Category Archives: Masculinism

The Underlying Dynamic of all Identity Politics: “The Truth is Objectively Harmful for Our Group, Therefore We Must Lie to Protect Our Group”

  • Gay Politics is propaganda and recruitment advertising for all species of non-straights.
  • Feminism is propaganda for women and hate propaganda against men.
  • MRA is propaganda for men and hate propaganda against women.
  • Antiracism is propaganda for non-Whites and hate propaganda against Whites.
  • Trans politics is propaganda for trans and all species of nonbinary people.
  • BLM is propaganda for Blacks and hate propaganda against Whites.

One thing that all of these groups have in common is nearly incessant lying. Lately it has merged into out and out abuse of science. It’s social science, which isn’t even science anyway (mostly just lies and propaganda), but it’s still nasty to see it abused so much.

The line of all of these groups is that the truth is bad for the group.

  • Feminists feel the truth is harmful to women,  so they lie.
  • MRA’s say the truth is bad for men, so they lie.
  • Gay Politics in particular is adamant that the truth is objectively harmful to gays (in fact, they more or less openly say this) so it is necessary to lie to protect gays.
  • Trans politics feels that the truth is objectively harmful to trans people,  so they have made up a vast narrative of lies to protect trans folks from harm.
  • Antiracists say that HBD truth is harmful to non-Whites and objectively causes racism, so they have to lie to protect non-Whites from racism.

7 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Masculinism, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, US Politics

Opinion: The Alt Left Should Be Neither Feminist Nor for Men’s Rights. It Should Be for Good Relationships between the Sexes

Great piece by Ryan England. Personally, I feel things are far, far, far too gone for this and this sort of pacifism is just not going to work. England is calling for unilateral disarmament on the part of the men and then sending us unarmed men in to negotiate with savage, ISIS-like terrorists (the feminists). That’s not going to work. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It would be great if this would be enough but I am afraid that things are far too gone for that now and the only thing left is the more extreme measures. Hey, the feminists started it. They started shooting at us men. You want a war, baby? Bring it on!

Beyond Feminist vs. MRA

OPINION: THE ALT-LEFT SHOULD BE NEITHER FEMINIST NOR FOR MEN’S RIGHTS. IT SHOULD BE FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEXES.

It’s a familiar story for anyone who’s been online for any length of time. A discussion starts over a gender or feminism-related topic.  There’ve been plenty of these lately since the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal broke in Hollywood and the metoo hashtag campaign, so there’s no shortage of examples to choose from. There’s nothing unique about these conversations, however. They’ve been taking place on social media since Facebook and Twitter first launched and were commonplace on bulletin boards long before anyone knew what a comments section was. The basic conversation hasn’t changed much in the decades since Al Gore invented the internet. A typical conversation will go something like this.

Feminist: Men rape and harass women. That’s why men suck and women should reject them.

MRA: But not all men. But not me. That should give me an advantage in the mating game with women, should it not?

Feminist: But only men. Plus patriarchy, power, privilege, rape culture, etc. Not so fast, buster!  You’re part of the segment of the population that does the most rape and who benefits from rape and are therefore not so innocent as you’d like to believe. And therefore suck no less and are no less deserving of rejection.

MRA: But what about false accusations? What about women who sexually assault men? This nullifies the advantage you claimed in your previous statement. Therefore, women should more readily accept and sleep with us. I mean me!

It’s never long before a conversation like this breaks down, and school yard level copypasta insults break out. “Boo hoo! Eh poor menz!” “Enjoy your cats!” So on and so on. It’ll inevitably come down to one or both sides being ugly, living in their parent’s basements, and being unable to get laid. This is due to the fact that the surface conversation is never nearly as important as the subtext that continually underlies conflicts over gender theory and its real world implications.

The unstated but nonetheless omnipresent axioms that are revealed when any kind of deconstructive analysis is applied to such discussions are that male power is expressed through sexual conquest of the female, and that female power is expressed through sexual rejection of the male. All else is ancillary. Which is largely why pro and anti feminists talk past one another and at one another far, far more than with one another. The legitimate issues raised by either side fall by the wayside because they’re obviously being weaponized to one or the other of those two ultimate effects.

The real purpose for bringing up rape, harassment, divorce, child support, or any other issue, at least in online discussion, is to lower the value of one gender relative to the other for the ultimate purpose of making sex either easier (in favor of men) or harder (in favor of women) to attain.

There’s just one problem with this paradigm, however. It doesn’t work. It’s not making anyone happy. It’s based in a glaringly flawed assessment of human nature and is much more rooted in ego than in reason or human empathy. Men were not rejected into sympathizing with women’s concerns. They go their own way instead, doubtlessly with the intent of bringing those pesky, uppity women to heel. No dice: women are angrier now than ever. Who’d have guessed? The result is that heterosexual activity has been driven into a kind of moral black market wherein most people actually do it at some point or another but also have to conceal it, rationalize it, or engage in it under some kind of false pretenses much of the time to avoid social censure. No wonder bad behavior abounds.

It’s time to smarten up, people. Get out of the grade school mentality. Let’s at least try and hit puberty, okay internet? Human nature is not especially complicated. We tend to simmer down when we feel that our concerns are being heard and taken somewhat seriously, even if disagreed with in some ways. The natural response of people when faced with a lecturing, condescending tone is to get defensive, not to open one’s heart or mind. This is true however legitimate the surface grievance actually is or is not. Which isn’t to say you accept bullshit uncontested. Rather, let your assessment of what’s bullshit and what isn’t depend on honest appraisal, which you can’t get without listening and understanding.

Whatever your claim to victimhood past or present, however poorly you were treated as a child or in your past relationships, other people, even the opposite sex, will not accept your shitty and abusive behavior. Not indefinitely at any rate. However much you feel entitled to it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is something we feel instinctively if not intellectually. It stops mattering who started it or who inflicted or suffered the greater suffering after a point. Neither women nor men will accept the other’s claim to morally superior status based on previous victimhood and grievance even if real.

It is easy to say that we should set our fragile egos aside and listen seriously to the other side when they lay out their grievances and issues. This is true. But when the other side does not expect this of themselves, even the most legitimate gripe becomes tainted by the ultimately self-serving purpose to which it is put. The kinds of behavior displayed by feminists and MRAs alike in most internet discussions between the two would be emotionally abusive were they done in real life, and increasingly these kinds of relationship dynamics are spilling out of cyberspace and into the real world. It is no wonder that growing numbers of people, especially the young, are eschewing relationships with the opposite sex all together and claiming to be happier doing so.

And that’s fine for some individuals. If you’re happier going it alone, and I think some people are naturally disposed this way, have at it.

But that’ll be a disaster for society as a whole. Fewer lasting successful marriages and long term relationships (LTR’s) are poised to cause all kinds of problems down the road. Demographic and economic dependency ratios are bound to get worse, and socially destabilizing levels of mass immigration will need to be employed to compensate for falling birth rates. Frustrated romantic and sexual drives will find expression in other usually more antisocial ways from mounting political or religious extremism to mental health problems and increased cynicism.

Even many, though not all, of those who claim to be happier being single are not so much once you scratch the surface. A certain regret often though not always presents itself. And why not? Humans were not hardwired to live alone and not pass on their genes to future generations. A society losing its capacity for love and empathy is not one we should aspire to be a part of.

So here’s a proposal. The Alt-Left should be neither feminist nor MRA. Not exclusively. We should be instead for healthy and good relationship dynamics, be they platonic, romantic, or erotic. We should listen to the concerns of both sides and sort the valid and legitimate grievances from the entitled whining and vapid boasting. It should not be a concern of the Alt-Left which of the two has the more legitimate grievances and is therefore more deserving. Ten years and God knows how many flame wars into the social media age later, we should know by now that ideological partisanship and competitive victimhood isn’t actually helping anybody. It’s driving a spiral of mutual frustration that is causing increased polarization and extremism.

Even if one gender really does have it worse than the other by a wide margin, our approach should be one of mutual listening and empathy, not one of grievance and vengeance. This is not to say that we can’t prioritize some issues over others or that wrongdoers can’t be called out and exposed to such sanction and censure as their actions warrant. But it should never be an ego stroking exercise. Even if you’ve had it worse or your sex or gender has been on the receiving end of injustice, the world doesn’t owe you anything, whatever you may think. Success, be it alone or in partnership, derives from responsibility, not entitlement.

So if you’re single or attached, male or female, here are some things you can do vis-a-vis the opposite sex to improve the situation. And in case you are wondering, this is over twenty years of relationship success (I’ve been with my present wife since 1995) and a decade of every mistake imaginable leading up to it, talking. There’s much I learned the hard way:

  • Listen. Nothing is more effective at defusing anger.
  • Do not stereotype the opposite sex unironically or for non-comedic purposes.
  • Stop with the vain, stupid games. Crushing some young man or woman’s confidence in him/herself won’t bring down the patriarchy or gynocentrism, and it doesn’t make you strong or independent. It makes you an asshole, be you male or female.
  • Do not participate in discussions that tend to descend into pissing contests of competitive victimhood, and clearly state this. Ask instead, “What do you want?”  That’s a powerful question that can very effectively shut down entitled whiners with weaponized grievances.
  • You are owed nothing. Approach all relationships with the opposite sex or with anyone with that in mind. This is not to say that you should tolerate shit and abuse. Don’t. But don’t expect to be put on a pedestal either.
  • Do not have as an expectation for an ideal partner a trait you do not have or can not match. Half of our problems stem from 6’s thinking they’re actually good matches for 10’s, so to speak. Do not expect a prince if you’re not a princess or vice versa. And assess yourself honestly to save a lot of trouble.
  • Live a good life outside of a relationship context. This signifies that you will not be dead weight but instead a net asset in other people’s lives. No one wants a needy dependent.
  • Trust must come before any kind of relationship intimacy, be it physical or emotional. Always. Take it upon yourself to earn rather than demand trust. Decide at what point your efforts are in vain and when to move on.
  • Do not expect from a relationship partner anything that you can do for yourself.  Relationship success thrives best when free of contrived obligations and expectations. Otherwise resentments creep in and do damage.
  • Do not be afraid to point out the elements and their underlying axioms (see above for examples) in gendered discussions but do so only if the person you’re discussing things with becomes obstinate, obtuse, or clearly hostile. The underlying pettiness and stupidity become readily apparent when brought to light.
  • Likewise, if need be, remind people that two wrongs don’t make a right. Plus, no man was ever rejected, nagged, scolded or castrated into liking and respecting women. No woman was ever convinced by rational argument or else likewise rejected, scolded or shamed into liking men. People don’t work that way. Don’t hesitate to point this out.
  • Make your disdain for passive-aggressiveness clear, if need be.
  • If people insist on dominating conversations with socially destabilizing displays of rudeness, sarcasm or hostility, do not be afraid to call them out on it and exclude them from further social activities. If you moderate or administer an online or social media space, you have a special responsibility here. Trolls thrive on the emotionally destabilizing effect that their refusal to be decent and reasonable people has. Do not tolerate it, and ban them at once.
  • Admit that the opposite sex doesn’t always have it easy.  Try to replace resentment with walking in the other man or woman’s shoes, as the case may be. This isn’t to say it’s equally bad on both sides, all the time. Occasionally people will need to be told to stop whining.
  • Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to clumsiness or ignorance without evidence. This is especially true with flirtation, flattery, or the like.

And above all …

  • Get the f**k off the Internet every once and awhile. Yeah, I know. It’s hard. But there are numerous dynamics that contribute to the Internet being a relatively uncivil place where your faith in humanity can easily go to die. Meet people in the real world from time to time. They’re usually (though not always) not what they appear to be when seen as just a social media profile.

So that in mind, get out there and see the world, dear reader!

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Man World, Masculinism, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

A Call to All Liberal and Leftist MRA’s: Please Join Us in Building an Anti-Feminist Left!

I submitted a post something like this to a couple of Reddit boards, including Men’s Rights and Masculinism. Masculinism is probably saner. Men’s Rights are MRA’s and most of them are nuts. Men’s Rights buried my post somehow. Masculinism kept it up there, and we will see what the response is, if any. It’s a low-volume group. There’s no way to post on Redpill, and it’s probably a waste of time anyway. Men’s Liberation are some feminist MRA’s. It’s crap. It’s part of the feminist movement, thought I will grant that it’s a bit more sane than feminism. Men’s Liberation started out great. Warren Farrell was one of the founders, but it went full SJW long ago. There’s probably something worthwhile there, but they would never accept a post like this.

Regarding this post:

I believe that the Alt Left should incorporate anti-feminism as a core value. Nevertheless, that statement is an extreme one. I think there are many good things about feminism, but some things are so horrific that they have poisoned the entire movement. In particular, they seem to have morphed into Puritanical, Victorian, prudish, frigid Comstocks who seem out to shut down all heterosexual sex as illegal or a societal transgression.

I am an MRA. In fact, I am an ultra-MRA. Nevertheless, I do not like many things about the MRA movement. In fact, I hate the MRA movement. The MRA’s are almost as bad as the feminists. Nevertheless, the toxicity of modern feminism must be opposed. Mostly I feel like Ryan Englund that the MRA movement is the other side of the mirror of the feminist movement. They are basically the same thing while being opposites of one another. And I am very concerned that the MRA movement is becoming just another Identity Politics rabbithole.

I also, like Warren Farrell, came out of the feminist movement back when it was sane. I was actually a dues-paying member of NOW for a number of years, much to my mother’s pride. I would not join NOW at the moment if you put a gun to my head. I still support liberal feminism, equity feminism, and sex positive feminism. Nevertheless, it is clear that feminism is a clear and present danger to all real men in the West. And as this feminist cancer spreads beyond the West, all men on the planet will soon be menaced.

Yes, we hate feminism, but we are Leftists! Or at least the movement as it started was a Leftist movement. The real Alt Left worth defending has morphed into a Leftist wing and a liberal wing. The rest are just rightwingers, and most are supporting Trump. I have renounced all of them.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/dealbreakers-what-the-alternative-left-is-not/

Those are two early foundational documents.

We are a big tent movement with a philosophy of “everyone form your own wing.” That’s not completely true, but what I mean is that except for a small set of non-negotiables, everyone construct your own ideology via picking and choosing the beliefs that suit you best. We are not party line, and we don’t have a lot of litmus tests.

The early founders were straight, masculine men who love sex. Such men either do not exist on the Left anymore or they are being burned at the stake as witches. However, one of our top thinkers is also a gay man. Nevertheless, we do not spend a lot of time on Gay Rights. The Cultural Left has that area pretty much covered. I myself support gay political causes and I even work on them. I am on a number of gay political mailing lists and I work for their causes. A lot of them hate my guts and call me homophobe, but I will continue to work for them no matter how many names they call me. For the most part, gay rights is a matter of doing the right thing. People deserve basic rights whether they like me or not.

We started out as race realists, but most of the movement has rejected that.

Mostly we just think the Cultural Left is out of its head. A lot of us are social conservatives to some extent, but we are not femiservatives and we despise the social conservatism is the US Republican Party. The principal nonnegotiable is on economics. You must be Left on economics! No exceptions! Other than that social conservatism is ok. Some have called us conservative Leftists or socially conservative Leftists. But at least my wing are radical social libertarians.

I came out of the Left. I was a member of the Communist Party USA. I even got a membership card! I used to be on the mailing list for the Weathermen. I bought guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. You get the picture. But a man-hating psychotic feminist Left is something I want no part of.

As a Leftist, I am utterly sickened and disgusted at the reactionary nature of nearly the entire MRA movement. It’s vile and disgusting. We are MRA’s, but we want no part of these ruling class suck-ups. We are for the workers, the working MEN in particular!

Peace out, from a brother to the brotherhood.

I make this post as a call to all lonely MRA liberals and liberals and Leftists wandering in the political wilderness. I call on all of you to come join us to help us build a real anti-feminist, pro-men Left!

5 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Republicans, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?

 

I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.

13 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

Why Female Rule Always Fails in the West

Yee: If Robert just says, “Hey, it’s a men’s world, only we get to make the rules.” Then it would be closer to the truth. I’d be resentful, but couldn’t argue with it.

Yee the rules must be made by GOOD MEN. You must understand that here in the West, every time we put women in charge and let them make the rules as they saw fit, they put in a bunch of totally insane and unworkable laws that were great for women but really lousy for men. To women, passing a bunch of laws that harm men and help women is called, “fairness.” This is how they think.

Once women get a chance to make the rules here in the West, the first thing they think about is vengeance. Revenge on the men. They think we have been screwing them over forever, including for their entire lifetimes. They resent it and it’s time for paybacks. If you point out how irrational, discriminatory, unworkable and outright insane a lot of the laws and rule they formulate are, they will just shrug their shoulders, say, “That’s fairness,” give some lame reason why the law or rule makes sense, and then insist that everyone follow it.

Women have one basic problem, at least here in the West. Whether this is true elsewhere, I have no idea. I’ve known lots and lots of women. I know how they think very well. In fact, I understand women and how they think even better than women do because women don’t even understand themselves very well. This is because a principle of female thinking is self-delusion. The woman lives her entire life in this world called self-delution. She calls it a paradise but I call it a prison, but in the end, it’s no matter.

The main feature of this is how women see the world. Women see the world not as it is but as it should be. Almost all women have this thinking flaw. Apparently this is some sort of an adaptive defense mechanism, so I don’t blame them but it leads them to not even understand how the world even works. The way the world really works is according to women a total nightmare. They resolve this anxiety by saying that that’s not the way of the world at all. That’s just some bullshit men made up to justify their patriarchy or whatever. Whenever you start to tell a woman how the world really works, she gets agitated and accuses you of lying.

The world is a cold, cruel and rather evil place. Men just say the Hell with it, tough it, life sucks but it’s better than being dead, FTW, death to the world, Hell with everyone but me, quit bitching, try to enjoy yourself anyway. Men know that life sucks and is crap in many ways but our attitude is if life is a turd sandwich, you eat it whole and don’t complain and try to figure out some way to make it taste good anyway.

Women are very sensitive, gentle, kind and rather weak souls. They are just not equipped to deal with the cold, cruel world. Most of them would probably just kill themselves because suicidality is an important part of normative female thinking. Most women never do it, but the tendency is often there, and the vast majority of women go through suicidal phases and many even make half-baked attempts that fail. Faced with an intolerable reality, women just want to take off and leave the Earth. Men will say I will stick around and maybe things will get better.

Because women see the world not as it is but as it ought to be in this Dream Female Utopia, once women get into power they start making lots of kooky laws based on their flawed way of looking at the world. Because the laws and rules are contrary to human nature and reality itself, the end result is usually chaos. Decision making becomes arbitrary and emotion-based. If you point out the arbitrariness of justice, if it exists at all, under Female Rule, most women will just shrug their shoulders and say, “So what?”

This is why we in the West have learned that it is a very bad idea to let the women make the rules of society.

The rules of society must be made by good men (and the women who agree with them). They must be based on male thinking, with justice included. These men must make rules keeping women in mind and not make rules that unfairly privilege men and harm women.

141 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Government, Law, Masculinism, Psychology, Sociology, Women

Female Rule Doesn’t Work, and Men Are Necessary for Any Societal Achievement

Betty: It’s right that the reaction of these women is exaggerated but to say that they are incapable of running a country is plainly wrong. All war, chaos and problems were and are caused by male presidents like Hitler, Erdogan, Trump, etc. So it’s rather males being drama queens.

Saying that all women would make these memes illegal just because SOME have that point of view is almost equal to saying that all Muslims are terrorists because ISIS members consider themselves Muslims.

On top of that, many years ago when women weren’t allowed to work they were controlling a whole household of like 10 kids while cooking and cleaning every single day without help. So I’d say women are very capable of running a society or country, as for example Maria Theresia reigned Austria instead of her husband, which went perfectly fine.

Women can govern in partnership with men but countries must be ruled by the laws and mores of men. Women are free to help us run countries only as long as those countries are run according to the rules of men.

If you let women govern according to the rules and mores of women, things will fall apart pretty quickly. A lot of Communist groups put women in charge when they took over small rural villages. It was always a catastrophe. The first thing women do when they get in charge is make prostitution, gambling and booze illegal. Those are the three things that men need to make like tolerable enough so they don’t kill themselves, and those are the first things women outlaw. Thanks a lot, ladies. This rule does not work very well. Men are not very happy, but really no one is very happy. Things rapidly become pretty chaotic.

Sweden is currently being ruled by women. It’s under Female Rule – I mean women ruling according to the rules and mores of women along with a bunch of Beta cuck men helping them. It is not going well. The men are leaving in droves to go to Thailand to grab Thai brides because they have had it up to here with Swedish women.

Maria Teresia, many queens, and Thatcher all governed according to the rules, laws and mores of men. That’s not even Female Rule. That’s called Male Rule with Female Rulers – Women governing according to the laws, rules and mores of Male Rule.

Female Rule is when women impose their worldview on society. As long as the male rules of society are kept intact, women are free to take any government position they wish.

There are societies in Africa that are essentially under Female Rule. The men have just said, “The Hell with it, we’re done, here, you ladies take over. Have fun.” Women hold most of the power in these places. There is little violence or crime and actually there are not even a lot of serious disputes. These are sort of peace love dope hippie- type societies.

On the other hand, not much gets done in this places. They tend to stagnate and cruise in stasis. In particular, there is not much education because I suppose most women are just not interested in that. A lot of stuff that needs to get done never gets done, and everything gets put off. So you have societies without a lot of serious conflict, but on the other hand, there is little advancement.

I think women want to find a happy place and just be relaxed and go with the flow there rather than deal with the sturm and drang of continuous progress.

Personally I do not believe women can run societies, or if they do, they have to do so in partnership with good men or according to the rules of good men.

I feel that men are essential for any societal advancement. Women are free to help us men in societal advancement, but if you put them in charge, it’s just not going to work. Women just can’t run societies. There’s nothing wrong with that. Women can’t do everything, you know. So there’s some stuff they can’t do well? So what? There are plenty of things that women are great at. They should focus on those.

85 Comments

Filed under Africa, Austria, Britain, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, History, Left, Man World, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Sweden, Women

Alt Left on the Net: Someone Gets Us Right

Here.

A: Ugh. Yes. And don’t even get me started on the motherfuckers who are glad Trump won because they think if it REALLY gets worse, people will rise up and there will be a revolution. But not this “incremental progress” pussy bullshit.

A REAL revolution. You know, the kind that makes their dicks hard.

They are almost always straight white dudes.

How very brave of them to sacrifice thei- er, I mean, minorities’ well-being in the name of The Revolution.

Good luck getting any Muslims, POC, LGBT+ people and women to march with you backstabbing assholes. They’ll all be too busy trying to stay the fuck alive, healthy and functional in this incoming hellscape you’ve voted them into. Or not voted, as it were.

In any case, fuck all the way off, get your head out of your ass, start fucking LISTENING for a change, then get *off* your ass and then maybe you’ll be forgiven.

B: Yeah, that ideology is called “accelerationism” and it’s a hackneyed idea from Marxism. It is literally a Bolshevik ideology: “the worse, the better.” It yielded Stalin. Can’t believe this idea has adherents in the 21st Century.

You are dead right that it’s an irrational form of machismo rather than a legit program of change. It’s a Che Guevara t-shirt, not a plan.

In 100-plus years, Marxism has literally accomplished next-to-nothing in America except a presidential assassination and a few cushy academic jobs for its more bougie adherents. By contrast, the Civil Rights movement (and its offspring, women’s liberation and gay liberation) has accomplished quite a bit. But the masculinist, so-called “alt left” wants to put those folks’ concerns in 2nd place and run a fantasy cosplay class-based “revolution” centering white men who love Fight Club. Or, in the case of the older guys, their fantasy is a 1930s/1940s WPA mural come to life … with Jim Crow and Japanese-American internment camps just out of the frame.

The more fact-based and sanity-based model of political change in modern democracy is the Overton Window. I pray we still have a modern democracy in which to apply it.

This comment here:

But the masculinist, so-called “alt left” wants to put those folks’ concerns in 2nd place and run a fantasy cosplay class-based “revolution” centering white men who love Fight Club. Or, in the case of the older guys, their fantasy is a 1930s/1940s WPA mural come to life … with Jim Crow and Japanese-American internment camps just out of the frame.

Describes us very well. Almost perfectly in fact. The Alt Left are not much MRA’s as masculinists. But then we are feminists too in a sense. Masculinists as in equal rights for men, and feminism as in equal rights for women. Surely there was a patriarchy in the past, but the Alt Left doubts that is extant much anymore and in some ways, we now have a matriarchy as the women and their wuss/White knight/Captain Save-A-Ho/male feminist allies rule society in some respects and they use their rule to attack men. In that sense, in some ways, men are an oppressed class nowadays being abused by an oppressive Matriarchy.

So we are brocialists or even ultra-brocialists. That does not mean so much that we are sexist pigs but more that we are ordinary guys, regular, normal guys who act like normal masculine heterosexual men. The Alt Left is “socialism for the regular guy.”

The part about the Alt Left being a 1930’s WPA mural come to life and that this model is being pushed by some of the older Alt Left men, is completely right on. This is absolutely what we are pushing. I do not know about any other older Alt Left men, but I am an older Alt Left man and this is indeed my vision.

It’s seldom that anyone on the Net gets us right.

32 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Socialism, US Politics, Whites

Not Everyone Who Voted Trump Is a Fascist

Trump himself is absolutely a fascist, all the way. And I would say that quite a few of his followers are headed in that direction also.

But Trump has a lot of other supporters who do not appear to be fascists. Jason discussed many young male Libertarians at his college who support Trump on economic grounds.

  1. Non-fascist wingnuts. I think a lot of wingnuts are actually appalled by seeing fascism real and in the flesh here. These are all of the Republicans speaking out against him during the campaign. These are just corporate and rich types who want their money and nothing else. They see real fascism in Trump and they do not like it.
  2. Non-fascist racists. Trump has a helluva lot of racist supporters, but it’s important to note that not all racists are fascists. Not at all.
  3. Libertarians, often young men.
  4. MRA’s, but with a lot of overlap above.
  5. A few very confused Leftists who need to have their heads examined. On looking into them, most of them are “leftwing racists” and yes there are such a thing.
  6. 1%’ers. Tulio pointed out that a lot of the rich just voted for him to get their tax cut.
  7. Corporate types. As corporatist as Hillary is, I think many corporate types thought Trump would be good for business, and in fact, he will.
  8. Middle class suburban types in flyover country and in the South. They always vote Republican, especially in the South.
  9. Christian fundamentalists. They just want to ban abortion and get their other judicial stuff done. Purely utilitarian. There are indeed quite a few Christofash out there, but many rightwing evangelicals are not fascists at all, and I am convinced that many are not even racist.
  10. Muslim haters. These are the types who go into the voting booth and vote muh fuck Islam. Lot of overlap with a lot of the above, but a lot of people just pull the lever on screw the Muslims.
  11. Aggrieved workers. Many working class people may well have felt that Trump was their only hope as the Democrats for the 1% like Hillary wrote them off long ago. Trump won’t help them either, but at least he’s addressing their concerns. These people are voting against these horrible trade deals.
  12. Opponents of mass immigration and illegal immigration. Of course,  most of these folks are racist as Hell, and there’s a lot of overlap above, but I could see a guy like me going in there and pulling the lever for Trump because I am sick and tired of mass immigration, want to throw out all the illegals and want to slash 95% of the fake guest worker scabs. It’s possible to be against all of these things and not be particularly racist. I don’t think I am all that racist, and I oppose all of this.
  13. American nationalists. Although there is huge overlap above, and the fash component is all these types, I suppose it is possible to be a US nationalist without being a fash or a racist. I get called America hater all the time, but the truth is that I am an American nationalist. I love my country, so it really pisses me off when I see my country acting evil. It’s like love for a wayward son. As a man who loves his country, I want to see my country doing good, not evil. The main reason  I oppose all this mass, illegal and guest worker immigration is it’s bad for country. That’s why I oppose the trade deals too.

73 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Democrats, Economics, Fake Guest Workers, Fascism, Gender Studies, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Left, Libertarianism, Masculinism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA, White Racism, Whites

Who Voted Trump? 100% Rightwingers and Racists, 0% Anyone Else

Every American I know who is voted Trump is either:

A conservative, reactionary, rightwing extremist or fascist.

Those who do not claim they do not fit into those categories (which are very few) are all racists. These are all White people, White men, and they are all voting for Trump on race. They either hate Blacks or Hispanics or both. And furthermore, all of these people identify themselves as rightwing even when they say they are not.

Who did not vote for Trump:

  • I do not know one single person who does not identify as rightwing, conservative, reactionary, rightwing extremist or fascist who voted for Trump. Not one.
  • Almost everyone I know who voted for Trump is White, and almost all of them are men.
  • I do not know any moderate non-racists who voted for Trump.
  • I do not know any non-rightwingers who voted for Trump.
  • I do not know any self-described moderates or leftwingers who voted for Trump.
  • I do not know any Blacks who voted for Trump.
  • I do not know any women who voted for Trump.

So Trump was elected by:

  • Conservatives. I do not know one single non-conservative who voted for him. Right-wingers elected Trump. Everyone who voted for him was rightwing, even if they said they were not. In fact, those who said they are not have been identifying as rightwing for a long time now.
  • Racists. On the off-chance that anyone I knew denied being conservative, then they were absolutely racist. The only possible non-racists who voted for Trump were hardcore conservative Republicans, and that’s a wildly racist position right there. Note that a number of these horrifically racist Whites virulently denied that they were racist to me. All of these people who denied being racist to me were overt Alt Right supporters, and all were more or less Nazis.
  • Whites. Whites elected Trump, mostly White men. Almost everyone I know who voted for him is a White man. I only know one non-White who voted for Trump, and he is Alt Right Hispanic.
  • Men. I do not know one single woman who voted for Trump.
  • Muslims. I do know some Muslims who probably voted for Trump, and it would be nice if Trump would do them a favor and throw them out of the country. I have no idea why they did this, but Muslims are profoundly conservative, even reactionary people.
  • MRA’s. I do know some men who voted for Trump on sexism (MRA types), but almost all of them are also very racist, so it’s a wash. I only know one nonracist MRA who voted Trump.

44 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Gender Studies, Islam, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Religion, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism, Whites

“The Difference between Antifeminism in the West and Antifeminism in India,” by Magneto

The Difference between Antifeminism in the West and Antifeminism in India

by Magneto

There is a huge antifeminism movement in both the Western world and India. But are they the same? After having extensive contact with both movements, I can say definitely that they are not the same.

Men in the West who are antifeminists are basically just demanding equal laws in divorce and custody rights, and this is a completely fair demand to make. It shows how sick a lot of Western women are because many Western women think it’s perfectly okay to destroy a man’s life in divorce court.

Whereas antifeminism in India means a very different thing. There is a smaller subset of MRA’s in India who are only demanding equal laws in divorce courts, but the majority of Indian men who are part of the antifeminism movement have a different demand. In India they are basically demanding a continuation of the backwards, regressive Hindu culture which has literally enslaved women for thousands of years.

On a side note, there is evidence that there was a period in Ancient India where sex was openly practiced and there was no shame or guilt surrounding sex. Sex was considered something spiritual and had certain spiritual practices attached to it called tantra. Modern-day “Satanism” is actually rooted in these ancient tantric practices, and it was considered “White Magic” due to its healing ability. Modern-day “Satanism” is just some pathetic perversion of these ancient hidden practices. If you’re interested in spiritual stuff, it is well worth it to take the time to google and study the two terms “tantra” and “kundalini”.

Anyway, most Indian MRA’s are demanding that women remain as slaves to their husbands. So there is a huge difference between simply wanting fair divorce laws and wanting that women should remain enslaved. And this is just more proof that anything Indians touch turns to shit.

The antifeminism movement in the West is growing tremendously due to how badly men have been treated in divorce courts and how badly boys have been treated in the educational system. These are all fair and rational demands. I don’t know of any Western MRA’s who are demanding that women should become enslaved or anything like that. Men in the West are sick and tired of their wives being able to divorce them on a whim and then destroy them financially by stealing their house, car, assets, incomes, etc in divorce court as well as destroying them emotionally by stealing their kids from them and denying them any custody or visitation rights.

Unfortunately, most women in the West are so brainwashed by feminism that they believe men’s demands for fair and just divorce laws and true equality is the same as the backwards sexism of the older cultures. In the West women are so brainwashed and screwed up by feminism that if you demand that divorce courts should have fair laws they think you are an evil chavinistic pig who wants to enslave women. And this is proof that Western women do not want true equality.

In a truly equal society, women would pay alimony/child support 50% of the time, and 50% of custody time would go towards the father. Instead we have a society where women are so privileged that they get alimony, child support, and custody 90 percent of the time.

Or how about university admissions? Something like 65% of university students are women. Why aren’t feminists demanding that 50% of students be men and 50% be women? After all, that would be equality, right?

Or how about the military draft? Funny how feminists never demanded, not even once, that women should also be required to register for the military draft.

So as you can see, the real sexist bigots in the Western world are the majority of Western women who do support not gender equality but female supremacism. In this way, Western women are no different from Indian men because Indian men are also sexist pigs who support male supremacism. Western women and Indian men are simply two sides of the same coin.

For the world to progress, Indian men need to be willing to evolve and come to terms with the concept of equality. Western women also need to be willing to come to terms with the concept of equality because for far too long Western women have enjoyed a privileged position in society. Until Western women are willing to humble themselves and be ready to embrace true equality, no change will come in the West either.

3 Comments

Filed under Culture, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Law, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology