” I’m not sailing on the Titanic, I’m sailing solo on something like Joshua Slocum’s “Spray.”

          • Kimski

            “Possibly”

            -No, it IS a poor comparison.

            One of the things I think needs changing, is the fact that some areas like firefighting, being a soldier,-and the list goes on with a lot of different hard physical jobs,-are being ‘standardized’ to suit womens physique in areas where women don’t have a place. Thereby creating a overall standard that is below the standards required for competition, which is the driving force behind evolving or excellency. Equality has nothing to do with this. You’re setting yourself up to loose, and whine about it when it happens.

            If you start hiring women by a standard outside of the physical requirements that it TAKES to do a job in reality, i.e. firefighters, you are putting peoples lives in danger and ‘equality’ becomes lack of rationality or just plain stupidity.

            That it is further used as an argument for ‘inequality’ when the vast majority of women don’t WANT to go there in the first place, is beyond rational thinking. This supposedly ‘inequality’ is based on nature, and has nothing to do with any such thing as ‘Patriachy keeping women out.’ It’s just the way things are.

            If women don’t want to be politicians, there’s noone else to blame but women themselves. If they don’t want to vote for female politicians, it’s a personal choice and not some sceme thought up by the ‘Patriarchy’. If they don’t want to be in executive positions, because it’s too time consuming to get there, men are not responsible,-it’s a choice women make for themselves. If you make a choice like that for yourself, you are being held responsible for your choice, and there’s no point in arguing or whining over who’s to blame, because the choice was yours in the first place. And it comes with a price most women are not prepared to pay.

            And my conclusions to the list is, that women are not wired for problemsolving, or for coming up with solutions that requires thinking outside of the box. Time has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are exceptions to every rule, and that goes here too, but they are so very, very few that it is irrational to even consider them in the big picture.

            And I do think that any society that gives women a head start in the educations necessary to move forward, when they’re not wired for it or show interest in it, might as well go up on the scaffold and place the noose around its neck right away. Especially when that head start is given on the expense of those who ARE wired for it. An educational system run by one gender, who decides that one special kind of education is the right one, and drug those who learn in a different way, thereby making it absolutely inevitable that they will learn nothing, are asking for a fall when that drugged group are the ones wired for coming up with new stuff. It is just plain stupid, and most of the world is on that path as we speak, in the name of the Holy Equality.

            Remember how I talked about music, and women getting educated in this for the past 400 years, and we still haven’t seen a female Mozart (1756-1791)? -Or even an excellent composer?? -That’s what you’re going to see in all other areas of science and industry. Things will come to a complete stand still within the next few years, because women don’t invent any new stuff. They’ve never had to, because men did that.

            No society can afford to sit around and wait for women to catch up with 250.000 years of biological evolution and still expect to survive. That is a fact, and it goes double when theres societies that would not even consider going there, that we also have to compete with.
            A word of advice..-Learn Chinese fast!

          • StarsDie

            While there are very few women who have invented things… There aren’t any men who have given birth. You don’t see men getting offended at that observation.

            No one is suggesting that women have no value. Just that their value is in different things. I think it would be best for society to recognize that and accept it. Feminism has just been one big inferiority complex thrusted onto society.

          • td9red

            @Kimski

            Clearly reforms are needed in our education system. I recall reading an article which suggested that boys learn better in environments without girls b/c they are distracted by the girls. Possibly, girls and boys should be educated in separate classes from pre-school through high school. This may help to increase the achievements of boys. In separate classes they can teach boys and girls in the ways that have been demonstrated to be most beneficial to them. As for why fewer males are going to college, I have no idea what’s behind that.

            I think that women are not suited to be soldiers and should not be on the frontline. But, there are jobs winthin the military and during a war that women can perform which are not jobs that require superior strength and agility. Women that want to go into the military should be permitted to compete for these jobs.
            “And my conclusions to the list is, that women are not wired for problemsolving”

            Far too broad. Women may not be suited for tasks that require the use of scientific or mathmatical skills. Everyday living requires an extensive amount of problemsolving, muiltitasking, efficient use of time. Women are perfectly adequate at “problemsolving”
            “Things will come to a complete stand still within the next few years, because women don’t invent any new stuff.”

            I have greated faith in humanity than you. I suspect we’ll all be just fine.

            Irrespective of the inventions made by man and the lack of inventions produced by women, this does not mean that men are entitled to a higher place in society or that women should be showering men with endless graditute. For one thing all of the inventions you can cite were invented by a very few men in the grand sceme of things. The overwhelming majority of men haven’t created anything. Do women have to shower graditute on these men as well, or, do these men get to stand next to women and shower graditute on the men who actually invented the Iphone?

          • Kimski

            @td9red:

            I’m glad we see sort of eye to eye on the subject of education. I’m a firm believer in separate classes, too. My reasons are just not the girls but the female teachers, which shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a boy. Ever. You’ll find some really radical feminists holding those positions, in general.

            As to why there’s fewer males attending college, you needed to see a website by Ben who is a college graduate and an MRA, too. It was going to rock your world, since you don’t know why there’s fewer male attendees, and explain everything in a couple of video’s.

            Unfortunately he has closed his accounts for some reason, but the things he is subjected to on a daily basis that has NOTHING to do with getting an education, and everything with young female feminists blaming him for being a man would be a very good clue. That being besides shaming him constantly, and trying to force him to wear all sorts of shameful coloured ribbons, when he was just trying to get an education would also be a very good reason, don’t you think?

            -And the new rape policy in colleges, that can ruin a young mans life doesn’t help either, when all it takes is a bored girl to get you prosecuted and found guilty on a false rape accusation.

            Consider that this gender-shaming starts in graduate school, and ALL boys are subjected to this kind of crap for the remainder of their lives.

            Might also explain why the suicide rate for young boys are well above the rate for girls. If constantly brainwashed with how little they are worth on a daily basis from feminist teachers and single household mom’s, some of these kids eventually begin to believe there is something wrong with them. Your son is in for one hell of a ride, -I can PROMISE you that!

            I’ll consider giving you the ‘Far too broad’, if you agree to being guilty of doing the same in your last part.
            However, I do agree with Old Joe when he states that it should be taken as a clear sign, that we’ve been listening to too much shit for much too long about ‘knuckledragging men’. Especially since this is coming from a very large group of people who constantly acts like children, and who refuses to take responsibility for their own actions while doing so.

          • Alphabeta Supe

            “Men and women are not meant to be competitors”

            Precisely. Yet feminism influences women to do exactly this.

            td9red, you keep responding in your comments as if the ideas espoused in the MRM came first. They didn’t. Gender feminism did. The unbridled pursuit of self-interest GF has implanted in the hearts and minds of women is the essence of evil so the MRM is, if anything, an angry but righteous reaction. It’s goal is not to draw a roadmap for man-woman relations but to build an unbreachable wall in the path of evil that says MISANDRY STOPS HERE. The roadmap is for someone else to draw.

            Hey, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you draw one and start educating your sisters on how to follow it? Here’s a 12-step lesson plan for you to kick things off.

        • td9red

          @StarsDie

          Men don’t complain about missing out on the “oppurtunity” to give birth b/c that would be ridiculous. I argued in a post a while ago that society places no value in pregnancy and child birth. If you and I start a business tomorrow and you put in 30% of the funds and I put in 70% of the funds, I would be entitled to a larger return. Yet in reproduction women essentially put in 99% of the funds/work and men 1% of the funds/work and once the baby is born we are equals as regards the child. If you only need to put in 1% and yet you get an equal share as your partner who had to put in 99%, why would you ever want to put in more?

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            Men carry around the extra 15 lbs of ‘funds/work’ every day of their lives. Pound salt, bottomless pit of self-referential pettiness and pestilence.

          • MrStodern

            Men don’t complain about missing out on the “oppurtunity” to give birth b/c that would be ridiculous.

            This is true. Most men don’t complain about that. The reason being that we’re capable of grasping the concept of such things not being anyone’s fault. Unlike women, who insist that their lack of contributions is based on male-induced oppression.

            Face it ladies, there are certain things you simply cannot compete with us on, and you need to fucking let it go. I guarantee you I can drink any one of the millions of boozing college chicks out there under the fucking table, and I’ve never been drunk before in my life. Why is that? Because I’m a man, and we’re naturally better with alcohol consumption. It’s a scientific fact, but do women want to accept this? No fucking way. They have to be equal to us in every way possible. Morons.

            I argued in a post a while ago that society places no value in pregnancy and child birth.

            I’m at a loss for words on that one.

            Yet in reproduction women essentially put in 99% of the funds/work and men 1% of the funds/work and once the baby is born we are equals as regards the child. If you only need to put in 1% and yet you get an equal share as your partner who had to put in 99%, why would you ever want to put in more?

            That’s a good question, actually.

            Unfortunately, you’re not going to like the answer, because in the most ideal situation, the woman doesn’t do very much, because her husband is taking care of everything. He’s supposed to, he’s not the one who’s physical capabilities are being hindered, and it’s his unborn child who’s well-being is at stake if he falters. Not to mention women’s natural hypergamy, which ensures that no matter how well his wife can handle the bills on her own (assuming she can at all), he’s on the hook for a lot of it, since he can afford it more easily.

            This is of course ignoring the vast number of times in which a man is being forced to care for a child he didn’t want. Women are the ones with the ability to achieve the most ideal situation, and when they fail to do that, they have no right to complain about how hard it is to go it alone. Especially when they’re collecting child support.

            And no, in the vast majority of cases, men and women are NOT equals when it comes to their child(ren), because woman get custody of those kids over 80% of the time. I could be the greatest husband/father ever and still lose out on my investment, which, in the ideal situation, would be greater than that of my ex-wife’s.

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            “Men don’t complain about missing out on the “oppurtunity” to give birth b/c that would be ridiculous.”

            And it follows that:

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real astronaut b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real soldier b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real US attorney b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real fighter/test pilot b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real cop b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real fireman b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real explorer/trail blazer b/c that would involve risk which would, of course, be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real corporate asset b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real innovator b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real athlete b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be a real competitor b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Histrionic females don’t complain about missing out on the “opportunity” to be actually independent b/c that would be ridiculous.

            Thank you so much for the benefit of your enlightening presence, VD. And with that, I think I’m done with the Queen Troll for today. Can’t say it hasn’t been fun.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        “I think that women are not suited to be soldiers and should not be on the frontline.”
        Fucking cop-out, vying for the spoils but not the sacrifice. If you concede your “inability to sacrifice”, then you must concede a commensurate privilege to be consistent. How does anyone but a simpleton not see that?

        “I posit that in any movement there are those who have extreme views such as, those brought to light by Agent Orange and there are MRAs who have extreme views as well.”
        Flagrant cop-out. The evidence obviates the PERVASIVENESS of such views, and that rather than ‘extreme’ they are the ‘normative’ in the feminist faction.

        “..at least I hope the idea that women have no value (which is the central belief behind a discussion of the innovations made by man and the lack of innovations made by women)..”
        Bald faced lie. It is central to the idea of complimentary sexes. Complement. Ever heard of it? Like yin and yang? Different but of equal value, like a car and gasoline? Complimentary, but not the same fucking thing. Society has ALWAYS valued the reproductive and sexual qualities of females in no way less than the tinkering and laboring contributions of males. The answer to the question, ‘who has society protected more?’ is everything you do, or will ever, need to know about who it has valued. How the fuck is that not clear to anyone but an ape? Protection is valuation incarnate. Seen anyone, much less a female, protect a man lately? Right.

        • Kimski

          I think that what is going on here is that she equals ‘worth’ with what a MAN can do, and holds less regard to what a woman can do, for some reason.
          It is not the first time I see that.
          -Cooking is an overall good example too, generally.

          I wish more of these ‘strong and empowered’ were able to see that if that part is not taken care of, too, the total sum of results goes down for both individuals, so there’s really no reason to compare them.

          I love to cook, but I wouldn’t want to live in a house where the foundation was milled or layed down by a woman, so I’ll just have to refrain from cooking. It’s really that simple.

          And if I wanted a wife who could do the same things as me, I’d be living with a man.
          -But I don’t live with any of those genders, which in a way says a lot about women and some things about me.

          • MrStodern

            And if I wanted a wife who could do the same things as me, I’d be living with a man.

            This is why I sometimes envy gay guys, because this is exactly what they do. Granted, most of them can’t get married, which sucks. But they can still live together, at least.

            There’s only one thing that I would ever need a woman to do for me that I either don’t want a man doing, or cannot do myself, and I gave up pursuing that long ago. Sure, I might hire people to perform certain tasks I’m not very good at, like flying a plane, but their gender isn’t the reason. And generally, yes I’d prefer to hire men. About the only real benefit to hiring a woman for anything is if I can enjoy watching her do it because she’s hot. Or if she’s the most talented person in her field, which is pretty rare.

        • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

          “I posit that in any movement there are those who have extreme views such as, those brought to light by Agent Orange and there are MRAs who have extreme views as well.”
          Flagrant cop-out. The evidence obviates the PERVASIVENESS of such views, and that rather than ‘extreme’ they are the ‘normative’ in the feminist faction.

          If Agent Orange’s Terabytes were not sufficient to breech the reality distortion field emanating from your head, behold exhibit B on the normative femaleist view.

          • http://none universe

            exhibit b?
            ass-holes

  • 4thtroika

    Interesting that the man with the moth over his mouth is George Orwell.

  • ubermensch

    @ td9red

    “Both men and women win.

    Women win b/c we cannot compete for strength based jobs. When these jobs are no longer strength based, women can learn how to use the computer that runs these machines and compete for these jobs”.

    Td9red, you’re sorely, sorely mistaken. If society totally disintegrates as many “doomers” believe within the next decade or two, we’ll be back to living like we’re in the 1800′s. No computers, no easy jobs, no “make work” positions for women; just hard f*cking work all round.

    Massive global issues such as imminent peak resource depletion, over-population, food security, etc … it’s just not looking good for the western female, let alone the west, period. We are addicted to cheap oil, coal, gas. The system we know will collapse within the next generation if some pundits are correct. The orgiastic period of excess is coming to and end, either economically (the first thing to go) or otherwise.

    And with Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), turning their backs in droves, either through conscious choice or not, against marriage and family … it’s shit sandwiches for everyone.

    I for one am enjoying the decline. Given I have no children of my own through choice, I can sit back and watch the whole shithouse coming down, like it’s all a big documentary for my viewing pleasure.

    Pull up a seat.

    • Kimski

      Hey, I’ll bring the popcorn and brew!

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

      The devolution will certainly be televised.

  • Cooter Bee

    I remember back to the mid 70s seeing a news report on the fall of Saigon where a company of South Vietnamese soldiers forced their way onto one of the last airliners out of Saigon before it was over run by the communists. (Early MRA’s?)

    Even as early as 1975, the Titanic mentality had given way in some quarters. Nowadays, there would be even less holding the old ways in place. In exteme circumstances, I would venture to guess that it would only take a couple MRA’s or MGTOW to turn a crowd of white knights into survivors. The resolve of the white knights is probably far weaker than they proclaim.

  • DruidV

    I happen to think it’s fabulously funny that the very mention of a very possible economic collapse or peak oil depletion scenario, sends these femitwits into a tizzy.

    The funniest part is that if (when) this actually occurs, there would be no more make work, swivel chair, computer lounge jobs for wimmin’s big fat asses.
    Neither would there be a family kourt abuse mill, to provide them with their pound of male flesh. Niether would there be a DMV, for the darker wimmin to completely dominate.
    There would be no more HRC for the feminazis & manginas to rule from, on high. There would be no more Oprah, Dr. Phil, or Sex in the city, for wimmin to gain their life’s inspiration from. And that’s just the beginning.

    But best of all, there wouldn’t be ANY manginas or white knights to bully Men on behalf of wimmin, anymore. These pathetic skin sacks should be the very first ones to be killed and eaten by the masses, the exact moment the lights go out for good.

    Nope, thankfully there won’t be any trace of this absurd feminazi bullshit remaining anywhere, if (when) this happens. Keeping the lights, heat and water on, so to speak, is what enables all of this insanity.

    Fat, spoilt, malcontent wimmin are the product of modern, westernized technology, period!

    For wimmin in this hypothetical post collapse, neo pre-industrial reality, there will instead of ‘liberation” be, a household full of laborious and well earned chores for you and you alone to face starting with, but certainly not limited to:

    Lots of clothes warshin to be done in a creek with some stones and your bare hands.

    Plenty of wood for you to chop and keep the fireplaces and cooking stoves warm with.

    Lots of livestock for you to feed, care for, butcher and serve to us, piping hot.

    Plenty of babies to make, and wet nurse.

    Lots and lots of really demanding, truly thankless work, most of it shoeless and pregnant, to be performed on your hands and knees, but don’t fret. While we Men won’t be thanking you for any of it, we will be out hunting, harvesting, inventing and generally making everything better again, just like we have always done, only hopefully for ourselves this time.

    The new ‘dark’ age is only a light switch away after all…

  • TigerMan

    Another excellent essay John. The elite tier(s) in our society (including especially the political sphere) could have chosen to only back the more egalitarian forms of feminism and perhaps to some extent they have but where it really matters they have firmly and resolutely come down on the side of the most divisive faction(s). It is well past time that the “zeta” males had their voices heard. This was a first class exposition of that IMO. :)

  • keyster

    “Everybody, including the social-conservative women wringing their hands over men opting out are all aware of the annexation of the social contract.”

    I really don’t think they are. They’re as ensconced in their belief systems, as academic feminists are in theirs. And neither dares to objectively criticize “thy holy woman” for fear of alienating the majority of their respective “congregations”.

    The battle front for conservative evangelicals vs. feminism is abortion and gay marriage. Family court bias and DV law are not even on the radar screen.

    If these women truly followed the Word of the Bible they would be deferring to their husbands rather than speaking out about anything. Ask your local minister to try and explain why women don’t follow the teachings of the Bible. Tell the SoCon woman to STFU, so sayeth the Lord..

    Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
    —————————————————————————
    1 Corinthians 14:35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
    —————————————————————————Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
    —————————————————————————1 Timothy 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
    —————————————————————————
    1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

    …that ship sailed a few centuries ago.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism-page/karma/ KARMA MRA MGTOW

      “1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

      …that ship sailed a few centuries ago1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

      …that ship sailed a few centuries ago”

      I would suggest that ship never was.

  • justicer

    I mentioned previously that male pride used to be taught and promoted in society. Someone wrote to say he could hardly believe it.
    Here’s an excellent documentary that details male pride, strength, and self-sacrifice. Extremely uplifting, and, if you are raising sons, I suggest you have them watch it. It’s part of the American Experience series (PBS) and it’s about the Greely Expedition to the High Arctic.
    http://video.pbs.org/video/1773964253

  • justicer

    td9red, I haven’t the time to plough through your and others’ contrbutions to your debate, but this statement by you caught my eye:

    “I recall reading an article which suggested that boys learn better in environments without girls b/c they are distracted by the girls.”

    td9red, that both skims the surface and manages to demean every single boy in schools. Not a bad day at the races!
    Seriously, education is a method based on biological determinants and environmental influences. But the idea of boys not doing well because the girls distract them is an appalling flippancy.
    The controversy in education is about gender differences, at early ages, in cognition, retention, and progressive levels of reasoning. It is the consensus that boys learn “differently” from girls, not that they’re distracted by the little girl-angels they see around them.
    If they are being distracted at all, it’s because the delivery of this teaching is designed for the females, not for the males.
    The schools are staffed by females who cater to the girls; first, because female teachers understand how the girls think and learn; second, because girls sit still, join learning groups easily, and are an easy body to control; and third, because most fem teachers don’t give a flying freak about the way boys learn, and less so about how they think. In fact, they wander between indifference and hostility when it comes to boy students.
    Anti-male bias in public education is spread by the faculties of ed, who tend to influence curriculum and teaching-delivery. Finally, radical feminists exult in this situation; they boast about how boys should be “feminized” in the schools and in society.
    Today’s literature speaks of the “growing gender gap” in public education, and the above phenomena are well documented.

    • td9red

      I read whatever article it was a long while ago. But as I recall it the main argument in the article was about how girls learn better without boys in their classes and how differently girls and boys learn. The article also argued that boys learned better without the girls. Not sure why you would find that demeaning. I believe education to be of the utmost importance. Sooo if boys learn better without girls and girls learn better without boys I don’t care why this is so, divide them up and get on with it.

    • td9red

      This is not the article I read long ago. But, this article suggests boy do better in english when girls aren’t aound and girl do better in math and science when boys aren’t around. We should do all we can to improve the education of our children.

      http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/boys-learn-no-girls-in-class-not-so-bad-118349059.html

      • justicer

        td, I said it was demeaning because of the way you put it, that boys were ‘distracted’ by girls– as if boys are like cats or dogs, sniffin’ at anything that passes in the alley.
        The article you mention only talks about symptoms. It’s totally superficial.
        What the article should explore is what’s called ‘gender-based learning differences’, not “segregated versus integrated classes,” or some such. The point is that an all-male classroom delivering female-specific learning models, will still be useless to most of the boys.
        So we need to restore male-friendly classes.

  • Primal

    For $40k per year, for the respect of other Devil Dogs, and for the dubious promise of plentiful pussy you can suffer this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-stress-20111226,0,7218334.story Thank goodness I never bought this lie. High school football with it’s accompanying cheerleading cock teasers was very helpful in terms of figuring out the bigger game.

  • http://none universe

    Excellent article, JtO.
    Thank you for for its creation.

  • lionstorm

    With all due respect to a great article, your solution is crap.

    I want a WIFE. I want CHILDREN. This is not about being a provider or a walking ATM. I want sons who I can teach and who will grow up to be my brothers. I want daughters I can give away to the sons of men I respect.

    I want a woman who looks on me like I am a hero. I want the challenge of working the relationship with her. What you are offering me is a very nice existence that doesn’t give me what I want.

    I don’t give a bent penny for this society or the worthless poisoned women in it. Not because they aren’t “good”, but because they don’t further MY ends.

    I respect your wish to live without abuse. I’d prefer to live without abuse and with a real woman. Show me how to do that, and I’ll take notice.

    • JinnBottle

      “I want a WIFE. I want CHILDREN. This is not about being a provider or a walking ATM. I want sons who I can teach and who will grow up to be my brothers. I want daughters I can give away to the sons of men I respect.

      I want a woman who looks on me like I am a hero.”

      Judging by these desires of yours, the only way I know to even come close to fulfilling them would be to look into the Sterling Men’s Weekend. It might be for you.

      Might. Google it if interested.

    • td9red

      Perhaps a financial solution, at least, might be to work out a pre-nuptial agreement. This way each side can get a fair share of what they purchased during the marriage. The laws are different in every US state and around the world. But, you can put almost anything in a pre-nup these days. You cannot include in a pre-nup any provisions regarding child custody. But, almost everything else can be negotiated.

  • lionstorm

    I was also very affected by your accusation regarding Amanda Knox. You accusation implies her of wantonly trying to pin the murder on an innocent man.

    I was so moved by this, I looked into the matter, and what I found was at odds with the spirit of your words. The implication you made was that this woman was a murderer who cast about trying to find any innocent patsy to blame.

    The reality is she had been grilled for 50 hours non-stop by the police, with no lawyer present. When she failed to give a “correct” answer to any of their questions, they would smack her in the head. In the US this sort of grilling has been known to get grown men to confess to murders that were later proven to have been committed by others, in one case the actual killer matched all the DNA, blood, shoe print evidence, and even knew all the details of the case to which he happily admitted to. Yet the poor bastards who signed the coerced confession are probably still in jail now. Knox was subjected to the same treatment that has grown men going into a psychological breakdown. I’m not remotely surprised she tried to finger someone else to get out of it. I’m impressed she had the brains to resist confessing to that garbage.

    False accusations by women are a real problem in the American justice system. But putting a terrorized, confused and tormented woman into the same league as a cold smirking killer, is about as dishonorable as any feminist accusing all men of rape.

    The reason feminists get away with that evil shit is because no one calls them on it. Everything is OK so long as it’s for the cause is their view.

    Well it’s NOT OK. Lies are lies, we read what you write and take you seriously because we trust you to be honest and thorough.

    You weren’t.

    If other men don’t seem to mind that, well that’s their lookout. But I at least am aware that not everything you say is going to be on the up and up.