Monday, December 14, 2009

Do Men Think Less Of Women?

A feminist made the following statement:

"And regarding the feminization of men: I realize that I may have been a bit vague in the video itself about why this is a problem. It's when feminine terms are used as ways to insult men that a problem arises, because the use of such terms as derogatory implies that female or feminine is the worst thing you could be, thereby insulting not only women, but transpeople and in fact, anyone who doesn't adhere to traditional gender binaries, in the process."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

Men don't think less of women. Men think less of themselves and other men if they are like a woman AND women do as well.


The reason we have feminization insults for men is because if you are like a woman you are not able to serve women or perform the complimentary role the masculine plays to the feminine.

Men carry no inherent value for the simple fact that we exists and are beautiful and attractive. We also have no value on the mating market for the simple fact that we exist. Women will not mate with us because we have a cock and are willing to GIVE (external) them our genes but men will mate with women for the simple fact that she is willing to TAKE (internal) our genes. Remember this giver and chooser dynamic when it comes to the mating dynamic of humans and the sexual selection process. Remember the internal (feminine) and (external) masculine forces of potential energy.

Men must be, we must produce, we must provide, protect, we must take pain, we must die for women and children. We must possess external utility. We must posses the character traits, abilities and qualities that facilitate such ends and if we do not we are a "pussy"

The reference to man in terms of feminization words used as an insult have nothing to do with men's view of women rather it is a way to emasculate him or declare he is like the feminine. If a man is like the feminine he is worthless to women and has nothing to offer and as male value in the mating dynamic is weighted in external utility, if he lacks this, he is in fact no longer a man.

Mostly it is used in terms of what is not able to or willing to do. It could be that he is not strong enough, not brave enough, resourcefully or monetarily successful enough, not _______ enough, you fill in the blank.

These emasculations are used upon him most particularly when a man is unable or unwilling to produce something of direct value or lacks the qualities such as honor, courage, size or height,strength, intelligence, commitment etc that facilitate the production of such ends.

The very things that will make him of utility or value in culture and more particularly FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN. So again, men have no innate mate value but must compete, protect, produce, become and acquire etc.

"Don't be a pussy." Why must men sacrifice their comfort, their safety and their vary lives for women? Why must men "do", "become" or "be" a man, because a man's value is not inherent in the mating game....

It is said that men, "real men" will always put women and children before themselves. It is said that a "real man"
will die for women and children. A "real man" must produce, provide and protect, he must be of utility or a bread winner.

Independence as women define it is mutual dis-need of the other sex i.e. "I don't need a man" an "independent woman"

In order for true independence or mutual dis-need to occur, in order for this goal to be reached between the sexes men must no longer "be" "produce" ""provide" or "protect" women and children. We must no longer value or aspire to the qualities that make us "a man". We must no longer look down upon ourselves or other men if we are not these things i.e. if we are a "pussy". All of these things must be withdrawn for women to be dependent on or need. They must produce these things for themselves, they must be "independent".

Acts of chivalry must be withdrawn in ALL aspects, alimony and child support must be withdrawn in all aspects, we must no longer produce or be the "bread winner" for women. We must no longer provide or protect them or display such social graces that display such willingness. Do not buy gifts (a demonstration of resource devotion) do not open doors (a demonstration of protection devotion and utility of strength) do not pay for dates and buy their meals (a demonstration of resource or devotion to provide) Notice all the social graces relate to what women say they do not need from us and that they would like to share instead i.e. what they would like to be "equal".

Men must no longer dominate what women are willing to do for us. If they want to share in the work of providing external utility by all means let them provide and protect us....Let's be equal, lets share... Women don't need these things from men right??? They do not select us as mates because we have these attributes right??? They will even let us take on their role right??? Lets see if they will??? They have not let us yet but we must call them on this equality thing asap!

In crude terms their giving forth access to sex and reproduction is not enough payment. If they have or obtain everything that we have to offer them AND still control sexual selection, what males will have to do for them then will be left over for their whims to decide. I venture to say that this will be humiliating for men. So being that the balance of power will be all in the hands of women they must give to us back the external utility the potential energy, the work we had to give them i.e. what they are now doing for themselves.



What does this mean??? It means no more provider dependent. No more primary care giver, no more isolated resource provider after divorce. THE CHILDREN WILL BE SHARED. AS AN INDEPENDENT WOMAN AND AS CURRENTLY IT IS A LIABILITY TO TAKE ON THE PROVIDER ROLE FOR THE VERY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTINUED OBLIGATION TO DO SO AFTER DIVORCE THERE WILL BE NO MORE ALIMONY. NO MORE UNEQUAL LIABILITIES IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND AS SUCH THE POTENTIAL DIVORCE CONTRACT. WE ARE EQUAL!!!

It means they must split meals, they must open our doors or take turns showing such graces, they must buy us or bring us gifts in courtship, they must in fact provide and protect us as well. They must earn a high wage so that we may stay home and care for our infant child. They have taken on our role now they must allow us to take on theirs. We must no longer compete for anything between each other to provide to them. No longer compete for territory or resources. We must blow around like leaves in the wind, not a care in the world and demand the pussy be shared and not on the terms of provision or protection they must share the external utility of provision and protection to be our equal otherwise they will be our superior. Sex and access to reproduction can not be taken from them, they will still have it for us to compete and work for.

Make no mistake, when they have taken our external utility THEY WILL STILL MAKE US WORK FOR THEIR CHOICE OF MALES IN SEXUAL SELECTION only our work then will not be an honorable place I assure you of that. In fact they will say we are redundant and look at us with contempt.. They will ask...."Are Men Necessary" "Are men going extinct" "do I even need a man" hmmmmm no but I think I want one around but on what terms....hmmmm what ever I decide the terms will be...both in marriage and most importantly after divorce.


What then gentlemen do you think they would have us do for it then???

In reality and in all truth women have something we want and need which can not be taken from them. Her womb is potential energy and potential energy = work. Women for the simple fact of existing are fertile and already are of value. Their potential fertile energy is potential work that males seek to be worthy of, to provide work for in return, to provide sperm??? no sperm is cheep and readily available. Women can purchase male genes through the mail by what celebrity they look like. Are men designed to provide external utility....YES!

Given that women want what men want to work for and give them, they want to get these things for themselves, they want to be "independent" Men must no longer provide these things to women and insist they value us for and allow us to take on their role. Granted we do not have the potential energy that gives them inherent value but they need to realize that this is what they have asked for. However they can support us financially so that we may stay home and take care of such things as domestic tasks but more importantly wean our infant child.

Gentlemen, ask yourselves what women are trying to be an "independent woman" from and this will alllow you to understand what you may become dependent upon them for or share. Equality by definition means the same, there are not "gender roles"


Most particularly, if women will not allow us to take on their role, if they will not provide and protect us or at least share the work in doing so. If they do not take on the potential energy of our external utility as males
it is paramount that we as men find out what women are dependent on men for and withdraw these things in ENTIRETY.

If what we want from women (wife, mother, her sex her fertile potential energy) can not be taken from them I surmise that most men would decide to give women what they want in exchange for what they have. Most men would devote themselves somehow in ENTIRETY. Lets call this devotion marriage.

Ask yourself, are women able to get the things they want from you without marriage? Are women provided and protected for outside of marriage? Most importantly are they able to get these things after divorce? If so do you still get what you need from a woman after divorce or is it a one way selfish transaction of protection and provision while you yourself have no wife, no mother of your children, no children as you have no right to be a father and are degraded to visitor and isolated resource PROVIDER.

DOES NOT PROVISION = PROTECTION? How is it then that women can gain what they want while you get nothing?

Ask yourself gentleman, is the binding contract of marriage not also the potential binding contract of divorce?
As such:

Marriage = PROVISION AND PROTECTION OF A WOMAN and "HER" CHILDREN

Divorce = PROVISION AND PROTECTION OF A WOMAN and "HER" CHILDREN



Bernard Chapin of Chapin's Inferno holds up a copy of The Disposable Male

NOW GENTLEMAN, IS MARRIAGE FOR YOU ???

True independence for men is access to mating opportunity without our provisional or protectional value being diminished by women taking this external utility we compete for to give them from us.

True independence for men is being of no use to women or at very least insist on them being equal to us in the external utility that we provide to them and compete for and provide these things to us.

True independence for men is also mutual dis-need of women. If what they have can not be taken we must demand they give it and if not, diminish our obligation to obtain it. I've noticed this has happened in the black community and in places where a mated pair bond is not needed in nature for successful gestation, provision and protection of offspring.

Males compete among each other for dominance but this is mainly for themselves. Their ability to provide and protect is not given to the female but is symbolic. The male displays his prowess, good genes, health and vies for competitive advantage over territory and resources but does not employ them to provide and protect females. Rather male worthiness of genetic fitness is competed for among males through fighting but the spoils are not given to females in order for her to mate with him.


They mate get females pregnant and then walk away and find more females to get pregnant. The defining factor in this dynamic is that males don't have any obligations to the female thus "diminishing our obligation to obtain it" as I have outlined above..

Any thoughts?


I do in fact think that women will continue their independence. I believe we will in fact move toward an order of mutual dis-need. I believe is male external utility is no longer needed it makes no sense to provide it from an empty apartment in alimony and child support. I makes no sense to still give these things to them when we can not obtain what we desire from them in return. The pair mated bond of marriage is dissolving and moving toward another dynamic. We as men must embrace this, we has men must go our own way.........We must fight for equality, to be independent.

Given the mating dynamic I've outlined women have claimed themselves to be "sex objects" which makes us as men, as our value to women being heavily weighted in external utility, "success objects" BUT NO MORE!!!!



REMEMBER THEY ARE OUR COMPETITORS NOW FOR THE VERY THINGS THEY SEEK FROM US. THEY ARE ARE SO BY FORCE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AND TITLE IX. TITLE IX HAS SHUT DOWN HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF MALE SPORTS TEAMS, SCHOLARSHIPS AND PROGRAMS. IT WILL SOON BE EXPANDED FROM COLLEGE SPORTS TO ALL SCIENCE, TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS OR WHAT THE COUNCIL ON WOMEN AND GIRLS CALLS S.T.E.M. THEY NOW OBTAIN 60% OF ALL COLLEGE DEGREES. I EXPECT WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE EXPANSION OF TITLE IX BY THE FEDERAL COUNCIL ON WOMEN AND GIRLS MALE REPRESENTATION WILL DECREASE TO 30% OR 20% OF ALL DEGREES.

WOMEN DEMAND NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BUT EQUAL OUTCOME BY UNEQUAL MEANS. THEY CONTROL 54% OF THE VOTE AND CONTROL POLITICS. WOMEN HAVE SECULAR REPRESENTATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO ADVOCATE FOR THEIR SEPARATE CLASS INTERESTS AWAY FROM MEN AND AWAY FROM THE POLICIES THAT FACILITATE THE MATED PAIR BOND AND THE FAMILY ITSELF.




The concept of "free love" began during the Communist Revolution and was implemented in the United States during the 1960's. It was an essential element of the cultural Marxist subversion of American Culture.

SEE: Works of Alexandra Kollontai 1921
Sexual Relations and the Class Struggle
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/sex-class-struggle.htm
AND:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Kollontai

I HOPE THAT THE ARTICLES AND INFORMATION IN THE REST OF MY BLOG WILL HELP CREATE AN EVEN CLEARER PICTURE AS TO WHERE WE STAND WITH THIS AND WHERE WE SHOULD GO.

14 comments:

SteveinTX said...

FWIW, I don't believe that I could possibly think less of women.

SteveinTX

rebukingfeminism said...

The type of disrespect of women you harbor is a normal part of the collective divorce process men and women are going through in society.

We are going our separate ways.

Secretly you want to devote to them but I understand your resentment.

It is ok to "diminish your obligation to obtain it" as I've said in my article. This is a normal part of the process.

I've noticed the higher proportion and correlation of the exacerbating indicators such as the single woman birth rate, fatherless homes, education disparity, welfare distribution and marriage rates existing in the black community as compared to the white community.

I observe the mating dynamic there. In fact I've gathered an understanding and inspiration from black men on the
"diminished obligation to obtain it"

Black males have adapted quite well and many in fact or at least a much larger proportion of them provide little or no parental investment in their offspring.
Again this is normal part of the process of independence or mutual dis-need.

rebukingfeminism said...

I guess I'd also like to say that I do not want things to be this way but I don't know any other way. Men must find respect and independence.

The marriage contract was altered by women, feminists in particular in the 1970's. No-Fault Divorce, default female child custody, forced resource provision by males to these women and "their" children under penalty of prison or interest paid directly to her as punishment for not supporting her and more.

You will see elsewhere on my blog the divorce and marriage rates correlate to these changes among other factors such as abortion and birth control.

Before women's sexuality was private and married but through these changes we no longer marry. Women's sexuality is public and promiscuous. The modern woman is certainly nothing to devote oneself to. They say chivalry is dead again male withdraw from commitment to women is a natural part of the process.

Also if you experience guilt understand that women shamed us deeply during the main feminist assault campaign conducted in the 1960s 70s and 80s.

It is ok not to respect women as they have asked us not to. It was a powerful move, as chivalry is very symbolic of traditional male virtues and honor bestowed upon women. As provision and protection of women wain away so to will opening doors etc.... We must embrace this instead of resent women.

Anonymous said...

I like the way things are changing.
And I agree completely that men and women must disengage from one another. The provider role that men have had to assume for ages was definitely too heavy and burdensome.
I calculate that this is what used to shorten men's lives. As proof of this, consider that the disparity between men and women, when it comes to longevity, is narrowing as men further disengage themselves from she shakles of matrimony.
Men now live longer as women have inherited men's heart attacks rate, cancer rate and even suicide.

As women control more and more and as men further disconnect, men's lives are improving in lenghth, quality and happiness.

I love the idea of women working and men staying at home: this is a great return to better living conditions for men.

rebukingfeminism said...

You say: "I calculate that this is what used to shorten men's lives."

I am sorry to inform you "anonymous" but you seem to be under the impression that male health is getting better when in fact their is a GROWING GAP between the health and longevity of men and women.. Men now die 7 years earlier than women as opposed to 1-2 years in 1920.

You Say: "Men now live longer as women have inherited men's heart attacks rate, cancer rate and even suicide."

Again you are grossly misinformed. First of all, again men are not living longer, second suicide rates for men and boys has tripled since 1970.

It almost seems as if your delusional comment is formed from a need to regain some semblance of meaning and control. Again I regret to inform you that men and boys have a long fight ahead for them..

Women in major universities are publishing papers wishing for the death and demise of men and speak about such things openly. Men must join together to defend ourselves.

figleaf said...

"Men must be, we must produce, we must provide, protect, we must take pain, we must die for women and children. We must possess external utility."

Seriously?

You realize your entire post falls apart if those two sentences aren't true?

I know you believe it, and so do a lot of other men. But it's not women who are telling you that and it sure as hell isn't feminist women saying it.

But look at yourself? You're sitting there telling me you can't "buy" a wife if you're not willing neglect her and my children by working myself to death "for" them. Worse, you're telling me I'm somehow not a real man because I'm home a lot of the time loving my children and my wife instead of bungeeing in and out again with a paycheck every two weeks and then dying of exhaustion at my daughter's graduation.

Forget it, pal. I tried it once. She told me, over and over actually, that she wanted to spend more time with me and that I should work less. I kept thinking no, I gotta get us up in the world so I can give her the material life I thought she'd really like once she got a taste of it. What's funny is I was working so hard I didn't notice right away that she'd checked out. She went out, got her PhD in advanced mathematics, got a good teaching job, and married ("down" in your parlance) to a guy who's a day-labor gardener. Last I heard they have two beautiful children and a great partnership.

My current partnership, going on 20 years, is pretty great too. We've got two beautiful children too. I'm unemployed at the moment (don't get me started on how difficult it is for an older man to get a job in this economy) but fortunately my wife has a good income so we're still above water.

In other words every single thing you believe about what "external utility" men have to have in order to get women to put out is as real as the Easter Bunny.

You say you "love women." That's as unrealistic as saying you love "all French people." You want to get a partner you stop thinking about women as classes of objects and get that the only real love is love for individuals. If you are, like I am, a straight man that means you find an individual woman, not "all" women, and you love her one-on-one. And here's the tricky part: you do that and she'll love you too.

I know you don't believe it. I get the impression you don't even want to believe it. But coming upon the 40th anniversary of losing my virginity, after more than 60 women partners (almost 30 while I was a homeless high-school dropout) a couple of long-term relationships and one very happy and productive marriage I gotta tell you that whoever's been selling you all that "man has got to break his back to earn his day of leisure" and telling women that their only proper place in life is flat on their backs because they shouldn't be able to support themselves doesn't have your best interests at heart.

You call this blog "rebuking feminism" but, dude, you gotta look at who's really keeping you down. And men down. And women down. It ain't feminism.

figleaf

figleaf said...

"Marriage = PROVISION AND PROTECTION OF A WOMAN and "HER" CHILDREN

Divorce = PROVISION AND PROTECTION OF A WOMAN and "HER" CHILDREN"

Also, are you serious? You're sitting there preaching, and preaching, and preaching about how men are off on one planet killing themselves to bring home the bacon, while women are on another planet killing themselves to raise children with no more support from a man than the allowance he gives her in exchange, and you're complaining that they're her children?

Dude, what planet are you from? A child isn't "her" child, and a child isn't "his" child, it's their child.

You say you want it that way, and it sounds like you even think you like it that way. But seriously? "Her children?" What kind of animals to you think men are that they could be so dis-interested in their own flesh and blood -- in anybody's flesh and blood.

Women don't want wallets. Yeah, you can starve them, and scissor their opportunities so that's all that's left for them, but they don't want that. They want partners, and lovers, and friends, and people to share whole lives with -- just like you do. Because you're a human being, and women are human beings, and human beings want that -- not some kind of stoic anti-feminist/pickup-artist/sociobiology crap.

I mean, seriously dude, no woman who can find another way out is going to want to spend time with a guy so twisted he calls his own flesh and blood "'her' children." You think there's more to it than that, but there's not. That's creepy and they'll only agree to it when there's literally no alternative. Women want partners, not heartless storybook gender-monsters who can't even love their own children.

figleaf

Anonymous said...

Men need to think of their exceptations and needs first and still care for the women and children to be viewed as worthy men in my opinion

If you just do everything for your women,you will never be a worthy respectable man

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/ said...

YOU SAY: "A child isn't "her" child, and a child isn't "his" child, it's their child."

OF COURSE IT IS BUT BY LAW WOMEN GET CUSTODY AND MEN ARE NOT FATHERS BUT VISITORS.

YOU SAY: "You say you want it that way, and it sounds like you even think you like it that way. But seriously? "Her children?"

NO of course I don't want it to be that way but it is the only way in which men can keep their dignity. Or perhaps maybe we can turn the tables and give the children to men and make women the visitor forced to send money from afar to support the man and "his" children...

rebukingfeminism said...

In fact if your really believe that children are "their" children could you please go to acfc.org (American Coalition for Fathers and Children and sign the SHARED PARENTING PETITION?

CURRENTLY feminist groups such as EMILYS LIST AND THE FEMININIST MAJORITY oppose shared parenting...

Anonymous said...

Men don't think less of women. Though they should, because women DO think less of men. They have an innate contempt for men which grows to great proportions if not kept in line.

"The concept of "free love" began during the Communist Revolution and was implemented in the United States during the 1960's. It was an essential element of the cultural Marxist subversion of American Culture."

Yes but it's also a reflection of women's desire for Matriarchy. It's at least as much that as it is "Marxism".

We have to recognise the root here, and I think it is much more women than Marxism. Marxism is merely a facilitator.

Also, it's not American Culture that is affected by the Sexual Revolution, it's World Culture.

Anonymous said...

"Dude, what planet are you from? A child isn't "her" child, and a child isn't "his" child, it's their child."

Not in the eyes of feminists, not in the eyes of women, and not in the eyes of the law.

Catch up to reality.

Anonymous said...

You scare me. I think you're either legit insane or just a fat, bitter virgin who hates womankind because they won't fuck him. Maybe both.

Bwec said...

You say: "You scare me. I think you're either legit insane or just a fat, bitter virgin who hates womankind because they won't fuck him. Maybe both."


No, I'm a normal man, of normal weight, above average symmetry and intelligence. I'm 30 years old and have slept with plenty of women but that's not what I want with women.

I want a family, a wife and a child..Under law, my child is not mine and the rights to my working labor are not mine. Both of which can be legally taken from me by a wife in "no-fault" divorce..

I am a man that has seen what happened to my father, my brother and other men.....I am not fighting women, I am fighting for the prospect of having a fair relationship with women and respect of society and law for the male place in the family as husband and father....

I will not have happen to me what has happened to so many men around me...I refuse to surrender my future children and the rights to my working labor to a woman....

I refuse for her motherhood and my child to be turned into a capitalized liability..

I refuse to be in a legal relationship with a woman when it does not require reciprocation on her part but rather "choices", choices that I am forced to support though I myself have none...no rights..