Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.
And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.
To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post-peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.
And as that threat grows, so the ostensible power of feminism grows.
The history of feminism is the history of a female sexual trade union, growing in political power in exact correspondence with the steady loss of female sexual power caused by the continual widening of the sexual market. The opening up of the sex market, the ever increasing opportunities for men to gain access to cheap and anonymous sex, is the result of constantly emerging new technology, and itself completely out of the hands of feminists, or anybody else, to control or put a stop to.
Recently, W.F.Price at the Spearhead revealed that proto-feminists were lobbying the British government as far back as the 17th century when their sexual interests were seen as threatened by the emergence of male frequented coffee houses. This was a prelude to the social purity movements of the 19th century, described above, which feminist academics have always acknowledged as the birth pangs of the campaign for the vote.
But the vote was always seen as a means to the end of controlling male sexuality. Industrialisation had brought men out of the countryside and into the cities, working in close contact with women and girls in the new factories – girls who were no longer married off as soon as they reached puberty. Those same factories mass produced cheap condoms (bitterly opposed by feminists at the time), and men no longer had to fear syphilis – and could now enjoy the hundreds of thousands of prostitutes who flocked to the new cities to take their share of the working man’s growing income.
The suffragettes achieved the vote as a result of violence and of male Enlightenment thinking which saw women’s enfranchisement as a natural progression of other civil rights movements.
But in fact, women did not exercise their newly won franchise very differently then their husbands, and when they did vote differently, it was to vote in fascist dictatorships throughout Europe. It was not until the 1960′s, and the second wave of feminism, that women began voting significantly differently from men…
The 1960′s saw the beginning of possibly the most remarkable event in human history – the end of ‘patriarchy.’ Within the space of a generation, a social system that had endured in every corner of the globe throughout recorded history had more or less crumbled.
In every corner of the globe…except the Islamic world.
In his book The Decline of the Male, anthropologist Lionel Tiger identifies the introduction of the contraceptive pill as the trigger for this unparalleled social revolution, the ‘second wave of feminism.’ For Lionel Tiger, the pill shifted reproductive power from men to women, for men could no longer be sure as to the paternity of their offspring.
I don’t accept all of the details of Tiger’s thesis, but I agree wholeheartedly that the pill was a catalyst for the second wave of feminism. An unforeseen technological innovation had revolutionised sexual relations and, in a blind and uncontrollable way, had transformed society almost overnight.
According to most feminist thinkers (and many MRAs), the pill gave women power over men. I disagree. In fact, it was male sexuality that was liberated by the pill, and women – or at least older/unattractive women – were left dangerously exposed in the free sexual market that had suddenly been created.
Suddenly, women became active in politics. Suddenly, women demanded (and won) the right to university education, to a career, to easy divorce, to an abortion. Suddenly male politicians had to legislate according to the female vote.
The pill did not give women power over men.
The pill forced women to take power from men.
But, of course, this did not happen in the majority of Muslim societies. Under Islam, there is still no free sexual market, and thus unattractive Muslim women have no need for feminism.
The astonishing and sudden representation of women at all levels of government over the last decade may fairly be described as the Third Wave of Feminism. In just one or two decades, from having virtually zero representation in high government, the female sex has come to near dominate many of the leading democracies of the West, even in South America.
Alongside formal governmental representation, largely female dominated non-governmental pressure groups have suddenly come to hold massive sway over an increasingly powerful United Nations, as well as other international bodies such as the European Union.
Why has this astonishing Third Wave, no less extraordinary than the Second, suddenly come about? That this is the first generation of women raised as feminists no doubt has played a part but it cannot alone explain the sheer rapidity of change. Like the first and second waves of feminism, the third has been propelled by technological progress threatening the sexual interests of ordinary women.
The globalisation of society and of communications has threatened to further open up the free sexual market to an extent as great as the pill itself did.
Suddenly men had before them a whole new array of alternatives to a ‘real’ sexual relationship, from the cheap Polish hooker at the street corner, to the nubile young slut showing herself on cam from her bedroom half way across the world.
This was a brave new sexual world that an already politicised generation of middle-aged women could not tolerate for long…and certainly not entrust to men to control or put an end to.
The Future of Feminism
The future of feminism will be dictated by the same forces that have shaped its history – blind and largely uncontrollable economic and technological changes continuing to widen the free sexual market.
The further increase in mass global communications, advances in robotics, 3D and holographic porn, virtual sex, and the growing realism and popularity of male sex toys, are all rapidly coalescing into a perfect storm that will either achieve sexual and emotional independence for men…or a fourth wave of feminism even more terrible and damaging than the rest.
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
According to most feminist thinkers (and many MRAs), the pill gave women power over men. I disagree. In fact, it was male sexuality that was liberated by the pill,
Yep.
Suddenly men had before them a whole new array of alternatives to a ‘real’ sexual relationship, from the cheap Polish hooker at the street corner, to the nubile young slut showing herself on cam from her bedroom half way across the world.
Yep again.
While I don’t agree with every point asserted here, I agree that the free sexuality feminists thought they wanted has turned out to be not at all what they wanted. Bit off more than they could chew, they did, and now scores of women go unloved, unmarried, and barren. Not by choice.
Interesting post.
I wonder if that explains the epidemic of false rape charges as well??
2nd wave femmies “gave away the farm” through the sexual revolution, so men have more sexual options. They can’t shut down porn because pro-sex feminists won’t allow it. Prostitution is tricky (no pun intended) because the cultural mores and legality vary regionally – plus women partake as well.
So what’s an angry and desperate 3rd waver to do?
Redefine rape to include changing your mind after the fact. Or keep men confused over whether or not consent is granted, and use that to regain control of the sexual marketplace.
It’s like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
To the ladies that wish to comment on this article, and what they can do with their ‘insight’. There are two types, as far as Mens Rights Activists are concerned.
1. Feminists, overt or covert. We consider you damaged, beyond saving, a major reason our society is in the dumps. In your camp are the limp-wristed, PC-blithering dupes. Vegans, New Agers, “Bush did it!” radicals. Go away.
2. Enlightened/Reformed women. We embrace your bravery, your perspective. But caution. We are very wary, wise and have momentum and truth on our side. We prefer that you comment only after doing your homework. Nothing more annoying that the child wanting to play with the big boys, but not knowing the rules or practicing beforehand.
I’ve noticed that you seem to point to Islam as a solution but you stop short. Maybe you are saving that for another article. Do you believe that Islam is the only force that can resist feminism?
BTW, I recognize that painting by Gerome. It’s very fitting. Pygmalion sculpts the ideal woman and Aphodite animates it. Today, a scientist would create the form and electricity would make it real. How can a real women compete?
@Lovekraft:
I will keep any further “insights” to myself. Forgive the intrusion (if I am intruding) I only found this site at all because its owner found something I wrote worthy of being shared and I began following the links back here.
Nothing more annoying that the child wanting to play with the big boys, but not knowing the rules or practicing beforehand.
Child? I know that was a metaphor but given that I’m far from being a child, that made me smile. What, plesae tell, are the rules? And it would be helpful if FB would publish them for other women to note for future reference.
I think you are making my case.
Let me put it this way:
if you know what I am talking about, you know.
If you need further explanation, it means you are contentious, combative and quickly offended.
No, lovekraft. I’m not offended at all. I was actually amused and decided to play along is all. I wasn’t trying to be combabtive. FB has said repeatedly that women are welcome to contribute here. It’s his blog, so that’s enough for me.
Someone needs to email Kay Hymowitz a link to this article.
Well done.
I don’t think that Islam is the solution for feminism.
Besides Islam being a barbaric religion of violence and pride, in the fight between Islam and the pill, the one that is winning is …… THE PILL.
In Islam countries, birth rates have decreased spectacularly. In Iran and Algeria birth rates are below the replacement level.
Although Islam forbids any kind of contraception, it seems that Muslim men and women use the pill when nobody sees them. This is the only explanation of the swift decrease of birth rates.
Even in the fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, Muslim girls are attending college in unprecedented numbers.
You also have to take into account the Internet and satellite TV. When you see the origins of the radical wahabbism that created Osama Bin Laden, one of the main demands was to forbid foreign satellite TV in Saudi Arabia who polluted and corrupted the minds of the believers.
I was a high school teacher in Europe. My Muslim male students were keen on watching porn on the Internet, Islam be damned.
Of course, the following years, you won’t see women burning their bras in the Muslim world. The feminist movement will come packaged in religion and chivalry: the protection of good religious woman as the Prophet wanted. That is, what the purity movements did in the Christian world in the XIX century. They will tell that they don’t want to commit the same mistakes that Western feminism. Yeah, we know how everything ends…
After all, even a fundamentalist Muslim country like Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister: Benazir Bhutto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism
Hear or read Friday sermons at mosques about how a good Muslim must treat women. Islam has already capitulated. Bin Laden was an anachronism even alive.
The next wave of feminism will be ferocious. Porn and sex toys will be criminalized. Sex with unattached women will be even more dangerous – legal rape will be assumed and prosecuted. Unwanted (by men) pregnancy will mean lifelong payment bondage for defenseless men. Male sexual aggressiveness will be exaggerated out of all proportion and young men will fear to be alone with women, even in the lift.
The idea is to close all sex and other alternatives to young males except marriage (maybe it will be called something else) and full dedication to the female partner and her child.
As father of girls, I dont know in which side I am.
I dunno, how do you accout for the thousands of young, nubile sluts who are actively feminist and who aggressively assert their “reproductive rights” and believe they are entitled to government subsidizing of their birth control?
@J: I think what you said coming to pass is dependent on the West surviving as a society in its current form, a dubious proposition. In the US for example, Hispanics and Blacks are becoming dominant. When they (finally) become the majority, how feminist will the country be?
Great article. Love that picture – which I hadn’t seen before.
Concerning Islam – I lived on the west coast of Turkey for a time. They are supposedly (can’t trust their government) 99.8% muslim, but Istanbul and Izmir have essentially western sexual cultures. There are still conservative elements present, but they no longer predominate. I understand the situation begins to change the further east you go, however. Certainly Turkey is one of the more ‘west-friendly’ Islamic countries, but it’s clear to me that the feminist destruction of the world is still on track – its advance against Islam is proceeding as planned.
J – those are some damned scary predictions. I can’t comprehend how you could see their desirability ambiguously. No kids here – but I’d like to think that having daughters and wanting what’s best for them includes caring about their moral compass.
j:
So because you have daughters you’re okay with the criminalization of maleness, innocent men imprisoned for nothing. Great. You’re just as bad as a feminist, I don’t know why you’re even on this site. You’re part of the problem.
Muslim admits Sexual Trade Union:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&lang=A&id=167611
j:
As father of girls, I dont know in which side I am.
How about Biblical patriarchy? A good deal is a good deal for everyone. Women got the best deal ever seen under that system. Living under the authority of a good man is the best deal a woman can get. Your job as dad is to pick good men for her to choose from. Her husband does the rest. She lives under his authority. It is the best for everyone and the world will end up with more good people. Win-win-win-win
“when some women, who are deprived of or have lost a husband, look for another one and cannot find any”
please replace this with “cannot find any man who is ALPHA enough”. There are plenty of men but women won’t marry any man.
This is the problem of Muslim societies: polygyny makes that lots of men are completely excluded from the sexual market. Then, the option of becoming a sucidal terrorist and, hence, enjoying 12 virgins in paradise does not seem that bad.
This, from the prima dona who gets crampy hot flashes at first challenge.
please be a Good girl.
As father of girls, I want them to find suitable husbands and have children.
In the environment they have to live, this is almost mission impossible. Young men are not ready or willing to settle down and when they do, they dont want family now but in some ideal future that never comes.
We men are evolved to conquer a wife and keep her jealously. Children were then unavoidable. Biblical patriarchy was appropriate for that situation, but now it is a thing of the past that cannot be re-installed.
There is a need for novel social and legal norms, maybe for a new religion. Everything is better than the desperation of today’s young people.
J is right. I have thought about this often and it is difficult to find a solution.
The problem is that human beings are not programmed to separate sex from reproduction. All our instincts are programmed based on this two things going together.
For example, men have no paternity instinct before kids are born. They didn’t need to have it. They are programmed to look for sex. Since sex unavoidably implied children, there was no need for nature to make men want kids.
So when contraception is available, men indulge sex without having kids. I have done it a lot.
The pill has interfered the basic mechanisms of reproduction of the species. We are not prepared for that. All our biological and social infraestructure assumed that kids were inevitable. When this stops being so, the fabric of the society crumbles. Fortunately, we are not a lot of years down the line and some inertia exists. But the situation will get worse and worse.
It is difficult to see what the solution is. All solutions point to matriarchy. The women having the kids and receiving money from state to have them. Yes, I know, this is the thing that feminists want and it is unfair, but, if men don’t want to have children (and they want it less and less), somebody has to pay for the kids or face a progressively older population (think about retirement) and an eventual depopulation.
Has somebody a better idea? The pill is here to stay. Even Islam is not powerful enough to stop its effects.
I would like to read what you think about this issue.
Someone once said that we can not trust men with daughters, and this proves it. They will even throw their own son or sons under the bus, just to protect their “little princess”. You shouldn’t have to think twice about this, yet you hesitate because your daughters might be “inconvenienced”.
This, from the prima dona who gets crampy hot flashes at first challenge.
The ONLY hot flashes you’ll be igniting
is from the color of the pillow that you’ll
be biting
bitch.
mout.
Thanks to everybody for reading the article and commentating.
I should make clear that I am not pro-Islam and I do not see Islam as any kind of solution.
I see Islam as largely a sexual trade union in the same manner as feminism is – although catering for the needs of men (or at leasts certain classes of men) as well as women.
Rodger said :
I’m not sure many young and nubile sluts identify themselves particularly as feminists (I hope you don’t mean those slut walker hounds). Yes, the vast majority of attractive young women will happily take the ‘rights’ that feminism has given them, but when they behave in ways that threaten the sexual interests of older women (i.e the real feminists) then it’s obvious who has the power and who feminism serves. My blog is a documentation of the many ways in which older women (feminists) are taking sexual power away from young and attractive females, both in obvious ways (stopping attractive young women from working in the sex trade) to not so obvious ways.
Sedulous gave an excellent example regarding the false rape culture – the encouraging of false rape accusations by (older) feminists. It might seem that this is something that gives a kind of power to young women (to make false accusations). Actually, it will inevitably lead to men avoiding casual sex with young women – which is exactly what those bitter older feminists want.
Expat said :
That’s an excellent quote, and puts the problem in a nutshell. I would say that men can seperate sex from reproduction, both physically and emotionally. The problem is that women can’t (you sort of said this yourself), and feminism is the result – a kind of vain and incoherent attempt at re-imposing religous dogmas that control male sexuality but in a secular form.
We really don’t know if men are capable of building a secular, rational, and stable society in which sex and reproduction have been seperated – because it’s simply impossible to even try in a feminist society.
You tards talk about women as if they actually held some sway. Feminism wasn’t created by women.
But that’s beside the point. Anyone who complains about the current situation must be a bona fide beta chump. This is THE time to live if you’re a fit, dominant male. There’s an endless sea of pussy out there and it actually pays for itself because it’s busy working. No longer do you have to dive headfirst into a monotonous, disastrous marriage like a sentimental, Romantic-era chump. No longer do you have to break your back to support an idle woman and a brood of brats.
The pussy’s out there in abundance for the picking. Stop brooding. Realize that you and everyone around you will be dead in a few years. Don’t take everything so seriously. Squat. Deadlift. Eat. Fuck. Be laconic. Die like a man.
And no–that doesn’t mean act like a nigger, because niggers create Nigers, and nobody wants to live in Niger.
Argh.
Yeah, Rosenburg, that’s how I am supposed to feel. Unlike these foolish and carefree women, we KNOW what will be the result of their actions.
I’d rather be a builder of civilizations than a destroyer. We have a planet to conquer, a universe to explore! The charm of women is nothing to it. I don’t want to spend my life in the bedroom. I don’t think most men want to either.
Look at these lines. I cannot imagine the man who wrote them being a womanizer:
“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in Reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals”
Great to see an article by Schopenbecq here.
Firepower: “This, from the prima dona who gets crampy hot flashes at first challenge. please be a Good girl.”
Ah Firepoodle, would you care to actually comment on my comment, or do you prefer your tired shtick?
“I don’t want to spend my life in the bedroom. I don’t think most men want to either.”
I thought I wanted to spend my life in the bedroom, but that was before I started spending my life in the bedroom. These days I can no longer comprehend how men can stand being with women for more than 30-60 minutes at a time, let alone cohabit with them. And, on the flip side, I can’t understand how women can stomach being with men–they’ve grown so effeminate and insecure.
“And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me–nor woman either.”
I agree with Rosenberg. Women are a non-factor. The fate of our world is still subject to the same immutable law that has controlled it for thousands of years.
It’s called “money talks, bullshit walks”.
And I can assure you that he who effectively makes women sexually obsolete will become the richest person the world has ever seen. In no field is there more money to be made than in this one. Adhering to the whims of a bunch of capricious females is one train that is running out of steam.
Women may have made out like bandits over the last 50 years, but men will win the war. I believe we’ll see it in our life times.
Rosenburg,
When I hear those lines, I think of Picard answering Q. He delivers them very well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V–v5Ba_cx8&NR=1
Well said Ryu. The abundance of vagina on the market is not worth the future of civilization. It’s hard to enjoy something like that when you know that Whites are being systematically exterminated worldwide.
Also, I just watched that episode of TNG last week. Not much to do over here so I bought seasons 1-7 for $15 at the hajji shop. Geeky, I know.
The next wave of feminism will be ferocious.
No, probably not.
IMHO there won’t be a next wave of feminism, because social and economic disruptions will greatly weaken the nation-state.
If the world goes into economic turmoil and most people are having trouble finding the next meal, there won’t be a ferocious wave of new feminism. There will be a major weakening, or even a collapse, of the centralized nation-state.
Rome collapsed, devaluing its currency and reducing civil liberties every step of the way. The USA is following Rome’s example. There won’t be any ferocious new waves of feminism when the USA is a washed-up former power.
Rather, the power vacuum will inspire challengers of various descriptions, most of which will not be nation-states. People will still go to war – but they will not go to war for countries and ideologies and treaties. They will feud and kill for revenge, for madness, for personal gain, and for tribal loyalties.
Goldenfetus,
There is an interesting book that you might like. It’s called “The Holy Fire” by Sterling. THe book is set in 2098, but it explores our time partially. The author has predicted the financial trouble of the 2010′s, plagues and diseases in the 2020′s. To stabilize financial markets, time limits are imposed to slow down the flow of money. For instance, I might invest in a company and I commit my money for 20 years. A medical-industrial complex employs most of the population. The author very neatly solves many problems of the day.
First, not all women want to be told how to live their lives.
Second, not all women who live in America are white. In most women’s
movement writings, the experiences of white, middle class women were described as universal “women’s experiences,” largely ignoring the differences of black and white women’s experiences due to race and class.
Black women for hundreds of years, were bare foot, pregnant and in a hot kitchen literally, while their children were sold away from them. They weren’t allowed to have a family, especially a husband. Their family was white people, the plantation, and Willie Lynch. During the feminist revolution when many white women began to work outside the home for the first time, most black women could only find work as domestic caretakers for white families. If she wanted to keep her job, she had to put her white family before her own. That’s how Oprah Winfrey has become a billionaire, by being a Mammy for white people to nurse and nourish. Fast forward to today where 70% of black children are raised by single moms and almost 50% of the women on welfare are black. Please tell me when black women had it good in America or do they not count?
Yes, people the race divide can also work against feminism.
http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2007/04/contact-verizon-wireless.html
“Fast forward to today where 70% of black children are raised by single moms and almost 50% of the women on welfare are black. Please tell me when black women had it good in America or do they not count?”
Next time before you do your usual bitch-and-moan jig about how The [White] Man be holding you down [by feeding, clothing and housing your fat, useless homo erectus asses], take a look at how your brotha Congoids are treating their women over on that godforsaken native continent of yours.
70% of black children are raised by single mommas not just in America, but wherever there are black “people”. That’s why Sub-Saharan Africa (and any Negroid region for that matter) is and will always be a backward shithole.
“Do you believe that Islam is the only force that can resist feminism?”
Hahahaha. Islam is being destroyed by feminism and good riddance to it.
The only way to “win”, is through technology, polarization most likely would be the end outcome though.
Male birth control pill
Artificial Womb
Technology that can be used to satisfy Male sexual desire
@Sedulous made a very profound comment. The new feminist frontier is “rape”.
* everything is rape, the most different actions are rape
* all (these diverse types of) rapes are the same
* any woman can ruin any man by simple unproven rape claims
alright, I always did see a connection between conservatism/puritism and feminism….
Now I am a bit confused, doesn’t this contradict all that female hypergamy stuff pua’s talk about????
I do vaguely agree with what one of the commentors said above about this being the best time to live. You see people talking about a return to the good ole days when the air was clean and sex was dirty all while posting on the internet…
I see a few bad misconceptions in the comments here. Men DO want children. Men DO want wives, families, the white picket fence. There are exceptions to every rule but to rule that most or all men do not want the marriage, committment, and children is completely wrong. In fact, it is the other way around.
Mens’ hesitation to “bite the bullet”, have children get married, etc. comes from the total post-apocalyptic wasteland which is the marriages, relationships, legal and parental realities around them for those who tried this route.
Women initiate 80% of divorces; they do this because they can leave a note, take the kids, file for divorce, child, support, alimony, and with no fault divorces they will get their share of the family assets and if they take the kids when they leave 90% of the time they get primary custody along with child support. It doesnt matter WHY the woman leaves; she could leave because the man was squarely in the wrong or she could leave because she wanted to run away with her affair partner, it makes no difference in court. What’s worse, is a vast majority of women not only collect support and alimony payments, but they also try to “make perfect” their new family and the next serious man in their life by systematically trying to eliminate the biological father from their childrens’ lives. In effect, the motto is, “Keep paying me the money, but Im going to make it difficult for you to see your kids and when I’m done with them they’re going to hate you and not want to see you ever again”.
Family courts are kangaroo courts that are biased clearly towards women. A woman can lie about contraception, get herself pregnant, not tell the man, move to another city, have the baby, and six months later file for support, custody AND a restraining order, and the man has to fight a constant legal battle and spend money on trips, DNA tests, lawyers, just to see his child. If he wasnt aware of the court date, one day when pulled over by the police for speeding he finds out that he has a bench warrant for failure to appear and pay child support for a child he never knew he had.
Plus, with the advent of the pill, more women are cheating than ever before. Supposedly loyal, dedicated wives, just “get bored” with their marriages and decide to do something else (in my wide circle of friends and aquaintences, I now count well over 60 couples this has happened to in the past four years). Women look at “starter marriages”, where they can play house with the romantic guy, then ditch him to have a more functional marriage with the older guy who has money. Of course the guy didnt buy into being a “starter husband” for her to practice on.
The popular female culture shows this; Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City, Eat Love Pray, these cult phenonmenons are merely reflections of womens minds today. This new “me first” generation of women hitting marriageable age from 23-35 make terrible wife material. They are bossy, demanding, expect to get all the benefits of equality and all of the chivalry of the foregone era. They want the expensive gifts, jewelery, and dinners yet they want to boss around the “weak” man and lord over everything micromanaging the household. They secretly feel well justified in rejecting their partners sexual advances and then using their lack of sex at home as justification for affairs; when the prophecy is entirely self created.
This cause is advanced by the bra burning era incubated women from the 60s and 70s being their mothers. Their mothers ditched their “alpha” husbands and found a meek substitute, or simply made use of men as temporary fill-ins when they needed something. The women these women raised, know nothing about what a “real man” is or should be; while what a “real man” is is entirely subjective, the mothers they learned from dont beleive that “real men” exist at all and that men are second rate human beings.
This leaves todays marriageable age women in a conundrum. They think that they need a meek man who will kowtow to their every need; yet they want a man that is very attractive, successful, and “alpha”. They also want a man who is as wealthy and put together as possible, but who will have equal time to do parenting, housechores, and cooking. They want to have successful careers, be perfect mothers, have perfectly clean homes, but they dont have time to do it all; and being a housewife or homemaker is absolutely an insulting thought to them – yet who will be the perfect parent, who will clean the house, who will take the kid to all those activities and who will have the time to play all those games with the children who need the perfect upbringing?
The answer of course, is that their expectations are entirely impossible. Only in the rarest of circumstances can you work and look after children at the same time. Housekeepers are expensive to maintain on a regular basis. Alpha males rarely take a woman barking orders at them very well; meek men who have no backbone are rarely attractive or very successful. You can’t reject your partners advances on a regular basis and expect there to be this tremendous well of “passion” in your love life.
Which leads them to, well, do the womanly thing to do, and, just quit entirely. Start over. This is an entirely female phenomenon that is hardwired and genetic. When a woman thinks her life is unfulfilling, she is far more prone to find a new man to go along with her new identity, to go along with her new life than a man would seek a new woman to “complete” him and give him a new personality or place in life or society. When men’s lot in life seems awful and it needs to change, men tend to seek goals which will change their lives. Women tend to seek goals which are men who will change their lives. Think the Cinderella story with the rich prince, Cinderella had an awful lot in life of scrubbing and being abused (by four women, none the less) until Prince Charming swept her to a life of pomp and circumstance.
And it is this exercise that causes the post-apocalyptic wreckage that today’s men see. Looking to their peers, men in their late 20s, 30s, and 40s see men who are stuck doling out hundreds or thousands of dollars per month for children they can rarely see. We as men see men who are charged and put in handcuffs for domestic violence which never happened as part of custody and divorce battles. Bitchy, condescending women who strive to convince everyone that the man she once loved enough to marry and have children with is now some horrible, sop of a loser figure, who trot their new man (complete with all of her one-sided preloading) out to give stern face to the poor bastard-child of an ex-husband or biological father. Men who have lost their homes, cars, and still are paying alimony on top of that, even when their ex wife is working. Men who are out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements to women who divorced them when they were caught cheating.
Men today are very wary. Sure, we want the white picket fence, the children, the family, the wife, the life – but we are so shorted on the marriage “contract” now that we’re extremely careful and wary of the beaming women who are trying to convince us to marry them. “Will she cheat on me, divorce me, take my kids away, and collect a monthly cheque?” The truth is, there is no way for us to know, ever. They all seem so great when we first meet them. They all seem so loyal and committed, they all gaze into our eyes like we are the only one that matters to them. Yet it is them that are initiating 80% of divorces and who are cheating on their partners 55% of the time. It is these glowing eyed lovey dovey “your the only one for me” women who are lying about the paternity of their children 20% of the time in committed marriages, let alone in the unmarried population.
The marriage contract, prior to feminism, was simple. A man had a job; provide for his wife, his family, keep them safe with a roof over their head, and in exchange he got regular sex and loyalty, someone to look after the kids while he was working. Women who divorced or cheated were ostracized by society and no longer trusted; they usually lost the children and were left with nothing. Men who cheated were usually beat up by their friends or their wives brothers and father. Marriage was simple: you never got divorced, and cheating certainly wasnt something to brag about for either gender.
Today, the marriage contract is a totally bad deal for men. You sign away half your assets, you are expected to do half of the house work if not more (most women these days in the 25-35 age range cant cook worth a damn; their feminist mothers didnt want to ‘imprison them’ with unequal values). You are expected to work and give your money to the family while they work and keep their money for themselves. You are expected to walk on a tightrope amongst all of their temper tantrums lest get angry and be declared as abusive and get carried away in handcuffs. If you screw up, she leaves and takes the kids, half the family assets, and a quarter of your paychecks and gets with another guy, if she cheats on you and you threaten to end her affair relationship she will do exactly the same thing. In fact, if she just gets tired of life altogether she can divorce, leave YOU with the kids, take half the assets and just go travel the world and screw whoever, and if you protest that you cant look after the kids full time then you’re a deadbeat loser dad with no responsibility; even when she is the one shirking her responsibilities altogether. (The premise of the book Eat, Love Pray)
So it is not that there are all of these women who cant find husbands who are willing to settle down, or that there are all of these men who do not want to bite the bullet and commit. Rather, it is that with womens’ rights where they are today combining the court system, public opinion, confused gender roles, and prevailing police practices, there are very few women that men feel they can trust enough in order to actually take that leap of faith – and amazingly enough, even with men this wary, we are still seeing women file for 80% of divorces, getting custody and robbing men for half their money in a supposedly “equal” world.
I personally feel that women are perfectly capable of being “equal” to men in most non biological respects. However this total confusion brought onto them by feminism has done them a great disservice. In effect, it has short circuited their identities, causing them to go entirely haywire. Men still have an idea of what we’re supposed to be; strong, successful, decisive, protective. Women have no idea, and their idea changes CONTEXTUALLY, literally with every encounter with another human being and with every goal they embark upon acheiving. This rapid shift of “who I’m supposed to be” is causing severe mental illness in women of marriagble age today, and both older women and younger women.
SSRI anti-depressant medication is given in 75% of cases to women who are suffering from depression or anxiety. Borderline personality disorder is on the rise mostly in women. This is because women have a very difficult time being happy, because their expecatations change contextually. They can be happy right now being a wife when they are sitting with their parents, husband, and children, but the second they walk out that door, jump in the car, turn on the radio and head to work they are supposed to be super hottie sluts who arent afraid to kiss other women or put men in their place. When they get to work they are supposed to be bitches, both to other women and to men, the commanders of the world, then when they go out for drinks with people from work they are supposed to be flirtatious, attractive and sexy to the bartender from the bar, the other patrons, and the same men they tried to lord over at work. They then get home, and they’re supposed to plop right back into a compromising mutually beneficial relationship with their husband and be patient, loving and understanding with their children – then when they go to bed they are left being confused; they should be getting hammered in the sack like a porn star; but their husband is tired after working all day and looking after the kids most the night while they went out for drinks with work buddies being flirtatious, he is exhausted.
Women just CANT be happy this way, leading them to depression and anxiety. In effect, feminism has short circuited their brains to the point of leaving them defective and unable to enjoy life.
Men are quite content to have the same routine each day, and play with their toys and eat the same food and enjoy the same house and enjoy the same stuff, and enjoy the same job; once they find a comfy place in life they are quite keen to keep things stable and linear, with a slow progression of things getting better.
Todays women can be satisfied but then they try to make lateral moves; from the white picket fence to the jet setter, from the humble family and couple to the power couple or glitterati. This however doesnt work when you are married – because that poor sucker of a husband has spent the past six years raising these kids and fixing up this house and working towards that promotion at his job; he cant just quite his job and go from being a factoryworker to being a corporate CEO, move into a house worth ten times as much or just drop everything to travel the world – to a man that would be madness, to forfeit everything he has acheived and built to support his family in exchange for massive uncertainty and certain failure. For women, they just figure they will doll themselves up and go looking for men in different haunts and places.
So women have caused their own demise, really. They have made themselves largely unmarriable; by fearing and hating the very concept of marriage itself. They all want a man locked into paying and financial responsibility so they can have kids, but they dont want the man himself to have any authority and they want to be able to back out of the deal at any time and hold that over his head.
Men, however, dont think that’s a very good deal – because it’s not. We are seeing the cohabitation period extend longer and longer as men seek assurance and trust that their prospective wives really will want a life with them. In many cases, men just wont sign the contract so they can retain some equal footing in the relationship. Ironically, the men who have cohabited for many years and were chided for not having the balls to put a ring on her finger, usually get left during the engagement process or a year after the wedding when they finally do. For the women, it was more the conquest of getting the guy to actually bite the bullet than it ever was to have a long and happy life together; it takes actually getting married or engaged to realize it – even after many years or even several decades. I know, because it happened to me as well.
Oh, and sorry to add one other thing after my novel.
The truth about feminism can be simply found in one example.
The American Association of Blood Banks found in a randomized blood typing test (not DNA, it can only rule out paternity not definitively establish it) that 20% of children in married couples are not in fact children of the named father. The implication is that outside of married couples that figure is likely much higher.
However, if you pipe up and say that DNA testing should be mandatory for all birthed children; who pipes up in feirce opposition? Feminists. The same feminists who pipe up that men should be forced to cough up child support for their children, vehemently oppose any way to ensure that the correct father is named right away at birth.
The obvious reason, of course, is that feminists want to preserve the right to lie. Procreating with that studly macho but poor bad boy and having that meek stable well heeled man pay for it all, in their minds’ eyes’, is a right that women should always have.
Their defense is littered with holes at best and an absolute sham at worse.
They fight mandatory DNA testing at birth by saying it is a violation of the woman’s right to decide for herself and her baby; yet they are all for court-ordred DNA testing to prove paternity when women are looking for money. They oppose mandatory testing on the grounds that not all women should be treated as liars; when they are very aware that very act of requesting a DNA test for proof positive paternity after a childbirth would be a quick grounds for divorce, a custody battle, and in a lot of cases a cast iron frying pan thrown at a man’s head. They fight supposedly that it is against the child’s rights; as though having the correct father named on their birth certificate is not somehow in the best interests of the child for both medical and psychological reasons. They fight that the state should not be involved in the family’s life, when they fight tooth and nail for the state to intervene when a woman changes her mind midway through sex; by enforcing an age of consent well above what is required, in the case of a simple threat made in the heat of an argument, or when an angry man slaps his wife for saying something wholly inappropriate or cheating on him behind his back.
The fact is, hardline feminists are of the mind that men are entirely unneeded in childrearing, that they are merely a means to an end. They all know or have themselves conceived a child and lied about the father; even if the lie was merely to say they didnt know who the father was, so the pesky “father” didnt get in the way of their perfect female-only childrearing experience and feminist upbringing. They all know of someone who lied about contraception in order to willfully get pregnant; using the man as an unauthorized sperm donor.
And at it’s core: They do not want unwanted fathers to suddenly have legal rights to have access to their own children.
While a male contraceptive pill would be a tremendous advancement forward for men’s sexual rights to “right the ship”, so too (and more quickly realizable though aggressive lobbying on the part of men) is mandatory DNA testing at birth. Women always know who their offspring are; the pregnancy and labour are accurate 100% of the time. Men however, never truly know until they see the results of a DNA test. And when you factor in that in married couples the women’s ability or intention to correctly name the father is wrong at least 20% of the time, we can safely assume that they are wrong about a third of the time in the general population.
The birth registration process is also unfairly tilted. A married woman can legally sign away 18 years of paternity obligations to her husband instantly; the man only has 30 days to contest it and the very legislation under which paternity is contested by default assigns paternity to the husband who was married to her at the time of birth and/or 200 days before the birth of the child; he not only has to pay up to $1000 for a DNA test to prove his lack of paternity, but he also has to do it within 30 days, with a court order (the woman can forbid a DNA test to be done, nullifying it in court) and also at the risk of breaking up his marriage if he is wrong – and if he is right, the court may still order that he pay in the absence of the identity of the actual biological father.
Mandatory DNA testing, should be, well, mandatory. No shopkeeper these days will trust a woman’s signature on a cheque for $100 worth of groceries; yet our government accepts a woman’s signature on a birth registration for over $90,000 worth of someone else’s child support obligations.
This one single step; would be a tremendous leap forward for men in this new hyperfeminized world. Men could submit their DNA to fathers registries to see if they had sired any children, a match in the database would give them rights to their children. Women could no longer dupe men into being dad and hurt children when they found out about the facade of a family they grew up in. Women could no longer eliminate fathers from their children’s lives by saying they dont know who the father is.
And most importantly of all; it would show that women are not the perfect and always truthful mothers and individuals that feminism and the courts currently treat them as though they are. While there are many honest women out there, there are a ton of dishonest ones too. There are dishonest men as well; but it is mens lies that are the ones being recorded and thrown into our face.
All I see here is hate against women. Good luck with that guys.
“All I see here is hate against women. Good luck with that guys.”
Dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out
One poster raises the question of whether Islam is the way to go. I think this question is paramount. Is a tactical alliance with Islam possible? There’s no doubt for instance that the growing Islamic population in Europe is the sole real challenge for feminism at present. Sometimes Islam is the only way to challenge feminism without getting censored (Freedom of religion). And Worldwide, Muslim countries maintain a feminism-free zone when the rest of the World has fallen. It’s a dilemma because most of us will have no patience with the tons of shit you have to turn a blind eye to if you want to be the Muslims’ friend.
@Jack
For many years as an MRA I suggested the idea that an MRA alliance with Muslims might be a great idea and could have the benefit of stopping the “War on Terror”. I wrote several posts on that in various forums years ago.
But that was before I learned how beta the male masses are who actually believe in the delayed gratification with 72 virgins bullshit. They are too easily told not to have sex in the present life, which is basically what western feminist trade union and their White Knighting allies try to tell western men.
Men who defer sex to the next life are only marginally better than the western manginas who defer good sex to…never.
Then I learned that Islamist Turkey just raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 which has never been normal for Islamist states or any patriarchal states, but more indicative of older women gaining power in political Islam and blocking out the competition as an Islamic Women’s Trade Union. Turkey now joins Iran and Saudi Arabia as the only countries in the world, besides a few whacky American states, to have an AoC as high as 18. And those cultures will collapse soon.
It turned out that Osama getting married to a youngun was not what Al Qaeda and the Islamists wanted for the average male. Quite the opposite.
Now I have the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood will probably raise the age of consent in Egypt way up to 18 as well, just like California and Hollywood which they are probably looking at for inspiration (don’t expect Muslims to think for themselves). Libya may also go that way.
So, no, most of these manginas are going in the wrong direction and it’s no wonder they never reached out to the MRM despite many attempts by MRAs to get the Muslims on board at least for being “against feminism”.
The amount of beta in this thread is perplexing.
How can you people have so much to say yet allude to basically not being able to take control of your life.
Does this all really bother you? What if all these ideas die with this generation? Why are you so worried about something happening 50-100 years from now? It’s ridiculous. There’s so much to do on this planet. Worrying about these non-pioneers in a time of economic crisis is detrimental. Why not start with taking control of the government so you can force these rich raccoons to spend some of that money they seem to love so much?
You clearly know nothing about feminism. Nice job lumping all feminists into your tiny-brained understanding of what you think feminism is.
Feminists have had 40 years to teach us what feminism is. We were really listening for a while there, too. You know what it taught us?
Feminism is a gynocentric ideology dedicated to the pursuit of feminine interests and issues. That is, “Girls for girl stuff”.
Am I wrong?
This is one of the most poorly reasoned articles I have ever read. Most feminists were in favor of access to birth control and abortion – things that make young, unmarried women more willing to engage in casual sex. Before feminism men wanted all women to have to marry before entering sexual relationships, this certain meant there was much less NSA sex available for men. You have it all backwards.
{ 2 trackbacks }