Thursday, July 16, 2009

End Of Men Discovered Feminists Rejoice

-End Of Men Discovered, Feminists Rejoice. Why Do Women Feel This Way? Why is it acceptable and politically correct to speak of men this way? Notice this is the scientific technology Professor Laurie French is referring to in the article "Who Needs Men?" several blog posts down entitled "Article: The Cronicle of Higher Education" which was actually published in this prominent academic newspaper.

Men’s rights and fathers’ rights advocates identify a wide range
of injustices and harms suffered by men. Males have been displaced
from the labour market, schools and universities, deprived of their
role as fathers, and are now regarded only as ‘gene pool and cash
machines’. Men are subject to discrimination in health and
government policy, boys are marginalised in a feminised schooling
system, and ‘misandrist’ (man-hating) depictions are rife in popular
culture. There has been a "battle of the sexes" taking place for the
last 40 years. The results are in while the attack against men and boys
is still underway. It is time to counter attack. Thus the rise of the
Men's and Father's Rights Movement.

Prominent New York Times Columnist Mareen Dowds politically correct book:
Are Men Necessary:

Time Magazine:

Sony Cybershot Commercial Christmas 2008: Father and husband at parent teacher conference shown as filthy horses ass.

Roomba Robotic Vacuum Commercial: Depicting husband and father as useless ignorant and filthy jack ass.

Trojan Condom Commercial: Depicting men as filthy unevolved animal pigs

T-Shirt sold to little girls:

Credit card sold to adult women:

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

What do the above advertisements reveal about our culture in relation to the truth regarding our view of men? Since these ads are trying to sell something to women, what wide demographical, what aggregate truth of women's perception of men are they trying to appeal to?

Female empowerment through male denigration, unequal rights and special privledges:

The feminist movement has spearheaded the cultural acceptance of the routine disrespect of men. Instead of equitably quashing and discouraging misandry and working toward true mutual understanding and respect between the sexes, the feminist movement has succeeded in cheerleading a misandry that palpably permeates the culture. Jokes, television commercials, magazine advertisements and even greeting cards often put down men in a way that would be condemned as sexist if directed toward women. As men, become less needed as fathers and husbands, by forced servitude of resources to the female after leaving a cohabitant relationship, divorce or by simply living with a male long enough to mandate Common Law Marriage, default loss of the right to be a father, modern reproductive technology and government husbandry welfare men are increasingly disrespected by women. The goal is not to abolish marriage as earlier feminists postulated but to make men expendable and disposable.

Ironically, by reducing men's general status vis a vis women, women find to their disappointment fewer available men, especially in successive generations who can meet their high expectations for a potential husband and father of her children. The battle between the sexes is not an evolutionary paradox that we have reached but is systemically subsidized. Men and boys are under attack in all elements of society. Inherently it seems women resent the mutual dependence of a mated pair bond and any dependence on what men want to provide to them and what women need from men. What men need from women i.e mother, nurturer and fertile health is inherent and can not be taken away from them where as what women need from men can be taken by force and indeed it is. Now, by laws instituted by feminsits, male resources, male working labor and monetary capitol production is the property of women, children are the property of women and indeed complete control over reproduction and reproductive choice is the sole right, choice and property of women and women alone. The goal
is to allow women choices and men the responsibility to support those choices whether he like it or not.

Unfortunately, men are so predisposed to protect women, and protect what feminists say women's interests are, that men ignore their own interests as a group to their own peril. On a social level, several nascent men's movements have sputtered, and then sadly faded. Not until the early 2000's did the grass roots movements start to unite and being to form a more formidable voice for men. Apparently men's instincts to protect women are generally greater than their inclination to protect themselves. Innate male biology is inclined to put "women first" which has created a "women can have their cake and eat it to" dichotomy in our social order. Such has been the force used against men in our own subjugation to women.

On a more personal level, when a man finds himself unable to provide income than a woman can obtain via welfare and single mother government husbandry (or that she can provide through her own career), or through forced male resource provision after divorce, when he cannot have equal choices and equal control in conception of a child , when he is ordered to financially support a child that he never wanted (or even one that is not genetically his own), when he is not granted equal custody or parental authority for his children after a divorce, when he loses a job, promotion, a work contract or college admission to a less qualified woman due to affirmative action policies, when women reject him because they prefer a partner who has a higher status, he feels, at best, frustrated, despondent and alone. He knows something is a miss with feminist rhetoric about "equality," but he may have difficulty articulating it. Men today are befuddled -- they don't understand how equality for women came to result in sexual, reproductive, parental, legal and social inequality and a disrespect for men. It hurts him deeply to know that he is told everywhere he looks that men are not needed, are disposable and an accessory to independent women and "their" children.

The idea that reproduction, conception and parenting is a decision jointly made by both partners no longer exists. Examined more closely, it is clear that the choice of woman is always a prerequisite yet the consent or choice of the man is superfluous and disregarded. His sole existence now is bound by servitude, exploitation and expendability to the mated pair bond, as a supportive husband, and indeed his expendability, need and value as a father.

The one saving grace, as the statistics on fatherless children show is that children don't fare well without a father and men don't fare well without a family, wife and child. Eventually nature has a way of correcting imbalances. As the value of male contributions to reproduction, marriage and parenting have diminished by institution of a misandry in social culture, unequal property rights, unequal divorce and family law, and unequal civil liberties of "choice", protections, provisions and lack of privileges afforded to men in favor of women, so too has the general level of male status in society.

I am afraid though that if we do not act we must continue to move toward a state of destruction and critical mass to resolve this epidemic. Notice the abhorrent rise in divorce rates and the increase of not only age at first marriage but the decline of marriage itself in the graphs I've provided throughout my blog. NOTICE the time and date these changes occurred and their relation to the second wave feminist movement and the institution of feminist divorce laws.


SavvyD said...

The point of the Trojans ad is that they are pigs UNLESS they use Trojans because then they can pick up the hot chicks, take them home and have great sex.

I agree with you, this is as bad as depicting women as body parts. High fashion is the biggest sinner.

Anonymous said...

With nearly 7 billions humans pillaging and contaminating this planet, BOTH men and women are expandable.

Men can become freer than they have ever been and they can enjoy a longer life, more leisure time and generally speaking a far better life than their predecessors.

A very small sacrifice is required in order to acquire this blissful existence: refrain from reproducing. That's not too much to ask, or is it?

Women have discovered that they don't need men. (thus, setting men free).
Men, in turn, don't need women either, but most don't understand that yet.

In reality, men and women need one another hardly ever for anything. That's where freedom comes from. I strongly equate marriage/kids with outright slavery

Why is everybody so concerned about the fate of society? Why is that considered so important?

Whatever is bound to happen will happen. So what?


Roy said...

I happen to agree with Rebel above me.
As more and more men are "going ghost" and wanting nothing to do whatsoever with women, its effects are being felt among the feminasty circles with their shrieks of despair growing louder by the day, along with the passing of ever more draconian laws designed with only one goal in mind -the total subjugation of men.
To me, as one who is MGTOW, these shrieks are like unto a death knell. They are the desperate cries of a movement gone horribly wrong, is now in danger of imploding and they can only hasten its final demise.
You know what? I couldn't care a f**k!
To all men I would say walk away and don't look back. Women today are not worth the dirt you walk on. Boycott those companies who use misandric advertising and do not cohort with women. At the very least you have the satisfaction of knowing where your sperm are.
"Are men necessary?" Does a woman need a man anymore than a fish needs a bicycle? To the fembots, these questions have only one answer. It will be funny in the extreme to watch these scum bite the bullet when feminism finally explodes with egg all over their faces!
And believe me, my MGTOW brothers, that day is nigh!

Dean Taylor said...

a cause deferred: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy brother…”

Further, and despite the validity of grievances against males guarding their prerogatives all the while defrauding women—i.e., their personal rights and material needs, and, generally speaking, the great necessity and legitimacy for the collective known as the feminist movement—there exists within its precincts a co-opting, as it were, of the cause by those having no real interest in the collective well-being. That is, when are the “feminist’s” actions more properly considered merely self-serving behaviour—the true focus belied via a pretentious claim of having acted to serve the cause—and when are they accomplished in the genuine interest of the collective, and possibly at some cost to the activist?


Misandry and the co-opting of a feminist movement…

Dean Taylor said...


Bwec said...

Thanks Dean, I'll check out your writing....