Thursday, March 29, 2012

Another Bullet Shot At The Wage Gap Myth

Women by nature and therefore by enlarge are communal (communists) and socialists. They narrowly missed passing The Paycheck Fairness Act i.e. their ace in the hole to socialize wages, destroy the free market, stratify labor and lower wages for everyone while creating the incentive for domestic outsourcing of labor under the roof of temp\contract companies i.e. domestic outsourcing labor farms.

This is why the wage gap myth along with every tenet of women's gynocentric feminist thinking along with it's associated machinations at every level of society must be fought. We have an individual incentive yes BUT it is our duty to defend the country from women's political agency. This will be difficult no doubt, women are the majority vote and have superior gender class agency based around the purported needs of the self. Women are the single largest and most powerful voting block in the nation and they are a gynocentric union. If allowed to continue the course of the nation the consequences will be dire.

Forgive me for posting the video below again (as I've posted it elsewhere on my blog) but it is SO IMPORTANT for us to understand female nature, understand its now dominant agency and furthermore to comprehend where it is now and will continue to lead the nation. Understand clearly that in a female centric and female dominated society men come last....

Men must begin to see ourselves as a separate socio-political and socio-economic class. Men must begin to identify as a class as women have done and enact our gender class interests accordingly on a political and social scale as women have.

The good news, or what can be good news for men if we are able to liberate ourselves is that women out earn men in our feminized service sector \consumer economy. Will this liberate men from female parasites who force men to support them after divorce and remove men from our children and property..I hope so. It is my hope in fact that women can have their own families without needing men. Will they share custody of men still be required to turn over the rights over our bodies and the fruits of our labor to them...most likely...Men YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE IN THESE MATTERS DESPITE WOMEN'S FEMINIST MARRIAGE \ DIVORCE LAW.

Source: Time Magazine, The Sheconomy

Will women let men be the new women?

I don't think so. I think birth rates over all will continue to decline, and the single mother birth rate will continue to rise. I think women will increasingly treat men with disrespect for the lack of ability to meet their all demanding hypergamy. They will despise you so much they would rather adopt a child or get knocked up and settle to be a single mother by the loser useless worms they will see you all as. I think they will increasingly act like the women below:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The single woman birth rate is now 41% of all births and rising (the graph is a little dated):

Remember men, all you ever are and were to women is a use object, a means of meeting gynocentric requisites. They will never let you stay home and be "oppressed" as they were. If men are to establish any kind of relationship with the feminist matriarchal family we must demand that women allow us to be "oppressed" as they were and for them to hand over all the legal rights to their bodies and thus the fruits of its labor by way of alimony and child support. They must hand over the children to us when we decide the marriage is no longer convenient for us and want a divorce. All this women did to men we must do to them.

To me it is quite clear, men must demand these rights if we are to have anything to do with women and what is currently seen as their children. Or perhaps we can work a deal. Since women claim to be independent and are out-earning men when a marriage is dissolved they must be forced to share parenting. I think this is the least men may be able to secure from the matriarchal family. I don't think such "oppression" will be afforded as as is afforded to women.

If men do marry into a female breadwinner family and even take on the role of taking care of children do you think you will be given the same means of taking women's children with you after divorce? Do you think women will be required to pay you alimony? Do you think they will be required to pay you child support? None of these things will happen. Women will simply no longer have you as a member of the family and the lives of your children. If the laws are not changed men must create a new masculine identity that does not involve creating a family with women or the concept of marriage or fatherhood. Men must make our own way otherwise you will all either be shit upon as you are now and at best continue to be a slave to our matriarchal feminist society.

All The Single Ladies:
By:Kate Bolick

The Atlantic:

"we no longer need husbands to have children, nor do we have to have children if we don’t want to. Biological parenthood in a nuclear family need not be the be-all and end-all of womanhood—and in fact it increasingly is not. Today 40 percent of children are born to single mothers."

It would be wise of men to understand what you were to women all along..walking gene dispensing dildos and a wallet. Now that women "no longer need husbands to have children" you will all increasingly learn the harsh reality of your true place in a matriarchal society and what you are worth to it.

Have no fear men, your country will continue to die and commodities like gold (market volatility and fluctuations aside) will continue to rise, the dollar will continue to decline along with male incentive to produce all together due to systemic economic disenfranchisement. Hold the line at the margins of society and the family until the time to fight is among us. The time to fight will be here soon enough. The BRIC nations declared today at their summit that they will be creating their own regional monetary exchanges and will soon dump the dollar as their reserve currency. Men, your country is in grave danger.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Amanda Marcotte of Slate XX Covers Up The Truth On VAWA

When you say they (Republicans) do not support protection from domestic violence for women and men you are being disingenuous. You are a liar. By the way, Republicans historically have supported VAWA and in this case and others they are no friend of men.

The only class of men proposed to be given equal protection under law in this bill are gay men. Hetero men have no protection against assault under Federal law.

I find this objectionable and do not support this bill as it is against the interests of my gender class and sexual orientation class interests. Personally I think since we live in a divided nation without a Constitution and Bill of Rights it is important for us as a nation to stand with our own class when other classes propose laws against our respective classes interests.

The other objection they had was against the provisions that any immigrant that claims that a man assaulted them would be granted citizenship. The other was the added provisions that would extend the law to those that are gay or lesbian.

I'm wondering when unequal protection under law by religious orientation will be added.

Being that equal protection under law does not exist in my country I am not an American. I am a white, heterosexual male sovereign. I wish I could consider the term American to have a homogeneous does not.

Monday, March 26, 2012

LOL The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Excoriates Men

The good thing is that no attempt at marginalization and mischaracterization of men by the SPLC or attempt to claim certain individuals represent our increasing awareness of our common condition as men will stop men from the growing effort to understand our position, share it with others and make changes accordingly. Changes either made to improve the situation in terms of Rights for men and at worst the ability to make changes and choices in our own lives in order to live healthy lives despite our situation.

The men involved in the cases cited were indeed aware of the issues men face for our Rights and they were also affected by the cultural and political shift toward feminist doctrine.

Was Thomas Ball a perfect example of the causes of male alienation from our children...not exactly...he did slap his daughter when she would not go to bed and was subsequently removed from his child for life. He had a very difficult time allocating the fruits of his labor to a woman's family. This was to much for him and so he set himself on fire and committed suicide.

Is this the impetus that causes most men to be alienated from our children, certainly not, even less in fact. Men are mearly guests as part of women's families and women's children. Fatherhood is not a Right but a revocable privilege. A man's control over his own body and thus the fruits of its labor is not a Right, it is a revocable privilege.

Men can be removed from the home and the lives of our children by a woman's word alone. By default, shared parenting is not granted and it is only men who bear the liability and risks of obligation to marriage and thus obligations when said marriage is dissolved. (Women are 2/3 of those who divorce and dissolve the family)

If any said man wants to see his child again momentarily he must admit guilt. This is then used against him in a divorce proceeding to remove his right to fatherhood. VAWA is what is referred to by lawyers as "the silver bullet". Men's love for our children is used against us. At very best the role of men is as isolated resource producing male for women and women's families. These men's actions were symptomatic of a larger problem..problems exist that however closely or loosely related to the men mentioned, the MRM aims to bring attention to.

The great thing about the Men's Movement is that we have no leaders but rather act as a conglomerate of men sharing the experiences of our common condition as men. I have no doubt that in many ways these men shared aspects of this condition with the rest of us. Civilizations that were studied by the Greek philosopher Aristotle have made the same progression toward creating incentive to divide the family using "women's rights". It has in fact happened before. Feminism is in fact the progression to tyranny and the death of our Republic.

"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)

Why do women divorce and dissolve the family in such proportion? What is it about the laws of civilizations past when enacted that made the sure recipe for women to to employ them?

Most divorce is filed under general discontent and at no-fault. So I take a biological approach to the reason. In short it is done simply because they can at no consequence and second they either do not lose a thing and in most cases actually benefit from the seizure of male property and assets. However, in biology any organism given the license to increase it's genetic fitness by increasing its number of offspring or increasing its genetic diversity by way of variety of mates will do so, or at very least make a move to increase the likely hood of this occurring.

Given that women retain all the requisites from a man (and increasingly the State) to maintain what is seen as her offspring without the need for marriage or the contribution of a husband or father it becomes much more likely she will make this choice. Women initiate divorce because their biology creates an itch and quite simply because unlike for men there is no reason for them not to.

It is important for men to realize that marriage is not about men at all, it is about women and women's children. Men must therefore seek a new masculine identity and purpose other than one that is disposable.

Were the men in the SPLC article aware of some of these same issues and affected in one way or the other by them...yes they were. I believe Thomas Ball was affected by the lawful and political and Sodini the social and cultural aspects of the feminist doctrine which was more closely aligned with female hypergamy and changes in the mating dynamic as a whole. Perhaps instead of marginalizing men further and placing poison into the system I believe it would be wise to listen and attempt to understand the common condition that men increasingly face while living under feminism. Otherwise you present the problem and not the solution...Poison in....poison out.

More on understanding of the relationship of women to the State can be found HERE

Should We Pay For Women's Birth Control Pill

Birth control gives women control not men. My mother warned me, "never believe a woman who says she's on birth control...even your wife, always where a condom". This is something I live by as should all men. The recent national debate over whether payment for women's birth control should be socialized under Obama Care mandates is interesting.

Heeding my mother's advise and taking into account those men who don't yields two results.

#1 For smart men, it does nothing but raise our insurance premiums. What would we be paying for, women and women's control not only over reproduction but over men....the stupid ones that is....which brings me to the second effect upon men:

For stupid men it provides women a form of manipulation or means of enticement for men not to use a condom and the ability to practice invisible deceit without accountability. It grants full control over a man's reproductive choice in this instance. Another woman told me well..."you have to trust in a relationship". While true, trust is important in a relationship the word and action of trust is synonymous with handing over control to another.

It is important for men to realize that women's birth control does nothing for men and as such I do not want to pay for it. It is important for men to realize that at best is raises our premiums and at worst will manipulate others into unplanned pregnancy. It serves nothing more than to strip men of our money and to control, deceive and manipulate others to revoke their rights to reproductive choice.

The only way it should be covered under insurance is if a company decides it wants to and allows the free market to decide. The only way any religious institution should be forced to pay for it would be if they are willing to surrender rights of religious freedom to the Federal government. The only other way it should be covered is if the people are willing to surrender the 10th Amendment of our Constitution and hand control away from the people and the states.

Women want to remove these state rights, individual business rights of free commerce and freedom of religion.

It must also be noted that when women release these hormones into the municipal water supply and waterways it has the unfortunate effect of lowering fertility of all males in the environment, including humans while also feminizing them: The effects are compounded over time as much of municipal water supplies are reconstituted.

“I’ve heard a little bit about the bad things that birth control can do to the environment,” said Casale, 26, who lives in New York City. “If it’s causing major problems, I guess I would stop. But, to me, the (positive) "health" effects (for women) of the pill are a much greater concern than the fate of fish".....or the effects on male health and the environment in general. What matters to me is myself and my gender class interests.

If by chance we lose these freedoms in my country at very least it is women alone who should pay the higher premiums for the elective control they seek over reproduction and consequently over men who are stupid enough to give them that control.

Only believe or trust a woman and her birth control if you are willing to have none and to face the consequences of handing over what little reproductive choices and control men have, especially over the children that may come of it, your body and the fruits of it's labor. Marriage and marriage law is not about you, it is not even about a family, it is about a woman and her children. Men are simply an accessory to reproduction, an accessory utility to society and an accessory to women's families while having no place in it...just as women wanted....right? Behave and make your choices accordingly.

Peter is correct. He makes good points but fails to say that men will be paying for it as well. He is correct in that it will drive up cost through increased demand. He also makes another good point, men apparently will not be provided free condoms. Men will not be given equal access to birth control. He said that men will get their condoms through women...BIG MISTAKE FOR MEN TO DO THAT!

If the bill is not repealed or amended men need to file a class action discrimination lawsuit against the government. If passed condoms should be provided to everyone in the land. If costs goes up just increase communism by forcing the manufacturer into price controls as other regimes have done or make the manufactures State owned. Ultimately communist price controls or state owned manufacturing will bring down the system but we will all have a good time until communism really takes hold and centralization of power to the State is complete.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

VAWA Is Up For Renewal: 2012 (Drunk Sluts Provision)

What's Wrong With the Violence Against Women Act
By: Wendy Kaminer

The above is a succinct analysis of the tyranny behind a small section of VAWA. It is only a small picture of the totalitarian tyranny enveloped in this legislation which from the beginning was designed to remove the right to due process and equal protection under law for men, separate us from our children, force us to admit guilt in order to see them again (for the moment) then use our own indictment of ourselves against us to remove us from our children forever after divorce. All of this is done on women's word alone.

However, I'd like to talk about what can specifically be called the drunk sluts provision:

I was downtown about a year ago and saw a girl walking down the street making a fool of herself. She was well on her way to this point:

What should a man do when he sees what women have classified as a walking woman-child on her way to being this intoxicated given the legal responsibility men have for their welfare? I told her to get the f**k out of here, GO HOME and reprimanded her as an adult would to a child. At this point she is nothing but a liability to any man that gets near her, like a child. Heck, call a cab for them if you are inclined. Of course this is what feminists wanted but at least you are protecting other men from harm by a wasted bitch.

Now, let me make it clear that having sex with her when she's passed out is rape in actuality. However, after a woman has even one drink you can be charged with rape if she feels bad about it the next day. As you may have read from the syndicated article above, the burden of proof is now upon YOU. In my opinion men should deal with them as you would with the personal restraint, authority, discipline and decision making you use for a child. Women by law are men's responsibility...PERIOD. In general women have "rights" and men the responsibility, liability and risk of outcome. It's this way in any legal situation involving a woman...including marriage and thus the liability and risk of divorce.

The situation gets even more complicated when a young man is wasted along with her. In this situation you are still considered her legal guardian, sex at this point no matter what drugs or alcohol a stupid young man has taken is still his responsibility, women are your responsibility, they legislated it this way.

Don't do anything stupid, act as an adult with responsibility, you are the only gender responsible for having it.

Also, never look out for women who have been drinking by making sure they get back to your place and putting them in a bed. Furthermore, I recommend not having sex with any woman-child that has been drinking and at very least if you do, do not for any reason allow her to pass out in your place. I did this once and it was a mistake. I brought a girl that had to much to my place and put her in my bed. I slept in the same bed...first thing she said to me when she woke up was OH MY GOD DID WE HAVE no we didn't but I hope you don't give me any trouble from thinking so. Men don't need this liability and risk given the potential consequences.

I don't know how the girl in the picture above ended up in the guys room but if it were my buddy she would be brought out to the street. If it were a young college guy the below scenario is the new norm.

You come into your shared apartment and find your good friend has an intoxicated and passed out woman on his floor....

--"Dude....what is a drunk passed out girl doing on your floor!!!?"

"It's cool man, I met her at this party, she's cool man"

"NO! It's not f**king cool she may have been up for it before she got to this point but YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SHE WILL THINK OR FEEL IN THE MORNING"

You proceed to your camping gear, grab one extra large mil-spec duffel bag and throw it at his chest and exclaim "We got to get her out of here"

"Where can we bring her dude"

"Anywhere but here, this is NOT GOOD man...this is NOT good. Help me get her into the bag and out to the car we got to get her out of here before she comes to"

"We can't leave her on the street man"

"Yes we can and we should, if she wakes up and points to you the burden of proof is on you man. You can get expelled or worse from this"

"Your right, we can't bring her to anybody or call anyone, lets dump her by Chem Hall 23 behind the bushes"

The above is the world men will have to live in now, there is no other way to protect yourself and you must look out for each other. We don't have the protection of the law and due process, nothing can be left to chance. The preservation of Justice is now in your hands alone. Do what you need to do to protect yourselves...the consequences of not doing so are dire.

Misc news clippings:

"If other universities want to continue receiving federal funding they must also lower their standard of proof to the preponderance of evidence standard of 0.1% over a 50\50 chance of whether the assault occurred. If there is any doubt says student Janice Wallace, "we must aire on the side of women whether any wrong doing occurred or not. This is not about fairness it's about upholding of justice and protection of our female students. Women must be put first when it comes to safety on campus. Under Title IX we have the right to be and feel safe."

Vice President Joe Biden says: "Under Title IX, a woman is entitled to equal access to everything on a college campus. That includes being safe." Campus advocates agree, to be protected and to feel safe is a fundamental female right for which men should be aware of.
"In response to campus advocates and new directives from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, Stanford University has lowered the evidence standard for cases of sexual misconduct from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a "preponderance of the evidence". This move, which applied immediately and took effect during then on-going proceedings, was met with praise from students("If the new Standard of Proof bothers you, there’s an easy solution: don’t sexually assault people"), but has proved controversial among civil liberties organizations ("a shocking disregard for fair procedures on campus"), academic scholars ("a declaration of martial law against men...and a betrayal of the Title IX equity law"), and alumni ("The President’s recent decision is all the proof I need to know that the University shows little respect for the rights of students")."

Take an inside look at the frightening totalitarian campus Kangaroo Courts and associated processes that women, their political class union and their government are setting up at this very moment!HERE