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."

- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/controversial-ideas-semen-natures-antidepressant

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 such..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 yes....it 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: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php?utm_source=combinedfeed&utm_medium=rss

Kay Hymowitz Audio Interview: "Man-Children"

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/11/where-have-the-men-gone-a-conversation-with-kay-hymowitz-2/


She uses the phrase "man-child" as if men are not living up to something. As if under performing boys from single mother homes are supposed to change this situation. All the data shows that boys from single mother homes do so much worse than girls in academic performance and just about EVERY other health and wellbeing indicator.

You've all seen the Single Mother Birth rate since women began their "revolution" :

She expects these "man-children" to be able to stop women only funding, "women first" Affirmative Action in college admissions, job hirings, Title IX, The Council On Women Girls etc. You simply can not favor one portion of the population with "equality" over the other with social, political and even economic policy and expect the other portion of the population not to fall behind. We are talking serious resources here. Women only loans, mandated government contracts to women owned businesses, women's "advancement" business centers, women only scholarships, grants, "encouragement" programs etc. They have even rid our schools of any semblance of competitive learning models in favor of cooperative learning models. When the boys get bored they get restless. They give them pills and tell them to shut up and sit still. She expects men to be able to stop women's "equality policies".

All of this is women's responsibility not men's. Women are not only the majority vote and the single largest voting demographic but they are the dominate sociological force in the cultural dialog and social fabric. "Women's issues" are always the ONLY focus. Women removed all of men's rights in marriage and thus divorce some time ago. The Soviets created the same family policies we have. I don't see why we expect a different outcome. When you remove all of women's liabilities in divorce they abandon their families on a whim. They initiate 70% of all divorce and we now have a 50% divorce rate...if people get married at all. Anyone who studies feminism like I do knows that women said marriage and family was oppression and set out to change that some 45 years ago.

She speaks as if men of lower status and earning potential is a turn off to women when women have been denying this throughout their revolution for "equality", "independence" and "liberation". Women simply lied and will not step up to the plate as a provider for their families nor support stay at home Dad's. Nor will they marry what they are calling "man-children". Men owe women and women's single mother matriarchal families nothing in order to repair this situation. Men, at this point anyway have no institutional power to dictate and change social, political and economic policies when it comes to gender class along with the separate and secular representation under law and policy it now entails.

How Women's Gynocentric Brains Work

Sweden is doing everything it can to convince women they should be firefighters. I don't think there is a women first quota system in place for this yet but as history has shown it is probably not to far around the corner. Many European countries even have quota systems which require men give up their seats for women in many areas much like Affirmative Action and Title IX "women first" college admissions laws here in the U.S. This is simply what happens when women are given political agency to influence and dictate policy. I think it important to try and understand WHY women demand so much resources, protection and provision and otherwise can not accomplish things on their own. We know that equal opportunity is not enough for women and so they want to be favored. This is what women call "equality". Go figure, I always though equality was equal representation under law and policy but I guess not aye.

I surmise that women don’t necessarily want to be firefighters it’s just that their primordial brain tells them there are resources available that are not being given to women and thus naturally they want these resources to be provided to them. Women see themselves as deserving to be provided to.

I do imagine that there were marginal attempts to to use reason and logic with women to prevent these policies from being instituted but this is highly forbidden in a gynocratic society such as Sweden but also, very much so in the U.S.

When these marginal attempts to convince women they are already provided to well enough fail, the government caves into the female majority vote. The same thing happened when women demanded the Stimulus Package be devoted to women as a gender class here in the U.S.

All gynocracies seem to go this route. To me it is evident that when women have political and public agency it is always used to divert resources to themselves, it's just how women are. Again, women have the majority vote so there is really nothing we can do about it.

I believe men will simply have to let ourselves be disenfranchised until the Chinese or non gynocratic society takes us over. When you let women dictate the distribution of resources….well….eventually they consume the system of its own means of production. Perhaps we have no option but to wait this out until that happens.

There Are No Sex Offenders..Not Any More

Hmmm Just reading some articles at Salon.com

Sex Offenders:


"The main issue here, as far as I see it, is that sex offender registries clumsily lump together all sex crimes. In recent years, a host of less extreme offenses have been included as grounds for registration: "voyeurism, public exposure, adultery, giving obscene material to a minor, displaying obscene material on a bumper sticker, and bestiality," according to a report by the Vera Institute of Justice. Also, some states require registration for those "possessing computer-generated images of virtual children." This isn't the case across the board nationwide, but a Human Rights Watch report breaks it down on a state-by-state level, and the results are staggering: "At least five states require registration for adult prostitution-related offenses," 13 "require registration for public urination," 29 "require registration for consensual sex between teenagers," and 32 "require registration for exposing genitals in public."

"This has led to the rise of low-risk offenders on registries. Take Georgia, for example: The state's Registration Review Board found that just 5 percent of listed sex offenders were "clearly dangerous" and two-thirds posed a small risk. Just over 100 of the 17,000 registered sex offenders in the state were considered "predators."

"Most states do not make individualized risk assessments before requiring registration. Nor do they offer former offenders a way to get off the registry upon a showing of rehabilitation or years of lawful behavior." The result is that we have nearly 700,000 registered sex offenders in this country. To put that in some perspective, "more than one in 160 adult males are registered sex offenders," according to the Vera Institute's calculations."

Yea, the crazy thing is that I've seen little boys on these lists as well. The definition of what constitutes a sex offense is now just about anything. I've personally met a guy who fell under "require registration for public urination," portion of the law. Crazy huh?

What is happening to my country! Yes, this graph is real!
---
Rape:

"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) the percentage translates into the disturbing figure of 35 such crimes for every 1,000 women students."

--"Some women"...You mean of the small number of rapes taking place it keeps happening to the same women right? That's odd, I think perhaps we should look into the factors for this. If such assaults are rare, what is causing these same women to have multiple instances of these experiences? I'm leaning toward the variable in these cases being something to do with her behavior but what could it be?


"In the past few years, the number of "forcible sex offenses" reported by college campuses has declined (save for one year where it ticked up). "Non-forcible sex offenses," on the other hand, have slowly risen -- which might have something to do with, yes, awareness raising about "date rape" and the like."

You mean where the woman and man have been drinking and\or using drugs and end up having sex? So if both parties have been drinking and \ or taking drugs, who is responsible for these acts while under the influence? Somebody has to be responsible for this to constitute rape right? I wonder what constitutes "date rape". I mean, I'm sure the man could slip a pill into her drink but how often does this happen? Anybody know....Does anybody know? Until then I will err on the side of the highest known factor in these instances which is the mutual ingestion of intoxicating substances.

Now I'm not denying that rape happens, I mean plenty of women have abused little boys. And women do commit the majority of child abuse and child murder so it has to turn out some young men into the world with some serious issues.

"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."

The good thing is that VERY FEW men are capable of obtaining an erection by attacking and hurting a woman because most boys have experienced good relationships with women in their childhood so pathological violent rape is exceedingly rare when we are talking about rape.


So when we are talking about the "other" type of rape it is important to understand what is actually meant by it and the factors in play. It is a shame that anyone should get hurt by unintended intercourse.

http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html Male erection response and misunderstandings:

"Myth- If a male experiences sexual arousal or orgasm from abuse, this means he was a willing participant or enjoyed it."

In reality, males can respond physically to stimulation (get an erection) even in traumatic or painful sexual situations. Therapists who work with sexual offenders know that one way a perpetrator can maintain secrecy is to label the males sexual response as an indication of his willingness to participate. "You liked it, you wanted it," they'll say. So when women like these say things to their victim like this many survivors feel guilt and shame because they experienced physical arousal while being abused. Physical (and visual or auditory) stimulation is likely to happen in a sexual situation. It does not mean that the male wanted the experience or understood what it meant at the time.

So we can see that erection does not always imply conscious will by any means. In my opinion, being drunk on alcohol and\or drugs does not make the man any more capable or responsible of consciously having sex than the women. Believe me I'm 32 years old now but it happened once when I was a kid. I woke up in the morning and there she was right next to me. The first thing she said when she woke up was "Oh my God did we have sex!"

I had no idea if we did have sex or not but the first thing in my mind was "Oh my God did we!" If we did I am the one who is expected to be in control and responsible for this situation or any situation involving a woman no matter what the circumstances is.


In fact I can't really think of anything women have responsibility for when it comes to the legal terms set forth by the government on personal and private relationships and this includes marriage, conception, parental rights, rights to one's own body and the fruits of it's labor, property, DV rights, healthcare funding, equal rights to attend college through "women first" Affirmative Action you name it. I can't think of anywhere where men have rights CAN YOU??????. Please help me here, I can't think of any rights or choices that men have. Not even visitation rights are enforced. I really see men as a means to an end to enable women's "choices" and rights. Even Constitutional theory dictates that rights don't come without responsibility. The law states that mutual acts nor mutual commitments require mutual responsibility on women's part..in anything. Men don't have any rights compared to women, nor "choices" in anything. From what I've studied on my own virtually all men's rights were removed in the last 45 years or so.


To be quite frank I really don't respect women for this...at all. I am also angry. I love women or at least the potential to love one but it's really hard to have an equal relationship with them by any means. Anyway, It scared the crap out of me and for good reason. So I said what anyone in their right mind would say when faced with women's omnipotent power in all realms, "NO, no we didn't". As a man I simply back away from all of this to preserve my own dignity and protect myself. Some say PUA and GAME is the answer in this new order. I really don't think it is. For me it is simply MGTOW in a way you know?

I'm intelligent, successful (but not where I want to be with it yet), good looking and I've never had trouble with women but HOLY SHIT!

I've seen things happen to the men around me to many times. I feel I can't commit to a woman and am afraid to get emotionally close to any prospective children I might have. By law, fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege. I grew up in the feminist generation and know what happens. What man wants that??? It is not that I am afraid of commitment but rather there is nothing in modern relationships (by law even) that is worthy of my commitment to a woman, marriage and family.It's really very sad.

It is only men who can lose everything. If anyone can help me with a solution it is greatly appreciated. I don't know if anyone knows but I've turned to this growing Men's and Father's Rights Movement for help and to gain a sense of control back. Ironically I feel raped...does that make sense? I started my blog on my own you know. At the time I didn't realize there were so many others out there. I guess I know that I'm not alone in this situation and becoming an MRA has been a good start to a solution for me even if it simply allows me to understand the situation and protect myself. The growing Men's Rights Movement is the beginning of what could hopefully be a solution in the years to come in this society.


http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/06/college_rape/index.html
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/20/sex_offenders/index.html

Women's Vaginas Now More Toxic Than Tobacco

Oral sex is leading cause of increasing U.S. cancer rates, compared to tobacco use in other nations

BY LINDSAY GOLDWERT
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Oral sex could be hazardous to your health.

So say researchers who note that oral cancer stemming from the human papilloma virus is more common in the U.S. than oral cancer caused by abusing tobacco.

Researchers found a 225% increase in oral cancer cases in the U.S. from 1974 to 2007, mainly among white men, said Maura Gillison, a cancer researcher at Ohio State University.

The more oral-sex partners a man had, the greater his cancer risk, Gillison told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-22/entertainment/28639602_1_oral-cancer-hpv-vaccines-cervical-cancer
------
REMEMBER: Their is a vaccine that helps prevent SOME HPV strains. 1 in 4 of America's women carry one or more diseases. This disease in particular makes their womb a barren infertile waste land. Their cervix rots from their body. If you plan on establishing any type of relationship with an American woman PLEASE BE CAREFUL AND MAKE SURE SHE GET A FULL EXAMINATION AT THE DOCTORS OFFICE.

Men Are A Disease: A Critique of George Carlin

A critique of George Carlin's Video upon men: The Male Disease



If anything this video outlines how male "use" and utility has been exploited by culture, not only to hold up the operation of culture but to support the needs of such a culture even to the point of the disposability and expendability of male lives. Male use is also defined by women and their needs but also elements of biological imperatives placed upon him for the survival of our species.

I first noticed this video on The Conscious Men Facebook page. This is a group which seeks to apologize to women for the male condition and its effect on women. A follower posted the above video to seek guidance as to validating this view of men from the leaders of this group and the response is demonstrated from this captured screenshot:



This group of men have been outright rejected by most men as is evidenced by the comments on their YouTube videos but also strongly by the Men's Rights community. There is good reason for this, it is not male responsibility or male free will which is responsible for the human condition nor is it men who are the sole creators of it.

Carlin makes the mistake of placing responsibility of the male condition upon men themselves, particularly fathers.

He states that it is fathers who introduce men to male subcultures i.e. (tangential cultural expressions deviating from the cultural norm of male "use") in other words, ALL places and activities men can be themselves FOR themselves. He attacks all bastions of refuge but also the places where masculinity is literally used.

Car and machinery culture: Nothing inherently wrong with this, men gravitate to machines because we are the ones who invent them and this is so because it extends our capabilities to produce the imperatives defined by our use and utility. Machines and tools are an extension of men's drive and male purpose. Tools and machines are something integral to being male they are a physical manifestation and extension of ourselves.

The Police and Military Culture: Necessary to keep social order to protect and provide safety and security of our native culture but also to secure territory and resources to our native culture should they come in conflict with another’s. As we speak, mostly men are working around the clock to quell the raging reactors in Japan. These men, these military men are accomplishing a productive, useful and dangerous task. Men know from a young age their intended male "use" and even their expendability in order to secure the needs of culture, women but also children.

The Outdoors and Gun Culture: Stems from male independence and ability to provide for and protect one’s self. But also embodies the male spirit of Freedom, Liberty, Independence and the innate, intrepid, go it alone, independent spirit of masculinity. If a man is not self-sufficient how is he to provide his utility for the use of others? Men find the outdoors and wilderness a challenge. Men in the wilderness are facing what can be hospitable if he utilizes his self and abilities properly but also equally unforgiving. It is the epitome of the unique struggle that men face in the world. After all, if women sacrifice their own needs for children and men sacrifice our own need for women and children then who is there to sacrifice their own needs for men in this regard? What use and utility will voluntarily be offered to us and by whom? Who will court us in order to do so.....nobody.

Sports and Competition Culture: Elements of male-male competition are expressed here through the embodied biological imperatives the male serves. Sports and competition not only provide this but also serves to showcase who is of better use or utility essentially...it is a contest of who is better.

Drug and Alcohol Culture: Not an exclusive male bastion of culture but for the sake of argument may be primarily driven by the pressures of the lack of inherent value in men. Men are not men by default but instead must "be a man" and become a man as defined by our external utility and use. Being a man entails accomplishment, duty and responsibility and the pressure to achieve. Along with drugs and alcohol we also suffer early death and suicide.

Let’s mate with females, while exemplifying and devaluing a non-useful male i.e. ("go get pussy and pick on queers"):If one is labeled queer it does not necessarily denote a lack of acceptance of queer sexuality but rather what it represents...along with feminization insults such as "pussy" and "fagot" it denotes males that are not of use. If you are like a woman or queer, then you have no use or external utility to neither women nor culture. However, though I've seen men declare we as a group should go find women I have never heard men as a group declare that we should "pick on others" while doing this.

Carlin labels testosterone (a symbolic element meant to denote "male essential nature" as the source of male suffering or cultural ills but I disagree, men are not solely responsible for the advent of our own condition. Masculinity has an essential nature and is also defined by and created by forces outside itself. Again, this is largely defined by biology, particularly in relation to use and external utility to the female but also what is defined as male use for the benefit of culture and often times to the sacrifice and expendability of a man himself, his own needs up to and including his own life for the benefit of others, the group, or society as a whole or for a defined cause.

Homophobia: Again, this has little to do with homosexuals as it does to the need to exemplify one’s own use and external utility above other males. Alleging someone is queer or calling another man a faggot, along with feminization insults of other men such as "pussy" is also used to do the same. These insults are used also to inspire another man to be of use, to "man up" to a task defined for him though it may not be in his best interest but rather that of women, culture, the group, or society as a whole. When you hear men or women using male shaming language think of not just the current context and purpose it is being used for but also how the qualities he is being shamed into producing i.e. (overcoming fear, pain, suffering or self interest etc) are part of the larger construct of male use, utility and expectations upon men as a whole.

Child Like Trust in Male Authority: This is false, the trust, following and development of male hierarchical social structure stems from following dominant males not simply other males or just any male authority. Individual enactments of male confidence, competence, bravado or otherwise demonstrating trust in one’s own authority and competence as a male, comes from the need to be dominant, and the need to be dominant stems from the need to be of use and of the highest utility and capability than the males around you but also of the highest capability and competence to be adequate to women and culture.

Fear and dislike of women: Perhaps can be described as more so the feelings of grappling and struggling with the area of ultimate authority and control that women hold over men and how this force powerfully places mandates upon us and defines us but also what it demands of men to be worthy, of use and external utility. Biologically speaking, men and our genes have no right to be passed onto life unless a female approves of this right. Lack of competence, acceptance and worthiness in the present moment implies that your genes have no right to exist in the present. By getting laid, men are able to validate their own right to exist. In this way, acceptance by women defines us. Likewise both male and female inherently know this and can be very demanding, vile, brutal and critical of the measurement of what constitutes a man’s own validity.

‎......He asks, why are men like this and concludes it is because men have no authority or control over whether they reproduce and yes, in simplified form this is on target. He asks, so what are men looking for. He explains that men are looking to gain the authority to reproduce which is correct but he states that "women do all the work of reproduction". What he does not recognize however is that "men also do all the work in our own fashion and in an external way in order to be able to reproduce. So where do we find ourselves.....back to the concept of male use and male external utility as defined by the mandates of engendered biological imperative pressures placed upon him and thus by extension, the pressures placed upon him by women and culture itself.

Carlin,... believe it or not is attempting to display his own use and utility. He asserts that the solution to the "male problem" (males other than himself of course) is the extermination of most all other males. Ironically, he is the embodiment of the same propensities he seeks to discredit. Men are brutal to other men and women are brutally critical of men.

He states, because men are excluded from control over reproduction they find ways to be of use and external utility. This is correct but men do not define this for ourselves and it is not entirely or mostly the product of male free will.

He continues with the fact that females are the constant and the base blueprint XX and males are the variable XY and as such, men are the primary variable that embodies the necessary traits or dictates of human survival, use, need and thus perpetuation of the species through such external variables embodied and displayed by him and this is correct. He states all men are modified females but it is equally true that all females are what males are not, never can be nor will be and this is good, it's what makes males unique, valuable, different, complimentary to the species and necessary.

He states that males are an afterthought so as to convey we are somehow deficient or a waste product of the essentialist design of female or even suggests that we are a deviation of what is essentially human, a thought perhaps a nazi might purvey.

He states, females create life and males end it: No, men are the embodiment of life’s self-actualization to perpetuate itself, refine itself and adapt itself not for our own ends but life’s own ends. Life wants to live. Men want to live on and pass on our genes. This is the biological portion of male use and external utility and why males are the variable. He is mistaken, men do not simply end life through culling out, challenging or destroying other male variables, we give it, shape it and its means of survival, this is embodied in us.

He states "war, crime, violence are primarily male but in reality they are primarily nature serving its own purpose through the culling of male variables represented in external utility and use. We must ask what war, crime and the byproduct of violence and male-male competition actually serve to this end.

To this I say ask these males:

Are territory, resources and male superiority and dominance over the ability of other males to acquire such things conveyed by these behaviors in the video above? Are human males any different?

He states that men start out as (female good) and end up as the "crappy thing" or (shit and waste) and this goes to show Carlin’s hatred not only for himself but life itself and life’s brutal struggle to perpetuate and refine itself. Life wants to be competent and able and this is embodied within male nature. Males seek competence, authority to be competent and dominance for a reason.

He says that men are not only responsible for the human condition but we are fully responsible for what we do to ourselves and what is done to men in this process and in this he is mistaken.

That male kangaroo shown in the video was sent off to die alone. If you look under a bridge in any city you will find males living out the rest of their lives there for the same reason. They have nowhere else to go, no value, no use or utility to provide. Women simply do not value men as much as they value themselves, men simply do not value ourselves and other men as much as we value women. I believe this might be true. A woman would never get up on stage to speak of women this way but it is quite possible she will speak of men this way. I have nothing but compassion and understanding for the male condition not hatred, misandry and bigotry.

Despite what Carlin and women say, men are human beings, males are LIFE and we deserve to live and be treated as equal and necessary to exist. No male scholar has ever contemplated the extermination of women but female scholars have contemplated the extermination of males and still do. Entire governments have and so do major female newspaper columnists.

The question of whether men have the right to live is obviously out there:



To answer the question that has been posed by feminists within their movement and even by other men (and Carlin himself), do males deserve to exist? Are males human beings which deserve to live?

Men, being the variable obviously have certain traits when contrasted to life's goals that are fit to survive, are successful and meant to be passed on and others that are not. Over time some of these variables are culled. Some survive and others do not. After all, DNA evidence shows that 80% of women and 40% of men reproduced in our evolutionary history.

Females, other men and culture can be brutal to men. They see this as their right to dictate and as such can be critical, cruel and inhuman to men and even question our right to exist or even our status as a human being. Likewise this brutality, critical mindset and cruelty is embodied in us towards ourselves as men (Carlin is a perfect example). As mentioned before, we are simply not as valued as women or else why would we be treated as less than them in this way??? However, males deserve to exist because females are static, they are the constant. Without males and the male variable, life does not go on nor do we adapt as a species to our environment to do so. Most of all men deserve the right to exist because we are human beings.

Though it has been questioned whether men or males are even necessary or have the right to live, to me it is quite obvious that we do. Men do not complain about our condition or seek to show how we are in pain, suffering or being used by women, culture or biology. We are also not critical of women as much as women and culture are critical and demanding of men.

Unlike women, we have no authority to complain and instead seek to hide weakness, pain suffering and the general brutal reality of the male condition. If we demand for this to be alleviated, provided to or protected for or even to have "choices" as women do we will thereby be announcing our own unworthiness and viability to exist, to be of use. Perhaps it is men's place in line of importance of gendered needs that we are put last. Perhaps this is the source of the imbalance that men now face under the current feminist hegemony. Men used to have the power over how we put ourselves last for women's benefit but how has female public, political and institutional agency exacerbated, increased and controlled this? What happens when females are given the power to dictate this?

Unlike what we have provided to women, they will not allow us a choice to escape the male condition as we have offered to make sacrifices for them to escape elements of the female condition. They will not be so kind. In fact I've found that what males are asked to do is provide something more to women and likewise female issues, needs, demands etc. and as such, this dominates the cultural dialog. Men have no needs that deserve to be addressed apparently. We will always be ordered to "man up" to this and take it.

Men have little healthcare funding for our health as women do. Men have little funding for our education, success, wellbeing and advancement as women do though men's health and educational success and general wellbeing is much poorer than women's. Men have no one to look after or support us. As men, for the most part we are all alone in this. We will not be cared for, we will not be protected and ultimately we will never be cared for as much as women. Under observation and practice female public and political agency seeks to expand this divide by providing ever more resources, programs, initiatives, funding and even anti male "women first" policies in college admissions and even business hiring. I guess it is the case that women put children before themselves, men put women and children before us but no one will ever put the needs of men before themselves...not women, not government and not other men.

The only people who can change the state of wellbeing of men in this regard is men. We must see ourselves and the male condition for what it is and address it as always...on our own..Women will not seek to care for us as we seek to do for them. It is up to us to see that we meet our own needs and that women meet our needs as well.

Women complain about their power over their sexuality, what a burden it is and seek to maximize it by "empowering" themselves for their own gain. The difference is that women own this power inherently along with the phenomena of being "sex objects" but do men own our "use"?

Women by default are on to the next stage..management of this for their own best benefit. Well, the way I see it, men are "use" objects. Men should become conscious of the ways in which we are literally used by women, law, social culture, family law etc. Men must own our gendered expectations and mandates of male "use". We must recognize our exploitation and how our inescapable biology and very lives are "used". Are our needs being met in return? Is there reciprocal obligation, responsibility, liability and accountability from women toward men?

Male "use" is something men need to empower ourselves with. Men, like women, must own our power. We must "empower" ourselves for our own wellbeing. Most importantly we must become aware of the ways in which male "use" and utility is used to empower women and give them "choices" at male expense. Choices of paternity, choices to be responsible for conception or not be responsible, choices to abandon their families, a choice to work or stay home, a choice to pay on a date or not to pay, and a choice to discard men from the family itself. In many ways female empowerment is defined by the "use" of men to enable it.

Also...may I ask...what are women required to "woman up" to? If they are asked to, do they have a "choice" to escape this?

-----

By the way….consider this article an apology on behalf of any “conscious women” (should there be any that are not victims of men) for treating men as “use” objects. Because unlike the manginas at the “conscious men” no women or culture will ever recognize the male condition for what it is, an equally valid part of the human condition.

No matter how misguided those men are at least they have offered to be of more “use”. You have to hand it to men, we are the most self sacrificial and giving beings I’ve ever witnessed. No matter how shallow and self loathing at least the “conscious men” attempt to take the world on the shoulders of men and to be accountable for EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. This is what men have always done.

I am afraid we will receive no valid apology or accountability from any “conscious women” should they exist.

We will always be left catching our brothers in our arms. Quite frankly it is an honor to do so and be here for all of you. “You put your back up against me and I’ll put my back up against you (my fellow brothers), that way we don’t have to sleep with our heads in the mud”

Thank you all for contributing to the growing MRM. It is an honor to be a part of this.

Exchanging Sex For Survival

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33624850/ns/technology_and_science-science/

• "Two male fiddler crabs fight on a beach on Inhaca Island, Mozambique. Researchers from The Australian National University in Canberra found that male fiddler crabs will happily defend a female neighbor against intruders, partly because the females will dole out sex in return."
  
  
  
  The scientists are trying to find the variable of why they do it on the surface during these exchanges. I will place a good bet and say she does not get pregnant from the exchange but only at the end of the culling cycle of weak males. Probably once a year. Meanwhile she happily grazes on his territory and resources while waiting for stronger more dominant males which then have more territory and resources to come along to kick his ass. Other life forms such as ducks have false vaginas. Human females have their own methods of extracting resources and also engage in paternity fraud \ cuckolding. Gynocentric and hypergamous to the hilt lol.

  
  
  
• 

  In the mean time, within the territory he shed blood, sweat, tears and death for she most certainly complains about a food gap between the male crabs and herself and other female crabs. Most likely if these crabs formed such complex social structures as government like humans do, the dominant males would take his food and territory and give it to the females when they complained. They would then continue to demand more and more "equality" until the vast majority of male crabs have nothing left to give or any incentive to do so even to the point of not placing paternal investment in their own offspring who are considered female property. She would see the government as alpha for sure and happily screw over every male crab in the land with her government husband who gains dominance by it.

  
  
• 

  Like crabs, human beings are no more than animals who's base instincts and nature heavily influences what they believe to be free will and reason. Feminists will tell you the whole thing is by male design and a social construct, a big conspiracy to rob females of the resources males compete for in order to be worthy of them in the first place.

  
  
• Right now we have ventured outside our territorial lines our males secured in the same fashion as the fiddler crab males in order kick Gaddafi's ass while at the same time our young men sit in their "women's studies" classes being throughly shamed and emasculated. Cartoons will be shown of females rolling their eyes at the inferior male. Like human males, The young crab males will be taught how terrible males are along with their "toxic masculinity". Everything female will be promoted as superior and everything male and masculine as an oppressive force used to harm females. The goal is to turn out legions of castrated men into society. These poor hapless and impressionable young male crabs unfortunately mistook this class for an actual science course rather than gynocentrically motivated nonsense.

  
  
  
• 

  In the video below I'd place a good bet that the females who are happily and obliviously grazing on grass in the background complain about a grass gap between female kangaroos and the males who are adamantly competing for it for no other benefit but to the females in the first place. I bet they won't shut up about it. It must drive the males out of their fu*king minds every new legislation that is passed by the kangaroo government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVq7Mo6LY-A
  
  

I bet the female crabs and kangaroos will eventually have the dominant government pass so much "female first" Affirmative Action, Title IX, female only loans and scholarships that they will gain 60% of college degrees and out earn male kangaroos and crabs until they make more than them in every major metro animal city in their kingdoms. I bet the females will change marriage law so that resources and offspring get transfered to them no matter what. The male crabs and kangaroos will no longer have incentive to compete, produce or commit to females for anything and instead lay around playing video games, drinking beer, watching sports and hanging with their buddies.

The females will then gloat at what losers the males are for not producing the very things the females seek to remove them from and disenfranchise them from obtaining fairly.

I bet the single crab and kangaroo mother birth rate will shoot through the roof. More and more advocacy for gynocentric policy in the public and private realms of society will be established. Committed mated pair bonds and male paternal investment will plummet not only because of his own disincentive but alienation from having incentive or opportunity to make paternal investment in his offspring all together. I bet her relationship with government and the propensity for related gynocentric policy will become self perpetuating and self compounding. I bet it will create its own necessity, a self fulfilling function of its own ideology. Perhaps when males have nothing left and the crabs and kangaroos live in a full blown single mother matriarchy she will then consume the only resources the males have left....the males themselves:

Unplanned Pregnancy is Not a Man's Problem

Unplanned pregnancy is not a man's problem. Not anymore.... In fact it's not a woman's problem either.

Men don't "get women pregnant" It is a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility and thus (since abortion is legal) under Constitutional mandate (along with the equal protection and rights under law that it affords) the equal right of each party is afforded to absolve themselves of such responsibility....or at least it is supposed to be.

If abortion is against a woman's values who cares. Cut it's head off latter or something...Right?....What is the difference? Nothing is stopping a woman from getting an abortion:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/10/young-woman-gives-birth-to-baby-boy-decapitates-him/

No one cares if it is against men's values. No one cares about men's "choices". Men have the right to walk away. Men have the right to abort responsibility and the ramifications of conception just as women can. Her body, her choice, her baby, 100% her property, her problem.

Men don't necessarily have anything to do with conception. Conception of life by law is something only women do and women choose, even to the point of not requiring a man to conceive life all together. Men are no longer a part of nor are we necessary for conception and this is the sole choice of women...for now. What men need to realize now is that we also have the power to take our exclusion into our own hands and make it our own choice, we have the right to exclude ourselves from having any part of it. By law we are already excluded. Male genes are sold over the internet by what Hollywood celebrity the male specimine looks like:

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/sperm-banks-men-for-sale.html

There are no laws against paternity fraud and cuckolding committed by women when it is discovered. Men don't necessarily have anything to do with conception now a days. Women and THEIR children are THEIR problem and THEIR responsibility. Conception is something they do..it is THEIR choice not ours. It doesn't have to be this way. Men don't have paternal rights to children anyway. Fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege.

It is said that women have choices, a choice to work or stay home, a choice to conceive or not conceive, a choice about her gender role, a choice to be a single mother, a choice to conceive a child without a man by purchasing male genes, a choice not to serve her country by military draft, a choice to pay on a date or not pay, a choice to divorce with no liabilities, obligations or responsibilities AND at no-fault....Even then a man's responsibility to women and THEIR children remains.

Yes it is said that women have choices......men, responsibilities. Not anymore.....

Equality by the way women have implemented it in practice means Independence and Liberation which equates to dis-need, and choices. As such, Independence, Liberation and Equality for men means the same...that is, choices and the right not just for women to practice dis-need but the right of both sexes to practice mutual dis-need of the other and mutual choices to absolve ourselves of responsibility and the role we play to the other.

Men are beginning to understand that we have choices in ALL realms that women do.....or at least we should. It is only fair. This is the other half of Feminist ideology that men must complete for ourselves. Right now the whole house of cards of women's "Independence" and "Liberation" is held up by men's half of the bargain and thus lack of equal ability and choice to absolve ourselves from it. Men currently are made to be responsible and accountable to women while women are not made to be the same...they are not accountable toward and for men or even service to country.... This is changing....men are waking up to exactly what feminism really means, men just have not completed the picture yet...It is MUTUAL Independence, Liberation and Equality.

As women have taught us, only through "Independence" i.e. dis-need and lack of liability or reciprocity can the selfish "rights" of the individual be realized. Only through "Independence" or dis-need and thus no liability to anyone can "Liberation" and "Equality" be reached. Men must continue to move toward the complimentary ends of "equality" that women seek. This means equally liberating ourselves from liability to them as well. Men must now create choices for ourselves.

Why Do MRAs Hate Feminists So Much

The manginas at TheGoodMenProject have given MRAs a platform to speak out. The comments section of the article is interesting.

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/whats-up-with-this-mens-movement/


Dan Moore of MenZ magazine gives his perspective on fundamental men’s rights issues, breaks down MRA sub-groups, and answers the question: Why do MRAs hate feminism?


My involvement with the Men’s Rights Movement began nearly two decades ago, before Reddit gave MRAs (men’s rights activists) a place to gather, and before I founded MenZ magazine. Back then, there was a thing we call the “Lace Curtain,” a reference to the media’s unwillingness to take a male-sympathetic view of anything, even to the point of suppressing any pro-male comments or letters to the editor. We used to send out an email alert whenever someone got a letter to the editor published in their local paper. It was so rare, we had to celebrate it.

We’ve made a lot of progress as a movement since then. But what kind of progress, exactly? It’s obvious we exist, and that we’re angry and loud—but what do we believe in and stand for today? Explaining the MRM involves exploding so many of the cultural myths we live with that it would take more than one article to cover them. But, if you’ll bear with me, I’m going to try.

♦◊♦

The Issues:

Men have no reproductive rights throughout what we would call the Political West. Men have no right to choose if they are ready for parenthood post-conception, even though women have that right (and staunchly defend it). While the morality of letting men abandon pregnant girlfriends is left in question, the base inequality of the current situation is not. We have a blatant legal double standard, based solely on the sex of the person involved. Either give men the same rights as women, or restrict women’s rights to equal those of men—I don’t care which. But to fail to do so is to promote sexism as official government policy.

As the Department of Health and Human Services concedes,”historically, unmarried fathers have had fewer rights with regard to their children than either unwed mothers or married parents.” For example, as an unintended consequence of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which required single mothers seeking public assistance to identify the father and put states in charge of collecting child support, millions of men across the U.S. were declared dads by “default judgement.” As Matt Welch wrote in a 2004 issue of Reason magazine:

[W]hen the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop—even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father.

Many states have since passed reform bills, but paternity fraud is still a problem.

While we’re talking about family court, how about those child support tables? They were based in part on hysteria created when sociologist Lenore Weitzman concluded, in a 1985 report, that after a divorce women’s standard of living went down 73 percent, and men’s went up 42 percent. “For several years after the publication of her book, she did not make her data available to other researchers,” according to the Associated Press. In 1996, she admitted that her calculations were faulty. A re-analysis of her numbers “found a 27 percent decline in women’s post-divorce standard of living and a 10 percent increase in men’s—still a serious gap, but not the catastrophic one that Weitzman saw.”

But by that time it was too late. According to the 1996 AP report, Weitzman’s bogus statistic had already been cited in 348 social-science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 appeals and Supreme Court cases, and in President Clinton’s 1996 budget. “This has been one of the most widely quoted statistics in recent history,” said Anne Colby, director of Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center at the time.

All this is done under “no fault” divorce, which basically means there’s no reason needed to initiate divorce and no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Even in cases where one spouse is decent and hardworking and upstanding, and the other cheats and drinks too much and is addicted to gambling and takes off with the kids, there can be no assignation of blame. Alone, this is no big deal until you factor in the misandric culture we live in, where accusations of wrongdoing are gendered in the media.

Speaking of the law, men have particular concerns when it comes to the justice system. There has been a massive spike in incarcerations in the U.S. over the last 30 years. Nearly all of those are men, and nearly all of those men are poor, and usually black. While some might see this as our society being tough on crime, I see a society locking their “undesirables” out of sight. And while black and white men are often treated differently, the differences in treatment between men and women are substantially greater.


Why Do MRAs Hate Feminists So Much?

In a nutshell, because nearly everything they say is a lie. Why do men get such a bad rap? Why are men afraid to help small children, for fear of an accusation? Who is promoting the idea of a “rape culture,” and that one sex is responsible for the safety of the other? Who has consistently painted all things masculine as evil, toxic, or in need of improvement?

MRAs reject the very notion that “men oppressed women.” It didn’t happen. Ever. Men worked with women, in the roles they were allowed, and men’s roles were no less restrictive than women’s. Indeed, most of the time the men’s roles were far more restrictive than women’s. Of course, Patriarchy Theory doesn’t address this interpretation.

But more than that, feminists don’t even live up to their own rhetoric. And the reason for this? They don’t have to.

Feminism is little more than government-sponsored and -enforced chivalry. Feminism isn’t about equality—they have steadily attacked men’s privileges without giving up one iota of their own (and fiercely oppose those, like MRAs who seek parity).

Feminists have, from the outset of the Men’s Rights Movement, ridiculed, dismissed, viciously attacked, mischaracterized, and misrepresented the MRM—pretty much in that order. Today, feminists are castigating us for not wanting to play nice, as men made no concessions in the last 60 years.

Men are angry. Very angry.

♦◊♦

What Men Are Doing to Cope: MRA Sub-Groups
Articles written these days about men and boys don’t talk much about the issues I outlined above. Many of these articles still don’t even bother to ask men what they think. Instead, many turn to female “experts.” In an age where even articles discussing the state of men refuse to talk about the male viewpoint, or even ask men what they think, what exactly can a man do to get by?

That depends on your goals and expectations. These are the major sub-groups:

MGTOWs

Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOWs, are one major subgroup of the men’s movement. These men are, as the name suggests, essentially dropping out of society as we know it. A good portion of these men are the ones Kay Hymowitz and the like are complaining about a lot—the men playing video games, drinking beer, smoking weed, and not “manning up” as expected.

For the most part, these men are responding to the lack of reward in our current culture for those who do “man up,” coupled with the massive risk involved in playing the game by the rules in place. They’ve decided that women—and society itself—are literally more trouble than they’re worth.

This is the fastest growing segment of the Men’s Rights Movement, followed closely by PUAs.

MRAs

Men’s Rights Activists (or Advocates) is the generic term for those men concerned primarily with the political and legal aspects of the issues facing men—and a strong concern for the social forces enabling these injustices. The defining characteristic of an MRA has yet to be found, but it seems to be concern over enough legal political issues, as opposed to any kind of traditional political leaning.

There are devoutly religious MRAs and “devoutly” atheist MRAs. There are black, white, Asian, aboriginal, and Indian MRAs. There are straight MRAs and gay MRAs. And there are male and female MRAs.
There are devoutly religious MRAs and “devoutly” atheist MRAs. There are black, white, Asian, aboriginal, and Indian MRAs. There are straight MRAs and gay MRAs. And there are male and female MRAs. MRAs have no particular political stances on things like abortion, other than men should have the same rights as women. MRAs are simply men and women concerned about the legal and social state of men today.

In fact, MRAs don’t have a catchy name because they didn’t expect to have a movement on their own. They originally believed the feminist movement would help. And yes, their faces are red about that foolish mistake (myself included).

PUAs or Pick-up Artists

Contrary to popular belief, there is enormous benefit to knowing “Game,” whether it’s used or not. PUAs apply some very astute analysis of female sexual behavior. PUAs have the know-how and the advice that fathers used to give their sons back when fathers were allowed in the family.

It’s a well-known fact that men and women both enjoy sex. “Game Theory” states that women are far more ruled by their libido than men are; men have simply forgotten how to push the right buttons. The effectiveness of this approach, as compared to what your mom taught you—”just be yourself”—can be easily seen nearly anywhere men and women interact. At the very least, Game Theory provides some protection against the petty manipulations men are subjected to daily.

While many women have complained about the presentation and the tone of the facts, sites like Roissy’s Chateau routinely have sheepish women admitting they are exactly as described. And while your mileage may vary, some advice is far better than none, especially in an age saturated with messages that “empower” women and denigrate men.

When Will the Men’s Rights Movement Go Away?

Likely never. Feminism manipulated already existing social biases to be more favorable to women, while leaving their gender role intact as “fallback position.” Men are literally saying “screw you” to women as a sex, and society in general, and for the first time ever, are dismantling the Chivalric infrastructure.

Men are hardwired to love and idolize women. It’s why we want to protect them and support them. They give our lives purpose. They are the center of our families, and they are the comfort at days end. They are the makers of the home, the calm in the storm.

Well, rather, they were those things.

Now women are our competitors at work, our opponents in politics (women’s issues begat men’s issues), our critics in relationships. Women are told to fear us, to hold us in contempt, and to feel empowered when their success is greater than the men whose legs have been cut off to enable it. They are imbued with massive self-worth, and told their every accomplishment is worth celebration in this male-dominated world. And this leads them to believe all the men they meet—who they’ve been told their whole life have it even easier—are total losers. How else could they have failed to succeed?

Women feel entitled to take advantage of men. There is little social pressure on women who, say, capitalize on men’s loneliness by demanding free drinks as payment for her company, to stop this practice, since it’s seen as “normal.”

To the men who may not have much money, who simply want to meet a nice woman and don’t know any better, this seems like cruelty. And to that man, it is.

We live in a society that caters to female hypergamy (“the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher socioeconomic status, or caste status than oneself”). We have structured our legal and social systems to accommodate the female desire to be able to “trade up” at whim with no consequences, and it has devastated marriage as an institution, and dating in general.

We live in a society that doesn’t care about men that are not “alpha,” You see it everywhere, the top slice of men doing as well as ever, with the bottom 80% falling off a cliff.

The men’s rights movement started because no one else was talking about this stuff. The MRM continues because even after hearing about this stuff, many people are too complacent or too convinced by opposing beliefs to do anything about it.

As long as men and boys are given the raw end of the deal (usually because society depends on the disposability of men to survive), the MRM will be in existence in some form or other. I suppose that if this is a concern, one could always take solace in one simple fact: Even after 20 years, and attacking all these major problems and more, and being the lone voice doing so for most of that time, there is yet to be established a single publicly-funded men’s rights advocacy agency anywhere. So at least the men’s movement won’t likely be surviving on your tax dollar, but will continue to thrive on the volunteer efforts of everyone involved.