A Woman's Right to Choose

"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"

.

Answer:

I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.

Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.

That is fourteen choices a woman has regarding her "right to choose."

A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.

And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”

This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.

I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.

What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.

Feminists are quite aware that most uninformed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.

When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.

What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay. Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.

But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”

In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman sold her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as payment for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's property.

In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.

But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?

So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.

Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”

So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joyriding.

Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.

But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.

Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.

Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.

Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:

Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.

Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.

Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!

You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.

But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"

Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.

Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.

But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?

It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!

And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.

What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.

If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.

But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.

So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.

And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).

But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.

So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?

If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility. (Although, the corrupt courts have been changing this too, and the move is on to make anonymous sperm donors financially liable for her offspring as well.)

A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?

“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.

“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.

“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.

Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?

Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they are toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?

Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”

It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.

What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?

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

Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:

Rant Against the CSA

Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman Who Decides to Have a Baby?

The Libellous David Futrelle

.

David Futrelle: Man of astounding intellect.

How To End Domestic Abuse

"[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?"

Answer:

Yes!

In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I don’t think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society.

I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence.

I’ll bet you think that I’m going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, don’t you?

Come on, admit it!

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think that’s the best way to end domestic abuse.

I believe the best way to “end” domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term “domestic abuse” from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts.

I’m serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to “end domestic violence,” to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to “solve it,” to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to “prevent it,” and yes, even to the multitudes of MRA’s who demand to be “included as victims of it,” have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine?

I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence!

Why, oh why am I paid so little?

Why do we have the term “domestic abuse” in the first place?

Weren’t there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term “domestic violence?”

Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I can’t find the law which says that it does, or ever did.

Were there laws on the books that granted “spousal immunity” in regard to general assault and battery laws?

Could you legally murder your spouse before the term “domestic abuse” was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status?

If someone were to, say, threaten to "pound something into my thick skull," can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not?

Wasn’t all of this covered already before the term “domestic abuse” became a household word at the behest of the feminists’ socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts?

We can end “domestic abuse” completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to.

Abracadabra!

Poof!

Gone!

I’ll send the government my bill.

And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia!

Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us?

Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems be completely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone.

Imagine a lobby group was formed to “end speeding” and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads.

It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of “zero tolerance” for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans.

But, some people are still speeding.

What to do, what to do?

Well, let’s give speeders points on their driver’s license which will increase their insurance premiums!

“Zooooooommmmm!!!” The sound reverberates in a rubber-necker’s ears.

“There out to be a law!” he exclaims, “Doooooo something!”

So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months.

But still, someone will speed, somewhere.

I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road… except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation.

And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable.

There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths.

And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives.

This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he can’t see what is all around him.

People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points.

The world will never be perfect.

Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state.

Marxists are evil idiots.

Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists.

Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children.

Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight law-abiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for “expert” advice.

Who do we ask?

We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster.

These kinds of people are our “experts.”

And, what do our “experts” recommend?

Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have “over-disciplined” their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking.

That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Can’t you tell? They now have three arms and green skin!

“Parents have been wrong for thousands of years," cries our Sapphic guru, “and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it!”

It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a “time out” is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins!

You see, our “intellectuals” have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%.

They believe they can prevent this:

By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:

Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for “the greater good,” but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics.

You see, 100% of the population at 50% capacity equals 50%.

But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%.

A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%.

Who’s telling who about “the greater good?”

Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula.

It’s time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed!

We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didn’t need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity.

And we certainly don’t need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more.

End the Abuse Industry NOW!

It’s the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse.

"Heaven on Earth" is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.

The Women's Vote Question

.
[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?

Answer:

I’m not sure that a person who believes Somalia is in the Balkans should have a say in who represents us in foreign affairs.

I’m serious.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that 51% of the people should have the ability to vote to take away the rights of the other 49%, but that is exactly the situation we find ourselves with in a system of Universal Democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." – Benjamin Franklin
.

.
I think that questions like “should X have the right to vote?” could be compared to a typical family:

Imagine four children and two parents.

Should everyone have an equal vote in this six person family?

Why or why not?

Aren’t they all equal human beings?

Why or why not?

I think most rational people would say the four children should not be allowed to “outvote” the two parents; yet, they still have the right to live in the family’s house and to sit at the family’s dinner table.

Don’t you agree?

Is there a situation where this should change? What if, say, the oldest two children go out and get jobs and start paying room and board?

Should that increase the “power” of their wishes?

Many people would say that it should, and I don’t disagree. But what if the two oldest children decide to “vote” to knock out all the walls in the basement so they have greater space to play floor hockey?

Should they have the “right” to do such a thing just because they have a vote?

I think most people would agree that just because the two older children now have a greater say, this in no way gives them the authority to break certain general rules.

And what if the two children who now pay room and board decide to “vote” that Mom and Dad should pool their monthly incomes with them and thus greatly increase the resources available to them? Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

Perhaps, the two children paying room and board might “vote” that Mom and Dad should purchase a second car for the kids to drive, or for an expensive swimming pool in the backyard. Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

I think most people would agree that low income people having the “right” to vote to take away the resources of high income people, and use those resources to benefit themselves (the low income people), is nothing more than legalized theft. Why should a low income person be entitled to steal the resources of the higher income person?

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he stopped along the way and gave of his own resources to help someone in need.

Would he have been a “Good” Samaritan if he had stopped you by gunpoint, stole your resources, and gave them to the needy? I think he would have been a Crap-Ass Samaritan. Don’t you?

And what if this Crap-Ass Samaritan ended up stealing so much of your resources that you no longer had enough left over to actually give anything of your own accord? I don’t think that is a good situation at all. Do you?

To answer the original question, "[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?", I don’t think that anyone should have the “right” to vote unless they can demonstrate they possess enough understanding of our country’s constitution and history, plus illustrate they have an adequate understanding of political science in addition to a basic general knowledge of both domestic and foreign affairs.

We make people take a test to ensure they are knowledgeable and responsible enough to drive a car. Don’t you think it would be equally wise to make people take a test before granting them the power to drive the country?

I do.

I also think we should be living in a country that adheres to the principles of a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are equally responsible to a system of “impartial rule of law” and where no man or woman is above the law. And I think that the leaders of this Constitutional Republic should be decided by a Limited Democracy.

A Universal Democracy, however, is a really, really bad idea and never leads to a good end.

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." – Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788

What most of the political correctoids fail to comprehend when they screech about “democracy” and women’s “right” to vote, is that our countries were not intended to have universal democracy – not for men or women. There are far too many people who believe Somalia is in the Balkans for that to have been a wise idea.

Even men did not have the vote for much longer than women. Oh sure, some men had the vote and held positions of power, but the vast majority did not. Most countries in the Western World began granting the “right” for landless men to vote during the mid-Nineteenth Century, anywhere from 50 to 60 years before it was granted to women. Men certainly did not have the vote for “thousands of years” before women.

The rise of the philosophies of Socialism began in earnest during the time frame of the mid-Nineteenth Century to the early Twentieth Century. It was also during this time frame that our Western countries changed from adhering to the principles of a Constitutional Republic to those of a Universal Democracy.

"Democracy is the road to Socialism." – Karl Marx

Yes indeed, Mr. Marx.

And it is interesting to note that a fairly good spattering of the Suffragettes were deeply involved with the Socialist Movement. One naturally wonders then if their demonstrations for democracy had more to do with the advancement of Socialism than it did with the issues of “women’s rights.”

In fact, one might say that a wise person who wishes to condemn that women did not have the vote for the approximate half century when only men did, would do well to at least examine the arguments of those who opposed women’s suffrage before attempting to speak with authority on the subject. Don’t you agree?

Should one undertake such a task, one would soon find that many of those who were opposed to women’s suffrage took such a stance out of concern for preserving the nature of the state. They were concerned about the changing of the principles of a republic into the principles associated with a democracy, and what affect women’s nature would have on this.

You see, it has long been known that women tend to choose collective security over individualism and freedom. This was well known in the past and it is still well known today. Sure, sure. Some men will choose security over freedom as well, but in general women choose collective security while men choose individual freedom.

Have a look at who the majority of women vote for today as opposed to men. In the USA, women overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party and its socialist principles of bigger government while men tend to be the majority of supporters of the Republican Party, which theoretically stands for smaller government and more individual freedom.

In fact, here is a study titled Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? -- by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny. It illustrates that since the advent of women’s suffrage in the early Twentieth Century, women have consistently voted for larger government and more Socialist policies.

Now, all political correctness aside, if it is shown that the women’s vote is slowly but surely changing our countries from places which enshrine the values of freedom into nations which do not allow for freedom, but rather enshrine the values of totalitarian Socialist government… do you think that people should have the right to discuss this phenomenon freely with out the shrill chirping of feminists and their mangina enablers in their ears?

I mean, you do believe in free speech, don’t you?

And oddly, free speech is actually a universal “right” which is laid forth in our constitutions while, curiously, the universal “right” to vote is not. Even a five year old has the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.

One might even go so far to suggest that a responsible citizen has a duty to point out that if we keep following down this road without creating some checks and balances, we soon will wind up with a form of government in which none of us has the ability to vote at all.

Political correctness coupled with intimidation from feminists and manginas does not change “facts,” and such people who believe that they have the “right” to vote for the destruction of the constitutions upon which our countries are founded, are in fact exercising a vote of treason.

People who would vote for treason, regardless of their sex, should not have the “right” to vote at all. Don’t you agree?

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ~Benjamin Franklin

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading:

Philalethes #11 – The End Results of Female Suffrage

Philalethes #18 – Opposed to Woman Suffrage?

Republic versus Democracy

The Balance of Power -- The Men's Tribune

The Tit Man - David Futrelle

Tit-man Update

The "Tit Man," David Futrelle, has taken up to refuting MRA arguments.

Good for him. Trying to suckhole up to the ladies like a wet rash stained with skunk smell.

"Hey David! You wouldn't have to lick their smelly rectums as a set aside for sex if you grew a pair and took charge!" -- RF

David is another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole. A true SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) in every dimension.

Reality is not so, Mr. Futrelle, it is not so.

You are anethema to female vaginal lubrication.

Hope you feel proud! You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets! Who needs such a thing when the West produces poofs like you?

Hopefully, this blog and your willingness to be a dancing jackass for the matriarchy will help me illustrate this - over time, of course. A suave man of your persuasion will take many moons to out-manoeuvre.

.

God, I miss Jackasses like Dave! A few years ago, the internet was rife with them, but alas, only a few years later, their numbers are dwindling... wtf?

Pleeeease debate me on... something!?! I've been waiting. Please Dave, you are picking on random commenters in the MRM only... wtf? Are you Chicken? Why don't you set your sights higher up and pick on me for a while?

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

.

Lol!

.

http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/quoteotd-david-futrelle-is-dancing.html

.

He's so cute!

.

.

God! Nobody from the fembot camp can form a good debate nowadays! Best to stick to totalitarianism then!

A Great Historical Outline of Cultural Marxism

Who Stole Our Culture? -- by William S. Lind

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

It didn't just "happen." In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism." It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.

To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of "political correctness."

Early Marxist Theory

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn't happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country's enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

A New Strategy

Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the "Prison Notebooks," were rediscovered.

Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" he instituted what he called "cultural terrorism." One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

Far from rallying to Lukacs' "cultural terrorism," the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a "Marxist Study Week" in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs' cultural perspective on Marxism.

The Frankfurt School

Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the "Institute for Marxism." But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the "Institute for Social Research." Soon known simply as the "Frankfurt School," the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question "Who stole our culture?" is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs' pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer's most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.

Advances in Cultural Marxism

With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.

Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.

Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

New Developments

Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.

Critical Theory

To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called ”Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.

Studies in Prejudice

The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."

Domination

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Through Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)

Media and Entertainment

Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought "commodified" culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin's view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon.

The Growth of Marxism in the United States

After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.

But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book "Eros and Civilization" used the Frankfurt School's crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only "liberate non-procreative eros" through "polymorphous perversity," we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. "Eros and Civilization" became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.

A Counter-Strategy

Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?

We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.

There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.

Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms' products. If Brave New World's motto is "Think globally, act locally," ours should be "Think locally, act locally."

Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions." Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the "inevitable forces of history" were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?

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

Further Reading:

Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray

Civil Unions and Shared Parenting

.
The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being that feminists entire raison d'être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct” and therefore women are discriminated against because the testicularly challenged are treated differently (while born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way, and thus should not be discriminated against. The two arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter the family unit and society into something completely new. Roosevelt, meet Stalin, yo new fwiend and ally!

Something very important in order to transform marriage then, is to make sure that the new models that come out are still called marriage. It would be much harder to transform the meaning of marriage with “civil unions,” if civil unions were not also called marriage.

How will they transform marriage and society this way? Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay's shoved their agenda into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling... does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully "transform" society in this way?

(***2013 Update: In March 2013, British Columbia's new Family Act went into effect. This law forces defacto marriage upon all common-law couples after two years. Further, the act allows for five parent "families." A sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate, and two homosexuals who adopt the child, can all be equal parents of the same child.)

(***Another 2013 Update: So the Slope Was Slippery After All) 

That’s why Gay Rights Activists are so adamant about it being called marriage. If it were called “civil unions” the Marxist plan to alter society dialectically falls flat on its face. Everything will stall at the civil union level, and once society accepts the term “civil union” and identifies it with Gay People, it will become monumentally difficult for them to further alter society with this plan, or to be able to “rename” civil unions as marriage later on. Much of Marxist dialectical movement is based upon the general public’s perception of an issue, rather than the reality of it. Either they get it right in the beginning, or there is not much point in carrying on.

Now, let’s examine for a moment the feminist goals for transforming marriage and the nuclear family. You’ll fast see it’s not just “Patriarchy” that they are against, but also they’re furious as hell at Mother Nature for giving them ovaries! Even nature victimizes women, and this also must change!

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

"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." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294

"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981

"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

"[I]f 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 child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179

”It takes a village.” -- Hillary Clinton

Not only do feminists want to destroy patriarchy, they also want to destroy motherhood, something very dear and precious to most females, and likely something they will not give up voluntarily.

There is a hierarchy to the way that “humanity” works. Many men are discovering certain elements of it through what is commonly known as “game,” but essentially, the “hierarchy of humanity” works like this:

Man --> Woman --> Children

And this is a strong inclination within humans as well. Students of game will understand that women do not want to be sexual with men who they do not deem superior to them, and will reject all men they deem inferior. The woman desires the hierarchy, and men fulfill women’s desire within it. Never ever forget, however, that to rule is to serve. And this is what most men did with their hierarchal powers – see The Titanic. Men did not use their powers to harm their “wards,” but rather used it to protect them, and often sacrificed directly towards this hierarchy to their own detriment. Parents (ie. mothers) do the same with their children – while parents have the enormous capability to bring harm or to exploit their children, 99% of parents do not do this… and it is not because of the law that parents are altruistic towards children (The US Supreme Court even ruled that parents naturally act in their children's best interests, both in 1979 and in 2000.) – in the same way, it is not because of law, or even social mores, that men treat women the way they do. They do it because it comes from somewhere deep within humanity.

It is very, very difficult to get men to turn on women. In the same way, it would be very difficult to get women to turn on children. The hierarchy just does not work that way. It is, however, monumentally easier to get women to turn on men. When you “transvalue” the hierarchy (place lower values higher up, and higher values lower down), working it against itself backwards works like a charm!

You can convince women to turn on men much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner, you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. It’s just the way the world works.

Man < -- (pushed away by) Women -- > Children
.
That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as Marriage 2.0.

And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman – namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them.

Man < -- (pushed away by) Women < -- (pushed away by) Children

The same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriage will happen to parents and children if the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent.

How will you raise a child properly if sending them to their room becomes “psychological abuse,” or if with-holding their allowance is deemed “financial abuse” or if forcing them to eat their vegetables is considered some other sort of totalitarian abuse. (If I had a hammer, I’d smash vitamins!) Take note, Hillary Clinton fully believes that parents are not qualified to represent the best interests of their own children, and therefore the state ought to create a rambling bureaucracy of civil servants and lawyers to represents children independently of their parents.

This is the exact same system that divided men and women – pitting their interests against each other by dialectically manipulating the legal system. Men and women are in a parasitic type of relationship wherein the man gives of his surplus resources to the woman. Parents and children are in exactly the same type of scenario, and as has happened with men and women, when you allow the parasite to lead the host, all you end up doing is destroying is the host. Parents and children will work the same.

And I promise you, there does not have to be some grand conspiracy manipulating every law and specific aspect of what will happen next. Simply screwing up the hierarchy will suffice. When children have more authority than the parents responsible for them you will have already stuck a stick in the spokes by default. Destruction is now not only likely, but in general society it will be virtually guaranteed – just like placing the authority of women over and above the authority of the man responsible for protecting and providing for her has only led to abuse, not solutions.

”The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” – Oscar Wilde

Children are even weaker than women! Placing the rights of the child over the rights of parents will lead to the same results – only worse! And, btw, since the destruction of marriage, who makes up the majority of parents nowadays? (Hint – They are among the testicularly challenged).

Now, often times ‘round here you will hear me refer to “The Dialectic,” and all of you know that this blog frequently refers to Marxism and how feminism is married to it. One thing however, that does not get mentioned too often here or elsewhere is that Marxism and the Dialectic does not work in a straight line. The general failure of us to realize this is why we keep getting our asses handed to us. We are playing checkers with people who are playing chess.

The way “it” works is like a zig-zag. The Marxist dialectic pushes radically to the left until a backlash builds up, and then the backlash is released in order to consolidate the gains to the left.

"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin

So, the way it works is that radical leftism is introduced into society – much like how No-Fault-Divorce was introduced into our society. This was a radical move that completely re-organized society’s most fundamental building block – and take note that there was no massive public outcry demanding such a thing. Society didn’t even conceive of such a thing – marriage was simply “marriage”, the way it had always been.

However, No Fault Divorce was implemented anyway and we all know the results. In the past decades we have witnessed a plethora of problems arising because of this radical change. However, this change has now taken place long ago and the vast majority of the population does not remember, nor can even conceive, of a society where divorce was not the norm. Take note that this was not the case when No-Fault-Divorce arrived on the scene, but after a couple of generations being exposed to it, it is now considered so normal that it is hardly even conceivable to us to try and rid society of it – rather, now we simply want to alter it. (This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw - 1- "un-freeze" from current acceptance levels, 2 - Move the subject to a new level, 3 - "Re-Freeze" at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 - Repeat the process until the proper amount of "movement" has taken place).

This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism – while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by slowing things down so that people forget. If you study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however.

So, back to the idea that “the backlash to the right consolidates the gains to the left.” What happens after a radical leftward change has occurred is of course a plethora of problems arising in society from said change. The people that are mostly affected by it are those that will push back against the radical leftism with, of course, a rightward/conservative political movement. What happens though is that the backlash movement is not one that attempts to dial back the cause but rather attempts are made to alter the results.

So, in the case of marriage in the modern day, the “backlash” is decidedly not pushing for an end to No Fault Divorce, nor are they pushing for a restoration of Full Father Custody (the way marriage was originally intended, and existed up until the 1860’s). What they are pushing for is “shared parenting.” A further aberration of the original concept of the family, and something that has never existed in history. But, the “backlash to the right” will solidify in the minds of the population that implementing No-Fault-Divorce was proper, although it needed to be tweaked a little to make it more “equal” and fair. The concept that children need two fulltime parents will also be demolished. The need for State Funded Daycare will be increased as now there will be two parents disadvantaged rather than one… and, as always, both parties will now be running to the government to beg and plead for the court to decide exactly the time, place, and even how a parent may interact with his or her own child (or, more accurately, the state's child).

Some freedom!

Wheras once parents would have run a pitchfork through any government personnel interfering with a citizen’s home-life, then covered him with oil and lit him on fire with torches in the town square, we now have both mothers and fathers running to the government to beg and plead for crumbs and scraps from the same table that the people once owned and both sides will think they are “winning” some precious equality, while being grateful to the government for providing them with something which was never the government’s in the first damn place.

This is the “totalitarian trap.” You cause as much problems and confusion in a certain area as you possibly can, and out of the confusion you will cause despair amongst the people who will then run to you and demand you “fix it,” which of course you will – but in a way that suits your purposes, not of the masses of plebes who are only there for your satisfaction anyways.

Ah yes, consolidate the gains… until the people have internalized the change, which they will if you allow a measure of backlash to appease them, and allow some time for the changes to internalize, and then begin radical movements to the left again.

One thing though, once the backlash accepts the watered-down consolation prize, they cannot easily push further because they have already been appeased! Once something like divorce has been “reorganized” to make it “more equal,” added on top of the fact that most of the population doesn’t even remember a time when divorce was not rampant in society, to take it further than the appeasement makes in nearly impossible.

Back to the beginning of this essay and the difference between “Civil Unions” and “Same Sex Marriage,” you can see why the Gay Rights community was so adamant about retaining the word “marriage” rather than using “Civil Union.” Using the word civil union would greatly hamper Gay Activists in their attempts to alter the meaning and structure of marriage – it had to retain the same name. If they would have gained under the name “civil union,” the effects upon “marriage” would have been negligible - and also, their ability to re-push the issue into society’s limelight would have been greatly diminished, because the general population would have already come to believe that Gays had been appeased, and wouldn’t want to tolerate their bullshit all over again.

It's kind of a one shot deal.

What will Shared Parenting do to the radical changes in the structure of the family over the past decades? Will it roll back the changes or will it continue to alter the structure of the family? Will it make divorce more or less acceptable in society? Will men be able to use it as a stepping stone to further their goals, or is it an assured permanent dead-end with minimal benefits?

How can feminists and the powers that be pursue their stated goals of removing motherhood from the experience of womanhood? They certainly won’t be able to use women to do it directly out of their own self interests… but could the coupling of children’s rights to the already diminished father’s rights be used to dialectically destroy whatever remains of parenthood, and pass all authority over to the state?

The only thing that supercedes the best interests of women in our society is the best interests of the child. I hope the shared parenting movement does not get made into useful idiots, promoting further destruction of the family while believing they are preserving it. I could easily see that women will be given "equal rights" in parenting as men, given that men have virtually no rights at all.

I understand why Gays insist on calling Same Sex Unions as Marriage - because they aren't nearly done with transforming it and they know what they are doing. On the otherhand, with Shared Parenting, "defenders" of the family and fatherhood are cutting themselves off at the knees - not understanding what they are doing - as they are not willing to dialectically reframe the debate in a way that does not dead-end themselves into the Marxist web.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

The Marxofeminist Paradise Known as Communist Cuba!

The following is an article written by a left wing Marxofembot back in 1998. It is just sitting out there plain as day that what fembots are agitating for (and writing into our legal systems) is Communism.
.
One wonders why these sick, radical fembots in North America aren't heading to Florida en masse to get their hands on a cheap "previously owned" raft with which to navigate a trip to Cuba and escape the awful institutionalized patriarchal oppression that they are always whining to us about.

.

.

Look! Here's a good one! Climb aboard, fembots! Just keep heading south. Bon Voyage!

.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/174.html

.

Feminism, Communism and Catholicism

.
By Lisa Macdonald, Green Left Weekly, #304, 4 February 1998

.
The women of Cuba have reason to celebrate after the visit of Pope John Paul II two weeks ago.

.
The pope's call, on behalf of the majority of the world's capitalists, for the US to lift its economic blockade of Cuba, focused the world's media on the Cuban people's plight after 37 years of economic isolation, and their achievements despite that. John Paul's call adds significantly to the growing pressure on the US to lift the blockade.

.
The Cuban government knew that allowing the of the Catholic Church almost unlimited scope to spread his reactionary message on the family was a double-edged sword.

.
John Paul's ultraconservative position on women's "God-given" role as obedient and faithful wives, self-sacrificing mothers and domestic slave labourers is the antithesis of what Cuban revolutionaries have fought for.

.
Last year there were 41,227 divorces in Cuba (compared to 65,009 marriages). The pope's assertion in Santa Clara that divorce is evil and unnatural is not likely to change this pattern. The Family Code, which enshrines in law women's (and men's) unqualified right to divorce, to receive financial support from the father of their children and the state and to insist that their male partners do an equal share of domestic labour and child-care, was the product of years of profoundly democratic discussion involving the entire population.

.
The pope also railed against women's right to control their fertility. Abortion, he said, is an abominable crime which distorts the "true nature and dignity" of motherhood. All birth control methods, he said, "are not in accordance with human dignity".

.
Again, the pope's rantings must have had limited credibility among this particular audience since they directly contradict the experiences and aspirations of Cuban women. As one woman told a US journalist in Havana at the time: "He's entitled to his opinion".

.
Cuba has no official birth control policy, but abortion is legal and considered a right for all women, regardless of age, marital status or personal circumstances. It is a right which Cuban women fought hard for, against the legacy of centuries of imperialist colonisation and the domination of the Catholic Church before the revolution.

.
The reproductive rights of women in Cuba contrast sharply with those in Cuba's "moral" condemner, the US. Whilst opinion polls throughout the 1990s revealed that at least 65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose, 15 abortion clinics were bombed last year, and unrestricted access to abortion is not available in a single US state.

.
During 1996 there were 83,000 abortions in Cuba and 140,276 births - an abortion rate of almost 60%. This compares to 31% in the US.

.
For Cuban women living under the blockade, abortion is more often than not the only way to control their fertility. It is a "choice" they exercise within constraints which are beyond their and their government's control. As another woman in Cuba interviewed by US television pointed out, there would be many fewer abortions in Cuba if the blockade was lifted and Cubans had access to a range of contraceptive technologies.

.
What the pope did not mention in his efforts to undermine the huge advances in reproductive and personal freedom that Cuban women have won is that, alongside the high rates of abortion and divorce, Cuba has a high level of health care, welfare provision and education for children. As a famous sign in Havana says: "200 million children in the world sleep in the streets today. Not one of them is Cuban."

.
Despite the immense difficulties it confronts as a result of the blockade, socialist Cuba has the lowest infant mortality rate among underdeveloped countries, and a rate that is lower than in the United States itself.

.
It is because of such achievements, and because the revolution gave all Cuban women much more freedom, encouragement, resources and confidence to make their own decisions about how to live their lives that the pope's reactionary sermons will fall on largely unreceptive ears.

.
The Cuban revolutionaries know this. They also know that the greatest threat to and limitation on Cuban women's freedom, is not, as "his holiness" tried to insist, "the substitution of God's infinite wisdom and power with an [communist] ideology", but the power of the US to starve Cuba of the resources it needs to progress towards the full liberation of women.

.

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

.

Ooohh! It sounds like fembot paradise, doesn't it? Everything our Western World Fembots are trying to slam through already exists! Note the "propaganda of omission" so typical of fembot agitators where she states that "65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose." Yet she fails to mention that 65% agree that in certain circumstances women should be allowed to abort, such as in cases of rape, incest, or imminent health dangers to the mother. If she would report how many people agree that abortion should be used as a simple birth control method, this "fact of 65%" would drop significantly into the minority of the population.

.

But, we know that propaganda by omission is commonly used by feminists and Marxists all the time (because they are one in the same), and that's why this highly biased author blames all of Cuba's problems on the USA, but omits mentioning that things explained in the following website might have more to do with Cuba's problems than anything else.

.

http://www.therealcuba.com/index.htm

.

Anyway, I know this was an old article, but it is interesting to compare feminist goals to Communist countries because, when one does so, it becomes glaringly obvious what statements like these mean:

.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

.

There you have it, fembots.

.

And let it be known that No Ma'am heartily encourages fembots to seek their Matriarchal Utopia in Cuba.

.

Stick out your thumb and hitch a ride to Florida.

.

Find a used raft and start paddling Southward.

.

Good Riddance!

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

Further Reading:

.

Model for the Future? Communist East Germany, Say Women -- W.F. Price/The Spearhead

.

Statement of Bill Woods, Charlotte, NC, to the Committee on Ways and Means

.

The Almighty, All Encompassing Power of the Pussy

Quote: “Lastly, we should never forget that it is men in high places, corridors of power, that have signed off on this sorry state of affairs. Judges, attorneys and legislators are mostly men, and it is they who we are up against, in collusion with NOW and that gang. ...”

While this is true it is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not for over a century. What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.
.


“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)

So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.

Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.

Think of it like the typical herd of animals. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.

Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).

So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power and would be replaced by another that females felt was more suitable.

Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain it rather well:

Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

----------

Quote: "WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? Men make civilization AND society. The only society that [women] make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge."

Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. One thing which he discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.

It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.

This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women.

Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same.

Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.

I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical things you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???

It is not only Philalethes and me who argue this, btw.

“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

“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel

"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs" — Immanuel Kant

"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle

As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between “society” and “civilization.” Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.

To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.

P.S. Here's a series of relevant articles from The Men’s Tribune.

The Atom

The Methods of Women

The Balance of Power

The Feminist Totalitarian State

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

Quote: Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!

So I went back and read your comment [and it] seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.

I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.

Are you saying that ... stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”

If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).

Yes, I agree.

This is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less. It must be doubly so for women who are ruled by emotion/passion more so than men. Thus for a woman, even when she wins she loses. (While she tries to overpower the male through her wiles, she is ultimately dissatisfied with the types of males she successfully overpowers. Ah, hypergamy!) A life ruled by passion leads to short-term gratification but long-term suffering. Men are also ruled by passion but theirs is slightly more tempered by reason than women’s, which leads to one of the causes for Patriarchal societies placing the man in charge. (ie. It is “anti-animal”, just like so much of the rest of the universal moral code: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc. etc – all things that are “anti-nature” and thus represent man “rising up from being a beast of the field” through his own ability to consciously reason why he should resist behaving like an animal and rather choosing a better, more rational way).

The Proprietor of Pussy, the Vanquisher of Vicarious Vaginal Vagueness, aka Roissy himself, alludes to a similar train of thought in his Sixteen Commandments of Poon:

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
"Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."

IV. Don’t play by her rules
"If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.".

XV. Maintain your state control
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."

While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.

“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

Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.



“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002

One of the problems we have is that ”what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever-changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.

If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females. (Women become more submissive relative to the safety of society – think of a man & woman living in a cave, hearing a bump outside – the man will be the one sent out to investigate and if she follows him it all, it will be behind him, peering over his shoulder & using him as a shield. The safer society is, the more confident she is to march out without her shield – the less she “needs a man”).

Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):

In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female-only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with competing species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male. As we often assert in the MRM, males have greater ability to adapt than females. A female-only species can only survive in a static and safe environment. As soon as elements of adversity are introduced, species with two sexes fast out-evolve single sex species and render them extinct. As is often said in the MRM, males will survive better because of our innate ability to adapt.

This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I explained this general concept in this piece titled Male and Female: Equal But Different

Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.

Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.

So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the female's genes, not the male's. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness).

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

Here is a superb comment by Rollo Tomassi (comment #33) that encompasses the theme of this concept so perfectly, that I simply had to reproduce it as an add-on to this already lengthy piece:

Simon, the Matrix has you.
.
Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.

For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here, who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.

Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.

So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.

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

Comment #90 -- by Rollo Tomassi

The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.

Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.

ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.

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

“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.” -- Esther Villar, The Manipulated Man
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

If I Only Had a V -- by Angry Harry

Five Stars ***** Woman (An Exposition for the Advanced Mind) -- by David Quinn