The Marxist Dialectic of The Family: Part II - Marriage 1.5 versus The Second Wave

Part I
.

.
Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out in Part I of this series, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm, thus voiding one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was enacted there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” But let’s make no mistake, if a woman wanted a divorce she could get one. Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”

The word cruelty was an undefined term that much resembles the word “abuse” today because almost anything could be construed as cruelty. An argument that made her cry could be deemed cruel. Not paying enough attention to her could be deemed cruel. Well, you get the idea. Just look at how many things today are classified as “abuse” which really wouldn’t be claimed as abuse anywhere else in society except in male-female relationships. Take that meaning of abuse and simply replace it with the word “cruelty” and you’ve pretty much got the spirit behind the system. Over years of having a relationship with someone else, it is pretty easy to find something that can be considered abuse or cruelty in one way or another. So, what happened in divorce cases before No-Fault Divorce was that a trial occurred to prove the husband was “cruel” and therefore, a divorce ought to be granted. This caused much dragging out of people’s dirty laundry and it was pretty much a joke. Belfort Bax referred to the “cruelty” argument for divorce as a complete sham over a century ago already, indicating that it was all about taking normal human interactions and having a lawyer twist things around to portray the husband as some heinous monster when the reality was far from it. No-Fault Divorce was really more about not making lawyers and judges into hypocrites for orchestrating such a charade and simply saying, “Give her the damn divorce already and let’s just get it over with.” Women have always gotten what they wanted from the courts when her adversary was a man. Dropping the need to prove “cruelty” simply streamlined the process and stopped making the courts look like such hypocrites.  

“Prior to 1970, the law usually justified its wrecking of families on the grounds either of adultery or of “extreme cruelty.” The sexual revolution has now made adultery a right for women (“a woman’s sacred right to control her own body”); extreme cruelty was usually understood to be a legal fiction meaning no more than that one of the spouses, usually the wife, wanted out. The pretense that the husband was an extremely cruel man was in most cases sufficiently absurd that it embarrassed even judges and lawyers and it was felt necessary to “reform” divorce by perpetuating the same destruction of families under a new terminology. This is called No Fault divorce. There were label switchings. Divorce was renamed Dissolution of Marriage. The Plaintiff was renamed the Petitioner. The Defendant was renamed the Respondent. Alimony was renamed Spousal Support (the ex-wife was no longer a spouse, but calling her one “justifies” taking the man’s money). The real core of the change is that it was no longer necessary to “prove” extreme cruelty to inflict upon the husband a more severe penalty than is imposed on most low-income black male felons.” – Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p.215

As you can see, while the introduction of No-Fault Divorce certainly helped to fuel the divorce craze by streamlining the process, it was definitely not the sole cause of the break-down of the family... so, what other factors were involved?
.

.
One of those answers can be found in the present day, as our great altruistic feminist sisters attempt to "help" the women of the third world. There is a feminist propaganda advertisement that appears here in Canada on a regular basis which particularly irks me because of its blatant lying right off the bat. The feminist organization CARE put on the ad which starts off by saying something along the lines of "No-one can understand a woman's life in the third world better than another woman anywhere in the world." It's such an obvious slap in the face to not only men in general, but also to bloody common-sense. They mean to tell us that a woman working at her NGO job and living in a high-rise condo in downtown Vancouver has a better ability to understand the life of an impoverished woman in the third world collecting and burning camel-dung over an open fire in her mud-hut better than her husband, sons and fellow countrymen do? It's just bloody absurd on the face of it, so I once perused their site and here is what I found: "When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children." Now, don't get me wrong. I don't particularly have a problem with girls receiving an education, but what I am pointing out is that feminists know that what they are doing is altering the conditions of the nuclear family by pushing women into the workforce where they will be directly competing with men. Of course, the same website claims that women put 90% of their income back into their families but makes no mention of the percentage of income the men put back into their families (Do the men spend 50% of their income at the local tavern and the other 50% wagering on cock-fighting in the alleyway?) Nor does it indicate what kind of families they are talking about. Do they mean husband-wife & children families, or are they discussing female & children families?

You only have to look at our recent economic crisis of 2008/09 to see what feminists consider "family." While men lost their jobs in significantly larger numbers than women, when job recovery began to occur, feminists started complaining that men were getting re-hired in larger numbers than women. (Kinda makes sense, eh? If three times as many men lost jobs as women, a similar ratio of men ought to be re-hired during a recovery - except in femi-supremacist 50/50 land). Then, feminists tried to claim that men were receiving hiring preference because they had families to care for and complained because women had families they were providing for too! Yes indeed, but the difference is what kind of families we are talking about. A man providing for his family generally means that the man, his wife, and their children all get food put on the table whereas for the most part, when a woman provides for her family, they mean there is food on the table for the single/divorced mom and her children. There is no man being provided for in this equation. Women don't care for men - they care for themselves and their children. A single mom "family" leaves the male out of the equation, where he starves on the street corner alone - it certainly does not lead to general economic improvement if the male gender is left to suffer in poverty separately from families. In the traditional nuclear family, men, women and children receive the benefits of the man's labour but in the new single-mother "family," only women and children receive benefits. The men just magically vanish to... who knows where?

The radical feminists of the Second Wave understood this as well:

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
.

A significant factor in our culture which led to the destruction of the family was women entering the workforce en-masse in the 1970's and 1980's. Whereas Briffault's Law was undermined by the Suffragettes transferring presumed Father-Custody into Mother-Custody with the Tender Years Doctrine in the 19th Century, Second Wave feminists undermined hypergamy by encouraging women to abandon their traditional roles and compete directly with men in the workplace. Previously, a woman's standard of living significantly improved upon marriage as men were socially conditioned to work like mules to provide for their families. After the second wave arrived, women were encouraged to "have it all" and be both high-earning career chicks and brave single-mother-victims at the same time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with women aspiring to do something more than live up to traditional sex-roles, but overall in our culture, women have merely cooked the Golden Goose by insisting on pursuing their dreams and aspirations. Yes, they want a high-flying career so they have money, but they also want their work to be socially beneficial (who doesn't?) and they also want their careers to be flexible enough to allow them plenty of time to spend with their families - not necessarily hers and her husband's family. They had all of that in spades before Second Wave feminism appeared on the scene, but were convinced by feminists that it wasn't good enough for them. Like greedy children, they had to have it all! 

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
.

.
Second Wave feminism made no bones about their goals to destroy marriage, believing that true equality for women could not be achieved in the nuclear family. They pushed women into the workforce en-masse because they knew doing so would undermine one of the major reasons women entered into the institution of marriage in the first place - access to the husband's paycheck along with the higher standard of living he provided. This massive entry of women into the workforce where they began directly competing with men for their traditional roles likely had far more to do with undermining marriage than the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws, which merely streamlined a trend that had been happening for a century already.
      
Also, the Second Wave did everything they could to destroy "the mating dance" between men and women. Men are the designated initiators in sexual relations. Women attract and men pursue. That's just the way it is. However, just because men are the designated overt initiators does not mean that women are innocent little darlings, simply fending off multitudes of horny men at every corner. They are just as complicit in the mating dance as males.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization. (Note: This is similar to mating behaviour in other mammals, like rats).

Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.

Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect. -- Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University
.

.

.
Thus, the old saying, "He chases her until she catches him." Kinda makes you wonder what the whole feminist campaign about "No Means No!" was about in the 1990's, doesn't it? Some studies have indicated that in a typical male-female sexual encounter, the woman will give off up to 150 rejections, either verbally, physically, with eye gestures, and so on, until finally saying "yes" to sexually accepting the man as a mate. Quite obviously, "no" only means no when a man says it. These types of campaigns were designed to drive to the sexes apart by monkeying with the basics of the mating dance - which women insist on perpetuating, no matter how much men get criminalized for doing what she desires in the process.

A similar thing has happened in the workplace where women once often found a husband. Today, after a plethora of sexual harassment laws being introduced into the workplace, anyone in a position of power could get into no end of trouble for trying to woo a woman who is subordinate to him - yet, women in the past often married their bosses. Remember, women are hypergamous and seek out men who are more powerful and wealthier than they are, thus, it is natural for a woman herself to be attracted to someone in a position of authority over her. But, since men are the designated initiators in the mating dance while women always hide behind plausible deniability, it is the male's part of the dance that had to be outlawed in order to drive the sexes apart. When desiring women is outlawed, only outlaws will desire women.
.

.
The William Heatherington Spousal Rape Trial in the mid-1980's was the final death-knell for any semblance of marriage resembling that which had existed for millenia before in our culture. Not only was this trial a complete mockery of justice but it undermined the very basis for marriage, which was a vehicle to contain human sexuality and channel it positively into something that benefited both families and society. This was the end of expecting that sexual relations were to be a part of marriage. If your wife - your lifelong mate - is no more of your expected sexual partner than a strange woman you have just met at the pub whom you have to woo and game into having "intimate relations"... then what is the point of setting up a legal framework such as marriage to contain two people's sexuality into the institution in the first place? Keep in mind as well, like Daniel Amneus pointed out in the quote at the beginning of this article, the sexual revolution had also made adultery a "right" for women (her sacred right to control her own body). If there is no expectation of either sex for the husband, nor the expectation for sexual fidelity in marriage... then... um... what is the point of a marriage? It has been deconstructed into basically nothing at all.

The above points I have addressed in this post are but a brief synopsis of how feminism sought to undermine the institution of marriage and drive the sexes apart. There are, of course, dozens, if not hundreds of other examples that could be used, but that would also make this piece into a full dissertation rather than an article for a blog post. The points I am trying to get at here is that while No-Fault Divorce certainly had an effect on our cultural values towards marriage and family, it more or less simply streamlined a process that had been well underway for a century before. The real insidious aspects of Second Wave Feminism were more about undermining the basics of male-female attraction. Many men who are reading this are at least somewhat familiar with the principles of game and as you can see, much of what was going on was the deliberate undermining of men's and women's natural hetero-sexuality, making it as difficult as possible for them to get together and form unions the way they had done for centuries already in our culture and it ultimately left us with what we today call Marriage 2.0, a fraudulent contract that in no way resembles anything of marriage 1.0. Basically men who get blindsided into signing on the marital dotted line are left as virtual slaves to their wives, unattractive in any way to their spouse's sexual desires, and without any benefit for themselves to look forward to but the peaceful slumber of death.     
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Bull Herding in the MRM

Have you ever seen a herd of bulls? Neither have I. It is the anti-thesis of all things "male" to become like a herd. Herds are the nature of females, not males. Yet, whenever talk arises of what men should do about the Gender War, the first thing everyone shrieks for is "unity." Often we hear criticism amongst men themselves that the Men's Movement is not a "real movement" because it does not resemble the feminist movement. "See! Men don't have vast lobby groups, therefore they aren't a movement. And look! Men aren't burning their gonchies in rallies numbering in the thousands, therefore there is no 'Men's Movement.'" It really goes to show how feminized our entire culture has become that men, in response to women's excesses, would actually try to emulate female behaviour in order to ameliorate their grievances.

There is a lot of confusion about what Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) means. Some define it as the marriage strike, others call it swearing off women altogether, and yet others will claim it means becoming a hermit and shunning society. I have been involved in MGTOW since close to its inception and as such I also have come to know several of the people who founded it as a concept. MGTOW is not a "movement" so much as it is a cultural and philosophical observation about men's behaviour. Men have been unable to find unity in their response to feminist tyranny. Lots of men agree things have gone way too far, but that is essentially where the agreement ends. Men are individual creatures, not herd creatures, and as such they have not "unified" in a front against feminism. In fact, if you look around the MRM, what you will find are hosts of "armies of one." What happens is that some men eventually get fed-up waiting for others to get their shit together and just go out and start doing things on their own. Virtually all progress, research, articles and websites in the MRM are the result of an "Army of One." In fact, this very website you are reading is the result of an army of one - my own. MGTOW, at its inception, was an observation that each man was "going his own way" and failing to unify like a herd of feminists would. It is in the nature of males to do so, just as it is in the nature of males to observe the Truth about such behaviour and work with it rather than try to cover it up.

Let me ask you, how can men fight to save masculinity by adopting feminine traits? Wouldn't doing so nullify the entire notion of masculinity and make us into mere women with penises? Men do not unify as herds and they do not make nearly as good of victims as women do. The MRM has been trying this abomination of nature for several decades now, whether arguing about DV shelters for men or for men's "right" to be a house-husband supported by his wife's earnings (AKA a "kitchen bitch"). It always fails, thankfully, because it goes against nature. As of yet, masculinity has not been destroyed, and once men recognize the difference between masculine principles and feminine principles, they tend to say, "The hell with you all, I'm going my own way."

Female Power versus Male Power 

Women are lying when they claim they had no power in the past. We may not have accurately described female power but this is actually in keeping with the feminine: All things female are covert while the male is overt, and so it is that female power in society is also covert. Although it is true that men have held most overt positions of power in the past, one must keep in mind that they were only permitted to do so because society socially condoned such practices. Society (ie. the herd) falls under the domain of the female principle and further, our social mores are controlled by women. What women want, society wants. What women find socially acceptable, society finds socially acceptable. Women have enormous social power while men have very little.

"Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel Johnson 

Over 100 years ago, E. Belfort Bax was writing how a man could never expect to receive justice from a court of law when his adversary was a woman. Justice is only achieved between a man and another man, and the only time a woman receives punishment from the court is when she has done something to harm another woman. When it comes down to man versus woman, the woman always fares better. This is not something new that has arisen recently, as you can see, but rather is something that is innate to humans. Everywhere in nature, males are the servants of the female. Furthermore, women have spent the past several thousand years evolving to better manipulate males to do their bidding.

"A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretense." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

What men do with their positions of "power" in society is serve the needs of the female. Even the so-called "oppressive" things of patriarchy past were done for women's benefit. Take the practice of placing all of a woman's property holdings into the husband's name upon marriage. While feminists claim this was indicative of women being "non-persons," what it actually did was benefit women enormously. Women are hypergamous by nature and as such, seek out men who are more powerful and have more resources than they themselves have. Thus, upon marriage, the male's property holdings were generally much greater than the female's, and by combining the two upon marriage the female received the right to her husband's property. If wives could maintain property outside of marriage, then it stands that so could husbands. If property were able to remain legally outside of marriage then women wouldn't be able to fully take advantage of men's higher provisioning abilities. It was in the wife's best interest for her property to be co-joined in such ways. Wouldn't you agree to co-join your assets with Bill Gates if it meant you gained access to his fortune and further, received inheritance rights to it upon his death? Since it was ultimately in women's favour for it to be handled this way, society condoned it.

The introduction of labour laws, such as limiting the work-day for women and children to a maximum of eight hours, was done for their benefit. Men still had to work long, hard days in the fields and mine shafts, but society thought it wrong that women should spend lengthy days in the hazardous conditions of the workplace, and so laws were enacted to protect women - not men - from such harsh conditions. Feminists, in their hate-fueled rage against nature, have tried to complain that such acts were the result of an evil patriarchy conspiring to hold women back, but they are plain and simply lying. In fact, as Angry Harry points out in his two excellent pieces, Women - Weak and Pathetic? and Did Women Really Want to Go Out to Work?, it was women who fueled such movements as it was considered by society (ie. women) that women leaving the workplace was a great step forward for womankind, and so, because women socially condoned it, that's what happened. Here is an extract describing the situation, from David Thomas' book Not Guilty:   

The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."
  
Further evidence to support this position is provided by a 1936 Gallup Poll asking a national sample, "Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not. However, a few decades later, women decided that they belonged in the workplace again and, as Esther Villar pointed out in The Manipulated Man, in very short order, the laws changed by the early 1960's to grant women equal pay and opportunity with men in the workplace - and of course they blamed it all on men, even though it was women themselves that had earlier condoned lesser pay for women and encouraged men to be the sole breadwinner so that women could leave the workplace. As you can see, in each case, what women wanted, society wanted, and thus it came into being. Men were just the tools who facilitated society's (women's) desires.

"Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." – Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile

Men's power comes from conquering the outside world while women's power comes from conquering the will of man and encouraging him to willfully surrender his power unto her when it suits her purpose. Think about how women claim they were powerless because for a few decades they didn't have the vote. Did they pick up guns and overthrow society to get their way? Nope, they bitched and moaned and cajoled men into doing their bidding. They did the same things with the Temperance Movement. Women decided what was socially acceptable, and then harassed men into doing their bidding - and the men did it! Women's social power is enormous and far outweighs men's social power. Men are playing a fool's game if they think they can compete with women on this level, for that is where the heart of female power lies. Men are as horribly outmatched by women on this level as women would be if they deemed to "overthrow men" by lifting weights and taking boxing lessons in an attempt to physically subdue them. Why should men then try to form a movement on the basis of the female principle when it is under this very principle that men have little ability to compete? Seems pretty stupid to me and it can only lead to disaster. Much of this warped thinking is still based in the false Boomer-topian ideology that men and women are essentially the same, save but for externally imposed "social constructs." This is a false ideology and as such, actions based upon it can only lead to false conclusions. A "men's movement" must reflect male principles rather than female principles. Herds of bulls do not roam the countryside. 
    
"We Must Get Women On-board!"  

This is one of the most common arguments the Men's Movement has made over the past decades. Those who make the argument are both right and wrong at the same time. As I have pointed out, women control our social mores, therefore, in order for society to improve the conditions of men and end the Gender War, women must want the conditions of men to improve. Not much happens that women don't approve of.

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

The mistake "the movement" has continually made is falling for the notion that men and women are essentially the same and therefore what makes sense to men also must make sense to women. Men are based upon principle and logic and therefore continually appeal to women from a position of justice. This is the wrong tactic to take with women, for as has been pointed out throughout history, women have no sense of justice.

"...women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.(9) So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no 'sense of justice.'” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

It makes no sense to appeal to women's "sense of justice" when such a thing is foreign to the female principle in the first place. Furthermore, women have very little ability to empathize with men.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

There is a hierarchy in how our society "works." It looks like this:

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children --> Puppies

Men care for themselves, women and children, while women care for themselves and children. It does not work in reverse. Men expecting women to empathize with their plight are just as foolish as parents expecting children to empathize with them and "do the right thing" simply because it is the right thing to do. Both will be waiting for a loooooong time before nature re-orders itself in such a way. Appealing to women's sense of justice, or arguing with women by use of logic, is a fool's errand for women aren't creatures of logic in the first place, but rather are creatures of emotion and self-fueled narcissism.
  
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.

-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Relations between the sexes were originally set up as an economic contract whereby men and women both mutually benefited from interacting with each-other in lifelong marriage. Granted, in almost every situation one can find, women benefited far more than men, but this is the nature of human relations. It has always been a 60/40 deal in favour of women, but the difference between the "bad old days" of yesterday's patriarchy and our modern embracing of matriarchy is that the culture used to have a “carrot and stick” approach – if you were a good beta provider you got 1) sex, 2) family stability and intimacy, 3) children you could pretty well count on being your own, and 4) social respectability.

Then women and the culture said, “To hell with the carrot, gimme two sticks!” and figured they could keep browbeating men into living up to their old roles while at the same time browbeating men for living up to those roles. Since the advent of marital rape laws, there is no longer an expectation of "sexual relations" within marriage. Family stability has been eroded by the divorce culture which ultimately was born out of transferring presumed custody of children from the father to the mother back in the 19th Century. We are told today that "all children are legitimate" and in fact, men are forced by law to support children that women have cuckolded them with. And finally, the social respectability of being a family man has been completely undermined by a culture that portrays fathers as buffoons whose wives and children have to constantly tolerate their endless social blunders and ineptness in handling all things about them. Yet, somehow, women's illogical brains still seem to think that men will continue to live up to their old roles and "man up" to keep women happy and floating in money and trinkets. Women don't understand The Law of Cause and Effect very well.

Giving Women the Husbands They Deserve: None

As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, MGTOW is not so much of a "movement" as it is a cultural and philosophical observation of how men are responding to the society which surrounds them. Men are not herd creatures like women. They do not band together and beg for sympathy as women do. Men are far more individualistic than women and they are also far more adaptable. And this is what men are doing - they are adapting to the changes in our culture. Several distinct strategies have emerged for men which they choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace, quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining, pissing and moaning, he becomes a Ghost. If he wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife. In other words, as far as our culture goes, men are "going their own way" whether we like it or not. There are millions of "wildcat strikes of one" in which men are acting upon their own individual, adaptive choices. These numerous individual choices eventually culminate themselves into a "movement" that can't really be defined as a "movement" but certainly does have an impact upon the situation of larger society.

Men have tons of options today and really don’t need the government to do squat for them. Meanwhile, the women who have “won” the gender war and now have “A Woman’s Nation” are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage – in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.

Appeals to women's sense of justice and pleas for sympathy continually fall upon the deaf ears of women, for women only have empathy for themselves and their children. Women will not change this until the situation impacts them directly. The battle between the female principle and the male principle always works in this manner - it is like the Yin and the Yang - one overtakes the other until the other overtakes the first again. The male principle is responding to the excesses of the female principle, and it is doing so in its uniquely male way - the opposite of the female herding instinct - by being individuals who take action, or sometimes non-action, and doing what serves men the best in the situation they are presented with. Sure, sure. This cannot go on forever, as if men and women fail to get together and create future men and women, the human race will not go on. But you know what? It is not solely men's problem. Women are complicit in our society's social structuring and when men's withdrawal from our historical role begins to impact women directly, they will change things to re-empower men so fast that there won't be any way to stop them... of course, they will blame men for it along the way - it is what women have always done.

We live in a false sexual economy that is propped up by excessive government interference. Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. Once the government can no longer adequately provide for them - as is fast becoming the case as our Boomer-topian cultures financially struggle to keep from collapsing under the weight of female inspired socialism - women will turn on a dime and insist that men live up to roles that suit women's purposes again - and they will take away the two sticks and provide a carrot again if it so suits their purposes, not men's. However, the carrot will likely have to be presented amidst a delicious stew with beef, onions and other tasty morsels in order for men to willingly don the yoke of "patriarchy" again. Until women come around to this conclusion, and devise their own plan for enticing us back, men should let them change their own damn oil and continue to follow the male principle by Going Their Own Way.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Very Few Women Are Capable Of Empathizing With Men

.
Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults.

This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to "explain things" to women. Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

Esther Villar says about the same thing, over and over again, in her book "The Manipulated Man."

What men don't "get" is that we (men) are a "business" to women. The attention women can get from men is their survival tactic. It does not mesh with the male survival drive, which is "go get" or "go create." Sadly, we men have a hard time understanding that women rarely have the same desires as we do.

Women are designed by nature to look "yummy" to us so that we will give of ourselves to women. This is nature. It is not nature for it to occur the other way around. It works the same way as with women and children. Children will rarely care for the mother the way that the mother will care for the child. Children are not designed to empathize with mothers in the same way that mothers are designed to empathize with their children.

Women will never "care" about men in the same way that men "care" about the wellbeing of women. It has always been women who have walked out on men more than the other way around... it has always been women that have been more opposed to adultery laws than men... the 10% of children are the result of cuckolding is supposedly a fairly consistent stat over time/history/populations.

We are designed like this by nature, and men who are sitting around and waiting for women to smarten up and show men the proper amount of empathy/sympathy are being no more intelligent than a mother sitting down and crossing her arms until her children show a reciprocal amount of empathy for her... both will be sitting there for a looooong time.

You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to "protect them" etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work... when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, "We had to get Joe a new truck... because the last one wasn't safe and we don't know what we would do if something happened to him."

That's the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be. Men are a tool to women... a "business." And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don't cry don't get milk... and women who don't get attention don't get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.

Women do control society's values and mores... they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.

Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's wants are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit.

This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.

It's the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same. It's not going to change. These are the types of factors that have to be taken into account every time someone starts advocating for "change" or even worse, "equality." (GAK!)

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Further Reading: 

Who Is More Empathic; Men or Women -- by Angry Harry

Empathy -- The Rational Male