Quote:

---

Originally posted by Richie:
... but around a dozen that seem to get excited as soon as they know I have money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF,


--------

JSF- To repeat my point, it's entirely within RICHIE'S prerogatives to not want to get married. OTOH, he blames his preference on all women.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Richie:
I find it humorous, how our society has to rationalize how men are tired of the behavior of the average modern US woman, and that it still somehow is the guy's fault. This is part of the problem, as women never take the responsibility for their part in things. This used to bother me, but now it is a funny side note. The generation of blaming where it can never be the individual's fault. I imagine that is how we will be remembered. You do not see these same problems around the world. I almost married a woman from Indonesia, and I often think that my career focused goals were a mistake in breaking that relationship up.

I put too much time into my work and lost my chance at a normal relationship, and it appears that the pool of women that are available, about 70 percent of the female population at my age, are damaged and/or desperate. On top of that, only one out of over twenty women that I have dated, have not been on some sort of depression drug. It is a little disconcerting. Maybe it is the chemicals that we force down our throats, and call food, or maybe it is that we have had it so comfortable for so long, and are losing touch... Either way, women will never accept any responsibility for the situation, and men, such as myself, are no longer interested in hearing the one sided arguments on how we supposedly screwed everything up. I even had one woman try to convince me that her bad day at work was actually because she could not focus, because she was thinking about how great our last date was, and she was angry at me for it. I thought it was a good thing to have someone on your mind, but apparently this was not the case for her.

I joined MGTOW, and found that this was not just me, but tens of thousands of men at least. The princess syndrome is what they call it, and I am inclined to agree. My new iPad pro is having issues after updating to the new iOS, and the keyboard is not working 100%. An update is supposed to be out for it within a week, so, my posts will be more reader friendly then.

MGTOW

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Richie:
I find it humorous, how our society has to rationalize how men are tired of the behavior of the average modern US woman, and that it still somehow is the guy's fault.

I joined MGTOW, and found that this was not just me, but tens of thousands of men at least. The princess syndrome is what they call it, and I am inclined to agree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:


People need to start worshiping more than just a US Dollar, themselves, their own hedonism, dicks and vaginas, they need to worship more than a Dollar or foreign money

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Only men who died in battle and women who died in child birth should have their name inscribed on their tombstone
..if you didn't die in battle or in child birth you were a loser and not consider writing about

---

Quote:

---

Witnessing the Painful Fallout of Female Promiscuity

---

Quote:

---

Feminism in Japan

---

Quote:

---

Men 2020: The Real Story

---

Quote:

---

Abstract : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has funny tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further.


The Cultural Thesis

The Myth of Female Oppression : When you tell someone that they are oppressed, against all statistical and logical evidence, you harm them by generating discouragement and resentment. This pernicious effect is the basis of many forms of needlessly inflicted female unhappiness, as well as the basis for unjustified retaliation against men.

All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who did not face hardships as severe as what women endured. In reality, this narrative is entirely incorrect. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is. ...
...


....

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :

1) People married at the age of 20, and often died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In some Eastern cultures, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Eastern equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time. However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO. Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises. Would businesses be able to operate? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee? Keep these questions in mind as you read further.

So why are 70-90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?

......
...

'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples for children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.

One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them a moral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.

But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than ever after being inflicted with such misogyny.

So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful?

---

Quote:

---

With rapid social changes post WWII, women in Japan have become more active outside the domestic environment. This leads to several policy and attitude changes within the society. This, however, is not to say Japan is now a society in which men and women are equal.

Japan ranks 104th out of 142 assessed countries in 2014 on the ranking of gender equality in the developed world, according to a study released by the World Economic Forum.1
The Japanese government has been making active policy changes to deal with gender discrimination. Some of these active measures manifested as progressive feminist-themed TV dramas in recent years, that deal with issues ranging from sexual harassment in the workplace to misogyny on a daily basis.

I could go on and on about how great these shows are, but today I want to focus on something else, a term called misandry.

---

Quote:

---

Do women really want equality? It’s a question I think every one of us needs to ask ourselves. Because frankly I don’t think many of us do, not real equality anyways.

Feminists would have us believe that life is so much worse for women than men, that we are weak and the “patriarchy” is against us, and therefore we deserve all sorts of programs and benefits just to be on a level playing field with men. But the plain fact is: here in the West, we have it pretty great. In many ways better than men. And if we really took a look at men’s lives, we might realize that.

Most of us don’t want to pay half the bill on dates, we don’t want to work dirty and dangerous jobs, we don’t want to be drafted if there was a war, we don’t have to prove to a court that our children need us after divorce, and we don’t want to serve as unpaid bodyguard or be the first one to go downstairs when we hear a strange noise… and luckily for us, we don’t have to!

Because men do these things. Voluntarily. Every day. They don’t ask for a “thank you” because it is so built-into them to give, to serve. And, although it may surprise some readers, men do these things because they love women. They are doing these things for us so we might love them back.

---

Quote:

---

Spotting one can be a bit tricky, so here are some basic signs to look out for to make sure you are nabbing a goal digger, not just another gold digger.

It may seem obvious, but if she is more parasite than princess when it comes to talking about the financial aspect of the arrangement, this is a sure sign of a gold digger. Not to be confused with someone who casually mentions that part of the agreement, since it is in fact mutually beneficial. Steer clear of ladies who can’t remember your name, but can remember to ask for their allowance monthly without fail.

She always has a sob story for why she needs more money, or why she needs it sooner. While there are instances where even the sweetest of Sugar Babies can find herself in a bit of a tough spot, a gold digger is a professional con artist, and these sob stories will pile in almost weekly. Also, don’t be surprised if she has a new designer bag on her wrist next time you see her after helping her pay for sudden car repairs.

---

Quote:

---

Endgame! Part VII.
What's good??

We carry on with our survey of Plato's The Republic.

In the first phase, we examined the links between Platonism, Communism, and Feminism

At this point, we shall look to the actual text of the Republic, so it can be easily understood why Platonic thought was, and is, such a major influence on globalist movements worldwide.

Plato and his writings go far beyond feminism; the philosopher's ideas, in my view, are the framework for an as yet unrealized Superstate. This could possibly consist of various union zones, such as the European Union, the African Union, the super-secret North American Union project, among others, which would be overseen by a world body, possibly based on a model of our present day United Nations. Please keep in mind that this is speculation. But I hope to make a convincing argument that this scenario is indeed plausible. All the evidence, in my view, points to just such a conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Is MGTOW a natural consequence of feminism?

Society & Culture

MGTOW basically means men who aren't going to get married. These men are the majority in the generation under 25. But many men are swearing off relationships as well.

Slowly men are wanting nothing to do with women...

Women are not just superior by law, institutions and social standards. There are also a lot of injustices going on by women & feminist countries... Basically men are oppressed and discriminated against in a large number of ways.

---

Quote:

---

Fact Checking The Futurist

In a post I've been meaning to address, Grim (while expressing great admiration and respect for her) takes issue with several of Dr. Helen's recent posts:

I appreciate that the doctor wants to be on the side of men; but not, I hope, of men who don't merit it. Men who are themselves deeply angry at women ("fatpocalypse") are just as unlikely to produce an insightful methodology for achieving greater understanding between the sexes as the sort of radical feminist that got so much attention in the 1970s. I suppose chivalry seems "pig headed" to those males who view women as a class of self-absorbed parasites, just as it does to those women who view men as a class of hideous oppressors.

The term they sneer at -- "chivalry" -- is an ethic of willful service to one another. This is true in its relationship between men, whether they were equal fighting companions, or lord and vassal, each with clear and binding duties toward one another.

It is probably not an unfair statement to say that I disagree with Dr. Helen more often than Grim does. I don't read many blogs. I read her from time to time because she features topics that interest me and does so in an interesting way. I share her sympathy for men who are reeling from the tectonic changes in the way society deals with traditional gender roles. Where I tend to differ from her is in where I think the solution to these problems lies.

---

Quote:

---

No Sex in the City: What It’s Like to Be Female and Foreign in Japan
“We usually have a tough time keeping female teachers here,” my boss informed me on my first day of work as an English teacher in Tokyo. “They usually don’t last more than six months.” I looked up from studying the roster list of teachers (30 — all male), in surprise.

“You mean at this school?”

“No, I mean … in Japan.” He shrugged. “Tokyo’s a tough city to be single … If you’re, you know … a western woman.”

I stole a quick glance at the photos that were mounted on the wall behind him. Four middle-aged White Dudes. All of them were bearded and balding. All of them resembled the aging, stringy-haired members of the band Metallica. And all of them were pressed up against the model-thin bodies of a heavily made-up Japanese Beauty Queen.

I don’t think I’ll have a problem, I thought.

It wasn’t that I was beauty queen gorgeous. Far from it. Slim, medium-height, with hazel eyes and freckles, I was at best ‘cute’ and at worst, average. But I had something that the competition didn’t: long, naturally curly, blond hair. Furthermore, I was bilingual, well-traveled and college-educated.

But as I realized a few weeks into my stay in Japan, I was also mysteriously, frustratingly invisible.

---

Quote:

---

REORIENTATING THE MEN'S MOVEMENT
Any movement dedicated to securing the future of the Western peoples must deal with the fact that feminist legislation, moral corruption and hate-spreading has rendered marriage to a Western woman a decidedly unwise act for most men. The online networks of male resistance to feminism, most of which overlap at some point or other with the Alt-Right, have so far managed to offer three alternative paths for men:

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), a deliberate refusal on the part of men to involve themselves in relationships with women or see themselves as destined to marry;
'Game', the manipulation of certain unsalubrious aspects of female psychology to use several women for sex while, again, either avoiding relationships with them or only entering into these on the man's terms;
MRA (Men's Rights Activism), the adoption of anti-feminist political positions and pursuit of political activism to resolve the injustices and attacks faced by men.

---

Quote:

---

The standard narrative is that feminism removed the artificial restrictions that were holding women back, and what we observe today is a level playing field. The Social Pathologist described this in his recent post Hypergamic Affirmative Action:

The social, sexual and economic liberation of women in the latter half of the 20th Century has meant that for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction. The result has been spectacular if not particularly beneficial to the happiness of women. Whilst not all degrees are created equal (men still overwhelming dominate the “hard” fields of knowledge) the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing. As income is broadly correlated with economic well being, its safe to assume that women have been able to achieve a economic parity with men. The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

What he is describing is the feminist fantasy coming true, and out of respect for the feminists reading I suggest taking a moment to savor the euphoria before we continue.

---

Quote:

---

Tropes and the Valuation of Men and Women
Jan 20th, 2008 by Daran.

Typhonblue:

In my experience, societies that value women over men are prone to tropes in which tom-boyish women are both attractive and highly competent. Whereas in societies that value men over women, they are prone to tropes in which feminine men are both attractive and highly competent.

That’s a very interesting hypothesis. Can you give some examples?

Update: It’s occurred to me that a possible example might be found in Henry Longfellow’s poem “The Song of Hiawatha“:

---

Quote:

---

Marketing Asian Women To Anti-Feminist Men
Lisa Wade, PhD on July 25, 2009

We often talk about things being gendered or racialized on this blog, but we haven’t talked much about how race is gendered and gender racialized. In a previous post, I wrote:

According to American cultural stereotypes, black people, both men and women, are more masculine than white people. Black men are seen as, somehow, more masculine than white men: they are, stereotypically, more aggressive, more violent, larger, more sexual, and more athletic. Black women, too, as seen as more masculine than white women: they are louder, bossier, more opinionated and, like men, more sexual and more athletic.

Conversely, Asian people, both men and women, are often stereotyped as more feminine than white people. Asian men are seen as small and less muscular than white men; Asian women are seen as more passive and deferential than white women.

Interracial marriage rates bear out this asymmetry: black women are less likely to marry white men than vice versa and Asian men are less likely to marry white women than vice versa (see here and here).

The idea, specifically, that Asian women are more passive and deferential than white women, has been used to explain white men’s fetish for Asian women, Western men’s sex tourism in Asian countries, and Western men’s use of Asian mail-order bride services. Some of these men, it is argued, want a subordinate partner and they find it difficult to meet a white/American woman who is willing to play that role. You can actually hear a male sex tourist make this argument in this post.

I introduce all of these ideas in order to frame a screenshot sent in by Megan S. The screenshot is of the front page of a website (antimisandry.com) devoted to fighting misandry, or the “hatred of males as a sex.” The website purports to “cur[e] feminist indoctrination.” You’ll see that it is also advertising a dating site specializing in matching up white men with Chinese women

---

Quote:

---

Plato and Aristotle, two of the most influential philosophers in the Ancient World, both had radical views on the nature and capabilities of women. Many of these views were similar, yet somehow Plato became a champion of the female cause, while Aristotle was labelled a male chauvinist. This essay will look to discover whether Plato really was an early feminist, or whether we are looking too far into his ideas.

Plato, in the Republic, argues that women should be able to take on the same social roles equally with men in his ideal state. His ideas are based upon the view that women and men have the same nature in respect to acting as guardians of the state, except that the one is weaker while the other is stronger . However, just one generation later Aristotle returns women to their traditional roles in the home, being subservant to men. There is no equality in nature for Aristotle, and in the Politics he declares:

..as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. And the same must necessarily apply to all mankind.

For now, however, our thoughts will concentrate on Plato and what he really thought of women and their capabilities.

Firstly we should make clear that at no point does Plato deny that there are differences between the two sexes - his ideas on equality lie solely in the nature of humans. He does not pretend that women are as physically capable as men, nor does he deny that women are better at tasks like weaving. He does not say, though, that one could not be better than the other if they?d had the same training. And this is precisely his main argument in the Republic - that given the same training, education and opportunities, suitable women could be equally suited to the position of guardian as their male counterparts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
So, women kill because of sleep deprivation and hormones

---

Quote:

---

Here's the backstory: I occasionally indulge in some friendly Twitter engagement with feminists, taking a strong anti-feminist position. I'm openly and un-apologetically acting as an agent provocateur, Understand, while this may be seen as trolling, I am extremely polite in my engagements with feminists and never cross the line into "bullying". That doesn't mean that some don't get hurt feelings, but in most cases that was a pre-existing condition.

Now, while many of you will shake your heads over the utility or the practicality of attempting such engagement, I do so for higher purpose, not just because I like yanking pigtails. I'm not there to make feminists mad, I'm there to challenge and give honest criticism, to make them think more than to make them angry. I'm laying out, in as practical and simple terms as I can, why the Manosphere and men in general have taken issue with feminism, as it has presented itself. I've done this over and over again, searching for a unicorn: a feminist who is willing to look past the rhetoric of the feminist movement and address the issues with it that men and the Manosphere have.

Why would I want to do such a perverse thing? While it would be much easier to just hurl mindless vitriol, as I said, I'm not into yanking pigtails for fun. My goal is to actually open some sort of reasonable dialog between the two spheres.

So, after responding to a fairly reasonable post by a young feminist woman who was confused and upset by the anger she detected from the anti-feminist movement on the #HowToSpotAFeminist hashtag which started to get meme-y (and then posting my reply to as many retweeters of the original as I could find) a bold feminist unicorn stood forth from the herd, and responded on her blog.

---

Quote:

---

Dear Miceala:

Thank you for your polite and civil response. I do try to avoid ad hominem language, even if my language is often considered caustic, because the fact is my issue is with the feminist movement and a few particular leaders more than it is with individual feminists. My purpose has always been to arouse discussion, not foster an environment of hate. So your civil and reasonable response to my posting is very, very much appreciated.

I'll begin by saying that I avoided actual citation and stuck to generalities on purpose, to avoid getting entangled in dueling statistics. Thanks to the internet, citing stats and studies and then undermining their worthiness has become an artform, one which rarely accomplishes anything. I am trying to discuss the inter-gender situation in general, so I appreciate you keeping your response equally high-level.

First, let me thank you for acknowledging the validity of our feelings. That's bigger than you know. Men in the Manosphere (for our purposes, the combined MHRM/MGTOW/PUA/OMG and other advocates of positive masculinity) frequently express their strong emotions and feelings, though with varying degrees of eloquence. These expressions, ironically, are largely due to an upbringing in which we were encouraged by feminism to "express our feelings" instead of bottling them up in traditional masculine Stoic (and, according to feminism, "unhealthy") fashion.

now those expressions of genuine feeling, when expressed about feminism, are used against us. To feminism-at-large we are "bitter, whiny, angry, frustrated men consumed with rage". Rarely is the question of whether or not our feelings are valid and justified considered by feminism - it uses our bitterness as proof of our "toxicity", not as a token of our righteous anger. Instead, the emotions that feminism encouraged us to share, back in our youth, are now being used to shame and denigrate us because we dare share them. So your acknowledgement of their validity is refreshing, and I do genuinely appreciate it.

I can also appreciate your frustration with the Manosphere/anti-feminists consistently finding fault with an ideology that you have invested so much in, and that you see as being responsible for so much good in the world. Your point about conflation of causality is well-taken . . . but then when it comes to the details, that's where things start being a problem.

You agree that stuff was done, and people did them. That's a good start - too often feminists are unwilling to even admit that feminism has caused harm because of their investment in the ideology. I'll agree that the specifics are open to debate, but the very fact you admit stuff was done and something went down is a HUGE step . . . because feminism has been very, very reluctant to take responsibility for what the feminist movement has done. The specifics, you see, are very important.

When feminism began to critically examine the the role of men in the late 1960s-1970s, I think we can all admit that some serious examination was necessary: the economy and society of the world had changed with industrialization, and our social system had to adapt to keep up. Moving forward into a post-industrial age in which women and men could both compete in the labor marketplace required some dramatic and frightening changes to our agrarian-oriented society. Technological innovations like the birth control pill fundamentally altered how human sexuality functioned, and our culture, our laws, and our society did, indeed, need the first two rounds of feminism like a shot of antibiotics.

Keep that in mind: despite the churning anger of the Manosphere, the vast majority of men involved do not, as feminism accuses us, want to curtail the basic gains made in women's rights and women's empowerment. By and large we don't want to restrict women's rights to vote, hold office, own property, or compete on an equal footing in the workplace. The vast, vast majority of men in the Manosphere and in the anti-feminist movement approach their activism with a humanistic perspective that has no desire to undercut the equal rights of women.

When feminism examined the issues of "toxic" masculinity in the 1970s, it didn't stop at a mere critique; it unilaterally decided on a reconstruction. Fatherhood, masculinity, men, and male sexuality were not only put under the microscope by feminism, to the vast majority of men it felt as if we were going under the knife. Traditional refuges of masculinity were attacked and criticized by feminism without understanding of their utility and usefulness to men, or the long-term effects of their assault on our society. In the pursuit of gender-based justice, feminism threw men and masculinity under the bus.

I can appreciate your point that both men and women have issues - but the difference is that feminism has cultivated a climate in which women are allowed to comment on male issues and women's issues, but the moment that men voice an honest opinion about either they are attacked without consideration. And while I can also appreciate that, in feminism's perspective, that men seem to have gotten away with an awful lot of masculine "privilege", that belies the truth of our own perspective. For millions of men over hundreds of years, their "male privilege" began and ended on the battlefield, while women were largely protected by their sacrifice.

When feminism speaks of equality, which it does often as a fundamental ideal, it assumes that the social and legal dynamic places men in a "higher" class than women institutionally, that men enjoy "more" rights than women, and that women must therefore "equalize" our institutions to correct this imbalance. Yet rarely, if ever, does feminism appreciate the large number of gender-based masculine obligations, both legal and social, that men incur as a penalty for our sex. In other words, while the rights to vote and sit on a jury and have a credit card are necessary for a woman's equality in our society, then logically the duty to register for conscription and the willingness to sacrifice your life for your society and nation are two profound areas in which men and women remain glaringly unequal.

Feminism has always ignored the profound effect this existential threat holds over men; when the subject is brought up it is dismissed either by denying the importance of an archaic institution only intended to serve in direst emergency, or the evils of conscription are thoughtfully acknowledged with a shrug of feminist shoulders and an occasional finger pointed at "the patriarchy". Yet when it comes to defining our gendered experience, the solemn fact is that women are protected from this specter by the virtue of their gender in a very un-equal way . . . while men are still expected - even by feminists - to be the first to sacrifice their lives and their interests for the sake of the greater (largely feminine) good.

I can appreciate the frustration implicit in such foreboding sayings as "It's A Man's World", and how that seems like a near-insurmountable challenge for women. Yet while that phrase is easy to employ, rarely does feminism stop to give consideration of just what this "Man's World" has accomplished, or appreciate the breathtaking achievements masculine ingenuity and inventiveness have wrought on behalf of all of humanity.

This "Man's World" feminism rails against gave us the industrialization that allowed women to earn their own incomes; it gave us advanced medicine and technology to reduce or eliminate problems women have complained about for literally thousands of years; it has reduced infant mortality and increased life expectancy, ensured food security and provided physical security, and granted the women of our time a standard of living not even monarchs could boast of two hundred years ago.

When feminism attacks the "Man's World", it is also attacking all of those things. It is attacking the social welfare system, the social and legal institutions we men established, and the underlying masculine pride we men rightly feel in what our ancestors accomplished in building our great civilization. Feminism has successfully demonized the legacy of men who toiled and gave their lives to build the society in which they live and thrive. It has reduced the breathtaking explosion of masculine achievement and ingenuity that has transformed our culture since the industrial revolution to a handful of imperialistic overlords and despotic oppressors. Feminism has, in other words, fostered and encouraged an environment in which masculine perspectives are at best untrusted, and at worst actively challenged.

Your point about feminism lacking room or energy for pursuing "men's issues" is well-taken. Yet advocating for equality for one side of the equation without consideration of the other is inherently frustrating. Unfortunately, feminism has not just ignored men's issues in the past, oftentimes it has actively worked against them, and the hard-working, dedicated men who are trying to bring them to light on their own. Many of us in the Manosphere were, at one time or another, affiliated with feminists and feminism, and when these issues with pursuing true equality were brought up, we were told smugly "sure, go start your own movement, then!" with a matronizing grin. In the face of feminism's indifference to our issues, that's exactly what we did. You wouldn't rescue puppies, so we started rescuing puppies.

The MHRM is the result. Yet feminists regularly blast this network of organizations and its activities (pursuing basic equal human rights for men) regularly and repeatedly . . . on the basis of your claim that men's issues have had "the harder hit". The perception of historical "oppression" by men has allowed feminism to rationalize such radical notions as enforced male sterility and male genocide without criticism. I admit, these are radical voices of an increasingly radicalized movement, and hardly representative of the feelings of feminists overall . . . yet these voices are not only uncriticized and left unjudged by feminism in general, the authors of these horrific ideas are celebrated and touted for their advanced thinking. The crimes of the Manosphere may be many, but advocating genocide among women is not one of them.

When men attempt to go rescue our puppies, feminism has consistently tried to cut us down. When Warren Farrell, originally a member of the feminist movement, dared to criticize some of feminism's fundamental concepts, he was ostracized from the movement and denigrated. Now one of the leading figures of the Men's Human Rights Movement, he is regularly attacked by feminists for the crime of suggesting that maybe men suffer from inequality in some important ways, too. When feminists attack shared parenting initiatives or advocate for lighter sentencing for female criminals, using a "patriarchal society" as their straw man, they not only undercut their stated dedication to equality by demonstrably working against it, they profoundly alienate otherwise reasonable men who are passionately advocating for their human rights away from feminism's stated goals.

We understand you "aren't that organization". But the issue of, believe it or not, equality comes to the fore. Feminism regularly beseeches society at large (which is made up half of men) to pay attention to feminism issues and the plight of women and girls all over the world. But when the MHRM attempts to call attention in return to the plight of men and boys, feminism attacks us for attempting to steal their thunder. Pleading with us for change and understanding, on the one hand, and then refusing to even listen, much less improve your understanding, on the other is a very poor way to solicit the meaningful cooperation of men.

I can also understand your desire to distance yourself from the radical positions and proposals that Third and Fourth Wave feminism have inflicted on men. You ask that we not conflate the imperfect actions of some individuals with the noble ideals of an entire movement. The common summation of this position is "Not All Feminists Are Like That". You ask for us, as men, to accept the ideals of equality and ignore the hurtful, hateful speech directed at us for forty years by your radical wing. You ask us to sacrifice our interests and issues for the greater good of social equality, while allowing your self-labeled sisters to call us rapists and violent psychopaths to our faces. You ask us to ignore the hateful language of those who feel entitled to accuse us unjustly, and then help you create a "better" world. Seeing the individuals - folks like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti - as representative of all feminists is unfair, you seem to say. Yet just as only a tiny minority of male rapists has succeeded in tarnishing the good name of male sexuality for all men, these aggressively vitriolic heralds who claim to be feminists have seriously tarnished any hope of us men seeing the feminist label, no matter how lofty its ideals, as anything but a brand by which we are being savaged.

Your perspective on feminism's goals and ideals is noble . . . but the execution has indeed both taken advantage of and attacked men as a natural social and cultural consequence of its ideals. While insisting on the goal of a world without damaging stereotypes, feminism itself propagates the most damaging kinds of stereotypes about men. You ask us to use our judgement about just who the "real" feminists are, after calling our collective judgement into question for forty years and demanding that men have no role in determining women's self-image, interests, or issues. Plenty of men in the Manosphere strongly and profoundly condemn the rapists and murderers among us as a natural course of instinctive masculine protection of our society, but even mild criticism of the not-actually-feminists by the "real" feminists is thin on the ground.

Our issue isn't necessarily with what women want to do with themselves and their lives - but the insistence that you do so without fear of consequence or criticism from us is unreasonable. The lives of men are inextricable interwoven with those of women, and your choices, your decisions effect us intimately, whether you are our mothers, our sisters, our girlfriends, our wives, or our co-workers. While it might seem of only academic interest to feminism what individual women do with those choices, it is of very real interest to the individual men who must contend with them. It's not about whether or not you want to become corporate powerhouses or domestic goddesses; it's about which of those we're more comfortable associating with, and which we prefer to pursue romantically.

Feminism is great about advocating for men and boys to become more feminine in their outlook, but it punishes us when we try to exercise our inherent masculinity. Yes, it's fine if boys want to stay home and be house-husbands . . . but the fact of the matter is that not only is that almost entirely untenable for a man in our society to do so, but when given a preference most men want to pursue more traditionally masculine pursuits and activities, not become househusbands . . . for which we are castigated.

Feminism's willful ignorance of masculinity's interests and issues projects common female concerns onto men in the mistaken belief that our goals and aspirations are equal. They are not. They are very different. Little boys don't want to grow up to be househusbands because they're being poisoned by the patriarchy with toxic masculinity . . . they don't want to grow up to be househusbands because they see the disrespect and condemnation that such men receive not from their fellow men, but from the women around them. This has not changed in forty years of feminist activism. For while feminism will fight to the death for a boy's right to cry out his feelings, it goes up in arms when that same boy wants to invest in his masculinity in ways that is not in service to women. Feminism has attempted to ignore the very real factor of intersexual and intrasexual competition, and as a result the personal lives of millions of men have suffered because our natural masculine inclinations are viewed as uniformly toxic.

I would have to counter that my experience with feminists and feminism isn't limited - I spent six years in an environment of academic feminism, and continued to support feminist-oriented causes and activism for years. I know literally thousands of feminists, from Old Guard 2nd-Wave Equity Feminists to Radical 3rd Wave Riot Grrls, moderates, radicals, intersectionalists, Marxist feminists, and every shade in between. My problem is not too little exposure to feminism, but such a grand exposure that I have seen up close and personal it's inherent flaws and failings.

The fact is, plenty of "sunny, happy feminists" exist in my world. And they are part of the problem. Not because their intentions or ideals are in error - they're good people, trying to make the world better the way they've been taught to. But because their intentions and ideals are not fulfilled by their actions and activism. Standing firm behind the inherently misandric concepts of "patriarchy", "rape culture", and "misogyny" while the vocal component of your movement uses them as weapons to actively shame and emasculate all men means that you are providing political and social cover for folks who are stomping all over the ideal of equality . . . and we're watching you do it. While you were smiling at us, assuring us that you were not a threat, the radicals have been hiding behind you and stabbing us repeatedly while you watch them do it. Would you trust a voice who endorsed that?

In the end, the issue is one of accountability. Feminism's goals and ideals are lofty, but as they have been executed they have caused incredible damage to men that feminism - and feminists - are unwilling to be accountable for. More, despite your assurances about labels, feminism has regularly and routinely savaged women who disagreed with them and viciously attacked their decisions. Pretending that all feminists (or even a majority of feminists) think its equally acceptable and valid for a woman to choose whichever path she likes belies the thousands of articles from within feminism's own ranks which prove otherwise. Women who marry early, don't go to college, and condescend to devote their lives to their husbands and families are frequently harassed and demeaned by the feminist narrative. Motherhood and domesticity - hallmarks of femininity and parts of the essential self-image of women for thousands of years - are regularly debased as unimportant by feminists, scalding the millions of women women who decided their reproductive future was more important than their career future.

But feminism won't own its own savaging of women. It won't own the millions of men who have suffered because of feminist-inspired culture of serial monogamy and divorce. It won't own the blatantly unfair and unequal treatment it has given fathers over the years, the cynical attacks on fatherood and father's rights. It won't own the reality of false rape accusations, because the supposed effect on the alleged victims far outweighs the legal and moral rights of anyone accused of a crime to due process. It won't own the millions of families shattered by the feminist movement's unintended consequences. Or the dramatic social and cultural impact feminist initiatives and programs have had on men and children.

So regardless of the smiles, we see far more knives . . . and even one knife is too many. After forty years of relentlessly using men and masculinity as a punching bag without fear of serious consequence, the result is what you see before you: two generations of men confused, angry, bitter, and nearly hopeless about our futures. Being lambasted for our male privileges while 70% of homeless and suicide victims are men galls us. Being accused of perpetrating "rape culture" while the majority of us have been so heartlessly attacked for our sexuality that some of our best minds consider chemical castration and self-imposed exile from the gene pool because of the terror feminism has inspired in men about sex is insulting. Feminism has succeeded in nearly criminalizing and certainly demonizing normal, healthy male sexuality - and undermining the social stability of family life and long term monogamy that men have been traditionally dependent upon for our motivations.

If feminism is to be true to its ideals and pursue a culture of equality, not only can it not do so without taking the issues and interests of men into consideration, it will never happen without the active and enthusiastic cooperation of men. Using shame, ridicule, disrespect and outright antipathy to motivate us just doesn't work. In fact, it produces things like the Manosphere as a direct result.

Nor are we as "fringe" as you might imagine. Over the course of the last several years the Manosphere has exploded, thanks to information technologies, and part of our continuing efforts involve educating young men and boys about our perspectives on feminism. And it's catching on.

We are purposefully - out of sheer desperation - doing our best to inoculate young men from feminism and demonstrate that feminist perspectives do not have their best interests in mind. We are encouraging them not to marry, and when they do, to have ridiculously high standards for their wives. We are encouraging them to pursue their natural masculine goals and interests without regard to the concerns of women. We are encouraging them to reject women with a high partner count as poor long-term risks for matrimony, but good short-term prospects for sex. We are teaching them to be more callous and calculating in their personal choices because in our collective experience it is the attitude that will serve them best in this environment. We are teaching them that there are enough women in the world to consider for sex and dating that becoming reliant on any one is a poor idea. We are teaching them that girls are not their friends, but their competitors and sex interests alone . . . because we've seen how women treat their male "friends".

I know, all of these things will horrify your average feminist. But just as the radical wing of the 3rd Wave (Dworkin, McKinnion, et. al.) saw the cautious attempts of men in the 1970s to contend with feminism as proof of the inherent "male oppression" that justified thirty years of misandry in the feminist movement, as reasonable men we look at the future that our sons have, and we don't want them to experience the same hateful and hopeless dance with feminism we were forced into.

Instead, we will teach them to be masculine Men, according to their own desires and needs. Which includes a healthy amount of male sexuality. Yes, getting laid is a primary male interest. So, ironically, is getting married. So is having children. But the days when a man could safely count on good opportunities for all three of those are over, and we have to teach our sons how to deal with the world they will live in, not the ideal we want for them.

So we're telling them to drop out. Drop out of college, turn their back on corporate achievement, and withdraw their active support and energy from society until feminism relents and decides to actually talk to us, not merely scream at us. We're telling them to withdraw their participation and focus solely on their own well-being. We're establishing the meme that a man who works on a woman's behalf has betrayed his self-interest and that of his fellow men. We're telling our boys that feminism is a foe, that women are all suspect, and that they should have fear and suspicion in their hearts when approaching the topic . . . because any other perspective for men in a post-feminist world is not going to be in his best interests.

It's sad, it really is. But this is not the world we wrought - this is the world that feminism gave to us. Our mothers were divorced and bitter, our fathers were estranged and disrespected, and you've tried to make us feel ashamed of our masculinity for so long, we just don't trust you any more. Every time we do, we get hurt - it's like an abusive relationship. It will take a lot of effort and a lot of energy to reconcile these perspectives, I know. And yes, that might be easier to do if men and the Manosphere would take a more conciliatory, less-caustic tone.

But the problem is we tried doing that in nice respectful language for forty years, and you ignored us and humiliated us. We CAN'T trust feminism any more, and we HAVE to treat it with suspicion, because it's clear that the future it wants for men is not one that men want for themselves.

I hope this inspires you to continue the dialog, and I invite your thoughtful response. But if it follows the usual pattern of our discourse with feminism, you will likely shrug your shoulders, write us off, and ignore what we've been saying while you go rescue another kitten. That's your prerogative, of course. But don't say we didn't try.

Very Best Wishes,

Ian Ironwood

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

FUCK YOU TO DEATH.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Wonder why Canada's not on the list. Outside of people older than me, my friends who are in my age bracket have been divorced or never married but have lived "common law"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Has feminism broke the US family? Seems maybe some relationships have got more shallow or people have become more hollow, No Debate together, No Interests, Self Centered. The young generation are becoming more empty Miley Cyrus tastes in music, shopping for usless hangbags and fashion items, I-phone hedonistic stoner culture....is it any wonder its all failing...and the men are leaving the family game....they want to sit at home on their own buy their own car, drink their beer, play their Xbox and Playstation, watch the Baseball and Basketball until these men go old

---

The cause is capitalism not feminism, you nit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:

Modern feminism seems a little lost now.

---

You have a REDICULOUSLY, hilariously one sided perspective. Not gettin' any?


P.s. Most....wait....ALL of the women I know in person over forty never want to marry again. After getting stuck with scrubs that are drunken narcissists, cheaters, abusive dicks that are INCAPABLE of communicating, I don't blame them.

Should my own dearest depart, I won't ever re-marry. No more slaving to make meals that are unappreciated or watch macho crap movies or clean pee dribble off a toilet ever again. My day will be my own.

Oh, and I kill my own spiders and fix my own appliances and plumbing, thanks. Thanks to sperm banks you have made YOURSELVES TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.


HERE'S TO THE RISE OF THE DAY OF WOMANKIND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JACKASS

eventually you might even shoot some white male....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ECS33:

If she made over half of what I made, I may feel a bit better about things.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry guys it’s long but interesting (like my dick):

I am female. I support equal rights for all human beings. I am strongly against interfering with another human’s perception of gender which I feel feminism is presently involved in.

I would never have understood MGTOW if I hadn’t been doing research on the phenomenon of female emotional dysregulation during divorce. What you will find in researching this area is that women in increasing numbers are starting to display behaviors associated with personality disorders in their marriages and during and after divorce.

Women who are otherwise psychologically healthy are now becoming emotionally dysregulated.

during their marriages, often leading to disordered behavior towards their spouse.

People who work in family law have had to become familiar with the practice of female domestic violence and abuse towards their ex-spouse, parental alienation, criminal accusation during divorce proceedings, custody revenge, abuse of the family law system to attempt to destroy their ex financially and carefully carried out plans to ruin the future lives of their exes after the divorce is finalized.

Because those outside of family law still assume that women are not capable of engaging in this level of violence, criminality and anti-social behaviors toward their family members, especially when they are in other parts of their life meek and mild law-abiding citizens, any attempt to publicize this phenomenon is routinely met with derision.

To accept that this kind of behavior is common in women within domestic environments shakes our core beliefs in two ways.

---

Quote:

---

The Men Going Their Own Way movement is an offshoot of the Men's Rights extremist movement,I had never heard of them before today.

http://www.mgtow.com/

Unlike Men's Rights Activists (MRAs), there is no necessity that MGTOWs engage in political activity or activism. MGTOWs may be active MRAs, they may cheer them on from the sidelines and send in donations or support, or they may not be politically active at all. There is a common point of awareness between various groups in the manosphere such as MRAs, MGTOWs, pick-up artists (PUAs) and reactionaries, yet how they react to the red pill differs considerably.

---

Quote:

---

im not much of a talker but here it goes

Post by fatty on Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:25 am
like the topic says im not much of a talker

i would say what made me find out about these forums is a unique blend of child abuse, several traumas and lies told by the society(perfect recipe for a fucked up life)

i would like to emphasize on child abuse part because everything was triggered because of this

my father and mother was divorced when i was 6 and my father married a second time to some sheiks daughter(as in islamic leader) she was wearing headscarf and she seem like a genuine muslim little did i know that this woman in her 40ies was a flaming feminist that hated my guts she made the life hell for me for 1 year

1 year only because after that year i quickly got back to my mom

i guess being a muslim and even being a sheiks daughter cant supress the nature of women

oh and she divorced my father after 6 months of me leaving them (they were together for 5 years ) i guess i was her stress ball when she got angry at my father after i left she started having fights with my dad and so they divorced this all was when i was 14

so highschool started girls started becoming sluts they were getting fucked in the ass so their hymen would be intact when they got married(of course only men getting sex was alphas)

or they were getting hymen repair surgeries left and right

and you know the same old bullshit alpha lays beta pays

this is true even for a society like turkey after seeing these things i think its even same in afghanistan Smile

but this was the most traumatizing for me because i was a firm believer of islam

my father was an imam

and islam thought us women were angels who never did no wrong and they are all asexual creatures who only have sex because bad men make them to and women werent promiscious at all

kind of like what women were in 50ies before contraception was found

so when i saw what women really were like and saw islam buttfucking guillible men into beta cuckoldhood i said fuck all of you and became a mgtow and an atheist

the most i feel sorry about all this is that i was forcibly circumsized when i was 11 because god told so

what a joke

other stats : 19 years old,istanbul,turkey,shy,beta,chubby

you can ask me about muslim girls tricks like how they take in the ass instead of pussy so their hymen wouldnt break i have lots to teach you Very Happy (even someone else i cant remember the name found this out about muslim girls in mgtow forums a couple of months back)


fatty

Posts : 7
Points : 9
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: im not much of a talker but here it goes

Post by fatty on Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:42 am
oh i forgot to mention my relationships with women

basicly i didnt had any relations until now

until i was 14 i was thought not to have any relations with women because even flirting was a sin according to islam (i can even find fetvas about this for you)

then i started waking up little by little when i got to highschool and said to myself this isnt how it is people date and thats the normal thing i havent got to this conclusion until i was in 10th grade until then i was living a very closed life to outside world

but i was going to an all male vocational school studying web desing and was probably the most beta man you ever seen Very Happy

ive never been to a night club and ive never been out drinking but maybe i would try that one day

since then my only relationships with women happened in the istanbul brothel and few escorts Very Happy

if any of you guys want to come and fuck here im your guide

escorts are dirt cheap 50 dollars for a quick suck'n fuck but the quality isnt that high (exchange rates are fucked up right now so be quick:D)


fatty

Posts : 7
Points : 9
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: im not much of a talker but here it goes

Post by Our Man in Penang on Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:10 am
Interesting to have had intro's discussing the Chinese, Japanese and now Islamic element, so it's not just western guys who are getting screwed by feminism, we're all getting our own local flavour.

Thanks...err...Fatty (not very flattering username, but never the less)

Welcome to MGTOW!

---

Quote:

---

Men Going Their Own Way - MGTOW
Page:

Hello. I'm a single father of three pre-teens with primary joint-custody.



My target audience are men. Has Men's Health talked about this or can they talk about it?


After my 2nd marriage failed, I spent the next 4 years seeking a new woman in my life. I used all the big dating sites, tried different strategies, dropped 30 pounds, looked a PUA vids, etc.. I attracted women, but would see the red flags and get out of there. Some red flags.

---

Quote:

---

Women Are Abusive When Not Socially Constrained


Anyone who believes women are kind, compassionate, and good-hearted has simply not interacted with enough of them. Anyone who believes that women need extra protections from men have not seen enough of their true nature to understand that it would be more fitting for men to receive protections from women instead. Out of all my dealings with people as an adult, the most cruel and heartless encounters came from the hands of women, not men. I am beginning to wonder if all my experiences with them in my adult life is equivalent to having an abusive stepmother as a child.

---

Quote:

---

July 25, 2013 By Hannah Wallen 196 Comments

No, this isn’t a post about rape. In fact, it’s about the opposite. It’s about walking away, maybe running away. Specifically, it’s about the right to run–specifically, men‘s right to decline to trust, to eschew focus on relationships, and to refuse to open themselves to women beyond anything but the most superficial levels of interaction.

Why?

Because the same folks who dismiss, or outright advocate for false accusers, the same folks who rail against due process for men in criminal and family court, who claim both moral superiority and their own right to turpitude with impunity, who push men around, knock them to the ground, step on them, and kick them when they’re down – those same folks have the screaming audacity to act shocked and appalled when men feel maligned, get fed up, pick themselves up, turn their backs, and walk away.

---

Quote:

---

Results 1 to 15 of 15



The Temptation For Wives To Claim Abuse

"In our age claiming abuse is a powerful tool for wives to punish their husbands. This creates a profound temptation for wives to betray their husbands for any or no reason. Everything is abuse, and for a husband to be accused of abuse is to be considered guilty of abuse. This temptation is most powerful when families are already under strain.

We can see a disturbing example of this in the recent article from Christianity Today:Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse. Pastor Abedini is serving an eight year prison sentence in Iran for spreading the gospel. In a Washington Post op-ed piece on October 23rd, Pastor Abedini’s wife Naghmeh wrote of the abuse her husband faces in the Iranian prison:
But as the Christianity Today article explains, shortly after writing the op-ed pieceNaghmeh sent a series of messages to a mailing list of Pastor Abedini’s supporters accusing him of abusing her and announcing that she was halting her public efforts to have him released from prison (emphasis mine):

Christianity Today reported Naghmeh‘s accusations against Pastor Abedini without challenge; to be accused is to be guilty in the eyes of most. Moreover, everything is abuse. Naghmeh’s claim that her husband sexually abused her by looking at pornographyis in line with modern Christian thought. Focus on the Family endorsed Life Skills International defines “looks at pornography” as sexual abuse in their Power and Control Wheel.


However, even if you accept that looking at pornography is sexual abuse, surely Pastor Abedini isn’t being provided with pornography in the Iranian prison. Yet Naghmeh made this accusation to his supporters after he had already been in prison for over three years, and claimed that the abuse had gotten worse after he was imprisoned. Likewise, his only contact with Naghmeh has been through phone and skype, so he can’t possibly be physically abusing her from prison either. This leaves the one possible remaining charge, that he has been emotionally and psychologically abusive since he has been in prison. While it is certainly possible that he has said unkind things to his wife while enduring prison and torture, surely Pastor Abedini can’t pose a threat to his wife from an Iranian jail cell. Any way you look at it, it is clear that this isn’t about protecting herself or her children, but about humiliating her husband. Naghmeh‘s claim is that her reason for broadcasting these things is “to be real”, and to help her husband (emphasis mine) . . ."
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/1...o-claim-abuse/
Commenter: Dalrock obviously doesn’t realise that because he is in prison, he cannot and will not do his share of the house chores. This is emotional and psychological abuse. The scoundrel! He should be released from prison for only that period of time taken for him to do his duties, after which, the beatings may resume with Naghmeh’s blessing.


Re: The Temptation For Wives To Claim Abuse

Yep.
Here a short list of what women perceive as "abuse":
-Not listening --> Neglect
-"Emotional abuse" --> not putting up with her shit, having boundaries
-"Economic abuse" --> Not giving her access to ALL of your assets
-"Intimidation" --> getting angry and smashing something, having a weapon in the house
-"Using male privilege" --> expecting her to actually DO something other than being a lazy fuck
I'm sure the list is not exhaustive

---

Quote:

---

Yesterday I was in the hospital ER with my kid (nothing special).
I noticed a poster for the domestic violence victims. It portrayed an old women and a phone number, it said “We can be your voice, report domestic violence”.

The thing is, I live in a very small place with a somewhat delayed social environment, just about a decade behind the rest of the Western world.

So, imagine my surprise when I see some handwriting in the poster saying: where are the men?

So, even here, men are waking up to the double standards and gymnocentric propaganda.

Where I work most men are divorced, and many don’t want to marry anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Postby Robert Anton Wilson » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:22 am
Gents,

Found this article on Counter-Currents. It’s a bit of a mixed bag regarding MGTOW, with a couple of left-handed compliments. Many on the alt right are truly LARPy regarding men needing to marry and have lots of white children. Trump was elected (and I'm grateful) but divorce court, family court, alimony, domestic violence laws, father estrangement, feminism, false sexual abuse claims, schools dominated by cat ladies and many many more vaginal concepts are not going away anytime soon. Enjoy.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/10/men-going-their-own-way/

Many organizations and movements on the Right can be construed as push-back against Cultural Marxism. While the Alt Right certainly does do this, I wouldn’t include it in this group. In a world without Cultural Marxism, you can still have an Alt Right (although at that point, we’d probably drop the “Alt”). This is because we stand for things more than we stand against them, for example, a positive white racial identity, peaceful ethno-nationalism, and more or less traditional, commonsense values beyond that.

But what about organizations that are almost entirely blowback against Cultural Marxism? I believe that folks on the Alt Right should foster positive relations with as many of these groups as possible. One such group is Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOW.

---

Quote:

---

Can we discuss... MGTOW?

Hi All,
This thread is inspired partly by SeoulSearch's recent threads (kudos!) and partly by some YouTube videos I've seen. I would like some feedback on a present cultural phenomenon.

I happened to watch a couple of videos on feminism and anti-feminism which led me to the idea of “MGTOW” - Men Going Their Own Way. I am NOT avowing MGTOW (some of these men are very cynical!); I just would like to discuss it.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, allow me to summarize and generalize: MGTOW men are disgusted by the (perceived) gynocentric legal and cultural systems which make men the victim/slave providers for women who take what they want in relationships and leave the men holding the bill, in some cases for life (permanent alimony after 10 years of marriage in some states, 20 in Canada). So many men are tired of being manipulated by women, verbally or even physically abused, and liberated of their assets (and even their children) in divorce courts, with little legal protection and much cultural shaming, that they are simply choosing to avoid marriage, and even long-term relationships, completely. Hence, “going their own way”. They aren't turning to other men, but they are turning away from the idea of marriage. Their numbers are growing rapidly; at least one such person has frequented this forum.

---

Quote:

---

Thoughts on MRAs, MGTOWs, and the Manosphere



The manosphere – for those of you not in the know – is a collection of blogs written by men, for men. Their complaint is generally that women (especially American women) are awful. They’re too picky. They’re too independent. They’re not feminine. They’re not appreciative. They’re emasculating. They’re ball-busting. And these men are sick of it.

Thus, MGTOW: “men going their own way,” and MRA’s: “men’s rights activists.”

These men are angry and frustrated with the opposite sex, and instead of turning inward, they spend their time talking about how women are useless except for sex, only worthwhile when they’re in their 20’s, and are generally better in places like Thailand, where many of them have gone to get laid or pick up a bride. One thing is for sure about MGTOWs: they want you to know that they are not losers. In their minds, they are the guys who have it all figured out. The ones who took the “red pill” of truth, like in the Matrix. They frequently talk about how much money they make, how strong they are, how much younger their girlfriends are. They use big words like “hypergamy” to illustrate their intellect. If you disagree with them, you are a feminist, or worse, a “mangina.”

---

Quote:

---

As with most things, I suspect it started out as something with pure intentions.

Now it is a very dark gathering of what I would comfortably label loosely associated Hate Groups.


Socratic Amusement

Lesbian sepratism for men but without the gay sex or separation

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It sound to me like you've had one bad experience, and now you'd like to use the excuse that since nearly all woman are lying, you don't want to get married.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
This is what happens when men can't deal with the fact women don't wanna be shit on anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:


Feminism is from Fourier, la feminisme, which was his idea to lower the cost of labor, to fix a flaw in la socialisme, which it didn't, so it failed. Then it was resurrected in the 20th century as left wing socialist answer to the republican Suffragettes. A lot of leftist women fall into this, not recognizing it for what it is: identity politics.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe I'm all messed up?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Identity politics is identity politics, and when it surfaces, the last thing we need is another opposing and matching identity politics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
I know you hear this 100 times but I will say it again, the drinks will kill you. You need to Lay off the drink dude, your alcohol addiction will kill you. If youre just one of these normally addicted people then I don't know take up a hobby or move to a state where I dunno...where maybe 'weed' is legal, not say it will solve all your problems but it might save your Liver, Kidneys, Alcohol damaged body

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
I know you hear this 100 times but I will say it again, the drinks will kill you. You need to Lay off the drink dude, your alcohol addiction will kill you. If youre just one of these normally addicted people then I don't know take up a hobby or move to a state where I dunno...where maybe 'weed' is legal, not say it will solve all your problems but it might save your Liver, Kidneys, Alcohol damaged body

---

That's got to be a post to me.

Been a while since you've been around here. This is an old thread you dug up bud. Been off the drink now for over 4 months and trying to put my life back together bit by bit. All good advice you've got there. I've actually picked a few of my old hobbies back up. Drinking a bit too much coffee now, but better to do that and level out from the stimulants instead of trying to crawl out of the hole of depressants I was mired in.

Unfortunately, I moved to what will probably be the last state to legalize weed. I'm in the market for a job too, so until they change the laws I'm going to have to pass a drug test so even the black market stuff is off the table for the foreseeable future.

It's been my most productive 4 months in about 5 years. Hope you're doing well yourself. Take it easy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
January 26, 2016 doesn't seem all that old. This thread has been updated here and there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Talking to yourself on a thread that's been dead for over a month. Three worthless tidbits of pro-femme information.

What's the matter Wishy? Somebody make you feel like a 2nd class citizen for being a woman today?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay: men kill because they are short-tempered assholes...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
...the one where he beats her up and goes to jail because the stats for rape, murder and spousal abuse are overwhelmingly MALE...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:

just wondering...?

---