But shortly after this a wolf actually did come out from the forest, and began to worry the sheep, and the boy of course cried out “Wolf, Wolf,” still louder than before. But this time the villagers, who had been fooled twice before, thought the boy was again deceiving them, and nobody stirred to come to his help. – Aesop
I’m sure everyone is so familiar with the fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” that the two lines of my epigram are sufficient to call the entire story to mind, yet there are many people who seem to have never internalized its moral and so go about wrongfully shouting “Wolf!” and then reacting with surprise and even offense when nobody listens. Unfortunately, in modern mass communication the role of the shepherd boy is often played by an entire group, and though it may be that only a small minority of that group plays the “wolf” trick the whole group must bear the stigma. Feminists in general and neofeminists in particular seem to derive great satisfaction from crying “violence against women!” where no violence of any kind exists, and because of it men and even society in general have grown increasingly skeptical of such claims even when they happen to be true.
The most widespread example of this is in feminist “rape culture” rhetoric which characterizes any form of sex which is not initiated by a woman as “violence” even if it isn’t. The second-wave mantra “rape is a crime of violence, not of sex” characterized any unwanted sex as intrinsically similar to murder or mayhem, even though it should be obvious to anyone that this simply isn’t true. Burglary is a violation of its victim’s rights and can leave that victim feeling violated and unsafe, yet nobody would characterize it as violent; Bernard Madoff’s massive fraud totally ruined many of his victims and was certainly a heinous evil, but there was absolutely no violence involved. The same can be said of a sober man taking advantage of an incapacitated woman; I would definitely classify it as rape, but it isn’t violent. Using the word “violence” as a synonym for “violation” may be effective rhetoric, but it’s a dishonest use of the language which must inevitably water the word down in the same way that “terrible” has been diluted; only a century ago it was nearly synonymous with “terrifying”, but now it usually means “of extremely low quality”.
This is obviously not what the neofeminists want; when they refer to prostitution and porn as “violence against women” they intend to associate them in the listeners’ minds with things like brutal beatings, gang rapes, acid attacks and dismemberment. But since most prostitution transactions and porn movies aren’t remotely violent (and everyone but the most deeply indoctrinated neofeminist stooge knows it), the effect of the rhetoric is the opposite of what they intend; their repeated cries of “wolf” do not induce hallucinations of marauding lupine predators, but rather cause their listeners to ignore the word when it comes out of a female mouth. I suspect that Melissa Farley realizes this is happening, hence her recent attempt to convince gullible and ignorant women that whores’ clients literally commit violence against them rather than settling for merely defining a completely benign and mutually satisfactory arrangement as “violence” for the crime of violating neofeminist principles.
But it isn’t only the neofeminists whose use of the word is tantamount to the way a well-fed American child uses the word “starving” when his dinner is 15 minutes late; even most mainstream feminists do the same. Crude comments, verbal or internet-based insults, unwelcome sexual advances unaccompanied by threats, job discrimination, patronizing male attitudes and even the refusal to give in to female demands are all sometimes described by overenthusiastic feminists as “violence” even though none of them are violent by any normal definition of the word. And now, apparently even male sexual preferences constitute “violence against women”:
Rosario Dawson says of receiving compliments when she lost weight to play a drug addict in Rent: “I remember everyone asking when I was doing press for the movie, ‘What did you do to look so thin? You looked great’ and I’m like, ‘I looked emaciated’…It’s a form of violence, in the way that we look at women and how we expect them to look and be — for what sake? Not health, not survival, not enjoyment of life but just so you could look pretty.”
You heard it here first, guys: A virtually talentless Hollywood airhead who makes a living off of her looks says that compliments are a form of violence; next thing you know she’ll be comparing a lucrative promotional contract to the Holocaust. Given that it’s an article of feminist faith that “intelligence” is the most important and desirable female characteristic, these women clearly must not realize how incredibly stupid they sound; maybe it’s time for someone to explain it to them before the wolves come for the rest of us.
One Year Ago Today
“Nothing In the Dark” explains why sensible professionals don’t allow clients to turn off the lights during their appointments.
Given that it’s an article of feminist faith that “intelligence” is the most important and desirable female characteristic
That reminds me of The Cleveland Show, the mini-musical number with Cleveland, jr. talking about being “balls deep in love” with this girl at school. One of the lines went, “I wanna have sex with her personality; dry-hump her personal traits!” Played for laughs, of course, on the show but that’d be the neofeminist dream.
well she is an airhead,instead of just addressing the point that someone who looks like a drug addict is seen as beautiful and the effects that this kind of fucked up model of beauty has on women,she calls compliments in general violence against women.if it is violence against something, its a violence against aesthetics to call the body of a drug addict great.not to mention that as a holywood actress,she receives more money for her looks than her acting abilities and her popularity is based on her beauty,she could be the worlds best actress,if she wasnt beautiful,she wouldnt be popular. i beleive that actresses and most todays pop stars should be considered sex workers the same way strippers are,since they make money mostly based on their sex appeal.those feminists should also know that if just being beautiful means nothing,just being intelligent means nothing either,how many truly intelligent people used that intelligence to harm others?if one thing should matter is someones goodness of character, if sth is gonna lead the person to hapiness is how ethical they are(aristotle says that,after all).
I also note that though she implies that the compliments came from men, how many heterosexual men actually find heroin-addict-skinny attractive? Almost none. If she was getting compliments on looking emaciated they were from women and gay fashion designers, yet she didn’t call it “women’s violence against other women” or “homosexual male misogyny” because that wouldn’t be politically correct.
Right, but what does ‘hollywood’ ugly look like? Most unattractive charechters played by attractive women aint that unattractive.
Women look the way they want to look. Johnny Carson once asked Raquel Welch whether she dressed for “men” or for “women”. She responded … “I dress for women and I undress for men”.
That’s the really the bottom line. I’m not into the “waif” look … or the totally shaved “nether regions” … or any of that “in vogue” trendy stuff. Most of the guys I know aren’t into that stuff.
When we sit around watching girls … well we don’t do that very much anymore but we might at the Casino or something … I’ve never heard any of my buddies say … “Hey look at that girl over there … MMMMMM … SKINNY!”
Most assuredly, there are things we comment on – but most of those things involve a certain amount of fat storage to make them look as nice as they do.
You can’t tell this to women though … I’m a bodybuilder and sometimes train other bodybuilders. One of the women I sometimes work with went on a massive “cut” and she cut way too much fat – to the point that her face was completely boney. Sure – she was ripped like no gal I’ve ever seen.
I told her to EAT – because she was too lean.
And the male judges only awarded her third place in her first competition this year. They said she was too “dry” – which is slang for too lean.
It took about a week to get her back in shape – and all it involved was …
Eating.
Women
Interested in what your take on this is.
If any sexual encounter that doesn’t involve explicit and enthusiastic consent is rape, then I’ve been raped any number of times by female partners – there were times I was tired/wet/annoyed/angry and didn’t want to have sex. I was once cajoled into having sex by an ex who literally browbeat me into having sex with her to prove to herself that she could have me or whatever – I broke up with her – and as I was in my early 20’s and naive, I gave in. Even with my current partner, there have been times I didn’t want to have sex and she more or less guilt-tripped, harassed or insulted me to get me to have sex at that moment.
It galls me that were I to do the same, it would be rape; if a woman does it, it’s not. Disgusting.
These gender-radical feminists have rendered words meaningless in endless attempts to obfuscate and redefine everything for their own convenience.
And I’d be interested to know your take on this:
http://veritasaculeus.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/when-the-rapist-is-a-she/
As I’ve said before, I oppose using the word “rape” to mean anything other than unwanted penetration. If the victim isn’t penetrated, it isn’t rape. Men can rape men, and women can rape men with implements, but a naked, unarmed woman cannot rape a man. Coercion, sure; maybe even “sexual assault” if it’s serious enough. But not rape.
That having been said, I am absolutely, totally and in all other ways against men being forced to pay “child support” for children resulting from unwanted sex or deception (such as the doctor who saved her doctor-boyfriend’s semen after a blow job and impregnated herself with it). Also, if a man can be forced to support a child he should also be able to demand a woman have an abortion; since that very concept is horrific, the concept of forced child support needs to be tossed out along with it.
I disagree – I think a man should pay child support even if he’s duped by a woman who intentionally gets pregnant.
Two points here … Yeah, men are stupid and, in a battle of wits with women – the women have the upper hand but … we should know enough to know how our “stuff” is being used.
Second point – the child didn’t deceive anyone – it’s not his or her fault.
Sure, sex is a fun activity and all – but there are consequences when things don’t go as planned. I think that is part of the “cost of doing business” here. You don’t want to pay – then don’t play.
I don’t. I’ve gotta agree with Maggie on this. I think if a woman dupes a man and gets pregnant, then she should carry the burden of her stupidity.
I don’t think a woman should get pregnant at all – unless she’s willing to take care of that child alone. (And I speak from experience – single mother.) Too many things can happen – she’s got to be ready and willing to do it herself.
Well … we’re free to disagree. This actually almost happened to me when I was single and the girl I was with went off the pill without telling me – but I found out as she left a pregnancy report laying around. I absolutely don’t know how I dodged that bullet – we had sex every day and usually multiple times and this had to have gone on for two months. God was with me I suppose – because usually if I just touch a girl’s car keys she gets pregnant.
I thought about what I would have done if she’d have gotten pregnant .. I couldn’t walk away from a human being that was one-half me. Yeah – she may have been stupid – but I was stupid enough to pick her. LOL
You’re noble, and that’s good and commendable. But nobility isn’t nobility if it’s compelled by threat of violence, just as charity isn’t charity if the “donation” is obtained by armed robbery.
I don’t think a woman should keep a pregnancy if she can’t support/care for a child alone – even if she’s married. Shit happens. People die. People divorce. If you aren’t prepared to deal with worst case scenario, don’t go there.
I find that women who deceive men into procreative sex – whether by claiming to be using contraception, or other means of fraud – are reprehensible. However, I think the law uses a quick and dirty occam’s razor when it comes to the child support issue. How does either party prove that the pregnancy was undesired, accidental or otherwise fraudulent? Men would basically have to procure a signed release of liability before having sex.
Two points here:
1) Establishing a legal precedent that a woman cannot survive without a man’s financial support is a far greater threat to legal equality of the sexes than feminists realize.
2) If “the best interests of the child” is to be allowed as an excuse for enslaving a man for 18 years, surely it also justifies enslaving a woman for nine months. Compulsory child support automatically sets a precedent for banning abortion. Besides, “for the children” has been used to justify so much evil and tyranny it’s time to bury that excuse so deep it can never again be found.
Well, maybe it shouldn’t be a law then. For me personally – I couldn’t walk away from an individual I helped (either willingly or not) to create. I never have.
Second point – the child didn’t deceive anyone – it’s not his or her fault
So, if I rob your house and use the oney to buy my kids food are you going to punish them by demanding I go to jail? After all they didnt steal from anyone
Scenario:
Woman takes man’s condom, removes sperm and inserts it, gets pregnant, demands child support.
This has happened on several occasions that made the news. Rule: Always dispose of condom yourself. Trust not one woman. Some bad apples have ruined it.
In all cases, the men were ordered to pay child support.
How about this one, from the early 2000’s:
Man freezes sperm and has vasectomy. Gets divorced from wife; they have no kids. After the divorce, she forges papers, gets his sperm, artificially inseminates herself (where the hell did she get the money for this?). New BF doesn’t object. She sues former husband for child support. She lies and says they had sex post-divorce; she’s shown to be lying, then the kid turns out to be his. He’s shocked. How? — then he remembers frozen sperm, the hospital has records showing she fraudulently got access to his sperm.
She’s charged with nothing, despite several fraudulent acts (lying to the court, lying to the hospital, theft).
HE IS ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.
It went to the state supreme court. They sided with her.
he was worth about 40 million. He’s ordered to give her a one-time payment of $2 million in addition to their prenup-defined divorce settlement and THEN ordered to pay over $150k a year in child support for the one child.
Seriously, this is a rank abuse of the law.
As far as I’m concerned, in this day and age, men and women have sex and birth control as well as abortions are available. Women fought for the right to get abortions on demand.
Why should all the cards be in women’s hands?
With reproduction comes some responsibility. If a woman dislikes the man not paying child support, get an abortion. if you don’t like it, tough.
Men have to start standing up for themselves. This is abuse.
The only way to resolve this is the Contract.
When it’s time to have kids, parents draw up Contracts, in which both sides agree to get pregnant and both sides agree to be responsible for the baby.
This clears up all kinds of legal problems.
– A couple who use a surrogate mother can ensure their rights; the woman signs hers away before the pregnancy. It’s enforceable. The parents have custody before the child is even born. This makes surrogacy possible.
– A man who has sex with a woman casually now has to be roped into a long-term relationship. No more sperm-farming for greedy women or golddiggers. This will improve women’s choices in mate: No longer will the local thug be fine.
– If the child turns out to not be his, the man can turn around and counter-sue for back child support payments (if the state guarantees them for women, persecuting men in the process, they can persecute women for not repaying this to men, too). And she can be charged with fraud.
Women shouldn’t be the only ones with reproductive rights. In this day and age, women have demanded equality.
No issue riles me up more than this one. If women want to be equal, then start acting like equals and stop pretending to any “mystical Motherhodo energy” or maternal rights not also fully applicable to men.
Marriage would be much improved if it were treated as a form of contract law. Right now, it’s a mess of bad rules from different time periods with crazy standards that end up being inconsistent and unfair – and in all cases, they favor women over men, usually harshly.
I don’t think the man should have been made to pay. What the woman did was sexual assault, and her getting the state of Michigan to chase after him was rank fraud and abuse.
Women may recoil from this, but only because they’ve become used to being treated as Special Flowers, immune from things like Responsibility and Personal Accountability.
*Equal Rights*.
I love that notion. The Greeks had a name for it: Isonomia, One Name before the Law. We are all the same.
It’s time women started acting like they actually wanted anything resembling this.
WHat annoys me is that women are given rights without inherent responsibilities. If you make bad choices, the attitude should be:
Own it. Tough shit. Learn next time.
On the other hand, men who *break* contracts can be held to them.
Women are as conniving, deceptive, cheating and worthless as men: We’re all human. Human men and women truly deserve each other; they’re not even different sides of the same coin, they’re almost the same side of the same coin. I’ve known two women, personally, who attempted to get pregnant by me deliberately; One was in Korea, where forcing men to marry after a pregnancy was de rigeur in her family, as 2 sisters and an aunt had done it, and once when I was in college, when my GF told me she was pregant. It turned out to be a lie, but she tried awfully hard to get pregnant in the 3 weeks after her announcement, that’s for sure. Half the men I know live in terror of the woman they’re with getting pregnant, especially as I’m almost 40 and a lot of the guys I know are dating 28-35 year-olds.
My cousin deliberately set out to entrap her husband. She bragged about it 5 years later, when she was divorced. She was completely up front about how she got herself pregnant and fooled him into marrying her. She got a house out of it. The other women there laughed it off. I was disgusted. My mother thought it was shameful, her advertising her lack of morality and the fact she was a cheap tramp. I corrected her: No, mom, she’s a very expensive tramp.
Laws have to account for this. All family law is abhorrent to any man with self-respect.
At some point, men have to agree that working as slaves has to stop. This is a state of feudal serfdom we live in. Extortionate governments led by the enablers of feminist supremacy.
Either we’re a society of equals or we’re not. If we’re not, then stop lying to us that you’re even pretending to any kind of goal of equality.
Well, I’ll tell you this one. I actually used to work at Bill Clinton’s White House when I was in the White House Military Office. I supervised about 30 people – and one was a young woman who was a mother of two.
She was outstanding – she delivered that second child – and then two weeks later she showed up to run her semi-annual physical readiness test. I told her she was exempt for six months due to the pregnancy – she said she wanted to do it anyway.
Completed the 1.5 mile run in 10:30 – pretty damned good for a woman who just gave birth.
Her name was Alicia … and I caught up with her later on in her career and asked her about her kids.
“I lost them” she said.
She caught her hubby cheating – and went to divorce him – then filed for custody.
She then went on to detail how the judge looked at her and told her that if she really cared about her kids – she would not have re-enlisted in the Navy.
She got saddled with Child Support – and with Alimony for the guy (he was loser … surfer type no load).
It doesn’t happen a lot – but sometimes the women do get screwed.
Alchesay
Your choice to be a father to something that’s half yours is exactly that:
YOUR CHOICE.
The state should have no role in this. Odd how the state is great when conferring responsibilities on fathers but not rights.
And MAggie, you summarized it succinctly and perfectly.
From a woman’s perspective, that is.
Good for you.
As far as I’m concerned, Maggie the Whore for President.
Every single thing I’ve heard you say so far would make you a far better candidate than any of the schmoes and turncoats we have now.
I’ll just stick with reforming the People’s Republic of Massachusetts and see how that goes.
You know, I just finished watching John Adams (HBO). I know, I should be doing Korean stuff, but whatever. Lady here watched it, too. Thought it was inspirational, if somewhat political (heh? Well, d’uh).
Brilliant series, as usual. Makes me pine for the days of the revolution, when Talk about liberty, duty and honor, despite hypocrisies, actually meant something.
Yeah Maggie for POTUS – you and I agree there.
Okay, Okay – you guys have beat me down. I stipulate there should be no law to enforce this. I know when I’m beaten here! 😛
Anyways – my comments about my own feelings still stand. Although I don’t think government should take the leading role in chivalry enforcement – I still think there is a role to be played there through individual choice.
I just choose to be that way. I’m 49 – and I have lived one helluva life. Been everywhere. Seen the most wondrous things – seen the absolute most terrible things no human should see. As a result – I’ve turned my back on a lot things I was trained to believe in while growing up. But … I think the capacity for caring is something I can’t turn my back on.
Liberty means liberty or it’s a prison.
I fully support female equality; Full damned female equality, in all spheres.
Not equality of outcome. I don’t support any outcome at all.
Equality of opportunity. Equality before the law. Equality of conscience.
The communists were never big on individual rights; they argued back in the 1910’s-1930’s that this was bourgeois.
In all things, collective rights need to be abolished. It’s the rank poison that infects our society. Family courts hold women accountable for almost nothing, and men accountable for everything.
I’m doing lots of research here for a potential doc on prostitution and the culture of sex in Korea, as part of a potential piece on prostitution generally. I’m beginning to think that Maggie and her customers are correct.
Whores are the cheapest and likely most remunerative women for men.
Next week I meet with my ex-GF again, and her almost husband. They plan to move to Australia in January, when it’s summer there.
This ex-whore has done this for him:
– Organized a small Korean export base for his work, with 2 local employees
– Organized bank accounts and funky finances free of taxation, anywhere;
– Formed a corporation to monitor it all
– Shaken hands with a dozen people, all of whom have given this guy 5 private home construction jobs in severely wealthy circles
– Gotten pregnant. In 9 months, she’s going to give him his first child, and he adores her for it.
A former whore.
I can’t even imagine her feathering her own nest at his expense without telling him. They told me before that they came to a financial agreement: She works for him and he slowly sells her a share of his business. They actually signed an agreement beforehand (ie, he’s not stupid: he may not be Harvard, but he got where is is by dint of not being a retard).
I have to say, their relationship is apparently very happy, filled with ridiculous amounts of sex, real affection, mutual support and completely rational self-interest married to alliance for mutual benefit.
of course, when she’s drunk, all bets are off. But then again, he can drink me under the table. A good mate, that one – he invited *me* out when he found out I was here.
Fuck me, but whores seem like a good deal all-around. Maybe when I’m 60 I’ll find them even more useful. Who knows.
All I know is this:
There’s one woman who has no illusions about her own value; she’s pretty and she knows she won’t be at 45; she wants a decent man (with resources) but chooses based on character above all else, not bling.
Such women impress me. None of these women that have impressed me were typical morally upright standard-issue feminists and middle-class Americans. They all had some … issue that made them trustable and realistic.
After a night of casual sex:
Women have the right to get an abortion without consulting men: his rights as co-parent are denied.
Men should have the right to deny fatherhood. it’s precisely the same thing.
If the woman wants resources, she’s free to contract with the father – in exchange for, say, paternal rights to the child (access, time, decisions, etc.).
The child doesn’t belong to the mother while the responsibility for $ with the father. That’s what’s assumed now. And child support amounts to little more than stealth alimony.
If women don’t like it, then they need to own up to wanting to be seen as helpless imbeciles and children before the law while men are expected to be Men.
otherwise, be Equals.
As my mother says, the problem with feminism is that women asked for equality. And equality is a bitch.
I say: Women should, when it comes, be drafted at the same rates as men. True equality will be reached when women start dying on the job at the same rate as men.
i agree with feminism: Equality.
Just make sure it’s equal.
I’ve got to disagree with you on drafting for two reasons: One, that women simply don’t make as effective warriors as men do, and cost the organization in money and downtime as well. And if they get pregnant while enlisted that’s on the taxpayers’ dime; no thanks. Two, we’re already just barely at replacement level and killing women would lower it below that threshold. That kind of “equality” is like jumping off a bridge on principle.
There can be physical standards in the military that are not lowered to make it easy for women to meet them. Those women who can (and thus are not a drain but an asset) should do the same jobs as men because they can. Will it be as many women as men? No. But the exceptional should be allowed to be exceptional.
Those women who have something to offer other than physical oomph (most of them) can be placed in non-direct-combat positions that don’t require a lot of physical oomph.
As far as the below replacement thing goes, that has nothing to do with there not being enough women. A smaller number of women than what we have now could make plenty of babies if they decided that they wanted to.
In general, though, I ‘m against a draft, and so if I got to decide such things, women would be safe from the draft… and so would men.
Maggie,
I agree with you. It’s absurd to treat women as absolute equals. For example, while women are important on the home front, it’s been suggested that this equals male sacrifices on the battlefield. Um.
Whatever.
No woman who’s been in combat would take that argument: Thos ein the line of fire, in service of those who for whatever reason arent fighting, deserve special respect. It’s insane and regardless of the reason he/she is there, it deserves the respect and deep admiration of those who are being defended.
On the other hand, I thin kit’s foolishness to send women to fight. But if women are to be expected not to fight and die for their men, while men are to do so for their women, then men need to be thrown a bone.
If not diamond-hard equality, which is absurd, as you agree, given our natures, then when men do things like lay down their lives for women – and are expected to – they need to be given a reward.
This was the great Biological Deal. We made this when we were still barely social primates.
So what do men get, now, for this sacrifice? It’s a barter exchange. We have free sex now; we have prostitution; and we have aces to food and resources without the requirements of family.
So we don’t need women for much of antyhing but reproduction and many of don’twant that. And we don’t need them … really for anything, if a few whores are willing to put up with en and take their money.
So what, exactly, do women offer men ? Men who sacrifice themselves?
Tjis is the question I’ve been asking fr quite some time. Really. What’s in it for us?
I know this is partly rhetorical – but as I laid it out before and you gracefully illustrated my point, I’ wondering why we even need, say, *marriage* or *social obligations* to women.
There was once a deal. Men work like dogs, struggle with ech other for pride and place, and reward women for procreation (punish women harshly for cheating men by cuckolding, usually with death – as cuckolding is genetic death for men). We get babies; women get babies. WOmen have wombs, which is a plus and a minus.
What it seems to me is that modern gender politics ascrbes all power to wombs, and none to the penis. In fact, it belittles it. It enslaves it. Where once there was a deal, we’re meant to toe a line that ill serves us.
I’m debating getting married right now. Or just living together and having babies. I’m wondering what’s in my own best interests; She wants a marriage with the bells and whistles and the status.
And given that she’s utterly in thrall, I could get away with no marriage and still get my offspring and a loyal partner. The question is, I’ve had to ask myself after surviving oone legal marriage:
Why? What deal do I get, now?
In the larger picture, there seems to be little personal benefit.
And from a societal view, there seems to be none at all for men. it all seems rather raq:
All the responsibilities, none of the rights.
Look at college campuses. Now, only a “preponderance of the evidence” is necessary to convict a student of “rape” or “sexual assault” – it’s not even a remotely fair trial.
Again: where’s all this equality people were talking about?
As long as neofeminists talk about “equality”, I’m going to speak loudly about the absolute necessity for women to engage in dirty, violent, dangerous jobs at the same rate as men.
Forget employment figures. Only when as many women die on the job or in the service of their country as men will there beanything like “equality”.
I don’t see these neofeminists out there championing the right of women to be front-line soldiers and miners and deep sea fishermen. And lamenting the fact that there’s no “equality”. I don’t see them lamenting the fct that most women don’t want to put in 90 hour work weeks and stay up until 5 am or pull all-nighters n aregular basis.
I don’t see neofeminists lamenting the fact that women don’t seem to be running to throw their lives away like men are expected to.
And yet: We’re supposed to give it up for “equality”.
So as long as neofeminists claim to say what they claim to think, I’m going to be holding women to their absolute and hard-won obligation to die in equal numbers alongside their men.
And be garbage collectors.
And bush pilots.
And cops.
Not RIGHT to do these things.
*Obligation*.
I’d like to see women held to the precise social obligations men are. We’ll see how many neofeminsts are left in the room.
I detest being forced to hold such opinions, but if I’m expected to endorse equality ,then I want equality. Of both opportunity – and absolute responsibility.
If we all want to step back and make a deal – say, we do the risking and dying and you guys do the breeding – then there have to be equitable terms for such an exchange.
We did it before. For some reason, these neofeminists thought it would all be cushy boardroom jobs and daycare and laying around at the spa and chumming it up in the Manosphere with their buddies. Shockingly, it comes with costs. Who knew?
Given that neofeminists seem t run the show, I’m just going to hold them hard to their own ideals and words.
I want to see women start dying in combat, bodies strewn over fields and female as well as male parts blown to pieces by IEDs.
My brother is a soldier. He drives a tank (an armored vehicle, anyway. It has a few guns, one of which goes “Boom”). He fights with some female soldiers His words:
One is stand-up.
The others are combat-shirkers, for the large part. They talk big talk, but fight like— women. They’re distractions and more or less useless in theater. They damage morale. They cant fight. And these ae the hardened ones.
They skip off duty, do whatever is necessary to get out of combat, often getting pregnant just to avoid it, and love he benefits and perks. A male soldier, he says, is worth 5 female soldiers, at least, maybe more. The army has discovered this, to its great cost.
One female soldier is as tough as a regular guy. He respects her and she pulls her weight. The rest are useless deadweights. They spend their time literally fucking everything with a penis that moves – there are words for some of these women – and doing whatever’s necessary to avoid going into actual combat or doing anything dirty, messy or dngerous (but they bang the guys who do with great resolve).
One actually told him the only reason she joined was to get hot men whenever she wants.
But we’re told it’s all fine and good and women and men are equals. We know it’s BS – there are differences–
But so long as neofeminists want this, I really do want women in the front lines dying.
When their bodies start to come back, mangled, torn, ripped open, crippled,broken, fields filled with poppies and memorials —
Then maybe we can talk abotu equality.
I literally feel sick whenever my brother goes overseas. When he’s posted, I call up his wife and we chat for an hour or so every week. We never say what’s on our minds, but I know I’m going to get some call some day and he’ll be dead. She dreads picking up that phone.
I dread it, and my nieces and nephews dread it, but we’re all proud as anything that ever knew pride. No matter how ignoble the war, my brother is serving his country and his family. His wife deeply respects him.
It really gets my goat when I hear people going on about how awful men are.
In fact, men are freaking awesome. Even regular guys are often heroes in their own world. I know of few women who can make this claim.
I know men who give up literally everything for honor, duty, obligation and justice: I know very few women who will do this for anyting but their *own* children, for whom they’ll often sacrifice everything, for never for anything else.
And shock of shocks: I think that’s how it should be. it makes sense.
It means, however, that there was a Deal.
If the neoeminists like it this way, I ant a Secession of the men. Like the Plebs refusing to enlist, I say we walk and let the girls beat off the next barbarian wave. Let them die in the fields.
This issue of rights withotu responsibilities just makes me sick to my stomach.
if women want The Deal, then be prepared to offer us something.
Because right now, women are more liabilities than anything else.
The point of an army is not equality, it is to have a fighting force that completely fuck up anyone who wants to mess with your scociety.
The being said, if a woman can meet the same, not metered to account for the difference in women streangth – the exact same, stanndards as men, let em join.
A fifty pound sack dont give a shit if a woamn doesnt have the same upper body power as the average guy.
Haveignbeen in the service my self I got to ay I wouldn have minded a professional whores corps. Women have hung around the camps of just about every army – today the just have to join to do so. If our glorious leaders and the moral prudes of this counrty could get over their problems with sex imagine what such a corps could do.
No worries about pissing of the locals sleeping with ‘their’ women. No accidental pregnacies, no false charges of rape to save a girl the shame of being discovered haveing slept with a GI – not to say that real rape doesnt happen, I knew a couple of guys that had such charges been leveled against them I’d have had no problems believing it.
Hell these day you could even have guys join the whore corps now that dont ask dont tell is supposed to be moot
All armies have traditionally had a “whore’s corps”, and the whole idea of pillaging and raping was more to the point: Instead of paying troops, reward them for butchering and destroying your enemies in the most effective way.
In that sense, the enemy’s women were the reward. In fact, it’s not nearly as bad as simply butchering them outright or burning them alive or massacring everyone, though it must have been very, very shitty. The men usually had their testicles cut off, or were simply tortured and killed. The boys, too.
Much more effective: Just have a train of merchants and whores following the troops. 1) Economically efficient: The army focuses on fighting. 2) Morale is great: Men who are about to die are happier if they get some.
If you want a good fighting force, giving men about to die some women is a very, very good idea.
How about this:
Make it a plus for the women, too. Ask for volunteers; set up an equitable system; make sure they’re very well compensated, to the degree they desire and the market (a bunch of randy, horny, about to die guys) can bear.
This is excellent policy.
I always fall back on the basic rule for men. How to make them happy?
Come naked. Bring food.
For an army:
provide good food and women. The men will climb any walls or scale any obstacle or do whatever you tell them.
A good king or government should know that.
Do men really want children of their own? The whole argument is moot if a man has no interest in procreation and gets a vasectomy.
It seems to me that any young man with any sense nowadays ought to get a vasectomy while still in university. If he decides he wants kids later and is willing to risk two decades of bondage, there are ways of obtaining his sperm directly from the testes.
This would be a good idea, but that men are still sold a bill of goods.
I think not obliging women by not marrying them is good enough.
You don’t have to be married to have your wages garnished for 18+ years.
Good point.
On the other hand, I find Gandhi’s philosophy useful here.
And I take a page from our inspirational Republic.
There are many ways to secede. Secession.
Men pay taxes. Women want this money, so they can acquire new husbands – the state – and they want men’s money one way or another.
So stop paying taxes.
Expatriate. Send your money overseas.
Don’t marry women. Don’t let them deceive you into reproducing. Don’t give them what they want unless they’re willing to pay the price.
The people who advocate for the policies that serve only women often actually believe that white Americans are a plague upon the world. Let’s see how they deal with a world without them. Let’s see America without taxpayers, evil capitalist industries, fascistic employers or evil men raping women every 1.4 seconds.
Or evil men giving women the Male Gaze.
Let’s see what happens when they need to do literally everything for themselves.
To bankrupt a company, all you need to do is take away about 10% of their income through a boycott.
10% of men no longer co-operating in society, in a passive way:
See what happens.
This is happening in Japan. Vast numbers of women didn’t want to get married; now, in the next generation, up to 15% of men are “Herbs” recluses, not participating in any meaningful way in society at all. 20-30 year-old women are looking at lives without boyfriends, or having to share the few same men that available; finding foreign men; and being permanently childless.
Here, the state has exhausted itself and there will be no more great social programs. All the ones we have now are withering and must be pruned or cut.
Our streets are unsafe. Racial identity politics have destroyed the black communities in this country, women are piece by piece being left to fend for themselves. families have been ripped apart and are almost abnormal in some segments of society.
The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. We can’t even decide that we’re a country: we almost have no borders as limitless numbers of strangers move here and drain the public welfare agencies even more. We can’t even look after our own.
The days of rights without responsibilities are over. Just watch.
Chaos and interesting times. The pendulum – within the next 15 years – is going to swing back hard, very, very hard.
Women will suffer from it.
It’s going to get very, very ugly.
Gorbachev – I’ve seen you allude to women being left alone and “childless” a number of times. While I know having children is a common choice for many women, maybe even most women, it seems you equate woman with mother. Am I reading you correctly?
While things may be as drastically tilted in favor of women in other states, things aren’t quite so totally wretched for men in California – especially if they do not have children. If you abandon your wife and file for divorce, you may have to support her financially for a few months until she gets a job, but I haven’t heard of unlimited alimony being awarded in this state in decades. It’s children who provide the financial ball-and-chain, not ex-wives.
So my question still stands – do men really want children of their own? Men’s sexual needs being what they are, I find it difficult to believe that any man would want to subject themselves to the responsibilities of bathing, feeding, changing and listening to the nightly crying of their progeny.
In the past, children were a family’s retirement plan. Children when grown up would take over the family business/farm and/or support mom & dad in their old age. These days, if you put the money that would have gone to junior’s college fund into long term health insurance and retirement funds, there’s no need for children. So why do it?
While in middle school.
Actually, if we had a good Male Pill, that wouldn’t be needed. You should hear (OK, read) the way some women react to the very idea of a Male Pill. Some say, “I wouldn’t trust some dumb man to remember to take it!”
Well guess what? You don’t have to trust him any further than you can throw a cheesecake underwater. Take your own Pill, and then it doesn’t matter if he forgets his.
But what I think is really bothering them is that he no longer has to trust HER.
Yeah, we need a good, safe, reliable Male Pill.
I read an article on the male pill recently – its years away from clinical trials. I’m guessing that it will take the demands of many, many men for a reversible method of contraception before it is better funded and available.
Right, because if he might want to have kids one day he still need to have a doctor stick a knife near his ball to prevent a woamn srom stealing spem out of a condom in the trash. That makes perfect sense.
I don’t understand. If a man objects to supporting a child he doesn’t want, why would he trust the woman to shoulder the burden for contraception? Besides, sometimes condoms break, or contraception fails and conception happens despite the most careful precautions. Why wouldn’t a man take responsibility for his own fertility and get a vasectomy when he could then enjoy sex and only concern himself with STIs?
Obviously if a man wants to be a father, he probably wouldn’t choose to get snipped, but that would require much more careful consideration of sex partners lest he knock up someone he wouldn’t want to be married to.
Feminists have to use the “it’s a form of violence” narrative to disguise (from themselves, if nobody else) that 90+% of their ’cause’ is self-centered sniveling by Women of Privilege, whose ridiculously overdeveloped sense of entitlement is bruised by contact with the real world.
Personally I think you need to check the definition of “violence” again.
Violence: an unwanted or unjust exertion of force or power (from Meriam-Webster). Do you deny that “unwanted sex” (that’s RAPE by the way) necessarily involves one person exerting some kind of power over the other, whether that be physical, mental, emotional or otherwise?