Rob For Prime Minister

There’s one thing that I just can’t understand about Canuckistan politics. Why do all of the political parties compete for attention on the exact same issues? I just don’t get it. There must be a stupid magnet hidden in the Parliament Building that attracts all the idiots into politics.

Take the new Green Party for example. These guys are a just a small peanut of a party, I believe that they only got around 2% of the vote in the last election. I watched an interview on the TV once where the party leader was discussing his plans to take some of the gobs of tax dollars we spend on healthcare and cancer research and instead put some of this money into preventing cancers. Since he claimed that 50% of cancers are preventable, and given the numbers that he presented, this makes perfectly good sense because it would lower the amount money we have to spend on healthcare – and ultimately free up more resources overall, which of course could be used for research. Get it? No matter, it’s not really want I to write about.

Anyhow, I decided to surf on over to the Green Party’s website and check out this healthcare plan of theirs a little closer, and possibly consider giving them my vote the next time we have an election. And, gentlemen, you get one guess for what I found when I clicked the link to “healthcare.”

You guessed it, pick up your cigar at the front desk! Yup, the Green Party stated how committed they were to Women’s Health Issues and increasingly blah, blah, blah… that’s when I clicked the back button. You lost my vote, you filthy mangina SOB’s. They are just like all the rest; they can not stop pumping out the femi-filth.

Now gentleman, there is a level of criminality in this that WILL get addressed one day. We all know that women outlive men by 5 to 6 years. We all know that men die more than women from all of the top 10 fatal diseases. We all know already that women use up far more tax funded healthcare dollars than men. We all know this, and so does the government and those running for office. If they don’t know, it should be a crime that such stupid people get to run the country. They will get their come-uppins, whether the angry mob decides it is a rope or a cell is not for me to decide. I personally don’t advocate for any violence. (Got that, you femihags that are reading this whilst already dialling 911).

But here’s the point I would like to make: We have a multi party government system. In Canada we have the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Treasonous Frog Party (Block Quebecois), the NDP – and now the Green Party. It is very easy for a minority government to get elected into office, with say 35% of the popular vote. This has happened in the last two elections, and of course many times throughout history. Lol, what a screwed up situation would it be for the winds to blow juuuuuussst right and have the Treasonous Frog Party become the sitting government – given Quebec’s population, it could happen! The Prime Minister of Canada would be someone who campaigned on tearing the country apart – How screwed up is that?

But what I really don’t understand is how the Green Party could be so stupid to campaign on the same platform as all the other parties. Only the Treasonous Frogs are smart enough to say something totally different, and believe me, it pains me to say that smartest people in the country come from Quebec. But the Green Party? Noooo…. No signs of intelligence there. With 2% of the popular vote they figure they will gain voter popularity by spouting the same filth as the other 3 mangina parties… “We are committed to Women’s Health… We are committed to Women’s Rights… We must do something about women still only getting $0.76 to every $1.00 a man earns.” (That’s right, you treasonous lying manginas in the government, some of us are watching. What color paint would you like for your jail cell? Propaganda for the purposes of creating discriminatory actions against people because of the very nature of their birth is a Hate Crime and you should check the books and see how it can be punished. You filthy manginas!)

Therefore Gentlemen (women, you can ignore this, I don’t want your vote),

I would like to announce that I, Rob Fedders, am going to run for Prime Minister of Canada!

Lol! And I would like to announce that I am committed to furthering women’s healthcare! – NOT!

Nope, screw that nonsense. I figure that I should campaign on the three-fold platform of tax-subsidized lowering of NHL Seasons Passes, a free case of beer a week for every male in the country – ice cold and hand delivered to his door on Saturday night, just before Hockey Night in Canada begins, AND a one time coupon for a free 42” Plasma Screen TV for all the men in Canada! Yes, that’s right folks! Sounds good, doesn’t it?

I won’t even raise taxes!

I’ll just cut all the funding to the treasonous government agency called Status of Women (SOW – snort, snort) and redirect it into my new program. Perhaps I’ll name it the “Status of Weekend Beer and Sports Entertainment Agency.” I’ll also cut all funding to all DV Shelters in Canada, cause lets face it men, what do you care more about? You having a case of beer while you watch hockey on your new TV, or that your little entitlement princess has a place to run to for information on how to screw you out of your home and into a prison? Yup, the TV’s will be expensive, but don’t forget, there are lots of DV Shelters and other DV related offices sitting on pretty choice pieces of real estate around the country and they should fetch a pretty penny.

Now, we often talk about DV being an industry that the government can’t afford to get rid of because of the effects to the economy. Well… yup, you guessed it… Prime Minister Rob, fearless leader, has a plan for that too! Who do you think should be delivering you that case of beer every weekend? I will even provide them with Government Issue uniforms: a T-shirt that says “I’m Sorry!”

Well Gentlemen, what do you say? I might get into power with around 30% of the votes and men definitely have the numbers for that. Yes, if 4 can buy gender specific votes (I’ll give the frogs a pass here), then so can 5 buy gender specific votes!

Can I have your vote?

Rob for Prime Minister!

One Man's Kingdom

.
QUOTE: “The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.”

I would argue that the sudden and total collapsing of love, as it is presented to men, is evidence of its illusion.

Children are raised on it, women can expect it their whole lives in a watered down sense, but men lose all right to it as they come of age. Unfortunately, in the West, no-one ever tells them that this is their heritage as men. They have to learn it the hard way, or go mad refusing to learn it at all.

Other cultures, particularly those closer to nature, had rites of passage for young men. The rite usually involved sending the stripling out in the wild, on his own. He would be exposed to danger, expected to survive on his own, and could expect no assistance. It was a symbolic, and real, exercise to let him know that he was no longer the dependent he once was. Young women were never subjected to the same. They belonged to the community, no matter their age, their fertility or their ability.

It is a feature of all men who go wild at women and take it out on innocents, as well as their former intimates, that they are still sold on the love illusion – they are men that fervently believe they deserve a place in the bosom of society. The trick is maintained for its utility in deceiving men into social contracts that are counter to their own interests.

It’s the same the world over. Every deal won by trickery has a higher harvest of woe than that done with all cards on the table and intentions plainly stated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a couple of small lakes not far from where I live. One is purple to look at, the other is orange. Apparently the difference is due to a tiny presence of minerals – a little of one element in the purple lake, and a little of another in the orange one.

If you were to take a glass of water out of each of them, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. They taste the same and look the same. A simple laboratory analysis wouldn’t be able to distinguish them – only an advanced lab that can detect minute mineral presence and measure it accurately would be able to correctly identify which glass of water came from which lake.

Yet the human eye can spot the difference easily – but only in aggregate. At the microscopic level, rather than the macroscopic, the difference is beyond human detection.

The difference between men and women is also impossible to define in terms of easily spotted differences between individuals. The differences between the sexes is too easily obscured by simple personality differences. It is only when you look at humanity in aggregate that the difference between the sexes is at all obvious. And it is striking.

This is why feminists can say things like “gender is a social construct” and get away with it. Individuals can easily be made to appear similar, regardless of sex. The thing is though, “similar” is not “the same”. Often very significant differences cannot be seen unless one steps back from the microscopic view and looks again from the macroscopic. It is only then that the difference is glaring.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE: "Turn your back on it all, accept the Truth, and Go Your Own Way."

I’m convinced this is the only way to effectively counter the nonsense. It is leading by example.

The real value to me in following MRA/MGTOW sites is that they are the only places where I get to read intelligent men talking about things that matter without the media/academic gag firmly in its usual place. For that alone I value it highly, even if one has to read through a lot of dross to find a few pearls – at least those pearls are there to be found.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE: "I’m convinced this is the only way to effectively counter the nonsense. It is leading by example."

The thing is, if men leave the building, women will follow. And if men keep walking, women will figure out a way to make some sort of association with men again that is agreeable.

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.

It doesn’t even have to get to the level of physical performance. Women’s mental character does not seek independence itself.

You can see this when women get divorced. I can, on many levels, understand why women would seek independence from marriage – from a male point of view, we understand it – but that’s not what they are doing. They divorce their current husband, and in 99% of cases, already have another waiting in the wings. Usually, in a very short time, the woman is back into a long-term relationship again where she is once again following the dominant lead of a male. Independence never existed.

Schopenhauer points this out too: ” That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.”

The Buddhist philosopher Nichiren said it as well, but slightly differently. There are three phases women go through in life, and in each she attaches herself to a man – in the sense that the man is her “tool” for her own purposes in society – the first is her father when she is young, then her husband during most of her life, and finally to her sons when she is old. And I can certainly attest to the last since my father died. It is now me who she comes to for authority since she is without husband.

Furthermore, one also has to realize that women were complicit in creating “Patriarchy.” As we’ve often pointed out, “patriarchy” is merely another form of matriarchy, because even Patriarchy is ultimately for the benefit of women, not men. Women “are” society. Men are on the outside of society. “The herd” is what society is, not the males on the outside trying to seek approval to get back in (which they will never be allowed). Men might have controlled the laws in the past, but women have always controlled society’s social mores. If women don’t approve, society doesn’t approve, because women are society. Men are on the outside looking in.

If men walk away, women will follow. And if we keep walking, they will keep trying to entice us back. And if we still keep walking, they will try even harder until eventually women themselves will make it so that “it” works. Patriarchy only existed because women endorsed it themselves and were complicit in creating the social mores that made it work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE: "Women “are” society. Men are on the outside of society."

And it is man’s place at the periphery that is our natural home.

While we concern ourselves with laws, government and social mores, we are intruding upon women’s space and women’s affairs – we are auditioning for their approval as – nominally at least – their masters (though it is clear on closer examination that all men in such positions are actually women’s servants, be they politicians, priests or husbands).

On the other hand, when a man realizes he is alone in the world, and dependent on nothing but his reason, his physical strength and his resolve, his attitude changes. His immediacy to the Absolute could not be clearer. The thing the free man most craves – his own sovereignty – is at its closest to being realized. It is this state that I refer to as "One Man's Kingdom."

When I say that I am convinced going my own way is the most effective way to counter the nonsense, it is not because I believe it will have any material effect on ‘society’ – it is the effect it has on the man himself that is undeniable. It is like turning off the television and no longer reading the newspapers (which are portals into society, or women’s influence). The calming effect is near immediate. The more one works at it, dealing almost solely with Nature, one’s own material needs and whatever other problems that concern only the individual – and disengaging from ‘society’ in as many ways as possible – it is surprising how readily, and how happily, the submerged male psyche rises to the challenge.

Also surprising is how one develops a keener appreciation of company when one gets the chance, even though it can easily be lived without.

At the end of the day, society will always be there and always be unconcerned with the welfare of men. Like women who cannot embrace true independence, many men also shy away from it, exhausting themselves knocking on the door of women’s world trying to gain admission, never stopping to look about them and say “it’s actually not so bad out here by myself”.

The world would of course change if a lot of men started doing this, but I have no interest in something as abstract as ‘the world’. I am far more interested in the small world I live in, and how I can adapt to it, and prosper in it. But I am alone in it always. Not being a woman, that actually makes me feel more alive.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Work With The World, Don't Fight Against It

.
Something I think men will have to come to terms with is that when the pendulum inevitably swings back, what actual benefit do men think this will have for them? Will it bring that fabled equality everyone is seeking? Will everyone join hands and sing kumbaya and live happily ever after? Will the planets align and Heaven on Earth make itself apparent to man and woman alike?

Not likely.

For example, Angry Harry has often pointed out that when feminists cry of the abuses of women in places like Afghanistan, if you look at the men, they are treated even worse. And, if you look at the “abuses” women endured in the past centuries, you will find that in every situation, men had even worse abuses to endure. It is a feature of human nature. It is just like no matter at what place, or in what time, children are always treated better than adults – it’s just the way humanity works.
.
So, after Feminism subsides, how will things change? Do you really think it will be any different? Women will still be treated better than men. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will be until closing time.
.
This is why it is so dangerous to have the MM try to set up things like lobby groups and government bureaucracies to oversee the welfare of men and boys. It is so open ended, and because of the very nature of humanity, means they could perpetually justify their existence until it becomes just another oppressive, statist organization that harms everyone but themselves. It’s so freakin’ open ended and fights a never-ending battle against nature that how could it not be a disaster? If I start a lobby group to “stop the tide” I will forever be able to show the demand for my group is real, because the battle is still not won. See, here comes the tide again. Gimme more power to fight it!
.
Far better, if you must support some organization, that they have a clear mission statement and acknowledge they will disband after achieving their goal. (Ie. Fighting to remove Bill C-79 from the legislature).
.
But then, what are the actual goals that men want?
.
No matter what happens, compared to women, men will still be treated as “lesser” than females. That is simply a feature of human nature that can’t be changed no matter how many laws are made or discarded, nor how many lobby groups are formed to fight the tides.
.
Accepting this as true does not mean admitting defeat. It means working with the way the world IS, rather than fighting against it. It does not mean men cannot try to create or remove laws which make their lives better – but no matter what happens, at the end of it all, men will still be treated relatively worse than the females in society are.

The Serenity Prayer comes to mind here:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

Related:

The Personal

Philalethes #15 - Women Are Out of Control in Our Culture

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Rape

WMG's (Weapons of Mass Governments = Western Matriarchal Governments)

.
Yup, take a look at that picture and burn it into your mind, folks. That is the stance our western governments have taken on our future. The only thing missing is a big, hairy feminist giving it to the ostrich with a strap-on dildo.

Thanks to feminism being the dominating theme of our governments we have a future that IS certain!

We are certain to face a massive economic crunch and subsequent anarchy, ending society as we know it. For 40 years our governments have been allowing the killing of unborn babies - to the tune of over 40 Million now! Feminism has encouraged women to place career over family, resulting in a birthrate that is nowhere near the 2.1 children per woman minimum that is needed to only maintain a population, let alone grow one. Men are so disgusted with the prospects of being ass raped by a suddenly feminist divorcing wife that they are fleeing from marriage and choosing to remain single in ever greater numbers, damaging the birthrate even more.

The Baby Boom Generation who created this evil mess is salivating over their upcoming retirement and looking forward to tapping into the socialist government pension and healthcare plans, believing falsely that they deserve to be fully cared for by the wonderfully enlightened society they created. These folks are walking proof that taking acid in the 60's caused long term brain damage.

Feminist ideology in government has slammed through sheer stupidity in our capitalist economy. Positive discrimination forcing productive men out of the way to make a position for a woman, a year off with pay to squat and drop a baby is commonplace, "flexi" time work schedules are being implemented for women in the workplace so we don't lose out on their "valuable contribution" and there is talk of government sponsored daycare as the be all and end all of solutions. Yes, yes, we must make the workplace friendly for women because their contribution is very valuable. Of course, one thing that you'll never hear a feminist talk about in regard to women's contribution to the workplace is profit. And god help you if you don’t have enough of these enlightened non-profit entitlement goddesses working for you because that will mean an automatic ass raping for discrimination by the feminist biased courts. They’ll ass rape you into bankruptcy if you don’t hire enough of these monetary black holes.

I watched an interview on the news a while back with a couple of femihags talking about their push to make even parliament more woman friendly so more women can cotton to the idea of being the Prime Minister of the country while also juggling quality time with their families.

De de, d de dee… And now for a News Flash: You have no free time when you run a country – the country demands your full attention 24/7, get it?

Of course, as I believe Angry Harry argued, if we demand that women should make 50% of all MP’s to best reflect the population then we should also make sure that 50% of MP’s are below average intelligence, for accurately 50% of the population IS below average. Hmmm… you know, it seems by implementing 50% femihag MP’s they would at the same time ensure that 50% of MP’s ARE below average intelligence. Well, I’ll be damned, those women are good at multi-tasking!

So, what does this all mean, all these tidbits I’ve mentioned?

Well, it means that a tremendous amount of people (retiring Babyboomers), are going to bring a massive draw on our country’s social welfare system and because of our ever dwindling population, there will be less and less productive workers who are working in a less and less efficient economy who will be forced to finance it.

We already pay around 50% of our income to taxes, either directly or indirectly, and this is when our population is still barely hanging on to a balance between producers and social welfare parasites. And this has only been accomplished by taking in immigrants from abroad to bolster up our population as a result of the low birthrate. And the birthrate continues to dwindle!

When we get to the point that one worker has to support one parasite, do you think we will still be paying only 50% to tax? We will essentially become communist because we will have to pay it ALL in tax to support this system – and our society will have disappeared.

Another option is bring in massive amounts of immigrants to continue to offset the failing birthrate, and you better not be thinking immigrants from a similar western nation, for their birthrates are in as dire of straits as ours. This leaves the developing world’s population, who don’t share our history nor even our language – and our society will have disappeared.

The third option is to go back to the way we were before feminism. Bring back fault divorce and take away the outrageousness of feminism’s destructive past. Boot the women out of the workplace and back into the home where they can become babymaking machines so that in 20 years time we have a fresh crop of nationals to rejuvenate our economy. However, you and I both know that our entitlement princesses will never give anything up. They won’t give anything up until the economy has finished its death rattle and has not one last penny to even fund a woman-only focus group to discuss their feelings about what went wrong. If we were to follow this route, we would have to do it soon, like in the next year or two, and we all know that even though this is truly the only way to save our society and culture, there is just no way that the femihags will let this happen.

So there it is. The west is fucked.

And…good riddance to it! I am only 35 years old and my whole life I have heard nothing but vile puke spit forth at me that I am a rapist, an abuser, a chauvinist and 100 other things all because of my gender at birth. I once put in a lot of effort to be politically correct and not offend any woman’s rights, but I really can’t think of any time when a woman ever stood up for my rights. Society has hated me and my gender for so long that I am now becoming comfortable with the idea of myself becoming a misogynist, something I never thought would happen. But tell me, all you sociology/womyn’s studies majors, tell me again about self fulfilling prophecies.

Let society rot. It betrayed us and does not deserve our concern. Let the women have it and show the world the power of pink! I hope many men decide to abandon society and contribute to it with as little effort and taxes as they can. A society that holds men in contempt does not deserve men’s loyalty. Yup, all the ladies in their cush cubicles, working 10 to 3:30 can figure out how to run a garbage truck and how to get coal out of the earth. I mean they get paid like they can do it, so go do it! With men bailing out on society, it will rot even faster.

But, as is always the case, from rot and decay grows new life. Regeneration if you will. When society gets so bogged down with femicrap that the suffocation becomes unbearable, it will be the women that suffer the most. As for me, you will never find me selling apples on some street corner nor living in a Hooverville. I will head into the bush and build a log cabin on the side of some remote lake. I will hunt and raise a garden. I will go into my warm cabin at night and cook me up a humungous moose steak. Afterwards I will retire to my warm bed and jerk off to the thought that all the femihags who berated me for a lifetime are now crowded around a burning barrel in the modern version of a Hooverville, a Dworkinville.

.

And I’ll bet you that if some woman living in a Dworkinville hears about this guy who is living out in the bush in a warm cabin and eats monster huge moose steak every night, well I expect that she will show up on my doorstep. I’m pretty sure that she will be willing to recant her feminist crap ways and be pretty willing to cook and scrub and clean to win my favour. I’ll bet she will even agree to let me be the unchallenged head of the household!

The question is: should I care?

No Ma'am Is A Proud Supporter Of The Marriage Strike

Peer Reviewed Research - the Holy Grail of Truth?

.
I must condemn the rationality of searching for "peer reviewed" research in order to make a theory "real". While all the educated elites consider "peer reviewed" research the holy grail of irrefutable truth... I must beg to differ with anyone who cites "truths" by this criteria.

Academia is one of the pillars of deception which we as men are battling. We acknowledge here everyday about the extreme politicization of our universities and how all dissenting views are squashed through heavy handed, totalitarian tactics. (Here is a good example: Lynched by the Sisterhood by Jeffrey Archer). I cannot understand how we can be expected to chase after our own tails by encouraging the belief that the only refutation or confirmation of a theory or idea is peer reviewed research. The three pillars we battle are government, media and academia. Let's make no mistake about it, government and media are "justified" via academia's peer reviewed research. To imply that everything is questionable until it can be backed up by peer reviewed research is completely insane to our cause because academia no longer encourages the free thinking that lends credibility to peer reviewed research! We may as well be living in Nazi Germany and asking a Jew to prove he is discriminated against by using Nazi Reviewed Research. Commonsense, mankind's natural curiosity, desire for the truth, reason and rationality should always trump peer reviewed research.

There is really only one example that needs to be given for why "peer reviewed research" has absolutely zero credibility in the issues of which we speak and write of.

The fundamental basis of feminism is that "gender is a social construct;" that we are based upon "tabula rasa," the Latin for "blank slate." It is upon this foundation that all else of feminism's ideology and victimology is based upon. Since we are essentially the same, the only reason that women did not figure prominently in history, or science, or music, or philosophy, or pretty much anything else is because of the innate evil and misogynistic nature of men (which already refutes tabula rasa in itself). Therefore, women are institutionally discriminated against by the very fabric of civilization and society itself, thus affirmative action and breaking down gender barriers is completely justified.

However, walking across the hall in our ivory towered institutions, we can attend courses in Queer Theory, where the fundamental basis for it all is that homosexuality is a normal, biological condition - that gays are "born that way," which is 100% the opposite of feminism's fundamental premise of "gender is a social construct." Queer Theory argues that their LGBT "gender" is natural and biologically based, therefore, they are discriminated against by virtue of their birth, and suffer socially and in numerous other ways because of something over which they had no ability to control.

Take your pick. If you support gay rights you are a cretin of a misogynist - a sexist, really, for believing that the sexes are different by virtue of their birth. However, if you support women's rights and equality based upon the blank slate, you are a homophobe (a hate-crime in Canada), because then you believe that gays could be "cured" of their homosexuality through laws, social conditioning, and whatnot else that feminism has been pushing on us. Namely, that we can break down gender barriers and make everyone the same, which includes gays. 

These two positions are 100% completely and irrefutably in direct opposition of each other. This is just simple common-sense. You cannot be walking east and west simultaneously. Yet, both Women's Studies and Queer Theory have panels of academics judging whether the studies each puts out are "the Truth." In other words, they are both peer-reviewed and found to be satisfactorily representing the truth. Well, the truth cannot possibly be the same for both of them, so at minimum one of them must be completely wrong.     

Therefore, our universities are knowingly and willingly promoting falsehoods, and simply should not be trusted as reputable sources of "Truth."

And I don't need a peer-reviewed study to prove it, do I?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal study on this?"

A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports. Despite this scientific evidence, the prevalence of smoking in elite athletes is actually many times lower than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear; however, there has been little to no effort made on the part of national governing bodies to encourage smoking among athletes." – PLOS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that Albert Einstein did much of the groundwork for the Theory of Relativity not while at a university, but rather while working at a patent office? He also got mediocre grades when he was in school.

Did you know that neither of the Wright Brothers graduated from high-school? Yet, they proved all of the academics of the day's "lift equation" to be, obviously, wrong. They also both never married. Smart men indeed!

Did you know that Thomas Edison was considered to have an "addled" brain because his mind wandered while in school? He likely would have been given Ritalin today. He was pulled out of formal schooling after three months and taught by his mother at home.

Did you know that Louis Pasteur was ridiculed by the medical community for his "Germ Theory" and suggesting that surgeons should wash their hands before cutting people open?

Did you know that the cure to scurvy was discovered in the early 1600's by Samuel de Champlain, when his ship was ice-locked for the winter and Indians brought the crew pine-needle tea which was rich in Vitamin C? When he told of "the cure" back in Europe, he was scoffed at by the intelligentsia for a cure from "savages." In 1753, James Lind first proved citrus could cure the disease through experiments he described in his book, A Treatise in the Scurvy, although, even then it took several decades for people to believe him and implement the use of citrus on ships. In fact, there were still a variety of other techniques the "intelligentsia" believed to be correct instead of Vitamin C, causing people to suffer and die from scurvy right through World War One and beyond, until it was definitively proven to be a vitamin C deficiency in 1932. 

Did you know that in the past, before we had universities, the intelligentsia were mostly to be found in religious institutions such as the church or its monasteries? When we talk of the religious persecution of those such as Galileo, it is just as fair to claim the intelligentsia persecuted him (and other discoverers) as it is to claim religion did. In fact, you can see this phenomenon everywhere. Rarely does the intelligentsia discover anything or even really "do" anything except for defend their position, while adding little of significance to it, which real mavericks already paved the way for.

Academics have a vested interest in telling everyone that which they have learned is 100% correct, and discrediting all those opposed to them. After all, they tend to look really stupid when grade eight drop-outs demolish their beliefs after they've spent a decade of time, tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, and a lifetime of building a social reputation based on academic "achievements" which really, someone else achieved, and they only parrot and teach.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“‘This is not to be wondered at,’ said Goethe; ‘such people continue in error because they are indebted to it for their existence. They would have to learn everything over again, and that would be very inconvenient.

“‘But,’ said I, ‘how can their experiments prove the truth when the basis for their evaluation is false?’

“‘They do not prove the truth,’ said Goethe, ‘nor is such the intention; the only point with these professors is to prove their own opinion. On this account, they conceal all experiments that would reveal the truth and show their doctrine untenable. Then the scholars — what do they care for truth? They, like the rest, are perfectly satisfied if they can prate away empirically; that is the whole matter.’”-- quoted from Johann Peter Eckermann’s conversation with Goethe, Feb. 1, 1827.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her. Indeed it would be strange if they were: a persevering devotion to truth, a nice sense of intellectual honour, cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment which Gaius and Titius could debunk as easily as any other. It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so. ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Obituary: Robert Fedders, age nine, of the World Wide Web, died on July 30, 2013

Robert “Rob” Fedders was born to the figment of an anonymous writer’s imagination in 2004. In 2006 Rob graduated from The School of Hard Knocks and within a few months started the No Ma’am blog, where he resided for the rest of his online life.
.

Rob was cornered by a herd of brides demanding that he man-up and oppress one of them with matrimonial bliss, but he would have none of it. In a series of moves he seen in a Jackie Chan film, Rob ran up a brick wall and did a back-flip over the long, bony, grasping fingers of the gaggle of bridezillas. Landing on the other side of the desperate mob, he took off like a gazelle, running as fast as he could to save his mortal soul from the slavery which the brides wished to inflict upon him.

.

.

The herd of brides, horny as hell to get a piece of his incredibly cute ass, immediately gave chase. Bystanders reported Rob yelling, “You women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland” before veering hard to the right and running pell-mell towards the Cliffs of Insanity. Rob glanced back and seen the brides were ready to pounce... he looked to the cliff, then back to the brides, and to the cliff again where he spotted a vine dangling over the edge. “If it’s not right, go your own way,” he said as he grabbed the vine and began shinnying down the cliff, away from the clutches of the middle-aged princesses who had now started chanting, “We want it all! We want it all!”  
.

“Phew, that was close!” he said.
.

.
Rob then looked down and saw that upon the jagged rocks below was a minister holding a Bible, imploring him to “stop acting like Peter Pan and marry one of them sluts!” He looked back up and saw the herd of brides, now baring their life-sucking fangs while drooling at the sight of this succulent piece of husband-meat. Just then a mangina and a white knight appeared out of a hole in the side of the cliff and began chewing on the vine. The mangina, in between chews, looked at Rob with his dark, beady little eyes and said, “I am a lawyer, and I am going to drag you through the courts to make you pay for these women one way or the other.” Then the white knight turned his bright red albino eyes upon Rob and declared, "I am a politician. I will pass laws that will ruin your life if you don’t keep them happy, and don’t think you can just run to a foreign country because I’ve already helped to pass IMBRA laws which prevent that!”
.

What to do?
.

Rob looked to the cliff and saw a big, tasty, ham & cheese on rye sandwich just sitting there on a ledge that was within arms reach. He grabbed it and ate it. “Ah, it is so delicious.”
.

Then, with all the might he could muster, Rob pushed off the cliff with his feet and let go of the vine.
.

“FREEDOM!” he bellowed, and plummeted to the rocks below.
.

.
It was a good death.  
.
It's better to burn out than fade away!
.

He is survived by no-one as he was a free man who never married and had no children.
.
In Rob's last will and testament he requested that in lieu of flowers, you give women the husbands they deserve: None!
.

Rest In Peace, Rob.
.

Misogyny

.
“For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals.” – Henry James

Many people who read the following pages within The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!"

Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults.

I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, I found myself with free time on my hands while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally, my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the chemo and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now about nine years into my studies on this subject. 

“It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex.” – O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907)

There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That.

The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation. Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories, he discovers that they have had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions. 

Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion - one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more that women will fall from the pedestal they have traditionally been placed upon by men. It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing grizzly bears are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate grizzly bears. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly. 

Misogyny versus Misandry

Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess.

But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturally misogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and by extension that therefore 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women? Really?

None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgeon of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there! 
.

.
A few years back, Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Driscoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or were almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women surveyed were resentful or were almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful towards women. 

Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared to look.

It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for women. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you?

"In fact, everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. This goes down to the level of plants which have "male" and "female" parts.
.
The ripening of an egg, or ovum, is a time and energy intensive job, so the male is designed to be ready to fertilize that ovum when the female notifies him that she is "ready."
.
In the rest of the natural world, females announce their readiness to the entire world with a variety of cues - smell being the most significant, but visual cues come in a close second.
.
When a female chimpanzee is in estrus, her genitals swell up and become a SPECIFIC shade of bright pink. Jane Goodall observed one such female whose genitals could be seen from across a valley - nearly a mile or 2 away.

There is a species of fish in which the belly of the female turns a particular shade of red when she is gravid. A block of wood with the lower half painted that exact shade of red will drive males into a mating frenzy.
.
Smell is even more important. There are MANY species in which a female in heat gives off pheromones which are specific to that species which can be picked up by males as much as 5 miles away."

One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do, or are unwilling to do, themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female. 

And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get over-run and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, because the male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the mutation in her genetics which get further passed on through the species. Thus the male "evolves" and the female "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female.       

What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that men hold all the power in humans, rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all of the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us?
.  
Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History
.
A few months before I started up this blog back in 2006, I had pretty much walked away from the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) because I couldn't see anything they were saying that made sense. All they wanted was "equality" (which is not achievable) and they had dozens of little robots running around making sure that no-one generalized and most of all, making sure that no-one expressed even the slightest 'misogynist' thoughts. It was as brain-dead an experience as living your life in a kindergarten class. They certainly weren't seeking the Truth. So I left them to their political correctness and Went My Own Way. 
.
Soon after, I found myself reading a website about the legend of Atlantis. This was not a weird way out there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths & legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistocene, some 11,600 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or rising waters) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored quite a bit of the similarities between various religions and beliefs that existed around the globe. It was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in different ways after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them, while recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths, how would I go about this so it would last for them centuries into the future? Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion." 
.
Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them - and in fact, was embarrassed by it enough to offer an apology to those in the lecture hall. (See? If misogyny was innate to men, they wouldn't automatically apologize for that which someone else had said. They would just shrug it off and not care). Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities in the entire region that are referred to in Hebrew as feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female. 

There is also the story of Adam's first wife, Lilith. There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, while in the second, Adam was created first, with Eve being created later. In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lilith were equals, and as such she often challenged Adam's authority and always rebelled against him. She would even complain to him, during sex, that she had to lie beneath him, which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually, Lilith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind. When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam - from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over her, thus completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lilith had shared. 
.

. 
These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found the most striking out of the entire lecture were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that 'misogyny' in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And, apparently, no-one does. We just continue writing it off to men's innate, evil, misogynist nature - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny. And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is the other men who harbour misogynistic attitudes towards women, we also believe that our modern enlightened selves are better than those other misogynistic men who existed in the past.   

But, what do you do when Greece and then Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in human history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass on a silver platter, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." (In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time).

And look at what comes from Rome, but the same warning we find about Adam and Lillith's equality:

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "slut-walks" found in that link, by the way.)
.
I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's Law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the dowry would return to the wife's father, and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there, we find that in Rome they said "women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of starter marriages?). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives, because the men wanted nothing to do with them, and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state.

We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's Law through their inheritance laws: 

"And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin."
.  
We see the same thing, over and over again. In fact, written some eight decades ago, Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and during the rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse.   
. 
 I believe that one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are based in Absolute Truth.  They are further found in myths and legends because men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they passed it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors.  
.
“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)
.

.
After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazonian Women?

"There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth." -- Spinoza

And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?"

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female

What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them - much like how companies like Symantec, the producer of Norton AntiVirus (who produce terrible products anyways), will try to label any website speaking of these issues as a "hate" site. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female, is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.

Is the Truth Misogynist?

The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children.

The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth.

The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred.

The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry.

The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings.  

The Truth just is.

Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this: God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children.

This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning.

Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society.

If that makes me a misogynist, so be it. I feel no shame.

If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, then I stand with the Truth proudly.
.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

.

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970