Sunday, May 29, 2011

The "Masculinity Crisis"

Well, I've just got done reading some brain dead hollow analysis from feminists and corporate interests on the so called "masculinity crisis" and how this "masculinity crisis" is propagated and sold to the masses through the flickering brainwashing box of T.V.

TIME MAGAZINE: High Manxiety:

Time's conclusion: ‎"in the real world, sometimes it's better to man up by manning down."


Feminist Conclusion: "one of the reasons we keep hearing about the ‘masculinity crisis' is because it's being pushed to the forefront under the guise of "Women are becoming too powerful, so men are becoming wimps. We must put a stop to this!"


First, lets evaluate the shows in question:

"Work It"

"This high-concept comedy centers on two unrepentant guy's guys who, unable to find work, dress as women to get jobs as pharmaceutical reps. Not only do they pull it off, but they might just learn to be better men in the process. With unemployment an ongoing issue and women now outnumbering men in the workforce, the new comedy series Work It follows men who realize the only way to beat the current "mancession" and land a job in pharmaceutical sales is to pass themselves off as women. Why would they do that....(women are the new men right). "Being a better man sometimes means having to be a better woman."

"Man Up"

Focuses on the inadequacy of 3 men who are not "real men" but little boys. This is a try as they might spectacular of showcased inadequacy. These buffoonish inadaquate morons are sure to bring some laughs.

"Last Man Standing"

"It's a Woman's world" The show teaches "how to live in it" properly. A showcase spectacular of male redundancy, uselessness and powerlessness. Tim Allen stars as the low status husband who has no say so within the home run by his more competant, smart and adaquate wife.

In reality there is no "masculinity crisis". There is simply an encroaching threat to the welfare and posterity of our nation and the enfranchisement of the men within it. Whether anyone realizes it or not, nations rise and fall on the backs of men. It is not the nations men who are in crisis, it is the nation itself. Men should neither "man down" as Time suggests nor roll over and accept our own emasculation and expendability.

The point of these shows is to emasculate men, to get men to "man down", kill their spirits and to elevate women. The shows are not about men garnering back some form of slipping masculinity, they are designed to create confusion and instill inverse suggestive mental programming. When they are done killing off men from education, the family and the workforce we will not have gone anywhere. The truth is, when the smoke clears from this volley the men of this Republic will have our rifles trained and zeroed. Is this a threat of but it is a natural consequence of the road we are heading down.

You know, they have been bombarding men with the message that we should surrender, that we should roll over and accept what is happening to this nation, it's men and our families.

Men..I have a message for you my countrymen:

It is not "the end of men"

"You don't need to man up and become women"

"you don't need to hand over your jobs and everything else to women"

What you need to do is understand that your country is in grave danger and those in power will do everything they can to keep the threat of insurrection at bay. The nations men, when organized and on the same page are a terrifying force that the government and it's corporate masters are deathly afraid of. The strategy is to demoralize and confuse the nations men. What men need to do is prepare. What men need to do is realize your nation is on the precipice of collapse. From the mouths of men who are not afraid to confront it "we are hammering the last nails in the coffin" at the moment

The coffers of the public treasury are spent. Our debt limit has been reached, our imperial armies are over streached in costly and continual wars, the nations men are standing in invisible bread lines for unemployment rations. The stimulus packages and quantitative easing have done nothing but debase the currency causing price increases through inflation and this is only the beginning of it. This nation faces multiple angles of systemic and demographic collapse. It is staring us in the face if you turn off your TV and simply wake up.

I expect that if we do not form a cohesive threat together, the powers in play will defeat this nation. WE WILL BE OWNED from top to bottom. Your future, the future of your families and the future of your children and nation are at stake. yourselves a favor, TURN OFF THE TV AND WAKE UP.

As with Rome the last thing to go will be the military industrial complex and the government itself. Let me explain to you all that your private retirement accounts and all socialized programs are target number one. Taxes will also be increasingly levied when the massive inflation from our debt runs have completed. Realize that the printing of money and the debasement of our currency IS a tax by the way of inflation. The debasement of our currency serves nothing more than to hold back the flood waters of the inevitable. It simply buys us time.

The government is now discussing seizing control over not just private government pensions but public IRA accounts. The government is seeking everyway it can to feed itself. Governemnt will not shrink, it is not in it's nature...IT WILL DEVOUR YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR CHILDREN FIRST.

If this nations men do not regain their revolutionary spirit the Republic will die.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it"

-President Abraham Lincoln

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-President George Washington

Beware the growth of Government, as it is by it's very nature, force, a fearful master, it is tyranny. Do not be afraid my countryman, do not fear our government, the government should fear our people. Do not become complacent to your emasculation on the television. Do not get rapped up in "the bread and circuses" as Roman men did. FOCUS, turn off your TV and get in the game, regiment and fight to save your homeland. "Man-up" to the big picture...the disenfranchisement of the nations men and with us, the Republic itself.

If ye love "the tranquility of servitude rather than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -Samuel Adams

The Sword of The Tyrant

In the process of planning a camping trip with all male friends I received a remark that is very telling, it made me think. I was asked, "when you get to the summit are you going to have a circle jerk"

The circle jerk remark is the oldest one in the book and one of many typical male shaming techniques. When men decide to get together as men it is threatening to some, women included. The remark centers around validating a man in terms of how he stacks up to being worthy of getting laid but also being worthy of male "use" toward the ends for which culture seeks of him.

Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves. Lack of competence, acceptance and worthiness or lack of male use toward the ends of women in the present moment implies that your genes have no right to in the future. By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist. In this way, acceptance by women defines us. In this instance the circle jerk remark suggests that the men getting together as men, for ourselves, as men, makes us so unworthy we must be gay.

Thinking like this is used by culture and many times by women themselves to invalidate men, male needs and especially male criticism of women. If you are not serving their ends you must be bitter and if you are bitter you must be unworthy and if unworthy you must be bitter that you can not get laid.

Men doing things to benefit themselves and for themselves as a man alone is threatening to women and culture. Everything in regard to what defines "being a man" is in fact defined as being so for anyone but ourselves. The only reason men cut down other men with it is for the exact same suggest that they are more worthy of women and for being of "use" than you are. It is wise to reject such notions especially so as seeing how men are in fact used to serve the ends of women and culture to our own expense and sacrifice. We are in fact the beasts of burden, the workhorses trained to forever be seeking to validate our own existence.

Men... especially now a days need to reevaluate the situation. We have to ask ourselves....what is in it for us? Are the things women and culture seek to goad us into being worthy of.....actually worthy of us? This is an important question that every man needs to ask himself. I have found that often times they are not.. especially when it comes to law and policy in regard to men's place within the family, marriage, our children and this includes our general welfare in all realms. I have found that this culture offers very little rewards for male use and utility to meet it's ends.

As such, I reject the social contract of marriage and I reject my own expendability and disposability to both the family and in warfare to defend something that will not defend or offer anything to me. My male use and male utility are to serve my own ends alone. The only thing I will offer such sacrifice for would be toward the ends of tearing out the lynch pins that attempt to hold me in place, to kick a hole in the wall to make a door where there is none and toward the ends of helping the nations men do the same.

When this nations men become disenfranchised....and we are becoming so without a doubt, the wheels come off the wagon my friend. Civilizations rise and fall on the backs of men. Systemically disenfranchise men from education, the workforce, in the family and to their own wellbeing and health and you are signing the death warrant of the Republic. Look around...the only thing keeping things in place is the continual sacrifice of men at our own expense. Expect the wailing set forth to emasculate men and the goading for men to man-up to get louder in order to keep them from waking up and still from others in the perilous attempt to get men to do so, to man-up to something. Expect the validity of men and this "masculinity crisis" the media has been shoving down our throats to get louder. Expect our women to get all the more goading, critical and inciteful toward men while their hands are stretched forth to the cold metallic arms of the government husband.

Give men nothing to fight for and the nations soldiers become something else, they become paid mercenaries not Patriot men fighting for their country. As with the Roman empire when the checks stop coming these mercenaries will turn upon the hand that fed them. Military dictatorship will follow our increasingly totalitarian State. The profiteers running our government will not survive the onslaught when this nations men turn upon them. Continue in the direction that we are and this will be our fate. I am prophesizing nothing here. It has all happened before and if we pay is happening now. However, it is not to late.

Though I do fear the course of this government will not be amended or overthrown, until it is to late. This nation is weak and it's men are confused. When they wake up, they will find the yoke of servitude strapped firmly around their neck and the sword of the totalitarian profiteering tyrant already at their throat.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Shared Custody DV Laws and Fatherhood

I’ve been looking into it and despite women’s bitter rejection of fatherhood many states are moving toward joint physical custody. It seems the hard work of men to be fathers is paying off. If you have not already, please go to the button link below and sign the shared parenting petition.

However, this does not stop women from using DV laws to attempt to gain full custody through false allegations. As feminists have seen joint custody legislation approaching they have focused heavily on their wild card…DV allegations. The goal is to remove due process of law and place the burden of guilt upon the accused who must prove themselves innocent. Feminists have been instrumental in this. However, I am hoping we can fight them and stop the progression.

Men will fight to the death in order to be fathers to our children. I think the motivation is high on both sides. Women will continue to fight men and in many cases they are still winning. Men must push at both aspects if we are going to win the right to have children and be a father. I also think with the added aspect of liability and reciprocal obligation placed upon women in divorce it will inspire women not to simply walk out on their families in divorce.

Friday, May 27, 2011

History Is A Great Teacher

Wow, I read the below comment from a man today on a men's forum at a time when the American Empire is in the state of collapse. What is so striking is that men of high standing in Rome pleaded with men to do the same when the Roman Republic was head long toward collapse...AMAZING SIMULARITIES IN THE MESSAGE! Anyway....just found it fascinating.

"The death of marriage is a symptom – not the cause. Delighting that it frees you from the traditional burdens of manhood is delight in the death of our civilization. Biological stagnation is death, and if we don’t participate in the propagation of our forms our forms will disappear. What joy is there in total freedom from women and children when you know that your own inevitable death is nothing but another nail in our peoples’ coffin?"

"No sane man can deny the evil of the Pink Horde, but their destruction is not the answer. Only they have the power to create new people on the scale needed to perpetuate the Western tradition."

"Feminism is an attack on Western civilization – designed, unleashed, and funded by the real enemy. MGTOW is collaboration. It is defection from our male responsibility. It is our natural responsibility to be the Great Oak in the storm – to teach these women true repentance – to change their hearts – to show them their need – so that the West may be replenished. Their delusions have their prices – which reality will extract. But we Men have our own debts to pay."

I pulled the above from a men's forum today.

------ Then what is remarkable is the similarities to the below quote of a Roman Statesman and General addressing the nations men:

Upon the dissolution of the Roman family, falling birth rates, female sexuality moving from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C....

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

"Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Men rejected the message. What we are witnessing is just a part of the death cycle of civilization. What is happening with women is how women behave at the precipice of decline. By historical accounts their women became just as intolerable, demanding and entitled as ours have during the height of the empire. The death of the west has already happened, it is simply that they have not pulled the Stimulus plug out yet. We are being held afloat by the debasement of our currency and mounting debt.

Living in a time and place of a dying empire yields so many of the same experiences. I identify with the men of Rome. I find the whole thing fascinating. is interesting when you add up the census report I've linked below for the 25-29 age group and combine it with the information in the census graph for up to age 34 demographic. Less than half are married or have divorced by age 34. I doubt there is an age above 34 where the majority of people are married or have a family within the marriage of two biological parents. It would be interesting to find out but I doubt this is the case. Marriage and married families with both biological parents present are actually the minority. Crazy huh.

The above graph is a little dated the single mother birth rate is now 42%

WOW, "Nearly half of all women between the ages of 25 and 29 have never been married" The numbers are climbing with great momentum.

Here is the census report:

Our birth rate is already below replacement levels. I expect it to drop lower. The infrastructure of our social systems are not maintainable not only from government debt alone but simple birth demographics. I wonder how all this will play out. One thing is for sure. All this will continue to be blamed upon men. I see the government becoming ever more totalitarian.

The tatters of the American family will be kept on life support by ever more draconian laws against men to provide to women's families. I see a continued increase in what can be described as government husbandry in order to hold things together. However, the system can simply not support it. I believe with the death of the family the death of the civilization the common felicity of the family held together must not be to far behind.As societal structure moves toward matriarchy fatherlessness becomes more common. Women typically have children from multiple fathers. The goal of "women's liberation" is "empowerment" in this respect. The goal of "women's liberation" is "independence" to act out their base animal instincts.

Civilization, morality and justice are formed from higher objective reasoning and only come about when our animal instincts are regulated and put in check. Unlike polyandrous matriarchy, western patriarchal societies made polygamy illegal for men.

The United States of course is becoming matriarchal:

With this comes the destruction of the family, the marginalization of men from the family and fatherless children. This is the future women seek. "Independence" for women means freedom from the very constraints that hold civilization together.

It is my contention that with the reform women made to marriage law that men should not reproduce if they can help it. Men should not commit to the matriarchal marriage. After women's liberation during the final days of the Roman Republic men were so disenfranchised from becoming the sperm donors women made them to be that they refused to marry women and would rather simply have sex with them.

Abortion and the widespread use of birth control became normalized. Philosophers of the time legitimized it. Except women would simply leave their newborns on the steppes outside the city to die of exposure. The family was destroyed. When female nature was unleashed the Republic was destroyed as well.

“We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” -Cicero (History and death of the Roman Republic)

Women's liberation laws became up for debate in the senate. Upon the deliberation upon one of them it was recorded:

"Suffer them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors."
-Cato the Censor (234–149 B.C.) Rome (215 B.C.)

Never the less the State suitor deferred to the nations women.

Statesmen, government and generals of the time pleaded to men that they must "man up" to responsibility and marry women, to be disposable fathers to the matriarchal family, men rejected the message.

The marriage law promoted by Octavia, Augustus Caesar, was a belated attempt to reverse this process which was already well advanced in the first century A.D.

Heavy "bachelor taxes" were enacted upon men in attempt to force them to marry. The blame then was the same as it is now...upon men. Men, as we know now as well, were not the source of the nations woes.

Women's liberation occurred in Sparta as well. When women gain political agency the state becomes the male suitor. She enacts her nature through the State and from the State upon the nations men. She will not stop is her nature. It is happening now in the United States. I fear there may be little we can do to stop what women are doing.

"Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws."

And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.

"The evil practices of the last (stage) and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands"


‎"women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies since under them they have a good time."


"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." (most especially of women)

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Save The Turnips

From an email from ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children):

"The campaign to confront Child Support Agencies and their inhumane practices toward child support payers is off to a rousing start. But there’s more…One basis of this campaign is disgust over how child support officials identify child support payers as ‘turnips.’ We provided a link to a National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) training program titled: “Getting Blood from a Turnip: New Farming Techniques for Increasing Your Yield.”

Apparently folks at NCSEA got the message, sort of. Within hours of the start of the ‘Save the Turnips’ campaign NCSEA programmers had changed the website and pulled the reference to obligors as ‘Turnips.’ Of course, we thought you would like to see those ‘before and after’ alterations. The NCSEA is apparently still farming, just not specifically ‘turnips.’

If only the decades of damage these people have done to families through their campaigns to vilify child support obligors was as easy as altering a webpage.


You know, I just think that men are more than Turnips to be bled is all.

These men have nothing left to give women or women's children / family. These men can not support themselves much less a woman and her children. Many men are out of work. 82% of all jobs lost in The Great Recession or what is being called the "mancession" have been men but women petitioned the government to divert the Stimulus Package to women in growing industries and the request was granted! Many men supporting their ex-family and ex-children can not even afford to have and support a new family of their own or even support themselves at the moment.

Most lack of pay to women is from the inability to pay them. Even when he can pay her the chances of him doing so increase proportionally to the amount of time he gets to be involved with his children.

These men do the best they can. Even if they could form another family like women can the risk of being cast out yet again as an isolated resource producing male is just to great to take a chance.

I pray that at very least women will petition their government to free these men from their jail cages, share parenting responsibilities and then support themselves financially. I pray women's government can have mercy upon male turnips.

Many of these women have already found another male to support the matriarchal family. These men as well are potential isolated resource producing males at the moment or are potential male turnips in the making.

I don't know how much longer we can collectively redistribute men's production capacity to support women's choices and our own lack of right to be fathers to our children. Children need fathers. What incentive is there for men to produce in the first place but by enfranchisement as members of the family?

I just wish instead of valuing men as a collective and socialized re-distributors of our providing capacity we were valued as fathers to children and could share parenting. I just wish by incentive of law that men were needed in some capacity as members of the family. I think if men had the right to be equally needed in the family or post dissolution of said family we could at least be involved in the lives of our children. I believe it might decrease the incentive given to women to abandon their family (women initiate 70+% of divorce and particularly the majority of divorces involving children). According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

It makes sense that perhaps women could have some sort of equal liability, responsibility, reciprocal obligation and accountability to family...or...toward the consequences of disolving said family. It's all very sad what means to an end men have been made to become.

If only men could have a role in society, it's future and the lives of our children. I never understood why men are the ones expected to get on our knees to make a marriage proposal and offer resources to females. I don't really understand what is in it for men. I think this custom is from a time before women changed marriage laws in the 70's toward the ends of default female child custody and no-fault entitlement laws. I think marriage is a humiliating proposition for men. Among other issues afoot between the sexes I think perhaps what might be missing in the assessment upon the decline of marriage in our culture is the very real reluctance of a male incentive to commit to ending up members of a State\woman owned "Turnip" farm.

90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Why Men Should Not Commit To Women Or Family

Kay Hymowitz speaks about the modern western independent woman crisis in America and the growing male solution being to Game the entitled, independent and empowered women down since their hypergamy is not satisfied with men "below" them or equal to them. Interesting.... I have to agree.

Yes, she is correct, men are very reluctant to marry under women's new Marriage 2.0 laws. Men have learned it is suicide for a man. It is a one way commitment. Fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege. So is the right to your own property, your body and the fruits of it's labor. It's ok for men to be angry about it as well.

Kay has to understand that women don't offer men anything. They don't offer children and they offer nothing in marriage because commitment in marriage is at the same time commitment to the liability of divorce. Women have no liability in marriage and thus divorce. What women have are "choices" financed by male responsibilities. There is literally not reason to marry. Legally all else is precluded from falling on their shoulders so the only thing left that women offer is sex unfortunately. Men can get that without marriage. Marriage has been on the decline for quite some time now

Outside of the personal realm women are our competitors and our adversaries for jobs, for resources, for education, for healthcare you name it. Within the justice system in all realms we face the increasing deference to them in all matters. They have managed to divert all these things to themselves through advocating for institutionalized chivalry even to the point of denying men equal opportunity for education with women first laws. They diverted the Stimulus Package to themselves as well. So on a political level we must fight against them and every law they have created.

Men increasingly know that a complimentary relationship with women within the sanctity of marriage is no longer possible. Your gender married the State instead. You are doomed to remain in definite preclusion, the grey twilight between what could have been a natural and fully consummate mutually symbiotic bond with him. Something once untouched now sullied and desecrated.

Inside...deep within your only wish is to really need him. You hope that he will believe you do and that this lie will suffice. You want to believe it too. It is to late for have devoted everything you seek to need in men to yourselves by law.

Deep down You lament that this has been robbed from you but may not notice that it is you who advocated for it. Your goal after all is to be "independent" "liberated" and "empowered". We have seen what this really means. The personal consecrate and sovereign now political and public. Your nature and vulnerability laid naked and bare and surrendered to your State masters. You can't help but to cleave to the cold metallic arms of your government husband wailing to ever more be provided to more. You have sacrificed your men on the alter of your desires for the very things you seek to NEED in him and with this become the source your own undoing and sorrow.

Below is a complimentary interview with Kay Hymowitz on the same subject matter. Also available at the end of the article after following the link above entitled "I have to agree"

Of course as men know the decline will ALL be blamed upon men not "manning up" to something or other. This of course is not true. I elaborate on how the developing matriarchal social construct affects all of this here One thing that affects young men's expectations of themselves is of course the fact that many of these young men are products of the feminist divorce generation. These young men know what place fathers hold in the family and in the lives of children. This is not something men want to commit to becoming.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Challenging Female Dominance Cautiously-

I was reading a post on avoiceformen the other day entitled Is Feminism A Hate Movement?

Great thoughts! Certain truth to this. Now…I have asked myself, is the MRM susceptible to the same influences? Yes without a doubt it is. So what can protect the MRM from influence by a hate based power engine?

Well at this point anyway we have something on our side and that is a moral grounds. The MRM is a RESPONSE to feminism. Does this mean that we will be able to defend ourselves from the same poison? Well in my opinion we can utilize whatever forces available to reach our goals as long as they are constructive and rightful.

In the present time, the threat of a hate ideology serves nothing more than a threat to tarnish our message. It is only through actual action does any hate based motivation harm us. Words are actions we can help stamp out. At this point this is all we have to fear…words and the tarnishing of our message. The MRM is just now getting its teeth. At this point I am not very concerned about a radical fringe because we have little teeth yet to take a bite out of anything.


We must remember the role male \ female biological imperatives play that impede the voice of men already and this is, virtually ANY criticism of women or feminism is see right away as a threat to women. ANY male demands, needs or criticism, (due to biological forces we contend with) is immediately reflected back as judgement upon the mere male who dared to open his mouth. He is seen as sexually inadequate, unworthy or even hateful of women. His male use and external utility to the selective choice of the female is nullified. This is how powerful biology is.

This is the threat from the female side of perception. She need only disagree. She is, in her gynocentric nature, predisposed to disagree with anything that may not serve her interests increasingly better no matter what the detriment to males is. Male harm or sacrifice is inconsequential. Through hypergamy she is designed to push the limits. To her, the selective value of males and male legitimacy is measured in this regard. It is literally measured by the male breaking point. She need only disagree with the terms the MRM is advocating for and these forces of motion come into play. This is where the second roadblock comes in… themselves and their response to this judgement by her.

The second side is that males, as a class, are a class divided. Unlike females, other males will capitalize upon the phenomena above. Where men draw the line with women and feminism other males will see their opportunity to swoop in to tow the feminist\female line. It is their opportunity to meet female selective variables demanded upon males. They may even be willing to die for this opportunity or at very least cut their own balls off and the balls of other men to get it.
The sheer length to which I’ve seen manginas and white knights go has been astounding to me.

This is why MRAs are so adamant about protecting ourselves from manginas and white knights. They are a real force driven by a very powerful biological imperative. This is why females were not allowed to vote. Female voting destroys the regulatory mechanism of her selective choice to eliminate betas. Desperation was cut off. Now, politicians can be as beta as they want, in terms of serving females they are betas. The crux of the matter, the paradox is that they become alpha by this. Female institutional power and political agency leads to a self compounding and self consuming model. Intrinsic elements of female hypergamy are exercised through the power of the State. The system actually consumes itself of its own means of male enfranchisement. It consumes itself of its own means of production. No civilization that I know of has ever survived female institutional power. Matriarchies have only managed to exist in small matrilinial \ communal social groups.

As such, it is my belief that we may never be able to unite for our collective interests and indeed even the beneficial interests toward a common felicity with women under the event of this new found political paradigm we find ourselves in. Believe it or not, convincing women that male rights and enfranchisement are ends toward their better interests and common felicity with men is key. Will they be able to see it, we don’t know, we have not tried to a large degree.

Remember, the MRM by default, at least initially, is up against A MAJOR FORCE and that is that we as mere males are doomed to serve females as a gender. If he is seen as and labeled unworthy then he must be resentful of this and thus hate women.

Again, other males will capitalize on this especially males in government. Watch the President's body language closely, he winks at the women and after the last sentence licks his lips. Anybody who watches the Science channel on TV knows what this means. This is what men are up against:

We must somehow convince them that they will be safe without being provided to and protected to the death of men. This includes the changes women made to marriage and family law along with protections and provisions given to them in all realms. Others, such as "women first" Affiramative Action in college admissions are very important contenders to male welfare and common felicity with women. Government courts her well and he is a heavy contender. The below is just at the State Legislative level.

These are the forces of biology we are up against. Males will break ranks and play into this. Anyone who doesn’t is seen as unworthy. Her upward demands of hypergamy exacerbates this to ever increasing levels. Only when a majority of males draw the line can we make progress. Even if this is achieved we will then need to contest her husband government, the female majority vote and the all powerful hegemonic female social agency that directs it. Otherwise females are designed to capitalize on the breaking point threshold of how much males will serve their ends.

The other option is to convince females we have passed the threshold toward the ends of meeting their own welfare and interests by the treatment of men and thus we can make progress even though white knights and manginas are willing to still lower the bar upon male treatment even further if it gets them female approval. However to the best of my knowledge women will not concede to this agreement, they will not do this, it is not in their nature. Will the MRM be able to stop the self compounding, self consumptious paradoxical mechanisms that are in play here? To tell you the truth the odds are against us. So for now, there is no need to worry to much about a radical fringe other than to keep hate words out of the discussion.

WHEN our goals are met is the time we should concern ourselves with overstepping. WHEN our goals are met I see the moral constitute of our base supporters going back to the pursuit of fruitful relationships and lives. At this point I see the core of the movement being taken over by radicals that will keep it going. However, we are a long way off from this. It is the least of our worries. Furthermore I see the same forces that attempt to preclude us from advancement as more than adequate mechanisms to shut down any radical fringe. Males, unlike females do not have the authority to propagate a radical fringe. (See: Disciplining Your Male Is Normal)

We must remember we are not playing by the same rules and forces that females have with their movement. Hate and criticism of males actually serves to raise the bar on all of us. She utilized the same mechanisms to enact her will and she will use the same to stop us.

As for now, for reasons of moral fortitude I believe much of our core base is in fact driven by a moral engine. It is when our goals are met and the constitute of our moral base falls away from the ranks that we could be left with a fire of radicalism. Again, we need not worry about this yet and as stated by reasons above, we may not have to worry about it at all.


It will only excite the white knights and manginas and give them something to work with no matter how small or even non existent. David Futrelle of manboobz is a perfect example. He’s taking beta opportunity when and where he sees it. David is mearly the manifestation of the very real force we contend with on a structural scale. To be quite honest, ANYTHING the MRM says and does will be seen as radical and misogynist anyway. However, at times I've seen him bring to light some needed constructive criticism. This is simply the biological battle we are up against i.e. female selective choice, hypergamy, white knight \ mangina supplicators and the political paradigm paradox of female political agency.

Female nature and the State create a relationship that is imperative for us to understand. For all intent of purpose the State can be viewed as male. It is my contention that the female majority vote along with female nature and it's license of agency will continue it's course. The results will increasingly not bode well.

It is also my contention that this general course is toward the communization and socilization of ever increasing protections and provisions for women through the increasing centralization and succession of power to the State. Men will increasingly be marginalized through this process at which point the consumptive process that this causes in the personal, social and economic realm will necessitate the clamoring for increased State action to increasingly do more. The marginalization of men is a self consuming process. Make no mistake, it is women, their majority vote, the power granted to the State by it along with the propensity of the State to seek power from it that will continue to direct our course as a nation.

Women are simply following forth to met the requisites of their nature, men are now and have always been an accessory for use to meet the ends of this gynocentric drive. It is only natural for women to create a relationship such as the above to what can be described as her government husband. It is he that she naturally chooses...and not a common felicity with men nor the enfranchisement of men to create such felicity.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Disciplining Your Male Is Normal

Female abuse is considered hypergamous discipline by the male primordial brain and by the females as well. It is also considered normal by the general population accordingly. We really don’t think of it as violence. Many men “yes dear” it and try to please her more. Many don’t think of it as abuse but rather a fight. Men are less likely than women to see it as abuse when it is directed toward themselves or other men. Women are less likely to see it as abuse as well. Men are also much less likely to call other men (police) for help or report it.

Compounding this issue is the fact that if he did call for help the other males would quickly play up to hypergamy and female selective preference by bettering him out of the game. This is done slamming his face to the concrete, cuffing him and hauling him off for her. This is also reinforced by these same base human propensities enacted by law through structured institutionalized chivalry into law. In fact most female political agency where gender is concerned is actually acted forth through the same mechanism. It is personified within the system by the same gendered biological imperatives toward meeting the ends of the female. Raising the bar upon males as to what constitutes their worthiness is normal, it is hypergamy.

The Violence Against Women Act ended due process under law for males. This in my mind is to be expected. My contention is that it is some sort of biological propensity in action manifested through chivalry and in this case mandated male unworthiness without trial. This makes the State and it's male workhorses worthy of females.

This despite the findings of the most recent large-scale study of DV that was conducted by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that according to both men's and women's accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time. LINK

Disciplining your male in some shape or form is standard fare. Female shaming has TREMENDOUS IMPACT upon the male psyche. Males respond quite readily to it. Sometimes having to compartmentalize and shut it out all together. Hypergamous critical nature is actually normal from females toward males. Females have the natural right to complain and to be critical and men do not.

It is so normal in fact that public display of it is accepted, it is considered ok. Watch the below video and imagine if the roles were reversed and it were men who shouted the answer “women”. Only the first portion showing the T.V. show is immediately relevant though the rest serves to exemplify the point. You are welcome to watch the entire video:

You see, mere males do not have the biological authority to scream out loud that we hate women. What occurred in the video would not have happened in is forbidden for mere males to do so. We simply do not have the authority, indeed far from it, in fact mere criticism of women is often times labeled misogyny. This is why many shaming tactics of males involve alleging his biological unworthiness to fit the bill. Any criticism toward women is immediately deflected back as male unworthiness and therefore he must be bitter for not being worthy of females and as such he must hate women, he must be a misogynist or he must not be able to gain their favor with mating opportunity, he must not be able to get laid.

Mere males do not have the authority to be critical of women. Who do we think we are, we are the selective variable who must be worthy of her choice. Our value is wrapped up in male use and male external utility. Our value is not inherent as hers is. A male or man is not something one is by default but rather one must "be" a man. This implies action and male action implies use and use implies male external utility to women and society. Male value or worthiness in all realms is defined by this or the lack thereof.

Again, disciplining your male is normal, it involves voicing a general complaint or criticism or sometimes it involves beating him and yet other times calling other males to force him into submission. Our primordial brains automatically legitimize female criticism of males and interpret it as male unworthiness to live up to female selective choice. Suffice as to say that if the abuse was done in public most all would think the male did something wrong, that he deserves it. This is our collective hive mind analysis of female abuse toward males, this is to say that it is seen as rightful. The hive mind is always right in its assessment. Remember the quintessential game show gimme where you get to ask the audience? Do you remember how the audience is always right? This truth speaks volumes.

Female hypergamy often takes the form of standard fare misandry. Misandry is simply the embodiment vehicle for female hypergamy and associated critical nature. We must understand how females are naturally critical of males and what role this plays, from a "natural" perspective, toward our views of female on male abuse in any form and how it is normalized within culture. We must also ask how this must play out in our domestic perception of female on male abuse including within the legal system or simply within DV advocacy itself.


It is important to understand that it's not that violence against men doesn't happen, in fact violence against men is prevalent. The difference however is that violence against men simply doesn't matter to anyone. This is what the feminist webside Jezebel has to say about the majority of violent attacks being female on male: Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend, Cause Uh We Have You can see that violence against men is not just ok but due to the status men hold, violence against men is ubiquitously seen as deserved. I can't help but to think that it must be natural and of biological origin due to the lack of inherent value that men hold compared to women. Suffice as to say that male welfare is simply not as important. The sheer volume of hatred, criticism and contempt of men that is demonstrated by women is (or at least it has become).....normal.

We have known for some time now that women commit domestic violence against men in equal numbers in all western nations that it has been measured:

The American Psychological Association Journal of Family Psychology has found that, contrary to public perception, women committed more acts of violence than their male partners in 11 overall categories of violence. Specifically, women were more likely than men to throw something, push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, hit or threaten a partner with a deadly weapon such as a knife or gun.

When minor and major acts of violence were tallied:

Female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence
7.5 percent of severe violence.

Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence.

So in aggregate females were found to be more critical and abusive toward their male partners and males were found to commit 1.1% more actions considered to be severe violence.

The study, which is based on an interviews with 1,615 married or cohabiting couples and extrapolated nationally using census data, found that 21 percent of couples reported domestic violence.


Saturday, May 21, 2011

Is A Hostile Raiding Party On The Women's Center In Order?

Hmmm, I just got done reading an article over at Avoiceformen.

Yale University has banned all male activities on campus for a period of 5 years.

There is a reason those boys chanted hostile slogans in front of the women’s center. Women should perhaps ask themselves why that is. It was a rightful response to the Take Back The Night from men rally and Vagina-Day being held on the same day as Valentines Day. Men should respond to this hostility with hostility. Good....the fraternity has been banned, time to form a secret fraternity, time to go underground brothers : )

I am lucky to have my grandparents still around so I ask them about these issues on occasion. I know I know…our grandparents are wondering why on Earth these boys were expressing themselves this way….Things have changed grandpa and grandma…, for the worse : )

I wonder what response these young men will have now that they have been pushed to the margins. Is a hostile raiding party against the women’s center under the cover of the new moon in order? Sound insane……Yale should ask themselves what type of hostile environment they have created for young men in academia. They would be wise to ask why. Isn't the act of overt hostility at the same time inspired by the subjective feelings for defense? What are these boys defending themselves from?

You see young men, we just want you to be shamed while attending school..that's all.

Young men, we know you are a minority here in college but we just wanted to make you feel welcome.

Welcome to school boys, we’ve placed a welcome sign on the entrance ramp for you. Make sure you all to attend your “She Fears You” orientation. Next week…Take Back The Night from men rally will be held and you are all welcome to attend. On Valentines Day we will instead be holding V-Day or Vagina-Day, you are welcome to bring a date. Feel free to make up your own catchy slogan, we prefer shouting "no means no" or how about "my vagina is mine, it's only yours when I say it is". This is all done in case 99% of you were not already living under this doctrine faithfully since you were born so we figure we will throw it in your face to make things clear....clear??? Yes, crystal...mistress. The idea is to make an affront to your very dignity and honor as men.

“When I first began teaching college classes 20-some-od­d years ago, my classes were about 50/50 male to female. Since then, I’ve noticed a distinct drop in the male to female ratio. Now, some of my classes are all women; in classes with men, the men are outnumbere­d 3:1. Congratula­tions, ladies, for moving on up; and shame on you dudes for slacking. ”

“The most reliable current statistic on campus assaults — which still comes with caveats — is that nearly 3 percent of college women are raped in an academic year. While that may seem like a slim stat, a report from the National Institute of Justice explains that (taking into account that some women are assaulted multiple times)”

Hmmm and how many of these three percent were violent pathological rapes???? Why do a portion of this 3% of women have multiple experiences…Doesn’t anyone find that odd? Rape being so rare, violent pathological rape being even more rare don’t you think we need to ask some questions here?

Friday, May 20, 2011

Men Lose: Arnold & Maria Shriver Adultery and Cuckolding

Upon the Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, Mildred Baena & Rogelio Baena adultry Scandal:

Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold's status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I'm sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity. In fact it is used to be women that set the precedent to ostracise these women. It used to be called a home-wrecker.

However, there is nothing wrong with cheating and adultery, at least when women do it of course. In fact, female adultery is the only adultery that is legal. Not only that but the man has to pay for the pleasure of such a betrayal. What type of self loathing man would sign up for a commitment like that?....What is the point?

As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I'm sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband. If he ever finds out it is to late for him. He's already signed as the father and will be paying support for another man's child.

At least women can divorce when they are cheated on. At least parental fraud and adultery is legal for women. Men who are cheated on and were stupid enough to sign onto feminist marriage 2.0 laws live in quite heartache and suffering. Eventually his feelings play out in the relationship and the woman ends the marriage. All men suffer the same fate when things turn south. All men suffer the same fate when betrayed. Women have no commitments to uphold....only men.

‎"The boy's birth certificate listed the father as the man Mildred Baena was married to at the time."



Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men...Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights. The other losers here will be the children from these relationships.

If only women were held accountable for adultery as men are then this little whore maid may have thought twice about committing adultery against her husband.

The real victim in the Arnold Schwarzenegger bastard child adultery scandal is the HUSBAND of the adulterous whore cuckoldress. She got what she wanted didn't she. I have not seen the media but I bet they are focusing on her as the victim and the onus of betrayal of any commitments broken is placed on Arnold alone.

She got what she wanted didn't she. Now she gets paid and rewarded. Her ex-husband loses everthing he ever worked hard for. The onus of responsibility to honor her husband, family and sanctity of marriage is abdicated from her in this culture. This goes for any adulterous woman in this culture.

UPDATE: "Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina."

No, what I mean is that Arnold is paying the price vicariously through the marriage \ divorce law system. It is an illustration of the bigger picture regarding lack of female culpability under law. What I mean is that only men i.e. Arnold in this case is paying the price where as a woman in this situation, as is illustrated by the reversal in this case (the maid and her husband) does not have to pay the price nor does any woman within marriage law. Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.

The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end. Care to debate this??? The onus of responsibility and consequences of adultery and paternity fraud fall upon men.... categorically at both ends of this equation.

This man was lucky. His name is on the birth certificate as the father yet it has been removed from the divorce certificate by some political sway no doubt. Ordinarily once a man's name is on the birth certificate as the father you are legally responsible for a woman's offspring no matter who's it is. Even fathers who find out after 18 years of child support that their children are not their children have no case for lawsuit for paternity fraud.

A woman can cheat on you, have another man's child then divorce you and you will be responsible for supporting not only for her but her child. This is just one of many legal pitfalls of feminist marriage 2.0 law....Still want to marry???

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

From Feminist Marriage 2.0 to Marriage 2.5?

I was reading an article at The-Spearhead detailing what was postulated to be a better future for men and marriage and for men as members of the family. The author postulated the same premise as Newsweek has... Namely that men and masculinity has become outdated ,redundant and that men should become the new women.

I and others took some time to help him out a bit:

The situation you describe (a society of lower earning, lower educated men, lower status men) or men who simply find feminist marriage 2.0 laws untenable to creating a family with women denotes instead the precipitating factors and elemental precursors to matriarchy. Remember, females are hypergamous. When these requisites are not met it creates a disaster otherwise known as a feminist utopia.

Matriarchy is obviously growing in society, it is becoming our default structure. With this comes the growth and centralization of power to the State as well as women becoming a separate and secular socio-political and socio-economic class. With this comes a synergy between women and the government that exacerbates and accelerates the process toward matriarchy along with accelerated advocation for female secular interests toward providing her increased "independence" "liberation" and "empowerment". As we have already detailed, this is done by simply providing for and protecting women by way of government along with allowing them increasing privileges and representation in all aspects over men and boys. Take Affirmative Action "women first" college admissions law (still on the books in my state of Colorado and many others)or the diversion of the Stimulus package to women as only two examples of many.

Her relationship and public contract with government precludes men from enfranchisement not only to create a private social contract with women in the first place but nullifies it. It is already happening now and at an astounding rate.

So let me tell you what we are looking at…. We are looking at rotating hypergamous polyandry even after marriage 2.0 is consummated. Marriage 2.0 simply does not protect against it. Unlike Patriarchy, matriarchy gives license for female adultery..(it's called divorce under Marriage 2.0 laws.) Given the opportunity women will increase their genetic fitness just like any other creature i.e. they will cheat if the system supports it (as it currently does and at male expense.)

Hypergamous polyandry will also leave a good portion of men marginalized from enfranchisement towards creating relationships with women altogether. These men, these "shut outs" will simply be played out of the game as it is the case that unfettered female sexual license dictates she mate up. This leaves us with a more animalistic mating structure where the top percentiles of males monopolize mating opportunity. This increases as you move up the scale of "male adequacy" towards female selected requisites. All of these things are currently happening.

We will increasingly find loose knit short term mated pair bonds\"hooking up"\cohabitation, single mother births, fatherless children, centralization of State control, high rates of abortion, single mothers with children from multiple fathers, low marriage rates over all but also high divorce rates (particularly female initiated divorce), increased STD disease etc. All of these things are measurable and already happening. They go hand in hand with matriarchy.

Our new reality is now and will continue to look much like the Chav community in Great Britain and the African American community in the U.S.(Matriarchies). The creation of Matriarchy is formulaic, measurable and its prerequisites are currently and increasingly being met. So it is wise to surmise that we are heading this way with momentum given the measurable data available. The results of feminism, women's secular representation and relationship with the State along with feminist policy will increasingly not bode well for us all.

Hmmm a friend sent me a reference to this book. He says it has much to do with my article. Though I would have named it The Garbage Future. By all observation, things will continue to barrel down the path to matriarchy. Anyway, should prove a good read:

Update: The below book is freely available over the internet though I am not sure if copyright is expired. One thing I have found by my own observation is that as men become increasingly displaced from a place in the family they become increasingly loutish layabouts. Though women may deconstruct it in their own way (which is to say by contempt and though limited methods of analysis) you will see their wailing get louder as time goes on. The below book corroborates with my observation of matriarchy. They don't have incentive to produce anything. With little enfranchisement nor incentive to produce they simply do not "grow up" or "man up" as patriarchal culture would enfranchise them to. Expect to see more of this "man-boy" or "man-child" phenomenon within culture.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

A Voice For Men Radio: Episode 9

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

As mentioned on The New York Times, CBS News and elsewhere:

Saturday, May 14, 2011

GAME \ PUA Now A Necessity

One thing is for sure about the formulation of comedy, exemplifications or disclosures of simple unspoken truths make us laugh.

Though presented in an exaggerated form consistent with comedy, what we witnessed in the video is nothing short of the acknowledgement of the increasing relevance that Game and PUA play in contemporary culture within gender relations. It has become part of the ever increasing construct of our "Hook Up Culture" and contemporary dating, a staple of our ever growing matriarchal female dominated society. Hook Up Culture???...don't look at me, I didn't coin the term, sociologists have and they have done so for good reason. Things have changed.....

I showed the video to my grandparents, they didn't understand the elemental truth (comedy) that makes this funny to people my age. They were somewhat put off and appalled. However, I and many others my age understand it right away.

Game and PUA are nothing short of a brilliant adaptation of males to a mating dynamic which has changed drastically in the last 45 years since female "independence". It is female "independence" and "liberation" that has caused this behavior. This is so because the whole point of feminism is to lower relative male value, status and necessity to women through "female empowerment". This is also done through the leveraging of female sexuality through the use of birth control technologies which have opened a flood gate to something never seen before by the natural mating dynamic. Game simply places men back where women want them...on top and worthy.

Is the implementation of the "negging" aspects of Game an expression of male anger, male resentment, male disrespect of not at all though I do imagine that a large segment of males left out and disenfranchised from our now unfettered hypergamous polyandrous mating dynamic have embraced it whole heatedly. Understand however that the above video is simply an exaggeration and exemplification of Game behavior that is ordinarily employed in a much more nuanced, complicated and elaborate fashion.  

Game is simply an expression towards the intended ends of appealing to female hypergamy or the instinct of females to seek out men of higher status, strength, intelligence, resource potential and over all, men who have more dominance than they have. Why are men of all statures increasingly employing Game, faining alpha characteristics or presenting a "bad boy" thuggish downplay of female status you ask....because it works now a days.

Courtship and courtly chivalry toward todays woman (who is more educated, of higher status and earning more resources than the men around her) is beta, it makes you unworthy. Men who are not more dominant than the women around them can learn Game and those who are of higher status than women already exhibit their dominance and employ aspects of Game behavior naturally. These men may even be dominate enough to exhibit courtly chivalry without being beta. Think you got a shot at a true alpha male ladies...fat chance, they are in hog heaven banging women on a nightly basis. Why won't these men or any men for that matter commit you ask...what is the point of that? What man wants to have the one way liability commitment of a feminist marriage 2.0 then get raped in family court....not many. Marriage is no longer about men, it's about a woman and HER children.

For the majority of you the competition is tight, instead you will be stuck asking where all the good men are and unable to secure your own. Ahhh yes, I see those skirts getting shorter and shorter : ). However, many men can no longer afford to behave with chivalry or courtly love. It is women themselves who no longer allow it. Women are to dominant to allow this now a days. Men are figuring this out. In fact I venture to say that courtly love and chivalry is dead.

In todays environment, with women being more equal or simply equal to the men around them, the only way to appeal to them is to be "more equal" than they are. This is so especially if you are not only not above them but equal or below them in the above aspects of dominance.

I'd like to tell you a story, I was out on the town some months back enjoying the night life. I went to the bar to order a drink. While waiting to order I hear a female voice in my right ear, "buy me a drink?, a Sex On The Beach" without ever looking over or turning my head to evaluate her I lean over to the right and say "excuse me". She repeats herself again....My reply, "No thank you" I say as I look at her for the first time and without hesitation to even evaluate her attractiveness first. Her response was predictable....instant attraction, what PUAs call the Gina Tingles.

Mmmmm she was hot to! However, I let her go. I no longer participate in any of this or at least try to get laid as little as possible. Sound crazy....not under the matriarchal construct of rampant hypergamous rotating polyandry it isn't. I've decided to drop out to avoid the risks matriarchy presents. It can kill you dead and if it doesn't what are the chances that any of these women are any longer fertile??? I'm looking for something more traditional...I know...fat chance right lol.

UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS SECTION: Is it really that hard for you to believe that women come up to men and ask them to buy them drinks?

Do you know that she was not necessarily attracted to me to begin with but was simply beta testing men to get drinks out of them. Is it so hard for you to believe women do this? I am teaching men how to deal with it because I guarantee you that there are plenty of young men who would have opened their wallet. There are plenty of young men who have nobody else but other men to help them.

You see, Game \ PUA in American culture came from a very fitting place to formulate its necessity, the female dominated matriarchy of the black (African American) community. Black men coined the term, they coined the methodology and soon Thug\Game\PUA courtship between men and women was born. It's simply an element of matriarchal society. The single mother birth rate is 70% in the black community. The black community has the highest rate of polyandry and as such, the highest rate of not only single mothers but mothers with children from multiple fathers. Abortion is also rampant in matriarchal social structures.

You see, monogamy,traditional family, fatherhood, extended courtship, chivalry, dating and commitment are relics of a once patriarchal society.

I find it amusing that women are struggling to understand it all... along with the changes they have made to society.

It reminds me of a Kay S. Hymowitz article: Love in the Time of Darwinism
"A report from the chaotic postfeminist dating scene, where only the strong survive"

And one from Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon's Online Magazine, Broadsheet:

Dudes try "dating Darwinism"
An author argues that angry young men are becoming assholes to try to get women.

More from Kay Hymowitz: Child-Men interview

All stemming from her original article in The Wall Street Journal: Where Have The Good Men Gone? "Kay S. Hymowitz argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence"

I always give a good read of the comments section of these articles. Many men are aware of what feminism and matriarchy are all about.

Don't despair ladies....welcome to matriarchy. As they say "Don't hate the player "bitch", hate the Game.".........

Friday, May 13, 2011

Female Choices

What a white knight..How charming. Women should have "choices" and men responsibilities. The epitome of "women's liberation" isn't it. Choice to work, not to work, to pay on a date or not to pay, to have a the only choice to conceive and bear responsibility for unplanned pregnancy or not conceive, to divorce with no liability or reciprocal obligation, to have default parental rights, to not serve her country in any fashion through military Selective Service, to simply be valuable for the simple fact she exists while competing with and even disenfranchising men by social, political and even economic policy for what men are valued for...worker bees to enable female choices. Who is it that bears responsibility and consequences to enable these female choices? Guess who.

What liabilities, responsibilities, reciprocal obligation and accountability are women expected to have exactly?

I was just talking to someone about the church. Don't worry we all know that religion in outdated now right? I'm certainly not a member of a religious institution. Religion is founded on maintaining a social construct that no longer exists. Anyone who is familiar with the state of religious institutions has realized that women form the mass majority of church members now and men have left the church. If you search online you will see the church trying to figure out why and some are quite amusing in attempting to explain it. It is men's fault of course.

By responding with the mantra of "men need to man up and show some responsibility" for a societal structure we no longer have interest in maintaining, men run further away from the church. The church needs to ask itself what interest do men have left to contribute to maintaining something we have no vested interest in increasingly matriarchal social structure where men have no rights, no enfranchisement and thus no vested interest in contributing to it.

The church needs to realize what it is trying to maintain and enforce that has been taken from men not only by the weakened church but by government. These institutions were once the only thing that stood in between men and complete female domination. The only thing left at the disposal of government and the church now is coercion and shaming...and not enabling male enfranchisement. Male enfranchisement no longer exists. Men must ask, what are the rewards for sacrificing ourselves and enabling the choices of others?

Men are withdrawing from maintaining civilization itself. Increasingly the only people or duties we have vested interest in "manning up" to serving is ourselves.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Helping Women Along To The Grave

Source: Thomas G. Mortenson is Senior Scholar at The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education

I’ve been curious as to the marginal decline starting in 1990. It didn't decline so to speak but simply snapped back to it's upward average momentum trend. If you have any suggestions let me know. I do know that this peak in the 1990 is the time where male suicide was recognized as an epidemic and suicide help lines along with other suicide resources began to open shop. Around 1920 the rate was just over 1 to 1. Now for every female suicide there are 5 male suicides.

Interesting to note is that between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent. (Info not presented here)

I think it would be a great idea to create a list and measurement of general male health and wellbeing indicators. From what I gather though, it seems male health and wellbeing have been on the decline.

You will notice something particularly interesting about the below graph:

Controlling for what I believe to be known variables I will focus on the white population. 1991 was when the first generation feminist \ single mother divorce product of boys entered the world as adults. Looking at the rise in single mother birth rate the 90's were when an ever increasing mass of single mother boys entered society. What you will notice is the trend momentum for boys hit a reset point and lowered in 1990. It literally flat lined from the prior trend momentum.

I have read several studies which show a connection to single mother homes and the ratio of boys and girls from these homes that go on to attend college. Controlled for variables the studies found that although both boys and girls from single mother homes showed lower rates of wellbeing in virtually all areas, boys showed a much lower wellbeing than girls from these homes. I believe this is why it is only the boys college attendance rate that flat lined. I’ve got the studies but will have to dig them out (So in that case this blog post is still under construction).

Anyway, The 90′s were an important time period. It saw the plague of results from the earlier stable family structure fall out, divorce, fatherlessness, boys raised by single mothers, alienated men with no families etc. The term “latch key kids” was also coined. Women began demanding that the State provide affordable child care facilities to help raise children. School shootings, mass shootings and violent crime skyrocketed for what appeared to be no reason. Suicide became rampant. Many feminist generation young boys were now young men turning 18. They were being turned out of the starting gate of society all at once. The 90's were the beginning of our current societal nightmare.

You know I must admit that as it is the case that men and boys simply don’t seem to matter to society I find some solace in the fact that women are and will continue to suffer from what is happening. Of course it will all be blamed on men and boys themselves but doesn’t that validate feelings of righteous retribution? It does for me.

“Man up” “Man up” they say to no avail. Mass dating destruction, “Deadbeat” “Deadbeat” they say. “Child-Man” “Child-Man” they say as a once great civilization sinks into the abyss of destruction. The famous Roissy weighs on the dating destruction and child-man articles above.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Netflix To Help Women Eradicate Men From Reproduction and The Family

Hmmm, she picked the female baby and then declares that men will no longer be needed for reproduction or as members of the family......Quite the normal narrative in this culture isn't it.

‎"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

Anti-male commercials showing men, fathers and husbands as useless, obsolete, incompetent, bumbling idiot animal jack asses are universally appealing to women. What truths of female nature does this reveal? The ads exist because they sell, they sell because they appeal to an innate truth that appeals to something in the minds of women. What do you think this might be? I wonder what the fresh eyes of a child viewer would think.

Women Execute Renowned Top Surgeon

As editor of Surgery News Dr. Greenfield wrote the below Valentine's Day-themed editorial in a publication for fellow surgeons. Apparently women were so upset by it that the entire issue of Surgery News was pulled from the web and Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign as editor as well as forced to declare his resignation as President-Elect of the American College of Surgeons. His new role...a castigated exile to the back alleys of civilization, the implicit label of a criminal to humanity and the subject of no less than execution:

"As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you'd be surprised by new findings. It's been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%."

"Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests. So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."

Greenfield's personal reflections on the matter: "The editorial was a review of what I thought was some fascinating new findings related to semen, and the way in which nature is trying to promote a stronger bond between men and women. It impressed me. It seemed as though it was a gift from nature. And so that was the reason for my lighthearted comments."

The entire editorial can be read HERE

Popular Science Magazine has also written more upon the story HERE

What the world lost?:

Chairman of the Department of Surgery, and inventor of inferior vena cava filter which has saved countless lives from pulmonary embolism caused by blood clots during heart surgery. An utterly brilliant man, Dr. Greenfield has authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 55 book chapters, and 8 books. His textbook of surgery is one of the major surgical texts used by many medical schools and residencies to this day. He is an Emeritus Professor of Surgery. This year, he reached one of the ultimate professional pinnacles in surgery, being elected to be the incoming president of the American College of Surgeons, the largest and most influential surgical organization.

UPDATE: As with the Dr. Lawrence Summers case, Dr Greenfield has been replaced by a woman, Dr. Patricia J. Numann of Syracuse, N.Y. as president-elect of American College of Surgeons.

Now.....we must ask why women do this. Well lets take a look from a female bloggers perspective from inside the organization:

"A Valentine’s Day editorial in the official newspaper of the American College of Surgeons has set off a firestorm of controversy that has divided the largest professional organization of surgeons in the country and raised questions about the current leadership and its attitudes toward women and gay and lesbian members."

"Dr. Greenfield wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues in response to the criticism, he wrote that his editorial “was considered by the Women in Surgery Committee and the Association of Women Surgeons as demeaning to women. Despite my apologies, they brought the issue to the Board of Regents.”

"While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned (source?), and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or courthship advances from men.

"Dr. Greenfield has had what many believe is an exemplary career not only as a surgeon but also as a longtime mentor and advocate of women in surgery." "Dr. Greenfield has been a mentor to countless surgeons, many of them women"

"Birmingham, who worked as a medical student, surgeon-in-training and faculty member under Dr. Greenfield. “Our understanding was that he went out of his way to recruit women on the trainee and faculty level.”

Clearly this was a mistake on his part wasn't it....

However "Dr. Diane M. Simeone, a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan who was a co-author of a recent article on barriers faced by women in academic surgery, agrees. “There still is a lot of gender bias in surgery, and I have seen it myself on multiple fronts,” she said."
So....what I gather is that the execution of Dr. Greenfield is the product of the vendeta women have. It is a product of the hypersensitive atmosphere of "social gender justice" and "sexual harassment" hysteria that dominates the social infrastructure of our societal institutions at every level including the Federal government. This was a product of dominate female social agency in action.

Popular Science Magazine: ‎"For what it's worth, I asked Gordon Gallup, Jr., an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY Albany what he thought about "Semengate."

"I think it's a tragic overreaction," he says. "The point at which we begin to let a political agenda dictate what science is all about is the point when science ceases to be a viable enterprise."


What we do know is that it is clear that women have a well known track record with things like this. It is my contention that women have shown themselves to be to child like and to emotional to be capable of engaging in the higher pursuits of science. Yes, the above statement is facetious and filled with resentment isn't it.

They obviously have no business being anywhere near such definitive processes of logic and reason Dr. Greenfield referenced in his light hearted Valentines Day editorial. It's very sad what they have done.

Women should know that no matter how many men they have fired and castigated to the back alleys of civilization, science and freedom of speech will progress forward no matter how hard women try to stop it, no matter how hindered, handicapped and anti-male they attempt to make it.

I think what we are witnessing is female critical selective nature in action. Women evidently see his statement as an advocation for their own ingestion of semen perhaps even from the man in question.

I would like to reference an assessment of the universal appeal that misadry in commercials has to women in relation to their gynocentric, critical and selective natures:

It is my contention that portraying men as unworthy males to women is done to provide contrast to what is presented as a proper hypergamous decision...i.e. to make them feel as if buying the product presented is, in contrast to the choice they made in a man, a good better and rightful decision.

It plays on women's biology. their natural critical, demanding, hypergamous and selective nature. The product presents to females the inverse of the selective mistake they made of the man so the product is presented as the selective solution. It is meant to validate their critical, discerning and selective nature as naturally ordained "choosers".

This is why these ads are universally appealing to women. It taps directly into female nature.

So it does not really matter what she is being critical of in the man. Any selective preference of men by women is, in the female mind, the right one. In fact, the more unreasonably critical she is shown to be, the more it elevates the selective value she is ellicited to find in the product. By creating contrast with an inadequate male, it increases the selective worthiness and value of the product.

The above assessment is a deconstruction of the same selective sexual selection process in action in the Greenfield case. So to me it seems that women did not see the doctors statement as objective in nature but internalized the process of what he said through the subjective filter of mate selection. His statement was processed as an affront towards the critical filter of their selective natures.

He did not make the cut....that much was made perfectly clear to the world.

On an individual level is the fact that the reaction that took place against the doctor was uniquely female not feminist. It is the natural coalescence of female individual and gynocentric will that formates feminism as the collective vehicle of action. Was it feminist ideology that influenced the reaction and gave a vehicle of agency to it...yes. But the underlying forces involved is the product of individual female nature itself.

I think we need to realize that being a feminist and being female are integrally related. Feminism is simply the vehicle that is formed from female collective agency. It allows women as a group to enforce female will and power. It is not necessarily feminism that reigns supreme, it is female public agency and the natural social dominance that comes with it.

Female hegemony and individual nature coalesces through the vehicle of feminism. Suffice as to say that all women are feminists. Suffice as to say that females, increasingly, in any institution we look at have established and are able to maintain social dominance above and beyond male social agency. Females have always been served by public and private social structures of society in all realms...the difference is that it was men who had influence over how we and the social systems serve women to any measurable extent. Now, women dictate the terms of how they are served....this is a monumental change.

The concept that it's females themselves that are the source of destruction is a frightening idea I know because we are talking about females themselves being the dominate threat rather than a specific group of females with the label (feminists). We are talking about female collective social agency itself that is the threat and as such female public agency within public social institutions themselves.

Is this why prior cultures throughout time tended to keep females away from spheres of influence over public social structures...yes, undoubtedly so.

Few civilizations prior have allowed it and as we have witnessed.....this was for good reason. This is because female agency begins to reign supreme in a gynocentric fashion. These public social infrastructures quickly turn gynocentric and as we have increasingly witnessed, these systems themselves are consumed of their own means of operation and production in order to serve female interests. The greater objective purpose of these institutions is destroyed.

In the Dr. Greenfield case, the Dr. Lawrence Summers case and many others this is obviously what we are looking at here and has proved nothing but destructive. The cat is out of the bag. I fear we will not be able to do anything to stop it. This is to say that we are unable to keep them from ABSOLUTE domination over public and institutional structures through the exercise of their will and power.

When public social infrastructure such as government are of AT LEAST equal male influence through male social and political agency they at least have the chance of acting in a manner to best serve resources to females while maintaining individual sovereignty of the individual especially the sovereignty and rights of men along with equal protections and provisions. As female agency grows the male workhorses of the Matriarchy grow to serve female gynocentric interests to the detriment of the objective purpose and intended ends of these public infrastructures

Again, this is simply how dominate female institutional and societal agency is manifesting..i.e. in a gynocentric fashion.

With now dominate female social and political agency females now simply dictate the terms of how their will, needs, protection and provision is served and to what extent. We have seen the limitations of extent brought forth by it. This is to say that there IS NO limitation of extent. I regret to say that as we have witnessed, there is no limit to the preference given to this if we look at the laws and policy women have implemented.

A female dominated society is the female domination of both the private and public sphere of societal operation and infrastructure.

As we have witnessed it is remarkably gynocentric and as such it is manifested through subjective female focus on themselves. Watch a Dove Chocolate commercial and you will witness female gynocentric focus of self sustainment and self focus in action.

Female terms serve the subjective self and not the objective terms which are beneficial to formating and operating such social structures. From definitive observation, these subjective terms of female gynocentric agency are no doubt a destructive force to these structures. Suffice as to say that this force serves to consume the system of its own means of production.

Again, what we have witnessed is female subjective, relative and selective nature manifesting itself to the objective detriment of the structure as a whole...Take this quote for instance which further corroborates with my initial assessment :

"That's right. Forget chocolate on Valentine's Day. Give your woman a heapin' helpin' of man juice, and your "little lady" will perk right up. And, according to ol' Lazar, it's all biology, maaan; as in evolutionary biology."

As we can see, women pass the doctors comment through their subjective and selective gynocentric filter of what is allowed to serve them and in this case it is the implication that a man's semen is beneficial to them. They did not see it in an objective format as men do but in a subjective format. This is to say that it implied to them that just any man's semen is good for them or perhaps that by correlation this man was implying that his semen was good for them. The implication being that they should be consummate of semen. Obviously it was offensive to the dominate agency of arbitration women hold over what semen is acceptable to be given to them.

Objective reason, logic and connections to supporting data for this to be the general case is thrown out the window, then internalized on a subjective level and reacted to accordingly. Women seem to be incapable of objective reasoning and logic in this case and many others. Again gynocentricity is inherent to their nature and manifested likewise when they obtain social agency within public social infrastructures. It forms the base structure from which their reason functions and their actions follow accordingly.

You know, chivalry and courtship itself is the demonstration of willingness and dedication to serve females. We know that female nature is gynocentric and it is their nature to see themselves to be served in this fashion. As such they seek to enact structured chivalry into institutional structures and this includes government policy, law and social policy itself.

Other source: