The Liberation of Men

To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19

And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.

And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.

Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man's curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating!
.

.
No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?

But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer. 

Doing the Math

This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..."
.

.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.

For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact."

For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she "out-performed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some "facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren't oppressed by math.

Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace - especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This "women are more ethically pure fact" is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of "equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree?

And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.

Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
.

.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too. 

It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!

All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?

Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?

You can see the fraud of feminist "academics" and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women's Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.

What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.

One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.  

In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.

That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.

Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a "triumph for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:

"Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!"

This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.

In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer - especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio.

And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?

Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)
.

.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991

When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are "oppressed" because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It's so simple!

Of course, you know I am being facetious.

But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.    

What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It's not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that "our betters" in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.

If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.  

The Return of Aristocracy

It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.
.

.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.

Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with such nonsense. You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions.

In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality."
.

.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
The essence of hypergamy is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO's do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher" than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.   

Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% - yes, that high!

Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.

 Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.

"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997

Mutilated Beggars

During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman's Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds - funds they did not need nearly so much as men.

And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee's eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.
.

.
Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal."

But they aren't.

When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.

But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?

Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge. 

You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.

This Way to See the Great Egress!

"There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit.""
.

.
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance.

All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man. 

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!

The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being "denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.

I say, "Let them!"

Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children - which feminism has done everything possible to make happen - they really don't need to work that hard. If you don't get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.

Women are demanding to have our curse because "They don't need no Ma-yan!"

Let them take it!

Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work! 

You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do! 
.

.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW 

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator's hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier's life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.

The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.

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

Related:

The Man-Woman – by Hic Mueller, 1620

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

On this same issue, here is an abstract from the essay ”Rulers Ruled by Women” – An Economic Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights in Ancient Sparta

ABSTRACT: Throughout most of history, women as a class have possessed relatively few formal rights. The women of ancient Sparta were a striking exception. Although they could not vote, Spartan women reportedly owned 40 percent of Sparta’s agricultural land and enjoyed other rights that were equally extraordinary. We offer a simple economic explanation for the Spartan anomaly. The defining moment for Sparta was its conquest of a neighboring land and people, which fundamentally changed the marginal products of Spartan men’s and Spartan women’s labor. To exploit the potential gains from a reallocation of labor – specifically, to provide the appropriate incentives and the proper human capital formation – men granted women property (and other) rights. Consistent with our explanation for the rise of women’s rights, when Sparta lost the conquered land several centuries later, the rights for women disappeared. Two conclusions emerge that may help explain why women’s rights have been so rare for most of history. First, in contrast to the rest of the world, the optimal (from the men’s perspective) division of labor among Spartans involved women in work that was not easily monitored by men. Second, the rights held by Spartan women may have been part of an unstable equilibrium, which contained the seeds of its own destruction.

EOTM: This Is Zen

Like listening for the sound of one hand clapping, looking at this picture for a while will tell you all the essence of zen. It cannot be described, tho much good writing about it exists. Each of us leaves footprints in the sand as we travel through this adventure called life. If we pause for a moment and look back at those footprints, we are struck with their smallness and temporary nature when set against the backdrop of the immense elemental forces of the seashore. The yin & yang of the waves within the larger yin/yang of the tides will wash them away within hours, if the wind does not blow them away within minutes.

I call myself a zen priest, yet that is purely self-appointed. When I was young and full of myself, I wanted to be a zen master and teacher. One day it occurred to me that the road to mastery was to live it every moment. There are far more rewards from living it than from the public recognition of my "mastery". It is a remarkably fulfilling and serene way to view life. I promote it as an answer to the increasingly chaotic world in which we live.

In the best (perhaps only true) zen movie ever made, ”Cirlce of Iron,” the protagonist, Cord (that which binds), finds that all answers are found in the mirror. Today, in western culture particularly, all answers seem to lie outside ourselves. We are a culture of reacters, blamers, and victims. There are always buts, whys, and becauses which explain our destructive behavior. None of them make it non-destructive. The destruction and violence will continue until each person begins to stay one's own hand and take complete responsibility for one's own acts.

There are other cosmologies which include this, one in particular called Wicca, and I hope to be able to provide the means to explore them as well on these pages.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Philosophy and Theology: The Old Gods
Science and Technology: The New Gods
The Goddess and The God of the Wicca
The God
The Goddess

Buddha: Selected Writings of Nichiren

- Women are messengers from hell. They cut off the seeds of Buddhahood. They have the faces of bodhisattvas, but their hearts are like demons. Women can no more attain Buddhahood than can a dried up seed sprout.

- The course of a river and a woman's mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Women's nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the "five obstacles" (inability to become anything great) and the "three followings" (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: "Even should the eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha." Another text says: "Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman."

- The passions of all the men of the three thousand worlds and the hindrances to the salvation of one woman are comparably immeasurable.

- Among the three pleasures of Yung Ch'i-ch'i (in "Tales of Chuang Tzu") was the pleasure of not being born as a woman. He also named the pleasure of not being reborn in heaven as a woman.

EOTM: Welcome to Eye of the Mind

If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it really is, infinite." -- William Blake

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Visual Reality
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Philosophy and Theology
The Deep Water: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Environment
Science and Technology
Creating the Future
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only in the mind's eye can things truly be seen. The blind man often sees more than his "sighted" cousin because he is less misled by the surfaces of things and is more interested in their substance. Perception includes mind, body, emotion and, most of all, spirit. One must be aware in all 4 dimensions to be fully alive.

Any and all possible futures will be seen first in the eye of the mind. We create the world as we see it.

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

These pages are dedicated to those seeking to become accomplished artists in the Art of Living. Most artists become comfortable with a few selected media and materials. The selection of topics represent my favorites. Many more are worthy of consideration, but that's why there are other web pages.

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

There are two great mystical forces which rule the lives of human beings. One is the life force itself. The other is that elusive force we call consciousness. Life, we share with countless other entities on this planet. But we maintain the belief that consciousness sets us apart and above all other forms of life: that it belongs to the god-like alone. In our desire to be as gods, we have elevated the force of consciousness and begun to worship it while we have shown ever increasing contempt for all life save our own and, often enough, for our own as well.

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

I heartily agree with the geocities' stated philosophy of creating new communities on the new frontier and thank them for providing such a forum. The new milennium is upon us and humanity has pillaged the planet to support its ever growing need to consume. We humans, so anxious to see ourselves in the images of the gods & goddesses we worship, have achieved only one of the godlike powers, the power to destroy. We need to turn as much energy toward the power to create and generate as we have toward consuming the resources of the earth if we are to survive.

Today the cerebral cortex of the brain rules. People want to believe that all behavior is thought out in advance and that it follows the sterile logic of only half the brain, the left brain. Their analysis of the motivations underlying the behavior are speculative nonsense which leaves out 90% of the information available and adheres to a peculiar line of thinking specific to that individual. The results are presented as "logical" but there is no logic whatsoever behind it. It is merely the result of their own built in biases, which they are so close to that they cannot see.

The MIND is NOT the BRAIN. The mind is just as aware of the information it is receiving from the little toe as it gets from the 5:00 news. The mind has a sense of connection to a power greater than itself. And the mind receives information from something called the soul. There is something deep within us that is the essence of the will/desire/drive/whatever to be ALIVE. Something that BELIEVES and WANTS and KNOWS right from wrong.

We need to make people as mindful in their behavior as we currently would like to believe they are. My goal for these pages is to celebrate and provide a forum for the full development of all dimensions of the mind. I invite contributions and suggestions. I consider art to be an integral part of mental and spiritual development and I hope visitors will see a certain esthetic unity, if not homogeniety. Please comment on this aspect of the site as well. At present, I have only established the general structure of the site. Things that look like links hopefully will become so. Suggestions for sites in each of the categories are welcome.

While the content of this site is definitely "adult", it is not so in the sense that one usually sees on the net. My intent is to deal in subjects that only a mature mind can really grasp, thus the only ones interested in pursuing those subjects. While these subjects contain details of the type usually not easily discussed by parents with their children, I don't believe that anyone will find my treatment of the subjects to be offensive except that I don't cut people much slack for silliness.

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

Parents who are willing to let the child indulge her/his own natural tendency to learn and question can freely move around this site if they use the eye as a navigation aid. The eye will lead to controversial topics, but the controversial discussions lie behind links which you have to look for. If the content intrigues you, you will be interested in reading further. Children will not. The eye will lead them on a tour and the big eye will always lead them home. Anyone willing to wade through the verbage to get the content, deserves it in my book. Most parents can rest secure in the fact that I am going to make it so much work that their children will never do it. Roam around yourself a bit first then, if you are comfortable with the content and the way in which it it addressed, feel free to bring your son or daughter back to start a dialogue on things you'd like to talk to them about. Sortof.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Visual Reality
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Philosophy and Theology
The Deep Water: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Environment
Science and Technology
Creating the Future
.

Buddha: From "The Sutra of the Past Vows of Earth Store Bodhisattva" (Commentary by Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua - in America)

Sutra:

Buddha: "If there are women who detest the body of a woman, and who full-heartedly make offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva's image, whether the image be a painting or made of earth, stone, lacquerware, brass, iron, or some other material, and if they do so day after day without fail, using flowers, incense, food, drink, clothing, colored silks, banners, money, jewels, and other items as offerings, when the female retribution body of those good women is exhausted, for hundreds of thousands of aeons they will never again be born in the worlds where there are women, much less be one, unless it be through the strength of their compassionate vows to liberate living beings. From the power of the meritorious virtues resulting from these offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva, they will not receive the bodies of women throughout hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of aeons.

Commentary:

Do not think that being a woman is a good thing, for being a woman involves a great deal of trouble. There are women who do not like it and always wonder why they have to be women; they want to learn what they can do about it. Through worship of Earth Store Bodhisattva these questions can be resolved.

What is the trouble involved in being a woman? Because there are people who might like to investigate this further, I will go into a bit more detail. You should not think of this as an attempt to cause women to dislike their state and leave home. If that occurred then there might be even more problems for me to deal with.

There are Five Obstructions and Ten Evils encountered by women. First we will discuss the Five Obstructions. The first is that women are not able to become the Great Brahma Lord because that position is accomplished through purity, and the body of a woman has a great many impurities. Second, women cannot become Sakra. An astute student may object that earlier we discussed the thirty-three women who became lords of the heavens. This objection is a valid one, but it should be realized that upon reaching the heavens their bodies became male, because only males can be lords of the heavens. Although Sakra has some desire remaining, that desire is quite light; women, on the other hand, are extremely libidinous and consequently cannot become Sakra.

Third, women cannot become demon kings. This is not too bad. They cannot attain this position because demons are extremely hard, solid, and firm, while women are extremely soft and weak. As soon as anything unusual comes up they are at a loss and have to seek help. Fourth, beings cannot be wise wheel-turning kings - the gold, silver, copper, and iron wheel-turning kings - as long as they have female bodies. Wise kings have hearts of great compassion and kindness; they teach people to maintain the Five Precepts and the Ten Good Deeds. Whenever women see something good occur to others, they become jealous, and this keeps them from having great compassion. Because of this basic problem, they cannot become Buddhas. Buddhas have ten thousand virtues; women have many evils. They are jealous and obstructive, and their hearts are about the size of a sesame seed.

If, however, women are able to rid themselves of jealousy, desire, weakness, defilement, and of all evils, they may become men, and so theirs is not a hopeless plight. There is, for example, the case of the dragon king's daughter. When Sariputra said that she could not become a Buddha, she took a precious gem, her most valuable and cherished possession, and offered it to the Buddha, who accepted it. She then asked Sariputra if the Buddha's acceptance of her offering was fast, and he replied that, indeed, it had been quick. "I shall become a Buddha that quickly," she said and then she became a Buddha. This is proof that women's lot is not hopeless. All they must do is resolve to cultivate courageously and they too can become Buddhas.

There are also Ten Evils that pertain to women. First, at their birth their parents are displeased. Although it is not always the case that parents are displeased at the birth of a daughter, in most societies this is the case, and a daughter starts out life by making a bad impression on her parents.

The second evil is that raising daughters is not a very interesting task. The third is that women are always afraid of people. Boys are not usually afraid, but girls almost always are. The fourth evil connected with women is that their parents undergo a great deal of worry about their daughters' marriage. In America this is not a major matter, but in most other countries parents have to give a great deal of consideration to finding good husbands for their daughters.

Once girls grow up, the fifth of the Ten Evils occurs, when they have to leave their parents alone. The sixth comes after they have been married and are in constant fear of their husbands. When a husband likes something, they are pleased, and when he is angry, they cower in terror. The seventh evil of women is the difficulty and fear of giving birth.

The eighth difficulty is that no matter what they do or say, the report gets back to their parents that they are not good. Although the good remains, it is a goodness that does not influence their parents. The ninth is that they are always controlled by their husbands and are subject to many restrictions, which, if broken, can lead to divorce.

The above nine evils apply to women in their youth. They are old when the tenth arrives and their own children and grandchildren slight them. As the proverb says, "To be old and not yet dead is to be a thief." These are only a few of the many problems involved with being a woman. To explain all of them in detail would be an unending task.

Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?

Quote: "I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists."

Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.

Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE

Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.

Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.

Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here. 

One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:

"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."

Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.

"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.

Quote: "I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."

They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.

"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.

Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.

Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.

Philalethes Index Next

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

Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

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

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

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

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

Further Reading:

Philalethes #14 – Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist

A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed

Buddha: Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra

"When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no longer speak the Dharma."

"When my Dharma disappears it will be just like an oil lamp which flares brightly for an instant just before it goes out. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow."

"Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two. Men will die younger, and women will live longer."

On Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap

Many people will instinctively try to dismiss the notion of feminism being Marxism as some sort of red-herring related to tin-foil-hat "conspiracy" theories. However, a quick perusal of the quotes found throughout this blog ought to discredit that notion enough for a reasonable and rational man to inquire further into the subject.
.

.
I maintain that the communist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS communism" would be the "red herring."

What Is Marxism and How Does It Work?

First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read. (I really cannot praise that article enough. One could spend years and years reading horribly dry Marxist literature, and then further years deciphering it in an attempt to understand it... or one could spend 20 minutes reading Phil Wort's article and learn more than enough about the general philosophy to have an intelligent conversation with the former.)

It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:

1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.

Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."

That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of humans that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his use of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.

Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.

2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.

3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of mass-psychology with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.

4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group. AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical parts out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values: 1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence, 2 - MOVING the subject to the next level, 3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)
.

So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.
.

It's all pretty simple, one orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood (N.O. M.A.A.M.) files their taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.

Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges are made up of segments. In fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."
.

.

The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.

As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. NO MA'AM doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what BIGOTS!

The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."

I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!

Connecting the Marxist Dots

Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx

Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."

Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."

"We shall destroy you from within!" Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.

Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement, which is critizing feminism: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116

Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary ideology:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"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

Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:

- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?

- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?" With the word "sex" there is only male and female.

- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?

- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?

- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.

- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry only a scant few years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family?" All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots. (Also, see my piece: A New Kind of Bigotry)

These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?

Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that gay-marriages are not equal, because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon." You will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.

Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.

Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that government be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people.

The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!

No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.

TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Which came first? Dishonesty or Dissimulation?

(This is a very old article, and I'm not sure that it fits in The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way, - for example, I don't think that women are even really aware of their dissimulation - but I'm going to leave it in here for now anyway). 
.
Dissimulation in women leads to dishonesty in men. Dishonesty in men leads to dissimulation in women. It's a chicken and egg argument to a "T."
.
I think that we all know what the definition of dishonesty is, so I don't feel the need to try and define it. Dissimulation in women, however, is not often defined so I wish to state exactly what I mean by this. What I mean by dissimulation in women is when they are behaving like pool hustlers. When they are "faking" their position while their intentions truly lie elsewhere. This typically starts when a man and a woman begin the "dance" of getting to know each-other. She tells him she is interested in a non-sexual relationship and only wants some companionship. This is dissimulation if what she is really interested in is establishing whether the man is worthy enough for her to be sexual with. She wants him to prove her worth to him with the hoops he will jump through to "win her." This will establish her emotional and sexual superiority over him and weigh the balance of power in any possible future relationship decidedly in her favour. It's like Br'er Rabbit. "Please don't throw me in the briar patch." Dissimulation to a "T."
.
"...Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women
.
It is the way almost every relationship starts off. She is attracted to the man yet dissimulates that she does not want him, and that men who chase her sexually are not worthy of her. The only response a man unaware of the crimson arts can have, if he actually wants to get closer to what he (and she) wants, is to be dishonest.
.
"I'm not like that," he replies, "I like you for your mind, for your intelligence and for your wit. I want to get to know you because you are a strong woman."
. 
He believes it's the only response that will keep the game going. Be honest with her here, and he will never get her. If he were completely open and honest and told her he was attracted to her sexually, the game would be over. The next pussy-starved schlub she talks to will be dishonest with her and tell her it is only "her mind" that interests him, and he will be the one that gets to see her panties slide down her legs to the floor. Maybe not that very day, but probably in a few weeks, after she has satisfied that he is worthy because of "his efforts." She didn't really want someone who was interested in her mind. She was interested in the sexuality of a man being attracted to her and chasing her. She gets a "high" from it, from making him work as a result of her dissimulation. Her value goes up in this process, while his goes down.
.
And so, the only men that she ever gets involved with are men who are lying to her. They are the only ones who get over the first hurdles she puts up with dissimulation. Why does she feel it is so necessary to dissimulate? Because dissimulation is the only way she can counter the dishonest men she meets. Most of the men she has been with have been forced to lie to her to actually "be with her." Therefore, she believes that all men are lying pigs, only interested in her for what is between her legs. Dissimulation is her most effective weapon in countering male dishonesty in the mating dance.
.
But for the man, he knows soon enough that if he doesn't "play the game," he will be the man who grows into a 40 year old virgin while the girls he dared to be honest with will be sleeping with the men who didn't care at all that they were being dishonest to her. He realizes that women aren't really saying what they mean, and the only way to counter that and actually get to what they both want, is to be dishonest about his intentions until he gets to the end of the initial dance and "gets her." The only way to counter female dissimulation is by being dishonest.
.
And so it goes, with men and women starting their relationships this way, continuing like this while the relationship exists, and then ending the whole shebang in the same manner. How many marriages decline into celibacy with the husband believing she is not interested in sex, only for him to find out she was having an affair, or that "after the divorce" she turned into an oversexed nymphomaniac? Is there any other proper, effective way for the man to respond to this except to be dishonest about his emotions and act like she didn't matter a hoot to him? That dishonesty about the pain will bother her because she needs to know that she hurt him with her actions... and if she doesn't see that, she will start to dissimulate, often slyly trying to use her new lover to make her ex insane with jealousy. Once the ex blows up in anger, she knows that he did care that she hurt him and she can move on without him. But both sides will realize how much dissimulation or dishonesty they were exposed to in the relationship and be twice as "on guard" to protect themselves the next time around, and of course, that will only lead to more intense dissimulation and dishonesty with future partners.
.
I do, however, believe that some dissimulation and dishonesty is neccessary. This has been the way it has been ever since men and women have existed on earth, I believe. We would not try to change the mating habits of ducks, and neither should we with humans.
.
The problem lies, I believe, in that with the social system we currently live in, there becomes far to much dissimulation/dishonesty to bear in one lifetime.
.
When one looks at the high stress situations in the average person's life, the top situation is the death of a spouse, the second is divorce/end of a relationship, and I believe that around number 3 is fearing the loss of respect and acceptance amongst one's peers. (I remember health being up there too, but not sure where anymore). These things are directly about people's personal relationships with others. To humans, their interactions with those around them are far more important than virtually anything else in their lives. Humans are social creatures.
.
I look at my own parents relationship, compared to the typical serial monogamy style of relationships today.
Now my parents did not have a perfect marriage. They argued and got angry about things just like everyone else. In their 48 years together, they had good years and they had bad years. But, what my parents had different in their lives was lowered amounts of dissimulation, dishonesty and the betrayals that such behaviours naturally cause.
.
They got married when my Dad was 20 and my Mom was 19. They had both dated other people before they met, but considering their ages, I don't think it would have been more than one or two people at most. I don't know if either was "in love" with someone previous to their meeting. Possibly, who knows.
.
Think of what they missed out on that people don't escape today!
.
They don't know what it is like to be lied to, betrayed by someone so close, to know the anguish of having their hearts ripped out. They have no idea what it is like to be hurt by someone so close and to lie awake at night in anguish, knowing that someone you know so intimately is most likely, at that very moment, lying naked in bed next to a person they betrayed you for. They don't have any idea of the gut wrenching emotions involved with losing access to their children - not until the children were prepared to leave the nest at the proper time anyway.
.
Never experiencing extreme amounts of dishonesty or dissimulation from those who hold the key to their hearts allowed them to emotionally mature. They were able to grow to accept that men and women behave differently without it always leaving them in extreme emotional pain. They might have had some feelings that it was necessary to protect "their" position, but it would never rise to the extreme levels of dishonesty and dissimulation which men and women will naturally cling to if they experience the emotionally devastating levels of loss, betrayal and bitterness towards the opposite sex that the average modern 30 year old will already have experienced today, due to serial monogamy and the games that come with the mating dance.
.
I don't think that humans are supposed to be subjected to so many emotional highs and lows throughout their lives. Certainly, a single/divorced 30-something in today's world must be dealing with 4 or 5 times the emotional pain by that age than the vast majority of people from previous generations ever would have experienced in their entire lifetimes. The lack of pain would lead to more trusting, less dishonesty and less dissimulation. Time obligates, of course, but also does drastically reducing the amount of times one's fingers get burnt in the fire. With the amount of dishonesty and dissimulation necessary to be successful in a society that promotes serial monogamy, one must naturally become callous and uncaring to the opposite sex and such behaviour can only cause more of the same. It becomes a vicious circle in which no-one will ever ultimately win.
.
Of course, it all makes sense why Cultural Marxists integrated so much Freud/sexology into their plans, of which one plan was to split apart the genders. People who have been burned several times already before they actually do "try" are far more likely to fail, because of a lack of complete trust, than those who are not so fearful of those kinds of bad memories.

Related:

Hate Bounces 

Zenpriest #18 - The Designated Initiator

The Fine Art of TV Repair

Is something wrong in your house?

.

Is there a constant subtle drone always permeating throughout what should be your retreat from the harsh world?

.

Do you think that Man Hatred is just everywhere?

.

Chances are, your TV is broken!

.

Therefore, No Ma'am will provide you with an easy, illustrated, 4-step method to fixing your "best friend."

.

.

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

.

STEP #1: Get the Proper Tools

.
.

The best tools for TV Repair can likely be found in the backyard shed. Two favourites are the pick-axe and the sledgehammer. Also find some gloves and safety goggles - The Safety Bear recommends this, so I will defer to his judgement in regard to safety.

.

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

.

Step #2: Swinging the Pick-Axe

.
.

Take a few steps to the side of your friend and grasp the pick-axe firmy with both hands. Your aim should be directly for center of the screen, as this is where the heart of the problem is..The swing is performed much like a golf swing. Keep your eye on the center of the screen from the beginning of the swing right through to the end.

.

Bring the pick-axe behind you and begin your swing. Your upper body should shift the energy through your shoulders while at the same time, the weight of your body should shift from your back foot through to your front foot. Remember to keep your eye on the center of the screen throughout your swing!.The above illustration is an example of the results of a good first swing. The pick-axe should penetrate to the heart of the problem with a depth of at least 6 inches. A professional TV Repair Man consistently hits 10 inchers, but 6 inches is the minimum penetration needed.

.

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

.

Step #3: Sweeping the Field

.
.

Sometimes it is best to change tools and grab your sledgehammer for this task.

.

You must remove all of the glass to fully repair your TV.

.

Don't be afraid to choke up on the hammer nor to get down on your knees to get every last piece of glass out of there. There is nothing "sissy" about this. The only "sissy" thing would be to not do a thorough and complete job. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

.

Notice the craftsmanship of this professional job in that he has even removed the knobs. This attention to detail is the mark of true guildsmanship, but you need not be this fancy. Removing the glass will most likely fix your problem completely.

.

This is also an excellent time to have a look around inside the TV. You will realize that there is really nothing of substance behind the glass.

.

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

.

Step #4: Call the Wife

.

With the most manly bellow you can muster, holler out the following words:

.

"Woman! Come Hither!"
.

A real professional might manage to include the following:."And bring me a cold one!"

.

But your main job is to have the wife come and look at your craftsmanship.

.

You can now gently explain to the missus that you believe in the "Eek-Wallet-Tee" of both sexes equally doing the housework. Point out that you have done your 50%, and the other 50% is the clean up - so hop to it!

.
.

Be sure to stay with the missus while she works.

.

This is where the cold one would have come in handy, as it would give you something to do rather than just stand there doing nothing.

.

Don't be afraid to direct your wife to any teeny tiny piece of glass that she may have missed. You might impart some manly wisdom at her here by telling her that "anything worth doing is worth doing well!"

.

.

.
You're all done!

.

Go back into the house and see if that annoying drone of man-hatred has disappeared.

.

And rest assured, it will only get better from here!

.

Good job, Mr Repairman!

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Bonecrker #17 - Movies Desensitize Social Problems

The Jiggly Room

.

.

Ah, yes. Boobs!

.

Two things that are constantly on the minds of both genders are a woman's breasts. Of course, fembots have been convincing women that men are pigs because they can't keep their eyes off of a woman's chest when they talk to her. Bad, bad, men! They treat women like nothing more than sex objects!
.

.

Yes, men are pigs!

.
But, why aren't women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to see? Does anyone really believe that a woman "innocently" didn't realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning?

.

.

Women, unlike men, never buy clothes without trying them on first. When the above (appropriately faceless) woman bought that blouse, she first pulled it on in a dressing room, stood in front of a mirror, and I guarantee you that her eyes were fixed on her boobs in the mirror's reflection. It is no accident when a woman displays cleavage. It is not like accidentally walking around with your fly unzipped.

.
Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman's boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman's chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman's role in all of it.

.
Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she's a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn't receive similar male attention.

.
Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world.

.

When this woman left the house in the morning, she knew she was putting her boobs on display for the world. Go ahead. Have a good, long look at them! That's what she wants - no matter what her flapping gums might be currently whining about.
.

.

"Talk to my face, not my chest. Pig!" Says the appropriately faceless creature.

.

This reminds of what I once read in Jack Kammer's excellent book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf in which Mr. Kammer makes a keen observation about the difference between Men & Women's sexuality. He says that when a man "comes on to a woman," it is like dealing with an annoyingly pushy door to door salesman who targets one customer and digs his heels in trying to convince the one person in front of him. But women's sexuality is advertised like annoying junk mail (or internet spam). It is ever present. You cannot escape it. She advertises to the whole world and whether the recipient wants to recieve her advertisement or not is of little concern to her. She targets everyone and plays the numbers game of "if I advertise to 100 people, I will get one nibble - and if I advertise to 1,000 people, I will get 10 nibbles."

.

So, let's get it straight. Women who show off the jahoobies, are trolling for sexual attention. It is very rare for a woman to "accidently" let someone see her fleshy globes. A woman who wears a tight, form fitting blouse like the following, fully well knows that her blouse accentuates her breasts:

.

.

And when a woman leans forward and "accidentally" lets you look clear down her blouse to her belly button, like the following, it is no accident either.

.
.

Don't believe me that it is no accident? Then ask yourself why only women with "boobs to be proud of" allow this. How come flat chested women never "accidentally" flash the mammaries? How come older women, whose boobs are well passed their prime years, are never giving you shots like that? How come men aren't wearing shirts that show off the man-boobs every time they lean over? Because the women whose cleavage & boobs you do see are quite aware that they are "accidentally-on purpose" doing it. That's why.

.

"Now, Rob," you say, "what's the big deal?"

.

Well, as some of you may know. The only Television I watch anymore is the Business News Network. A few weeks ago I was watching and listening for business reports of various natures when, in typical TV propaganda fashion, the filthy TV programmers decided it would be prudent to have a short 5-minute interview with some stunned female academic who was "an expert" on workplace etiquette. It didn't take this harpy with a BS in Academia more than one breath after introducing herself before she femi-moaned about sexual harrasment in the workplace, like when male co-workers are looking down a woman's blouse.

.
I just can't tell you how much it annoys me that the only "intellectual" thing that "academic" women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women's victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that.

.

But it reminded me of a place where I worked once, and where I had a lower-level manager who was a woman.

.

Now, this woman came to work each day like a tarted up little whore. Her blouses would be unbuttoned down to the maximum point - as in, undo one more button and she would be displaying below the bottom of her bra - you know the type. This woman, every day, wore very short skirts - very short. Short enough that everyone knew she was wearing stockings instead of pantyhose, because the lacy top of the stockings would sometimes come into display if she bent over to pick something up etc.

.

But what this woman, a manager, used to do to me was complete sexual harassment. Passive sexual harrassment. On several occasions, when in her office discussing various work related issues, this woman would lean back in her chair, locking her hands behind her head like she was stretching - and lean way back, with a short skirt, legs open, and display clear shots up her skirt of the crotch of her panties.

.

.

I don't believe it was an accident. Exhibitionism is a top female sexual fantasy.
.

And here becomes the situation: You have to talk to a woman, out of work related neccessity, who is either leaning forward to talk to you, and fully displaying her cleavage to you - or she is leaning back and talking to you, fully displaying the crotch of her panties. Yet, you are expected to only be looking her in the eyes while she is displaying herself like a Penthouse Centerfold. She is looking at your face, and if you should allow your eyes to betray that you are fully aware that she is displaying herself sexually, YOU could be charged with sexual harassment in the workplace and not her! You could lose your job, wind up being sued, and have difficulty securing another job - the stakes are positively huge!

.

Now, the thoroughly corrupted feminist legal system has ambiguously defined Sexual Harassment in the Workplace as "that which would make a reasonable woman uncomfortable." But what about men? This woman made me uncomfortable in the workplace! I even contemplated discussing it with higher level management but I decided against it, contemplating that if I allowed them to know that I had been seeing down this woman's blouse and up her skirt, that I would get the boot for sexually harassing her. So I kept my mouth shut and endured the tightrope that this sexually flagrant harlot forced me to walk. And it did affect my professional performance, because I dreaded dealing with her, and that did affect the bottom line profitability of that particular business. I go to work to make money, not to ogle women. And the owner of the company started the business to make money, not to provide some tramp a venue to fulfill her exhibitionism fetish.

.

As I previously pointed out, women don't put themselves on display by accident. All women know this. Women are very aware of how to hide their bad features and accentuate their desireable features. The boobs you see are boobs you are meant to see. Yet, should some woman level a charge of sexual harassment against a man for looking at the boobs that you were meant to see, all the other women will quickly rally around the "afronted" woman and support her over the male pig. Even though they full well know "the game." At best, the other women will remain silent and not call the exhibitionist woman out on her bullshit and let the man go down in flames. 

.

Women should be discriminated against in the workplace until they all start dressing for business instead of dressing for attention. It's about time that women start showing up in suits, with a tie, so that they are forced to "button up." Otherwise, given the sexual harassment bias of our legal system, coupled with female sexual fetishes, women are a profit draining lawsuit waiting to happen and it is justifiable to unemploy their asses.
.

.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading:

Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise Is Deafening