Archive for May, 2009

Addition to the blogroll

May 31, 2009

Via a comment the blogger left on this blog, I found a very good MRA blog: Hunting for Archetypes. Go check it out! I’m about to add this savvy gentleman to my blogroll.

Misogynist: A Man Who Protects Women

May 31, 2009

I just came across some idiot male feminist saying on a blog that Superman rescuing Lois Lane all the time is “misogynist”.

Got that, boys? If you save a woman from murder or abduction or whatever, it’s because you hate her!

And thank you *so* much, feminism, for making sure that my father was too fucking liberated to protet me from boys who wanted to beat me up. When, for instance, he invited his co-worker who had three sons over and the grownups all sat there watching while the three of them beat the stuffing out of me, it was so feminist! Had my father stood up and said, “Hey, don’t take turns punching my daughter, or hit her in the face with sharp metal toys,” that would have been sooooo misogynist.

Good God. Don’t they understand that Superman is a flashy symbol for every man’s noblest fantasies? That every man has felt such reverence for some lucky woman that he wishes he were more powerful than a locomotive so that he could be worthy of her, and shield her from this whole dangerous uncertain world? And THAT is what feminists are objecting to?

Of course, most of us eventually learn that no woman is worth that kind of reverence. That’s when we become actual misogynists. Meanwhile, feminists are busy telling decent men that their most admirable (and socially useful) traits are evil.

More on the feminist-nonwhite alliance against white men

May 29, 2009

Something else about the reason feminists will never become white nationalists, no matter how brutal nonwhite men are to women: part of the reason this won’t happen is that feminists want to date nonwhite men.

Feminists become feminists because they are so hopelessly inferior to almost everyone else, male and female; feminist propaganda salvages their self-esteem without them having to actually improve their conduct in any way.

Alas, feminist propaganda tells women that they ought to be “equal” to the men they date. Unfortunately for them, men are superior to women. This is actually how women like it, but if you’ve been brainwashed by feminism, you try to find inferior men to date. Unfortunately, the women who become feminists are so utterly despicable, so stupid and immoral, that the only men who are inferior to them are in institutions wearing diapers.

White feminists get around this by dating men who aren’t white. Of course, all men – black men, Hispanic men, Arab men – are still superior to feminists. But despite the changes in race politics, a white person who befriends or beds a nonwhite person is still the one who is condescending. They may be sincere in their conviction that there is no real difference between the races – or they may not – but it is still the white person who is making the generous move of not being prejudiced, of treating the other as an equal. This is a feature of such relationships whether anyone wants it to be or not.

However much they may consciously deny it, I think that most white feminists still subconsciously feel that nonwhite men are inferior to them, making them feel as if they are in the “equal” relationship that feminists advocate.

The anger that white men are believed to feel or in some cases actually do feel at seeing nonwhite men with white women is no doubt also a powerful motivator. White feminists, like other white liberals, and nonwhites who are profiting from welfare and affirmative action, are allied against the men who built our civilization. They’re willing to give up all its benefits so long as they can bring down their superiors who created it.

Feminists prefer nonwhite male criminals to innocent women

May 29, 2009

Earlier today, I approved a comment and then had to delete it when I reread it, because it cited anti-Semitic crackpot Kevin McDonald as a reliable source. It was because of anti-Semites that I had to start moderating comments in the first place. For a while I just deleted the crank remarks, but then one day some guy, after claiming that the Nazis “just” wanted to reclaim the territory Germans had rightfully conquered and been robbed of in the First World War, and stating that my not going along with this revisionist notion showed an “appalling ignorance of history”, accused me of “helping the Jews to betray the white race”.

Seeing as how I’m neither a racist nor an anti-Semite, I suppose by his lights the accusation is valid.

Anyway, what got me to thinking is that the racist anti-Semite who made the comment, after delivering a brief exposé of the Jewish Agenda, declared that soon feminists will become white nationalists, because nonwhite immigrants are mostly male chauvinists and “real rape statistics (not the ones doctored by feminists) show that male-on-female rapes of the ‘dark alley’ variety are almost exclusively perpetrated by non-whites.”

His own statement shows the absurdity of his prediction. Feminist leaders know perfectly well the truth about rape statistics, yet they continue to doctor the statistics. They know perfectly well that lying about this will cause more women to take the wrong precautions and be raped, but they keep right on.

His incorrect premise is that feminists actually give a flying fuck about women. No feminist cares one speck about any woman being assaulted or murdered. Feminists do not care about women. They just hate men.

Feminists always take the part of nonwhite men over women. Just a few days ago I linked an article about how feminists ignore Muslim crimes against women. Robert Spencer has his critics, but the example he mentions is valid, and we’ve all seen other examples of it. Here’s a better article on the subject. And another. Schoolteachers, nearly all of whom are feminists, tell their students that the West horribly persecutes those poor Muslims and that terrorism is our fault, while keeping mum about genital mutilation, honor killings, etc. etc.

Feminists also fiercely defend black and Latino male criminals. If they really cared about women, they would tell the truth about the violence these nonwhite men commit against women. (Statistics show clearly that black and Latino men commit far more crime. Our welfare system has caused these groups to have far more fatherless families, which is the cause of the violence. As I’ve mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with nonwhites that the patriarchal family couldn’t fix.) Instead, back in ’88, Ms. Magazine was defending Willie Horton. To hear them and the MSM talk, he was jailed for being black, not for murder. And complaining that he had been released and then committed rape was racist. Feminists have made it clear that they would rather women be raped than that black criminals be locked up.

Why? Because “feminists” would rather hurt white men than help women. If that means that women will be subject to constant assault, feminists are fine with that.

I’ve said before that, in PUA terms, feminism is one elaborate shit test. Feminists keep behaving more and more obnoxiously in the futile hope that some man, somewhere, will stand up to them. Unfortunately, the political machine that (male) politicians have built up to respond to these demands has ensured that no white man or decent man (and especially no man who’s both) can effectively do so without being royally screwed, ensuring that these women will never get what they truly want from men.

In other words, guys, please don’t read this and start giving women the treatment they’re asking for. In their hearts all straight feminists (not all straight women, but definitely the feminists) long for a man to go all John Wayne on them, but with society’s current setup, YOU’LL GO TO JAIL. And I don’t want that to happen to you guys. The only winning move is not to play.

Anyway, thanks to the protection that modern governments and society give to nonwhites, nonwhite men can often get away with treating women like dirt. Arrest a black rapist and everyone will scream that the poor man is being persecuted by racists. More, women are less likely to go to the police if a Muslim or black boyfriend is abusive to them, right up until Mohammed kills her. A thousand Lifetime movies have shown her that any time a white man who’s honorably married her so much as raises his voice, he’s intent on giving her a life of torment and will be brutalizing her daily in no time, plus a white man/husband is more likely to have money he can be sued for, so any hint of “abuse” from a white guy will send her squalling to the police or the nearest women’s shelter.

But by dating a nonwhite man of the criminal class, feminists can get what they want so badly: a man who isn’t intimidated by women. These women are so uncivilized and warped that they can’t respect a man who doesn’t batter them. Treat them with the slightest decency and they think you’re weak.

White nationalists may become feminists, but feminists will never become “white nationalists”. They would rather be battered by men of color than protect white men from any attack whatsoever.

May 25, 2009

Woman appeals ban on female metro drivers

MOSCOW (Reuters) – A young Russian woman will challenge regulations that ban women from driving trains on the metro after the Supreme Court rejected her legal case on Thursday, local media reported.

Student Anna Klevets applied to work as an assistant driver on the chandeliered underground system in Russia’s second city, St Petersburg, last November.

But she was turned down on grounds that women cannot work with dangerous heavy equipment, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

Klevets took her case to the Supreme Court in March.

“The Supreme Court acknowledged the decision (that women are banned) and has made no amendments,” Itar-Tass quoted the court’s spokesman as saying Thursday.

Klevets will now appeal to a St Petersburg court to challenge the working conditions on the city’s metro and make it acceptable for women, newspaper Izvestia said, quoting lawyer Galina Yenyutina at the Center for Social and Labor Rights.

“We need to create equal, safe working conditions, so that men as well as women can work in safety,” she said.

In its Friday issue, Izvestia reports that a 2000 law bans women from 456 jobs, including stallion-breeding and oil drilling.

Very sensible. Let’s hope, for the sake of Russian women, that this law stays in effect.

Russia was the second country in the world to give women full voting rights after Finland.

But apparently now they’re coming to their senses.

Feminists and Islam: Unholy Partnership

May 21, 2009

Feminists Betray Muslim Women

A feminist professor has once again passed up an opportunity to stand up for the human rights of Muslims women. Recently Dr. Laura Briggs, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Arizona, welcomed new Ph.D. students to the department.

In the course of her address, Briggs, author of Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico, praised the work of other professors, including that of Saba Mahmood, Associate Professor of Social Cultural Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. Mahmood, said Briggs, “confronted one of the legacies of a long history of orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East: the way we are invited to see Muslim women as hopelessly, painfully oppressed, without their own autonomy, will, or individual rights.” So apparently the oppression of Muslim women has nothing to do with Islamic law or culture; it is merely a byproduct of “orientalism and the recent wars in the Middle East” – in other words, it is the West’s fault. “If we sometimes notice other Middle Eastern women—women’s rights activists, for example,” Briggs continued, “it is only to reinforce the notion that the great mass of Muslim women are terribly oppressed by the rise of conservative religiosity, by their husbands, by the ways they are compelled to dress.”

Briggs has good news: Mahmood spent two years – two years! – in Egypt and discovered that that oppression is just a mirage: “But after two years of fieldwork in the women’s mosque movement in Egypt, Mahmood asks us to consider a new question: what if community, as much as or more than the notions of individual rights, is a route to living meaningfully? Perhaps we ought to rethink the idea that women’s agency and personhood spring from resistance to subjection, and attend to the ways that in conservative religious communities, the cultivation of virtue and of closeness to God, of certain emotions and of forms of embodiment, are challenging but hardly one-dimensional ways of producing the self.”

Clearing away the pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, Briggs is apparently saying that if women feel fulfilled in being subjugated as inferiors under Sharia law, then their good feelings outweigh their oppression and subjection. One wonders what Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem might have said in the 1960s if this same argument-from-fulfillment had been posed to them regarding American women. But aside from being inconsistent with what has been the feminist view of women’s oppression for decades, Briggs’s words also represent a betrayal of the Muslim women whose suffering is objective, ongoing, and largely unnoticed.

Well, yeah. For one thing, feminists are uncivilized females, and those are always enamoured of violent criminals. They’re the kind of women who send love letters to serial killers in prison, and who date vicious cheating bullies. Feminists are creaming their panties waiting for the day that Mohammedans storm in, kill all the men and children, and gang-rape them. Why do you think they keep trying to shame Western men into not fighting those barbarians? Even “fight” in the sense of “don’t let them move en masse into our countries and rape our teenage daughters”?

More civilized women would rather have Western men with spines. That is, they would like a man who will stand up to them, but not beat or rape them. A man who will defend them and their children from animals like that. A man who will sometimes indulge them, with little gifts and kindnesses, without being a doormat, ever.

Uncivilized women, whether the poor feral teenage girls on welfare in the projects or the overeducated feminist, are too primitive to see any kind of kindness, decency, or self-restraint as anything other than weakness. The only kind of man they can recognize as a man is one who’s apt to kill someone.

How Feminism Destroyed Real Men

May 20, 2009

How Feminism Destroyed Real Men

I’m always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.

While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it’s a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.

I have a very low boredom threshold; I can’t bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I ‘are going’. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed ‘He said, she said’ monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.

I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.

Hat tip Alpha Dominance.

What’s sad is, the most important man in my life before I came out of the closet did that exact same female thing. He liked to have long, pointless arguments and got mad at me for trying to bring them around to a point and a logical resolution. He grew up without a father, unsurprisingly. Many men have become so feminized that they have the same frustrating qualities that women do.

Couple of good blog posts

May 15, 2009

Two feminist confessions

Roissy on a man who went to Indonesia to avoid paying alimony. You go, dude!

Others are noticing the problem!

May 13, 2009

A reader emailed me these links to a discussion about feminist folly at VFR.

Why has the female sex lost its mind?

Advice to young women: you cannot do whatever you like, watch out for yourself

These discussions deal with how patriarchy causes civilization, the lies feminists tell young women, and the many problems caused by female sexual “freedom”. People are even recommending Roger Devlin to each other! I thought only a handful of us MRAs understood these things. I may have to start reading this site, despite my obvious disagreements with the people there.

This reminded me of the Thanksgiving scene in "Atlas Shrugged".

May 11, 2009

I just had to listen to a certain person droning on about her friend, who we shall refer to as “Teresa”, though it is not her name.

My acquaintance is very proud of Teresa. Her mother is a Hispanic immigrant who has had… I forget how many illegitimate children, of whom Teresa is only one. Since Teresa’s mother never bothered to marry the fathers of her children, American taxpayers have been paying their bills for most of the last two and a half decades. Teresa’s sister is a substance abuser and has shacked up with a lowlife and is having babies with him, babies who will probably also be supported by the taxpayer until they reach adulthood. And probably afterwards, at that.

Given her background, Teresa is something of a prodigy. She made good grades at the public school she attended and stayed out of trouble. It helped that she was able to latch onto some of the teachers for emotional support and even gifts of clothes and books. I think she finagled this by parroting back what the teachers wanted to hear, which was of course liberal propaganda. I admit I’m a bit jealous of her; I was a good kid, bright and talented, and my teachers wouldn’t even tell my male classmates not to assault me. I wasn’t streetsmart enough to make my teachers feel like they were smart or to pretend I hoped Jimmy Carter would be re-elected. What I couldn’t have done with the kind of emotional support Teresa received! And perhaps in some other generation I might have had it. But nowadays, what teachers want is Teresas.

I don’t know how Teresa paid for college, but she went, and graduated not only with her virginity intact, but without ever having kissed a boy. I normally consider that degree of chastity unhealthy, but considering her background, it’s understandable.

Now that she’s graduated, however, instead of doing something useful with her life, she’s working for a feminist lobbying organization, meddling in the politics of a country she shouldn’t even be living in. A minute of Googling didn’t tell me if the organization receives tax money to supplement its private donations and I don’t care enough to keep digging. Naturally, Teresa has swallowed uncritically all the leftist crap she’s been fed for the past two decades of her young life. She shed tears of joy when Obama was elected.

What really set me off was when my acquaintance said, “Teresa seriously considered going to the Sudan. And I bet someday she will go to Africa to help there. She can’t stand the thought that little girls in Africa can’t get clean water, and through SHEER LUCK she can!”

That has nothing to do with luck, you ungrateful little tart. It has to do with the hard work, industry, and ingenuity of MEN – those people who you are trying to sweep aside in favor of women, who have given the world no such benefits.

The clean water you enjoy was a gift to you from men. From white men, for that matter. White Christian men! If you want little girls in Africa to have clean water, promote the freedom of Christian men to offer their wonderful gifts to the entire world. And start offering them some incentives for doing so.